All-Purpose Policy and Meta discussion: Administrivia.Trope Repair Shop

I'm starting to think I should do a wick check for Belly Buttonless. I just discovered the trope is actually about clones and other artificial beings being distinguished by their lack of a belly button, which shows that they were created artificially.

So I'm wondering how much use is actually "character doesn't have a belly button" for reasons other than artificial origin (i.e. lack of animation detail, model error, etc.).

It never hurts to check.

I just queued up For Want Of A Nail which I think is the biggest thing I've ever brought to TRS. I think it's a messy disambig case, though a second pair of eyes on the wick check would be appreciated (100 wicks...). I also started a Trope Talk thread where opinions on the trope and wick check can go in the meantime.

~Amathieu 13 — Your OP for Furry Comic / Furry Webcomic has a few issues:

This is incorrect, Popular with Furries is exclusively for works that become unintentionally popular with the Furry Fandom, as stated by its description:

Some works tend to unintentionally appeal to Furry Fandom members. A large number of fiction starring animals attract some sort of furry audience [...], however some especially provoke this.

in practice both Furry Comic and Furry Webcomics include works that aren't explicitly claimed to be created for furries, something that has been brought up at least once before on the Furry Webcomics discussion page [1], making the argument that intentional/unintentional is a meaningful difference moot.

This sort of claim would benefit from a wick check, since you're now arguing misuse rather than duplication.

Not really "niche", but we do have Estrogen Brigade (and its male equivalent Testosterone Brigade), LGBT Fanbase and Germans Love David Hasselhoff in that same vein.

re: intentionality. There's kind of an interesting thing going on that my OP speaks to. I read the description and despite it saying "unintentional" in the first sentence, I wasn't sure if that was a requirement for the trope or just describing a form for the trope to take. This was made more confusing by the laconic which currently reads: "A work or character gains a furry audience due to focus on animals, intentionally or otherwise." This was a unilateral change made by Sammy Dragon 92 back in 2018[1] with the edit reason: There have been many instances in recent memory where this troper has had very strong doubts whether or not it was truly "unintentional" for certain works/characters to have a strong Furry appeal...

Now the unilateral change aside, part of the issue discussed with the two indicies I'm bringing up is this exact point: without Word of God explicitly saying this is a work for furries/not for furries, how can you know intentionality? There are some works listed on Popular with Furries like Batman that as a whole has so little of the tropes within the "furry genre" that if it does end up having a big furry fandom, we can reasonably say it likely wasn't intended to appeal to them, but then there's works like Beastars for which that's a much harder sell. And while we could say in the absence of explicit confirmation, it's unintended, just as easily we could say in the absence of explicit refutation, it's intended. That's part of the issue I'm addressing in addition to them being redundant.

re: wick check. These are indices, which aren't typically tagged on pages as much as pages are added to them. I can do a run through of the works listed on both pages to see how many are explicitly furry and which ones aren't, but the above issue is going to impact this. Like, Fritz the Cat, The Adventures of Captain Jack, and Geronimo Stilton are all listed on Furry Comic. On Fritz the Cat's page, it's noted that it is considered a predecessor of the Furry Fandom, but that doesn't mean it was intentionally made to be a part of it; in fact, since the fandom didn't even exist, you could argue that it's impossible for it to have been. Nothing on Captain Jack's page even mentions being for furries and the only thing that seems to justify its inclusion is the anthropomorphic animal leads, similar to many Tex Avery MGM Cartoons which is likely part of its inspo since it also makes use of Slapstick. And Geronimo Stilton, being a children's series, almost certainly wasn't made for furries. I'd personally label all 3 as misuse. But the issue of how we're even determining what is supposed to be included on these indices is part of what I want to discuss.

Also, I'm not arguing misuse instead of redundancy. I'm arguing misuse in addition to redundancy in the context of what should be the merge target.

and to the last point, I'm sharing my perspective on where to merge these two indices and giving my general opinion on Popular with Furries as a possible merge target, but that paragraph ends with "That said, that's a critique for a separate thread. Either would be fine." No changes to Popular with Furries is being advocated at this time

Edited by amathieu13 on May 12th 2023 at 1:30:11 PM

Finished my wick check for The Resolution Will Not Be Televised. It's pretty rough. I'm thinking maybe disambig this one, but I'm open to other options.

Just stopping by the mention that while Exposed Eyeballs as Eyes' thread was closed, we're at 50 threads since I brought The Hero's thread back without there being any free slots, so we don't have any free slots yet.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 12th 2023 at 1:13:38 PM

Should there be a section in ReferencedBy.Akira specific to the infamous bike slide separate from other references? While there are many other scenes in the manga and movie that have its homages, we all know the bike slide is the one that's been used so much it used to be a trope in of itself.

Finished my wick check for Belly Buttonless with a grand total of 60% misuse rate!

Without getting too much into thread territory, I think this could be solved easily with a slight scope expansion and a cleanup.

Fewest wicks remaining: Out, Damned Spot! (329), Surprisingly Good Foreign Language (248), Has Two Daddies (229), Alluring Anglerfish (120), Electra Complex (43)

Closable upon completion: Power Walk (597), Tier Induced Scrappy (519), Ptero Soarer (509), Out, Damned Spot! (329), Alluring Anglerfish (120)

So I've been wondering, should Now Which One Was That Voice be trivia cause I thought it was because it involves out of universe knowledge. It wasn't until the entry on it for Tears of the Kingdom was removed did I discovered that it wasn't Trivia.

Should I need a wick check or something?

Bumping my question.

Are we good with removing the hold on Megalodon? Check's at 50/50 as of April.

I think Mayor wants to resort it.

Alright then. That's why I checked.

I do, but I’m about to go to sleep. Ping me tomorrow if I forget.

Bumping my question x6

I don't think it's different enough from Uncredited Role.

I wonder if it is simply a specific Discredited Tro—er, sub-Trivia going by the description, since apparently it's no longer common practice.

Cancellation is a trivia trope without on-page examples, why is that?

Is it bc it's too common?

It's from 2008, so it's probably one of those artifacts from the early days of the wiki where "we've all seen it a million times" was taken as good enough. It's not listed on any subpage of Example Sectionectomy and there's nothing in the edit history, so it seems there was no actual decision.

If that's the only problem with the page, then the fact that it isn't listed on No On-Page Examples or Definition-Only Pages means adding on-page examples is a free action that doesn't require TRS.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 17th 2023 at 5:15:14 AM

I will give Legitimate Businessmens Social Club, given most examples are of criminal fronts in general, not thinly veiled ones.

Re: Now Which One Was That Voice; it still happens from time to time. Like in Octopath Traveller II and Tears of the Kingdom. So should I need a wick check or something?

I think the description already points toward it being background information, and between something that's already Trivia (Uncredited Role) being listed as a related concept and the fact that 126 out of 252 wicks are already on Trivia/ subpages, I think we can do what we did with Dummied Out (which also had a buttload of wicks on Trivia/ pages even before it was officially classified as Trivia) and do this without a wick check. You'd probably want to cite this post since I'm not usually the one who opens threads.

I think there was a more recent (as opposed to how Dummied Out was the first one to be done through TRS after the Trivia thread was retired) Trivia move recently that didn't require a wick check, but I don't remember what it was.

Edit: Ascended Fanfic (whose wick count is closer to Now Which One Was That Voice's wick count than Dummied Out's wick count) was the thread that a wick check was determined to not be necessary for with its proposal to move it to Trivia (which happened).

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 17th 2023 at 12:12:14 PM