Example Sectionectomy and "No Examples, Please"

I don't see why Theme Pairing shouldn't be YMMV like Ships That Pass in the Night and Crack Pairing.

- What do you mean? It is YMMV.

Now I'm wondering if it shouldn't be, because authors can do it too... But that's Birds of a Feather or something.

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

So, Status Line doesn't have an Example list, but it's not indexed anywhere disallowing them.

Should I start one, or should it be Definition Only?

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

I'd say you should go ahead and start one.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I'd like to propose adding Actor Swap to "Definition Only" pages.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I moved Lemon and Lolicon and Shotacon to Definition-Only Pages since those kinds of works are forbidden by our content policy, and Megane since it's long been established that "guy wearing glasses" isn't tropeworthy.

Edited by rjd1922 on Apr 7th 2020 at 11:11:58 AM

Keet cleanup

Speaking as someone who has not followed this conversation as it was happening, I gotta say this is hard to follow. What index are we talking about? It looks like the conversation started with asking about a "type of" type of index, and now people are talking about specific tropes. I propose we stick to Example Sectionectomy for now. Maybe the separate indexes would be better served by separate threads...?

This is what is currently on Example Sectionectomy:

I propose changing it to the following:

A lot of what's currently on ES is confusing, with information hidden in note markup when none of it ought to be hidden like that (IMO). Also, a lot of the information seems presented in a too technical way, when it isn't redundant with other information that is.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

But you were there. I incorporated your advice since it made each paragraph easier to read. I'm seeing contradictions in your six-ten subbullets, which means I'm not understanding your wording.

The note markup should only contain information tangential to the objective. That is, we should be able to delete the notes and still clearly explain how each index works. The note markup tends to be redundant because it just clarifies how the rules of ymmv and trivia affect example-writing. I would prefer expanding the descriptions on each index page, if you're interested in doing that. That way we can have clearer paragraphs and none of the lost space due to subbullet indentation.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

In my last post I was having trouble wording what I wanted to say in regards to this thread's conversation. I meant that I haven't followed it since my last post.

I'd appreciate hearing what is contradictory in my last post.

I saw that you incorporated my concern, but I feel like the way the list is currently phrased and organized is confusing. I'm not saying my last post has the best solution to this confusion, but rather that the confusion from the first list persists.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

You're using the term "trope page" inconsistently.

Later on for the same category: "Forbidden from all example lists" would mean Definition-Only, but then you say that the trope page can contain a list of examples.

---

Can you clarify what is confusing here?

• Works based on Real Life, including Non-Fiction, may be listed as examples of these tropes, in the medium of the work (There is no section for examples of Real Life). These tropes may be linked anywhere on the wiki so long as they do not concern Real Life events (Do not link to these tropes from Real Life subpages or on any Useful Notes pages related to the event).

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Now I see what you mean.

To explain:

• The first bullet refers to example lists.
  • So, example lists on trope pages, as in pages for other tropes. As in "no off-page examples."
• The second bullet says that on-page examples are permitted.
  • I gave the example of Fallen Creator, which has examples on the trope page itself but examples are not permitted off of the Fallen Creator page.
  • This is consistent with what it says on Flame Bait and what is on normal Flame Bait pages.
  • Another way of saying "Flame Bait" could be "No Off-Page Examples," since examples of regular Flame Bait are permitted on-page.
  • It gets complicated by the addition of Definition Only Pages, since there is overlap with particularly inciting Flame Bait, but the default restrictions for Flame Bait essentially boil down to "No Off-Page Examples."

---

Regarding the second part of your post...:

• The syntax is very messy. The first sentence is broken up, and then tacked on at the end is a whole other sentence that doesn't need to be in parentheticals.
• This in particular would be confusing to people looking for clarification: "Works based on Real Life [...] may be listed as examples of these tropes, in the medium of the work". This makes it sound like we are allowed to trope the Real Life event by proxy, as though we are permitted to trope RL events within the context of the fictional portrayal of those events. We're not, though, as shown by the various ROCEJ threads and how we tackle this when it happens to political figures or controversies.
• The second sentence does not make it clear that these tropes may not be listed in RL sections. Though it is sort of cleared up by the parenthetical...:
• ... anyone scanning the page would skip parentheticals, because information in parentheses is supposed to be unimportant. Significant information should not be placed within parentheses.
• The first parenthetical is confusing because — it being attached to the "in the medium of the work" clause — it comes off as though the works page could have a RL section for tropes, but that's mixing things up. Were this list not meant for confused or new tropers, I wouldn't think it to be such a problem, but it is meant for those tropers seeking guidance so I do think it needs to be clarified / revised.

