Could have sworn Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped got moved to Sugar Wiki years ago. Mind, I think it's fine just as normal YMMV, but if people really don't want it even on the normal YMMV pages (even though as shoboni has said, it's not actually causing problems), maybe moving it over to Sugar Wiki is a reasonable compromise.
Nuking it wholesale for purely theoretical problems shouldn't even be on the table.
Second the motion.
I'd be fine with it being moved to the Sugar Wiki so it can be as much of a gushy audience reaction as it needs to be.
The Unknown
Moving to Sugar sounds fine to me.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
I'm fine with that, but we need to hammer out a concrete definition beforehand.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
They both already have one and there's no issues justifying making big changes to a such a highly wicked and inbound trope, just as we've said. Even a mod has stated there's way to many inbounds to take drastic action without a damn good reason.
Anvilicious: Heavy-handed morals that smack the audience over the head, for better or worse.
ANTBD: When the the impact of the anvil was used to good effect to deliver a powerful message.
edited 17th Mar '17 5:56:33 PM by shoboni
Moving Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped to Sugar Wiki seems like a good idea. I don't think it should be cut since it hasn't caused any major problems and I feel cutting a trope because it may cause potential problems would set a bad precedent.
Like reflections in the glass!
I support a move to Sugar Wiki
I think there's enough of an agreement towards move to Sugar Wiki and letting it be as a gushing trope that we can make a crowner to formalize the vote.
edited 17th Mar '17 11:33:58 PM by shoboni
Would that also involve making Anvilicious neutral?
That's scope creep. Let's stay with this trope for now.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Not sure if that actually solves anything. Reading through the examples, the trope is actually fairly neutral in its tone.
I think the issue is that very few of the examples in SANTBD & Anvilicious really establish that the moral they are presenting are heavy-handed. And a lot of the entries read more like simply An Aesop, while the more negative one reads like Family-Unfriendly Aesop, Broken Aesop and so forth.
edited 18th Mar '17 3:07:00 AM by Adept
Blapper of Water
A simple move to sugar wiki wouldn't solve the issue, I think. There are still the example problem that Adept pointed to, and the description problem. These two articles aren't the same with one being but done well. If they are so closely tied we ought to make one a redirect, but that's off the table, so I think we should clean up the description in order to differentiate them more clearly, and then clean out the examples and corresponding wicks that don't fit the "new" definition.
edited 18th Mar '17 9:14:06 AM by WaterBlap
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
The Unknown
I don't think redirecting is strictly off the table like cutting is since redirecting is used to preserve inbounds.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Once again, they both have simple and sold definitions and it's been stated multiple times cutting/overhauling "because it MIGHT be a problem" is off the table due to the size of the tropes.
edited 18th Mar '17 11:26:36 AM by shoboni
Blapper of Water
Shoboni: Where is the "might be a problem" in my statement that "there are two problems"?
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
I swear, I remember SANTBD WAS a Sugar Wiki material. When did it become a regular YMMV?
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It already is a problem...
No problems have been given, only hypothetical maybes.
Blapper of Water
The problem pointed out by Adept is not hypothetical. The problem that I pointed out is not hypothetical. You just have to read the page to see them.
Or do you mean something else by "hypothetical"?
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
Then the burden falls on you provide a wick check proving there's enough legitimate misuse to justify a clean up effort.
edited 18th Mar '17 5:02:24 PM by shoboni
The Unknown
Not every TRS issue requires a wick check to prove something's wrong. The OP and others brought up that the the definition is just The Same But More Specific of Anvilicious with some Tropes Are Tools flavoring, which isn't something you provide a wick check for.
edited 18th Mar '17 5:07:56 PM by Karxrida
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
it does when you're implying a trope with nearly 12,000 inbounds and a shit load of wicks should be cut/redirected for "misuse".
edited 18th Mar '17 5:08:57 PM by shoboni
The Unknown
I don't think we're even talking about cutting it at this point, and determining whether we should redirect isn't really dependent on wick counts. It just makes our lives a pain since we have to fix them.
Dangerously Genre-Savvy probably had way more wicks and still got turned into a Genre Savvy redirect.
edited 18th Mar '17 5:12:23 PM by Karxrida
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Quoting blip:
"These two articles aren't the same with one being but done well. If they are so closely tied we ought to make one a redirect"
Sounds to me like a suggestion to cut SANTBD and make it re-direct to Anvilicious.
Redirecting absolutely needs a wick check, especially for a trope as big as this. Basically any TRS issue requires a wick check, except maybe a simple description edit to clarify a definition.
@ shoboni: Thing is... nowadays, we see "stuff that are just 'done well' version of an existing stuff" as something cutworthy, regardless of whether the stuff themselves are causing problems or not.
edited 17th Mar '17 2:45:21 PM by Getta
We don't need justice when we can forgive. We don't need tolerance when we can love.