I already know it's about news media making the mistakes and has been since the beginning, since that's the reason this thread exists to begin with. I wouldn't be against having this go on the Trivia subpages for the subjects of the errors instead of the origins of the errors per what was said about the latter not always being tropable, but it would still be Trivia because it would still require comparing a work with an external source instead of being directly observable in the work. (In fact, it wouldn't be observable in the work at all if we place wicks that way, in contrast to how the reverse would involve something in the work itself being wrong, but only noticeably so after being compared with an external source.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 2:09:41 PM

Yeah, it'd stay Trivia either way/both ways.

I think this is my preferred solution right now:

• Expand the definition to include works other than news media making mistakes regarding pop culture.
• Place wicks on the Trivia pages for the works the errors are for instead of the works the errors came from. (This would be more in line with how on-page examples are set up.)

Edit: I think this would be how the crowner would be set up:

• Expand the definition to include mistakes about pop culture from any work, instead of just from news media.
• Place examples on the Trivia/ subpages for the works the errors are about (downvoting would mean putting examples on the Trivia/ subpages for the works the errors came from). On-page examples are already set up this way; upvoting this option would mean treating wicks the same way.

Edit: Oh, right, and I forgot to mention that I changed my mind regarding where to put wicks due to the errors often coming from non-tropable media.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 2:23:53 PM

Okay, the expansion idea works a lot better.

I feel that the proposed expansion would make this a combination of Shout-Out (but there's a mistake) and Referenced by... (but there's a mistake).

Pointing out factual mistakes isn't necessarily complaining, but the previous purpose of the definition was essentially "Referenced by the media and the media got certain facts wrong".

Rather than doing double-duty by going on both the original and the reference, if we expand the scope, it should be split into the trivia and the artistic license.

I didn't consider splitting it in the same way Shout-Out and Referenced by... were set up, but that would be an alternative to having to pick between the original work and the work the error came from when adding examples.

If this is more similar to Referenced by... than Shout-Out in terms of where wicks go, then I suppose the current page should probably stay set up like the former, and maybe the latter could be taken to TLP later on.

Edit: Or maybe the split could be handled by this thread, if the fact that an expansion would still require wick cleanup would mean the new page's wicks could be sorted through alongside the current page's wicks.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 10th 2022 at 3:50:47 AM

Expanding the definition sounds like a good idea.

Shout-Out and Referenced by... are stupendously broad and full of coincidences. I presume the suggestion isn't to merge this page into them?

No, merging with those isn't what's being proposed; the split suggestion was just being compared to how those two are set up. What was being discussed is splitting off a counterpart to Cowboy BeBop at His Computer that goes on pages for the work that made the error (if the page exists), while reserving Cowboy BeBop at His Computer for pages for the work the error is about. The comparison being made is that the former would work similarly to how Shout-Out works in terms of where wicks go (except the spinoff of Cowboy BeBop at His Computer would be Trivia and not a trope) and the latter would work similarly to Referenced by... in terms of where wicks go.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 11th 2022 at 4:57:18 AM

If it's just adjusting the description to accomodate misuse, wick cleaning won't be required.

I was also saying that expanding the definition makes them subtropes.

• Shout-Out (reference a work)
  • Unnamed trope (and make a mistake in the reference)
• Referenced by... (was mentioned by another work)
  • Cowboy BeBop at His Computer (was mentioned, and this is what they got wrong)

I added a link to Referenced by...'s "See also" list. I'll see if I can do anything with the description, because I'd imagine it would just be a matter of changing references to news media to references to works in general.

The only thing I'd think to suggest is a potential rename to deal with the Trope-Namer Syndrome, but idk if that's still on the table at this point.

No, it is not on the table. And either way, with the expanded definition, there's very little misuse to even justify a rename.

I think we're good, then.

I'll lock this thread, then.