Needs Help: Punk Punk

Almost nothing in the Steampunk family is particularly punk.

The question is: are the terms "Sandal Punk" and "Stone Punk" established enough that we should document them? It doesn't matter whether they make sense. I think most of these don't make any sense. If I were in charge, I'd rename a whole heap of them, starting with Steampunk. But I'm not in charge—we're not in charge. I'm not sure anybody is actually in charge. It's a bizarre fad, but it relates to fiction, so it's something we want to document.

edited 28th Mar '18 12:38:04 AM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

In the meantime, I went ahead and added Deco Punk to the sandbox, since two of us were in favor, no one objected, and the Google evidence was strongly in favor as well.

eta: I think part of the problem here is that we still haven't decided on inclusion criteria. I made some suggestions earlier, but then we got bogged down in specific cases, and the broader question of what criteria we should be using is still open. Which makes it a bit hard to decide on some of those specific cases we're debating! :)

edited 28th Mar '18 12:56:24 AM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

the point is that none would call the flintstones stonepunk unless they were trying to define stonepunk. I think Sandalpunk and Stonepunk are less terms used to describe an existing genre and more an attempt to create a genre where none exists by drawing upon disparate works which are neither inspired from one of the original punk genres nor have an author or fanbase who claim affiliation with them. Just read the examples on those pages. Edit: stone punk suffers from the same problem as Dungeon Punk, namely an overreliance on one trope to the point where it becomes indistinguishable from it. We already have Bamboo Technology and Magitek

edited 28th Mar '18 8:02:07 AM by VarangianBard

With this one specifically its quite the genre with Mad Max, Borderlands, Tank Girl, Desert Punk and others all using Punk Visuals.

I would say Stone Punk is a genre created by Flintstones I wouldn't say its a "punk' genre though it is a genre and a setting trope, unlike Magitek which is about the technology for the most common appearances of Magitek the setting is currently called Dungeon Punk.

Also adding Scavenged Punk which I ran across on Stonepunk, IIRC the preexisting term is Junk Punk.

edited 28th Mar '18 9:27:54 AM by Memers

Scavenger punk actually looks like it could cover post apocalyptic punk pretty well, and the examples seem solid. Why don't we just go with that? Bamboo Technology is what the flintstones world is made of. Nobody calls it stone punk, and even if they did, how is stone punk any diffenrent from Bamboo Technology?

edited 28th Mar '18 9:34:14 AM by VarangianBard

Junk Punk is way too broad for that I think, any junkyard and scavanger works would be it including the latest Thor movie and Star Wars TFA.

It does not need to be after the the apocalypse or in a food scarce world at all.

Also Bamboo Technology can be in any work, Stone Punk and well all these tropes that are labeled 'punk' are setting tropes and a society is built around it. There are real life examples of Bamboo Technology right now, WW 2 Germans made mines out of wood for example, a Stone Punk setting however no.

edited 28th Mar '18 9:45:33 AM by Memers

I don't think that matters. Junk Punk specifically includes post apocalyptic in it's description, plus I don't think The Apunkalypse is a Punk Punk genre. It can be punk insofar as it overlaps with Scavenger Punk and Dieselpunk, but just because they dress up in a Punk Rock style doesn't make it Punk Punk

Also, do we really need a separate trope for "Bamboo Technology in the Stone Age?

edited 28th Mar '18 9:53:18 AM by VarangianBard

> "the point is that none would call the flintstones stonepunk unless they were trying to define stonepunk."

If we're going with the criteria I suggested (or something like it, since I was pretty vague), then it doesn't matter why they call it stonepunk. What matters is whether they call it stonepunk. Is that really a term people use for works? Specific examples may or may not count—we're looking at whether the term is used in aggregate.

If we're not going with the criteria I suggested, then someone needs to make another suggestion. And we need to come to some sort of agreement.

That said, I'm still neutral on including Stone Punk. The evidence I've seen so far is inconclusive. (It's another one where there's a work with that name, confusing matters.)

---

• Desert Punk: Memers, you're repeatedly avoiding my question. Do you have any evidence that the term is in widespread use beyond this wiki? I don't care if all those works have elements in common—if they aren't generally called desertpunk, then we shouldn't list it here. Or you need to suggest different inclusion criteria.

