Why are there examples on Analysis/TheSmurfettePrinciple?

First, analysis pages aren't main tropes and probably shouldn't have examples; and second, Analysis.The Smurfette Principle has a "Subversions, Inversions, Exceptions, and Aversions" section even though "work has multiple female characters" is chairs. I'm guessing these were moved here from the main trope page a long time ago.

Also, the analysis page has a weird hyperfocus on works with animal characters, when the trope doesn't have that focus.

As always, "Why is something (not) here?" Because This Is a Wiki and someone have (not) added it.

As to if it should be there I'd say no.

Also, the analysis subpage calls it an Omnipresent Trope, but the main page allows straight examples... this feels like it came from a Bizarro Universe.

Looks like someone tried to create a subtrope and smushed it together with analysis. The history goes back further than the Internet Archive does but not all the way to the beginning, so I think, but I'm not sure, this was probably created by ~Edna Walker whose name shows up in the earliest recorded edits.

Hmm... now I'm wondering if "X species is more likely to be a certain gender in fiction" is a viable concept.

Edna Walker is Project- and TLP-banned, for the record.

There are also some random examples on Analysis.Furries Are Easier To Draw.

So what should be done? Cutlisting such a huge page feels wrong.

We could just cut the examples section, and do some cleanup of the analysis itself (get rid of the claim that its an omnipresent trope, maybe add a header its an analysis of how the trope is used in animal focused media?)

I'm inclined to say bolt the whole thing and Yard the basic idea of "most animal characters are male" or "here's how gender / The Smurfette Principle intersects with animal characters", since even the analysis part is kind of tangential to the trope as a whole. People trying to make an actual trope out of it can fish the page out of the Internet Archive if need be, though a) that doesn't preserve the source and b) the Internet Archive only goes up to 2018. Maybe preserve the content on a sandbox? But we seem to frown on sandboxes that aren't being actively used and are just being used to store content indefinitely...

Edited by MorganWick on Jan 11th 2023 at 6:05:55 AM

Copy the source into a word processor?

Hm. Well. "This has potential as a page/section/content" is appropriate sandbox material, though I suppose the sandbox having a stated goal makes it much easier to call keepers. Saving contents forever on a sandbox because they were against policy elsewhere is a no-no, but claiming these contents could be a future trope and describing and linking the sandbox from the Yard is allowed.

Wait, I just learned that Species Equals Gender exists.

I put it on the Cut List the other day, and it's been cut. Unfortunately, I accidentally formatted the link to this page wrong in the cut reason. Requesting a lock.