Suggesting new namespaces

I recommend Roleplay, it's easier for the uninitiated to understand.

—R.J.

Definitely Roleplay/

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Should we have Web Communities/ ? I saw it at a few trope descriptions as a separate category, but could not find the namespace.

Put your trust in the wild lands.

Mmm, troping web communities does not strike me as work-like. And it often invites fighting when members of said community get involved here.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Yes, websites and web communities that are not direct creators of content should not be described on our site. It's off-mission and leads to gossip.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

We might want to go through Other Sites and remove some pages or send them to Useful Notes then. (The Facebook Community looks like an older workaround of not having that namespace suggestion, incidentally.)

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

Somebody brought up earlier in the topic how a Platform/ namespace wouldn't be that much different than the Creator/ namespace. I would like to see some more discussion on that, because nobody seemed to respond.

My impression is that having just the Creator/ namespace is deliberate. To make it clear that creator pages are not the point of the wiki to the people who will otherwise mass create them.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Hello. I would like to create a Works page for the FIRST Robotics Competition. (Website for FIRST is www.firstinspires.org.) The problem is, I don't know what namespace to put it under. It's a live competition, but it's not a sport (at least, nobody except for robotics people call it a sport). Perhaps a new Robotics namespace should be created? There are other robotics competitions out there, such as VEX (www.vexrobotics.org) and Battle Bots (battlebots.com). May I please get advice?

What matters for namespace purposes isn't what a thing is but how it's broadcast. Is it on TV? Use Series. Streamed on the web? Use Web Video.

edited 12th Jan '18 2:46:33 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) events are broadcast live at www.twitch.tv/firstroboticscompetition, but I'm not sure if they're apt to be filed under Web Video. I think it's more supposed to be an event that's attended live. But if putting it under Web Video is sufficient for now, that works. And thanks for the advice.

edited 12th Jan '18 2:56:41 PM by meowloudly15

Well, the Art/ namespace is for paintings, statues, and the like — all of which are meant to be seen "live" or in person. And we did (technically we still do) have a page for the Zeldathon event, which is broadcast online. So there seems to be precedent for having separate namespaces for works that aren't technically supposed to be "broadcast" even though that may be how some (or most) audience members view the work.

The question is whether live events are tropeable. If so, having a Public Event/ namespace (or something general enough similar to Creator/) could make sense.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

Live Action TV or Film - Well, uhm..

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SciFiBobHaircut

The Star Trek examples here are filed under "Live Action TV" - but the first three examples given are from the Star Trek films. This isn't the only place this happens - it's particularly frequent.

I would like to propose "Multimedia" as a category for trope examples that have appeared in franchises across multiple media platforms. This would be used when using pinning down one media example would be misleading, as in the above example. It would also help when discussing how a trope morphed between one media type and another within the same franchise. The tag would not be used if the trope only appears in one media form for the franchise - in that event the franchise would be listed under the appropriate type.

We already have Franchises/Multiple Media as a folder on some trope pages.

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

About the new UsefulNotes.Franchise Actors super-index: All the indexes are parsed as "UsefulNotes.Star Wars Actors" or "UsefulNotes.Game Of Thrones Actors. Wouldn't it make more sense to use a new namespace for that sort of thing, such as "Actors.Star Wars" or "Actors.Game Of Thrones"?

An open mind and compassionate heart are among the most important qualities we can have.

CastAndCrew.Star Wars could also cover the directors and writers.

I'm all for that.

An open mind and compassionate heart are among the most important qualities we can have.

@WaterBlap: I thought a little about the concept of a Public Event page and what could be categorised under it. Some thoughts:

- Sporting events. I know that there are several Useful Notes pages for them, but there are definitely tropes associated with them, too (Wounded Gazelle Gambit, Friendly Rivalry, The Rival, etc. come to mind). - Guided tours of historical landmarks/national parks. (This probably doesn't count as a work per se?) - LARP could be regrouped under this category. - Comic-cons. - Like I mentioned above, robotics competitions (FIRST, VEX).

I'm not entirely sure what the protocol would be for making a certain work into a Public Event or not; my thoughts would be that it's a work that is only, primarily, or optimally viewed live.

Any thoughts?

After the third ATT thread questioning why The Ugly Barnacle is located in the Literature namespace instead of Just For Fun, and countless other threads about other works within works, I've noticed that the location of works within works is a very devisive issue. The side that supports the normal work namespaces thinks that it's normal literary farce that's perfectly fine to host and we heard TUB's story in its entirety. The side that supports the Just For Fun namespace believes that TUB is just a few lines on SpongeBob SquarePants and it isn't really a work. So, after this, I've came up with a solution that may hopefully satisfy both crowds, introducing a work namespace to segregate these pages while still keeping them. The new namespace would be called WorkWithinAWork. Deliberately worded that way to avoid confusion with Show Within a Show, and that namespace is already used for things like ShowWithinAShow.Video Games anyway.

