I vote for:
1: Make definition-only2: Enforce single-bullet examples on the main page (not exclusive with 2 or 3)3: Allow examples regardless of gender balance (not exclusive with 1 or 3(I assume 2 was ment here instead))
We should atleast give the no gender limit version a chance, if it doesn't work we can revise our options and start a new discussion?
Right, the gender thing makes more examples fit but doesn't fix every issue.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallA good amount. I don't have an exact number, but I know that when I was helping clean the FMB subpages, we found a bunch of all-female examples that, at the time, we agreed would be legit if they had the correct gender ratio.
Granted, this is assuming we didn't overlook some things we're only just now starting to really discuss.
Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 1st 2021 at 1:20:48 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSince this just seems to be "discussing the options we can take" rather than "discussing what options we can take", would it be OK for me to make the crowner?
TRS Wick CleaningHere it is
. Hollering for a hook. Mind if I post about it in ATT once it's hooked? (NVM, someone else got there first)
Edited by GoldenCityBird on Sep 2nd 2021 at 5:19:13 PM
TRS Wick CleaningLol, I voted for both cut and merge because I'm fine with either.
I'm also in agreement that the gender ratio is arbitrary bullshit, but I didn't vote for it because at this point I think the trope is better off nuked.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI understand where the frustration with the trope in its current state is coming from, but I would like to at least give the suggestions to fix it a chance before we decide to scrap it outright. If the trope still proves to be beyond salvation, then we can talk about cutting, but I'm really not convinced it's that far gone.
It's funny because we're all living in a simulation and free will is a lie.You know, I am kind of concerned that the gender option is trying to circumvent the conditions under which the thread was opened ("we ask that we focus on the formatting issue")...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI don't think it was a circumvention rather than people realizing that there's some things about the trope that are simply broken and illogical. The formatting issue has been touched on, but it's also something that's directly tied to things like the weird subtrope-based definition, so we can't fix it without doing something about how the trope is defined, which leads us to questioning what sort of tropes actually fit the dynamic and what we even want to define said dynamic as, which then leads us to questioning if the gender ratio serves any sort of purpose.
Basically, we can't fix the indentation issue in isolation, because the trope is a mess and we can't just pretend it's not. None of us even have a clue how to write examples without the indentation issues present, because the trope right now is basically defined as "a team with these five tropes in it". Not using the indentation format has proven to be extremely difficult and often leads to worse context over all. That's not to say the current format should be kept, but that it's just a symptom of a wider issue with the trope.
FTR, I initially tried to honor Berrenta's request, but the conversation changed course so rapidly it sort of became impossible to not focus on the other issues with the trope.
Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 3rd 2021 at 3:20:50 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI'm pretty much in agreement with WarJay here; I really did start this thread to tackle the indentation and zero-context violations that the trope frequently brings with it, and then it seems like the course of discussion changed rather rapidly.
For the people who are voting to keep the current indentation rules; why? I'm genuinely curious, since I've stated my case and shown that, even with the current definition, it can be done on one bullet.
TRS Wick Cleaning![]()
![]()
![]()
Bear in mind that "the trope in its current state" is the result of a decade of cleanup. Literally, a decade of cleanup
. So I think we are way past the point where tweaking the layout or definition is going to accomplish anything.
Edited by Spark9 on Sep 3rd 2021 at 3:14:44 AM
I was actually thinking about asking about that, and I was wondering if that was safe to add to the crowner.
Edit: Well, I added it, but I removed it after seeing that "Merge Five-Man Band with The Team" was already on there, so never mind. (I've only been awake for a little bit, so I'm not completely alert.)
Edited by GastonRabbit on Sep 3rd 2021 at 6:11:55 AM
I got a rock for Halloween.I should point out that, if example indentation remains the same (which looks a little more likely than I'd like), then examples from the page cannot be crosswicked, due to Example Indentation in Trope Lists. Five-Man Band itself is used as the example of having to avoid supertrope-subtrope sorting.
TRS Wick Cleaning
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?

Well if it has too many inbounds to outright cut, we could redirect Five-Man Band to The Team.