Tropability standards

Further reading:

• What qualifies as a work?
• Troping Let's Plays
• WebVideo namespace and index cleanup
• VTubers Cleanup Thread
• Real-Person Troping policy
• Works analyzing and listing tropes

It become apparent that there's ambiguity on what counts as "Works" and what counts as "tropable works". Fighteer has proposed to add "Tropability" to There Is No Such Thing as Notability some time ago, if not making a new page.

With some expansion, I've compiled his suggestion and other notes at Sandbox.Notability Verifiability Tropability. In yellow, I've marked parts that I feel need to be elaborated on, but I don't know what to say.

I think you a few words there, but it's a good start.

Perhaps we should list the Content Policy as a fourth category rather than trying to mix it into the others. I can touch up the sandbox when I have some time.

Just glanced, but "mostly Fetish Fuel"!?

Yes? We've cut works in new 5P threads that while not pornographic, are excessively about specific fetishes with Excuse Plot and aimed to that audience. Have I misunderstood something?

Edited by Amonimus on Oct 9th 2022 at 9:52:47 PM

Right. Works that are specifically designed to appeal to fetishes and otherwise lack creative merit may also be cut under the Content Policy.

I did a rewrite to improve the flow and readability, add additional context, and correct grammar.

"Sexual violence" in the final sentence potholes to Gorn, but there's nothing in that trope's description saying it's sexual in nature, only violence for its own sake. Is there a better trope to pothole to?

I want to come up with a fourth "-ability" to describe the Content Policy, but the best I'm coming up with is "SFW-ability", which doesn't accurately describe it. Then again, maybe it would be appropriate to use something that isn't a word or smacks of Buffy Speak as a joke? Or we could just leave it as is...

Fetish Fuel is about an Audience Reaction, and one that doesn't have to be justified by the story. If you have a fetish for Scenery Porn, The Lord of the Rings would count as Fetish Fuel to you but we'd hardly consider it "pandering to a fetish". The concept of works that pander to fetishes is troped at Fetish and Fanservice, not Fetish Fuel.

I may have been using Fetish and Fetish Fuel interchangeably then because I didn't know Fetish has own page.

I'll make those corrections.

So, bunch o' nitpicks and more substantial concerns:

1. If this is launched, I think we need at some point to discuss a merger between this page and the No Such Thing As Notability one. This page does discuss that notability is not a criterium, I don't think there is reason for having two pages to make this clear.
2. I'd probably link Content Policy upfront.
3. Notability and verifiability sections are OK I think.
4. There is a slight contradiction in the "Distinct" bullet - at first we say that tropes incorporated by a derivative work don't count, but then we specify that "tropes that arise within the work itself" can. I'd go for a total rewrite:
   Direct means that only content that appears in a work can be included. Derivative Works may reference or incorporate tropes from other works, but those are only considered and listed as examples if they appear in or are discussed by the derivative work. This includes Roleplays, Lets Plays, Reaction Videos, and Video Review Shows: we can't list the tropes from the thing that is being played, reviewed, or reacted to, only tropes that appear in the work itself.
5. I am generally of the opinion that the means through which a story is conveyed are just as important to storytelling as the story itself, so I'd be inclined to leave the "narrative" bullet off completely. And even if we include it, it should probably be merged with the paragraph about "For works that may not have a narrative structure" as there is a slight contradiction right now.
6. I think the point about kayfabe might stand in tension with the fact that we do trope Professional Wrestling.
7. The Gorn pothole is a sinkhole and needs to go. We don't have (and probably don't want) a page on guro, so I'd put in a footnote about guro and call it a day.

1. You said in the Administrivia thread that you didn't want to add Verifiability and Tropability to that article. So you agree that having them together is important but would prefer to have it under this title?
2. Done
3. Cool
4. It's not really a contradiction, just a disagreement about wording, but I'll use your version.
5. I think we're in fundamental disagreement over the requirement for narrative tropes, but I will roll that paragraph about different mediums into the bullet.
6. We've been over this. Professional wrestling no longer uses kayfabe in a serious way. It's clear that the performers are playing characters, and the policy means that we can only trope the performance, not the real people behind it.
7. Guro redirects to Gorn, and that article says exactly what needs to be said about it. I see no need to change the phrasing.

So when this is done, should I cutlist Troping Online Content Creators?

I've replied to that here.

Speaking off, I'd like a comment on here, because I've assumed for memes and creepypasta to have own page, they have to be at least a work or a series of works by the same creator.

Oh, whoops. Must've misinterpreted your comment at the time. Thanks for the feedback Amonimus.

That is correct. To qualify for a work article, there must be a consolidated creative effort that can be credited to a specific individual or group. "Stuff that the Internet does as part of its collective consciousness" is not tropable as a work.

I'll add that to the sandbox.

I also merged in the Let's Play guidelines.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 10th 2022 at 9:49:57 AM

I feel the need to object to the phrasing in Direct, specifically for the derivative works. This might also be an issue of grey policy that I'm asking us to more strictly define/forbid.

We don't permit this in the RL Troping policy; the requirement is that the example must somehow be transformative instead. If a Let's Play shows a plot trope in a video game, we don't consider it a trope of the derivative even if it is directly shown. In contrast, if the derivative work uses selective cuts to make the outcome appear different, it is transformed into a different plot and could be an example of a trope itself.

I don't think that we should be allowing "the same as the parent work" for derivatives. If a character is a Big Good in Some Book, then presenting the same character in Fanfic of Some Book shouldn't count as an example for the derivative. It should somehow be different, transformed, from the original work.

The article is supposed to agree with what you're saying, crazysamaritan. Your assistance with wording it is welcome.

~Veriamo, feel free to ask your question about Hitler Rants here while we're polishing up the policy and mods are present. I've linked this thread for a reason, but I guess I should have been more specific.

You've correctly guessed that I've brought up the The Backrooms because it's the same deal... as in, we can't have a page for "indefinite amount of spin-off works in general" in Work namespaces, at least that's my current understanding. At best we can have a page for the first one and off-hand mention all others in Fanfic Recommendations or Fan Works. The question would basically boil to if Web Original index is like another exception to what's been discussed here earlier.

Edited by Amonimus on Oct 10th 2022 at 5:57:15 PM

Web Animation/Goanimate has the same "infinite number of works lumped into one work" issue. The vast majority of these videos are extremely similar to one another as well.

I've already started a cleanup for M.U.G.E.N because just the name of the example header should tell you what's wrong there.

Edited by Amonimus on Oct 10th 2022 at 6:30:13 PM

X? (That post took longer for me to write than it should because I'm writing in 2-3 minute spurts: I wanted to make sure that I wasn't heading off into the wrong territory before suggesting new wording.)

So here's me trying to reword that section:

@19: Sorry, but I have to disagree with making work pages on a derivative work dependent on the original work. Treating a work as self-contained is much better; it invites less argument about whether the work is derivative or not - because edge cases do exist - and it doesn't make assumptions about what the readers/viewers of the derivative works know or care about the original.

The kayfabe point was indeed about Professional Wrestling, but if PW does no longer rely on kayfabe, then we can leave the kayfabe part as-is.