Maybe if we could define some criteria for different types of innuendo we can rescue this from the free-for-all it's become. For example, Have a Gay Old Time is nothing but a subtrope of Accidental Innuendo, but we aren't talking about cutting it because it's got a clear, relatively narrow definition.
Big Scientist
I think this trope has gotten a bit out of hand. We can save it, if you want to. But we're going to need to watch this thing like a hawk. Unless, of course, you want everyone's inner perv running rampant on that page.
Blue Pacific, signing off...
As long as their inner perv has a clear sense of the trope's definition, I think we're good.
Ravenous Sophovore
Looks like there was consensus to act here. Let's see some movement.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
OK, we need another crowner here. What goes into it? What are the proposed fixes?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Ravenous Sophovore
Crowner swapped in.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.
Making this in-universe seems kind of impossible, unless we lock it.
Merging or cutting work for me. Nothing of value would be lost.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
What does "merge with Double Entendre" mean? Cut and leave as a redirect to Double Entendre? Because right now, the two pages' examples are mutually exclusive.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Downvoting it then. Since a lock isn't going to do anything against wicks, it would only add another item to Locked Pages for little.
Remove the "intentional"/"unintentional" distinction.
edited 25th Apr '12 7:16:14 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Has anyone suggested that that's a good idea?
The problem here isn't that people mistake accidental for intentional, or vice-versa, as was the case with Nightmare Fuel. The problem (if any exists) is that the unintentional page collects examples that are (possibly) unworthy of either page. If we merge the two, that does nothing to address the problem. Instead, the bad examples remain - and go on to a good page, hurting it.
Hmm, how does Double Entendre show whether it's intentional or not?
All the (correct) examples in Double Entendre are jokes, where the double entendre is the joke. Groucho Marx, Threes Company, Arrested Development, Two And A Half Men. There's really no ambiguity about whether they're intentional.
This crowner needs more options, in other words.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The "make in-universe" option sounds like "convert to a redirect for Innocent Innuendo." Is that right?
"Merge into Innocent Innuendo", you mean?
Or turn Accidental Innuendo into a Fan Speak definition like Fetish Fuel?
edited 25th Apr '12 9:06:41 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
If we remove all current examples and use Innocent Innuendo's definition, that sounds more like leaving Accidental Innuendo as a redirect.
Or is the "restrict to inn-universe" option instead suggesting we list instances of people, in-universe, interpreting in-universe fictional material as sexual?
The real solution is the one that requires the most effort: we just need to study the examples and classify them so that we can explain clearly why each example is an example, and the examples that don't really work at all can be dropped. Just like Have a Gay Old Time is one class of Accidental Innuendo, there are bound to be others. I'm sure that if we really try, we can find a class for most of the examples, and then each class can have clear rules about what qualifies.
I agree - that's the best and most difficult option. I've added it to the crowner
Downvoted the "move examples" option as it is basically asking for Missing Supertrope Syndrome.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
That's valid. But we should create subtropes and send examples there wherever possible.
The crowner says all examples. That's why it asks for Missing Supertrope Syndrome.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Right, so down-vote that.
I expect that the various "subtropes" of Accidental Innuendo shouldn't really be tropes. I think it's probably more appropriate to just divide the examples into types, with a folder for each type. I doubt that every type will be worthy of standing alone as a trope in the way that Have a Gay Old Time does.
I suggest that we can propose that each type be made into its own trope, and the types which don't get to be tropes can just be folders instead.
edited 27th Apr '12 6:35:53 AM by Lilwik
Crown Description:
Vote up for yes, down for no.
Many of the examples on Accidental Innuendo are neither ambiguous nor YMMV. I think we could use more in-universe examples, but I am really opposed to cutting the real world examples. If nothing else, those examples can serve as a warning to others.