Needs Help: Critical Research Failure

I would say at least a few of those are CRF.

The very first entry, for example.

I agree that some of the entries (like the first one and the "a whole-foods, plant-based diet cures autism" stuff) are CRF, but I don't think there's enough CRF for an entire page. We can just move the page and put the CRF entries on the comic's YMMV page too, as every CRF example is also an example of Dan Browned.

I've moved the Vegan Art Book page.

Where should the Dakari-King Mykan examples go? Artistic License?

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but where should the remaining works pages go?

Chris Stuckmann should be cut since it only contains three examples, with the first one being lengthy.

Move to Cowboy BeBop at His Computer, Dan Browned, another appropriate trope, or cut entirely. (Although some of those subpages could use some cleanup - expecting anyone to not make a single factual error is unreasonable).

Which ones do you think should be cleaned up?

I moved Cracked, Cinema Sins, and Todd in the Shadows to Dan Browned. What should be done with the last one?

Regarding the last fic, I know next to nothing about it and don't watch the show it's based on, but I moved its CRF page to Cowboy Be Bop At His Computer.

I moved the Todd In The Shadows page from Dan Browned to Cowboy BeBop at His Computer.

Why?

Looking at that page, the reason he gave was that Dan Browned is for when a work presents at least parts of itself as true yet it has many falsehoods, while Cowboy Bebop at His Computer is for plain research failures regarding other works.

With that in mind, perhaps some of the pages that were moved previously, such as Cinemasins and Honest Trailers, should be in that namespace instead.

I moved Todd In The Shadows in particular due to Todd pretty much coming off as a real person directly reporting (wrong) things about other works (most of his examples consist of "Todd said X happened, but in reality it didn't" and "Todd said X is Y, but X isn't actually Y"), just like the rest of the print/new media examples for Cowboy BeBop at His Computer.

And in addition, he doesn't meet the pretentiousness or factoid-based-fiction nature implied for Dan Browned, as costanton pointed out. For one case, I moved Honest Trailers to Dan Browned due to its themes of Brutal Honesty etc. being contradicted by its errors like a fire engine.

Edited by Albert3105 on Dec 25th 2018 at 11:27:34 AM

I found CriticalResearchFailure.Supper Smash Bros Mishonh From God. I know nothing about the fic so I don't know what page any valid examples would be moved to.

Considering how it's a Troll Fic, it's unlikely that any of these are actual "research failure"; most likely, the errors are intentional.

Then wouldn't Stylistic Suck or a subtrope thereof fit better?

Yeah, those examples can probably be moved under Stylistic Suck since they're intentional.

I moved the page to Stylistic Suck.

To clarify, out-of-universe examples of Critical Research Failure are about violations of external consistency, right? It's not about getting facts about the subject of the work wrong, right?

I want to know before I go crazy purging CRF misuse.

By the way, a suggestion: What if we added a rule that said it's only CRF if one can figure out it's incorrect via logic alone? Using the Jupiter Ascending example, ignoring that some won't know which way round is the absorbent side of a Maxi pad, it's still reasonable to assume you'd want to use the absorbent side to soak up something. This should get rid of all the 'incorrect fact'errors, which will hopefully reduce complaining and misusing.

Following this, we could delete everything that explains why it's a CRF (since by definition it should be self-explanatory) and if someone comes across an example that they can't understand what's incorrect, it shall be removed.

Also, the crowner broke.

On the previously mentioned topic of pages being moved to Dan Browned but later cut, DanBrowned.Cracked is still present.

So, have we decided to make CRF IUEO? I feel we should, since CRF gets so much misuse.

No, and I unborked the crowner to show this.

For what it’s worth, the trope has 3000 wicks that need to be checked.

Why is the assumption that intentional Artistic License is always good/acceptable/preferable to it being unintentional? Tropes Are Tools - I can personally sometimes get more frustrated by an intentional example that feels unnecessary or only exists to make the work a Cliché Storm when the true facts would be more interesting or otherwise than an honest mistake (on something obscure enough, from a creator who did honestly do research but messed up something minor). Obviously it really depends on the context whether I think something would be preferable to be an intentional or unintentional mistake, but the wiki's assumption seems to be that intentional Artistic License is always preferable and always a good thing.