Follow TV Tropes
Per Ask The Tropers, X Meets Y is Just for Fun and shouldn't be on a work page, but it frequently gets put in the examples list. Not to mention it's fairly subjective and has led to squabbling on works pages over what it's closer to.
However, its redirect without the namespace is on over 2400 pages, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the majority of those are on works pages.
Please go through the wicks and help get rid of them where they are put in the examples list.
edited 20th Sep '13 10:20:12 AM by Larkmarn
Most of these are in work pages.
I might add my hand here if we get some more participants.
Should the X Meets Y wicks on work pages be removed too?
edited 20th Sep '13 11:19:58 AM by Viira
If it's in the examples, it should definitely go.
If it's potholed in the description, ATT is saying that it's a case-by-case basis. For now, we should probably focus on taking care of the ones in the examples section that treat it as a trope.
Zero Punctuation has an interesting example, Yahtzee is specifically referencing X Meets Y (he calls Minecraft Zelda meets There Will Be Blood). I feel like that could stay.
EDIT: Reconsidered. See my post below.
edited 20th Sep '13 12:17:07 PM by Larkmarn
What should be done if the Word of God or an outside commentor describes the work this way?
Hmm...unless we qualify JustForFun.X Meets Y as an item that can get In-Universe/invoked examples just like we do for YMMV items meeting similar qualifiers, we'll probably need a new trope for that.
Yeah, same for my Zero Punctuation example... we need to either specify on the page that's alright or come up with something new. As-is, both of those are misuse.
You know, at the bottom of the Just for Fun page there is a list of subpages for works. X Meets Y is on some of those.
If someone had the plan to make Just for Fun subpages as an analogue to YMMV and Trivia subpages, the project did not come very far, it seems.
Couldn't we put X Meets Y examples on the Trivia subpages?
X Meets Y was Trivia at some point.
It was decided as too subjective even for Trivia, as I recall. As used, it's basically a game we play with ourselves, hence the Just for Fun namespacing.
In-Universe uses can be kept, I think, but on the page for the person making the observation, not the page for the work.
So if Zero Punctuation declares Work X to be "Pong meets Chrono Trigger", that would go on the article for ZP, not the article for Work X.
As for description potholes, those can be left for later. I'm more interested in killing all the example list uses.
edited 20th Sep '13 12:41:20 PM by Fighteer
I'm working backwards; Z and Y are done.
Would be good if it were clearer that X Meets Y shouldn't go on example lists.. maybe make it a YMMV-type page so that it shows up Red on lists, or at least a mention on its own page to prevent future misuse?
edited 20th Sep '13 12:49:10 PM by Larkmarn
If the example says that "[Reviewer] described [this work] as [work] meets [another work]", and the reviewer doesn't have a page, would the example qualify as an in-universe example?
No. What reviewers say about a work is irrelevant to our article for that work and should never be included.
OK, I'll start removing those examples.
Edit: Removed examples from A to C, will do more tomorrow. Too tired to continue now.
edited 20th Sep '13 2:04:58 PM by Viira
@11: Where would intentionally invoked by part of the production team go?
The cinematographer for Dredd said (though don't have a URL handy) that he was going for a visual style that was a hybrid of Blade Runner and A Clockwork Orange.
I think that was the original, intended use. It has decayed from there, though.
If we were to make an exception for Word of God cases, they would go in the Trivia subpage, not the main page.
edited 20th Sep '13 5:08:17 PM by Fighteer
About 1 quarter of the entire page for MAD is filled with In-Universe examples of X Meets Y, because crossover mashups are kinda their whole schtick. It's almost enough to warrant it's own page, but again: they're all invoked examples.
I have to wonder if those wouldn't fit better under a different trope, like some variant of Mashup. X Meets Y is more like a marketing strategy than a trope that exists within a work.
Well, how about Crossover Mashup as a proposed trope for in universe examples? I can make it on YKTTW if we can go through the wicks and find such examples.
I'm all for X Meets Y getting the YMMV tag, and be put in YMMV.
That'll avoid any well-intentioned but short-sighted troper to put them back on the article.
And in-universe can still be left with the [[invoked]] markup, as usual with YMMV.
edited 21st Sep '13 4:22:27 AM by StFan
The thing is, if X Meets Y can actually go in YMMV, it's... like way subjective. And there's no real way of "ruling" it, so if people come to a disagreement, then it's either an edit war, or us just accepting absolutely anything.
Just to clarify it, since I'm not sure if the conventions for ymmv apply to just for fun: are in-universe examples accepted in "main" (works page)? say a character is explictly describing a movie as a combination of two others...
ETA : What should be done with the rest of examples? I'm asking because I'm seeing some outright deletion, not movevements to the ymmv tab.
edited 8th Oct '13 11:43:49 AM by TrollBrutal
It shouldn't go to YMMV. If it goes anywhere, it should go to Just for Fun.
I'm considering YKTT Wing X Meets Y Pitch for In-Universe examples. For the time being, I'm leaving the In-Universe ones. Think that's a good idea?
Is it possible for it to stay on a unpublished Work page? I mean the creators are the ones mostly writing the articles anyway, the only edit war they're having is with themselves lol. If not whats a good alternative to avoid this problem.
Thanks in advance.
edited 17th Oct '13 6:08:08 PM by TSims
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?