Unintentional Period Piece needs a threshold.

Should we have it so that Unintentional Period Piece only includes up to the turn of the millennium?

I don't think this could go in Just for Fun, but keep it as Trivia.

As it is, perhaps a better definition of what a UPP is: something that when made, the original author had no idea it would be so reflective of the era it was made. It needs to be distinguished from Period Piece especially in canonical list of trope distinctions as a sort of FAQ on this trope.

For example, would 1990s episodes of Series.Top Gear, CASUAL+Y and Series.Police Camera Action qualify, not only due to the technology, but also the social attitudes towards things in the era, like drink-driving, homosexuality, and references to events that would be Continuity Lock-Out to today's generation, such as the OJ Simpson trial?

The 1995 episodes of Series.Top Gear focusing on Ford Escort sedans and Ferrari F-series cars, with emphasis on Volkswagen diesels being good would instantly date it to the 1990s, as social attitudes in The New '10s towards diesel cars due to the Volkswagen diesel scandal make this representative of its time period.

Equally, Dexter's Laboratory could be seen as an Unintentional Period Piece of the 1990s, with references to faddishness in the episode "Framed", Mom's Bland-Name Product car that's a sort of Buick clone, the beat-em-up Donkey Kong style game in the episode "Game Over" which parodies Tron. I doubt the creators knew it would be representative of 1990s culture/tech at the time when aired from 1996-1998, especially with the technology on the show, especially given its Sci-Fi (soft sci-fi) premise. However, the episode "Backfire", focusing on a self-driving car, would probably be another trope, since it's about something that's ahead of its time (back in August 1997 when the episode aired the idea wouldn't have been taken seriously)

I would argue that this is a genuine trope, but it needs to have a clear definition, to avoid things being shoehorned in.

As it were, why don't we make a Sandbox copy of the page to avoid Edit War (I assume that Sandbox pages are a good way to stop an edit war?)

Edited by Merseyuser1 on Dec 30th 2019 at 12:43:38 PM

The thing is that this is just as tropable as People Sit On Chairs. It doesn't provide any meaning in the storytelling, it's something that simply arises because the creator simply doesn't care about making their work, oh so ageless, or how much tropers will start to dissect the attire, the place, what's shown on tv, the hair choices and other extremely small details. That's the reason people have such a hard time coming up with sensible limits, with proper definitions or what counts as an example and what doesn't.

Edited by Edgar81539 on Dec 30th 2019 at 8:22:17 AM

If it even does count as anything beyond JFF, it might be Trivia, going by

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I was a bit wrong; the check gave 38% correct use. Still horribly misused.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Question about the recency standard. There are some examples listed under "2010's" that did not premiere ten years ago, which would technically violate NREP, correct? And as such, some of them feel like reaching. Most glaringly: the BoJack Horseman example, which references a 2015 episode, seems to suggest an episode about celebrities getting away with sexual misconduct is dated due to the MeToo movement, implying that movement made it impossible to ignore sexual harassment cases, which sadly isn't really true. Worth noting the series continued through 2020, and even alluded to that very movement in later seasons. I don't think this is a special case of being outdated immediately either, since if anything, the episode became more relevant when the MeToo movement rolled around. The Teen Titans Go! section also has some too-early examples, most notably an example about TMNT references being dated due to the 2012 series not thriving in later years, despite the fact the franchise came back with a new revival in 2019.

Should we note under the 2010's section, or just on the page in general, not to include examples that came after 2010 unless they're very obviously outdated? Not just "trends dying off" but "information is no longer correct" outdated? Yes the page already has the NREP notice but the presence of the 2010's folder may be misleading people to add series that came out after 2010.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 14th 2020 at 8:56:58 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

It was decided that works younger than ten years could be eligible in exceptional circumstances, so not everything 2011 or later is an insta-nuke.

I'll go over it at some point in the next few days.

Which, of course, I argued is pointless as any editor who is adding it believes that their example is exceptional and why wouldn't you agree? -_-

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Seconded. Without defining "exceptional circumstances," it renders the rule meaningless.

We could have a forum thread to propose newer-than-10-years examples.

I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.

I could see certain circumstances where examples that are younger than ten years would count as an UPP. For instance, if there's a movie that's trying to cash in on a trend and that trend ends up going out of fashion in a spectacular fashion. However, we would need a strict definition of what counts as an exception. Otherwise we'll get people insisting their examples count as an exception and ignoring the ten-year rule.

Yeah, it's entirely possible for there to be very rapid examples, but between tropers' tendency to engage in special pleading and how ludicrous the misuse already is, I'm not sure they can be allowed in practice.

(Honestly, I kind of like the idea further up this page of dumping the entire mess off the main wiki, but I know that's not gonna fly.)

Edited by nrjxll on Sep 16th 2020 at 9:37:51 AM

Maybe a requirement that such entries (earlier than the 10-year rule?) be supported with an example that factually dates them (e.g., it features a store that went out of business shortly after airing and you literally physically could not have that scene later than a certain date shortly after airing), rather than subjective cues such as clothing or (especially?) values dissonance.

The thing is, part of what's so dumb about the misuse is that it feels ridiculous to be saying "a store that doesn't exist anymore appears" is really an example of a period piece in the first place.

Like, we literally had one like that be brought up for SHAZAM! (2019) (with a shoe place that I can't even remember the name of) and it just seemed laughable.

Tropers just seem to have this inexplicable urge to find literally anything - even the tiniest, most minute detail - that can date a film, and then declare it this trope.

Edited by nrjxll on Sep 16th 2020 at 9:51:49 AM

The NCIS/Gaddafi example, for instance, was aired 2011 and was already dated before release. But most cases under ten years aren't that obvious.

I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.

Hmm. I do understand where you're coming from. I put the example out there because it was a fact you could point to to say that the episode couldn't have taken place beyond a certain date, but it is rather nitpicky. For examples less than 10 years old, test for inclusion, Attempt Two:

• 1. There must be a factual (not subjective) reason the episode is dated.
• 2. The reason should be plot-relevant (e.g., meeting a foreign head of state is a plot point, but the head of state was famously deposed) rather than incidental. If you can remove it or easily substitute it and the plot still works, it is not a strong enough reason for inclusion within the 10 year timeframe.

I'm not sure if this is too much of a hassle to work or police, though.

Edited by PointMaid on Sep 16th 2020 at 11:25:54 AM

The Gaddafi example sound more like The Great Politics Mess Up.

I'm of the opinion that UPP (the way most tropers use it) is very close to chairs anyway, but if we can get some actual guidelines in here that could help.

I think another issue I have with allowing exceptions to the ten year rule is that it's entirely possible for something to make a comeback. A reference to a trend or celebrity might seem dated now, but you never know. Maybe someone has a Career Resurrection. Maybe a dead trend catches on with the younger generation.

My issue with the ten year threshold is mostly that creating hard numbers like that tends to incite letter of the law but not its spirit. I completely get the struggle with two-weeks-later type of examples, but not all editors catch on to these abstract rules and we have good examples that are six years old but deleted anyway.

Extraordinary exceptions could be defined as a work making bold predictions or otherwise aligning itself with a story arc on contemporary issues that has a big reversal shortly after they finish their take on it.

We already have Dewey Defeats Truman for works that make a specific prediction that is proven wrong, and that does not have a waiting period.

If these are good examples, then why can't they wait four more years to prove it?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

That's not the best reasoning. Any time limit beyond a couple months at most will prevent at least some "good" examples; they would just be drowned out by the shoehorns and quick over-reactions, hence why the limit was made so long to begin with.

Out of curiosity, what were these good examples that got deleted?

Like I said before, I think there are some cases where something could be an Unintentional Period Piece even though ten years haven't passed. However, the problem is establishing strict rules to determine what is a good example. Otherwise there's nothing to discourage people from posting premature or bad examples, because everyone is going to assume their example is an exception to the rule.

That's the reasoning behind banning people; there is no expiration date past which you cannot add an example. You don't have to be the first to add an example. You don't need to rush so badly that you forget proper spelling and grammar. You do not need to rush so badly that you forget proper context.

Time limits do not prevent examples from being added to pages, they just set a waiting period before which the examples can be added.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I know it might not be workable or even a good idea, but any comments on the two-part test I proposed above?:

• 1. There must be a factual (not subjective) reason the episode is dated.
• 2. The reason should be plot-relevant (e.g., meeting a foreign head of state is a plot point, but the head of state was famously deposed) rather than incidental. If you can remove it or easily substitute it and the plot still works, it is not a strong enough reason for inclusion within the 10 year timeframe.