This is a namespace for any page that describes a work that exists only in the universe of another work. Pages that would be moved there would be:

• JustForFun.Camp Pining Hearts to WorkWithinAWork.Camp Pining Hearts
• JustForFun.Fix It Felix Jr to WorkWithinAWork.Fix It Felix Jr
• JustForFun.Horsin Around to WorkWithinAWork.Horsin Around
• Film.The Magnificent Three to WorkWithinAWork.The Magnificent Three
• Film.Man Getting Hit By Football to WorkWithinAWork.Man Getting Hit By Football
• WesternAnimation.Meet The Fatheads to WorkWithinAWork.Meet The Fatheads
• JustForFun.Mr Peanutbutters House to WorkWithinAWork.Mr Peanutbutters House
• Literature.The Ugly Barnacle to WorkWithinAWork.The Ugly Barnacle

They would be indexed on Show Within a Show under a header for "Shows within shows that have their own pages" or something similar. If you know any other works within works on TVT that have pages, feel free to share them, and other feedback is welcome too.

For the record:

• First ATT thread
• Second ATT thread
• Third ATT thread

Edited by Piterpicher on Oct 30th 2018 at 4:45:53 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I like it, though there is the question of what to do with the non canon information on these pages. There's also JustForFun.Camp Pining Hearts, which is a Show Within a Show from Steven Universe.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Added that page. And yeah, if we're willing to treat works within works as real media, we may need to cut on non canon stuff, we don't post it on normal work pages. Though by non canon content, I assume you mean things like assuming things that didn't happen in the work or are pure speculation, since some light speculation is close to unavoidable.

Edited by Piterpicher on Oct 30th 2018 at 5:09:19 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I like this idea, but it doesn't really solve the problem with The Ugly Barnacle, which is that that page has huge amounts of Speculative Troping done intentionally for Rule of Funny. It's not that The Ugly Barnacle isn't a work, it's that the page violates our guidelines in a way that's amusing. Thus to be a stickler you should either remove most of the entries, or move it to Just for Fun, the home of jokes. The counterargument is that being in a standard namespace makes the joke funnier.

Whereas a lot of the examples you mention are written as standard works pages and don't have this issue.

"It's just a show; I should really just relax"

I'm really not interested in "making the joke funnier", as if we're here to prank readers. The wiki should be fun for readers and editors alike (otherwise what are we doing here?) but fun should not supersede clarity, and having an article for a fake work that pretends to be an article for a real work is not clear.

Primary medium namespaces should be reserved for real works. That is and will always be my opinion here. Descriptions of a Show Within a Show can be entirely contained within the article for the main work. When we start joking around by developing articles for them as if they were real, that should go in Just for Fun.

To summarize:

• Internal works get described in the article for the external work.
• Made-up works go in Just for Fun.
• Humorous pages to describe internal works as if they were real also go in Just for Fun.

I don't see anything unaccounted for in this Venn diagram. The miniscule amount of "fun" that is lost by not letting editors prank readers is an acceptable sacrifice for clarity.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 30th 2018 at 12:54:45 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

We are not going to gain any clarity by such a Show Within a Show distinction never mind that "clarity" is not a good thing in and of itself. Dry just-the-facts-ma'am writing does not engage as much as well placed humour. It also invites pedantic nitpickish attitudes that degrade the quality of the environment. So I am inclined to leave the Barnacle page at its current place, although discussion on the discussion page would be warranted on the more speculative entries.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I agree with making a namespace for this phenomenon. It inflates our statistics for "fictional works" (explained in a minute, bear with me) to be listed in media namespaces for "real works." We usually move articles for fictional characters and the like to non-media namespaces, such as to Just for Fun/ or Self-Demonstrating/, so it makes sense to follow precedent and move articles for fictional works to a non-media namespace.

We're talking about a "fictional work" within a framing device, a framing device that is a "real work." Usually, a Framing Device is not the story the audience is interested in — like Walton's letter to his sister in Frankenstein — but in this case, the audience is interested mostly in the "framing device" and the (joke or otherwise) work within a work isn't. For the sake of clarity, something like Wreck-It Ralph is a "real work" but Fix-It Felix Jr. is a "fictional video game" within the movie, and we don't watch the movie in order to learn about or to watch someone play the fictional video game. The story we are interested in exists in the [movie/book/show] (e.g. Wreck-It Ralph).

I disagree with describing "internal works" as Fighteer argues on the articles for the "external works." There's obviously some demand to keep them separate. There's a reason tropers put these fictional works on their own pages. IMO, it's because people don't consider the fictional works to be "part of" the real ones. They feel separate from the main work, and that's because they are separate. Fictional works generally have different settings, characters, plot-lines. They're as separate from the real work as the real work is separate from reality.

---

Assuming we do create a new namespace, I think it should only be allowed a few subpages, such as Just for Fun/ (and vise versa for JFF/) and Laconic/. By allowing a JFF/ subpage, we could move the "amusing" false information without totally deleting it while still keeping true to our existing guidelines. I don't think we want to destroy all funny things on the wiki, which is why I'm suggesting allowing for the false information to be moved to JFF/... in the vein of our Self-Demonstrating/ articles.

All other subpages should be verboten, since any Nightmare Fuel, Trivia, Funny Moments, etc. would actually come from the real work, as such reactions and facts can only originate from something that is real — as opposed to a fiction such as these "works within works."

I think the namespace name could be shortened, though. "WWW/" for an abbreviation of Work Within A Work, or "Three W/" for the same reason. "Fictional Work/" if people agree with the fictional / real dichotomy. "Sub Work/" could make sense, as well, given our parlance of subtrope and supertrope, where Wreck It Ralph is the "super-work" to ''Fix-It Felix Jr."'s "sub-work."

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty