Why We Can't Have Nice Things - misused?

I was browsing a recap page when I came across an entry for Why We Can't Have Nice Things; reading the example and the trope's definition, I deduced it was an invalid entry and removed it (it was on Recap.Steven Universe S 1 E 3 Cheeseburger Backpack). Then I had a look at some on-page examples for the trope in question and... I think it's got a problem.

Reading the main definition, I'm led to believe that it's about characters doing something bad that leads to a consequence that ruins it for everyone. Glancing at some examples however, they seem to just be about people destroying stuff. There are legitimate examples such as in the Real Life folder, but some others I have seen don't seem to involve a thing getting ruined for everyone by one or a few bad actors. For example, here's one such entry:

• In the original Ben 10 in the course of the series — a single summer vacation: Ben and his family managed to destroy priceless artifacts in a Washington museum, burn that boat stuck at Niagara Falls, and blow up Mt. Rushmore. And wipe out an entire Mayan pyramid.

From what I can tell, this has nothing to do with the trope. It only mentions the destruction of things; perhaps the idea is "no one can look at them ever again", but still it feels more like mere destruction than ruining something for everyone else. It isn't the only on-page example like this, and being a Stock Phrase there's also an example like this:

• Jeff Foxworthy's "Games Rednecks Play" CD regales the listener on how he and his brother play-wrestled and knocked over a family heirloom (his father's Jack Daniel's Elvis decanter) with an ironing board. Their mother yells "This is why we can't have nice things!"

Same thing as the first example: just damaging something, but with the phrase used. And then there's this which I just can't see how it even qualifies as an example, only saying "it might be the trope's origin":

• The meme known as Arguecat is an image macro first posted on Live Journal in 2007, featuring an angry gray cat captioned with the words “This is why we can’t have nice things!”. Considering it uses the exact same wording as the Everybody Loves Raymond example listed above only a year after the episode aired, it’s entirely possible that was where the meme was initially conceived.

Long story short, I have a concern that Why We Can't Have Nice Things might have an issue where it's used subjectively without a proper explanation of how or if it ruins something for everyone else, and possibly also for cases where just the phrase is used. Or is it just me? I'm wondering about doing a wick check to make sure.

Looking over the list of on-page examples — it's a mess. Either the trope is used as a stock phrase or the examples only mention destruction. This needs a trip to TRS.

Edited by eroock on Apr 14th 2024 at 5:04:12 PM

So it's not just me. I'll go ahead and start performing a wick check then.

EDIT: Went to look at the wicks so I can grab some and it would appear that it's already in Tropes Needing TRS, under "Combines Too Many Concepts". I forgot to check beforehand if it was already there, though it does reveal to me that it definitely needs fixing.

Edited by Eggy0 on Apr 14th 2024 at 1:26:55 PM

I just (mostly) finished the wick check. Styled it to be posted as a thread in TRS, as the results have shown the trope has a major issue with misuse. Over half of the whole sample is misuse, which is incredibly concerning, and I also found that it apparently was just... created, as there's no YKTTW archive link. And if the page creation date is any indication, YKTTW/TLP did exist at the time it was created.

As much as I like the name, that amount of misuse doesn't bode well for it staying that way. You can post on the TRS meta thread and put it on the TRS Queue since it looks ready to go.

Edited by Tabs on Apr 15th 2024 at 11:49:43 AM

Sounds good. I'll do that now.

...I don't think you have to post on the meta thread when adding something to the queue...

(Also, we have a page Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things that doesn't help with figuring out what this page is supposed to be.)

You don't have to. You don't have to add to the queue, either. But there may be TRS regulars who'd like to see what's happening with the trope or have feedback about the wick check beforehand.

I didn't have to, but wanted to add it. I'd done the same for a different trope I did a wick check for.

That being said, if I find an open slot in TRS, part of me wants to open the thread right away because I feel it's an issue that should be addressed ASAP (due to the amount of misuse and not having been launched via TLP like a trope should have) and the queue takes a long time.

To be clear, there was a long period where TLP / YKKTW wasn't mandatory. So a lot of old tropes never went through the process. It's not an inherent flaw.

Oh is that the case? I wasn't around for that, except for when TLP was still called YKTTW (unless the aforementioned period was still in effect and I don't remember). I always thought a trope had to go there first.

I wasn't there either, but if I'm correct it was highly encouraged but not made mandatory until the rename, since until then pages could be made directly on Main/

I'm pretty sure it was mandatory for years before the rename to TLP. Maybe not enforced by the software, but anything in /Main that didn't go through YKTTW was liable to be deleted. However this one is old enough to have had a ptitle, and back then it was more a suggestion than a rule.

The abortive thread on TRS also shows the consequences of not keeping to the rules, it raised some good points but no wick check and so was closed instantly.

There has been a free slot, so I went ahead and posted the thread in TRS, mainly because it's evident it's had an issue for years so I felt it might do it good to try and sort it out sooner rather than later. It's also the first time I post in TRS so I hope I did it right.