Needs Help: Adorkable

I think it looks pretty good so far.

So the Dorks Are Cute draft has got six bombs. It's been up for one day. It should not be getting hats nor bombs IMO.

It looks like the TLP crowd kinda ignores or dislikes the decision from the TRS crowner.

It's... frustrating.

Like I said on the draft, while I'd personally like the draft to launch, the TRS can't just assert its will on the TLP.

Some concepts are better on paper than in practice, and saying "The TRS wanted this" isn't a magical, problem-solving band aid.

We should focus on the YMMV moves for now and not bank everything on the objective version launching. If it does then awesome, but yeah.

If the in-universe trope is going to have a hard time getting off the ground, then we may as well proceed with the YMMV move. Maybe collect In-Universe examples in a sandbox first, and if TLP decides we don't need the in-universe trope, then they can just be moved back as Adorkable In-Universe.

There was one troper in the comments who appeared not to read the description and believed it was just Adorkable. It's possible that some of the bombs were from people who didn't understand the purpose of the draft.

After I put it in the laconic and at the top of the draft itself? Sigh

I'm sure it's not all of the bombs or even most of them, but if one person was confused, I wouldn't be surprised a few bombs came from people who weren't paying attention.

I mean...I'm running a whole experiment to see whether or not people pay attention to the draft's content when voting. It happens a lot. Mostly with hats, but people also like to jump on the "nuke it to oblivion" bandwagon without much thought.

Since this is a big related page to sort through, I'll plug my batch file, to help you guys, if you're using Windows...

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=10#comment-241

We can't just move them all super quickly. We need to read them and see if they're in-universe or not...

- Is that in response to me?

Well, you still have to open the pages... If you want to look at source pages instead of edit ones...

Just say so and I'll make the change...

All I'm saying is that while a batch file script like that can be helpful, I'm not sure this is a case where we should prioritize convenience and speed over doing it right and carefully.

Random, but I'm rewatching Avatar: The Last Airbender and this scene stood out. The guy is clearly fumbling and being awkward, and it's post-Heel–Face Turn so I can see how being endearing is an Intended Audience Reaction (as the audience needs to like this guy since he's good now). But there's nobody around to appreciate this awkwardness, and at this point the rest of the main cast hates him so they don't appreciate this personality trait either (so it wouldn't be Dorks Are Cute). Would entries like this still go in Adorkable?

I would say so. I

Yeah, even if it's an Intended Audience Reaction it's still an audience reaction first and foremost if there's no in-universe response to it.

Do TRS votes ever reopen? Not saying they have to. Was asked to move the discussion of my reasons for bombing the Dorks Are Cute TLP. I wasn't necessarily expecting to change anyone's mind, but at any rate this was my reasoning:

Personally I'm more in favour of keeping them as one page, YMMV with in-universe examples. There are a lot of YMMV pages that already work that way, and it just seems redundant to have two names and descriptions if the only difference is that one is an out-of-universe reaction. You can even subdivide the page and update the description without the need for a new name, and all the required link-updating the latter requires.

Edited by Unsung on Jun 30th 2020 at 12:45:46 PM

There are also tropes that don't do that, though, like Once Done, Never Forgotten being the In-Universe Never Live It Down. In that case, I believe the sheer number of In-Universe examples caused the split.

IMO it will really depend on if we get a decent # of In-Universe examples, which was what the TLP was supposed to try and fish out before people started bombing it to oblivion. (I really wish that bombs were because the draft was unsatisfactory for TLP standards, not because they don't like the outcome of this thread or just plain didn't read the notes at the top)

ETA: Thinking about this some more, I think this aversion to gush and desire to keep things objective (so voting to keep it in YMMV) is the same desire that pushed me to make Inherently Attractive Profession as well, to kinda remedy the Hot Job tropes (which are also plagued with gush to some degree).

Edited by Synchronicity on Jun 30th 2020 at 3:14:47 AM

The Never Live It Down split was fairly recent as well, and I wasn't really in favour of that either, for pretty much the same reasons (likewise, I would've preferred the original name be used for the main trope rather than the YMMV equivalent).

I just think that if a page needs to be split (Edit: across YMMV/Trivia/media category/works/etc lines), it's better to divide it into subsections/subpages rather that creating a whole new name and article. There are a lot of tropes and these kinds of relatively small distinctions (and accompanying name changes) add up and make the site less accessible to newcomers, less recognizable to casual or returning visitors, etc. But if I'm outvoted, that's also fine.

Edited by Unsung on Jun 30th 2020 at 3:28:35 AM

I guess this comes down to preference then, because I really don’t like softsplits — I think they make example sorting and adding unnecessarily complicated.

Someone else also brought up the suggestion of keeping Adorkable as the name for the In-Universe trope and using Dorks Are Cute (or whatever it ends up named) as YMMV. It might be a doable compromise between and the TRS resolution, but I think moving it to YMMV has the additional benefit of ensured cleanup (since we’ll have to go through every wick to move it).

Edited by Synchronicity on Jun 30th 2020 at 4:58:31 AM

I agree. Soft-split pages are usually bad.

Also, if we make this YMMV, listing in-universe use would be different. I hope I'll explain myself well.

Because YMMV version of Adorkable's description will change. It will be described as viewers'/readers' reaction to fictional characters. Now, in-universe use of it would be about fictional characters who find other fictional characters cute and dorky.

Like, say, Abed from Community talks about fictional characters all the time, and it's possible that he mentions some of them as cute dorks. That would be that particular in-verse use of this YMMV.

But my guess is this is way less common than fictional characters who find their family or friends (who exist in the same fictional world) endearing for being dorky. Like Annie from Community who thinks her classmate Abed is Endearingly Dorky.

BTW Endearingly Dorky has popped up on TLP as a new trope title suggestion. I really like it and prefer it over the current working title (which admittedly had lots of support).

Edited by XFllo on Jun 30th 2020 at 12:20:04 PM

BTW I started with some light cleanup. I removed some pure ZCE examples when there is no use to move it to the TLP draft (or to YMMV tab later). Examples like these:

• Adorkable: Charlotte.
• Adorkable: Alice, Bob, Charlie and Daniella. Too many to list in fact.
• Adorkable: Bob is this.

ETA: And there were again some complaints about this TRS discussion — that some tropers didn't know about voting etc. That's a huge problem with TRS in general. Not many people frequent this part of the forum because the discussion is often slow and difficult and requires lots of input, not to mention tedious editing work, from many people.

However, this thread has been advertised on ATT at least twice. I don't know what more can be done. Sending a PM about TRS crowners to every logged-in troper has not been approved yet; I suppose because it might be too intrusive.

Edited by XFllo on Jul 1st 2020 at 9:55:37 PM

I'm not generally in favour of subsections for most things, but given that every works page already <edit>separates</edit> YMMV into its own tab, that soft split kind of exists already, in a way. It feels less arbitrary than other soft splits in that sense, to me.

At any rate. Probably just down to personal preference, like you said.

Maybe just some kind of sitewide banner (or at least on ATT/TF/TLP and/or the forums?) linking to a list of currently active TRS votes?

Edited by Unsung on Jun 30th 2020 at 3:42:22 AM

I don't think YMMV having its own tab counts as soft-splitting, I think that's hard-splitting. Soft-splitting would be if objective tropes and YMMV were divided into different sections on the same page, e.g. under different folders or headers.

I wasn't saying it was a soft split on the works pages themselves, just that the separation (edited the wording of my original post) into in-universe and out-of-universe tabs (YMMV/Trivia/etc) seems less arbitrary (to me) as a reason to soft split the trope page, if that makes more sense.

Edited by Unsung on Jun 30th 2020 at 4:04:01 AM

My personal opinion (I think I've said this elsewhere somewhere) is to keep Dorks Are Cute examples as in-universe examples of Adorkable, as I am skeptical that there are enough that aren't already covered by other tropes. But if the TLP does find enough, then Dorks Are Cute should go ahead.

But we can proceed with the YMMV move as we wait.

Edited by naturalironist on Jun 30th 2020 at 8:05:09 AM