Did Not Do The Research renamed to Inaccuracies Index per TRS thread
Renamed? What happened to it? Both "Did Not Do The Research" and "Inaccuracies Index" are locked & red-linked, and the last post on the "TRS thread" was 3-Sep-12. Why is the Inaccuracies Index blank with no History?
Inaccuracies Index was cut for having a bad name and for being a duplicate to the Artistic License tropes.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Wait, what? Why was the title changed? What's wrong with, 'Did Not Do the Research?' Is this some attempt to be 'politically correct'? I really don't see a problem with the title, and, quite frankly, 'Did Not Do the Research' is considerably more amusing then 'Inaccuries Index' any day. I don't mean to be rude or offensive; I just really have no idea why it was changed, or why there would be a need to change it.
Hide / Show Replies
It was attracting misuse as a trope or being overused as a phrase. This wasn't a good name either, and it has now been cut as redundant to the Artistic License section.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Is it acceptable to link to this page if it's deliberately invoked by a work? I'm thinking of The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare Abridged, which plays it for laughs by touting Jess as a preeminent Shakespearean scholar on the strength of having read two books on the subject - one of which was intended for preschoolers.
Please consider changing it back to "you fail at x forever", because labeling every flagrant disregard for how stuff works as "artistic license" validates the stupid mistakes, promotes lazy writing, and invariably leads to the stupid masses proclaiming that "the complainer is always wrong" to those who chose to point out said mistakes (you know the type, the ones who like to use terms like nit picker whenever someone points out a flaw in their precious plot).
Hide / Show Replies
That belongs in TRS, not here. The old name was leading to misuse, IIRC.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
All these topics relating to areas of study, but none about education itself? It seems like fiction often screws up in its depiction of schools.. making the subject matter way ahead or behind the appropriate grade level, confusing the authority and duties of faculty (everpresent principals participating in everything), ludicrous class trips... that kind of thing.
I can think of an example. In a lot of crime shows involving an old bullet in a tree they'll find the bullet higher up than it was originally. Trees grow outwards, but they only get taller from the cells at the tip. This is even done in shows with crime solving geniuses who should know better.
Hide / Show Replies
I've never heard of that happening once in a show. Do you have any specific examples?
Something I have seen many times over the years in WW 2 documentary videos showing the Red Army.
A common lapse in these videos is the narration not in sync with scenes. For example, the narrator talks about events taking place in 1941-42, but the soldiers shown were wearing 1943-45 uniforms. On the flip side, the narrator talks about events taking place in 1943-45, but the soldiers shown were wearing pre-1943 uniforms. Similar lapse also applies to military equipments. For example, the narrator is talking about events taking place in 1941-43, but the tanks shown were T-34/85. However, T-34, which originally started out with 76mm AT gun, was not upgraded to 85mm AT gun until 1944.
The Red Army went through a major change in uniform in 1943. Up to that point, their insignias were worn over their collars. After the change, insignias were worn over their shoulders. This change was instituted by Stalin to raise the prestige of the Red Army, even though the shoulder boards used in the new uniforms resembled the ones worn during the tsarist times. Not to mention, the communists have been pretty much against just about everything symbolic of the tsarist past!
Hide / Show Replies
Well its hard to find the archival footage relevant to the narration. Its not that hard to use a little suspension of belief when watching them. As long as it kinda fits the right context and the message is conveyed. I'll be more concerned to see footage of Crete in a documentary about Tobruk.
On another matter were there runs of mid-war 76mm guns around in 44?
For Glorious Sociopathy! Peace Through Firepower! My Halo/ Foz crossover fic http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7082058/1/Spartan_of_Zero
The Internet Wanderer
Why have these indices been changed from "You Fail X Forever" to "Artistic License"?
Edited by Luigifan Hide / Show Replies
Because, for the most part, the distinction between "the writer dun screwed up", "the writer simply didn't care", and "the writer cared, but realized it would be better to simply ignore it in order to tell a better story" is subjective (or at least impossible to determine without being involved in the writing process of the work in question yourself)... but the ultimate point of all three of those subjective distinctions is that most writers care more about telling a good story than about factual accuracy.
The 'you fail X forever' names were accusatory and had the implicit assumption that an author who skimps on the factual accuracy is doing something wrong. There's not really any basis for that as a general assumption — if you're reading a Dan Brown novel for its factual accuracy, well, really, that says more about you than about Dan Brown, doesn't it?
Hence, 'artistic license', which simply says that the author ignored the facts, without passing judgment on whether it was deliberate or not, or on whether it was a good or a bad thing for them to ignore the facts.
Edited by Aquillion
But "You Fail X Forever" was so much funnier! And easier to link to!
If that's the case, we should make two separate pages: one for when the author obviously didn't care, like an Anachronism Stew such as Shanghai Knights or Shakespeare In Love. That one could be called "Artistic License".
