Dedicated wick clean-up : Exactly What It Says On The Tin

Can we just kill this disccussion? It's been open for 14 months and nowhere has anything close to a consensus been formed.

Wut? The issue here is clear: this trope is constantly misused and the wicks are being cleaned. What we need is to get more tropers to work on it.

Consensus is there has been widespread misuse, but most of the people who would normally do the wick cleaning are working on other projects, the namespace migration most of all. I'm trying to finish off Hyphenated titles, or at least most of them, by the end of January. If a certain bug with related to pages is fixed, it'll help everyone doing the wick migration no end.

Not in a hurry, but:

Literature.A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthurs Court had a sinkhole case, which was removed by me from the introductory description part. But does the trope appliy to the work in this case, therefore warranting a place for Exactly What It Says on the Tin on the trope list? I think that "not really", though the same logic makes the trope page itself look weak. I'm having doubts.

Hmm, I think it could be Role Called. The trope may be worth mentioning in improved description of "Exactly What..." itself at some point.

Bringing up a line on Memes.Advertising that doesn't make sense in light of the cleanup spreading there (or was it unilateral? Sometimes I can't tell):

Quickly adopted as a stock phrase meaning that something is self-explanatory; ubiquitous.

I think it made more sense as:

Quickly became a stock phrase meaning that something is self-explanatory; ubiquitous enough to be the Trope Namer for Exactly What It Says on the Tin.

Was there ever an official decision on this wick? Has the wick removal in this case been cleared, or did someone overstep their boundaries in cleaning up the wicks?

What boundaries are there for someone to seek authority before overstepping? Memes aren't TVT material (Not A Trope), so calling them trope namers is something I wouldn't consider seriously.

edited 29th Jan '15 5:37:54 AM by NemuruMaeNi

That's a perfectly good wick and should be restored. It's referring to the page name, by name, not the trope definition.

^ ...

I'd rather not enact an Argument of Contradictions. Feel free to restore anything. It's already restored on Redundancy.Advertising. To point out the advertisement being a trope namer of certain trope on all of the pages mentioning that same advertisement — is not relevant by my standards. Relevancy is part of Administrivia.How To Write An Example. And I'd rather give chances than conquer.

A wick is something pointing to the page. The page is in main. It is a trope page. You refer to the page — you refer to the trope. "Page names" are not objects to be discussed in articles at all.

edited 29th Jan '15 7:20:19 AM by NemuruMaeNi

Opted to leave intact an "in-universe" example. It struck me as something not readily accounted for by something else, yet creeping into the advertising medium within universe. Someone could disagree.

From VideoGame.A Knights Quest For Milk, "In-universe; The "Everything But Milk" store sells... everything but milk."

So how does anyone figure citing All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling as an example count as misuse of this trope?

It was the last surviving women's professional federation in Japan after Mildred Burke left in the 1950s and remained the one and only until the 90s. Exactly what is missing from the tin?

Well, first of all it was used as a Sinkhole. Why? Because, if page subject were an example of the trope, the trope should've gone on the list of examples like other tropes. Someone did run away from having to Explain Your Examples.

Second, it was sinkholed specifically under gender part of the name. This further corroborated the problem existence. Implies that the only part "exactly what it says on the tin" was about subject being "Women's". So it's likely not-Japan (otherwise why not include the word in the blue link)? And it's probably not exactly wrestling, but something else (for the same reason)?

Third, the usual counter-argument consideration. Nit-picker should stop playing dumb just to flirt, should realize that formatting problem can't prevent the only correct understanding that the whole wrestling promotion name was intended to fall under the trope. In this case, counter-counter argumentation treads the same line as the usual uses of trope for work names. The name has to betray more than just basic outlines. It has to have plot specifics, by definition. Wrestling promotion is not a work of fiction, so it does not exactly get off on being plot-reliant. Oh well, applying the principle of Tropes Are Flexible, let's look for point of appeals that the promotion has. In that regard, the page itself provided good points: all the girls are of age less than 25, specific kind of women (not saying it works for me, but saying this looks very much like a stunt meant as a selling point). Is there anything about that in the name? I don't see it. Just to check, WWE and WWF female wrestlers' names I could come up with, nearly all showed their prominent career age being 25+. And the All-Japan thing is obviously a puffery term. Taken literally (as "what it says on the tin") it's ambiguous, one of the meanings should imply that the whole Japan female population wrestles there. Which is untrue.

So all that remains of the pro-argument is that it is Exactly What It Says on the Tin because it's Japan, it's women, and it's wrestling. Which is the memetic meaning of the "exactly what", not the respective TV Tropes' trope meaning. There, misuse.

edited 2nd Mar '15 10:43:59 PM by NemuruMaeNi

No, the whole Japanese women's pro wrestling population doesn't wrestle for them now, but for a period of time, they did, or they left Japan.

Whatever, if you want to argue that since it wasn't true for the promotion's entire existence it shouldn't count then fine, I'll accept that. I was just annoyed nobody touched the stub for years and then the only thing left was a pothole to a forum discussion rather than an explanation.

When I was cleaning up the wicks for Exactly What It Says on the Tin, I encountered several examples that were about in-universe brands/advertisement. However, there doesn't seem to be a trope for "Products have names that describe exactly what they are for comedic effect" Should there be one?

edited 10th May '15 7:44:22 AM by MacronNotes

Probably. Could you give more details on those examples?

Just checked the wick number, and it's increased to 13,028. Seems there's a lot of work ahead.

I may look into it to see what I could do to turn it down a few notches.

There's a link to this trope on Black Knight that appears to be Just For Pun. Is that enough reason to keep it?

Both links within the sentence are blatant sinkholes and should be removed (you just do not trope [practically contributor's own] wiki-writing within the articles; the things to be troped are works of fiction). As in, remove the links to tropes, leave the text, like this: "Exactly What It Says on the... Tin."

If in such cases what remained stops making enough sense to be kept, remove it altogether.

edited 16th Jun '15 2:59:42 PM by SetsunasaNiWa

^ SetsunasaNiWa's sockpuppet mode Except for page image captions. The rules are relaxed for those, that's the impression I'm left with.

I cut the entire line from Black Knight. The pun is too strained, especially as "Black Knight" is not actually Exactly What It Says on the Tin.

Some wicks are either accompanied with I Thought It Meant/I Thought That Was on various pages or are on those two aforementioned pages. Should those wicks be removed? I'm asking since a lot of examples listed in the subpages of those two run on Exactly What It Says on the Tin already, making it a bit obvious/unnecessary.

If "I Thought..." is being used as troper commentary, then yes nuke it. That kind of thing may fly in a description, depending on the specific context, but not in trope entries unless it's In-Universe.

Okay, got it. Will be looking through those lists and nuke.

Cleaning seems to have gone beyond Academy of Adventure.

Left off at A Hell Of My Own.

I'd like some help with these entries, as I do not know enough about the works to confirm if the usage is correct: [adult swim] Adventures of a Line Hopper Nightmare Fuel/Advertising

edited 30th May '16 2:03:15 PM by VerySunshine

the Advertising one is legit as far as I can tell, since puppy monkey baby is a puppy monkey baby, and I'd need to see the others to know.

edited 9th Jun '16 3:34:23 PM by Willbyr