Needs Help: Critical Research Failure

No, no, no, no, no. We shouldn't have any tropes that attract complaining.

There's a difference between complaining and criticism. Pointing out a research failure in a work is the later.

Did Not Do The Research was cut for being complaint bait though.

I wasn't here to say, but I find that a questionable logic because this wiki is all to often thin-skinned and writes off all criticism on pages as complaining.

The fact cutting that page lead to this confusing mess shows why making drastic changes due to that conflating of the two things why it leads to problems.

Most of the examples on Did Not Do The Research were complaining. Plus, we don't need a general inaccuracies trope, we already have many inaccuracy tropes.

We have Dan Browned for "Author claimed to do research, but actually didn't".

edited 24th Jan '18 3:04:54 PM by bitemytail

That's too specific for what I was asking.

Sorry, I meant to reply to shoboni, but got 'd by your post.

Answering {{49}}, I guess that a thread in Long Time/Perpetual or in Short Time is a good idea.

edited 1st Feb '18 11:24:35 AM by MagBas

Did Not Do The Research was meant to be what Artistic Licinse is now. In fact, the AL pages were created to replace DNDTR and Somewhere A Biologist Is Crying- and YouFailBiologyForever-like tropes. Having looked at the old version, I can say that it was not criticism and most certainly was bitchy complaining from people who didn't like the creators or works they were bitching about. There's no reason to ever bring Did Not Do The Research back, especially with the AL tropes replacing them.

The people who wanted to just complain and bitch found another page to go to. That doesn't mean we should give them what they want by restoring the tumor that is DNDTR.

I agree with Mag Bas that a clean-up project — maybe in perpetual projects — would be helpful. I'm not sure if that's our only option, but it'd certainly be a start.

(As an aside, who wiki worded Main.You Fail Biology Forever as Artistic License – Biology?

No it isn't a coded redirect. It was a broken Main/ page redirect (i.e. it said redirect:ArtisticLicenseBiology rather than redirect:Main/ArtisticLicenseBiology). And the wiki word for YFBF has a hyphen whereas the wiki word for Artistic License – Biology has a dash. But that's beside the point. And I already asked on the locked pages thread.

edited 1st Feb '18 1:16:02 PM by WaterBlap

It's a coded redirect, not a wikiword. No idea who did it or when though.

Why not create a Darth Wiki page for complaining about historical inaccuracies?

The idea of DarthWiki.Slightly Inaccurate does sound kind of funny, tbh.

edited 3rd Feb '18 8:04:14 AM by WaterBlap

There's clearly a demand for such a page (otherwise we wouldn't be seeing this misuse).

Then maybe rename "artistic license" tropes because that implies intentional and justified inaccuracies implemented to drive the plot or for creative reasons, not blatant research failures.

I liked the old, snarky names better because it implied actual failures to do the research rather than intentional inaccuracies.

edited 3rd Feb '18 1:16:12 PM by shoboni

The thing is inaccuracies to make the world work and/or improve it is Artistic License though. That's what the tropes are and really should be.

Blatant mistakes and errors that don't affect anything aside from being noticeable is starkly different and imo notable. Especially the ones that are so quickly corrected and/or fact checked via Wikipedia. They are notable and not necessarily completely pejorative.

I suggest DarthWiki.Technically Inaccurate for that.

Done up a Sandbox.Critical Research Failure for examination.

I'm just gonna say it: The reason most inaccuracy tropes have "Artistic License" in their titles is that it's hard to distinguish actual artistic license from unintentional inaccuracies without Word of God, so we pretend every error was intentional so we don't have to point out inaccuracies (because it would come off as complaining, I guess).

Except the pages explicitly say it's errors

Artistic License – Biology says:

There are cases where the MST 3 K Mantra certainly applies, especially if the entire world of the work of fiction is pretty crazy and, thus, all bets are off in terms of good science. Therefore, most of the examples below are culled from series who were at least trying to be taken seriously (so please keep that in mind before adding an example on this page).

edited 3rd Feb '18 2:53:10 PM by shoboni

error: "the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgment"

An error can be accidental or intentional, plot-relevant or background, blatant or subtle. Artistic License is a trope that covers all factual errors made by creators (Consistency errors are excluded), and we assume they are made intentionally because it is polite.

An unintentional inaccuracy is an error.

"Assuming they're intentional because it's polite,"? That's what I was talking about.

Most of them are done in such a way where its obviously not intentional or has any bearing on actually being an element of Artistic License.

The Darth Wiki thing I'm proposing would be for unintentional examples, while intentional ones would continue to go under artistic license.

Honestly unless it is specifically word of god it wont work out too well. I was thinking more along the lines of if the error that actually affects something like a plot point, a rule of cool scene, World Building etc. That stuff is actual Artistic License, anything else is just not.

How would you tell them apart? Currently, the AL pages list both intentional and unintentional examples, for that reason.