But if somebody who is ostensibly reputable in a field makes a dumbass mistake, THEN they need to be called out on it, and with language harsher than "Artistic license". It doesn't have to be You Fail X Forever, but the fact that a screwup has been made should be acknowledged in the Trope name.
Flying a plane is no different from riding a bicycle; it's just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
"The 'you fail X forever' names were accusatory"
Yes! That's why they are funny.
"Hence, 'artistic license', which simply says that the author ignored the facts, without passing judgment on whether it was deliberate or not, or on whether it was a good or a bad thing for them to ignore the facts."
I don't think that's true. "Artistic License" in fact specifies that the author did do what he did deliberately. There is no such thing as accidental artistic license. It's a conscious decision. And not only is it a conscious decision, it's a term that carries a positive connotation—that the author made a decision to ignore facts for the sake of a better story. The Wikipedia entry for artistic license says that it is "made by an artist to improve a piece of art". Essentially it is the exact opposite of You Fail X Forever.
I'm probably going to get in trouble for this, as I got a nastygram from a moderator, the previous discussion thread was deleted, and the thread that I tried to start in the forums was locked. But I'd either go back to the old index name, which was snarky and funny, or come up with a truly neutral name. "Inaccurate X", maybe.
Artistic License=/=Did Not Do The Research. This is about Did Not Do The Research. The fact that it's hard to make a distinction does not change the fact that this is about one and not the other.
Edited by ading
I'm inclined to say that this index should just be deleted. It doesn't really do anything that Did Not Do The Research doesn't do, and the "Artistic License" name, as noted above, is exactly the opposite of what the index is supposed to demonstrate. (And it actually isn't hard to make a distinction. "Artistic License" is when a writer makes a deliberate decision to change reality, like when Mel Gibson took out the bridge part of the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart. You Fail X Forever is for mistakes made from ignorance or laziness or ineptitude, like, say, Ed Wood's somewhat inaccurate take on the nature of light in "Plan 9 from Outer Space".
Yeah, I'm all for cutlisting it. But anyways, it's now supposed to include both intentional and unintentional examples. So wait, we're changing the name and the definition? Isn't that just making a new trope? If that's the case, then why not just cut and re-YKTTW it?
If it's just Did Not Do The Research about X, then why not Did Not Do The Research About X?
I agree with the disagreements to the Artistic License-X. First, You Fail X Forever sounds far better, while the current one is boring, and I thought it was for jarring mistakes and not aartistic licence, to which the former name is FAR MORE fitting (and it writing using "You fail X Forever" is far more satisfactory, and it is very catchy, self-explanatory and familiar). We already have Art Major Biology/Physics for actual artistic license, making them, according to the new definition, redundant. And this way, I do not see why this index is needed as an subindex of Hollywood Science. At the very least, I think it should be renamed to something more creative. If we really do not want to go back to "You Fail (topic) Forever" (not my opinion), what about "The (topic) Of Artistic License" (Physics Of Artistic License, History Of Artisctic License, Biology of Artistic License. etc.)? It definitly sounds much better than the bland "Artistic License-(Topic)".
Migrated to Tropers/ChloeJessica!
Do we have a trope for a completely hypothetical work, where there is no real research to do?
Migrated to Chloe Jessica!
This may have been touched on earlier, but the English broadcast of Ninja Warrior and American Ninja Warrior are guilty of this due to Midoriyama translating into "green mountain" or, in this case, "Mount Green" and the narrator/broadcast team, depending on the show, calling it "Mount Midoriyama", which translates into "Mount Green mountain".
On the one hand, he does present inaccurate information as facts, and clearly didn't bother to do any research on the subject, so he IS an example of DNDTR. On the other hand, it seems almost besides the point to call it a lack of research. He's more delusional than misinformed. Calling him an example of DNDTR is like calling Cartman on South Park an example of DNDTR because he said ginger kids don't have souls without looking into what actually causes people to be ginger first.
Believing it doesn't change the fact that he Did Not Do The Research I guess it's just that no one has gone around to it, but he is in almost every sub-trope anyway.
I'm still freaking confused. Many people keep listing Did Not Do The Research as a trope, but, however, another majority of tropers keep erasing DNDTR because it's index, which is also shown by the cast of Permanent Red Link Club. The main cricket is... there is no warning on the fact DNDTR is not a trope. On the index's page itself, that is.
Why not to put a "Please do not list this as a trope on the work's page" disclaimer then?
Edited by UnstoppableAvengers Hide / Show Replies
No need for confusion. It has been discussed some time ago and indeed Did Not Do The Research should not be treated like a trope because it is not one. Simply failing the facts at one point doesn't make a trope, we have pages for broad fields and the whole thing invites anyh nitpick as well as horrible misuse.
