Named for a phrase vaguely not always about this. And split?: One Of Us

1. Looks like a stock phrase, when this is actually a celebrity who is a nerd.

2. Should we split between celebrity nerds and celebrity tropers? The latter seems to be used a lot.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

We began a good discussion about this here before it got closed after things quieted down.

We seemed to agree there that entries that were "promoted fanboy" should go to the page of that name. That still leaves two separate categories of examples - Celebrity Geek and Notable Troper. The first should definitely not be called One Of Us. The second probably shouldn't either, due to ambiguity.

Not to mention Theres No Such Thing As Notability?

Theres No Such Thing As Notability applies only to works. It's utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

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

It's a relevant principle to everything about this wiki. One work is not more notable than another. One trope is not more notable than another. One example is not more notable than another. One troper is not more notable than another.

I mean, apart from people on this wiki who carry some degree of actual responsibility as to how TV Tropes is run and operated (Fast Eddie, other admins and mods, etc.), how can any one individual be more "notable" than anybody else here is? If somebody has some claim to fame off of this wiki, good for them, but it doesn't matter here because every one person's contributions and activities here are equal to (and are no more special than) anyone else's. No single contributor is more valued than another.

edited 3rd Feb '12 10:17:19 AM by SeanMurrayI

Read the page. It's a policy that applies to works.

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

I know what the page says, and it doesn't matter. The point I made is still entirely valid.

edited 3rd Feb '12 10:34:41 AM by SeanMurrayI

If you are going to try to use a wiki policy page as an argument, what that policy is about very much does matter.

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

Yeah, and the notability issue on the wiki still isn't restricted to just work pages. Notability is inherently an irrelevant topic regarding every facet of TV Tropes.

All works are equal. All tropes are equal. All examples are equal. All contributors are equal.

So we should cut this? I disagree completely. This is an interesting and informative page that's related to what this wiki is about.

I see no issue with the page at all. I don't think it sounds like a stock phrase, nor is it in need of a split.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

No argument here.

How are you defining tropes, though? Is an article about a plot device just the same as an article about the audience's reaction? Or an article about some aspect of the work's creation which didn't have a demonstrable effect on the work itself? (Which, incidentally, is how I would classify the content of One Of Us.)

Except for the ones that are just plain wrong. And the ones that don't give enough context to be the slightest bit useful. And the ones that are so incomprehensibly worded that no one can tell if they're right or wrong.

Except for the contributors who think this site is a platform for them to push some wonky agenda. And the ones who can't bother to use proper spelling, grammar, or wiki formatting. And the ones who think bile and negativity are the only ways to keep the wiki fun.

Also, this is trivia more than a trope.

And the reason Sean Murray using Notability is wrong is because that just refers to Wikipedia's strict policies for pages. We have our own policies for what makes legit examples, and that does mean that they vary from trope-to-trope.

So the real question is how do we count someone as a celebrity nerd, and someone as a celebrity troper?

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

"Well-known public personality with an unexpected interest in something 'nerdy'"? That's about the best I can come up with.

In my honest opinion, however, the more I try to think of a definition and contemplate on the broad, almost subjective nature of what being "nerdy" is, the more pointless I think something like this actually is.

The best way to present this would probably be "well-known personality who makes public reference to TV Tropes", which would probably work better as part of a broader TV Tropes In Popular Culture article, anyway (and which is much more representative of how the TV Tropes folder on One Of Us actually looks).

Also, with most of the people being named/identified being fanfic authors or creators of Webcomics or Web Original content (much of which isn't particularly "famous", anyway), I doubt many of these people would even count as "celebrities". The most high-profile names mentioned in that folder don't even suggest that they are full-fledged tropers—just that they've, at least, casually browsed the wiki and possibly made a reference to an article that they had found/remembered from the experience.

You mean like Notable References To TV Tropes?

And when they do it enough, we can surmise they don't just make references, but are outright tropers (and if they just say they are tropers, we of course don't need to surmise).

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Clocking due to inactivity.