History Administrivia / ThreeRulesOfThree

In case you were asking, [[RuleOfThree Why Three?]][[note]]''(mumbles)'' [[MathematiciansAnswer actually nine]], since there are three of each... but tropability is a [[EEqualsMCHammer noncommutative]] operation, as demonstrated by the fact that Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs, but not the reverse.[[/note]]

In case you were asking, [[RuleOfThree Why Three?]][[labelnote:*]]\\
\\
''(mumbles)'' [[MathematiciansAnswer actually nine]], since there are three of each... but tropability is a [[EEqualsMCHammer noncommutative]] operation, as demonstrated by the fact that Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs, but not the reverse.[[/labelnote]]

* The burden of proof is upon the person proposing the trope.[[note]](This means you, the person creating the TropeLaunchPad entry.)[[/note]] To prove that your concept ''is'' a trope, it's a good idea to have '''at least three solid examples''' that clearly illustrate your trope's thesis. It's better if you can find examples that are ''not'' {{subver|tedTrope}}sions or {{inver|tedTrope}}sions; this shows that you're actually proposing a trope, and not just a happenstance occurrence. In some cases, such as a DeadHorseTrope, it may not be possible to find three examples where it is played straight. There's good news though: you don't have to come up with these yourself. Use You Know That Thing Where. Other {{troper}}s will help you.

How do you know if what you have, though, really ''is'' something that you should spend time adding to the site? For those guidelines, after some debate in the community, we established the Three Rules [[DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment Of Three]]. Let's make one thing clear right now: Administrivia/ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability. We'll call them "rules", but you can think of them more as "rules of thumb" or "guidelines"--you can break them, if you want, but remember that [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment the community may alter your creation later]]. Them, as they say, is the breaks.

The bare minimum, though, remains three examples and a name: a snazzy name and three examples is a good place to start. Administrivia/WikiMagic can always take over from there.

The bare minimum, though, remains three examples and a name: a snazzy name and three examples is a good place to start. WikiMagic can always take over from there.

So, you've got a really great idea for a {{trope}}. The description--let's call it a "thesis"--is brief, punchy, and wonderfully common. Something you're sure [[Administrivia/DoWeHaveThisOne we don't have]], either because you ''Did'' The Research or because you asked around. So, you did the smart thing: you posted your trope idea on the TropeLaunchPad, our official page for composing idea drafts. You know, brainstorming. It isn't essential, but it sure is encouraged.

How do you know if what you have, though, really ''is'' something that you should spend time adding to the site? For those guidelines, after some debate in the community, we established the Three Rules [[DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment Of Three]]. Let's make one thing clear right now: Administrivia/ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability. We'll call them "rules", but you can think of them more as "rules of thumb" or "guidelines" -- you can break them, if you want, but remember that [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment the community may alter your creation later]]. Them, as they say, is the breaks.

* Nobody built Rome in a day, right? Most trope theses are born rough: They need sanding on the edges, polish for the surface, and a good dose of that lighthearted tongue-in-cheek humor we so love 'round these parts. As such, a trope must be '''left on the TropeLaunchPad for three days''' before you try to launch it. This lets the community add their own insight, request clarification, and maybe point out that, yes, we already [-DO-] Have That One. Today this rule is enforced by the software; the "launch" button won't appear until three days have passed.

Each of the rules comes with caveats, of course. Easily 90% of edits are example-adds, so you may not need three examples. Not every name is completely transparent or witty: we love our in-jokes, and some titles are dull as dishwater. The most frequently broken rule, though, is (or was) the third one. Three days can be an eternity in cyberspace -- if tropers are jumping on their metaphorical desks and yelling "Administrivia/HowDidWeMissThisOne" or "Administrivia/JustLaunchItAlready," you'll just have to wait three days to hit that Launch button.

This helps prevent a flood of duplicate [-TropeLaunchPad entries-] being launched prematurely; there can be only so many iterations of a given trope. Sometimes, the description and examples for a given subtrope will find a better home on an existing page. It also gives others a chance to weigh in; it may not be until the 15th response to a popular new trope proposal that someone recalls the existing trope.

How do you know if what you have, though, really ''is'' something that you should spend time adding to the site? For those guidelines, after some debate in the community, we established the Three Rules [[DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment Of Three]]. Let's make one thing clear right now: Administrivia/ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability. We'll call them "rules", but you can think of them more as "rules of thumb" or "guidelines" -- you can break them, if you want, but remember that [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment the community may alter your creation later]]. Them, as they say, is the breaks.

* What good's a trope without a name? An [[Administrivia/NamingATrope ideal trope name]], it's generally agreed, should be punchy but [[{{SPOON}} not too opaque]], understandable [[JustForFun/FoRKS but witty]]. (And a good name can be both at the same time: see PolitenessJudo, for example.) Now, different people will have different opinions on what's ''too'' clever for its own good. How do you know when you have a winning title? The guideline is this: when '''three tropers can agree on a single name''', it's pretty solid. Sometimes, three tropers may agree on more than one name; it's usually better to go with the majority in this case.

