"...IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND
Well, at 5200+ wicks this shouldn't surprise anyone, but first, a quick review of what this thing actually is
— and is not
Regardless of what we want to call/title this thing, the definition is:
- A character appends some kind of interjection after their statement to imply that it was meant as a Double Entendre.
- "If you know what I mean" is one particular Stock Phrase used for precisely this purpose.
- An in-universe trope.
The definition is NOT:
- About any old Double Entendre by itself.
- "Everything's Better With Double Entendres"
This got hauled into TRS on previous occasions, except that nobody actually offered any legwork or proof of how this thing gets used in the wiki.
So here's your proof — the following sample covers all classical ptitles in the range of zero thru D.
Correct usage: An in-universe character appends the Stock Phrase at the end of their statement to imply it was intended as an innuendo.
Troper Tic: A wiki editor appends the Stock Phrase to the end of their statement to imply it was intended as an innuendo.
Misuse: The trope is potholed underneath an in-universe statement or reference which is a Double Entendre in and of itself, but the Stock Phrase, and thus the actual trope, is not invoked.
Everything's Better With Double Entendres
: The trope is potholed underneath a statement made by a wiki editor, for which there appears to be no in-universe innuendo occuring whatsoever; the Double Entendre was created by the editor in question, thus the trope is not invoked.
Other misuse: The trope is potholed underneath a euphemism referring to something other than an actual, sexual innuendo.
I have no idea how to call these:
Exempted from analysis:
Although a sample of 60 wicks corresponds to only one percent of its total usage, the verdict is... well, quite damning:
I did not find a single
link where the trope was being used correctly and in-universe
. I did find approximately 8 percent where the trope was applied out-of-universe but otherwise correctly, and some of the remainder are ambiguous ... but regardless of how you evaluate it, the disconnect between definition and usage is over ninety percent
across my sample.
(I challenge you to do your own samples and prove me wrong.)
So what do we do? It's obviously been one of the most successful pages as measured by both wikilinks and inbound counts, but for precisely the wrong reasons
edited 5th May '11 1:56:39 PM by Stratadrake