I remember that around 2010 we had three tropes that were basically Artistic License but assumed that the writer knew no better. They were DNDTR, "You Fail X Forever", and "Somewhere An [Expert] Is Crying". They had myriad subtropes for different fields, but the only difference between them was how much snarking would accompany the entry. They were all a mess of long, complaining entries with haphazard coverage and little cross-wicking, that were in time folded into AL with neutral language.

All this to say that it's not about any one article; editors really wanted to complain about lack of realism when they spotted it. Now that those are gone, I'm seeing much of the same complaining still emerge with CRF. In fact, I would say its name goes against how we now define it: it's supposed to be about common knowledge that wouldn't require any research. I could maybe see some of its entries salvaged with something like Embarrassing Mistake Backdraft, but I really believe the current name must be cut.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

Like I just pointed out, DNDTR wasn't even a trope. So comparing CRF to it sort of misses the point. It wasn't bad because it was a trope about pointing out errors, it was bad because tropers used it wrongly to bash creators.

See the blurb on Permanent Red Link Club:

• Did Not Do The Research: Intended as an index for research failure, it attracted lots of misuse as a way of pointing out a research mistake in a work. It was merged with other indexes and christened the Inaccuracies Index for a few days, until it was determined that we don't need that either. These tropes are now listed at Consistency, under "Lack of External Consistency".

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

There's a difference between "bashing creators" and "pointing out a research mistake in a work." To my knowledge, Did Not Do The Research was used for the latter. And looking at Critical Research Failure Wick Check, pointing out factually wrong information of any kind doesn't attract as much complaining as you'd think. How exactly are we defining "complaining" here?

My point is not about the DNDTR article but about how it was used. It was one of these sinkholes that was used as an emphatic whenever a mistake was spotted. I'm saying that as long as it existed as a blue link, it was linked everywhere, and as long as CRF exists under this name I am sure it will continue to attract such use, whatever the trope description says. It will only stop once it becomes red. (Also, I recall a time when DNDTR was considered a trope and had examples, it was given a sectionectomy and turned it into an index was in recognition that these were too much of a mess to save.)

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

In the times I've participated in TRS threads, I've come to understand that the reason we bother with discussions is to come up with solutions to fix the problem(s) and vote on them with a crowner. We've had potential crowner options for Critical Research Failure before the wick check even got started.

• Expand to cover all factual errors. NOTE: This also means removing it from YMMV because the subjective component would be removed.
• Rename (decide new name with another crowner).
• Redirect to Artistic License (mutually exclusive with other redirect options).
• Redirect to In-Universe Factoid Failure (mutually exclusive with other redirect options).
• Make a Super-Trope that covers any kind of factual errors.
• Create a citation policy.
• Redirect to Dan Browned (mutually exclusive with other redirect options).
• Redirect to Cowboy Be Bop At His Computer (mutually exclusive with other redirect options).
• Disambiguate
• Cut
• Cut and throw into the Permanent Red Link Club.

Is there any reason to not make a crowner now? Also, did I miss anything?

Edited by Kevjro7 on Oct 1st 2021 at 8:03:33 AM

If there are that many redirect options, why not just disambiguate?

You mean add disambiguate as an option?

Yes, thanks.

Only Artistic License and In-Universe Factoid Failure were formally suggested as redirect options in this thread; the others were what I came up with while making the post. Anyway, I've added the disambiguate option to my post. Are we ready for a crowner now?

I'd like add "throw into the Permanent Red Link Club" as an alternative option to discourage potholing. Part of the problem here is the complainy name and this is a prime Pothole Magnet.

Edited by Karxrida on Oct 1st 2021 at 4:58:32 AM

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Not sure it'll be redlinked thanks to the 36,364 inbounds, but I still added it in my post anyway.

If we make this an objective supertrope for any research error, I think it should be Trivia, similarly to Cowboy BeBop at His Computer. At least one mod said Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is Trivia because it's background information that doesn't have any subjective aspect to it (unlike Critical Research Failure in its current form, since the "everyone knows" aspect is subjective).

(To be honest, I think Dan Browned should be Trivia since the inaccuracy aspect is background information, but that's outside this thread's scope.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 1st 2021 at 8:27:27 AM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Make sure to distinguish "Cut" and "Cut and PRLC" because I worry people might somehow vote PRLC without Cut being in consensus. (I swear that's happened before...)

Edited by mightymewtron on Oct 1st 2021 at 10:09:11 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Altering a still-existing page to turn out as a redlink is a thing we're capable of doing, but yeah. Cut and Cut + PRLC should be the items for clarity.

Edited by Karxrida on Oct 1st 2021 at 7:38:38 AM

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Anything else to add to the solution options? Or are we ready for the crowner now?

Instead of "Cut" and "Cut and PRLC" being entirely separate options, I think we should have one option that says "Cut" and another that says "If the page is cut, add it to the PRLC".

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

Given the sheer amount of inbounds, I don't think that a cut option is discussion-worthy. Also, folks may want to discuss creating a supertrope (exampleless?) for "factual inaccuracies".

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I just don't think that "factual inaccuracy" in a work is all that tropeworthy or noteworthy. When it affects the narrative or exists to try and make the story more interesting, sure, but Artistic License already covers that.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

If we can't cut it, I would vote for either a disambiguation, or an exampleless page about jarring inaccuracies that do not serve the story, and the reaction they can elicit. I could support a YMMV item about inaccuracies causing audience backlash, but not under this name.

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

Probably it's not the right time to notice it, but all the CRF subpages outside of the Literature one are a bit too short to stay as separate pages rather than folders (Live Action TV and Web Videos in fact are so short that the examples end when the scrollbar is halfway into the page.

The best character is always the one-shot disguise.

^^Artistic License only covers when it's deliberate, which not all are.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

As we've discussed though, it's kind of impossible to tell what's a deliberate choice and what isn't.

The intent problem is similar to the one we have for things like Ho Yay. If the trope depends on something being intended or unintended, we need to know what the creators were thinking when they made the work. We could use citations, as suggested before, but that sounds like a lot of work for what's basically just us calling creators out on factual inaccuracies.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I don't mind the "factual inaccuracy" trope but I don't see why it's worth splitting from Artistic License. Broadening the latter will take less work.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

^^...and your response to that issue is to shoehorn everything into a supertrope that requires us to have established motive? Nevermind that a supertrope can be made exampleless - and it will be since specific examples are covered under things like Artistic License – Law - , which would render the question largely moot.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Oct 3rd 2021 at 9:31:08 PM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

That's absolutely not what I said we should do- I never even suggested merging at all (other people did, but I never weighed in on it). All I said was that Artistic License covers any of the tropeworthy errors already, and that because of the intent issue, there's no easy way to divide the two concepts.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness