"No Recent Examples Please" cleanup

Edit: I've created the index. So far I've added only those pages that have mandatory waiting periods already in effect.

It's been brought up in a few places recently (most notably in this ATT thread) that we have a few tropes / Audience Reactions / etc. that have mandatory waiting periods before being added. The suggestion has been made— which I tend to agree with— that some sort of index to keep track of which tropes have waiting periods and what those periods are would be helpful.

Besides what's already on the index, we've got:

• Specific Mandatory Waiting Period Suggested:
  • Critical Dissonance - Brought up here as being too early to call on release weekend. Fighteer suggests a one-month mandatory waiting period on all similar "reception tropes."
  • Overshadowed by Controversy - a 6-month mandatory waiting period has been suggested but not agreed upon yet
  • The Scrappy - Due to its close association with Base-Breaking Character and its status as a complaining magnet, has been suggested for a 6-month waiting period in this thread.

• No specific waiting period has been suggested, but adding it too early has caused problems:
  • Eight Deadly Words - It was suggested here that the below should apply to this as well
  • So Bad, It's Good - Fighteer noted here that the weekend of release was too early to apply tropes like these
  • So Okay, It's Average - see above

Template tag for work pages:

%% Per Administrivia/NoRecentExamplesPlease, do not add [Trope] until [X] months/days/weeks after the episode's release (Month Date, Year).

Use this date calculator to add the amount of months/days/weeks in accordance to No Recent Examples, Please!.

• As mentioned here, the consensus is that NREP warnings in trope page descriptions can use bold text so that they stand out.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jan 23rd 2024 at 9:41:59 AM

I think the waiting periods already in place are working out fine and suggest retaining them. I also agree with the suggestions to add a mandatory six-month waiting period to Overshadowed by Controversy and a mandatory one-month waiting period to So Bad, It's Good, So Okay, It's Average, Critical Dissonance, and Eight Deadly Words.

Other similar "reception" tropes could be added to the one-month waiting list if/when they cause a problem, but we shouldn't go out of our way to seek out tropes to add to the index. We're here to prevent problems, not create rules for the sake of rules or make work for ourselves.

Thoughts?

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 11th 2019 at 12:20:34 PM

I'm in favor of the suggestion.

But... I've always wondered why Unintentional Period Piece has a 2010s section on the main page if there's a 10-year mandatory waiting period...

Isn't Eight Deadly Words In-Universe or Cited Examples only?

How about a one-week waiting period for Memetic Mutation? I often see it used to record every single joke anyone has ever made about a work (or more often, the work's first trailer, which tends to cause the most hype and reactions in the fandom), regardless of whether it actually gets "repeated over and over" (as the definition says).

I'm not suggesting one week after the work is released, but one week after whatever inspired the meme was made available, whether it be a trailer, interview, episode, or the full work. I'd like for it to specifically be one week after the meme has started spreading, but it can be tricky to tell exactly when that was so that might be too much effort.

That might be something better addressed in this thread about "episodic troping." I'm not sure that a specific waiting period would help much in that case, since like you say, it's pretty hard to define when exactly a meme "started." Probably more one of those "address it as you see it" type of things than something you can put a hard-and-fast rule on.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 11th 2019 at 1:12:00 AM

I believe the "Cited or In-Universe" only applies to the page to keep it from being filled with complaining.

Sounds good so far.

Complete Monster has a two-week waiting period before we're allowed to begin to judge. The Woobie, it's sub-tropes, and Magnificent Bastard are now being put through a similar approval threads so I assume two-weeks should apply there as well.

What about Tainted by the Preview, which is by definition pre-release? Or Memetic Mutation or Fanon that arises from pre-release promotions?

Here's my though, Audience Reactions should wait until the work officially releases unless the index we create for tropes with waiting periods specifies otherwise?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Mar 11th 2019 at 1:33:56 AM

I agree that Audience Reactions should wait until the work is actually out; there's a thread that's dedicated to addressing the issue of pre-release speculation.

Unintentional Period Piece allows examples newer than 10 years in exceptional circumstances (which is why a 2010s section already exists on the page), though those should be few and far between.

I feel like that invites Fan Myopia; "Of course my example is exceptional, because ~subtle point that might not even be noticeable in fifty years but is really obvious to this person~."

A casual glance at the 2010s folder would seem to support that concern.

I opened the 2010s Western Animation folder and I see Bojack Horseman and political issues.

If the rest of the 2010s section is full intentional period pieces like this, I might request a chainsaw.

I think it's safe to add a less-than-10-year example of Unintentional Period Piece in the case that critics call the work instantly dated as stated in the description. That being said Unintentional Period Piece has a problem of people adding recent examples of works that contain a single or a few references that might slightly date it or even works that reference current technology that show no sign of becoming obsolete in near future. There have been examples of a song containing a single reference to the Nintendo 3DS and movies merely mentioning or featuring things like Twitter, smartphones, and e-mail before the 2010s section was cleaned up.

