Line #45 Sandbox/HowToRepairATrope


1	[[EitherOrTitle ...or "Five Habits of Highly Successful Trope Repair Shop Threads"]]
2
3	Generally speaking, a successful trope repair tends to go through five phases of discussion:
4	# Is there a problem?
5	# What's causing the problem?
6	# What would be a good solution?
7	# Which solution is the best?
8	# Okay, let's go do that, then.
9
10	!Phase 1: Is there a problem?
11
12	First things first: If a trope is broken, it won't be functioning properly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Before the discussion begins, check to make sure it's ''actually'' not functional.
13
14	It's important to have a clear and concrete problem to point to '''before''' starting a discussion--it provides crucial evidence to guide the rest of the repair process. In other words, you can't diagnose the disease without knowing the patient's symptoms.
15
16	In Phase 1, we're looking for problems that are ''objectively'' present (or at least not in dispute) and hurting the trope in some way.
17
18	[[folder:Examples]]
19	* '''Description/example discrepancy:''' Its examples and/or wicks don't match the trope description.
20	* '''Underuse:''' It has failed to attract any usage, and its Administrivia/{{wick}} and {{inbound link}} counts are low.
21	* '''Complaining:''' Its example section is dominated by Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike.
22	[[/folder]]
23
24	What we ''don't'' want are problems that rely on subjective interpretation--for example, an JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant isn't a good basis for a thread. Similarly, if you're not sure whether or not there's a problem, don't come to the Trope Repair Shop asking "Hey, do you guys think this is a problem?" It's unproductive to start a thread with a debate about whether or not the thread should exist.
25
26	Ideally, the first post in the thread will present all the relevant evidence so that we can get right to Phase 2.
27
28	!!!For smaller issues
29
30	Some minor repair actions are below the Trope Repair Shop's radar. If it's more of a tune-up than a full repair, chances are it goes somewhere else.
31
32	[[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13287249110A49840100 What Goes Where on the Forums]] gives a rundown on all the different places you can bring issues to (although there should probably be an Administrivia page too; someone should get on that). If that doesn't help, head over to AskTheTropers and ask. We don't bite.
33
34	!Phase 2: What's causing the problem?
35
36	In Phase 2, the goal is to pin down what's causing the problem. Going back to the medical analogy, we want to know what the disease is before we prescribe a cure.
37
38	The things we're looking for in this phase aren't inherently problematic, and can occur on perfectly healthy pages--however, it's easy for them to get out of hand. Some examples:
39
40	[[folder:Examples that probably belong on a separate page]]
41	!!Administrivia/EverythingsWorseWithSnowclones
42
43	Snowclone titles can link a group of tropes together, but a bad snowclone can chain a trope to a group where it doesn't belong.
44
45	Bad snowclones are often marked by [[Administrivia/SquarePegRoundTrope misuse]] in the Administrivia/{{wick}}s. The typical solution is to rename the trope, although Administrivia/{{Trope Transplant}}s aren't unheard of.
46
47
48	!!Administrivia/RidiculouslySimilarTrope
49
50	It's possible for two tropes to be very close and still have meaningful differences, but sometimes a troper creates a duplicate trope (not realizing another version already exists) or a "Administrivia/TheSameButMoreSpecific" variant without a [[Administrivia/IsThisTropable tropable]] distinction.
51
52	Duplicate tropes can usually be identified by their descriptions alone, but if you're not sure, check to see how many of the examples appear on both pages. The typical solution is to merge the tropes together, [[Administrivia/CreatingNewRedirects redirecting]] one of them to the other. If a meaningful distinction can be identified, they can usually be left alone, with tweaks to their descriptions clarifying their relationship.
53
54	!![[Administrivia/TropeRenamingGuidelines Misleading name]]
55
56	A confusing or ambiguous title can cause [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant one trope to be misinterpreted or mistaken for another]].
57
58	When a name is misleading, a [[Administrivia/HowToDoAWickCheck Wick Check]] will reveal a pattern of usage that's consistent with a possible misinterpretation of the name. The fix for a misleading name varies based on the nature of the misuse, but the most common ones are:
59
60	* '''Rename the trope:''' This is the preferred option in cases where the name itself is inherently problematic--a [[Administrivia/TropeNamerSyndrome Character-Named Trope]], a bad snowclone, an acronym or initialism, etc.
