Often misused as a trope: Did Not Do The Research

Yes. That's why those pages are gone. Your point?

I didn't say it's impossible to use Did Not Do The Research negatively, I merely said it's entirely possible to use it possible - and as the former breaches all kinds of guidelines/rules, it needs to be cleared up.

The trope can be objectively judged (they either did the research or didn't, to simplify, and if they didn't it can be evidenced). This is not a YMMV thing.

I think s/he means that people can be so obsessed with adding the smallest and nitpickiest of errors that it can take over a page and need its own.

Should there be a Special Efforts post to go through the wicks and change them to their appropriate subtropes?

^^ Actually, the trope is "The creator failed to do the research and put something in their work that's factually wrong."

What can be objectively observed in the work from outside is whether they got their facts right or not.

Those are different things.

We have usually got no way of knowing whether the author did the research and chose to ignore what they found out anyway; did the research but used flawed or faulty materials and got the wrong answer; or didn't do the research at all.

So is this trope a trope or should it be trivia?

I personally think that the issue is that there is in fact a legitimate reason to catologue mistakes the reviewer makes ABOUT THE WORK THEY'RE REVIEWING. I believe that's covered by Cowboy BeBop at His Computer but the problems are 1) It's written as it's specific to news and 2) the name's horribly obtuse. I think if we broaden the trope we can make sure there's a chanell for legitimate criticism without using DNDTR.

Rhyme Beat, this trope wasn't necessarily about reviewers. It's about the creators of a show mentioning something that is wrong. Of course, this happens enough that it becomes People Sit On Chairs, so the trope was turned into an index.

If the problem is that tropers are using Did Not Do The Research as the actual tropes instead under it, then doesn't this seem like something that should be dealt with in a special effort thread? There's nothing wrong with this page.

Maybe I should try to extend the definition of Cowboy BeBop at His Computer. I agree there's nothing wrong with DNDTR as a trope.

Wait, so is this a trope or an index?

It's an index. DNDTR is too broad to be a trope.

Yes.

Well, that wick count isn't gonna get any smaller so, we probably move this over to special effect.

What Captainpat said. Let's move this over to Special Efforts.

We aren't locking threads when we're moving them over to special efforts. Do keep that in mind. We are still keeping the TRS thread open as incentive not to use Special Efforts as a dumping ground.

So why can't we rename this into something that sounds more like an index?

Because it's not a pure index. It's a Supertrope that serves as an index.

Ah, that makes sense.

Would it be okay to leave in-universe instances of DNDTR on a work's page and put the rest in Trivia? Or can that not be done with anything on the wiki?

Poke. Can this be closed now? DNDTR is still used as a trope a lot, but several other indexes like Incest Is Relative and Good Is Dumb have the same problem, so it might be a better idea to make a discussion about indexes being used as super tropes in general.

I don't see a problem with supertropes indexing their subtropes.

Yes, but this isn't a supertrope. It's only an index.

"Creator got something factually wrong" is about as broad and as useful as "creator employed characterization." It doesn't mean anything.

Now, if we group and document a particular type of research fail, that works. Like Only a Flesh Wound. We note the error, describe the reality, analyze a little about why works include the error, and then provide examples. But just listing a work's errors about anything? That doesn't note a trope.

So it's a really broad supertrope. *shrug*

^ By that definition, someone is breathing (other than Batman, anyway ) is a trope.