Hawkture Shorts 155, apparently. He doesn't have a page or any recent edits. Should we just zap the line?
edited 16th Jul '11 1:49:49 PM by Discar
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.So the disambig was (relatively speaking) a recent edit? Okay....
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Partridge's Concise Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English has "libby" as an adjective for 'pertaining to attitudes characteristic of the women's liberation movement'.
(This is from memory and not an exact quote; I'll see if I can double check the precise wording of that when I'm home, but it's definitely along those lines.)
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Diagonalizing The Matrix
This is might be an odd question, but do we ever actually check where inbounds are coming from in these discussions?
This backlink checker
seems to indicate our biggest source of inbound is Wikipedia's article on the archetype... which uses the term "Queen Bee" and only mentions in the link section that we call it something else.
What was it that inbound was supposed to demonstrate, again?
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Troaccid, you did not "neutralize" the pro section of the crowner. You nerfed it. The case for renaming is not that the title "May be unclear"- the case is that it is unclear (which may or may not be true). I would so dearly like to edit the con section to stop saying that inbounds indicate the trope is "well used and understood", which I think does not follow, but as far as opposing arguments go I believe a hands-off approach is best.
EDIT: though I disapproved of the above-discussed edit, I was not the one who reverted it.
edited 17th Jul '11 2:33:19 AM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toAssuming that the inbounds indicate use outside the wiki and clarity is overstating the fact. Generally, the facts about inbound numbers should be put under "neutral": they exist but we can't interpret them with any certainty. All we can be sure of is how many there are. not what the link says at the other end. Wicks we can check for misuse; inbounds we can't. And technically, "We'd have to rename other tropes" isn't a con, it's also a neutral statement of fact.
edited 17th Jul '11 12:44:43 AM by Madrugada
Checking a few more wicks. Not sure about a couple of them.
Correct:
- Characters.Batman: As a result, he became even more withdrawn and angry at the world, culminating in him bringing a gun to the high school senior prom and attacking Jerk Jock Bo Griggs and his Libby girlfriend Sherry Squires (who had rejected Crane's affections), killing the latter.
- Characters.Batman Beyond: [Bobbi "Blade" Summer]
- Battle Athletes: Ling-Pha
- FanFicRecs.Battle Royale: The writer takes a plethora of High School archetypes and injects them with depth and dimension. No Archetype is safe, not The Libby, not the Jerk Jock and certainly not the Shrinking Violet or the Class Clown and his Plucky Sidekick.
- Characters.Battle Royale: [Hirono Shimizu is] much more violent than would usually be expected from this trope.
- Beautiful Creatures: Savannah Snow, with Emily and Eden as her Girl Posse.
- Beauty Equals Goodness: Interestingly, Pansy Parkinson is described as looking like "a pug", despite her being The Libby.
- Beauty Is Bad: Can overlap with The Libby, The Brainless Beauty, Light Is Not Good, and The Cheerleader.
- Beauty Is Never Tarnished: Averted, but still present in the live-action Casper movie, which, for the record, was scripted by two women. Kat is exempt from the wackier slapstick stunts, being locked in a closet while her father battles the Ghostly Trio. Also, the Up-And-At-'Em Machine seems to have more exaggerated effects on the villains than her, in fact seeming to effect only the male villain. However, the villainess doesn't seem to be quite as exempt from physical comedy as Kat and additionally the local Libby gets a slapsticky comeupence.
- Beauty to Beast: Of course if this happens to a Jerk Jock or The Libby - or simply a physically attractive Butt-Monkey - it may all be played for comedy and be undone by episode's end.
- Beauty to Beast: This is the fate of Bridget and Heather in The Final.
- Be a Whore to Get Your Man: Subverted in My Little Pony Tales when Melody makes over Bright Eyes to be 'cool' rather than a bookworm. Her new look and attitude completely backfires, causing an also-made up Lancer to reject her at the same time she rejects his new persona. The two get together after reverting to their normal selves, much to Melody's complete confusion.
- Be Careful What You Wish For: Hannah Montana- Miley wishes she was just Hannah Montana all the time. It is granted and her dad married a Gold Digger, her best friend became The Libby, and her brother became a hobo.
Not sure:
- Batman Returns: "The depiction of the Ice Princess, at least in the shooting script. One scene that was filmed but ultimately cut showed her tearing through Gotham Plaza amidst all the gang violence and shoving an old woman to the ground so that she'd get trampled instead! But these character traits are softened in the finished film, so the Princess just comes off as Spoiled Sweet."
- Battleaxe Nurse: "One
appeared in Shadowgirls. Unfortunately for her, Mrs. Snow was currently friendly to her victim, around, more skilled at trampling people into dirt and "needed the exercise"." I know there's an example or two from this work but I have no idea which character they're talking about and the pothole is ambiguously placed.
- Characters.Battle Royale: "Like Hirono, Yoshimi is more of the "delinquent" type. In a flashback, she is seen robbing Kaori in school." I can't find much information on this character and the example doesn't have enough context for me to make a good judgement. Need help on this one.
@Madrugada: Actually, that last one should be "the trope has snowclones" (which is a neutral fact); "we would have to rename the snowclones" casts negative connotations, implying that it is an argument against renaming.
Take something like Knifing The Libby In The Back — even though it's named after the same character, it has additional context (somebody getting betrayed or backstabbed) that its progenitor trope does not.
edited 17th Jul '11 9:41:55 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
Diagonalizing The Matrix
About the "Sample is not statistically valid"- If we do accept that there were 33 wicks picked randomly and not a single one of them was bad, I'm not so sure that argument holds water.
