Wait, there's one thing: the trope counts parodies that parody something that was "a serious plot point, which invalidates the parody's argument". How is this redundant or nominal? You might not like something being made fun of, but by our own wiki's definition, "A parody is a twisted imitation of another artistic work. Some aspects may be exaggerated, and others downplayed.". Wouldn't that count as "exaggerated"?
That's misleading wording then. That refers to stuff like, say, Harry Potter, where the main character's entry into puberty is a serious plot point through much of the series. So if a would-be parody says, "what would Harry Potter be like if the main character... became a teenager?!" that would be a Redundant Parody.
On the other hand, a parody could make fun of how the series actually portrayed the character becoming a teenager, and that wouldn't be a redundant parody.
That makes perfect sense. So then the entry is right in that some examples must be this trope, but misleadingly doesn't make the exception that parodying their teenhood is indeed a parody. I will alter the wording of the description and examples to make sense of that. In fact, I can probably just take out the "serious point" bit, since that's covered by "exact same material". Can the trope be locked, then?
OK, it looks like Amy Gdala merged the pages already (and improperly, as the wicks are still unfixed), probably shortly before the crowner hooking. Should we just complete the merge as it is and then close this thread? I would favour that.