Tropability standards

Look, I get that making a page for multiple works that share a setting, but not creator, is not what we usually do. However, making every such work completely separate from each other also feels wrong. Explaining the setting on every such page is just redundant. Making a page for the very first video, that started it all, is nigh-impossible, not to mention that it probably would be non-tropable. Mentioning them in Fan Works of the original work, maybe with a disclaimer that these derivative works are a product of a Memetic Mutation, may work, though.

On a related note, this debate feels similar to the recent thread that led to creation of the Derivative Works/ namespace, except that here the influence of the "core" work is far weaker, and that the follow-ups are much lower-profile.

Edited by Veriamo on Oct 10th 2022 at 3:28:54 PM

With A.I. generated art and other content on the rise, should we mention those under tropability? They aren't truly made by humans with creative intent, but we still have pages on things like Ace Attorney according to an AI and Sonic Destruction, since trope examples appear in a way but are likely unintended.

(it is probably best to decide this before they become more popular and we potentially have to start removing them)

Edited by Piterpicher on Oct 12th 2022 at 9:53:14 PM

Hmm. I don't have super strong feelings on that one. On the one hand, case law suggests that AI-generated art is not copyrightable, since there is no person to which an act of creativity can be attributed. On the other hand, these are works that may display tropes, even if the "mind" behind them doesn't understand them in the same way as a human would.

Also, when the AI revolution comes, I'd like to be on its good side. It might be awkward explaining why we didn't think its ancestors were good enough to be credited with authorship.

But seriously, I'm open to feedback either way on this one. The biggest technical problem is that there's no legal creator to credit.

Okay, but how do we attribute these "works"? What even counts as a body of canon? How would one verify the presence of tropes?

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 12th 2022 at 3:30:34 PM

In my opinion, we can treat an AI-created work like if it was created by a person, for troping purposes.

I'd like to think an AI story is still a story, the program is designed to generate tropes in specific patterns until they're good enough to become a comprehensive narrative. I know there are flame wars about AI-art, but our target is the content and not how it was produced. It is something to think about in a near future.

And at least for Sonic Destruction Penny was the one who've put prompts into the site and after it retruned the script, inserted a couple minor details. Plus the actual reading is filled by the crew's adlibbing and commentary, so it's sorta still a SnapCube's work.

What it boils down to me is that tropes are patterns, and if an AI has enough knowledge of these stories to implement these patterns, then that work is inherently tropeworthy. The content is still there... who cares that a robot made it?

I agree with War Jay's Death of the Author (Or I guess Blue Screen of the Author) approach. If the tropes are there then it's tropable.

Just so it's clear, while I personally don't see AI-generated works as ideal morally or artistically, I do think the trope examples in them may make them acceptable for pages.

Edited by Piterpicher on Oct 13th 2022 at 10:45:09 AM

To not forget, I take Troping Online Content Creators is safe to cut now that it has nothing unique to day?

I think it should be fine.

Speaking of AI stuff, surely things like AI Dungeon 2 and NovelAI fall outside of tropability standards. Pretty much everything on those pages boils down to "the AI can do this", and there's very little in the way of actual pre-written story for both of them.

Yes, both are software, not games. That reminds me of an "app namespace" discussion.

This might fit better in another thread. I know we move unpublished works to Darth Wiki, but are we allowed to cut unpublished works where all of the tropes listed are ZC Es? We can't add context because the work isn't available to the public.

Broadly speaking, yes, if the author of the article doesn't respond to prompts to fix it.

I know that review shows that incorporate characters, skits and other original content into their reviews, like The Angry Video Game Nerd, The Nostalgia Critic, and Jontron are generally tropable. What about more "talking heads" style review shows like The Mysterious Mr. Enter and Saberspark, where there's a picture and/or voiceover of the reviewer, clips of the reviewed work(s), and generally not much else?

Case-by-case I'd say, until we settle on Books on Trope thread and other "a work talks about elements of other works" pages.

Edited by Amonimus on Nov 1st 2022 at 2:39:28 PM

It's been awhile since I've watched Mr. Enter, but didn't at least one of his reviews incorporate a skit?

I don't know enough about those specific channels to say for sure, but I will note in general terms that the popularity of a work is irrelevant to whether it meets our standards for tropability. As we've said repeatedly, making jokes, overreacting to content, and being opinionated are not enough on their own to qualify.

Current case law is that an AI cannot hold copyright in its own right. There is no case law either way regarding the copyrightability of AI-generated works where a human claims to be the author.

Regarding this:

Where did this come from? This has an unresolved discussion in my troping user-generated content thread, and several users expressed that UGC could get their own pages (which they already do, but poorly sorted).

The phrasing of this policy suggests User Generated Content aren't works, and aren't tropable unless they're Game Mods.

If this is what the policy draft means, it needs to be discussed first.

So, I guess the current consensus is "AI-made works are tropable, but software that uses AI to make works is not"? Though the latter can be Useful Notes/.

Edited by Piterpicher on Nov 11th 2022 at 4:09:46 PM

That's my understanding.

Edited by Amonimus on Nov 11th 2022 at 6:09:43 PM

There still needs to be some kind of attribution or authorship, plus a cohesive aspect to the work. We can't just have an article for "every image that Dall-E ever made", but if someone publishes a novel written by an AI, that constitutes a discrete thing that can be troped.

So, that includes stuff like Harry Potter and the Portrait of What Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash?

Botnik Studios (why is it not indexed) is labeled as the author, so we can attribute Harry Potter and the Portrait of What Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash to them, even if they "kinda didn't write it". If someone anonymously done so and posted it on like Reddit, it'd be a similar problem as why not many Creepypasta or memes get own pages.