Needs a dramatic overhaul: GettingCrapPastTheRadar

How long do we have to wait before we can take it back to the Trope Repair Shop?

As soon as the backlog is gone, I say. This thread is a perfect example of why vague crowner options need to be banned with prejudice.

The recent discussion about getting rid of its real life page has reminded me of just how horribly screwed-up this "trope" is. The sooner something can be done about it, the better.

I still don't even know how "kill radar" got a crowner option. It's fun of the most enjoyable parts of the wiki.

As I stated in the real life cleanup thread, this page does not need a Real Life section. It's almost redundant with Double Entendre, which does not allow Real Life examples, for a very, very, very, good reason.

edited 26th Oct '12 8:12:02 PM by AmateurPolymath

I think it got made because people have a habit of putting stuff they can't figure out where in goes under real life around here.

If by "enjoyable" you mean "disgusting, immature, and embarrassing", we're certainly in agreement.

I would literally pay money to have Getting Crap Past the Radar cut. It does happen, but the userbase has proven completely and utterly incapable of distinguishing it from their own perverted imaginations (to say nothing of the "writers good, executives bad!" bias - a fair number of examples weren't snuck past anyone).

And let's not forget the "adult fiction is better" stuff either.

edited 26th Oct '12 9:18:15 PM by nrjxll

Hell, if you're talking about cutting the page entirely, I'd leave it as an example-less definition page. It can go where needed on works pages, but we don't need a whole page full of it. The same reason goes for why Gorn and Squick have suffered the same fate I want this page to suffer. I'm all for an example sectionectomy. But whatever, crowner's closed... for now.

edited 26th Oct '12 9:18:40 PM by AmateurPolymath

This page has 10837 inbounds. Don't expect to get my approval for a cut, folks.

Also, does this sound like an acceptable intermediary option in the meantime?

I see no problem with cleaning as long as we don't go overboard. The booze related ones are still cut from the Fi M page even though we have Word of God the radar for it considers booze a taboo.

I'd suggest giving every work on the wiki a Radar page and moving the examples there, but that might be a tall order.

edited 27th Oct '12 9:22:08 AM by shoboni

Hell no. There is already a Radar/ namespace, and not every show has a radar or examples.

Yeah, that's what I though, I was just pandering to the people that wanted the page examples cut.

You clearly aren't listening. I want - more importantly, I think the wiki needs - the examples completely gone. I'm not really in favor of cutting the page itself, partly because of the inbounds, but more because this really does happen, even if the troper population is incapable of telling when. But the examples need to die, not just be moved to another page.

At any rate, as a stopgap measure I'm in favor of Septimus Heap's suggestion.

edited 27th Oct '12 5:05:00 PM by nrjxll

Because being fun is the point of the wiki, it says in our mission statement we're not meant to be a stuffy reference encyclopedia.

...Wow, it took less time for that strawman to show up then even I would have guessed.

Yeah, I'm done here.

If you want to call our mission statement a straw man arguement, than I guess we are.

That was immature, from both sides. Anyway.

@Septimus: Can you show what you mean by rewriting the description and creating an analysis page? It sounds like a plan, but it's usually better to actually see how it looks and works before actually applying such changes.

I'm always wary about locking pages, though in this case... I'm not sure.

Re bullet point #2: Much of the description is not about the trope, but about its history and also instructions to tropers about how to use it. I don't quite know how to rewrite it, though, beyond a few suggestions.

The instructions just seem utterly pointless; I'd cut them outright.

The history of the trope seems like a good fit for analysis. I'd also add a bit emphasizing how this requires a "radar" in the first place - it might cut down on impossible examples like most webcomics.

edited 28th Oct '12 2:38:22 AM by nrjxll

Sorry from my end, sometimes I lose control of my big mouth.

I agree, making it clear that needs to some kind of censors for it to get past would be a great way of stemming back some of the misuse.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:33:53 PM by shoboni

Okay, I don't care how much you try to justify it, Futurama probably doesn't doesn't need a Radar page, and Family Guy really doesn't need one.

The Family Guy page is pretty much a self demostrating example of Justifying Edit.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:34:06 PM by shoboni

The Simpsons has one too.

• bump