Define:
W - the event "Wick check did not find a single bad wick"
M(X) - the event "There is a rate of exactly X misuse"
Ml(X) - the event "There is at least a rate of x misuse".
Assuming that our prior belief over how much misuse there is is evenly distributed over the range of 0 (0%) to 1 (100%) and using Bayes' theorem we can calculate the probability that there is at least 10% misuse, given the wick check:
P(Ml(0.1)|W) = P(Ml(0.1))P(W|Ml(0.1)) / P(W)
P(Ml(0.1)) is the prior probability we assigned to there being at least 10% misuse- 0.9.
P(W|Ml(10)) is the probability that the 33-wick check did not find any bad wicks, given that there is at least a rate of 0.1 misuse. It is equal to the sum* from x=0.1 to x=1 of P(W|M(x)) - divided by 1800. P(W|M(x)) is equal to the product from i=1 to i=33 of (2000(1-x)-i)/2000 (a fact of combinatorics). Wolfram alpha gives this sum as about 0.000664234 .
P(W) is the overall probability for the wick check to have happened as it did by our assumptions. It is equal to the sum* from 0 to 1 of P(W|M(x)) - divided by 2000. We know that P(W|M(x)) is equal to the product from i=1 to i=33 of (2000(1-x)-i)/2000). Wolfram alpha gives the result of this sum as ~ 0.022.
Therefore the probability that there is at least 10% misuse, given the wick check, is roughly 0.9 * 0.000664234 / 0.022, which is about 2.7%.
tl;dr: Math says that if all those wicks were randomly checked and actually correct, we should give Troaccid a break. Probability of some gross error in the above calculation is 99.999%
so take it with a grain of salt, but you should have an intuition that if at least 1 out of every 10 wicks is bad, checking 33 and turning up not a single bad wick is very unlikely.
EDIT: This post
is responding to another calculation that was removed from the post.
edited 17th Jul '11 10:57:45 AM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to^ Although the answer is correct, the correct operator is (1800 P 33
), because 1800!
would be well over five thousand digits long.
edited 17th Jul '11 10:24:18 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
So, obviously I'm not familiar with every example, but I'm a little surprised we're coming up zero misuse in the wicks. There are examples that look wrong to me even on the trope page itself. For instance:
- Under Geoff Johns, Batman has become the male version of the Libby in the Justice League, with Hal Jordan being positioned as his chief rival, due to the fact that Hal is the only JLA member who isn't afraid of Batman (indeed, going so far as to punch Batman unconscious when Batman's doubts about Hal led him to try and prevent Hal from stopping the Parallax entity).
Ruling with an iron fist or being influential or intimidating in a group of heroes doesn't make you a male Libby; if Batman has a girl posse and is maintaining his status for status's sake by totally making Aquaman feel fat, then he's a libby, and also, I really need to buy that comic.
There are also a few instances that are not noted as parodies or deconstructions or anything, but mention that the girl in question is not popular and/or has no friends. Are we counting wicks as right anytime a hot girl is snobby or bitchy or superficial without fulfilling the "head of the girl-pack" part of the trope?
edited 17th Jul '11 2:23:04 PM by Bailey
Okay, thanks. I've taken a look at our wick check(s), and a few of these do seem to be incorrect upon closer examination:
- In Battle Athletes, Ling-Pha is rich, and uses her wealth and resources to cheat at sports, but other characters regard her as annoying. She's not a popular girl, and doesn't have any interest in social standing — she's only interested in winning. (She's also a Chinese stereotype, complete with broken English/Japanese, played for laughs).
- In Adventureland, Lisa P. is just a Brainless Beauty. We never see her being bitchy or manipulative, and we have no indication that she's actually popular at all. She's the designated object of lust amongst her coworkers, which is not the same as having friends or social standing.
- The example from Beauty to Beast is exactly half incorrect. Both Bridget and Heather from The Final are potholed to The Libby, but only Heather is the head mean girl in school. Bridget is a member of her Girl Posse, a passive follower, and not all that mean.
- Also the Batman Returns example, listed under questionable, is incorrect. The Ice Princess is a naive beauty queen in the final print, and the deleted scene only makes her a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing. We can speculate that she might have been a stereotypical popular girl in high school, but there's no hard evidence.
Also, I'm wondering about the example marked correct from A Drop Of Poison, since it's an unpublished troper work, and we haven't a way of checking it at all. (Some of the other tropes listed for the character indicate that she's an aloof cynic with no friends).
edited 17th Jul '11 6:46:26 PM by Bailey
Diagonalizing The Matrix
What? Seriously? Passing off "well, arguably..." wicks as outright correct use?
If true, this is very alarming. At this point nothing short of proving this title causes cancer will change anything (and maybe not even that), but, well. All in all, the lows this thread has sunk to Gaming-The-System-wise are just depressing.
edited 17th Jul '11 9:50:17 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
Crown Description:
Vote up for yes, down for no.

About the first line in the description. How much this have been there? Who put it there? Why was that put there? These are all very important. This is a wiki. A single person who believed the trope could be confusion, may have added that line, without further research. That line, alone, is not prove there have been confusion. It this was supported by some misuse (and, specifically, this precise kind of misuse), it would mean something. Right now, it is just a line.