Real Life section maintenance (New Crowner 19 Feb 2024)

Two of those have the phrases "was accused of being" and "was rumored to be" so I think those can be cut for, as you say, gossiping. Also, in the politics sphere, being accused of homosexuality is excessively common; it potentially could be its own trope (of being blindly accused of homosexuality). The Ruth Davidson example has a Word Cruft problem but could probably be kept for now, and the LGBT athletes "example" is too general imo.

While I suppose it could be coincidental in RL, there's the possibility of people being influenced by stereotypes that applies to them and so they go this way or that way when they're younger. That said, I think it's worth putting on the crowner for gossip and requiring narrative weight behind it. Personally, I'm disinclined to upvote it simply because it has to do with sexuality. It isn't exactly insulting, creepy, or impossible like some of the other sexuality tropes on the list.

When there's only four examples, saying "50% misuse" is kind of making a mountain out of a molehill, imo. It's more accurate and representative to say "two examples" rather than "50 percent of examples." But w/e.

edited 11th Feb '18 11:24:00 AM by WaterBlap

50% of the existing examples being gossip is not a good sign. But some of the pioneers who came out publicly (e.g. Navratilova) are important to the history of women's sports and LGBT+ history. So, despite some misgivings, I'd say keep the one good example (Davidson), but keep an eye on the trope—if misuse reappears, I might rethink my position.

I'd say just clean misuse for now, and re-assess if it continues to be a problem.

Done.

eta: (Obviously, this doesn't preclude adding it to the crowner, but there doesn't seem to be much support for that idea.)

edited 11th Feb '18 11:08:26 AM by Xtifr

I could go with letting it be unless it becomes a problem again.

Clean, keep and watch works. And might do something about the reputation this thread sometimes has about being where RL sections go to be killed.

Post-Peak Oil has a lot of plain speculation and terrible formatting. I'm not saying the section should be deleted, but it can use a fair bit of cleaning up. Problem is, I'm not quite sure what exactly constitutes as a proper example of that trope. Is it enough that you just pass peak oil but it doesn't become especially scarce (trope description doesn't seem to support that)? Is it enough that someone talks about it in a book (might fit literature)? Is it enough to talk about countermeasures against it?

It seems like the trope is a setting or background trope: a story takes place in a future where oil is scarce.

To me, the peak oil event itself is too undramatic to work in this context - whether it happens tomorrow or in 50 years, it's not like oil is going to get scarce overnight. The term "peak oil" simply means that oil production has peaked and started to decline for good.

As for the trope being discussed, my personal take would be that characters just talking about the peak oil phenomenon is not an example. They would have to discuss the actual trope, i.e. a future where oil is scarce.

None of the "examples" look like actual examples to me. (And it would be hard to have more than one real-life example anyway—your options are: Earth, or not-Earth.)

It's also full of natter (which is certainly no surprise). Some of that might fit under Analysis, but I don't see anything that belongs on the example list.

(The one example from a non-fiction book can still go under Literature.)

So just delete them all? Nothing worth salvaging?

Good Guns, Bad Guns - Summary: some guns are stereotyped as good, some as evil. Like the rest of Evil Tropes, I don't see that a Real Life section is advisable.

That whole page makes for a deeper dent in my desk.

Yeah, that's a morality trope.

The Australian example does speak about depiction in fiction, but that's in general, which means it's not an example.

That entire page makes my head hurt.

1) It's a morality trope, we should probably scrub and NRLEP it.

2) It could probably use an overall clean up (outside the scope of this thread).

Added Good Guns, Bad Guns to the crowner.

FWIW the real-life perception of Good Guns, Bad Guns is probably influenced by the following factors:

1. The geopolitical situation concerning the world's reigning superpowers, specifically which of them is being decidedly a big Jerkass to pretty much everyone else. Currently, this is Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

2. Which guns are the most popular among terrorists, criminals (whether independent or organized), rogue states, insurgents, and other violent non-state actors. Russian guns used to be this owing to their cheapness and wide availability on the black market (the AK-47 and its knockoffs especially), but I have no idea whether that's still true anymore.

Of course, at least for #1, the perception would be flipped around if you ask someone from the "right" country (e.g. a patriotic Russian would probably say that Russian guns are good, American guns are bad).

edited 1st Mar '18 4:53:06 AM by MarqFJA

The second point is about practicality, not morality, so those guns aren't used to characterise those terrorists and what not as evil. It's an origin of the trope, but it's not an example. Those "examples" are really the same as what's written in the description, not what's written in the examples. The trope is about how the weapons characterise the characters using them as good or evil.

So what, we're not permitted to document the origin of a trope? A lot — and quite possibly most — real life example folders that I've seen on trope articles at least start by mentioning the real life origin/inspiration of the trope.

Documenting the origin of the trope is for the description or an analysis page. The example section is for actual examples. Examples here are when guns are used to characterise characters. They're not used for general discussions about what weapons some people think are good or evil.

Now, if there's a concrete real life example that spawned the trope, then that's a legitimate example. Using the moral perception of a weapon to indicate morality is a trope. Attaching a moral perception to a weapon is an Audience Reaction, and not a trope.

As of this post, all that the Good Guns, Bad Guns crowner entry needs is a little more time before calling to make NRLEP, at 10:0 voting currently. While we normally get more votes on an entry before getting called, at the current ratio it will take a good bit of no voting to make it not suited to call for NRLEP.

Which I'll do after coming back from the shooting range.

edited 2nd Mar '18 8:23:10 AM by Nohbody

Aaand... calling Good Guns, Bad Guns for NRLEP. 10:0, Added 28th Feb '18 at 09:06:50 AM

—

Nothing pending at this time.

Origins of a trope go in the description, not in a folder.

Chivalrous Pervert has a number of real-life examples. Do we really want to call real people "perverts", even if we're also calling them chivalrous?

Slap-on-the-Wrist Nuke has a number of Real Life examples, which are all misuse. The trope is about attacks in games that are less powerful than they should be (for balance reasons or due to poor implementation), but the RL folder is just a list of small nuclear bombs.

Considering how in reality, every attack always does exactly the amount of damage it should, including the listed bombs, I don't think it's possible for the trope to apply.

Nuke (*ahem*) the RL entries definitely. I don't think it needs full NRLEP treatment at this time, though.

I can't say leaving RL examples on that particularly thrills me, but I'm too drained by work to say why at the moment.