Follow TV Tropes
Re: Fan Dumb wicks:
There may have a lot of wicks, but since it's Flame Bait, they're not supposed to be there, except possibly with either in-universe examples or other Flame Bait pages. This is more or less the same situation as Mary Sue and its subtropes not allowing examples (regardless of whether they have any off-page).
Edited by GastonRabbit on Sep 12th 2020 at 6:27:05 AM
OK, since I was getting a bit confused myself I'll write this as a three section post:
For Lurker, I just saw that somebody has removed the examples that were there.
Keep in mind however that it can be potentially turned into a characterization trope - or at the very least, some tropers will receive it as a characterization trope.
Still, the Lurker page clearly was made with the intent to define the term only, and simply wasn't labelled as such (you know, like the Mary Sue page).
Hey, got the ping!
It appears to me that Lurker was never meant to be a trope page, just a definition page for a term, since it only had two examples on it, and only talks about what it is in Real Life/doesn't talk about how works would use it. Jumped in the ol' wayback machine, though, to see what I could see before the current history.
Considering Definition Only Pages is for that which cannot have any examples, renaming it No Examples Ever could work.
Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea. It seems like there's been some confusion between this index and No On-Page Examples, so Administrivia.No Examples Ever would probably clear things up. (Obviously, we'd keep the current name around as a redirect if we changed the name.)
Yeah as the person who brought up Lurker in ATT, I support making it examples-only.
As I said on ATT, I don't see any good reason why Lurker shouldn't have examples, or why we should cut the existing ones.
Somebody just added the examples of Lurker back.
Sorry, didn't realize it was you.
Edited by ccorb on Sep 13th 2020 at 10:41:36 AM
Yes rjd1922. Both of those examples were zero context, so they probably shouldn't have been there anyway. Mostly I'm in favor of not having them because while it is a very important internet term, I'm not sure it's much of a trope. Most of works of modern fiction have people join forums not lurk on them, that and a trope with less than three examples violates trope launch pad guidelines.
Lurker wasn't created to be a trope page; it was created as a description of internet lingo. I don't think mistakenly gaining two ZCE examples in 13 years supports the idea that it should have examples and that they shouldn't be cut.
The example from The Destroyer has no context, and should be removed regardless of if Lurker should have any examples at all. "Sara is the original Action Girl" or "Ariel is the original Adaptational Modesty" are sentences that don't have enough information to be useful. Same with "Dr. Smith is the original lurker."
But regarding whether this should be a definition-only page, I'd say that Lurker is defining a term used on the Internet. It's specifically about forum lurkers. It says it's the equivalent to someone lurking in person, but that doesn't mean that's what the article is about. If someone wants to make a trope about someone "who stands in the corner all night" at a social gathering, "listening to other people's conversations," then they should feel free to do so. This article, however, does not list examples of that because most people who read this article do not view it as that trope but rather an article defining the term "lurker."
The second one is also I feel zero-context. It doesn't explain what lurking based powers entails.
I support making lurker a definition only page.
Make Lurker definition-only.
Aye, it should be definition only.
Thanks for the ping btw
I was kinda hoping you all would be interested in contributing to the other pages, too.
Generally speaking, if the article has three or fewer examples and it describes a concept, rather than how that concept is used in media, I'd say make it a definition-only page. Same goes for pages that describe not a concept, but rather an item or type of forum user. While person types can be tropes, often in the form of stereotypes, there are some pages (e.g. Lurker) that are better described as mere definitions, rather than a defined person type as utilized in media.
I'm not sure if No Examples Ever would be helpful to better understand these tropes. You can use a defined term (a definition-only page) inside examples, but you can't use them as examlpes because they are only definitions. Likewise, they shouldn't have examples listed on them because, they being just definitions, any example would be in the description to help define the term. All other examples on the page would be redundant or plainly unnecessary.
Whereas No Examples Ever might be a lateral change, though it would lose the sense of these pages being just for definitions.
I'm not saying the name Definition-Only Pages is the best possible name. Just that it's a fine name and No Examples Ever might just be a lateral change (if not a slightly lesser name).
EDIT: There could be a separate list for tropes that are not allowed to have any examples anywhere. Like Shotacon And Lolicon. I think that would make sense. But a lot of these are supposed to define terms, so it doesn't make sense that they shouldn't have any wicks at all.
Edited by WaterBlap on Sep 13th 2020 at 1:55:30 PM
I mean, there's a lot there and I was just lurking on this thread specifically because I'm not sure what to do with these pages.
I don't really care if Fetish-Fuel Future is unlocked or not. Example Sectionectomies are usually respected. Re: Fan Terminology: No, the idea of Fan Terminology is to have a trope for when fandoms use work-specific terminology to refer to certain elements in a work. Like Fan Nickname but not for character names. Might be interesting to have. I like the notice you are proposing. I'll concede on the Flame Bait point.
Re: Lurker: I think this falls into the same category as all these Internet Tropes like Implonkus.
I also support making Lurker definition only.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?