Edited by WaterBlap on Apr 15th 2020 at 8:09:49 AM

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

So, I feel this should mention crosswicking by name, somehow. Basically, how it shouldn't be done for these tropes...

Edited by Malady on Apr 15th 2020 at 6:20:07 AM

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

Yes, but "on-page" is an example list. That's why I would say "this page contains a list of examples" or "other tropes".

---

Uhhh, that's my understanding of current policy.

• No Real Life Examples, Please!:
  • "Note that a work portraying real life is still a work-such examples are about how the work portrays real life, not about real life itself."
  • "unless the work itself explicitly mentions the trope, you're just shoehorning your opinions into the article"
• post by Fighteer, and another post describe examples of NRLEP using real people.

In my understanding, if the trope is clearly portrayed by the work, the example may be included and we do not exclude Non-Fiction from this permission; All Germans Are Nazis and Germany Must Perish!.

That was the purpose of the parentheticals after both sentences. I was trying to hold to a consistent structure of paragraph formation, and then I reiterated each sentence in more "natural language". What I'm hearing is that this overall makes it more confusing to read.

---

A couple of my drafts did wick to Cross Wicking, and this is part of why I'd encourage developing the description of each sub-index.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Just found Magic Hat. Looks sorta like a Disambig... Should it be formalized as one, by putting it in Ambiguity Index, or should it be given trope status with an Examples section?

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

Bumping for lack of response:

And Cartoonish Supervillainy is in the same situation.

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

- No reason not to put them there, if there's a good reason to.

---

So...

WaterIsBlue and FireIsRed ATT...

I've got some RPG items that use them to make Flavor Text... So I'd like to solve whether they're Omnipresent, and whether they should have example lists...

---

Note to self. Remember Magic Hat being weird.

Edited by Malady on Aug 18th 2020 at 8:18:02 AM

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

I note that those pages have many offpage wicks that violate No Straight Examples, Please!, many of which are also chairs.

I encountered Awful British Sex Comedy while going through NoRealLife.Sex Sexuality And Rape Tropes. Since it's a genre, it actually belongs on No On-Page Examples, if it should even have an Example Sectionectomy.

I'm back!

I saw your post in TRS. Right now I think we should be reviewing inclusions there. I came up with a few arbitrary rules to categorize the different pages quickly. The TRS thread is reviewing them in batches, and will hopefully generate more consensus than "this one guy came up with a quick way to categorize them". I have a number of disagreements with the results of my system that I wanted to discuss with people, so I'm very happy when other people are posting their ideas so that I get a chance to discuss my opinions of the different pages.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Finagle's Law has no rationale given on No On-Page Examples. I think Protection from Editors is missing from NOPE; it was locked for being too contentious.

Edited by LaundryPizza03 on Sep 30th 2020 at 8:53:23 AM

I'm back!

Pastimes Prove Personality doesn't have a NOPE rationale. It was added to transplant a Wall of Text to the Analysis subpage, but it's unclear if we should list any characters who fit this trope.

I'm back!

All There Is To Know About The Crying Game has a seemingly invalid NOPE rationale, "Too vague". An overly vague trope should simply be taken to TRS, which I don't think applies here. Does anybody post here?

I'm back!

~Luc should be able to explain the reason.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Again, on my part, guesswork; again, feel free to edit it if it's wrong. That being said, All There Is To Know About The Crying Game is pretty much the same situation as It Was His Sled, as it's a subtrope.

It seems to be The Same, but More to It Was His Sled. When the Trope Namer's YMMV page lists both for the same scene, you know it's a dupe.

Rock'n'roll never dies!

It Was His Sled: Everyone (to a first approximation) knows the twist. (Someone was someone else's father in The Empire Strikes Back.)

All There Is To Know About The Crying Game: Everything else about the work is overshadowed in pop culture by the twist everyone knows. (Soylent Green: It's made of people. Why is it made of people? How do people react to learning this? What's even the setting of the story? Who knows, but it's made of people.)

... The amount of trouble I had picking an example for the latter is maybe a sign that this distinction isn't as workable as I thought, but people do remember other things about Star Wars, so... :shrug:

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Oct 18th 2020 at 10:48:55 AM

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