Could someone tell me how Art Major Biology is not a duplicate of Artistic License – Biology?
I see that Art Major Physics already got merged into Artistic License – Physics.
Anyway, I'm done with my check of the examples for Artistic License – Biology, but it could probably use another pair of eyes.
edited 10th Oct '13 3:28:15 PM by Catbert
It's a leftover from the time where You Fail X Forever was the name of the latter.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Sounds like a candidate for a TRS thread to merge them.
Artistic License – Cars: I went ahead and made a minor change to the description. Also, in my opinion, the laconic would be better worded as "inaccuracies" rather than "errors". I don't see any obvious problems with the examples.
edited 10th Oct '13 3:33:23 PM by Catbert
I think we'll probably have to rewrite the laconics again at some point - right now, some of them imply that all examples are deliberate.
I also agree on Artistic License – Cars being OK.
Artistic License – Chemistry is OK in the description department; I'll check up the examples department soon.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Artistic License – Chemistry has been whittled at - especially the "Other" section, which seems more like a "general examples" section. Lots of stuff on that page may be better off in Artistic License – Physics, though.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
OK, so moving on from Artistic License – Chemistry, Artistic License – Economics. The description seems OK for me; any opinion on the examples?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I deleted the "Multple Media" folder because it isn't a standard category we use, the one example was overly general, and there was discussion on the main page as to whether or not it was a good example.
I also don't see any point in having a huge folder full of so-called aversions. Not only is that not the way we normally do things, but I suspect that many of those are simply Not An Example rather than legit example of aversions.
Zzzzzzzzzz
I think the Aversions folder can work, as long as we clean it up to only works where the whole economic system is viable, or a non-viable system is accurately shown to be broken. So things like the Superman ("You just don't get it, do you, Superman?") or Aladdin ones are good. But 1984 is not a good entry; one part is correctly handled, but not all of it, and the parts that wouldn't work are treated as though they would.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I also see some aversions elsewhere. My bigger question is if they would properly belong on Shown Their Work.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Zzzzzzzzzz
Not necessarily. Shown Their Work isn't simply "writer did the homework". It's "writer did the homework/research and makes a point of letting the audience know they did."
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Personally, I think they should go on Shown Their Work if they fit its definition, or just be ditched if they don't - many worlds have blue skies, so what?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Zzzzzzzzzz
We aren't talking about something as simple and obvious as the color of the sky. Building a solid, accurate economic system that is consistent all the way through is both really difficult and rarely done. That's part of the reason the old You Fail Economics Forever page was such a horrible mess — anyone who wanted to could add just about any work, because the economics were flawed some way, if you looked at them from the proper school of economic thought.
And once again, Shown Their Work isn't simply "the author did the research and got it right." It's "The author wants to make damn sure that the audience knows they did the research."
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
OK, that first part has me convinced. I'll agree to leave them on - although the aversions from the other page section ought to be moved there.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Artistic License – Engineering: While the description seems OK for me, I have some questions about the section esp. on the Star Wars section.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Despite a consensus here
over merging Art Major Biology into Artistic License – Biology, no such merge took place, and the thread apparently got auto-locked due to inactivity. I suggest at least making a to-do list in the same vein as the Appearance tropes thread, so as to make it easier to track which items have been resolved and which are pending resolution.
Artistic License – Biology also features some "Somewhere a X is crying" subtropes which might need a rename.
Hmmm, on that last point, Catbert. I'd say leave them if it's lampshading the use of one of the Rules (Rule of Cool, Rule of Drama...) or an Artistic License trope. I
Wait, I don't think that was clearly said. Let me try again.
If it's just one character getting it wrong and another one correcting them, it doesn't belong on the page. But if it's a case where the trope is being used in-work, and one or the other characters refers to that (either the one who got it wrong and was corrected, as in "Yes, dear, I know that dinosaurs and humans didn't exist at the same time, but it's funnier this way...", or the one doing the correcting, as "Joe, you put the big fireball in the explosion of the space ship because it would look cooler, didn't you?") then it's a legitimate example of Playing With...
edited 10th Oct '13 3:06:27 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.