NaNo 4328 / 50,000
So, right now, we have the convention of No Examples means Definition Only on the page itself, but Cross Wicking is otherwise allowed, and Flame Bait means No Examples Anywhere.
Then, of course, we have the Just for Fun pages, where we have wicks on the page, but No Cross Wicking.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Reviving due to some people going on a campaign against tropes labeled No Examples Please.
crazy summarized the current situation ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
quite well, and I think it works just fine like that, though Flame Bait and Example Sectionectomy probably need to be cleaned up to clarify. We might also need to move some tropes over to the Flame Bait index to further cut down on that confusion.
Apparently there's some glitch regarding the Flame Bait banner, though. Something about it not showing up properly if the page is on other indexes.
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
So lemme get this straight people started getting confused because of the rule which says 'No examples, please' ...what's to be confused about it?
See ya later, alligator
Whether it applies to other pages as well.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Unknown
Here's how I think we should label them, with appropriate banners.
- No Examples On Page: This trope does not allow for examples on its definition page, but you may crosswick it and post examples on other pages.
- No Examples Anywhere: This trope page is only for definition and does not allow for examples anywhere on the wiki.
- Flame Bait: [flame bait banner description]
I think Flame Bait should be its own thing despite being functionally similar to No Examples Anywhere, as the reason something is Flame Bait is usually Serious Business on a level other tropes aren't.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
We don't have "No examples on this page." It's just no examples anywhere. It's a general statement. No examples means no examples. It's not that tricky.
Most of the things with that statement listed are definitions of terms, not tropes. You can't put examples on something that isn't a trope.
edited 7th Aug '15 4:34:17 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Is that the consensus of the mod team? Because if so, there are a lot of things labeled "No Examples, Please" that shouldn't be.
Personally, I prefer this
solution. We have some tropes that don't work with examples on the page but work fine with work examples (because work pages have more curators), some that are the opposite (usually because they're too silly to have off-page examples), and some that should have no examples at all (Flame Bait and definition pages). Maybe the exact names can change, but the categories seem pretty clear-cut to me.
I'm not sure. That post wasn't supposed to be red, and I can't make it un-red. Apparently the mod tools are picking up some bugs.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Ok, so my mod posting in this thread is being buggy.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
I've been wondering about the 'no examples' thing too. Specifically tomboy has been put on some pages but that page isn't supposed to have examples so I don't think it should be listed on another page either.
Gonna agree with Discar on this. There are definitely tropes that have had Example Sectionectomies because they cause problems when too many examples are concentrated in one place, but are perfectly harmless as a single example on a work page (or a work's YMMV page).
Rhymes with "Protracted."
No, the other one.
I don't think there's a problem if it's a trope that doesn't have examples on its page because it's too common. If you take Tomboy as an example, it's (imo) more interesting in terms of how it fits a character (on the character page), as compared to how a particular character uses the trope (on the trope page). One page has a focus to give more information about the character, and the other about the trope. Of course, for a wide trope like that it's always better to find an appropriate subtrope or two, but that's just an example.
Flame Bait, on the other hand, just no. Or any other trope that doesn't have examples because it's objectionable, draws complaining, or any problems in that vein.
Check out my fanfiction!
You know, I do really think that the YMMV pages could use some serious pruning, or at least a consideration as to how the pages work.
Sometimes it just devolves into lengthy paragraphs of endless bitching.
The Unknown
Bump because people are still confused about what the heck we're supposed to do with tropes listed in Example Sectionectomy. We just got another Ask The Tropers question about it.
edited 10th Oct '15 2:07:05 AM by Karxrida
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Decision needed. The case that it's not a convention is not at all watertight.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman