This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
alliterator: Okay, why was this renamed? I didn't see it on the rename forum and it certainly didn't need to be renamed at all. Tropes Are Not Bad was perfectly understandable — Tropes Are Tools could be used as a redirect, but don't rename the entire freakin' thing. EDIT: Well, apparently Tropes Are Not Good and Tropes Are Not Bad were merged. Why? I think shorter pages are easier to read and they didn't really need to be merged.
Some Sort Of Troper: Fast Eddie asked for it. It came from the trope talk forum. He wanted bad and good taken into one page about what trope actually are and then just cut the others. I suggested we actually keep the parts relating to common troper mistakes and put in the redirects so people could still use them in arguments.
I purposefully did a crude job on it so that we could look at what it might be as one page and see how we might go from there. I still think the other pages would be useful but some parts would be moved over to here. I think "fiction is not realistic", "there is nothing new under the sun" and " tropes may be badly written" are better off here.
Sylocat: Well, I brought back my favorite quote...
Joseph Leito: Frankly, I think we should just port the entire Ta NG and Ta NB pages here, more-or-less. I moved what, in my opinion, is an incredibly important section.
Big T: Shouldn't this be Tropes Are Just Tools? Without the word "Just", you are merely defining Trope, which has already been done.
Some Sort Of Troper: That doesn't make it a definition, it makes it a description of its nature. I know a guy called Jeff. Jeff Is Black, I haven't defined Jeff. Jeff rides a bicycle, the Bike Is Blue, I haven't defined what a bicycle is. Our purpose here is to make a statement about the nature of tropes.
Avatar Zero: Where's that quote from? "Action" isn't much of a clue.
- It looks like "Action" Mr. Dragon Goes to Washington (1999)
. And here is the episode in question on Hulu.
Ronnie: ...excuse me, but since when is Monty Python dark and edgy?
Some Sort Of Troper: Right, enough of the quotation inflation. The action one is huge and doesn't really match the point that well. The other two have their advantages and disadvantages. The Pratchett one uses the word cliche but makes the point about tools, on the other hand the Sidekicks one gets the point about the difference between formula and cliche and about how formula works. Maybe we'll just go for one, maybe we'll have both. I'll keep it to the one that says the word tools for the moment but if we can actually get some discussion (like, with words and waiting etc) on it then I'm highly flexible on the matter. Just flipping them and actions of such an ilk will be a declaration of Edit War.
Some Sort Of Troper: I removed Vree's additions (as seen below) because I felt a) they missed the point of the purpose in some cases and b) since the page is part of a clarification of our view point as well as a warning against common troper mistakes, a change to it should probably be discussed beforehand.
I point out that the change was in Tropes Are Not Good section, that is a section where we state how and why certain view points that lead to misplaced Entry Pimp examples are wrong. The points don't reflect that, they also repeat points made earlier in the introductory text but in the bold statement... explaination way. Well hey, we've already said originality is always needed and that's there's nothing new under the sun. We have advice that's geared for writing but the purpose of the page is to inform editing. I also think that the last one is really putting more on "us2 than is right.
