To-do list:
- Add on-page examples to the following pages, since on-page examples are now allowed for them:
Completed to-do list items:
- Add on-page examples to Pastimes Prove Personality
- Add on-page examples to Constructive Criticism
Pastimes Prove Personality is an older trope with no on-page examples, but plenty of wicks. It is listed on No On-Page Examples without a reason. It was added there in 2019 by crazysamaritan with the edit reason "no clue why this page has no example and 100+ wicks". Past discussion about this on ATT
Should it be removed from No On-Page Examples and its off-page examples crosswicked to its page?
Update: This thread's scope has been expanded to look for other questionable additions to the Administrivia.No On Page Examples index, particularly other pages with questionable restrictions against on-page examples.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 31st 2023 at 2:43:20 PM
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Paging ~Twiddler as requested.
Something I discussed with Twiddler was whether to look at the whole No On-Page Examples index to see if there's anything else that doesn't fit (previously, Accidental Nightmare Fuel was mistakenly placed there when it was supposed to go on Definition-Only Pages, since it's stated to be a Fan Speak page in the description, and that notice has been there since before the Example Sectionectomy index was split into multiple more specific indexes), since we previously had to fix problems with misplaced pages on the Definition-Only Pages and No Straight Examples, Please! indexes, leaving me wondering whether the trope this thread was made for isn't a one-off case.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 21st 2023 at 1:28:22 PM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Just stoic wisdom.
I don't see why examples can't be added to the main page. I can help move 'em should consensus come to that. (Same goes for any other pages in that category that get delisted.)
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker Mail
(she/her)
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
To allowing on page examples
Now a lurker. Thanks for everything. | he/him
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Allow OPE
Allowing on-page examples.
I wonder if we should have a Wiki Talk thread to review pages that have no OPE and seemingly no reasoning for it.
She / Her
I honestly don't see the issue with permitting on page examples, so to that.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
What I discussed with Twiddler was whether to broaden this thread's scope to cover the entire No On-Page Examples index in case this isn't the only trope that arbitrarily forbids on-page examples, since we've had to fix questionable entries on other Example Sectionectomy indexes in the past, and we used TRS for that and not Wiki Talk.
I'm not going to do that unilaterally, but I wouldn't have a problem with Twiddler doing that since it's their thread to begin with.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 21st 2023 at 3:03:21 AM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
to allowing on-page examples, and to looking at the rest of the No On-Page Examples index while we're at it.
How sweet it is
Allow examples on page.
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report
For on-page examples
low-poly Shinri
punch things and hearts come out!!
So originally the page had a long list of various pastimes and the personalities they demonstrated, broken into subsections, making it basically analogous to the original version of Acceptable Targets (q.v.), only in this case the pastimes fully replaced any specific examples. This list actually survived all the way up to several months into the new owners' reign before being moved to the Analysis subpage. For whatever reason, the people maintaining the trope page seemed to see each pastime as an example rather than any specific work showing such (ignoring that Examples Are Not General), which is reflected in both the modern and archived discussion pages; notably, the most recent addition to the discussion page was an objection to the list being moved to Analysis on grounds that the nature of the trope warranted the page being the way it was.
What's interesting is that the third paragraph seems to provide a template for the page being a proper, normal trope, without needing to get into what personalities are implied by specific pastimes, about characters making assumptions about a person's character based on their hobbies. The fourth paragraph, however, is about how the viewer can draw conclusions about a character based on their hobbies, which would imply the need for a list of specific hobbies and the personalities they imply so that we know what expectations the viewer is expected to have, and maybe even the page being a supertrope for individual tropes for each hobby-personality linkage (such as Smart People Play Chess, though the association with that and other similar existing tropes seems to run in the other direction). Then there's the fifth paragraph, which feels like a similar but potentially distinct trope to the other two showing the contrast between a character's established personality and their Hidden Depths. I'd like to move for a proper usage check to see which references are in-universe examples of the sort described in the third paragraph, which are out-of-universe examples suggested by the fourth, which are gags about a character's Hidden Depths as described by the fifth, and which fall into another category entirely.
This also has implications for other "does this really need to be NOPE?" pages: when you look into the history or even take a close look at the description, you might find the reason for the page being the way it is and as a result might uncover deficiencies in the description or definition that poses a challenge to simply porting over the existing work-page examples, and may even make the work-page examples technically misuse and porting them over technically a Trope Transplant. That makes it something a bit more involved than simply expanding the scope of this thread is likely to be sufficient for.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Since Twiddler was OK with it, this thread's scope has been expanded to look for other questionable additions to the Administrivia.No On Page Examples index, particularly other pages with questionable restrictions against on-page examples.
We might not need to use a crowner to remove Pastimes Prove Personality from the index, but we might need one for other pages.
