A very Anvillicious AuthorTract.: Useful Notes.For The Love Of Many

Thus Usefule note is about polygamy nothing wrong with that.

The problems is that it is written in order to justify it instead of using it as a means to "enlighten" and explain the concept. There was even a section that I deleted which blatantly atacked/conservative religious people.

The Argunebta on the text are idea as means of justify and convince people polygamy is ok. While I won't debate that issue. I will say that the article does little effort in being just neutral and helpful about he concept.

The focus should be on just being informative about polygamy. Not anvilliciously pro-poligamy..

For this reason I believe that this article needs to be rewritten.

edited 25th Jul '11 11:14:17 AM by FallenLegend

Bump. Or better yet cutting this and sending it to th YKTTW again.

I'd agree with you, Fallen. I'm poly myself, and the blatant justifications managed to turn me off a bit. I'll see what I can do about writing a less biased article.

Thanks. An article from a neutral perspective would be apreciated.

No, write an article that's useful to tvtropes. Plenty of informative articles about polyetc. have probably been written over the years but we, let's face it, are a website whose job it is to catalog Mormon jokes. Any useful notes pages should justify itself in terms of the available fiction, the tropes that could exist, the inaccuracies and how the page will be helpful in understanding it (whether explicitly or implicitly in how it is written). Only you can stop needless wiki dilution.

We need a page that is about Mormons, the Middle East and historical hippies. Is Drunk any of these things?

No, we don't need a page that is about "Mormons, The Middle East, and historical hippies" — that's unnecessarily narrow. We need a page that's "this is what Poly<-gamy,-andry,-gyny,-amory> is, and here's how it commonly affects fiction."

edited 26th Jul '11 12:45:47 PM by Madrugada

+1 I agree.

Well how it affects fiction is in references to particular cultures that have engaged in it. As a reader, I don't need tvtropes to define words for me and as a contributor I don't like my reader's attention being taken up when I have a perfectly good fart joke waiting for them.

If by narrow, you were thinking "hey, he only referred to three things". Sorry, I was just being synecdochal, let me expand me: we need every subculture that has engaged in poly-etc., we need to connect each of those to a particular form, we need to note when those subcultures have interacted with mainstream news representation and more. We need something that says some thing like "Right well this group were closed polygamists, rather sexist one sided marriages. They stopped but more fanatical splinter groups carried on more fanatically (of course). Yet this is still the most commonly know form so if you say poly"thing" people think of this first. In contrast, the group well known for polyandry was like..."blah blah blah". Now Swingers are really quite different because they... etc. Just about every society that practice polygamy had "closed" marriage, while those that did both did so under the banner of being "open"" etc. etc.

Then what were you complaining about, and why does whether the person who writes it need to be anyone other than someone who understands it and can write a page without an axe to grind on either side?

And what do fart jokes have to do with anything? If you aren't interested in poly, why would you waste your time reading the Useful Notes page on it?

edited 26th Jul '11 3:39:09 PM by Madrugada

That's still Wikipedia. If you want to be not ignorant of something, you can read a book on it, perform a google search, ask a friend. We have to have some kind of standard for a page to actually get written on tvtropes that would be unique to tvtropes...

ok, now my brain hurts because you edited twice. I'm going to still have to respond to what you wrote before to help bridge the gap of misunderstanding.

So what I said in the first paragraph applies because people don't come to tvtropes to read about what is on the useful notes and we don't want to provide an encyclopedia. People come, they go on a Wiki Walk they follow a link because it is a cool and interesting thing on this website. They spend a certain amount of time here, they read a certain number of pages. I want those to all be prime tvtropes materials. I want it to be something that is clearly linked to our mission. When sycthmatis writes articles about insects for cracked.com, they are all clearly cracked.com articles. They are lists, they have images with odd captions in the middle for humourous effect, they aim to be "awesome". So why on tvtropes, do I find things that could be the first three paragraphs of wikipedia and a token list that says "appears on..."? (not from sycthmatic, just to make this clear).

I've been through a whole load of page that never bothered to make sense in the context of this site. I've seen three pages of natter about cat rearing tips on Just Bugs Me. I've seen people argue about whether Complete Monster applies to Hitler. I've seen C-beam glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. It's time to be stressing that we have some standards and that the page should be something inventive.

From the Useful Notes page:

"Useful Notes on a variety of subjects, the purpose of which is threefold:

1. . To debunk common media stereotypes.
2. . To help you understand some media better.
3. To educate, inform, and sometimes entertain. "

Well, those aren't happening.

SSOT, you've completely lost me. What is your point here? Right now, the page sucks. It's partly an essay on why Poly is good, and partly an essay on the sociology of it. Is that what you think the page should be? are you objecting to a rewrite? Because you started out apparently objecting to getting rid of those two aspects of the page.

edited 26th Jul '11 4:44:09 PM by Madrugada

@Some guy: I actually am including a bit on how polyamory is portrayed in various media (Heinlein was fond of it, there's a show about it called Big Love, etc.). So in other words don't worry.

That third object criteria of the Useful Notes always seemed really broad to me.

edited 20th Sep '11 12:19:27 PM by captainpat