I wouldn't exactly call 418 wicks and over 2,500 outside referrals signs that a page is "not thriving."
It would, however, do some good to get a better idea of how the page is being linked in wicks. This is supposed to be a trope page about a specific Stock Phrase, but I frequently see it used by editors to either express their opinions (either spelled outright as a Wiki Word or potholed in summaries of various occurrences in works of fiction that they don't like for whatever reason). If I were to guess, I'd say it's rarely, if ever, used to refer to the phrase being an actual trope appearing in a work and more often used as an Audience Reaction to anything an editor finds disagreeable.
edited 10th Apr '11 9:31:39 AM by SeanMurrayI
Just picked out a handful of wicks at random to look at how No. Just... No is being used. The results are disappointing. Its rampant use on the wiki as an expression of editor opinion is even mentioned on the trope page as being an example of the trope.
- Reefer Madness : Linked by an editor who only disagrees with the film's claim that pot is a "violent narcotic". Incorrect
- Peter Gabriel: Pot Holed under the word "unfortunately" in a line mentioning Genesis Slash Fic. Incorrect
- Limp Bizkit: Pot Holed after someone explains how the phrase "limp biscuit" has a slang meaning in the UK that apparently nobody should ever go out of their way to look up. In addition to being used Incorrectly, the entire line the trope appears in does not seem to belong where it currently is on the page, anyway.
- Dogma : Linked by an editor protesting a remark that Jay is Mr. Fanservice. Incorrect and Natter.
- City Slickers : Pot Holed in a line of dialog along with Squick and Nausea Fuel. Incorrect
- Happy-Ending Massage: Again, appears to only be Pot Holed by an editor uncomfortable with something in a work. Incorrect
- BolT : Pot Holed in a line of dialogue to note a character's protests against something, but it doesn't resemble the Stock Phrase in question at all and appears to be beyond the acceptable limits of flexibility for a Stock Phrase. Debatable (maybe), but I'm Leaning Incorrect
- Mark Trail : Linked in a trope example heavily marred by the editor including his opinion about it, complete with additional words like "ludicrous" and a link to Wall Banger. Incorrect
- Good Hair, Evil Hair: An editor does not like mullets. Incorrect
- Wing Commander : Used to emphasize how wrong the series' developers are about a sense of scale in a sci-fi setting. Incorrect
- Kampfer : Oddly Pot Holed in a trope example that is actually X Just X. Incorrect
- Moyashimon : Pot Holed in a line for Did Not Do The Research, again just an editor having a beef with something they don't like. Incorrect
- Noodle Implements: Pot Holed in a line that's just Natter about not liking what the editor who added the line above it wrote. Incorrect
- Distress Ball: Technically, would be correct, seeing that the link is being used as something a character might actually say, but it appears in a sentence that's only speculation and Wild Mass Guessing that begins with the phrase This Troper.
- Deadpool: Pot Holed in the word "eew", rather than used as the actual Stock Phrase it's supposed to be. Incorrect
Anyway, so far, that's 15 wicks—13 of which are obviously incorrect, 1 which almost could be incorrect if the place it appears in wasn't something that doesn't belong on main pages, and 1 which may be passable within some people's view of Tropes Are Flexible.
A whopping zero, so far, clearly use the link for its intended purpose as a Stock Phrase trope. The page's most common uses here on the wiki are certainly more geared towards a type of Audience Reaction (at best).
edited 10th Apr '11 10:58:56 AM by SeanMurrayI
Wouldn't that make all those "incorrect" audience reactions... you know... correct?
What you are talking about, would be redefining the trope to exclude this form of use, so the above examples could be considered incorrect.
^ I never said anything about redefining any terms. The page No. Just... No, in its present form, is intended to be a particular Stock Phrase appearing in media and works of fiction, a trope; that's it.
A troper potholing the phrase in places to suggest any details about anything one finds disagreeable or objectionable is neither an example of a Stock Phrase nor correct usage, and in most of the places where the phrase actually is spelled out on pages by tropers on main pages... it's just Natter.
edited 10th Apr '11 11:54:35 AM by SeanMurrayI
The description says that this is when someone gives a verbal response that consists of the words "No. Just... No." Just read the Alice and Bob examples.
