The trope is about something getting ruined for everyone because of someone. The examples, however, tend to use the trope as either a Stock Phrase or "something gets damaged or destroyed", occasionally both at the same time. Several other examples also show signs of shoehorning. There is likewise an issue with the description that may be contributing to the misuse; part of it claims that it "turns up whenever clumsiness or stupidity once again wrecks something, especially something monetarily valuable or precious", but most of it talks more about an action leading to a collective consequence so I'm inclined to believe this is the main definition that's getting muddled together with a second concept. The page quote is also a misrepresentation of what the trope is, and the discussion page shows it lacks a YKTTW discuss archive - which tells me it was most likely created without being taken to the proper place first. This page of launches seems to support this; it says it was created on Aug 20 2009, but it doesn't show up with other tropes that were launched that day, meaning it never went through the process that is (today) required to create a new trope.

There was a previous attempt of taking it to TRS, but the thread was closed because there was no wick check at the time. It also has two videos, of which the featured one is misuse; it shows a dog destroying stuff which leads to a family meeting but doesn't reveal if this actually ruins anything for the whole family, and the perpetrator is an animal while the trope mentions that, most of the time, the "crime" requires a sentient perpetrator to qualify.

The below wick check has the following results:

• Only 12% of the sample is correct use.
• Almost half of the sample — 48%, that's 24 wicks — is some form of misuse.
• 32% of the sample comprises potholes; most of these are also misuse.
• The remaining wicks are ZCE and uncategorized wicks; one wick has two entries for Why We Can't Have Nice Things, one of which falls under misuse. I'm not sure about the other entry and how to even handle a wick that has multiple entries that may fall under different categories.

Wick check

Proposal

Rename and rewrite the trope from scratch. Part of me, however, wishes to have the trope cut instead given it appears to have been put out without going to YKTTW/TLP first. I'm open to other solutions.

Opening.

This sounds like a valid In-Universe trope, but the name may be confusing. I support renaming it and rewriting the description. From the top of my mind, I think And Now Nobody Can Have It, but it's not much better than the current name. Maybe Ruined Because Of One Jerk.

Each example needs to show the following:

1. Indicate some thing the majority likes
2. Some sort of incident related to it, commonly a Jerkass abusing it wittingly or unwittingly. (The description mentions that a "sentient perpetrator" or The Scapegoat is mandatory, but I'm not sure about that, and the description having three "scenarios" tells to me it isn't sure about that as well)
3. The thing everyone liked gets ruined, unpleasant, banned, or otherwise unusable. (In the wick check the "damaged" examples count as misuse, maybe it can be subsplit to a different trope, or included to this one)

Edited by Amonimus on Apr 18th 2024 at 1:03:22 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Agreeing with this. I'm thinking that if destruction gets to be included into the scope, it should be seamless i.e. show in some way that the destruction ruins it for everyone else rather than there just being destruction by itself. For example there's a Ben 10 short where Gwen takes Ben to a museum and shows off a collection of priceless eggs that are one-of-a-kind, and then it accidentally gets destroyed by Ben (he tries very hard to save them and at first succeeds, but him transforming back into a human undoes his efforts because it forces him to drop the eggs he's holding) which gets Gwen mad; the takeaway is that it makes it clear the eggs were a remarkable sight only seen in that particular museum, and that by destroying them no one else would get to see that uniqueness again. In contrast, a bunch of the wicks I've seen mentioning stuff getting destroyed didn't really elaborate, being more along the lines of things simply getting damaged or destroyed rather than it happening and having some sort of In-Universe indicator that this single event has led to an outcome where everyone gets "punished".

As for the names, I'm not really feeling either, though Ruined Because Of One Jerk might be better of the two (although "jerk" seems to imply the person has to be, well, a jerk to qualify). I'd perhaps suggest something like Someone Ruins It For Everyone, or Ruined By One For All.

Edited by Eggy0 on Apr 18th 2024 at 12:24:08 PM

to Rename and Rewrite

If we do that, we should split off the correct examples into another trope. If there aren't enough for another trope, we may also be able to take some overlapping examples from Threaten All to Find One.

Edited by FSharp on Apr 18th 2024 at 5:02:24 AM

Welcome to Corneria!

Thanks for putting in the work to do this. I'm the one who made the previous TRS thread but didn't end up feeling like doing a whole wick check, despite how much this annoyed me.

I came across this trope after having already seen Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things, which is why the misuse for "valuable object gets destroyed" baffled me so much, since the Fandom page is purely about collective consequences (a fandom losing some source of interaction with a creator) and has nothing to do with destruction.

Eh. The trope was made in 2009, before the current launching requirements were established, and in any case a run through the repair shop abundantly stands in for the process of public review and consensus that the current launch pad is intended to provide. I don't think that this is a problem that really needs to be focused on.

That makes sense. This is the first time I do TRS so I'm not completely familiar with what can be done with tropes; I mainly brought up the idea to cut it thinking that's what could happen, but realistically expected a rename and rewrite more.

