"No Recent Examples Please" cleanup

Just for clarification, will Porting Disaster now disallow examples that were in bad shape on their initial release, but were brought up to acceptable quality with post-release patches? If that's the case, then we'll probably need a clean-up seeing how many games in the last decade or so have been fixed up post-launch.

My view, as mentioned a couple of pages back, was that we have a precedent from other tropes:

Does that work? If there's no objection to that approach, we can always add a note to the pages.

So, revisiting Critic-Proof before any addition to the crowner:

• One month after release
• For episodic works with seasons, one month after end of season.
• For episodic works without seasons, four months from release

(On the basis that a season is probably about three months in many scenarios, for 10-12 weekly episodes, so that puts it broadly in line with the seasonal guidance)

Sound ok?

No objections here.

EDIT: I also believe the Nintendo 64 examples I removed a while back should be re-added to reflect the new developments should we go with them.

Edited by JHD0919 on Jun 4th 2023 at 1:56:41 PM

Sounds OK to me.

Well, my apologies. It appeared to me that Miss Conduct was strawmanning and making false accusations against me, so I let my emotions get the better of me.

I'm bowing out of this discussion.

Edited by Morgenthaler on Jun 7th 2023 at 2:51:55 AM

I wasn't talking about you specifically. I've seen enough gross examples like that (that I'm sure were written by a bunch of different people) to say that it's a problem that needs checking, and it's our job to fix it. Like, one of the RL examples that was on the now-NRLEP Dies Wide Open was linking to JFK's autopsy photos, and, like, let's not do that.

Would you say crownering Cruel and Unusual Death with a 200 year minimum sounds like a good idea?

I guess the fact that you were replying to me specifically and the accusatory tone of your post threw me off. Never mind and let's focus on the task at hand.

Well, I mainly think those gross examples you talk about sounds more like a general clean-up issue, similar to the rules we already have against overly gushy writing when it comes to sexual topics. No, people shouldn't be dicks by adding crime scene photos or writing it like a Lurid Tales of Doom article regardless of whatever time limit we agree on.

Suggestions have been put forward for anything from 50 to 200 years. I don't think we should go lower than 50 out of respect to any families, though I'm not quite convinced of the "open cultural wounds" argument, in part because of tropes like Oppressive States of America.

Edited by Morgenthaler on Jun 7th 2023 at 3:12:50 AM

Wanna settle for 100?

I still like 150, but that's just because it puts modern serial killers etc. out of the picture, all the way back to Jack the Ripper.

I could be persuaded by 100, though.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jun 9th 2023 at 6:29:13 PM

Have Headscratchers been brought up here? I really feel like that needs to explicitly disallow pre-release examples since most questions that people have about the trailers will have the answer directly given once it's released.

A general thought - any objection to adding a comment to relevant NREP trope pages (and possibly some wording to the NREP Administrivia page) suggesting that tropers add the relevant release/event date as part of any new examples for these tropes?

It's much easier to spot the examples that break NREP rules when you don't have to check The Other Wiki to see when "season nine" started for an Audience-Alienating Era, for example.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jun 18th 2023 at 3:25:20 PM

Headscratchers pages are for post-viewing discussion, i.e. "I viewed this work and now I have a question about it". There is no work to view pre-release.

To clarify, it would be the date of the original run.

How do folk feel about Ambiguously Gay and similar tropes?

I'm seeing some examples for episodic works where tropers are rushing to add it after the first hint of a character's sexuality.

(e.g. X-Men: Arakko has an example for White Sword, based on a comic released two days ago which sees him talking to an old friend in a way that could easily be seen as non-platonic. But it's only the second chapter of the arc, and the first time we've ever seen those characters interact)

Should Ambiguously Gay, Ambiguously Bi, Ambiguous Gender and Ambiguous Gender Identity all wait at least a few episodes, if not until end of work, so that the narrative has a chance to develop them and remove the ambiguity (or not)?

I'd suggest:

• End of the season in which the ambiguity was introduced (so that the ambiguity can be reasonably interpreted as deliberate, not "we won't have time to tell you more about her until next episode")
• Three months for episodic works with no season breaks.

Even if the character doesn't reappear in that time, we can say that the ambiguity was deliberately left hanging after an initial appearance.

I'm suggesting we track from introduction of ambiguity rather than introduction of character, as some stories simply won't show that side of them in their first appearance.

(E.g. in the White Sword example above, he was introduced as an X-Men adversary back in 2020. But it's only now we're seeing him away from battles and talking to friends in a social situation)

Edited by Mrph1 on Jun 16th 2023 at 12:08:11 PM

Yes, it'd be the date the example references (event date, work release date, start of era), not the date it was added.

(Edited original post to clarify)

Edited by Mrph1 on Jun 18th 2023 at 3:25:56 PM

Adaptation Displacement was briefly mentioned back in May.

If there are no objections, I'll add it to the crowner as "(6 months): To prevent knee jerk reactions." - which is consistent with the NREP rule for More Popular Spin-Off and Even Better Sequel.

Also, as I didn't directly confirm within the thread: Critic-Proof has been added to the crowner

ATT is asking about the 5 year wait on Character Perception Evolution (and by extension Condemned by History and Vindicated by History). Is the wait 5 years since the the charters original popularity or 5 years since it starts to change/the work that changed it?

The Scrappy and Base-Breaking Character which also deal with character reception state "after the character is introduced or becomes controversial, whichever comes later" which seem to argue the latter. Or is there a reason the "since it changes" parts shouldn't apply here?

Also should Creator's Pet which is a sub-trope of Scrappy also have the "or becomes controversial, whichever comes later" clarification?

Again, those tropes don't deal with perception changes, so there's no change to account for. Character Perception Evolution is a much different case.

So the "since the moment they become contentious" only applies to Base-Breaking Character and The Scrappy to prevent knee-jerk and not Character Perception Evolution because it is gradual/different enough to not need that?

That would be acceptable grounds for just five years since their initial reception.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jun 19th 2023 at 3:31:56 AM

Given that The Scrappy has a six month NREP, shouldn't that apply to Rescued from the Scrappy Heap as well?

If they didn't qualify as a Scrappy in the first place, it probably isn't a valid example.

So was Witch Hunt ever actually brought up for a vote? The fishy current examples I've seen brought up as ROCEJ-violating before are still there. Discussion on giving it a 50-year time limit started here, for the record.

Should Star-Making Role have a waiting period of at least a month to make sure that the role does indeed make them a star rather than a one time limelight thing?

Edited by Bullman on Jun 24th 2023 at 11:47:46 AM