TLP Crash Rescue - Fixing prematurely launched TLPs and pages

Could it work as a kind of gag related to how much one character makes over the other? In (Western) polite society, talking about money has been considered rude for a long time, so I'd think that a trope that concerns characters talking about money could be tropeworthy.

edited 25th Apr '17 6:41:10 AM by WaterBlap

there are certainly ideas spawning from it, but the current "Alice mentions how much she makes and Bob says something about not getting paid" isn't any of them. And nobody seemed receptive to ideas before it got launched.

It's usually used for one of a few reasons:

• To underline that Bob thinks that Alice has a really sweet job: "You get paid for that? [implied: "I'd do it for free!"]"
• To underline that Bob thinks Alice has a really stupid job: "You get paid for that? [Implied: Why?!?]
• To underline that Bob is kind of dim or wimpy or a doormat and is doing something for free that he could/should be getting paid for: "You get paid for that?" [Implied: I don't.]

Any one of them would be a trope. As it stands, it's not.

edited 25th Apr '17 9:14:16 AM by Madrugada

So, since Extreme Speculative Stratification is about stratification inside a society, Decade Dissonance cannot happen, because that needs two different societies?

But, Tomorrowland can occur because that just needs a space that is more advanced than its surroundings?

edited 25th Apr '17 11:50:27 AM by Malady

Why would someone create a subpage of Special Effect Failure for a bad movie like Fantastic Four (2015)? I mean, there shouldn't be any subpages for single movies, only for movie franchises like Star Wars.

Like I said for a now-deleted subpage for VR Troopers, I would highly recommend cutting the subpage and move its examples back to "Films -- Live-Action".

That is one of the many subpages created by NightShade96. The mess they made was reported on Ask the Tropers, but only some of it was cleaned up.

swag_af created Characters.Hikikomori which seems to be an example that was misplaced by accident, they may need some help editing

Stumbled upon a page made two years ago for the film Peeples. It only has two tiny examples (consisting of eight words in total), no summary or images, it's pretty empty.

That needs cutting.

I think it could be edited. It wasn't added to Needs Wiki Magic Love or a more relevant index, so it just sat around doing nothing. With one wick, it's brought in 20 people from somewhere. If somebody can add a description (and the cover), and add it to Needs Wiki Magic Love, it's probably fine...?

edited 27th Apr '17 7:08:45 PM by WaterBlap

No one replied to me when I posted the link to Order Is Not Good last page. Fighteer had told me to link it here because of it's problems. I admit I'm unfamiliar with how this thread operates; have I done my due diligence or is there more I need to say/do?

Magic or Psychic? is premature. Only 1 wick and the description needs to be continued from what's there. Not sure how it got 10 hats though.

edited 30th Apr '17 3:08:51 AM by Pagani800

should be sent back to YKTTW — can we send Puzzlement About Payment back as well?

I'll take a look at it now. EDIT: cleaned it up.

edited 30th Apr '17 4:58:14 AM by lakingsif

I now relaunched Walpurgisnacht and is now classified as a Useful Notes page.

Story.Aesir Cross Wars is in the wrong namespace and is a stub. I sent notifiers as it did exist (unfinished). A google search shows that it's been "deleted or removed" from Wattpad, and the creator was active last month. I'm just disinclined from cutlisting troper works pages (and I am just assuming the troper is also the creator).

RE: Magic or Psychic?: Send it back. The description needs to include what the trope is, and that description just implies it. I'm also a bit concerned that it overlaps a bit with Magic Versus Science.

RE: Puzzlement About Payment: Send it back. The description is one line of Example as a Thesis. (Did I already comment on this? Imma check. Right, so I didn't actually say to send it back, but yeah, I think there's potential there, just not as it is.)

edited 6th May '17 4:50:25 PM by WaterBlap

I looked it over. There's still some wonky wording. Am I allowed to clean it up, or is that limited to longterm members of the thread? Also, I can't help but think the entire description is overly long. The original wording came off as more an attack on the trope than a description and I don't know how well that's been fixed.

You're allowed to clean it up. If you can tighten and de-bitch the description without changing the definition, you can do that, too.

There's a real difference between Magic or Psychic? and Magic Versus Science, but right now Magic or Psychic? doesn't explain how it's used. That could lead to magic-only works or psychic-only works listing the trope, which would make it Not A Trope.

edited 9th May '17 10:31:32 AM by crazysamaritan

LGBT Community

• made in TLP a week ago. Which is fine, but not that good.
• sponsor did not listen to suggestions, ones from members of the LGBT community at that, because of reasons prefaced with "well IMO" — articles are now authoritarian, apparently
• enough of that information is incorrect, offensive, or duplicate, that I'm itching to strip and rewrite it
• do we need this? Like, I know I sponsor and support enough lgbt-related pages, but I don't think this is something the wiki needs — IMO, way too general for such a short UN. Needs expanding or breaking up, which I'd be happy to do.

Here's a link to the TLP draft: [1]

Note that in the draft, the bullet for Asexual reads "Those with no interest in the carnal aspects of sexuality. Sometimes, this letter is implicitly merged with Ally." Meanwhile, in the launched page, it reads "Those with no sexual attraction. Previously lumped in with bisexuals (since both groups have no sexual preference)." This was never brought up in the draft.

~Bisected8 made the change after it was launched stating "Lumping asexuals in with allies isn't a mainstream position (if anything it carries Unfortunate Implications)." I made the suggestion in the draft to point out the lumping, but the sponsor used different wording than I did for some reason,^note My phrasing was "'Ally' is unfortunately usually what is meant rather than 'Asexual.'" and it was my intention to point out that it is something that people unfortunately do. It does carry Unfortunate Implications, and — I'd argue — the way to combat the perception is by pointing it out and telling people it's incorrect.

Also, the change (that bisexuals have "no sexual preference") also carries Unfortunate Implications. So it doesn't help the situation.

If there are still problems with the article, I'd say send it back rather than everybody making unilateral changes.

One of my biggest issues was the "Transexual" bullet. Not only is it spelt wrong, it's very wrong to use.

Someone even wrote a nice long paragraph about Trans* in the TLP comments, and the op either didn't respond or (though this might have been for a different comment) said something along the lines of "but we have a UN for transsexual so it's staying as that". Which, also defeats the purpose? That information is better elsewhere...

That was poor wording on my part (my first thought was "equal attraction to both genders", but I didn't want to imply there were only two, and equal attraction to all genders would fall under pansexuality).

TBH, we really need to do something about the trans UN being titled Transsexual and the fact that Intersex redirects to Hermaphrodite.

I'd personally say burn it and let someone who's open to input from people within the community remake it.

I agree (and I also agree with re-titling Transexual)