* The burden of proof is upon the person proposing the trope.[[note]](This means you, the person creating the TropeLaunchPad entry.)[[/note]] To prove that your concept ''is'' a trope, it's a good idea to have '''at least three solid examples''' that clearly illustrate your trope's thesis. It's better if you can find examples that are ''not'' [[SubvertedTrope subversions]] or [[InvertedTrope inversions]]; this shows that you're actually proposing a trope, and not just a happenstance occurrence. In some cases, such as a DeadHorseTrope, it may not be possible to find three examples where it is played straight. There's good news though: you don't have to come up with these yourself. Use You Know That Thing Where. Other {{troper}}s will help you.

* What good's a trope without a name? An [[Administrivia/NamingATrope ideal trope name]], it's generally agreed, should be punchy but [[{{SPOON}} not too opaque]], understandable [[FoRKS but witty]]. (And a good name can be both at the same time: see PolitenessJudo, for example.) Now, different people will have different opinions on what's ''too'' clever for its own good. How do you know when you have a winning title? The guideline is this: when '''three tropers can agree on a single name''', it's pretty solid. Sometimes, three tropers may agree on more than one name; it's usually better to go with the majority in this case.

So, you've got a really great idea for a {{trope}}. The description--let's call it a "thesis"--is brief, punchy, and wonderfully common. Something you're sure [[Administrivia/DoWeHaveThisOne we don't have]], either because you ''Did'' The Research or because you asked around. So, you did the smart thing: you posted your trope idea on [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/ykttw.php You Know That Thing Where]], our official page for composing idea drafts. You know, brainstorming. It isn't essential, but it sure is encouraged.

* The burden of proof is upon the person proposing the trope.[[note]](This means you, the person creating the YKTTW.)[[/note]] To prove that your concept ''is'' a trope, it's a good idea to have '''at least three solid examples''' that clearly illustrate your trope's thesis. It's better if you can find examples that are ''not'' [[SubvertedTrope subversions]] or [[InvertedTrope inversions]]; this shows that you're actually proposing a trope, and not just a happenstance occurrence. In some cases, such as a DeadHorseTrope, it may not be possible to find three examples where it is played straight. There's good news though: you don't have to come up with these yourself. Use You Know That Thing Where. Other {{troper}}s will help you.

* Nobody built Rome in a day, right? Most trope theses are born rough: They need sanding on the edges, polish for the surface, and a good dose of that lighthearted tongue-in-cheek humor we so love 'round these parts. As such, a trope must be '''left on [[{{YKTTW}} You Know That Thing Where...]] for three days''' before you try to launch it. This lets the community add their own insight, request clarification, and maybe point out that, yes, we already [-DO-] Have That One. Today this rule is enforced by the software; the "launch" button won't appear until three days have passed.

This helps prevent a flood of duplicate [-[[{{YKTTW}} YKTTW]]-]s being launched prematurely; there can be only so many iterations of a given trope. Sometimes, the description and examples for a given subtrope will find a better home on an existing page. It also gives others a chance to weigh in; it may not be until the 15th response to a popular new trope proposal that someone recalls the existing trope.

Each of the rules comes with caveats, of course. Easily 90% of edits are example-adds, so you may not need three examples. Not every name is completely transparent or witty: we love our in-jokes, and some titles are dull as dishwater. The most frequently broken rule, though, is (or was) the third one. Three days can be an eternity in cyberspace -- if tropers are jumping on their metaphorical desks and yelling "Administrivia/HowDidWeMissThisOne?" or "Administrivia/JustLaunchItAlready", you'll just have to wait three days to hit that Launch button.

How do you know if what you have, though, really ''is'' something that you should spend time adding to the site? For those guidelines, after some debate in the community, we established the Three Rules [[DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment Of Three]]. Let's make one thing clear right now: Administrivia/ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability. We'll call them "rules", but you can think of them more as "rules of thumb." You can break them, if you want, but remember that [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment the community may alter your creation later]]. Them, as they say, is the breaks.

* The burden of proof is upon the person proposing the trope. To prove that your concept ''is'' a trope, it's a good idea to have '''at least three solid examples''' that clearly illustrate your trope's thesis. It's better if you can find examples that are ''not'' [[SubvertedTrope subversions]] or [[InvertedTrope inversions]]. This shows that you're actually proposing a trope, and not just a happenstance occurrence. In some cases, such as a DeadHorseTrope, it may not be possible to find three examples where it is played straight. There's good news though: you don't have to come up with these yourself. Use You Know That Thing Where. Other {{troper}}s will help you.

* Most trope theses are born rough. They need sanding on the edges, polish for the surface, and a good dose of that lighthearted tongue-in-cheek humor we so love 'round these parts. As such, a trope must be '''left on [[{{YKTTW}} You Know That Thing Where...]] for three days'''. This lets the community request clarification, add their own insight, and maybe point out that, yes, we already [-DO-] Have That One. Today this rule is enforced by the software; the "launch" button won't appear until three days have passed.