"Scavenged Punk": I'm not getting any ghits other than this site. Pretty sure it's not a thing.

edited 28th Mar '18 10:49:17 AM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Scavenged Punk is not a thing, but its alternate title Junk Punk definitely is. It should be renamed ASAP, and Desert Punk should be merged into it. It covers most "desert punk" settings from fallout to tattoine, and is a clear aesthetic with numerous examples. It also covers post apocalyptic settings, tying up that end too. As for Stone Punk, i guess i'd be fine with it being included in the Punk Punk page, but it definitely shouldn't have its own.

edited 28th Mar '18 11:17:17 AM by VarangianBard

I'd prefer to limit the discussion here to what should be listed on the Punk Punk page. If necessary, we can add a note saying that some of our trope pages are not widely accepted genre names, and thus don't belong here, despite having "punk" in their name.

I think this discussion of Punk Punk is going to be complicated enough without trying to decide on the ultimate fate of a bunch of other pages. Questions about deleting or renaming Desert Punk can be dealt with by taking Desert Punk to repair shop.

At the very least, if we're going to try to settle it all here, I'd like to suggest that we decide what belongs in Punkpunk first, before trying to decide the fate of pages which don't make the cut.

edited 28th Mar '18 12:47:40 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

The problem is they're hard to separate. Are we really gonna say that Desert Punk doesn't belong on the Punk Punk page, but then leave its own page intact? I get that trs is probably not the place to debate changes of this scale, but it makes no sense to argue about the criteria for appearing on the Punk Punk page without also defining the presumably much stricter criteria for having its own page on the site.

But if thats how its gonna be, then every punk genre with a page on this site should be listed in Punk Punk, and only removed after its individual page is.

edited 28th Mar '18 1:33:51 PM by VarangianBard

I suppose we could put them in a TV Tropes-Only section, with a note that these are not established genre names. But that sort of seems to me to defeat one of the main purposes of this repair job—to discourage this sort of snowcloning on TV Tropes.

If we just include everything that ends in "punk", the result will be a Search Generated Index, which is strongly discouraged. Personally, I see no problem with not listing pages whose names happen to end in "punk", but which aren't actually established "punkpunk" genres.

> "the presumably much stricter criteria for having its own page on the site"

The only real criteria for having a page is "displays a noticeable pattern" and "has three examples". How is that stricter than "must be an established term for a genre"?

eta: Maybe what we need is a crowner for inclusion criteria?

• Limit to actual established genres? or
• Include anything which happens to have "punk" in its name?

I know which one I'd vote for! :)

edited 28th Mar '18 2:08:24 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

it also has to be distinct from pre-existing tropes, which most of these "punk genres" aren't. Personally im fine with having snowclones on the Punk Punk page, because Punk Punk is specifically meant to describe the phenomenon of snowcloning punk genres. The important thing is that we properly categorize them and indicate their importance. To be on the Punk Punk page it should just end in punk. To have its own page it should be an established genre

edited 28th Mar '18 2:16:33 PM by VarangianBard

> It also has to be distinct from pre-existing tropes.

To get its own page? No, we have all sorts of overlapping genre pages. Speculative Fiction, Science Fiction, Fantasy, and ScienceFantasy just to start with. The thing is that they're all existing genres.

If you want to see a week-long argument erupt, go onto a general science-fiction-and-fantasy forum and ask whether Star Wars should be classified as science fiction or fantasy. People will argue endlessly about that. "The Force is nonsense, they're space wizards, it's pure fantasy! "No, they've got space ships and rockets, it's clearly science fiction!" "You're an idiot!" "No, you are!" etc., etc.

> Which most of these "punk genres" aren't.

Really? Name one that isn't distinct, and explain how it's not distinct. I don't see any that aren't distinct—even those that are clearly not established genres. They all look unique to me.

> To have its own page it should be an established genre

Oh you dreamer. :)

Maybe that's the way it should be—but there's clearly no such requirement.

However, the reverse of that is true. If it's an established genre, it can get a page. Things that aren't established genres can also get pages, but any established genre is going to pass muster at TLP. So if we limit this to established genres, everything we list will be something that can get a page, as long as someone takes the time to make it.

While what you're proposing is basically against the rules.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

"Note that indexes based on trope snowclones are often allowed, even if only under the spirit of Just for Fun. But they should contain a minimum number of tropes, which is somewhere around eight. It's also okay if a bunch of tropes with a proper index theme also happen to share the same word in their titles, as long as the index is about the theme, not that word."

