To-do list:

• Dewick Triang Relations. Move sufficiently described examples to Love Triangle or its subtropes/related tropes. On-page examples to clean have been moved to Love Triangle TRS.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 14th 2023 at 4:35:44 AM

Paging ~Amonimus and ~Hello83433 as requested. Anyway, since it was determined that a wick check wasn't needed for this (since it's not clear what one would be looking for), I opened this without one. Plus, I personally think the page itself being such a mess is a problem on its own, separate from anything on other pages.

With that out of the way, I'm fine with moving to Analysis.Love Triangle.

Edit: I noticed that Analysis.Triang Relations exists and to say it's significantly shorter than the already Analysis page-like main page is an understatement.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 25th 2023 at 1:47:50 PM

Move to Analysis.Love Triangle

Is it possible to redirect Main.Triang Relations to an analysis page? Given its 18k redirects and all.

Edited by Yindee on Jan 25th 2023 at 5:37:11 AM

Move it to Analysis.Love Triangle and redirect.

I suppose we could redirect to Analysis.Love Triangle since pretty much the same thing happened when Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes was converted into Analysis.Anti Hero (though the redirect's namespace was changed to Analysis.Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes), so it seems there's precedent for that.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 25th 2023 at 4:52:20 AM

I guess redirect to analysis page but I'm wondering what we're going to do with all the examples. Like, the obvious route is move them to Love Triangle, but some of the types have their own subpages (ex: Type Four). Also, because of the way the pages are formatted, the examples might look odd (some examples have A B and C labels) because the context more focuses on the type of love triangle than there being a triangle.

Moving to Analysis.Love Triangle sounds good.

But the current Triang Relations page has examples, is it fine for an Analysis page to have them or would we have to move them to the main Love Triangle page? And Analysis.Triang Relations also exists, so we should figure out what to do with it.

That page is such a mess that I wouldn't mind just getting rid of it and anything else having to do with types, since Type Labels Are Not Examples, along with all the other bad editing practices on that page.

But no, Analysis pages don't get examples because they're solely for analyzing tropes. If there are any examples worth salvaging, they'd probably be moved to Love Triangle.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 25th 2023 at 5:24:11 AM

Analysis on how a trope is played on a particular work can go on that work's analysis page so that's the only time specific examples would be examined. I don't think any of the examples on the page are worth keeping and as the analysis page states, we can't use the subpage as a dumping ground. The existing Triang Relations page is a mess as it is.

I guess we could do a sandbox with existing examples and zap anything that amounts to "Character (A), Character 2 (B), and Character 3 (C)". There's also probably some examples wicks that could be cleaned with either a zap (for ZCE) or moving to Love Triangle.

After taking another look, you're right, the whole thing is a mess.

I'm changing my vote to just getting rid of the whole thing and redirecting to Love Triangle to preserve inbounds.

Cut and redirect to Love Triangle.

Cut and redirect.

If it's unsalvagable then redirect.

Are we saying that even the descriptions of the triangles are unsalvageable?

I notice that some of the "types" have so many examples they've been split into their own pages, which makes me wonder if some of them could be made into subtropes of Love Triangle if they aren't already (maybe not necessarily Type 8). On the other hand, some of them, especially the ones that would otherwise be incompatible with strict heterosexuality, indicate that the relationships depicted need not be sexual/romantic but might involve things like loyalty, which suggests that some of the "types" might be padded with non-romantic examples, or even examples that don't involve any sort of conflict or drama. (I remember one example I saw back when I first saw this page was a Type 9 "example" that basically said "Ron and Hermione are a couple and both are loyal to Harry", which feels shoehorny no matter what the "trope" is.)

Conversely, even when the relationships in question are romantic it's not always clear how strong the attraction has to be to warrant an arrow pointing in that direction; you'd think that if the main vertex of the triangle is interested in the affections of their suitors, that would be Type 7 and not Type 3, but Type 7 describes itself as an "affair" setup implying that (and the description of Type 4 backs this up) the double-headed arrows refer strictly to a committed or sexual relationship, not merely mutual interest (except when, as above, it's not). So at best any new subtropes inspired by these pages would have to go in the Yard, and salvaging this, even sans examples, for an Analysis page would require substantial cleanup and tightening.

Some of them might just need to be moved to more specific tropes as well. For example, type 5 (which I added the Bloom Into You example to for full disclosure) seems like a potentially heterosexual three person version of All Love Is Unrequited, (ie it could easily be boy>girl>boy or girl>boy>girl with no same-sex attraction) while type 2 is more like a guaranteed gay/bi version of the same (no way it works without at least one character having a same-sex attraction)

Edited by Acebrock on Jan 26th 2023 at 4:46:10 AM

I'm saying we don't need the descriptions to begin with (particularly because, as I mentioned already, Type Labels Are Not Examples, so it would be preferable to remove the types instead of moving them to another page), so there's no need to try to salvage them. Plus, as was mentioned, Analysis/ is not a dumping ground.

Plus, I already pointed out that a good amount of the subpages' examples are a mess, so we'd probably get rid of them anyway since we usually delete ZCEs and other unclear examples when doing wick cleanup (as a precaution against moving misuse along with good examples).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 26th 2023 at 12:01:09 PM

I guess all the descriptions and pictures can go on Analysis.Love Triangle as a demonstration of how the arrow relationship stuff can play out, but all of the examples go to Love Triangle or its subtropes. (Meh about it but it's a possibility.) If there are a lot of examples of a type that makes a worthy trope, send to Salvage Yard or TLP. The "loyalty" thing described in some of the types () sounds iffy, but I'd have to look at individual examples to see whether they look like correct use or are akin to the Ron/Hermoine/Harry shoehorn.

Morgan is not talking about keeping type labels.

Edited by Tabs on Jan 26th 2023 at 10:06:23 AM

OK, so I was mistaken about the type label things, but what about this is Analysis page material? Does it fit any of the criteria on Main.Analysis? Because it appears to fit the first two ways an Analysis page shouldn't be used:

• Alternative interpretations
• A dumping ground for things in other namespaces you don't know what to do with.

Edit: As for the format of an Analysis page:

We'd need to do a lot of work to make essays out of those points, particularly due to how short some of them are, and I don't think the work is worth it.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 26th 2023 at 12:12:22 PM

If they were moved, they'd probably resemble the list-looking, bulleted pages of Casting a Shadow, Hard-to-Adapt Work, Virtue Is Weakness, O.O.C. Is Serious Business, Internet Safety Aesop, Lower-Class Lout.

I'm not entirely sure those pages are made correctly, since Analysis pages are for essays and not lists. Especially since Main.Analysis says things get long and a lot of those are very short, to the point that I don't need to scroll to have the whole thing on my screen with some of them.

Maybe this discussion about what Analysis pages should or shouldn't be should be taken to Wiki Talk so we can just focus on what to do with Triang Relations.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 26th 2023 at 12:31:07 PM

Some appear to be taken from descriptions that got too long for the Main pages and were moved to Analysis, which still discuss the trope and is a fair application of Analysis — the "Trope pages generally have a focus on expanded description of how a trope can be used and detail variations in how they may appear" bit.