Making In-Universe and Rename (new crowner 3/28): Garfunkel

The Natter I cleaned up earlier in this thread was mostly "but actually..." and that is a signal that this is YMMV.

But no, the page when I cleaned up did NOT look like a Complaining page.

Bumping for more votes. A handful of them and we can run with it.

Except that wouldn't be so much a fan reaction as it would be just a statement of opinion that may or may not come from fans, and it's still a negative opinion at that.

Like I said already, if anyone ever wants to make a personal critique about anything, one can always take it to the media subforums or write up a review in that special tab on work pages. Making pages for specific types of criticism just isn't the answer; that only ever breeds complaining and/or Thread Mode—both of which could be easily avoided by just not allowing pages like Garfunkel to exist.

edited 13th Mar '12 10:15:23 AM by SeanMurrayI

I don't think the concept behind Garfunkel is Complaining. Yes, it is being treated as a fan reaction; often, like this:

• Character X is <Trope> in Y
  • Actually, he's starred in work Z

To clarify what I said previously...

The concept being Garfunkel is simply negative criticism, period. Using negative criticism of any sort as the basis of a page on the wiki can easily lead to complaining, depending on how negatively individual editors want to express their opinions, and Thread Mode, depending on how much individual editors who disagree with those negative opinions want to defend something they like that's on the page.

At least one of these things is already a problem for Garfunkel, anyway, but the threat of both complaining and Thread Mode is still very real and will always be very real, as long as the page acts as a forum for negative opinion and criticism. Same goes for wicks.

edited 13th Mar '12 10:53:03 AM by SeanMurrayI

The perception I get from the description is that many people think it's a criticism, but it isn't.

I think the description is "character who has equal billing but is practically irrelevant", like Equally Billed But Irrelevant.

Arguing that someone is "irrelevant" is certainly a criticism of that person and the role he/she fills.

edited 13th Mar '12 10:34:29 AM by SeanMurrayI

Yes, that's why this page attracts defending edits like a magnet.

It isn't a criticism. It's that people read it as being a criticism, but it isn't.

edited 13th Mar '12 11:03:25 AM by SeptimusHeap

But you just said it isn't a criticism...

Anyway, if we see it as a page for criticism that breeds defending edits, negative opinions that can be seen as complaining, etc., then... good. That's what the page is, and I hope it gets cut because of that.

EDIT: Then why did you say, "Yes" to what I said?

edited 13th Mar '12 3:07:03 PM by SeanMurrayI

"Criticism" is not inherently negative, a critique might involve many compliments. But it is taken that way. As is "irrelevant".

No, criticism is not inherently negative; that's why I've specifically referred to Garfunkel as being based in negative criticism.

Calling anything or anyone "irrelevant" or "useless" is a negative criticism. It just is.

Yes, I am agreeing with you that whether or not it is strictly accurate "irrelevant" has negative connotations. Similar to "criticism" meaning "negative criticism" to a lot of people.

edited 13th Mar '12 3:09:11 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Okay, we now have the interesting situation that most people in the thread agree with renaming, numerous people voting disagree but haven't explained why they do, and in an early post Eddie said that he wanted a rename. Confusing, no?

Not confusing at all. This is TRS, drive-by downvotes happen all the time here.

That said, Garfunkel is such a terrible Guess That Trope that even I can't bring myself to downvote, so I reluctantly declare my support for the rename.

I would rather cut it than rename it. It just seems to attract far too much natter and justifying edits for something that's barely even an audience reaction.

I don't feel that this is an Audience Reaction. "Equal billing but incidental" is a trope if anything.

However, we have to get rid of the "Tropes Are Bad" atmosphere that this trope seems to have.

No, it's just a statement of opinion in this page's present form. None of the examples are objective—just the personal thoughts of one person's analysis that tend to be questioned and debated by everyone else. The only "Audience Reaction" on the page is the Natter it has generated.

edited 14th Mar '12 9:56:11 AM by SeanMurrayI

Maybe, but most examples are "equal billing but I feel one of the guys didn't deserve that".

Being billed in a show for a certain status is objective. Being incidental is also objective. But it's treated like a subjective. Maybe rewrite the description to make it more objective?

This isn't about merely "being incidental".

Claiming anything is incidental in spite of one's billing is a completely subjective argument.

edited 14th Mar '12 9:58:00 AM by SeanMurrayI

I think you mean it's one of these "degree" things, as they call Complete Monster and Co.?

I added Trope Transplant as an option, since Garfunkel did have a solo career, so I figured the name should be a page about the actual guy.

Good idea, but that should probably be Arthur Garfunkel.

Garfunkel on its own would be a very sensible redirect, though.

If this is "equal billing but more incidental", I again question its focus on music. I can think of dozens of fictional examples.

On that note, we should make this an In-Universe trope that's broader than just music. I'm making that a crowner option.