To-do list:

• Since the definition has been expanded to allow errors from works other than news media, the definition needs to be modified to account for that.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 16th 2022 at 9:21:04 AM

Paging ~nw09 and ~prettycoolguy as requested.

Wouldn't In-Universe examples fit In-Universe Factoid Failure? And Real Life examples do sound like Common Knowledge (Which is listed as both Super-Trope and YMMV), I'm not sure if someone else doing a report about the work wrong is really Trivia.

Maybe disambiguating (Definition-Only disambig with a historical description) is possible. Or we can simply rename and move misuse.

Edited by Amonimus on Oct 10th 2022 at 4:24:59 PM

The only items that I can think of for disambig targets seem to be covered by Critical Research Failure's disambig already. Is it possible to convert it into a redirect for an existing disambiguation?

If not, Definition Only works fine, while I won't object to a rename.

Edited by Berrenta on Oct 10th 2022 at 8:27:40 AM

On the topic of Common Knowledge, there’s also a clean up thread for that here, so any moved examples should probably be looked over to make sure they apply.

I think the core problem is that this is an item that is used because there is a separate idea that is lacking a trope. I think people understand that Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is supposed to be for inaccurate media reportings. However, there are plenty of cases of works getting facts about other works wrong. It's a thing, there just doesn't exist a page that really captures the concept, so Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is seen as "close enough". I know I've been guilty about this a couple times, specifically during Critical Research Failure wick cleaning.

That's why I think the solution is to create a new objective trope called Artistic License- Popular Culture that covers that kind of misuse. From there, keep the original name as-is and cleanup the wicks so that misuse gets put into either Artistic License- Popular Culture, Pac Man Fever, Common Knowledge or whatever other pages might apply. I may be a bit biased on this one because I always thought the trope name is hilarious, along with the true purpose of the trivia item valid, but I think such a split would solve the key issue here.

Edited by prettycoolguy on Oct 10th 2022 at 10:11:40 AM

Arguably, your proposal already exists as The Theme Park Version.

There's some overlap, sure, but I feel like there's a difference between a work presenting an oversimplification of another work and a fact about the work being incorrect, say if a work mispronounces Ryu from Street Fighter's name or something.

A better metaphor would be taking how the theme park version of a theme park, Souvenir Land, is presented in a cartoon and comparing that to when the real-world Walt Disney World is portrayed in a 90's sitcom. In the former, it strips down a lot of the nuances and just presents a broad-strokes parody. In the latter, the essence of the place is completely captured, but park layouts are completely misreferred or disregarded, or guest and performer safety measures that would apply are just ignored. It's still the place in full form, there's just lots of details that are unapologetically wrong.

Yes, it is. The thread that handled Romantic Asexual redirected it to the Main.Asexual disambiguation page (the latter had already been disambiguated by that point).

As for whether I'm actually in favor of redirecting this to Critical Research Failure, I'll have to think about it a bit more since I'm currently undecided regarding what to do with this (I'm seeing what ideas others have before deciding on something), but it's something we could do if it ends up having consensus.

Edit: Retracted in favor of expanding to cover misuse.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 12:37:27 PM

Eh, I don't see how this overlaps with Common Knowledge; that's for common misconceptions about works, while Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is about factual errors made by reporters, some of which may be obviously wrong to anyone with only a passing familiarity with the work. I'm in favour of a rename.

I'd be fine with renaming and redirecting the old name to the Critical Research Failure dismbiguation page and moving misuse elsewhere (such as moving in-universe examples to In-Universe Factoid Failure), and adding the new name to that page.

Fact Check Failure is a redirect (and I think we could redirect it to the Critical Research Failure disambiguation page if we rename Cowboy BeBop at His Computer to something other than that), but I think Media Fact Check Failure would be more indicative regarding who's making the mistakes if we rename Cowboy BeBop at His Computer to something more indicative.

Edit: I'm retracting this in favor of what I voted for in my next post.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 12:37:13 PM

I have some objections against simply disambiguating a trope that has over 77000 inbounds. Doubly so since Sandbox.Cowboy Bebop At His Computer Wick Check does not bin misused examples by pattern; if "work gets facts about another work wrong" is the principal misuse pattern, a slight broadening of the definition would work.

After taking another look at the wick check, I agree with expanding the definition to include works getting things wrong about other works instead of restricting it to the media getting things wrong about pop culture, while keeping the name the same. In hindsight, restricting it to the media making the mistakes makes it too narrow, and expanding the definition would solve what appears to be a Missing Supertrope situation.

