Stock Phrases: do we want or need them?

The very phrase Stock Phrases hints at a genuine trope category that probably shouldn't be discarded too rashly; it's one of the older pages on the wiki. Yet even its defenders only defend what might be called Acceptable Dialogue Titles - full-fledged tropes that are named for a line that has close to a one-to-one correlation with the trope to the point even the exceptions would be notable. This is, in part, because Fast Eddie does have a point: the mere existence of a Stock Phrases page seems to serve as a green flag to add any semi-common line of dialogue regardless of whether it means anything. I wouldn't say no to renaming it to be a little more specific.

The question then becomes, what does this category encompass? Is it a legitimate trope category we shouldn't lose, or is it a remnant of the more anarchic ways of the old days that we should discard? The oldest version of the page the Internet Archive has, sadly, only goes back to May 2006, but that's still old enough for the wiki to look very different. The page describes Stock Phrases as such:

Doesn't give us much to work with. What of the examples? Well, while even at that early date there were some very questionable inclusions ("Blackmail" Is Such an Ugly Word? Wouldn't Hit a Girl? Chew Bubblegum, then the trope that would become Pre Ass Kicking One Liner?), I think there are some legitimate trope names that neatly encapsulate their tropes, precisely because they are about the line of dialogue in most cases. To go just off that original list:

• And This Is for...
• Check, Please! (though the current version doesn't cover all cases, in my opinion)
• Does This Make Me Look Fat?
• Don't Try This at Home (though there is potential for confusion with Do Not Attempt)
• I Always Wanted to Say That (even if it isn't always said exactly that way)
• It's a Long Story
• It's Not You, It's Me
• Now If You Will Excuse Me I Have A Noun To Verb (good luck finding a meaning to this one, yet it's precisely defined enough, why would you delete it? This may be a case where People Sit On Chairs starts overreaching)
• See You in Hell (though it could arguably depend on how specific the trope is)
• This Is Not a Drill (though I'd argue the This Is a Drill snowclone has ruined this one)

(Incidentially, in my opinion, it is okay if the line is not the only one used for the trope, so long as a) the line is only used for the trope and b) the line is iconic for the trope, and even then I'd have a problem putting it on Stock Phrases.)

Unless Fast Eddie is using a different (and admittedly equally valid) definition of cliche, I'm somewhat mystified by the OP's injunction of "cliche hunting". I thought the unstated position of the wiki, despite the injunction against "dull and boring entries" on the main page, was that while tropes are not cliches, cliches are tropes: elements commonly and repeatedly used in fiction. That's why we warn about this site not being about cliches in the first place, why we have The Universal Genre Savvy Guide to collect cliche lists like the Evil Overlord List. If I'm onto something here (as opposed to just being an anal Aspergian), this is the same point I make about YMMV: in trying to preserve the "mission", we've shifted it in some concrete ways from the wiki's origin.

edited 30th Jun '11 10:59:20 PM by MorganWick

Throwing my vote behind taking each page as a case-by-case basis; deleting those pages that simply list a Stock Phrase with no actual overarching trope behind it; and renaming those pages for which the Stock Phrase is not adequately descriptive of the trope, same way we would rename any other trope which was unindicative.

For Stock Phrases where the phrase is immediately evocative of the trope, I see no reason to rename.

Against any changes as per reasons of others in this thread. Against changing on a 'case by case' basis because that will just lead to the same result as cutting everything but over a slightly longer period of time. I have to agree with Fairy Red from the last page, are we just gonna cut everything until the site is blank because everything is a cliche?

Oh, that's an easy one: Character is (politely) attempting to extricate themselves from an uncomfortable social situation as quickly as five seconds ago. The "noun to verb" part is a snowclone template (I believe one of the redirects was "I need to go iron my dog"), but as Stock Phrases go this one does have a fairly intimate association with the context in which it gets used.

By the way, we should probably give some concern to the Other Stock Phrases page.

edited 1st Jul '11 10:26:33 AM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Nope. Not at all. That's I Have to Go Iron My Dog, which wasnot only never a redirect, it is specifically mentioned on NIYWEMIHANTV as a "Not to be confused with".

Now If You Will Excuse Me I Have A Noun To Verb has a very clear definition, right in the first line: "After the villain has finished explaining his entire evil plan, and just as he turns to leave the hero in the faulty deathtrap, he says in a faux-nonchalant manner, "Now if you'll excuse me, I have a city to blow up/president to assassinate/treasury to rob/population to enslave/some other thing to something else.""

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

—> "Previously on the discussion, two pages ago..."

I know that the Darth Wiki isn't to be taken seriously, but the "Ruined Forever" DW article is a notable exception in that, as farcical as it is, it actually does show a particular opinion shared by most tropers who simply don't accept this site's most controversial changes, especially those with a 0% Approval Rating.*

We can't just cut things expecting people to say "woohoo", "what an amazing change", "go ahead" or "you have my blessing".