Each of the rules comes with caveats, of course. Easily 90% of edits are example-adds, so you may not need three examples. Not every name is completely transparent or witty: we love our in-jokes, and some titles are dull as dishwater. The most frequently broken rule, though, is (or was) the third one. Three days can be an eternity in cyberspace. If tropers are jumping on their metaphorical desks and yelling, "Administrivia/HowDidWeMissThisOne?" or "Administrivia/JustLaunchItAlready", you'll just have to wait three days to pull the trigger.

How do you know if what you have, though, really ''is'' something that you should spend time adding to the site? For those guidelines, after some debate in the community, we established the Three Rules [[DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment Of Three]]. Let's make one thing clear right now: ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability. We'll call them "rules", but you can think of them more as "rules of thumb." You can break them, if you want, but remember that [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment the community may alter your creation later]]. Them, as they say, is the breaks.

So, you've got a really great idea for a Trope. The description--let's call it a "thesis"--is brief, punchy, and wonderfully common. Something you're sure [[Administrivia/DoWeHaveThisOne we don't have]], either because you ''Did'' The Research or because you asked around. So, you did the smart thing: you posted your Trope idea on [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/ykttw.php You Know That Thing Where]], our official page for composing idea drafts. You know, brainstorming. It isn't essential, but it sure is encouraged.

* The burden of proof is upon the person proposing the Trope. To prove that your concept ''is'' a Trope, it's a good idea to have '''at least three solid examples''' that clearly illustrate your Trope's Thesis. It's better if you can find examples that are ''not'' [[SubvertedTrope subversions]] or [[InvertedTrope inversions]]. This shows that you're actually proposing a Trope, and not just a happenstance occurrence. In some cases, such as a DeadHorseTrope, it may not be possible to find three examples where it is played straight. There's good news though: you don't have to come up with these yourself. Use You Know That Thing Where. Other Tropers will help you.

* What good's a Trope without a name? An [[Administrivia/NamingATrope ideal Trope name]], it's generally agreed, should be punchy but [[{{SPOON}} not too opaque]], understandable [[FoRKS but witty]]. (And a good name can be both at the same time: see PolitenessJudo, for example.) Now, different people will have different opinions on what's ''too'' clever for its own good. How do you know when you have a winning title? The guideline is this: when '''three Tropers can agree on a single name''', it's pretty solid. Sometimes, three Tropers may agree on more than one name; it's usually better to go with the majority in this case.

* Most Trope theses are born rough. They need sanding on the edges, polish for the surface, and a good dose of that lighthearted tongue-in-cheek humor we so love 'round these parts. As such, a Trope must be '''left on [[{{YKTTW}} You Know That Thing Where...]] for three days'''. This lets the community request clarification, add their own insight, and maybe point out that, yes, we already [-DO-] Have That One. Today this rule is enforced by the software; the "launch" button won't appear until three days have passed.


Each of the rules comes with caveats, of course. Easily 90% of edits are example-adds, so you may not need three examples. Not every name is completely transparent or witty: we love our in-jokes, and some titles are dull as dishwater. The most frequently broken rule, though, is (or was) the third one. Three days can be an eternity in cyberspace. If Tropers are jumping on their metaphorical desks and yelling, "Administrivia/HowDidWeMissThisOne?" or "Administrivia/JustLaunchItAlready", you'll just have to wait three days to pull the trigger.

* What good's a Trope without a name? An [[NamingATrope ideal Trope name]], it's generally agreed, should be punchy but [[{{SPOON}} not too opaque]], understandable [[FoRKS but witty]]. (And a good name can be both at the same time: see PolitenessJudo, for example.) Now, different people will have different opinions on what's ''too'' clever for its own good. How do you know when you have a winning title? The guideline is this: when '''three Tropers can agree on a single name''', it's pretty solid. Sometimes, three Tropers may agree on more than one name; it's usually better to go with the majority in this case.

''(mumbles)'' [[MathematiciansAnswer actually nine]], since there are three of each... but tropability is a [[EEqualsMCHammer noncommutative]] operation, as demonstrated by the fact that PeopleSitOnChairs, but not the reverse.[[/labelnote]]

Each of the rules comes with caveats, of course. Easily 90% of edits are example-adds, so you may not need three examples. Not every name is completely transparent or witty: we love our in-jokes, and some titles are dull as dishwater. The most frequently broken rule, though, is (or was) the third one. Three days can be an eternity in cyberspace. If Tropers are jumping on their metaphorical desks and yelling, "HowDidWeMissThisOne?" or "Administrivia/JustLaunchItAlready", you'll just have to wait three days to pull the trigger.

Each of the rules comes with caveats, of course. Easily 90% of edits are example-adds, so you may not need three examples. Not every name is completely transparent or witty: we love our in-jokes, and some titles are dull as dishwater. The most frequently broken rule, though, is (or was) the third one. Three days can be an eternity in cyberspace. If Tropers are jumping on their metaphorical desks and yelling, "HowDidWeMissThisOne?" or "JustLaunchItAlready", you'll just have to wait three days to pull the trigger.