Duplicate Trope: Role Association

Deadlock Clock: 5th Apr 2014 11:59:00 PM
Total posts: [42]
1 2
[up] Wait... How the hell is that a trope?
yup, sounds exactly like a Just for Fun thing i.e. not a trope
Keep Role Association as is, but provide a clear explanation for the page.

(If not done already.)

edited 20th Apr '14 1:22:47 PM by R.G.

29 BigBertha21st Apr 2014 12:44:13 PM from Anytown, USA , Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
I just read the Hey Its That Guy page; it's all full of character actors. (which is why I voted against the redirect)

A change of namespace should work just fine.

edited 21st Apr '14 12:47:00 PM by BigBertha

Amazing discovery
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
  • 7 (yeas:12 nays:5) 2.40 : 1
    • Remove all subpages, and redirect this trope to Hey, It's That Guy!
  • 2 (yeas:7 nays:5) 1.40 : 1
    • Redefine the trope as a Just for Fun game.

All others in red.
31 BigBertha23rd Apr 2014 01:33:21 PM from Anytown, USA , Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
I Am Not Spock is where an actor is only known for their signature role. Hey Its That Guy / Hey Its That Voice lists a collection of roles. Actor Allusion is when a character imitates one of their actor's past roles.

In my new description of "Role Association", what do you think of this intro?

  • Imagine you are watching your favorite movie. Somehow, you recognize the character's face or voice from another TV show. If you can't shake the thought of the actor's other role, you can insert that role into the plot of the movie, making your viewing an interesting trip down memory lane. It's Actor Allusion, I Am Not Spock, Hey Its That Guy and Hey Its That Voice taken Up to Eleven, all rolled up into the plot of a work.

Writing a role association is simple. Just for Fun, insert any actor's random roles (well-known or your favorites characters) into the plot of your favorite work. This way, readers can discover new roles.
Amazing discovery
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
That would be fun, except...

You are not proposing the wicks actually getting fixed. Nothing currently has consensus, despite "Cut this" having kept a lead for awhile. Why is it important that the wicks and examples be fixed? Because the trope has encouraged misuse of wiki rules.

How to Write an Example is getting violated left and right, in multiple ways:
  • The point of an example is to convey information: But the examples are more often nonsensical, featuring unfamiliar works showing up in unfamiliar works, in a (if you're lucky) familiar work. Actors are not mentioned.
  • If you think an example is inaccurate, correct it yourself: Example Indentation in Trope Lists is getting violated to show "alternative" versions of the same plot, or different plots, but the same work.
  • State the source: The worst offense, getting hurt two different ways:
    • Works are Sink Holed under character names.
    • Creators are rarely used in any examples.
That particular offense makes the stated goal (people find a new roles for actors they like) less likely.
  • Group Examples: examples are being indented incorrectly.
  • Avoid Irrelevant Potholing and References: Okay, this is the definition of the page, so I'm willing to forgive this rule. The Referencing, at least. The Potholing on the other hand...

On top of that, being in the Main/ Namespace has allowed the trope to appear the main work pages: —> Including huge pages:

The majority of wicks are on Trivia/ and YMMV/ pages.

33 BigBertha25th Apr 2014 02:07:39 AM from Anytown, USA , Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Mmm. Would anyone like a redirect to I Am Not Spock? (where an actor is forever associated by one role)
Amazing discovery
Please, do NOT change crowner options into completely different ones when they already have votes. The vote was cast for the option already present. You cannot change it halfway through the process.

If you want to have another option to vote for, add it to the crowner as a completely new suggestion.

edited 25th Apr '14 3:17:21 AM by lu127

Seems we still don't really have a consensus on what to do, although status quo is out of the question at this point.

Crazysamaritan did have a point that Role Association as is does have problems. I'd have little objection of moving this to JustForFun/ if the examples were cleaned, perhaps subpages trimmed.
I now go by Graf von Tirol.
Looks like we do have a consensus here.
I now go by Graf von Tirol.
Could we just... not have Death anymore?
So far, yes. 12:5 (+7) in favour of moving to Just for Fun, which is a 2.40:1 ratio.
38 Willbyr6th May 2014 09:52:27 AM from North Little Rock, AR , Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Calling for the move to Just for Fun.
Will move over to the new namespace. Still think that the subpages need fixing.

EDIT: Move and indexing complete.

edited 7th May '14 9:59:54 AM by EarlOfSandvich

I now go by Graf von Tirol.
40 Willbyr7th Jun 2014 05:01:34 AM from North Little Rock, AR , Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Anything else to do here?
41 SeptimusHeap8th Jul 2014 05:53:37 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Wick cleaning, since we don't list Just for Fun items as tropes. Which I just did.
42 Willbyr8th Jul 2014 06:20:13 AM from North Little Rock, AR , Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Cool. Locking up.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Page Action: Role Association
7th Apr '14 10:22:37 AM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
What should be done about Role Association?

Total posts: 42
1 2