Not Tropeworthy: Bi The Way

Fourthed.

As the one who put it back, we do have some other former disambiguated tropes on there (Purple Eyes and Holy Shit Quotient that I spotted at a glance), but if we want to remove such things as a general rule, I wouldn't be bothered by that.

If it makes a difference, these are all in the "other" folder, specifically on account of not being tropes.

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Jun 3rd 2020 at 12:09:58 PM

I think it can stay there.

But why,what's the point?

Crappy Trope Definitions is a Just for Fun page, it doesn't need a point. Besides, if we removed Bi The Way we'd also have to remove Purple Eyes, etc. Also, it was re-added with an expansion (sarcastically) saying it's a trope and not a disambiguation, not with a note.

Edited by rjd1922 on Jun 3rd 2020 at 7:38:34 AM

I mean...yeah. I'm totally cool with also removing Purple Eyes. It's not a big deal to me.

I meant note informally, not in the sense of this wiki. But I'm also fine with cutting Purple Eyes, on the grounds the page general implies that there is a god way to use these tropes (or link to non-trope concepts), whereas theses former-tropes exist to catch inbounds and should essentially never be used.

I also think the quotes page should be cut, because there is no point in a disambig that there is almost no way to organically reach within the wiki having a quotes page.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Jun 3rd 2020 at 10:19:32 AM

Exactly. It shouldn't be used anymore, hence why Crappy Trope Definitions, a list of what not to do, should include it.

I think that it implies that there is any legitimate use for them, in contrast to the "bad one". We're not trying to discourage misuse, we're trying to remove them from the site as completely as possible.

Ok, we are officially done with dewicking it! The only wicks left are Ambiguity Index, sandboxes, the disputed entry on Crappy Trope Definitions, a glitched ghost wick, and an archive.

Once we figure out what to do with the disputed entry and get a bulletin posted about how this isn't a trope anymore, I think we're done here.

So what about the glitch wick. How do we get rid of it?

We can't. I think we just have to leave that one alone.

As for Crappy Trope Definitions, I don't really care either but I lean towards cutting if that's what others want.

Edited by MacronNotes on Jun 4th 2020 at 1:50:30 PM

We just can't. It's not the end of the world though.

I'm okay with categorically deleting disambiguated former trope names from Crappy Trope Definitions, or with leaving it as-is, I just don't want to only delete Bi the Way.

I couldn’t pitch in much with the dewicking but just popping in to say great job guys! This was done so quickly considering it’s such a big trope.

Yeah, I couldn't help out either because my focus was other threads with less hands working on them. I'm proud of ya'll.

I'm glad we got it done so fast! I really thought there'd be more pushback.

Anyway, I went back through the /Sandbox wicks. I removed them without trouble (most were Trope Pantheon related, one was from a wick check, and one a personal sandbox I PM'd the user about), leaving three:

• Sandbox.Pixel-777: Personal sandbox with an explicit note not to edit, but the user hasn't been active in almost a year
• Sandbox.Taike 66: Personal sandbox, user hasn't been active in nearly three years
• Sandbox.Tropes Needing TRS: Will be removed once thread closes.

I've noticed a number of deleted wicks can be moved over to Free-Love Future with minimal rewriting. Just something to keep in mind during cleanup.

(and remember Free-Love Future doesn't have to literally be the future)

Can you give an example?

An example described two characters as bisexual, and then segued into how sexuality in general was treated very casually and openly. Didn't take much rewriting to turn the focus more on the latter than the former.

Is that necessarily Free-Love Future? Just because a work's setting doesn't make a big deal of these things isn't the same as presenting the world itself as not caring and being willing to let anyone sleep with anyone. There's a difference, at least to me, in the two concepts.

Yeah, the fact that sexuality is a non-issue would need to be actually brought up as a feature of the setting. And the setting would need to be in some way fantastical.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's instead covered by Everyone Is Bi, which makes a note about being common in sci-fi settings and being related to, but distinct from, Free-Love Future.

The main remaining points of contention are the quotes page and the Crappy Definitions entry. I'm in favor of cutting both. How can we make a decision on this?

Im fine with cutting.