Not Tropeworthy: Franchise Actors

I also agree. I think it's a better option than having a million indexes, but won't be very useful in the long run. We'll just end up having the entire credit of each work in a page.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I'd also argue that TV Tropes is more about analysis than listing facts. We really do not need to copy-paste the end credits of each work.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

And index bloat is a thing. Like, it's annoying when these creators wind up with index icons at the bottom of their pages bigger than a screen, thus kind of defeating the purpose of indexing.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

I also don't want to bloat the trivia pages and I don't see the point of these indexes in Just for Fun, so that's why I ultimately voted to cut.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I find the use of a "Cast" would be in navigation, an easy way to find the cast and crew in a work (as we do have Creator pages). Some Creator pages link to Works, but not the other way around.

But that could be a lot of work.

I think the easiest compromise would be to just remove the index tags and maybe move it away from Useful Notes. Unless you guys really feel that strongly about just throwing it all away. I think the index bloat is the only real problem.

Edited by BlackMage43 on Jan 31st 2019 at 12:49:25 PM

Since I don't think the point has been addressed enough...

No, they fail to serve in that function. If a visitor to the wiki is interested in a work, they go to that page. They will not be able to use these indcies from the work page because they aren't directly linked. The directors/producers/writers might be linked from the work page, but you didn't include them in the indexes. Said visitor would have to click on an actor that was wicked on the work page (or subpages) to even notice the index at the bottom of the Creator page. That's leaving both the work (and subpages) and then a Creator page to get to a list of actors in a work. If the work page fails to show how extensive the franchise is, then the page should be expanded to include said information. Hiding it in a different part of the website is an obstacle to the stated intent.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

If a work page is part of a franchise, there should be a link to a Franchise page. That's where you would go to see how extensive a franchise is. Not a pointless index of actors. The book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is indexed on the Harry Potter Franchise page, which is how this should work.

Not to mention that many of these indexes aren't franchises at all—William Shakespeare is not actually a franchise, Charles Dickens is not actually a franchise.

Edited by jamespolk on Feb 1st 2019 at 9:36:48 AM

Even if we just make this franchise-exclusive, then we may be running afoul of the nobility rule in that we're rejecting properties from getting an index that others are allowed to have. And, nobility regardless, it still doesn't super help because, like mentioned, you have to find one of the actors in the first place to find the indices, so it's a little backward.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I disagree. Shakespeare and Dickens' works have been adapted several times, especially the former's, so they have a franchise under their respective names.

A franchise, according to TV Tropes, is a property that includes several types of media. A real-life person is not a property and their works being adapted does not equal a franchise.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I voted to cut the pages entirely, with removing indices as my second choice. The indices really have to go. I understand people put time into assembling these lists, but I don't see how they contribute to the site as a whole when the information can already be found on the site. Namely, character pages for media franchises already list actors, and unlike the franchise indices actually provide information on the character that actor portrayed.

Exactly, thank you.

And their works have been adapted into movies, TV, theater, and even western animation. So what does that make them?

Still not a franchise since the works are in the public domain and aren't a single "property". Pokemon is a franchise. Scooby Doo is a franchise. Harry Potter is a franchise. The works of Shakespeare aren't a franchise, unless you would, say, consider even Classical Mythology to be a franchise (since the myths have been adapted into numerous media). The connecting thread that makes these franchises franchises is that they're based around a single, original, property, with the adaptations being made by the same people or with those people giving away the rights.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

In addition, franchises usually have the associated works take in the same continuity, or are based on the same source material. The works of Charles Dickens, by comparison, don't have a shared continuity.

Edited by costanton11 on Feb 1st 2019 at 7:54:34 AM

The crowner currently has only two options in the positive:

• Remove index tags has 22 yeas : 7 nays (15 net upvotes)
• Add the pages to the cutlist has 20 yeas : 12 nays (8 net upvotes)

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Net upvotes don't really count for results. The crowner is looking for a ratio of 2:1 or better, because that means for every three people, two are for the change and one is against. This is one form of a supermajority. By those standards, the options in the green are at "Remove index tags" at ~3.14 and "Cut List" at ~1.67.

You can see how the first option has a very strong consensus, and the second one is weaker, but not conclusive. One of the other rules for crowners is that activity on the crowner (such as people changing their vote or adding new votes) should be complete before the crowner is locked. The second vote has fluctuated around a 7:4 ratio, so it is important to leave a record of posts noting what the crowner is at.

If we go several days and only add one or two votes that don't make the ratio rise above 2:1, then it'll be conclusively against. If new votes do raise the ratio above 2:1, then we should wait longer to ensure that the ratio stays there, giving a chance for more people to vote down.

---

Note: The numbers I've used reflect the previous post, but there's still activity on the crowner, so my numbers are already wrong. This indicates that we should wait several more days before ending the crowner.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Good to know; I'm only used to crowners in terms of TLP where only the majority is counted, since I'm still new to TRS.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

If you ask me, yes Classical Mythology adaptation could count, and they do have a "continuity", but way too long to list.

I understand, but some adaptations do make the works a Shared Universe (e.g. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, Welcome to Sanditon, Emma Approved).

Anyways, I'll just wait for the final call regarding this matter.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but this website doesn't really accept "too long to list". The Franchise Actors list sets a precedent that any work with an acting role can have a page listing the actors involved. When the pages get long, we make subdivisions (like splitting up Adam Sandler Media Actors by work). If an individual work gets too long, we can split by season or alphabetically.

Edited by crazysamaritan on Feb 5th 2019 at 8:51:13 AM

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I disagree wholeheartedly about Classical Mythology being a franchise since it fails every single extra criteria mentioned except "has 3 different types of media", but at least you're consistent.

Now let me explain why we could never make "Shakespeare", "Charles Dickens" and "Classical Mythology" into legitimate franchises (as in, they have franchise pages and not just random indexes). There are several reasons but one major one is that the works had been adapted hundreds of times. Not only would this mean each "film" "literature" "anime" etc. Link at the top of the page would have to be disambiguation pages, but a lot of the adaptations are part of other actual franchises- Disney Animated Canon, for example, which includes The Lion King (based on Hamlet), Oliver And Company (Oliver Twist with cats and dogs), and Hercules. As far as I know, a work can only belong to one franchise, because franchises aren't determined by what the work is about but who made it and if its part of a larger body of works.

And to what extent would the franchise cover? Just works explicitly based on these original works? What about all the works that use Yet Another Christmas Carol plot? Works loosely based on the originals?

Tl;Dr- just being adapted a lot does not equal being a franchise.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 5th 2019 at 1:17:02 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

• Remove index tags from UsefulNotes.Franchise Actors (and subindexes) is at (yeas:24 nays:9).
• Cut List UsefulNotes.Franchise Actors (and subindexes) is at (yeas:22 nays:13).

Edited by crazysamaritan on Feb 6th 2019 at 4:19:56 AM

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

It's been a while. Just dropped by to be updated if there's already a decision.

The page for works or authors who've been adapted a lot is Adaptation Overdosed.

Hi, neighbor!

Yes; that too.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness