Unclear Description: The Finicky One

Okay cool, I just saw the stuff above about cutting it entirely and wasn't sure that was the right course of action. Carry on then.

Oissu!

It came up in another thread and I couldn't analyze the trope well enough to determine what would or would not apply. I cannot distinguish between a shoehorn and a straight example. I cannot discard examples based on any character actions. I cannot read an example, and predict actions outside of the specific context given. I cannot derive any meaningful relationships between characters who are an example and characters who are an aversion. I do not think the current page is salvageable. There may be meaning here, but I cannot identify any meaning. (I could attempt to build a trope around the English word "Finicky", but that's starting from scratch, not from this page.)

That sounds like a potential trope. The current description lists The Perfectionist and Super OCD as tropes that are similar enough to share roles, but do not have a super-sub relationship.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Oh. Yeah. Everyone agrees the current description has to go. My proposal was to make this the supertrope. Since you called me back to this thread, I assumed you were addressing that proposal.

Double-checking my post, I see I didn't actually use the word "supertrope", but I thought it would be obvious from "If it's cleanliness they're picky about, then they'll be the Neat Freak. If it's food, then they'll be the Picky Eater. If it's music or clothes or color matching or something else we don't have a more-specific trope for, then it can go here."

Anyway, sorry for not being more clear. Yes, making this the supertrope is exactly what I was proposing.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I called you back to the thread so you could defend yourself, sirrah! While I like to think I'm good at editing a description to clarify the definition, I need someone who thinks this is a trope to actually give me a definition first. Until then, I'm still in favour of sending it back to TLP and cutting the current page.

(I'm not getting a whole definition presented, although the list of "subtropes" is growing. Perhaps Finicky Index would be a compromise?)

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

A character has one or more defining traits widely seen as picky or annoying?

Oissu!

So far, you haven't criticized my proposal at all. In fact, it sounds like you're agreeing with it and disagreeing with it at the same time, which is rather disconcerting.

I didn't offer a draft because I wanted to see how people reacted to the idea before going to the effort. I thought that since we have two perfectly good subtropes, it should be fairly obvious how we'd define the supertrope. Was I wrong? Is "like Picky Eater or Neat Freak, but not limited to food or cleanliness" really not enough to give you the idea?

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

It really isn't; that's effectively the same level of detail as giving me the word Finicky and asking me to guess.

Picky Eater is usually motivated by taste preferences; I can predict that a picky eater might try a new food if it is made from foods they like. Neat Freak is usually motivated by a desire for order, so I can predict that they'll usually be organized with labeled storage in addition to being clean. "Widely considered" I can work with; Edd is considered by his friends to be to picky much of the time. Squidward would fit an Audience Reaction version because the audience calls him picky, not other characters. Superman isn't "widely considered" to be picky, even if Batman disagrees with some of his methods, so he wouldn't be an example.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Sounds like you just answered your own question?

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

(I could attempt to build a trope around the English word "Finicky", but that's starting from scratch, not from this page.)

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

The current description is just a couple of sentences, which look like they're aiming (poorly) at the English definition. I don't see how it's much of a stretch to fill it out with missing details that would make it a trope. And most examples seem like they'd fit too. (Which isn't surprising—Tropers speak English.) The biggest problem I see is all the ZCEs.

But structurally and conceptually, I don't see a lot of problems turning this into a proper trope in the most obvious way, if we have enough examples with context, which don't properly belong in the subtropes.

So, I think the first thing to do is look through the examples. If there's enough which fit, then I support keeping this and giving it a better description. If not, then I support cutting it and leaving any future supertrope to TLP.

I'll see what I can sort out. Probably by tomorrow. (It's not like there's a lot, which, in turn, is why I don't feel strongly either way.)

edited 15th Feb '17 2:04:45 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

A supertrope on TLP sounds like a good idea. Maybe The Stick In The Mud or something.

All the examples on this page are ZC Es, and the description is poorly-defined, so I'm not seeing much to salvage here.

It's been three weeks. Can we cut and ask TLP to come back with a better version?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I'd support that

We don't need justice when we can forgive. We don't need tolerance when we can love.

Made a crowner: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/SingleProposition/TheFinickyOne?open=all#7re4xw2a

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

BUMP. Vote in the crowner, people!!

The crowner needs to be hooked.

Why are you anxious to cut? It can be fixed without being cut first. Unless you're going to clear all the wicks away.

The definition needs clarifying, but the page doesn't need to be trashed, and "I'd rather it was called something else" is a lousy reason to rename.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I support the idea of making this a supertrope to more specific tropes like Super OCD and potentially rewriting the description.

Not sure if a rename is strictly necessary, but I'm not opposed to it since it makes me think of a picky eater.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

And by the way, Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory is a perfect example of The Finicky One, between his need to have everything spelled out about living arrangements, "You're in my spot", and his general insistence on having things his way.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

The supertrope part was discussed on the first page. Also, I never said anything about cutting it. :/

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Sorry, that wasn't at you, ~Karxrida. That was in general. The people who want to change the name or cut it need to provide evidence that that's what's needed.

edited 22nd Mar '17 7:27:15 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I'm sorry if I gave the appearance of gaming the system. I have yet to see a clear definition, and the trope sat for four years collecting examples by Wiki Magic before coming here.

• In four years, it has 58 wicks and 95 inbounds.

Compared to similar tropes;

• The Perfectionist is the youngest of the four, but in five years, collected 557 wicks and over 2,000 inbounds. This is performing up to 10 or 20 times as well, with only one additional year.
• Super OCD is an old page and I refuse to suggest The Finicky One should meet these numbers.
• Neat Freak is also old, with 909 wicks and over 1,000 inbounds.
• Picky Eater is performing the closest to Finicky, with only 338 wicks and 866 inbounds.

All of the other four tropes here are doing significantly better than this page, demonstrating growth and outside interest. On the other hand, The Finicky One has yet to increase even the on-page example count by ten in four years. That's a growth of ~two examples per year. (Ykttw draft had 33 examples, page has 39.)

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

You still need to provide evidence that it's completely broken to support your proposal that it be cut. The cutlist is the last resort. The absolute last resort.

That it has only has 95 inbounds is not evidence that it's broken at all, let alone that it's broken so badly that it deserves to be cut. Stagnant is not broken. We don't cut pages just because they aren't growing.

~xtifr put up a rather clear summary of the trope in post 15. That you "don't get it" is not a good argument against it.

And the gaming the system is about making a single-prop crowner that only addresses the option you want, despite another option having been raised in the thread.

edited 22nd Mar '17 8:41:32 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.