The description makes no mention of this being intended as an Audience Reaction for editors to pothole anywhere they are talking about anything (be it something from a work or something someone else on a page has said) they personally find objectionable.
edited 10th Apr '11 12:43:13 PM by SeanMurrayI
The use of No. Just... No to apply to yourself is not misuse.
It's usually obvious Natter, but not misuse.
The problem is it's rarley seen used in a work.
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova ScotianEven assuming that's true, I don't know if this trope should be an Audience Reaction trope.
^^^ "What tropers do with it" at present still only makes this a very ambiguous Audience Reaction deserving of a YMMV banner that borders on being a verbal tic akin to adding So Yeah as a Wiki Word at the end of an edit (and not a Stock Phrase).
If tropers started using other Stock Phrases (like Better than Sex, for instance) as potholes to note their personal feelings about anything in work, then such instances would not count towards the page's intended purpose of documenting instances of a trope appearing in fiction but an announcement of the editor's personal preferences that is both irrelevant to troping and entirely rooted in subjective views.
^^ No. Just... No is not intended to be used for Natter, however. That's certainly misuse. Not to mention that it's Natter.
edited 10th Apr '11 2:08:29 PM by SeanMurrayI
Redefined how and for what purpose though?
If you're suggesting reworking the description to better clarify the page's original intended purpose as a Stock Phrase trope, I can get behind that. If, however, you mean change the page's purpose to accommodate the current wicks it has gathered, then that would be pretty unorthodox in light of certain guidelines and would basically amount to curtsying to Trope Decay.
I'm not a big fan of reworking this as an Audience Reaction, if only because there are already several such pages that are about viewers' disagreeable feelings with anything in a work. We have Squick and Nausea Fuel for anything that invokes immense disgust in viewers. There's What An Idiot for when a character does something so incredibly stupid or wrong that it frustrates a viewer with Did Not Do The Research and various subtropes of that for when it's a work creator who causes that same frustration. And then there's Wallbanger and Dethroning Moment of Suck for anything else that's so awful that viewers take certain offense to it. Are there any bases that aren't covered already that No. Just... No could fill, and could it do so with such a general, non-specific name?
I'd still say that, as is, the extent of No. Just... No's use around the wiki is much more comparable to verbal tics—like So Yeah, I Am Not Making This Up, Wait What Woah, et. al.—that don't exactly have much specific meaning on their own and are far too incredibly easy to pothole and place absolutely anywhere while not adding anything of any real value.
edited 11th Apr '11 8:35:43 AM by SeanMurrayI
I wonder if No. Just... No is strong enough to be called a trope or are the cases too isolated. And How!
It's certainly a unique enough phrase to be a Stock Phrase trope, and I'm feeling pretty sure that we can gather enough examples from the page already to, at least, meet the minimum of three that any trope requires.
There are, likely, a few examples currently on No. Just... No that don't reasonably fit the trope's phrasing that should probably be removed and others that would need more clarification, however.
The improper use is widespread. Assuming we can get the (wo)manpower, I'd rename it like we did with one of the other tropes that had this problem (I can't remember the name off the top of my head.)
Call it "No. Just… No" Reaction or something, and just kill all wicks as natter.
As for a definition: "This is a stock phrase used by characters in fiction to indicate..."
Everyone Has An Important Job To DoI Am Not Making This Up —> "Not Making This Up" Disclaimer, perhaps? Can't recall any other pages that may have that history, though it would make a good analogy here.
Certainly not a bad idea.
edited 11th Apr '11 1:21:33 PM by SeanMurrayI
Although that still has problems, as the TRS thread on it indicates, for being too close to the old I Am Not Making This Up and being misused in the same way.
So if we do rename, we'll have to do it to something that doesn't sound like a Verbal Tic at all. And we probably should not leave No. Just... No as a redirect.
I think we turned Oh, Crap! into Oh Crap Reaction, or at least considered doing so, but a quick trawl around the wiki would reveal it changed nothing...
Tv Tropes is for documenting tropes and conventions in fictional works. It is not for transplanting those tropes into conversation.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
Crown Description:
No Just No is being used as a pothole for expressing troper disgust or dislike for something (when it's supposed to be an actual trope specifically about the obvious dialogue line. What do we do?

I found that No. Just... No trope has only a small number of examples (at least considering how old the article is) which are pretty isolated cases. Despite over 500 wicks redirecting to this site, very few of them are listed in the trope list in work page. I wonder what to do.