With that said, the point is, Stock Phrases are tropes because an instance that causes one of these is a trope by itself. So, the only difference between Stock Phrases and more "conventional" tropes is that the former, rather than a straight example of a trope, is more like its Lampshade Hanging.

Oh, and don't mind my tirade against the site's changes. It's just that it's my Berserk Button, that's all. [EDIT: my opinion is exactly like Fairy Red's post in page 4, to be precise.]

edited 1st Jul '11 12:15:39 PM by AlexSora89

I'm from Piedmont. No relation with Piedmon, mind you!

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a major change that has 0% Approval Rating. Some changes may look that way due to a combination of They Changed It, Now It Sucks! plus actual controversy, but even the semi-serious entries on Ruined FOREVER were changes that had some support, often significant support.

(Spoilered for off-topic discussion on a YMMV soft-split) Soft-split off the YMMV entries? That would likely turn out poorly. The bad thing about soft-splits is that it's generally not clear that there even is a split until you reach the end of the first section. As a result, items meant for later sections end up in the first one. It's possible to get around this by indicating somewhere in the description that there are multiple sections, but then it'd be a matter of manually adding that to every work page the moment when it gained YMMV entries (but no sooner, so as not to refer to a page section that doesn't exist).

The tech solution was much easier any much cleaner:

• Red bullets go on YMMV, black bullets stay
• If the items have yet to be moved, the YMMV button on the top of the page makes it clear where they should go
• The scales on the YMMV button indicate that there's content there.

No soft-split, manual header change, inconsistent nonsense. It's elegant, user-friendly, and easy to link to, with almost no strain on editors to keep proper formatting. Soft-splits can go fade into memory where they belong.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

@Madrugada: Okay, I stand corrected.

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

@ Ironeye: Red bullets and black bullets have been this-is-all-you-need-to-know-in-order-to-tell-the difference enough to me from the very beginning of this cluster-you-know-what.

Back on topic, anyway, while maybe saying "0% Approval Rating" could have been a bit exaggerated for me to say, well, we can't even say the entire tropers' community rejoiced, either.

The sad thing is that these changes (YMMV, Troper Tales, strikeouts you name it) are becoming the 'Parker-Watson marriage' for this site, with the Joe Quesada role being- ungh, I don't even want to think about it.

Oh, and for further irony? Check out Fairy Red's post in the fourth page of this discussion. It really is as if we're trying to make this site as "serious and respectable" as possible. Now what does the main page say about our very site? "We're a buttload more informal [than Wikipedia]". I can't seriously help but say "yeah, riiiiight" now.

As always, mine is still a mere opinion. As such, make of it whatever you want... as long as you acknowledge the fact that it's there.

edited 1st Jul '11 3:04:22 PM by AlexSora89

I'm from Piedmont. No relation with Piedmon, mind you!

Have you done any editing on Wikipedia recently? Or even read a moderately popular page there?*

We are nowhere near the formality of Wikipedia.

There's a common misconception that there's an ongoing conflict between humor and formality. On the contrary, it is our goal to be both funny and informative. The problem is that people mistake encouraging wittiness to having a free-for-all. Rather, it means that want people to convey tropey information in an entertaining way. Sometimes people take the humor and informality to the point where it gets in the way of conveying trope information. (And, yes, soapboxing or arguing about how awesome/bad/so horrible that I'm a bad person for thinking parts of it are legitimately good something is does count, in part because that sort of thing multiplies faster than calculators . . . or rabbits. Wait, where were you going with this? Oh, right, so, things like Candle Jack get in the way what conv—

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

I think the general idea seems to be that it's a bad idea to just cut, case by case seems to be the middle ground but most posts seem to be in opposition. I maybe stating the obvious here.

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

I'm against this for the reasons everyone's stated, there's no good reason to go through with it and almost everyone's against it.

Not to mention the Unfortunate Implications in the very first post of this discussion. Namely the first sentence and its lack of a plural: that is, "doesn't like" as in "let's cut this because one single person doesn't like it".

Hence my obvious reference to One More Day.

I know that such comparisons with Joe Quesada might come out as insulting (especially considering who's the one involved) but that's the way it is - or at the very least, the way it's been put in the aforementioned post. Just sayin'.

edited 2nd Jul '11 9:16:34 AM by AlexSora89

I'm from Piedmont. No relation with Piedmon, mind you!

I actually don't like having Stock Phrases as a separate category. As some people have noted, it encourages people to look for the line rather than the trope it's associated with. A lot of tropes so listed are legitimate tropes that happen to be named for a stock phrase, others are just a familiar line of dialogue, and still others are ambiguous.

