That's true, it just makes it harder to get people to notice the newer additions, and gives them less time to get votes. That's my main concern.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall![]()
![]()
![]()
I don't think we should add new options a day before the crowner is called.
I assume the first one means turning Bi The Way into a disambiguation page if it’s cut. The problem I have with that is that as long a Bi The Way is a blue link, a lot of people aware going to keep using it and it will require upkeep.
I support making a trope for bisexual people being stereotyped as promiscuous, but that seems like it could just be made through TLP regardless of this thread. The "nonissue in-universe"proposal seems like it will immediately undergo the exact same decay that Bi The Way did, and just be "character is LGBT". But this proposal could also just go to TLP regardless of what happens in this thread. I suspect it will have trouble making it out of TLP, just as I suspect that Bi The Way would not have made it through the TLP system had it existed at the time.
Edited by TheMountainKing on May 10th 2020 at 9:00:25 AM
Honestly, I do think we can just make the Promiscuous Bisexuality trope in the TLP regardless of this. It sounds like a good idea but has little to do with Bi The Way, besides being about bisexual characters.
I'm also fine with doing a "crowner round 2" and making it clear any new options are...well, new options.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallAccording to this TLP
, that may already be covered by All Gays are Promiscuous.
Edited by Synchronicity on May 10th 2020 at 8:10:29 AM
I agree.
We're also trying to add banners to all the trope pages, so we need to keep that up too.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallIn addition to what's already been said, I feel like if you want to propose a new trope for "sexuality treated as a non-issue in-universe," then you should simply propose it in TLP. If it gets traction before this thread closes up, then proposing an example migration would probably be more helpful, and that would be an actionable crowner option (rather than simply trying to go through TLP). Proposing to move examples to a hypothetical new trope seems premature at this point.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettySo the options for crowner 2 would be:
- Cut and migrate main-page examples to UsefulNotes.Bisexual
- Redefine as "character is introduced as bisexual in a casual way" and clean up misuse
- Disambiguate between Bisexuality Tropes, UsefulNotes.Bisexual, and potentially a "sexuality being treated as a non-issue in-universe" trope.
Anything else? I'm sure there's more.
Edited by WarJay77 on May 11th 2020 at 10:10:32 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Technically it wouldn't be cut since I think the page would become a disambig, but every wick would be cut or moved.
Maybe rephrase to "Turn Bi The Way into a disambiguation page between..." ?
Okay, maybe it can say:
- Turn Bi The Way into a disambig for UsefulNotes.Bisexual, Bisexuality Tropes, and a "Sexuality as a non-issue" trope (if one gets launched).
Edited by WarJay77 on May 11th 2020 at 12:11:14 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall"cut and migrate" is comparable with the "disambiguation" option, because making the page a disabig is cutting the trope, it just leaves its former location active as a disambiguation page. So we should make clear that those options are compatible with each other, but neither are with redefining the trope.
Why should "sexuality as a nonissue" be given a separate name through the TLP? That should be the case if an only if both that option and "cut" tie in the runoff crowner. IMO the whole point of that option is to keep some of the wicks to Bi The Way.
"It's just a show; I should really just relax"Why would we keep Bi The Way wicks in that circumstance, exactly?
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall![]()
The "nonissue" option is not going to be on the second crowner. It was on the first, but was in the red the entire time it was up. You're confusing that one with the "introduced causally" option but they aren't the same thing. It is easy to imagine a scenario in which a character's bisexuality is introduced in an offhand way, but later becomes an issue of narrative importance.
Under the "introduced casually" definition we might be able to keep some of the wicks, but (assuming my wick check is representative) not many. If we have a second crowner with the options proposed, the question will only be if we're cutting all of the wicks or just most of them.
Edited by TheMountainKing on May 12th 2020 at 3:32:02 PM
Crown Description:
Bi The Way has been used to refer to any character who is bisexual. What should be done with the page? Cutting wholesale is mutually exclusive with all the other options, but cut-and-move-examples is not mutually exclusive with cut-and-make-a-new-trope. Please do not add new options here unless they have been discussed by the thread. If you would like to voice your opinion, use the "Add post" button above.

Lemme see, the crowner was opened… May 4? Almost a week ago.
If older crowner options having a head start on newer options is that much of a concern, we could start a new crowner.
Or I just could add my suggestions now, and see how that goes first. The headstart effect will only affect newer options, so if a newer option pulls ahead, it's in spite of this factor against it. Then if we have reason to believe that a new crowner should be held to eliminate this factor, we can do that.
I get your point about muddling things, I just don't think that should be a deterrent, because otherwise the only options on the table are those that have already been brought up.
Edited by Twiddler on May 10th 2020 at 5:56:09 AM