Misused (alt titles crowner 8 April 2020): Trope 2000

IMO, yes, anything in the crowner that was in consensus range should be a redirect. That said, anything outside of consensus range should be cut. I mean, Title 2000 is incorrect, given that this is now a naming convention, and Noun 2000 had 1 yea and 6 nays in the crowner (and that redirect only has 4 inbounds and 0 wicks so it's pretty useless on top of everything else). I think we could keep Trope 2000 only for the sake of its inbounds, but it isn't like we have to if people disagree.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

Those redirects already existed, so why do they have to be cut?

Keet cleanup

I don't see any reason to cut existing redirects, but if the mods end up thinking otherwise, I won't complain.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 28th 2020 at 11:33:13 AM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

& Title 2000 no longer fits with the definition of the trope. It wasn't even on the alt title crowner, so I fail to see why we would keep it. Regarding Noun 2000, it was on the crowner and there were more nays than yeas. Keeping it would beg the question why not make Advanced Tech By Thousands considering they have the same number of yeas and nays. And they have 5 more nays than yeas, so it isn't as though it was a close call.

I for one just thought that's how it would be. Like, has this not happened before?

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

Just a question: Can this trope apply to a robot that is a robotic version of a living organism?

back lol

Assuming that the example overlaps with something listed in Substitution Tropes, yes. Any "upgrade" fits the technology part, but having a large number attached to the name is also a requirement. Robot Me V 2 doesn't count, but Robot Me V 2033 does.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I’m honestly kind of confused about this trope. It’s common in fiction for futuristic technology to have the suffix “2000” or something like that, but the trope’s description states that it is used to describe a “more advanced/futuristic version of an already existing person/product”. Why is the trope’s description narrower than how it is often used?

back lol

No, the trope says the number is used to imply. By adding a number (n) to the name, you strongly suggest the existence of a previous product with (n-1) in the name due to the way ordinal numbers work. A large number implies many previous versions. It is possible to name the first copy "Greta 6000", but it strongly suggests the existence of a "Greta 5000", a "Greta 500", and a "Greta 1". The "Greta 6000" is implied to have taken six thousand iterations to achieve. The implication can be deceptive, but that's what example context is for; illustrating how the concept is utilized in different narratives.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Does it still count if the large number is added because it's confirmed that there existed prototypes before?

I'm mainly a fan of underrated media.

Makes sense; I’m assuming entries where it’s something nonexistent followed by “2000” or something like that are valid (as long as the “2000” is not an Annual Title)?

back lol

The existence of previous prototypes (and their names) is good example context for this trope.

Your question is too general for me to be certain that I understand. Please post an example that is causing you trouble.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

The example that I came across that made me question this trope’s definition was on Characters.Captain Underpants Villains Of The CU Universe, where the “Elevapor 2000” and the “You-Choose-You-Fuse 2000“ are mentioned. While neither of these things exist in Real Life, do they still count as examples for this trope?

Edited by jandn2014 on May 21st 2020 at 3:18:06 PM

back lol

Yes, they imply the existence of previous versions In-Universe. The existence of a similar item in Real Life is irrelevant.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Thanks for the explanation.

back lol

Lots of dewicking done; only 50 wicks left for Trope 2000. Main page examples still need to be cleaned up.

back lol

Just a question: What should be done about examples where the work has “2000” in the title in reference to said year, but the work itself was released in a year like 1999? Do they count as a form of Annual Title?

back lol

Yes. From the description:

Note that it says "especially" and not "only", so should be fine even if it was released in early or mid 1999.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 24th 2020 at 7:36:46 AM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Thanks for clarifying.

back lol

Only 15 wicks left; only ones not removed yet are ones where I'm uncertain of the usage.

back lol

I'll finish it off.

Edit: And done. Will cutlist and close.

Edited by Berrenta on May 31st 2020 at 9:07:41 AM

she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report