Misused: Casting Gag

Can the wicks be changed now? Actor Allusion has 6000+ wicks, and a lot of them are actually examples of Casting Gag.

please :) I'd have done more yesterday if it weren't late

Okay. Does anyone want to help out?

Why is Actress Allusion a redirect to Actor Allusion? Actor isn't gender-specific, and obviously the trope is talking about acting in general...

Historically, Actor has in fact been considered Male. Its gender neutral usage is relatively recent.

ok, well it's only got 2 wicks so it's not really an issue

The sandboxes have been merged into their respective tropes, so it looks like were done.

edited 5th Apr '18 11:20:17 AM by AmourMitts

Are the wicks done?

Do a Wick Check here.

the wicks for Actor Allusion may also be a problem, still looking through them.

Also, the IP thread is already reopened—go there to suggest an image for Casting Gag.

BUMP

I don't think Actor Allusion belongs in the main page. Actor allusion seems to fit the trivia section better than the main page. It doesn't talk about the film itself, it talks about the actors who worked on the film. That's trivia facts. I think we should leave Actor Allusion where it was originally, the trivia section. Besides there are already billions and billions of trivia sections that have Actor Allusion and removing all them is like finding a needle in a haystack and just not worth it. Can we keep actor Allusion in the Trivia section please with Casting Gag? That's the way it always has been.

edited 19th Jun '18 11:49:30 AM by ngh93

Both Casting Gag and Actor Allusion are main page, not trivia. This was decided in a previous discussion and reaffirmed in this one. They both involve forms of characterisation, which is directly part of the work and not part of real life (compare with Actor-Shared Background, which is unrelated to characterisation). Casting Gag is more strongly tied to the work, but Actor Allusion is still some action or facet of a character that is inspired by past roles (even akin to Shout-Out - both in-work references) that makes the action/facet more meaningful — it's part of the story.

You not wanting to clean up examples is not a good argument, especially when this is not the first thread to decide it.

I also see that today alone you necro'd two separate ATT threads on the subject, despite them both already having concluded that Actor Allusion belongs as a main trope, not trivia. You're really getting into single-issue wonk territory here.

edited 19th Jun '18 1:42:37 PM by lakingsif

The problem with those tropes is more often than not a troper will use ANY coincidence as an example.

In theory it’s more like: Alice was cast in X movie because she played Carol in the original version

In practice it’s more like: Hah! This isn’t the first time Bob plays a character who eats cereal!

~Blue Fire your theoretical suggestion is actually an example of Remake Cameo.

We can’t control how people use the trope unless we force all examples to be vetted, which is used for a few tropes but is a massive undertaking. This thread, as well as several others in the past, are about most accurately defining what the trope’s limits are and how it should be used, and to write a description that gets this across clearly and concisely. We’ve done that part now and this thread is only still open to check through wicks.

I believe we are done here. Mod?

Have the wicks been moved yet?

There's still many wicks to be moved.

Edited by costanton11 on Nov 2nd 2018 at 9:02:21 AM

^ You mean to be checked and sorted out between Actor Allusion and Casting Gag?

The question is do we keep this open to discuss moves, or trust in the wiki collective to use the better defined descriptions to smartly move them

Yes.

Not sure what you're saying there.

Edited by Lymantria on Nov 24th 2018 at 5:44:15 AM

do we need to leave the thread open to discuss moving examples, or not.

Is it better to open an Actor Allusion and Casting Gag cleanup thread?