61	* '''Repurpose the trope into a {{supertrope}}:''' This is the preferred option when the name is confusing because it sounds broader than its definition. Simply expand the trope accordingly, and voila. Administrivia/TropesAreFlexible, after all. The old definition can spin off into a new {{subtrope}}, or it can simply be absorbed into the new one until someone decides to write up a new [=TLP=] for it.
62	* '''Perform a full [[Administrivia/LaunchDisplacement Trope Transplant]]:''' This is the preferred option when the trope is being mistaken for a different trope that [[Administrivia/HowDidWeMissThisOne doesn't have a page yet, but should]]. The old trope moves to a new page with a new name; the new trope takes its place under the old name.
63	* '''Clean up the misuse:''' This is the preferred option when we don't want to ignore the misuse, but nothing else stands out as needing a change. Misuse begets misuse: purge it from the wiki and (hopefully) it won't come back. Bear in mind that a comprehensive wick-cleaning effort can be a lot of work and becomes more and more difficult the more entrenched the trope is--so don't suggest it lightly.
64
65	For more about this stuff, check out Administrivia/TropeRenamingGuidelines.
66
67	!![[Administrivia/PagesNeedingABetterDescription Poor description]]
68
69	Trope descriptions are difficult to write well. Sometimes an Administrivia/ExampleAsAThesis dominates the page and obscures the trope's actual definition. Sometimes the description is unnecessarily genre- or medium-specific, making it seem like the trope can't appear anywhere else. Mistakes like these make the wiki harder to read and comprehend.
70
71	Tropes with poor descriptions tend to suffer from either misuse or underuse.
72
73	* '''Mixed misuse''' usually indicates that the description is unclear. When there's a significant amount of misuse, but no consistent pattern to it, it's a sign that editors don't "get" the trope and are trying to infer its meaning from context instead--they stray outside its boundaries, but not all in the same direction.
74	* When examples are '''ignoring a specific aspect''' of the description, consider whether the trope is [[Administrivia/TropesAreFlexible too narrow]]. Is that aspect really so essential to the trope? It's possible that whoever originally wrote it mistakenly described a common identifier for the trope as if it were a hard restriction. Administrivia/TropesAreFlexible.\
75	\
76	If the consensus is that, yeah, it totally ''is'' essential to the trope, it's likely you have a Administrivia/MissingSupertrope on your hands.
77	* '''Underuse''' is often the result of a rogue Administrivia/ExampleAsAThesis confusing readers into thinking the trope is narrower than it really is.
78	[[/folder]]
79
80	----
81
82	Anyway, once we all at least have some idea of what the problem might be, we gradually transition into Phase 3.
83
84	!Phase 3: What might be a good solution?
85
86	Our third order of business is figuring out what action, if any, we want to take.
87
88	In this phase, we propose and discuss potential actions. Everyone can offer suggestions, debate and critique the other tropers' suggestions, and so on, until discussion slows down.
89
90	There are several ways to go from here.
91
92	If everyone has said their piece and debate has died down, whether we've come to an agreement or an impasse, we can move on to Phase 4 with a motion and a second.[[note]]We don't actually have a formal system; it's just rude to do this sort of thing unilaterally. Usually it looks more like: "Seems like it's dying down. Administrivia/{{Crowner}} time?" "Yeah, probably. I'll start one."[[/note]]
93
94	If it's decided that the best action is a minor one that doesn't need consensus to change--e.g. [[Administrivia/CreatingNewRedirects adding redirects]] or [[Administrivia/TLPGuidelines writing up a TLP draft for a new trope]]--we can skip the voting and go straight to Phase 5 if we want, with, again, a motion and a second.
95
96	If somebody jumps in late with a fresh perspective that hasn't been considered yet, we can hop back to an earlier step to talk about it.
97
98	If nobody can come up with a satisfying solution and the thread stalls out, a [[Administrivia/KnowTheStaff moderator]] can place a timer on the thread and declare that it has three days to get moving again. If time runs out, the thread gets locked and tossed into the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/conversations.php?topic=trsarchive Morgue]].[[note]]This doesn't happen automatically; the moderator needs to come back and manually lock the thread.[[/note]]
99
100	I need a flowchart.
101
102	!Phase 4: Which solution is the best?
103
104	Here's where we vote, if applicable.
105
106	Administrivia/HowCrownersWork explains the voting process in great detail.
107
108	!Phase 5: Okay, let's go do that, then.
109

Context Sandbox / HowToRepairATrope