Reasons why we think Troper Tales should be removed

Recent news does influence fiction. See: Ripped from the Headlines.

With a few exceptions, I don't think any tropers have published anything successful enough to have influenced the tropes themselves (rather than specific instances of those tropes being used). If they had, they would presumably be sufficiently famous that their tales could go under Real Life. Otherwise, there's no reason why their experiences that inspired their use of the trope couldn't just get a mention under the example for the work itself.

Well, there is the fact that he said "and." I do apologize if he meant "or." But by the definition that he gave, only a fairly narrow category of Troper Tales can be biased.

But not all headlines get ripped. And not all authors (or even all good authors) become "famous."

edited 14th Aug '11 10:32:28 AM by FarseerLolotea

Is an example of bias, rather than a definition, true.

Anyway, if you so wish me to define bias, I'll define it as thus: Bias is the inclination of a statement/work/study/etc etc to present a partial perspective without including or even implying that other perspectives are valid. Whether in truth they are equally valid or not that's a different matter altogether.

Ti T examples are not time restricted. TT's are, by their very own nature.

Subjectivity is a valid argument against them how? We've got an entire index for that.

And would you mind explaining how Troper Tales—aside from what still seems to have been a foregone conclusion to remove them from nearly the beginning of this entire business—are any more "time-restricted" than any other real-life example?

edited 14th Aug '11 10:38:43 AM by FarseerLolotea

A Troper Tale has to have happened within the lifetime of a Troper. That's a time restriction that doesn't apply to Real Life examples, which span recorded history.

edited 14th Aug '11 10:39:42 AM by INUH

A headline that does not get ripped, if it gets a decent amount of exposure and resembles a trope, still has a good chance of influencing that trope.

Fame is relative. Dmmaus is certainly more famous than most people here, even if he's not a household name.

In any case, if the author is not famous but the work is, then an event from the author's life will not have directly influenced anyone else's fiction, so it can go under the example from the work as a piece of background information about that example.

edited 14th Aug '11 10:40:14 AM by BobbyG

Not necessarily. One could add something about a deceased grandparent, for example.

But let's say that something silly happened to a minor celebrity (or a local celebrity) this morning. No one of note has written a story based on it yet. Why does that count?

edited 14th Aug '11 10:42:52 AM by FarseerLolotea

Maybe time restricted is not the proper word.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that Truth in Television spans everything. From the very creation of reality to today. Because it's about reality and how it influences fiction.

Troper Tales is about how people who enjoy fiction apply the concepts they find in it apppliable to real life. Not to mention that it can only contain so much due to the fact that tropers are humans and their lifespan doesn't exactly go back to, say, the ancient greeks.

Subjectivity per se is not the argument. Is subjectivity permeating the tale and thus making it a rather biased account of events which makes it hard to believe.

^The farther you go back when it comes to your family's timelines, the harder it is to believe and the more it is affected by retellings and the like.

edited 14th Aug '11 10:42:56 AM by juancarlos

^^Fair point, but there comes a point where an event that happened before a certain time just isn't going to wind up on Troper Tales.

My eyes are a significantly pale and warm shade of brown as to look orange in bright light.

I once dashed past a steamer trunk that had a piece of metal sticking out, sliced my leg on it, and didn't really notice until my mother noticed that I was bleeding and freaked out.

I was a creepy kid on multiple levels.

I'm about half my husband's size.

When living somewhere where drinking water came out of a beautiful mountain spring, I once contracted giardiasis when something nasty got into said spring.

When prescribed quinacrine to treat it, I stated that it tasted like eyedrops. My mother asked how I knew what eyedrops tasted like.

Does any of that sound "biased" or otherwise dubious?

This isn't happening because Troper Tales is devoid of value, or even because it's unsalvageable; it's neither. It's happening because a certain percentage of people simply don't like it.

edited 14th Aug '11 10:53:05 AM by FarseerLolotea

But let's say that something silly happened to a minor celebrity (or a local celebrity) this morning. No one of note has written a story based on it yet. Why does that count?

