"No Recent Examples Please" cleanup

Haven't seen any jumping the gun stuff on my end. If anything, I've seen issues where it takes way too long for the trope to be added despite it being valid, hence why I think a 5-year is a really bad idea.

I was thinking maybe about a month or so after release, if it's needed at all.

I would say for TV, Aborted Arc should generally require a season without being mentioned, but we don't need to make it a hard-and-fast rule since not every show has distinct seasons, and if the arc does get picked back up then we just remove the trope if it's inapplicable.

So what I'm gathering is may ease not make it hard and fast after all, just clean up obviously early examples.

There was a recent Ask The Tropers thread regarding the Role Reprise trope. According to MacronNotes's comments:

Given that, I wonder what we should do about this. Any ideas?

Edited by gjjones on Mar 15th 2023 at 8:01:20 AM

I was the one who originally wrote the voice-in-live-action exception, and I specifically worded it that way because my intent was for adaptations to still require the same waiting period as anything else.

The point of Role Reprise is that an actor came back after a long time away from the role, not that an actor came back in an adaptation.

But it also says that Role Reprise is valid "if the original actor resumes playing the character in a different adaptation or if it has been a while since they last played the character". That implies the 5-year waiting period only applies to the latter stipulation.

Given that Born Again is set to be a Soft Reboot of Daredevil (2015), but with closer ties with the greater MCU, that should technically make the 5-year waiting period void here, no?

Edited by MatthewWayne on Mar 16th 2023 at 9:17:18 AM

Wording to me implies returning for a different work counts regardless of time span, which works fine for me. That said, no reason we couldn't change it if enough people wanted to.

Speaking of Role Reprisal, can it be used for when the production are unrelated to one another.

God Of War III has this example.

• Role Reprise: Kevin Sorbo reprises his role as the title character of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.

It's specifically listed as an example in the trope description, so yes.

Are we good on the Role Reprise ATT? I'd really like to re-add the entry for Kingpin in Hawkeye, but it would be an edit war unless I get enough consensus.

Per this conversation, Star-Derailing Role may need a time limit. The other Killer tropes have them, and premature judgements on "killed" careers (like the linked one) are something we probably want to avoid.

I propose a 5-10 year time limit for the trope—it takes a while for a career to be truly dead. I've heard of many actors whose careers seemed over until it came back multiple years later. Is my proposed time limit good? Should it be less? More?

The main problem with that (as I've brought up before) is that Star-Derailing Role is not a permanent trope - people can recover from a derailment.

But aren't the other "killer" tropes also not permanent? And they also have time limits?

No Recent Examples, Please! lists the waiting time for The Bus Came Back, but the trope page itself doesn't include that rule. Any objections if I add it, possibly drafting a note via Trope Description Improvement Drive?

Secondly, the current rule is one season for episodic works where the character wasn't explicitly written out.

For episodic works without seasons - e.g. continual Soap Opera shows, comic books etc. - can we safely equate that to one year?

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 29th 2023 at 12:57:48 PM

I believe five years is plenty, though there should be a exception if the Creator retires.

Just because it may not be permanent doesn't mean it should have some ridiculously long wait.

No feedback / concerns so far, so I'll assume that's not too controversial?

Sounds good.

I'm good with it

There was talk over on NRLEP for making Hanging Judge No Recent Examples instead of NRLEP. The thoughts were that it was Characterization and Morality but older examples were more valid than more recent examples. Older (ie. 19th Century and earlier) examples are more in the brutal spirit of the trope (people actually sentencing people to death/other super-harsh punishments for lesser crimes), newer examples were more "slightly harsh and mean-spirited judges that Twitter had an "And That's Terrible" circlejerk about for one week seven years ago". I was thinking this one might be a good candidate for a 100 years No Recent cutoff.

I'm thinking there should be a waiting period for Unpopular Popular Character (namely because of the "Popular" part) to prevent knee-jerk reactions. What do you all think?

Over in the Condemned By History thread, we’ve been discussing CinemaSins as a candidate for the trope. However, since Cinema Sins is still continuing to put out content, it can’t be listed per No Recent Examples Please! rules. The problem with the strict adherence to these rules with online Youtubers is that it’s extremely common for Successful Youtubers to continue well past their prime because it’s relatively cheap and easy to churn out videos to an increasingly dwindling viewerbase for a still substantial income. As such, it would likely mean we wouldn’t be able to list any Youtuber ever outside the extremely rare case they stop uploading entirely.

So, would it be appropriate to create an internet content creator exception to these rules?

So, uh...as the person who wrote that CinemaSins entry in the first place, I feel obligated to state my piece, especially since I appear to have inadvertently sparked up a massive debate over its validity on Condemned by History.

The reason I wrote and added that is because on the main CBH page, I thought I saw Channel Awesome and the Nostalgia Critic mentioned as examples, and thought that it would put ongoing YouTubers such as CinemaSins in that category as a result. I realize now that I completely misread the page, and that neither of those things were actually on the page to begin with, so I understand why it was deleted per adherence to those rules.

With that said, I would be open to changing the rules for content creators, especially since as others have mentioned, there are many examples of creators on the internet sticking around even if they aren't really relevant anymore, due to how the internet works, and I think it would be notewothy to include such people.

For what’s it’s worth, Cinema Sins still seems reasonably popular, even if not to the same extent as it was in the past, so I don’t know if it would qualify even with looser time restrictions.

If anything, this makes a more compelling argument to be stricter on "content creator" examples (god I hate that term) because so few of them even get relevant enough to have a downfall. And Condemned by History isn't just about no longer being relevant, it's about being loved and then doing a full 180 to outright mock them.

FWIW, I actually have seen more mocking/dismissive attitudes towards CS in the past few years (if I even hear them brought up at all), which is why I thought they would be valid for CBH at the time.