Actually, we do name things. Most of the tropes we document didn't have names prior to being listed here, but they do appear as tropes in works. With genres, the question for whether we should document them isn't about whether they have a name, but whether they exist as a pattern like genres do. The thing with genres is that they generally get names, since people really like to classify works, but having an established name isn't a requirement for us documenting them.

Check out my fanfiction!

I also would support a TV Tropes Original section on the Punk Punk page, that is really what we are about her. And Punk is really about being mashups into a setting really.

My only real problem is that Desert Punk and Apunkalypse are much the same and after thinking on it Wasteland Punk would be a great title for it as it does not need to be a desert, it could be a glacier or plain but it’s gotta be a wasteland. And it’s not exclusive with Junk Punk.

edited 29th Mar '18 6:34:56 AM by Memers

I think Punk Punk needs to be listing specific genres above all else, given that the term derives from a specific subgenre of Science Fiction (cyberpunk). If it can't be clearly defined and demonstrated to be a genre, it doesn't get to be listed.

Desert Punk is the clearest example I can find so far for something that does not qualify: analysis of the actual page shows it's just "desert planet as subtype of Single-Biome Planet" + Bad Trope Namer, and should be renamed and de-listed.

The Apunkalypse (or whatever it ends up being named; I happen to like the pun tho) may qualify: there's a definite cluster of works that combine "After the End and humanity struggling to scratch out a living" with "pervasive science fictional technology mostly left over from before the end".

edited 29th Mar '18 7:12:36 AM by StarSword

Even the other wiki lists established genres first and then the more developing ones and that is what we should do here. Established genres first with descriptions then a separator with the other setting tropes.

And yes agree on Desert Punk, it just needs to be changed to a more appropriate Wasteland Punk.

No, it needs to not be considered punk at all, because it isn't and never was. Wasteland Punk similarly would in all likelihood be indistinguishable from The Apunkalypse in most cases (I'm willing to be proven wrong, but you need to actually prove it).

Being established doesn't matter for tv tropes, we make our own... that's the site's whole purpose.

And I have been saying that those Desert Punk and The Apunkalypse should be merged into Wasteland Punk 4 posts ago. And not all Desert Punk are The Apunkalypse, Borderlands is on an alien world and never had an apocalypse so much as lack of budget from corporate empires after a Gold Rush knockoff dried up. Many others also were forced to settle in wastelands but never had an apocalypse but the results are EXACTLY the same.

edited 29th Mar '18 7:44:11 AM by Memers

I find that Desert Punk, Apunkalypse, and Wasteland Punk are in the same genre, and I would include icy wastelands as well. It's a type of setting in a sparse and hostile environment with a reliance on technology (retrofuturistic, Used Future, or otherwise gritty) and a story focused on society or people breaking new grounds. The setting is at least somewhat dark or oppressive (but the story can be comedic). Food and fuel are probably major concerns.

Just "set in a desert" isn't enough. That's not a genre. That's a setting.

Check out my fanfiction!

I like the name Wasteland Punk, but what exactly differentiates it from Junk Punk? It sounds like The Same But More Specific.

Whatever you call it, it's different from The Apunkalypse, though there's obviously a lot of overlap. The Apunkalypse refers specifically to the Punk Rock fashion, while Junk Punk refers to the technological aesthetic. Some examples: The war boys from Mad Max would be The Apunkalypse because of how they dress, but their technology is much more Dieselpunk than Junk Punk. On the other hand, Jawas from Star Wars are Junk Punk, but are clearly not an example of The Apunkalypse.

edited 29th Mar '18 8:05:27 AM by VarangianBard

Junk punk is specifically about a scavenging society and technology from that and could be anything from the Junkyard planet of Sakaar in Thor Ragnarok to Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers using human junk and items that Gadget finds and invents things with. The latter type is the originator and most common use of Junk Punk.

There are usually heavy emphasis on modern items being used in costume design like a pot for a hat and Rube Goldberg Devices and such.

A work can use elements of both.

Edit: Junk Punk does not need to be in a ruined anything as well Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers is set in a tree in a park.

edited 29th Mar '18 9:29:10 AM by Memers

You're right junk punk is trying to describe two completely different aesthetics at once, one being a Mouse World and the other being After the End. That doesn't make any sense. the post apocalyptic part should be split off and formed into Wasteland Punk. Are we on the same page about it being different from The Apunkalypse though?