Discussion Main / ThePowerOfTheSun

Plants vs. Zombies uses sun as its currency to plant and improve its lawn defense effectively making the whole game Powered by The Sun.

• Make sure the pun stays.

In what way are they not off topic? To begin with, Aversions are not notable in of themselves. The entries just deleted are straight up talking about other sources of power. Which is unrelated to this trope entirely.

I made two assumptions that I suppose were unwarranted:

1. The reader understood that wind energy comes indirectly from the sun, making it a special case of the entry with this passage: "Nearly everything on Earth is indirectly powered by this nuclear fusion reaction."

2. The reader understood that human fusion power was routinely labelled as applying the power of the sun — here, for example: World’s Largest Fusion Reactor will Harness the Power of the Sun.

In case 1, I simply tried to explain that it wasn't completely true.

In case 2, I tried to explain that it was completely false.

Perhaps you'll accept it if (in case 1) I declare wind-power as an indirect manifestation of the sun's power, and add a short sentence of the partial aversion. Case 2 would be presented as the trope discussed, and then stated as false.

In any case, I'm going to try that. And if it gets disputed, perhaps it should be taken to a moderator.

And again I ask, what does that have to do with the trope? Aversions are still not notable. And you're not even talking about averting the trope, you're talking about averting something tangentially related to this trope.

Discussion of the topic is still discussion, even if the discussion is mistaken.

And you might check my replacement entries, and address further objections to those. I tried to address your objections.

Okay, a few problems. First is the fact you readded things while discussion is ongoing. Don't do that.

Articles like that are not discussing "harnessing the power of the sun" in the sense that this trope is describing (unless they're grossly inaccurate). Grammatically the statements are similar, but we're not robots, we can tell from context they're referring to something entirely different. Don't trope based off of the article's name, trope based off of the article. Moreover, examples should not be general. If you want to cite an article that's claiming that it's harnessing the power of the sun that would be one thing (though see my last statement on why that's wrong), but it wouldn't go in the Real Life section. Unless they're actually claiming to be building a miniature sun (a la Spider-Man 2) I don't see that happening, but I could be wrong. You're right, a Discussed Trope is a thing, but the entry would go where the trope was discussed, not in Real Life.

And please take a look at the article's description. If it specifically says that solar panels don't count, then an aversion of wind energy certainly doesn't merit a place on the page.

As I said, I tried to address your objections. And I didn't readd the entries, my new entries were very different from the ones you originally deleted, and I tried to accommodate your objection.

I was also about to correct my entry on human fusion by inserting my link the discussion entry above, when I discovered that you deleted the entries — not on their own merits, but because (supposedly) they were reinserts.

Entries I'm trying to enter, for the benefit of a moderator:

• Human's nuclear fusion energy is routinely described as the power of the sun, for example, in this article: World’s Largest Fusion Reactor will Harness the Power of the Sun. However, the nuclear reactions are completely different.

(Under the entry with the sentence, "Nearly everything on Earth is indirectly powered by this nuclear fusion reaction.")

• Wind power is mostly an example of indirect power of the sun, caused by water evaporation, air warmed at the ground rising, and other things. Not all wind power originates from the sun. Some power comes from the rotational kinetic energy of the earth.

Okay, thank you for reminding me of that passage. I agree, the wind-power example stays out.

Maybe the "discussed trope" entry doesn't belong under Real Life, either.

I think I'll abandon this trope for now, although I'm going to think about that passage's reference to nuclear fusion. As I've stated before, human's nuclear fusion reactions are completely different from the sun's.

I don't think you read my issues with the Discussed Trope thing. That entry, for example, if it is valid (and I still don't believe it would be, but I'll leave that up to other tropers to break our tie) wouldn't be Real Life, but would be Website.

And the other issue with the wind thing... charitably, if we want to consider it relevant to the page at hand it's clearly natter as it's discussion in the main page. You're seeking to "correct" the above example which is never allowed.

I appreciate that you want a quick resolution to this, so do I. But until we see eye-to-eye you're not supposed to readd contested content. Even if you think you're addressing someone's problem, you might not be and it comes across as being in bad faith.

I do hope I don't come across as being too harsh. Let me know if there's anything else that needs clarification.

Eh, too much flames, not enough rays of light. Doc Ock ironically is doing it more clearly despite having the same problem.