I've put a sign up here and I'll try to see the special efforts forum about arranging a clear out. Fortunately it actually has less wicks than I expected. I mean I once had to take out 1200 wicks for ...Or So I Heard, this is doable by a group effort.
The page image (An image of New Mexico with the Disney character Jose Carioca on it) is kind of "Did Not Do The Research" in a way. The points it makes are true (Jose isn't Mexican and neither is New Mexico), but the image is from a set of pins shaped like American states with Disney characters on them; other pins in the set include Arthur from The Sword In The Stone on New Hampshire, Pumba from The Lion King on Arkansas, and Buzz Lightyear on Wymong. The pins clearly aren't meant to present the characters as representatives of the states.
It's easy, mmkay?
This title doesn't make so much sense. How about an actual rename to Artistic License Index?
At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...
This is the thread (now locked) where the name change from "You Fail X Forever" to "Artistic License" was discussed.
It really annoys me when name changes are discussed and executed without a link on the trope page itself, whether I agree with the name change or not. "You Fail X Forever" *was* a lot funnier, but "Artistic License" is fine by me as it can be interpreted either objectively or sarcastically.
Vulpes Zerda
Why are some of the articles named "X goof" and other "artistic license X"?
"X goof" also sounds really bad.
Edited by Aminatep I will consume not only your flesh, but your very soul.
I see the thread regarding the rename was deleted.
It would be super if there were somewhere on the website that we were allowed to have this conversation.
Why do we have Fluffy Cloud Heaven and Fire and Brimstone Hell here? The two are actually fairly common depictions of the afterlife, at least in Christianity. The Bible clearly indicates a Fire and Brimstone Hell, however, Fluffy Cloud Heaven is supposed to be the best indication of paradise we can depict. It's only a case of research failure if you don't believe in it (which doesn't necessarily mean one is an atheist). Can someone explain why we have them there?
Okay, I read it; it's the Theme Park Version, that's why.
Edited by Ju
Is there something that fits "Somewhere an Explosives Technician is weeping"?
I noticed this after following a link coming from "no idea how C4 works".
Missed Moment of Awesome: Why don't we call the index "You Fail Indexing Forever"?
Edited by HydroGlobus
I was just watching the still unaired No Ordinary Family pilot, where the characters go to Belem, Brazil, just to show a skyline there is a sea of forest, unreal for a somewhat big city, and a strange number of '50s cars, like Cuba that we know from fiction, but not at all like Brazil.
But where would I put those examples? There's so many subtroupes...
I'm surprised not to see a "Schizophrenia = multiple personality disorder" trope. I can't count how many TV shows and movies and made for TV movies conflated the two. Stargate SG-1 writers even seemed to look up the clinical definition of the latter and have Amanda Tapping use it to describe the former.
I think there's enough for an environment failure page. Top of the list should be Captain Planet. Then, anything that predicts the end of the world. We should probably avoid mentioning CO 2 at all to prevent endless flame wars, though.
What avatar?
Fictional DNDTR? (For example, Many Imperial historians ignoring Jurgen)
Hide / Show Replies
Just to ask: Shouldn't there be an article You Fail Mathematics Forever? Volunteers anyone? Any film or TV-show which shows a blackboard full of equations should provide ample material in addition to what actually transpires. Wasn't there a Law And Order Criminal Intent episode showing a Stephen Hawking substitute (wheelchair and all) trying and failing to discover the Theory of Everything?
Hide / Show Replies
It's my opinion that Did Not Do The Research is still a useful index. The issue is not with the name, but with the usage. If it was being misused, then the page introduction should be edited to clarify the usage and restrict it to its intended meaning.
One example of Did Not Do The Research is in my opinion so obvious as to illustrate the problem with removing the index: Spelling and grammar. Despite the fact that usage and wont cause acceptable spellings and grammar usage to change over time, this does not remove the fact that certain usages are either misspellings or grammatically incorrect, making all of them examples of "Did Not Do The Research, spelling or grammar". Less obvious examples exist but this seems to be the most obvious.
Perhaps more pragmatically, I believe that Did Not Do The Research should apply where a particular work is not intending the example to be an Acceptable Break From Reality but instead intends the example to be Hard Science (even within an otherwise sci-fi setting).
For example in one of Heinlein's stories he assumed that computers would not only always require binary input and only give binary output, but also assumed that humans would do all of the mathematics and simply feed the results into the "computers", making the computers nothing but a complex servo-system and not actual computers at all. This was in fact the entire basis of the story and the major plot point.
One of the reasons why computers were named so was because they replaced the humans, named "computers", who used to specialise in mathematics calculations. Heinlein either ignored the research or (more likely) didn't do it in the first place.
For this reason, among others, I advocate for the return of the Did Not Do The Research index, perhaps with more restrictive use guidelines.
Absent-minded professor and Neverwinter Nights DM