Needs Help (alt titles crowner 8/13): Did Not Do The Research

^^ They're different because one is an umbrella index and one divides inaccuracies by category. All examples of AL-I ultimately fall under DNDTR because their pages are listed in the DNDTR index. All examples of DNDTR don't go under AL-I because DNDTR has no examples.

edited 24th Jul '12 10:02:01 AM by Routerie

Now the big issue: Is there a point in keeping the examples for both "ignored research" and "no research" separate from the "ignored research" and "no research" definition/index pages, given that there is no way to tell them apart and even the subtropes are often a combination of these?

I don't understand why you keep returning to that point. The examples and definitions are already together. There is currently no distinction between "no research" and "ignored research."

I keep returning to this point because DNDTR is the definition of "no research", AL-I is examples and definition(s, since I am using AL-I as a stand-in for all the Artistic License - Whatever pages) for both "no research" and "ignored research" and AL is the definition for "ignored research" (it seems)

I don't know why we need to keep all these three things separate from each other. AL might cover more than just the inaccuracies stuff, but otherwise they are just distinguished by which holds examples and which is about ignored research vs. no research. For me it seems better to lump them all under one inaccuracy page.

ETA: After looking through my posts here, I'll say that if someone gives a good reason to keep them separate, I'll drop the issue immediately.

edited 24th Jul '12 11:49:15 AM by SeptimusHeap

DNDTR is the name of "no research", not the definition of it. It is not a trope. It is an index. That is why we made this thread.

Examples do not go on DNDTR itself because they are too numerous and too broad for a single page. You agree with this - you have proposed subpages for different categories of inaccuracies.

It is an index for tropes about inaccuracies (because there is no point in distinguishing between "no research" and "ignored research" as any subtrope is likely influenced by both), but both the name and the description sound like it's just about "no research".

Here I am thinking of expanding it to any inaccuracy (and renaming it), which would render the division between DNDTR and AL-I pointless. There, Artistic License would be more like MST3K Mantra and Bellisario's Maxim rather than a sister index-like thing as it's now.

Why do you say there's a division now? There isn't. AL-I tropes are listed on the DNDTR index. We could list them all, but there's no need since they have their own subindex. (Actually, we needn't list any under DNDTR - we just have to link to the subindex.)

The division is that AL-I and DNDTR are different pages. Plus, under such an expanded definition of DNDTR all subpage examples of AL-I would end up being examples of DNDTR. So, I don't see the point of keeping this all separate.

edited 25th Jul '12 10:36:56 AM by SeptimusHeap

They're separate pages because there are dozens of them, too much for one page.

OK, given that it's being confusing to use AL-I both as its own thing and as a stand-in for all AL things:

I am talking about merging Did Not Do The Research and Artistic License – Indexes, while turning the various Artistic License Whatever pages into Did Not Do The Research/Whatever (or New Name/Whatever) pages, since that is what they essentially are. While simultaneously expanding DNDTR or New Name's description and name so that it's about any inaccuracy (as the index currently is) rather than just the "no research" ones, because they can't really be told apart. Artistic License could then be redefined (unless it already is) to the literal concept that is similar to MST3K Mantra and Bellisario's Maxim

edited 25th Jul '12 10:51:47 AM by SeptimusHeap

In other words, you want to rename DNDTR and AL-I.

(Because AL-I are already subpages.)

Right. To something akin to Inaccuracies In Fiction or the like.

That's what I was thinking too.

Bumping for votes. And keep in mind each of these crowner options address different issues. None is an alternative to the other.

Also, please don't bother downvoting anything here if you don't offer alternative suggestions. For the record, the issues are a) Did Not Do The Research is impossible to distinguish from Artistic License – Indexes and its subitems in practice due to the difficulty in assessing authorial intent and b) the name does not fit the purpose of the index (which isn't solely about research failures about inaccuracies in general) and is often used to complain.

edited 30th Jul '12 7:11:06 AM by SeptimusHeap

Again, if we do the top option, Did Not Do The Research and Artistic License will be redundant.

Septimus, people do not have to suggest an alternative if they don't feel the proposed solution is for the best. Not having an alternative solution does not make your opinion magically invalid.

edited 30th Jul '12 12:26:55 PM by ccoa

Yeah, to be honest I don't quite see the point in having an index at Artistic License if there is one at Did Not Do The Research. There is no way at telling apart what goes into which index there, as any trope there is likely a combination of both. Artistic License is probably better off as a concept page.

I know your second point, but it doesn't help at fixing things, generally.

edited 30th Jul '12 12:43:15 PM by SeptimusHeap

On the other hand, doing something because we can't think of anything better, even if people don't agree with it, doesn't help fix things, either.

OK, OK. Let's summarize all the issues here:

1. The page is explicitly tagged as "not a trope, don't wick", but has nevertheless 3k wicks. The name doesn't help there.
2. The page is usually used (and can be used only as, because determining author intent here is nigh impossible) for "any sort of mistake" despite name and description claiming to be only about accidental mistakes, making it both misnamed and the separation between it and Artistic License – Indexes and its subitems pointless.
3. Artistic License is arbitrarily distinguished from Did Not Do The Research as a separate index, even though it would make more sense to keep it something like Laws and Formulas to express the fact that inaccuracies in stories can be acceptable and to lump all inaccuracies (subtropes) together.

edited 1st Aug '12 11:34:27 AM by SeptimusHeap

Opinions on ?

Sounds like a good summary.

I've been reading through the wicks for Did Not Do Research and Artistic License and I did notice that the distinction between "Unintentional inaccuracy" and "Intentional accuracy" does not usually seem to exist or be based entirely upon guessing/somebody's opinion on it.

Thus, I've added another option to redefine AL and DNDTR accordingly, since the distinction, while being pointed out by their descriptions, doesn't exist in practice.

I'm pretty sure your new option's exactly the same as your other option except better expressed.

In theory, you should be able to tell the difference because if it's done on purpose, the plot wouldn't have worked if it were accurate whereas the accidental inaccuracies are irrelevant to the story. However, this is muddier in practice as convenient inaccuracies can happen from a lack of research or in many cases, the story would work with minor changes or there's disagreement as to what constitutes working. You can include a note about the different reasons fiction departs from reality and some examples will be obvious, especially if helped by Word of God, but a lot, probably most, are ambiguous. I don't think you can meaningfully separate them. I say merge.

Taking into account some of ccoa's comments concerning Artistic License and a rough wick survey.

So what's the consensus? Also, anyone wanna help me clean up the 40 billion wicks?