Edit: Tagged Administrivia.No On Page Examples.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 22nd 2023 at 2:33:20 PM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
OK, taking the mod hat off because I'm just posting my own thoughts this time. I was thinking we do what we did with past TRS threads for Sectionectomy indexes and go down the list on the index and see if there are any pages that don't have any clear reason for being on it and thus might be worth removing (as opposed to pages that were added because they were either complainy or NSFW). I just got up a bit ago, so I don't currently feel like doing it right now, but anyone else is free to bring up other pages.
Previously, Definition-Only Pages had pages that were arbitrarily added if they lacked both on-page examples and wicks despite having no clear reason for being definition-only; I suspect that similar treatment was given to pages that lacked on-page examples but had plenty of wicks (such as Pastimes Prove Personality and Accidental Nightmare Fuel; the latter actually is a page that belongs on Definition-Only Pages instead, and was later moved there), except that they were added to No On-Page Examples instead of Definition-Only Pages.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 22nd 2023 at 2:26:57 PM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
OK, now to go over other pages that might be on the wrong index aside from the page this thread was originally made for. Some of them probably merit more feedback, but some of them admit to being indexes or definition-only, meaning they don't allow off-page examples either, and in one case, an IUEO trope is treated as though it's YMMV.
(Edit: Folderized the list because it got long.)
- Constructive Criticism is on the index for being too contentious and too common... yet it's IUEO, so there shouldn't a problem with having on-page examples, since they'd be required to come from characters in works. I could understand this forbidding on-page examples if it were YMMV, since those might attract complaining, but it's limited to examples from works, so we could probably allow on-page examples for this one. (We could probably lock it if we bring on-page examples back; Political Overcorrectness and Political Correctness Is Evil have that setup and they're NRLEP.)
- Ephebophile strikes me as something that should go on Definition-Only Pages due to its nature. However, this one has so many wicks that it might merit its own thread, so we might want to hold off on this one.
- Geek seems like it should be a Definition-Only Page or an index, because it doesn't strike me as a proper trope any more than related terms like Nerd (which is an index). However, this one has so many wicks that it might merit its own thread, so we might want to hold off on this one.
- Info Dump is on the index because it's "self-explanatory", except I'm not sure how. Is it saying on-page examples would be infodumps themselves? For what it's worth, it has a four-digit wick count, so maybe "too common" would be a better descriptor if we keep it on the NOPE index.
- Intended Audience Reaction strikes me as something that should be a Definition-Only Page instead of simply forbidding on-page examples, since it's a Trope Trope and not a regular trope. However, this one has so many wicks that it might merit its own thread, so we might want to hold off on this one.
- Kuudere is explicitly stated to be Anime Fanspeak that's covered by other tropes. There's no reason for it to be on this index instead of Definition-Only Pages. I'm not sure whether this is something that should get its own TRS thread because I'm pretty sure it's already been to TRS as part of past efforts to cut down on the use of Japanese names for concepts that aren't exclusively Japanese (it's been listed on Wick Cleaning Projects for quite a while).
- Logical Fallacies is on the index because it's "more of an index"... except it's not "more of an index"; its page type is actually "index" and it's acting as an index, and indexes don't get any examples instead of just forbidding on-page examples, since they aren't tropes. I don't think it should be on any Sectionectomy index since it's an index itself, because listing it as having a Sectionectomy implies it only partially forbids examples.
- Naughty Tentacles might be something to move to Definition-Only Pages due to its nature, since its examples caused advertiser problems in the past. This one did get a TRS thread around the latter half of the '10s or so, but I don't remember the outcome. (It might have just clocked out since the thread cap didn't exist yet.)
- Occam's Razor is on the index because "we only need to define it"... which means it's pretty blatantly on the wrong index because we have another index, Definition-Only Pages, for things we only need to define.
- Rule 34 should probably be on Definition-Only Pages instead of this index due to how NSFW it is, because even allowing off-page examples is asking for trouble. However, this one has so many wicks that it might merit its own thread, so we might want to hold off on this one. Maybe an IUEO move would work instead if we gave it its own thread if a wick check finds enough in-universe examples, but I'll hold off on making that call.
- Shipping Goggles is on here because "we only need to define the term", meaning it's on the wrong index and should be on Definition-Only Pages. (Alternatively, maybe it could be kept on this index with the descriptor changed to "too contentious".)
- Shock Site should probably be on Definition-Only Pages instead of this index for similar reason to Rule 34, except probably more obviously so. However, this one has so many wicks that it might merit its own thread, so we might want to hold off on this one. Maybe an IUEO move would work instead if we gave it its own thread if a wick check finds enough in-universe examples, but I'll hold off on making that call.
