It appears there's been a problem with the reorganization: Author Appeal

Originally, this page was sorted by fetish, along with a category entitled "likely non-sexual." At some point, someone decided to do it by author's last name instead. Then someone else decided that nonsexual examples should go under Creator Thumbprint instead. Problem is, all of the nonsexual examples currently under Author Appeal are still mixed in with the sexual ones, and it looks like it'll be a long cleanup job. Anyone care enough to take the time?

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Isn't Creator Thumbprint when a creator likes to insert something into his works as a thumbprint, like a brand of cereal, or a cameo, while Author Appeal would be something like "this creator likes lots of Steampunk elements snuck in"?

Chihuahua is right. Author Appeal is particular elements that the author likes, which may or may not be sexual. Creator Thumbprint is one particular, specific, distinct thing that the author puts in each of their works, like Sam Raimi and that car. They're not even related tropes, and non-sexual examples from Author Appeal should not be moved to Creator Thumbprint.

Ukrainian Red Cross

Bump.

Well, I corrected the bit about Creator Thumbprints.

edited 30th Jun '11 10:32:55 AM by Umbee

Taking steps to abandon this handle.

Are there still unresolved issues left, or can be lock this thread and remove the TRS tag?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

someone who isn't lazy should mv all of the non-sexual examples to a seperate area. also, why is this the only page on the site with a different setup for the catagories? shouldn't we keep it defined by media as opposed to author like everything else? (either that or change all of the author-based tropes to be like this one...)

Never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what's right.

Well apparently there's no need because Author Appeal also includes non-sexual themes and elements as well. You make a good point about the organization though, why is the trope organized by author? If we're organizing the examples by author then we should really limit the trope to cases where the author has created multiple works with the same theme or element. At the very least we're not baseless speculation over the author's taste because of one work.

I've noticed the description seems to focus entirely on the sexual aspects. I thought we had decided to include both non-sexual and sexual examples here.

Sure, but apparently nobody ever changed the description to take the focus OFF the sexual examples.

edited 5th Aug '11 12:53:54 AM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Exactly. It needs a rewrite bad.

Ok, so this trope. Is this dealing with cases where a certain themes or elements are prevalent in a specific work or cases where certain themes or elements are prevalent in a number of works by the same creator?

bump

I would guess it's the latter: something that keeps appearing over and over throughout a creator's oeuvre. Exception could be if the creator only made one work.

no one will notice that I changed this

Why would we allow cases were a creator has only produced one work? This trope seems to imply a specific pattern associated with a specific creator. One piece of work isn't a pattern.

This and Creator Thumbprint. This is so similar to the Fanservice vs. Pandering to the Base situation.

From what I understand, Creator Thumbprint is when the creator includes something to indicate that he or she was involved in its development. For example, Totaka's song, a little jingle that appears as an Easter Egg in some games to show some players that he helped develop it. (Or its soundtrack, or whatever.)

Author Appeal is when the creator includes something because they like it. They are by no means the same trope. Non-sexual examples have been listed on work pages, and I think that that way is correct.

I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!

If that's the definition of Author Appeal, wouldn't that require knowing that the creator actually likes said thing?

I think so, so it'd be one of those excessively difficult "Word of God examples only" tropes. Non-sexual examples of Author Appeal should go somewhere though, unless they'd be overly general or impossible to catalogue.

EDIT: Come to think of it, it's hard for me to imagine a writer including something without having at least some partiality to it.

edited 5th Dec '11 3:51:11 PM by FinalStarman

I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!

That's a very good point, which is why I always assumed this to be something that's put in a work just because the author likes it. And yes, as I've said elsewhere about the Creator Standpoint Index, that really should be limited to Word of God-supported cases or be made subjective.

Agreed, though if this requires knowledge of things the creator likes then it sounds like something that should be trivia.

Bump, I think we need to make this trivia.

Then put it on the crowner.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

I was the person who alphabetized it, because the division by fetish relied on arbitrary distinctions and caused some people to pop up in several places. If I wasn't the person who spearheaded removal of non-sexual examples*

I certainly supported it from the first. This is because:

1. That's what the trope definition says. In general, I've observed, the examples are expected to match the definition, not the other way around.
2. There's been a movement on the Wiki recently to isolate sexual content, so people who don't want to see it can avoid certain pages without risking missing something non-prurient and interesting. Mixing sex-related and non-sex-related examples on one page goes against this.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

What exactly is this trope's definition?

bump