Ugh, those are all so bad. The only ones I could maybe see keeping are the ones like The Starving Games and OMG Shakespeare that seem like blatant attempts to cash in on short-lived fads, but then again maybe that wouldn't count at unintentional. I'd be ok with axing the whole section.

Any thoughts on The Scrappy? I've had to clean up a lot of misuse added as a knee-jerk complaint. Since it relates to Base-Breaking Character as they are either this or Scrappy, how about giving it six-months as well?

I believe The Scrappy should also have a six-month wait period since it's often used for knee-jerk complaining.

I have posted a link in the Scrappy cleanup thread to get further voices in here for consensus.

I've created the No Recent Examples, Please! index. For now I've only included pages which have a mandatory waiting period already in place. Please take a look and see if any changes need to be made.

I'd like to begin gathering consensus for adding pages to the index that have had a waiting period suggested but not implemented yet. I've created a crowner for Overshadowed by Controversy.

I think we could also consider adding a separate section for pages like Memetic Mutation that are often added too soon, but for which a specific mandatory waiting period is difficult to implement. Less "anything added without waiting X amount of time is definitely bad" and more an exhortation to err on the side of caution.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 12th 2019 at 7:31:55 AM

At this point it seems like we're on the road to adding all Audience Reaction or Fandom tropes. Not that I have a problem with that- it usually takes a while for a work to develop a fandom and for the hive mind to coalesce to an opinion. The only the exception would be Tainted by the Preview, which is by definition more of a knee-jerk thing.

Tainted by the Preview is yet another of those pages that says No Examples, Please in one spot, and that examples can go on YMMV pages in another. This has been addressed multiple times as a major source of confusion, but to date nothing's been done about it.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 12th 2019 at 8:21:57 AM

Should it be noted that adding entries in comment-out mark-up in order to "save" the example until time runs out is not kosher? I recall that actually happening once or twice, but it might be obvious enough not to need saying.

Generally, that means "No examples on the page, but entries of the phenomenon can be listed on work pages." It isn't nearly as confusing as, say, being IUEO and NRLEP. It's pretty clear cut.

What about just a "soft rule" of thumb regarding Audience Reactions, like no episodic troping. I doubt this effort will need to list every single trope that's out there.

Edited by WaterBlap on Mar 12th 2019 at 9:49:11 AM

The Example Sectionectomy page says nothing about examples being allowed on work pages. It describes no examples being allowed anywhere. What you're describing is how things are often handled in practice, but we have no coherent policy, no coherent messaging, and no way for a casual troper (or even a dedicated one) to tell which No Examples, Please tropes are actually No Examples, Please and which are allowed on work pages but not on the trope page. This has been brought up numerous times in numerous places for literally years and nothing has been done about it.

I agree that commenting out examples to "save" them is not kosher, but I'm not sure it's such a widespread problem as to warrant mentioning. Might just give people ideas.

Also agree that a "soft rule" regarding Audience Reactions is preferable to instituting a blanket rule or attempting to list every single trope that might cause a problem. This is one of those "it's not a problem until it's a problem" things. I've added a paragraph to this effect to the index page.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 12th 2019 at 11:19:32 AM

And that's why I believe that the Sectionectomy article needs to be rewritten to distinguish far more clearly between "No examples section on the trope definition page" (which is what an example sectionectomy literally means) and "No examples allowed anywhere on the wiki" (flame bait etc.).

Currently some very problematic sentences in Example Sectionectomy are phrased in a way that the index sounds like too much of a duplicate of our Flame Bait index:

• "Examples of articles cutting and prohibiting examples:"
• "Too Contentious to List Examples (In other words: If we had these, we'd have Internet Backdraft, Edit Wars and Flame Bait — and in many cases, we speak from experience):"
• "No examples please. This only defines the term."

"No examples, please" is a poor choice of words on sectionectomied pages and needs to either be replaced with a different warning, or perhaps the sectionectomied trope pages should be all locked instead as I don't see any purpose editing a solidly defined trope page if no examples can be added to it.

Having "No Examples Please" as a redirect to the Sectionectomy does not help matters, at all.

Edited by Albert3105 on Mar 12th 2019 at 1:45:48 AM

I dont know if there's any issues with Tough Act to Follow, but would it be good for the next act to either come out or until its finish so it wont be seen as premature?

I must have misremembered because every time it's brought up a mod says pretty much the same thing about it. The policy, then, seems to exist, but it's a transparency or interpretation problem for the mods to clarify.

I've always been confused about where Tough Act to Follow should go. The name and the description suggest that it should be used for works that are so good, any follow-ups are overshadowed by its presence. But on YMMV pages, I see it used far more often for the reverse (follow-ups overshadowed by the original)

Whenever I see it used for upcoming releases, it's always along the lines of "this follows up something that was critically loved, so fans are worried it won't live up to the hype". When it's released, it either has or it hasn't.

I'd suggest not to add Tough Act to Follow for upcoming releases, especially if the trope is supposed to be for the Tough Act itself.