- Time Marches On is an index, meaning it doesn't allow any examples instead of partially forbidding them, so it shouldn't be on any Sectionectomy index, because that implies examples are only partially forbidden.
- Toy Ship has been stated elsewhere to be Fan Speak that's otherwise redundant with Puppy Love, which means it quite obviously belongs on Definition-Only Pages and not this index.
- The War on Straw is on here because it's "more of an index", but like Logical Fallacies, indexes don't allow any examples, so it doesn't need to be on any Sectionectomy indexes, because that implies examples are only partially forbidden.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 22nd 2023 at 5:36:02 AM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
So if I understand correctly, we're examining whether the following pages should allow examples:
The following pages might warrant moving to definition-only: The following pages are indices that don't have examples in any case: And the following pages might need their own thread (generally because they might be def-only or index material but have a lot of off-page references): So we only have a couple of cases that seemingly have no reason not to allow on-page examples, and the rest are things that have other reasons not to allow examples that mean they belong on Definition Only Pages or shouldn't be on any of the Example Sectionectomy pages, but in some cases, may have a significant enough number of off-page examples regardless that they warrant further discussion.On the topic of Info Dump, it had a pre-TRS TRS thread that effectively corrected our use of a pre-existing term, previously an index for all types of exposition. Because it was a YKTTW serving the purpose of a TRS thread instead of a proper YKTTW itself it effectively swapped out a new description and moved the index without bothering to look for examples. It should be safe to port over examples, but make sure they aren't using the old definition of "any exposition that doesn't fit another trope".
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
I think those courses of action sounds good. Thanks for clarifying Info Dump's situation; looks like adding on-page examples would be fine, and the reason there aren't any isn't "self-explanatory" after all despite what its descriptor on the NOPE index says.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 23rd 2023 at 2:59:22 PM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
I made a crowner based on Morgan's post, with the pages saying they may merit separate threads being omitted, and Naughty Tentacles being omitted as well because I feel it's another one that might merit its own thread.
Similarly to what we did for the No Straight Examples, Please! thread, we won't be doing anything other than changing the indexing for winning options, with the exception of creating on-page example lists for Constructive Criticism, Info Dump, and/or Pastimes Prove Personality if they have consensus.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Interesting... every option has unanimous support so far, and all but two are at or above the minimum amount needed for consensus, despite it being a weekend and the crowner itself being made very early in the morning.
I might bump the bulletin tomorrow to see if something can be done about the options that are just below the minimum amount needed for consensus if that doesn't get sorted out after more people wake up and browse ATT.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Calling in favor of every proposal:
- Allow on-page examples for Constructive Criticism (which is IUEO)
- Allow on-page examples for Pastimes Prove Personality
- Allow on-page examples for Info Dump
- Remove Time Marches On from the NOPE index because it's an index and not a trope
- Remove The War on Straw from the NOPE index because it's an index and not a trope
- Remove Logical Fallacies from the NOPE index because it's an index and not a trope
- Move Kuudere to Definition-Only Pages like other Anime Fanspeak
- Move Shipping Goggles to Definition-Only Pages
- Move Occam's Razor to Definition-Only Pages
- Move Toy Ship to Definition-Only Pages
The only action we'll need to take other than adjusting the indexing and possibly adding "This only defines the term" notices to pages moved to Definition-Only Pages is adding on-page examples to Constructive Criticism, Pastimes Prove Personality, and Info Dump since on-page examples are now allowed for them.
Edit: OK, I took care of the indexing and the "No examples, please" notices, so that just leaves us with adding on-page examples to the tropes that no longer forbid them.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 27th 2023 at 11:33:24 AM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Just stoic wisdom.
Would it be good to start sandboxes to collect wicks for each page, like Sandbox.Infodump?
Edited by Yindee on Mar 27th 2023 at 1:58:29 PM
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker Mail
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Whatever works best.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Crown Description:
The No On Page Examples index has attracted some questionable entries, similarly to what TRS previously fixed with Definition Only Pages and No Straight Examples Please, and it's been proposed that some listings either be moved to other Example Sectionectomy indexes or removed entirely. What should be done with these pages?
To-do list:
Completed to-do list items:
Pastimes Prove Personality is an older trope with no on-page examples, but plenty of wicks. It is listed on No On-Page Examples without a reason. It was added there in 2019 by crazysamaritan with the edit reason "no clue why this page has no example and 100+ wicks". Past discussion about this on ATT
Should it be removed from No On-Page Examples and its off-page examples crosswicked to its page?
Update: This thread's scope has been expanded to look for other questionable additions to the Administrivia.No On Page Examples index, particularly other pages with questionable restrictions against on-page examples.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 31st 2023 at 2:43:20 PM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.