Not Thriving: Breast Sponge

Breast Sponge was actually the voted re-name for the trope a long time ago.

See previous thread.

So changing from "body sponge" to "breast sponge" gets more inbounds...

How about that's because there is the word "breast" in the title? I checked the tropes on Keep Abreast Of This Index, and those tropes actually tend to have a high inbound count.

So since none of the proposals leave out some variation of that word, they would still work.

And that was over a year ago (as well as double renames have happened before), so it's not as though we're rushing to change a name we don't like. One word helps inbounds, but not wicks. Making the full title both interesting and indicative would work even better than a title that does just one.

edited 29th Feb '12 8:53:02 PM by DragonQuestZ

What, Scrubbing Boobies? Breast Loofah? Those were suggested and voted down in the previous crowner. Why should we vote on the same names again? It's not as if the trope is failing.

It doesn't have a lot of wicks because it isn't that common. Nothing is going to change that.

Still not so rare that 17 freakin' ones should be considered decent.

The burden is on you to prove that.

edited 29th Feb '12 9:06:05 PM by Catbert

Actually, you guys first claimed it was too rare to have more wicks, so acting like I have a burden is kind of weaseling, since you offered a claim with no proof. And don't act like it's just obvious that it's rare.

edited 29th Feb '12 9:10:23 PM by DragonQuestZ

And our proof is that these are the only examples anyone here can think of. The trope just doesn't come up much.

As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof that there is a problem is on the person that creates a thread claiming there is a problem.

Innocent until proven guilty.

That too. It is our current policy. You want to insist it's underwicked, prove it.

That's not proof. That's a tautology. Not a valid argument.

I stated the wicks were low, and gave the number (can be verified on the related page, which is even linked to here). That's what is required for the "not thriving" argument. Don't act like I made a claim without backing it up. You have to back up your claim that it's not going to have more wicks than it does now.

EDIT: If we keep the name, we keep the name. But don't claim I haven't given any proof when you haven't provided any counter proof.

edited 29th Feb '12 9:15:58 PM by DragonQuestZ

The wick:example ratio is pretty close to 1:1.

No, our argument is that it's thriving as much as it's ever going to. This is proved by the fact that we can't come up with any more examples. It satisfies three rules of three, but porn tropes aren't wicked very much.

Not all tropes can be judged by the same light in terms of how many wicks you can expect. 17 examples may be really low for some tropes (like, say, a trope about fiction with criminals as the protagonist), but outstanding for others.

That is just self-serving logic. It's also myopic at beast, actually arrogant at worst (in declaring a trope has to be rare just because you guys can't think of more).

That doesn't prove this trope in particular can't have more. It's just offering an "if" as thought it's fact.

edited 29th Feb '12 9:21:58 PM by DragonQuestZ

You never proved it can. Seeing how you are the prosecution in this case, the burden of proof is on you.

Suppose I have a trope named Blue Haired Gopher Boys. Suppose there are only 12 Blue Haired Gopher Boys in the entire history of fiction. Suppose I have a trope page with every example of Blue Haired Gopher Boys in fiction listed and crosswicked on every work ever that includes Blue Haired Gopher Boys. Once you throw in indexes, and "see also" it has only 17 wicks.

Are we going to drag in the trope as not thriving because it has only 17 wicks? Or are we going to say, "This is a as complete as it is going to get."

If you really want this page to have more wicks, I suspect that what you need to do is start researching more works that potentially have this trope and creating work pages for them so that the wicks have a place to go.

Have fun!

edited 29th Feb '12 9:30:23 PM by Catbert

1. Of course a trope "can" have more. People make these works. Don't act like I magically have a burden of proof on a porn trope being likely more common than it seems.

2. Supposing a trope that doesn't exist yet is not proof of any existing trope's frequency. Only this trope and the works that might have it are proof. And I'm wondering how many of you actually follow those enough to really say, since so far I don't see any of you doing that.

I don't, but that's why I'm not declaring it has to be rare just because I can't think of more. For all I know, it could be a common and popular trope among some porn circles.

edited 29th Feb '12 9:34:54 PM by DragonQuestZ

There is no way a new name will fix any of the alleged underuse. All it takes is one click on a trope featured on one of TV Tropes's most popular indices to learn what this trope is and then not add any more examples because people haven't seen any others. If this trope got a new name, this would still not change.

"All it takes is one click on a trope featured on one of TV Tropes's most popular indices"

That only makes that page alone more popular, not necessarily any page linked to it.

Furthermore, "one click" falls into the "they see the page, so know what it's about regardless of the title" fallacy.

The sheer number of inbounds shows that it's not in the least an obscure page. This is a page that's well known and well visited. If all of those hundreds of people can only come up with this many links, then they likely just don't exist.

How would the title actually harm understanding of the trope?

Ninja'd.

edited 29th Feb '12 9:45:48 PM by FinalStarman

Inbounds wold not be lost unless we red linked the page, and no one is suggesting that.

You guys are just throwing around stuff already shown. Is there anyone here that follows these kinds of works to say whether it's more common or not? Because I haven't seen any of that here, and that's the only proper way to prove this. It's not as though this is a theological argument. Find some people that would know these works.

There isn't really a this sort of work for this trope because this trope doesn't really show up in works all that often at all. I watch plenty of harem series and it just doesn't happen.

Well I don't think most harem series could get away with something like that anyway.

This would more fall into echi/hentei/eroge/XXX kind of works.

EDIT: Okay, that's just a guess, since I don't follow those. But it seems most of us here don't anyway, so we can't really say whether it's truly rare. Yet I do know that non-indicative names still need to be looked at, not just brushed off due to factoids used as magic buttons (as in the logical fallacy of them, not that we have to rename this).

edited 29th Feb '12 10:03:59 PM by DragonQuestZ