Example Sectionectomy and "No Examples, Please"

I'll respond with respect to All Men Are Rapists and You Would Make a Great Model.

My rationale, knowing about the 100-wick guideline, was that these were meant to allow off-page examples, or otherwise we wouldn't be listing them as tropes.

That said... maybe they should go to TRS. All Men Are Rapists is really The Same, but More to All Men Are Perverts, whereas You Would Make a Great Model could stand to be functioning differently. Not helping is that the latter is a Stock Phrase.

Edited by Brainulator9 on Feb 4th 2020 at 7:32:11 AM

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

I moved Tomboy from Definition-Only Pages to No On-Page Examples considering the number of wicks. Also, why is Lemon on No On-Page Examples while Lime is on Definition-Only Pages? It would make more sense if it was the other way around, but I think they should be treated the same.

Keet cleanup

Check the wicks

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Just to be clear: I didn't add it to the page either. My edit was purely adding *descriptions* to all of these pages, and I was careful to not add or remove any items.

Again, to be clear ~crazysamaritan: You'd have to ask yourself, since it (Trope Example Laws) was in your first edit of the page; I didn't add it, just attempted to classify why it was on "Definition Only Pages". I have no earthly idea beyond guesswork why it was put there, or on Example Sectionectomy in the first place. Probably hysterical raisins, at a guess.

Edited by Luc on Sep 6th 2019 at 8:50:24 AM

Why is Asian Index on Definition-Only Pages, with its reason being "Index"?

Indexes, by definition, have no examples, so it doesn't need to go there?

...

Best is Average, Better is Best, is both on there and Tropes Needing Examples?

Edited by Malady on Sep 7th 2019 at 5:03:41 AM

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

There are several indices in the various no-examples lists. Given that indices don't have examples by default, I'd support moving them to their own list.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

~Luc: To rephrase my statement, I have no clue why you added claims like "is more Just for Fun" to the list without gaining consensus. Since question is based on your claim of Just for Fun, you are the appropriate person to answer it. I shared my reasons in the first post and then waited months before making any changes to make sure other people had a chance to review and agree/disagree. You didn't give people that chance.

---

Some indexes, like Asian Index, were added arbitrarily by Apple Gates to Example Sectionectomy. I'm okay with the proposal that index-only pages should be separate from the rest of the pages, or even removed entirely.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

~crazysamaritan: Oh, okay. Again, to be clear: My descriptions were educated guesswork. I was hoping somebody more knowledgeable about the individual situations would edit them if they were inaccurate. Trope Example Laws is one of the descriptions that was very heavy on the guesswork, because the page could be called "nothing but examples" for a generous definition of "example". (Oddly, Asian Index was one of the others that I'd say the description was unusually heavy on guesswork; my inclination would be to remove both from the page, but I didn't want to alter the list in that way.)

Feel free to remove or replace the description if it's inaccurate. (That goes for the descriptions on both Definition-Only Pages and No On-Page Examples.)

Pun has tons of wicks, but appears to be an index.

Is it basically auto Example Sectionectomy because of guaranteed example overload?

Edited by Malady on Dec 9th 2019 at 5:18:16 AM

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

But it's called a Trope. I guess it has no on-page examples because they typically go into one of the subtropes.

- Impossible, there are too many ways to make a pun. Most of the Incredibly Lame Pun examples I've seen, don't seem to be any other trope we currently have?

Any reason not to make a examples list?

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Other than "look at all those wicks...", no. I've been moving Incredibly Lame Pun on pages where I see them to Pun (or another appropriate trope), but I haven't bothered to crosswick.

FWIW, many of those "pun" wicks are probably potholes rather than listed tropes. But I think I saw a mod post once that basically decried scrubbing them as a lost cause. Just For Pun is just as bad.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Dec 9th 2019 at 12:50:05 PM

SoundCloud

- I saw that post too, but doesn't mean we can't try, just that we're not gonna get strong mod backup unless we get it down real low.

Just For Pun is for on-wiki puns, with page names. Like Alliterative Name is for Alliteration.

Having 3K+ wicks is weird.

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Yeah. It's one of those page names that invites wicks despite being an index.

Hence why when indexes aren't labeled as indexes in the title, it leads to misuse:

• Bad Writing —> to Bad Writing Index
• Trying To Catch Me Fighting Dirty —> to This Index Fights Dirty
• Did Not Do The Research —> to Inaccuracies Index, then to "Lack of External Consistency" on Consistency; now on the Permanent Red Link Club

Note that consistency is a concept in and of itself and thus does not fall under the same problem.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!

Theme Pairing had its on-page examples moved to Troper Tales back in 2010, where I assume they went down when TT as a whole was cut.

Should we bring them back (they are still in the edit history), or formally add this page to "no on-page examples"?

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Dec 19th 2019 at 3:32:01 AM

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

I could see moving them to a Just for Fun page.

I believe Sidekick should be No On-Page Examples for being too common per this ATT query.

Keet cleanup

If Sidekick is an index instead of a trope, then it would fall under the rule of "indexes generally aren't wicked, anyway". I'd like to recommend Call to Adventure get added to that as well.

---

Maybe we should make "index-only supertrope" a clear designation of Example Sectionectomy? This proposal would follow the same rules as Definition-Only Pages, or could be a specific section of the same page. Some tropes act as indexes and collect tropes, and it might be better to clarify which indexes aren't supposed to be collecting examples.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

- Agreed.

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Fourth Wall Myopia ends with "no examples please" but isn't indexed. What do we think, No On-Page Examples?

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

4WM has only 37 wicks and I'm not convinced we want to encourage examples on work pages. I think Definition-Only Pages is better.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Should Cheat Code get an examples list, even though it was made without one, and banned by mod fiat at creation?

'Cause I want to crosswick this, but is there a better trope for it to go under?

A Very Long Rope to the Top of the Sky:

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

I think Internal Cheating and references to cheating should both be considered as sources of examples. Gameshark/Gamegenie step too much on the toes of fan-work/mods for me to be comfortable with including them in the default trope.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

In that case, I'd be fine with In-Universe Examples Only.

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!