Tropes Needing TRS cleanup and discussion thread

Stanford Prison Experiment and The Tunguska Event seem to be much more suited to be Useful Notes pages instead of trope pages. They just describe the events and their depictions in media, without any noteworthy tropes or trends being present.

The latter trope actually had a TRS that, despite a lot of consensus to move to Useful Notes, was never even crownered.

I think I’ll just do my own wick check to rectify that. Sandbox.The Tunguska Event Wick Check for when I’m ready.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Mar 21st 2023 at 7:44:48 AM

I think The Great Depression should go under "Really a Useful Notes page", do you agree?

Well, it's a time period page like the other such pages indexed on The 20th Century, which are all "index" page type.

Edited by Malady on Mar 22nd 2023 at 6:52:16 AM

Take That! is defined in the Laconic as "An unflattering Shout-Out or jab towards one work of fiction by another." However, I've noticed for a long time that it seems to be used all sorts of potshots, from mocking political opponents to even just poking at menial jabs at everyday occurrences. Besides clearly going against the intended definition, a lot of what's listed approaches People Sit on Chairs territory, if not firmly within it. Even the video examples have been affected by the loose interpretation: There's an Esme & Roy clip taking a jab at pickleball included within. I think Take That is in serious need of cleanup.

It should be noticed that whether Take That! counts for targets other than works of fiction is a bit nebulous in the wiki. For example, Shout-Outs Index describes it as "work insults another work or someone or something the creator dislikes.", which makes it much broader. However, Square Peg Round Trope goes with the definition that it only serves for when a work of fiction is criticized.

Edited by good-morning on Apr 7th 2023 at 1:08:06 PM

Not to mention the Take That! subtrope list is much broader.

Double oops

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 7th 2023 at 12:12:26 PM

I think Sudden Death suffers from a poor description. Traditionally, a sudden death round is a special round where whoever is the first to score (or hit the opponent or whatever) wins, but the description seems to allow for other types of extra rounds as well. If the page is intended to use the traditional definition, the page and laconic (which just mentions "last-minute scoring", which can cover stuff like overtime in football/soccer) suggest that the trope is more flexible than it actually is. We also need to clarify whether stuff like "just flip a coin to determine the winner" counts.

Should it go to the TRS? We could just rewrite it to emphasize the traditional definition and move the shoehorned examples to the Tiebreaker Rule TLP draft, but another option is to rework it into a broader trope (Tiebreaker Round?).

Edited by MathsAngelicVersion on Apr 10th 2023 at 12:55:50 PM

My reading of the trope has Sudden Death mean playing things out with usually (i.e. not always) abbreviated rules for brevity. Browsing the sports section, does the win by two rule even apply? I'm worried this is gonna need a wick check.

Abbreviated conditions for Sudden Death aren't necessarily a prerequisite, just very common. All that matters is that a game/competition ends the moment a tie is broken.

If play is allowed to continue for any reason after a tie is broken, then it's simply not Sudden Death. As for the example you allude to, the win-by-two rule in tennis wouldn't apply, as it gives the competitor who loses the first volley ample opportunity to tie things up again on the next serve, and two competitors can potentially draw out the tie-breaking process extensibly.

Okay, so eyeball test based on that definition falls in line, with the tennis example just being one-off misuse. I think taking this to the description thread should do the trick.

I'm doing a wick check and spotting some misuse. I don't think just taking it to the description thread would be enough.

I'm closer to wanting to rework it into Tiebreaker Round to avoid hair-splitting about exactly what counts as "pulling ahead". If a race is tied, and you decide to do a 1-lap race as a tiebreaker, you can argue that it doesn't count because you can overtake your opponent if you fall behind... or that it does count based on something like "in this racing system, the players score points according to their positions, so the first to score a point wins."

Well, if you find a TRS-worthy problem, just throw it on the TRS Queue. If there’s bad enough misuse I could see a TRS case.

I've finished the wick check. It's not looking great.

I can see there’s a problem. Can’t look through it too deeply as I’m on mobile but I think you could add your thread to the TRS Queue.

I have added Smart Animal, Inconvenient Instincts on the page. This has been brushed off for three years, if its even distinguishable by My Instincts Are Showing, and it was rogue launched by its sponsor.

Foreign Farewell is 13 years-old and only has 20 wicks, does this count as starving?

Edited by good-morning on Apr 20th 2023 at 1:20:38 PM

See Wick.

It was noted in both this ATT and the Trope Description Improvement Drive that Creator-Chosen Casting may be suffering some misuse. Namely, rather than being about creators of the original adaptation picking somebody to portray their work in an adaptation, it's decayed to being about any instance of a director/showrunner choosing an actor to star in their work, even if it's not an adaptation of anything, or if the actor wasn't chosen by the work's original creator for the adaptation.

There was a recently a mass purge of misused examples, but there is a wick check going on to analyze this in depth.

Edited by MatthewWayne on May 2nd 2023 at 7:41:02 AM

Looks like a lot of the examples I listed there were deleted. What do I do about that?

That...is a question I honestly don't have an answer for. I could technically re-add some of those deleted examples since most of them aren't entries I added, but I'm not sure how others would take that. Nor do I know if an example that was deleted counts for a wick check or not.

EDIT: I've brought this issue up on ATT for further clarification.

Edited by MatthewWayne on May 2nd 2023 at 7:36:10 AM

Has anyone mentioned Eye Glasses? I think it could use a rename. Due to its ambiguous name, a lot of the examples are just for people wearing glasses, rather than glasses that move and emote like eyes

I think it being an appearance trope is a more likely cause than the name.

Eh, would need a wick check to prove either theory correct but the name is definitely, uh... misleading