Update: A wick check is being worked on at Sandbox.Unfortunate Implications Wick Check.
Note: This thread was proposed by ~The Mayor Of Simpleton, who gave others permission to make the thread.
A continuation of this Trope Talk thread. Note that a wick check apparently wasn't required per at least one mod.
Unfortunate Implications, as we all probably know, is a YMMV item about content that is unintentionally offensive within a work. As we all probably also know, there is a citation requirement for this item (both for tropes and subtropes) per this 2012 TRS thread. This was originally done because the YMMV item was attracting ridiculous misuse (with anything even remotely offensive being listed) and Edit Wars. The citation requirement has further restrictions—examples need to be written a certain way (first the story, then the circumstance, then the implication), opinions of multiple people are required, reputable sources are also required, and paywalled or mandatory login sources aren't allowed. There's even a cleanup thread to help verify citations.
However, there are still many problems with this item, as the Trope Talk thread outlines. Per mightymewtron's OP:
Concerns were also raised that UI overlaps with other tropes such as Values Dissonance, Internet Backdraft (which was itself turned Flame Bait after a 2019 TRS thread), and Overshadowed by Controversy, with those tropes being more specific in scope than UI.
Wyldchyld also raised concerns that UI is a very confusing page as a whole:
With all of this in mind, what is to be done here? Proposed solutions have included making UI Flame Bait, Definition-Only, or other drastic solutions. An outright cut might even be needed. We could also take the less drastic option of reworking the citation requirement to take the raised concerns into account. What does everyone else think?
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 16th 2022 at 5:00:26 AM
Anyway, I'd be fine with making this both definition-only and Flame Bait, though I'd be fine with just making this definition-only while keeping it YMMV if people would rather not make it Flame Bait.
The original intent behind the citation requirement was because the only alternative was to make it Flame Bait, but I'm not sure if it's working.
Edited by GastonRabbit on May 23rd 2022 at 8:50:50 AM
2 รท 0I'll read the previous discussions later, but for now I'd for marking it Flame Bait and loosing the citation requirement a bit and oppossed to making it defenition-only. Unless there's another "Unintentionally politically incorrect" trope that'd work for what uses I'm thinking of, similar to Accidental Innuendo, is that What Do You Mean, It's Not Political??
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupI am in favor of at least Flame Bait for now. I still think the overlap concerns with the other tropes should be addressed though.
EDIT: Yeah maybe not def-only just yet.
Edited by themayorofsimpleton on May 23rd 2022 at 9:56:40 AM
TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallHow many entries are actually In-Universe?
Like, WebVideo.History Of Power Rangers has them be "[[Invoked]]". Would some other trope be better?
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576Maybe we need a wick check. Although given the size of this trope we would need to check 68 wicks.
TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallLooking around, and checking surprising pages: Neopets.Tropes F To L:
I dunno what Unfortunate Implications they're talking about. The pages they're citing for the species' doesn't mention any, just copyright / legal issues.
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576What fortune that this thread opens up during the same time we're dealing with the fiasco concerning Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (2022).
Anyways, I'm for making it Flame Bait. Unless we can hammer out the review requirements re. validity and stick to whatever those are decided to be.
RE: quality vs quantity point. I can see that argument, but I feel it's a slippery slope to just "as long as you have X number of "reviews", the source doesn't matter", and that leads to fake and/or ragebait articles and posts from sockpuppet accounts on social media being included. Then you also have to find out if whatever the UI is is actually a wide-spread opinion or if it's just a loud minority.
CSP Cleanup Thread | All that I ask for ... is diamonds and dance floorsPaging ~mightymewtron as she was the OP of the Trope Talk thread and her thoughts on the matter may be relevant.
TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallI'm okay with Flame Bait, or maybe Darth Wiki, but keep on-page examples — they're more manageable.
If we do that, I don't mind if we include minority opinions as long as the source isn't, like, an outright politically biased site. I tend to defend this because some minority groups speak out against a work but don't get through to bigger publications — like how the autistic community has criticized The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time but you can mostly only find that on several blog-type sites.