Considering what the wick check found, I don't think we'd even need to do cleanup if we expanded to fit misuse. We'd just need to update the description and we could probably close the thread after that.

Edit: As an addendum, I think one big reason why expanding it to include errors from works in general would be an improvement is because the media isn't generally tropable, hence past discussion on Creator/ pages about news networks, so if anything, expanding it would make it more on-mission.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 12:41:23 PM

Would that make it both Trivia and main Trope, or we'd still be moving on-page examples to Trivia/ tabs if expanded?

It would still be Trivia, because the fact that it's an error is background information that isn't directly observable in the work that made the mistake, and would require viewers to reference the work the mistake was about to see what was wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by moving on-page examples to Trivia/ tabs since Main/ pages don't have Trivia/ tabs. Did you mean off-page examples on work pages?

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 12:40:14 PM

This makes sense to me, especially since you bought up the fact that news media isn't tropable.

Consider me a for expanding.

I mean the "not currently on Trivia/ tabs despite not being invoked like the ones in Misuse folder in the wick check" examples.

In that case, maybe we could clean up wicks on work pages, recaps, and character pages while leaving everything else, which probably wouldn't take long since it would involve a limited amount of namespaces. The fact that inline wicks are allowed for Trivia means we'd only be transplanting examples and not references to the concept.

Expanding and cleaning up may work.

The current Cowboy Be Bop At His Computer is when a fact of the work is reported incorrectly by another (news media specifically, originally), and the item is placed on the Trivia page of the target work. An expansion would allow examples the other way around: a work reporting a fact of another work incorrectly.

• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution gets a fact of The Nostalgia Critic wrong
  • Goes on Trivia.The Nostalgia Critic
  • Does not go on Trivia.The Atlanta Journal Constitution

• The Nostalgia Critic gets a fact of In the Company of Men wrong
  • Goes on Trivia.In The Company Of Men
  • Goes on Trivia.The Nostalgia Critic as well?

I'm not super convinced that the expanded use isn't a bunch of nerds wanting to correct and show up a work, like was done with Critical Research Failure and its ilk.

I looked at the misuse section of the wick check again and I'm not seeing the complaining you're referring to (or at least not to the extent you're claiming), so I don't buy the argument that expanding the definition in a way that matches what people think it already is would suddenly cause an influx of complaining when we'd just be adjusting the definition in a way that would mean most misuse would no longer be misuse. Considering the wicks would mostly be saying the same, I'd imagine most people who aren't TRS regulars wouldn't even notice anything changed.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 1:36:04 PM

I'm grumbling about it, but I won't fight consensus.

If the expansion is solidified, the item then should go on the Trivia subpage of both works if we have pages for both, right?

Alleged complaining aside, actually would examples go both to the work it's present at and the work being referenced? e:

Edited by Amonimus on Oct 10th 2022 at 9:39:33 PM

No, it would go on the page for the work the error came from. (Critical Research Failure worked this way before we got rid of it, and Dan Browned still works this way, so this wouldn't be a unique situation.) That's what I was getting at when I was referring to why it's Trivia, when I said it's background information about the work the error is from and how the original work would need to be referenced to see why it was wrong. If that work doesn't have a page, it could just be an on-page example.

Edit: It does look like some wicks are on the Trivia subpages for the subjects of the errors instead of the origins of the errors, so it looks like Trivia subpages would have to be sorted through as well. I guess this kind of puts this in the same boat as some other relatively recent expansions like Actually Pretty Funny and I Ate WHAT?! in that some cleanup is needed, even it's not to the same extent as a rename, cut, or disambiguation (that, and those two had to be cleaned up because they're IUEO, while this is a matter of Trivia being on the wrong pages).

Another edit: I suppose the on-page examples are sorted by the subjects of the errors instead of the origins of the errors (though the description appears to focus on the latter), so I suppose the crowner (once it's time for it) could be used to decide where wicks go in addition to deciding whether to expand the definition.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 2:00:03 PM

The majority of media incorrectly describing things about works do not have work pages themselves, since they are not tropable, and the original intention of CBAHC was documenting news outlets being wrong. Disallowing Trivia examples of the work being referenced makes a large-scale change and numerous deletions to this and its subpages, when currently, the subpages/media categories are largely sorted by works referenced.