Edited by Eggy0 on Apr 18th 2024 at 8:09:33 PM

Interestingly, the trope that was created in 2009 was "something gets damaged or destroyed", which seems very different from the current definition. Sometime between July 2009 and April 2010 it was changed to be more general but still with an emphasis on destruction. The description was then substantially expanded into something resembling its current state in July of 2011. So basically, this is a good example of why TLP is required for new tropes these days, as well as why TRS is so important. (One could say... why the regulars of the Wild West era can't have nice things?)

It's actually possible this means the current name is viable if misuse stemming from the 2009 definition just needs to be cleaned up, but it's definitely Stock Phrase-y and not as intuitive as one might like.

Edited by MorganWick on Apr 19th 2024 at 8:20:02 AM

Interesting, I had no idea it once was about destruction. I do think the name isn't very intuitive in this case; when I hear "this is why we can't have nice things", I associate it with people losing or not getting something they want, like or need because a small subset (like an individual or group) did something sufficiently bad that having said thing is rendered impossible or unviable (e.g. it would enable further abuse if it's had). If it were to remain about destruction and get a new name, then the first idea that comes to mind for said name is Ruination Of Valuables.

That being said, would a split be in order then and have Why We Can't Have Nice Things disambiguated since it does appear to have two concepts being used interchangably? Although part of me is worried the "destruction of priceless things" concept might become chairs or a ZCE magnet, but I might be wrong on that front so I wanted to bring it up anyway and see what other people think. In any case however I really think the name should in general be changed at the very least, considering that it seems to have certainly attracted the Stock Phrase use.

I feel like "destroyed", "ruined" and "got banned" are very similar, yet different outcomes for the same premise. Either we keep them together or split off.

Edited by Amonimus on Apr 19th 2024 at 10:01:59 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

In that case, I have an idea if they get split with theoretical names:

• Ruination Of Valuables: Something valuable that attracts people's attention and awe, such as a priceless museum item or remarkable landmark, becomes subject to damage and/or destruction.
• Someone Ruins It For Everyone: A good thing gets taken away from the majority because a minor part of it (such as an individual) did something bad enough to warrant having to take it away, even if the majority was using it responsibly.

This is by no means a hard and fast idea, just something I wanted to spitball and see if it may work.

First one sounds like a sister trope to a lot of "valuable item is a [narrative] magnet for destruction" like Doomed Autographed Item, Carrying a Cake, and Priceless Ming Vase, though it sounds like this proposed definition is focused on the special item's tragic loss for future viewers/users.

We already have Monumental Damage.

That's the general idea — something valuable gets lost, or at the very least gets damaged in a way that it becomes worthless, preventing people from enjoying it in the future. I could also potentially see these other tropes being part of a disambig if we go that route; for instance, the Film.Moonraker example is already in Priceless Ming Vase, and the example that wound up in the wick check reads similarly if not the same (something is established as very valuable, and then gets destroyed), so we may be able to relocate some examples to that trope if they're not already there. Although if there are existing tropes that sufficiently cover what the first proposed split trope is trying to achieve, then we might not need to make that one and instead disambig between one new trope and the existing ones?

EDIT: I was completely unaware of that trope. In that case we might not need the first proposed split trope after all (since the examples could probably go in either Priceless Ming Vase or Monumental Damage), only the one for collective consequences.

Edited by Eggy0 on Apr 19th 2024 at 9:51:28 PM

Right, then. Just the "collective consequences" proposal.

Okay, I've started writing a draft for the second one. Do I put it in a sandbox and should it also go into TLP afterwards?

Hold up - we should first gather agreement about what to do about Why We Can't Have Nice Things. Unless responses are overwhelmingly in one direction, this usually means a crowner for voting.

Why We Can't Have Nice Things should be made a disambig page, given that there are already tropes about valuable artifacts being destroyed. It can also link to the similarly named Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Apr 20th 2024 at 10:06:31 AM

Kirby is awesome.

Disambig

Gotcha, I misunderstood what we were gonna do. I still have a draft in case we go that route so it'll be ready to pop if we do one new trope.

I agree a disambig might be in order.

Been a few days, and since a few are calling in favor of a disambig I'll propose that it be disambiguated between the following if we do it:

• Monumental Damage: A well-known monument or landmark is subject to destruction by the bad guys.
• Priceless Ming Vase: An item is established as very valuable, and then subsequently damaged or destroyed.
• Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things: The creator withdraws from the fanbase or punishes them due to the vocal minority becoming a danger in some way.
• The already proposed trope, for examples about other people being punished or losing out on something because of an individual ruining it in some way (what the phrase "why we can't have nice things" actually means).

Are there any other tropes that could possibly fit into this?

Enough time for discussion has passed that we can put what action should be taken to a vote. The possibilities for this so far are 1. Rename + rewrite or 2. Disambiguate with the tropes there. Any other actions suggested?

Edited by Tabs on Apr 26th 2024 at 10:30:07 AM

to renaming plus rewriting.