For example, I think situation A below is closer to the Check, Please! trope than situation B;

A) Jen finds herself in an awkward situation she wants to remove herself from ASAP, so she turns towards the road, sticks out her arm and shouts "TAXI!"
B) Bob finishes his meal with Alice, and mentions that they have 20 minutes to get to the cinema. He motions to the waiter and says "Check, please"

The one without the stock phrase captures the "desperate call for someone to rescue you from the awkwardness" part of the trope, but not the dialogue part. So is it an example or not?

edited 2nd Jul '11 9:48:05 AM by johnnye

But the trope isn't "any desperate attempt to extricate oneself from a sticky situation." That would be the supertrope. We probably don't have it; for some reason subtropes get made faster and more often than supertropes.

The trope Check, Please! is specifically "Calling for the check at the end of sustained mayhem or in an attempt to escape a sticky situation in a restaurant." Neither of your A or B is an example.

edited 2nd Jul '11 10:18:08 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I was musing over the distinction between Now If You Will Excuse Me I Have A Noun To Verb and I Need to Go Iron My Dog at work today, and came to the conclusion that a Stock Phrase should be little different from any other kind of Trope Namer.

In this case, when evaluating a trope named after a Stock Phrase, the Stock Phrase should not only be a reliable indicator of the trope occuring, but it should also pass the One Mario Limit — it should be a reliable indicator of that trope and only that trope. If it could be easily mistaken for other tropes or contexts — that is, if it requires listing on the Canonical List of Subtle Trope Distinctions or a "not to be confused with" disclaimer, the phrase is probably not a good Trope Namer.

edited 2nd Jul '11 6:49:30 PM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

And what about the stock phrases that indicate not a single trope, but any one of a closely-related group of tropes? To go back to "Is That What He Told You??"

It could be indicating

1. a Half-Truth (A statement that is technically true, but extremely misleading if you don't have all the information.);
2. Ignorance Is Bliss (A character or characters are told that what they are doing is something completely harmless or beneficial when it's actually dangerous or evil.);
3. an Outright Lie (falsehoods knowingly spoken with intent to deceive); or
4. From a Certain Point of View (The statement has a justification that rests on a very, very shaky technicality which most people would not consider valid.)

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I think johnnye's got a very good point, even if the example s/he provided was mistaken. While a stock phrase can convey a trope efficiently, it can be ambiguous; hence the One Mario Limit indicator suggested above in post #117.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Ok, I was reluctant at first, but I'll buy the argument that stock phrases aren't tropes, though they may frequently be associated with tropes. I very much like the "one mario" suggestion above, possibly with a little extra flexibility to account for Madraguda's comment about Is That What He Told You? (which may be a borderline example in any case).

I'm curious though. Does this signal a future removal of other non-tropes, like Camera Tricks?

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I sincerely hope not. There are a lot more things that have less to do with storytelling conventions than the choices a director makes in how to place or handle the cameras. Like all those lovely gameplay-mechanic ages, most of the People pages, most of the Production company pages...

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I think Stock Phrases do work as Trope Names. For example, Jumping the Shark is a phrase and it is also the most commonly used phrase for what it describes and is in the mind of the audience so vividly that despite it being both subjective and a phrase, to cut it would cut something that is important in defining the realm of fiction.

I think the problem is the actual Stock Phrases main page itself. By promoting Stock Phrases, TV Tropes encourages creation of pages for Stock Phrases, which isn't what the wiki is for. Go through the stock phrases tropes, cut any that are too chairish, rename any that seem like good tropes but are not associated with the phrase in question, and perhaps eliminate the Stock Phrases main page itself. Some stock phrases like For Science! or What Year Is This? do work as trope names. Basically, I agree for a case-by-case basis on Stock Phrases.

edited 2nd Jul '11 10:26:57 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly

I know I am chiming in late here, and that my opinions are not the most popular here on the forum, but the way I see it is this:

Stock Phrases is a trope in and of itself (that certain phrases are reused over and over again is a trope.)

Stock Phrases work as trope titles, if only because that everyone knows them. (kinda the point) Meaning that people are going to understand the title.

Just because something is said over and over again does not make it a trope, but might make it a decent title for the trope behind it.

edited 3rd Jul '11 4:39:49 AM by RegShoe

In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded. Terry Pratchett 35 tropes so far.

@Madrugada @118: "related family of tropes" = underlying Super-Trope, no problems there. But if the phrase could be equally associated with completely unrelated tropes, then that's grounds for concern.

edited 3rd Jul '11 7:07:03 AM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

I wholeheartedly agree with what Game Guru GG said. Many Stock Phrases are tropes and sometimes even good names for those tropes. But it's the index that seems to scream "Yes, we collect bits of dialogue now". Axing it and perhaps any uses of the words "Stock Phrase" should prevent pointless pages from popping up. And yes, some of the existing pages desperately need cutting, like this one.

I'm not sure about that "One Mario Limit" thing, though. Many non-Stock Phrases tropes also has names that are ambiguous and not always informative, but that doesn't make them invalid. People should be required to read the description anyway.

edited 3rd Jul '11 8:21:02 AM by StyxD

The state of TV Tropes.