The most honest answer is that it's probably because we're not sufficiently anal to define "Real Life" sections sufficiently precisely to exclude that kind of thing.

This is not an acceptable Troper Tale. It doesn't explain or help understand the trope.

We dislike it for a reason.

I don't know if it's unsalvageable, but salvaging it would certainly require a huge amount of effort. I don't believe the positive value of the section outweighs the nuisance value.

edited 14th Aug '11 10:53:13 AM by BobbyG

It's not hard to believe. It's hard to verify.

And because not all tales are written like that. Many tales are full of smugness and general unbelivableness.

And this is the problem with your arguments, Lolotea. You have been arguing based on your use of Troper Tales rather than a general perspective. You may be a good user of the namespace, but if the majority of them are bad, then why keep it? So we have an exception?

And we don't like it because it's devoid of value and unsalvageable.

But—again—it's neither of the above. Its lack of value is entirely subjective, and there are people willing to fix it themselves.

And I'm not arguing based on how I use it; I'm arguing based on how I've seen it used. From what I've seen, I'm not an exception to anything but the idea that it's worthless and should die (or at least disappear).

Hell, I'm not even that. There's a whole 'nother thread, not that anyone really paid attention to it.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:04:49 AM by FarseerLolotea

Exception ≠ sole exception.

But I never argued that anyone thought I was the sole exception. I argued that I'm not really an exception at all.

70% is a majority. You're in the minority.

I've seen plenty of proof that I'm in the minority in terms of not wanting to see it axed (at least, out of the people who cared enough to vote).

I've seen little (read: no) proof, however, that 70%, or even 50%, of troper tales are really any kind of argument in favor of axing it. Especially not since the revamp.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:10:40 AM by FarseerLolotea

I guess you missed all those times Cygan Angel quoted all those misuses then.

It is unfortunate that you are in the minority: in this case, the actions of many have meant that maintaining the Troper Tales has become a massive task that is beyond the ability of the entire community. Deleting it has been felt by some to be the most effective solution...

edited 14th Aug '11 11:12:15 AM by tehnubkilr

^^^Well, there has been proof. It's been demonstrated through random page checks several times in this thread.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:11:36 AM by INUH

So if tropes get misused, we should remove them altogether rather than cleaning them up. Gotcha.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:13:30 AM by FarseerLolotea

-nevermind, misunderstood your post because what you were actually saying makes so little to me that I assumed you weren't saying it-

edited 14th Aug '11 11:16:37 AM by INUH

^^ No, because tropes are what the wiki is about.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:13:35 AM by BobbyG

Tropes typically do not get misused when applied to media (like books and films) because others can typically access the same media and come to a general agreement. For instance, we know that stuff a character pulls off in a book can qualify as Badass, and several other viewers might likely agree. Tropes in the wiki can conform to fairly high standards because media is absolute (in the sense that if something happened, it happened).

Conversely, if I argued that I was badass and "fought off several bullies with a broken arm", it is more likely that I were bragging (if I had a broken arm, I'd likely be resting at home or something). As such, most readers would find it improbable, and thus, be more likely to see me as an arrogant troper. People have argued that it is impossible to verify a troper's lives (which in itself violates privacy laws), but I contend that outrageous stories do not add anything meaningful to the Troper Tales.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:18:24 AM by tehnubkilr

Playing the persecution card earns you exactly no points.

Here's the difference between Tropes and Examples, and Stories Tangentially Related to Tropes (AKA "Troper Tales")

• The former is:
  • Pretty much the entire point of the wiki
  • classifiable
  • verifiable (with a handful of exceptions with pages that 'really need to get cut, such as Candle Cove)
• the latter is
  • barely relevant to the wiki
  • a bitch to moderate
  • impossible to verify on any level

And if you have not seen any proof that the TT section is being misused, then you're going to have to backread to find thatguy's post, which is where we originally got the 70% statistic for. And if I'm not mistaken, it's been backed up since then by further analyses.

edited 14th Aug '11 11:19:04 AM by SpainSun