Unclear Description: Ship Mates

Having failed to get answers in Trope Talk, I'm turning to TRS.

I recently rewrote the definition of Ship Mates under the understanding that it was (according to its own definition and mentions on other pages) as Pair the Spares in fanfiction/fandom.

However, there's this quote on the discussion page answering what the definition is: "Quite simply, it the multiple pairings within a fandom that enthusiasts tend to like together. This may be because it frees up a potentially messy triangle or clear up sort of ambiguity between characters. Or perhaps the two or more pairs just complement each other." This is also what the original definition said, kind of. Sort of.

This definition of "the fandom happens to like pairing A and pairing B, even though they have little interaction besides being in the same property and do not necessarily address preferred couples on a love triangle" is reflected in many of the main page examples, such as the second under Comic Books.

So what the hell is this trope supposed to mean?!?

edited 14th Aug '14 5:48:59 PM by Leaper

The examples are mostly "these N ships are frequently supported together by the same people". The YKTTW is blanked so I can't tell what it was originally.

I would keep this as "These ships are frequently combined, in most cases because they avoid spares and aren't in conflict with each other".

Internet Archive's oldest copy.

This version of YKTTW contains the original OP but not any replies. (Search for "ship mates".)

Okay, so it looks like it was intended to be Pair the Spares for fandom, but got decayed due to the definition not making that clear.

Should it be reverted back, because I don't think the definition most seem to be using is even tropeable.

Looking at the definition and the examples, it seems to be "shippers of Alice and Bob also ship Carol and Dave because the latter pairing enables and/or compliments the former". I question how tropeworthy this is, given that the examples all seem to be nothing more than lists of "A/B pairing, therefore C/D pairing, or sometimes C/E and D/F, etc". I'm not seeing the value of lists of every possible permutation of pairings that allow for A/B.

It sounds like Pair the Spares is a common reason why certain characters are Ship Mates but not necessarily the only reason.

Another reason seems to be that people only familer with a certain aspect of the fandom will ship within that aspect, ie fans of The Avengers might ship Wolverine, Wanda, Pietro, and Beast with Avengers characters while X-Men fans might ship them with X-Men characters, since they are in both franchises.

edited 22nd Aug '14 9:02:12 AM by rexpensive

Okay, yeah, that's how the trope is used now, but it wasn't originally supposed to be so.

So the question is, what should this trope mean?

My understand of the trope was always Pairing the Spares to make way for the Fan-Preferred Couple.

My understanding of the trope was Friendly Fandoms for Shipping, the opposite of Ship-to-Ship Combat.

A nice summation of the issue. is most of the examples now, is what it was originally defined as (and, as far as I can tell, there was never a TRS thread to change said original definition; I have no idea how it changed).

So which takes precedence?

edited 12th Sep '14 12:36:43 AM by Leaper

The "shift" likely came because many examples of are also examples of . You seem to be thinking of those definitions as mutually exclusive when really, they are a Venn Diagram. I've always viewed the trope as holding all of the Venn diagram's center and some but not all of each side, with the two main criteria being that 1) if someone ships X they most likely also ship Y and frequently but not always vice versa, 2) The reason for that is that they compliment each other in such a way that one becoming canon would also increase the chances of the other to also become canon.

I can picture scenarios of that may fit the trope but aren't in the overlap (for example if some plot point keeps A/B from happening and something similar is stopping C/D and anything that clears the way for one clears the way for the other even though it's not a Love Triangle) and examples of that aren't(A/B shippers might ship C with D, E, or F, with too little consistency for an alliance between ships to form as with the MLP:Fi M example), hmmm....

OK, so what does that mean for the definition?

Clock is set.

This should be an easy thing. I can either leave my rewrite of the definition alone or revert it. I can fix examples accordingly.

Just tell me which definition is right!

Okay, if this thread gets closed for lack of input, what I'm going to do is assume that the definition I changed was the correct one and correct all wicks and references based on that, on the assumption that it's probably been "baked in" by now.

Would a crowner actually be appropriate for this kind of thing? I'm inclined to say no, but I figured I'd ask anyway.

A crowner for my definition at 9 and the definition at 8?

edited 10th Dec '14 5:47:03 PM by VeryMelon

Yes. Is this an appropriate crowner topic?

Clock has been extended.

So again: is my question an appropriate crowner topic? Deciding a definition by popular vote seems... odd.

Please...? I'll make the crowner if it's the thing to do...

OK, go ahead and make such a crowner.

OK, here. Hollering for attachment.

Done.

Might it be possible to make BOTH definitions work? I mean, both seem to be at least somewhat tropeworthy. If we can't, however, I suggest that we make a YKTTW for the losing definition and let the rest of the tropers decide its fate.

My understanding is that the only way that #9 was distinguishable from #8 was that #9 allowed for multiple pairs with (at least) one element in common in addition to Shipping Alliances where No Loves Intersect whereas #8 encompassed the latter only.

EDIT: Can we get an Example- and/or Wick Check to determine how prevalent each of these two definitions are at present, (EDIT: and how many examples have facets of both,) plus any significant others?

edited 22nd Jan '15 7:50:37 PM by DonaldthePotholer