Overlap does not concern me — if anything, those tropes are misused for UI, which is broader.
Edited by mightymewtron on May 23rd 2022 at 10:21:22 AM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.The thing with the citation system is that it's counter productive. The idea behind Audience Reactions is that this is a view held by a portion of the fandom. Having a citation from a supposedly reputable source doesn't really prove this. If we are going to keep the citation system, it should be drawn from multiple sources to prove that the view is widespread.
I feel one issue that happens is possibly Trope Decay.
It felt like once Unfortunate Implications was about unintentionally offensive Accidental Aesops, now it's anything unintentionally offensive.
I admit, I only suggested it for Chip 'n Dale since it was the closest thing I could find for the Bobby Driscoll controversy. The film doesn't seem to qualify for Overshadowed by Controversy so far (I mean, it's the second most talked thing about the film tops, with the first being Ugly Sonic).
Edited by JustaUsername on May 24th 2022 at 12:39:38 AM
Some people say I'm lazy. It's hard to disagree.We have Warp That Aesop, what are the chances of overlap with it?
Feeling this really needs a wick check after all with all things mentioned so far.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupWarp That Aesop is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek — it can be for very ridiculous aesops, not just unintentionally bad messages you believe are truly there.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.^^Yeah I feel like if one of the issues is that this trope overlaps with several others enough that it may warrant a disambiguation, then we need a wick to check to confirm which tropes and to what extent
Edited by amathieu13 on May 23rd 2022 at 10:47:20 AM
Evidently a wick check may be needed here after all. And I should have made one prior to drafting this OP. My bad.
I'll potentially start one tomorrow because it's 10:54 P.M. where I am and I need to go to sleep soon, but until then I'll put a possible link for one beneath in case anyone else wants to start it before me:
Sandbox.Unfortunate Implications Wick Check
Edited by themayorofsimpleton on May 23rd 2022 at 10:54:33 AM
TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallI'd be fine with doing a disambiguation. Off the top of my head, this is redundant with Values Dissonance, Fair for Its Day, Overshadowed by Controversy, Broken Base, and Ethnic Scrappy.
What would that Power Rangers thing I quoted be?
- Heh. Whoops. I forgot I removed my quote from my rough draft of my post, because there were like 5 uses and one was Unfortunate Implication, no plural. Forgot Folders can be used.
Edited by Malady on May 23rd 2022 at 8:28:52 AM
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576Courtesy
- Unfortunate Implications: Occasionally discussed, often with the lampshade "whoops." Aside from the original Mighty Morphin' having Zack as the black ranger and Trini as the yellow ranger, Tommy, who would be established as having Native American ancestry, would become the red ranger in Zeo. Later in Samurai he discusses the caucasian Jaden having the family name "Shiba" and Antonio playing up his Latino mannerisms when his actor is American with Thai ancestry.
I feel like if it's redundant with that many tropes then it's either broader than people think or you're misrepresenting these tropes. To wit:
- Values Dissonance can cover intentional implications. In fact, it's more likely to do so as the whole point of VD is that it was an accepted value for that time/culture.
- Fair for Its Day is similar to the above.
- Overshadowed by Controversy overlaps but is not redundant. In fact, thinking it's redundant is one thing that encourages OBC misuse, because people shoehorn any controversy in the work even if the work's not primarily known for it.
- But what if the majority of an audience agrees on something being unfortunate implications? By this logic you could argue that any negative audience reaction overlaps with Broken Base.
- Ethnic Scrappy is probably the most related but again, it doesn't have to be unintentional.
Edited by mightymewtron on May 23rd 2022 at 11:23:44 AM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.if we disambig'd it would be based on how users are currently using the trope, not based on what this trope's intended use is actually for. UI could very well be theoretically distinct from those other tropes, but a fat lot of good that is if in practice people are continuously misusing it to mean the same as a slew of other tropes. Which is why we would need the wick check.
I'd take Rust's comment less as "this trope is redundant with these other tropes" and "this trope is often misused as these tropes"
Edited by amathieu13 on May 23rd 2022 at 1:37:35 PM
Thing is, the overlap relies on misuse of the other tropes, not misuse of UI. A wick check wouldn't prove that the overlap exists if the thesis is "these other tropes are misused as UI".
Current Project: The TeamWe don't know which way the causality goes until there's a wick check, unless these tropes are all subtropes of UI (since by definition the parent trope includes all subtropes but the inverse is not true)
Edited by amathieu13 on May 23rd 2022 at 1:39:43 PM
I mean, in theory yes, but my point is that I think Mew is right on the money — the issue isn't that UI is being used to mean these other tropes, it's that these other tropes are overused to the point where they're basically UI. I've never seen a UI example that fits, say, OBC, but I've seen plenty of OBC examples that are just UI.
Edited by WarJay77 on May 23rd 2022 at 1:42:29 PM
Current Project: The TeamI think the main problem here is that we are looking at the one problem that caused the TRS to exist (the specifics of how the citation requirement is handled) and proposing solutions that are not within the scope of how only that is handled (disambiging it, making it def-only, saying it's redundant with other tropes). We can't really do that without a wick check that shows how it's being used.
From my experience, most examples that are potholes are terrible shoehorns, while way, way more proper examples on YMMV pages than not are actually legitimate discussions that fit the scope of the item, largely thanks to the fantastic efforts of the UI citation team. That means a wick check selection will be largely biased. If you use only the proper examples on the YMMV pages, such as I do for other YMMV or Trivia items for wick checks, you would think things are fine and dandy. However, if there are too few of those kind of wicks in the check, you would think the item is completely unsalvageable, which it isn't.
This in mind, I think, with the information present, we can only decide on two factors:
- If this item should be Flame Bait and on-page examples only, as it would help better monitor citations and perhaps give clearance to slightly loosen the citation requirements as well.
- If the citation requirements should be loosened in the first place.
I have my own thoughts on both of these, but I thought I should throw my two cents on the above before the conversation steers course towards something not in its current scope.
Edited by prettycoolguy on May 24th 2022 at 7:37:46 AM
Crown Description:
What should be done with Unfortunate Implications?
Update: A wick check is being worked on at Sandbox.Unfortunate Implications Wick Check.
Note: This thread was proposed by ~The Mayor Of Simpleton, who gave others permission to make the thread.
A continuation of this Trope Talk thread. Note that a wick check apparently wasn't required per at least one mod.
Unfortunate Implications, as we all probably know, is a YMMV item about content that is unintentionally offensive within a work. As we all probably also know, there is a citation requirement for this item (both for tropes and subtropes) per this 2012 TRS thread. This was originally done because the YMMV item was attracting ridiculous misuse (with anything even remotely offensive being listed) and Edit Wars. The citation requirement has further restrictions—examples need to be written a certain way (first the story, then the circumstance, then the implication), opinions of multiple people are required, reputable sources are also required, and paywalled or mandatory login sources aren't allowed. There's even a cleanup thread to help verify citations.
However, there are still many problems with this item, as the Trope Talk thread outlines. Per mightymewtron's OP:
Concerns were also raised that UI overlaps with other tropes such as Values Dissonance, Internet Backdraft (which was itself turned Flame Bait after a 2019 TRS thread), and Overshadowed by Controversy, with those tropes being more specific in scope than UI.
Wyldchyld also raised concerns that UI is a very confusing page as a whole:
With all of this in mind, what is to be done here? Proposed solutions have included making UI Flame Bait, Definition-Only, or other drastic solutions. An outright cut might even be needed. We could also take the less drastic option of reworking the citation requirement to take the raised concerns into account. What does everyone else think?
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 16th 2022 at 5:00:26 AM
2 รท 0