Rework, possibly Cut List, "You fail X Forever"...

It does correctly describe the assuption of Like Reality, Unless Noted. In such a case, Physics Goof would become akin to Art Major Physics, na?

"Goof" to me implies "oh, you child, don't you know anything about Argenfargles? Let me pat you on the head while I lecture you about your silly mistake." "Argenfargles do not work that way" to me implies "heh, you sure said a silly thing about Argenfargles there! Amusing! Ah well, I slap you across the back, help you fix it, and we move on!" "You fail Argenfargles forever" implies to me someone in a clown suit crying in an obviously non-serious, exaggerated tone, "noooooes, you've broken Argenfargles forever!" Before a serious discussion — made more bearable by this moment of levity — begins to fix the mistake.

@C.Trombley: Right.

We are not in the business of calling people out for being fools. Not our job. Not what we are here for at all. I think that is the real issue that we've been ducking. How do we get out of the finger-pointing business altogether? Somehow we have slipped into that practice and need to dig our way out of the mire.

edited 14th Nov '10 9:10:14 AM by FastEddie

Because I am obscure and contrary, I would to nominate Meinongian Physics as a trope title.

Because if we don't name a trope after the obscure Austrian philosopher who proposed that non-existent objects are objects that have properties just like real ones but lack the property of existing, who will?

edited 14th Nov '10 9:10:23 AM by CTrombley

Let's go full meta and say that the non-naming in that fashion is the only title that suits the argument.

So, just to clarify: Is the suggestion now that we get rid of these not-quite-tropes altogether, and instead see if we can come up with tropes that cover specific fictional systems of physics/biology/economics/other sciences?

Basically, should we not have pages listing common science mistakes in works of fiction, except where they can be grouped together in some more meaningful way than merely by the very fact that they are mistakes?

Is that the question being turned to now?

edited 14th Nov '10 9:18:36 AM by girlyboy

I don't think the way the wiki handles titles can work with multiple meanings for a null charachter.

Will we be the only wiki that takes a stand in the ontological status of fictional worlds? You be the judge.

As long as you judge "No.".

How about Bizarro X?

I think we already looked at Bizzaro X.

^^^ Yes, the objective should be to have a handle that would allow us to say that perhaps some failure of fact may be an insight into a weird science. Within that weird science there are weird disciplines like weird physics and weird sex education. Within the weird disciplines there are weird theories and hypotheses.

The wink we're sharing with our audience is that these are blunders, but we choose to treat them as marvels and wonders of weird science.

Much more good-natured than "they are a fools and we are not."

edited 14th Nov '10 9:33:11 AM by FastEddie

Well, as similar as that is to Meinongian Physics that I proposed iin several of the examples the implication is given that the written world is Like Reality, Unless Noted.

In other words Bizarro Physics wrongly implies a sort of Alien Geometries type thing, a world that is purposefully different than our own.

Much though I hate to throw further spanners into the already dangerously clogged works (lol, lies), does this extend to the "Somewhere an X is Crying" tropes?

What's the sitch with those?

The weird science is emergent, like the non-weird science.

^^ The "is crying" items are all a piece of the same problem.

@Eddie: What you are describing sounds a lot like the idea behind Minovsky Particles — a fictional, but well-defined set of rules for a whole imagined system of physics or whatever other branch of science. I suppose we could have Minovsky Physics, expanded from Minovsky Particle, and then go on to Minovsky Biology, Minovsky Economics, etc., etc.?

That would be much narrower trope, though. A lot of the things listed on the "You Fail X Forever" pages now would probably not fit into that definition if I understand it correctly.

Unless you are suggesting a more cosmetic change, that is, keeping the "You Fail X" pages essentially as they are, but re-naming and perhaps slightly re-writing them to create the impression that rather than being mistakes, these things are actual bits of some fictional science. This, however, I think would be a bit of a stretch, because, well, it wouldn't be true. A lot of the time these are just mistakes, or, perhaps more accurately, bits of science intentionally ignored for the benefits of plot. That's not quite the same as developing a whole system of "Imaginary X".

Edit: Trombley, I guess you were saying some of the same stuff, sorry I misunderstood. >_<

edited 14th Nov '10 9:46:12 AM by girlyboy

And Dan Browned?

EDIT: Wow, Dan Browned is vicious. Much though I find it hilarious, I would find it equally hilarious on Darth Wiki. Any thoughts on that?

edited 14th Nov '10 9:49:46 AM by mmysqueeant

I think moving things to the Darth Wiki is bad because the whole point seems to be to hide it from existence. It would be better to rescue things from the dark side so they can be enjoyed by more tropers.

Maybe going off the example of Like Reality, Unless Noted we go with Like X Unless Noted. That way we aren't making a value judgement on what's been changed. Just that it has been. We aren't saying you got it wrong. We're just saying it doesn't match up to the real world.

edited 14th Nov '10 9:53:14 AM by shimaspawn

I do quite like "Like X Until Noted."

EDIT: Yeah, Darth Wiki as a whole is a little unloved. :(.

EDIT 2: Assuming you're talking about "Like X Until Noted", I think that say, "Like Physics Until Noted" does get the message across in a witty and concise way. Whether it's fully clear may be another issue, and the title may cause some overlap/confusion with the Art Major X's, as it sounds like it means more-or-less the same thing.

edited 14th Nov '10 9:57:49 AM by mmysqueeant

But these are examples of violations of that principle and surely to name a trope after what it fails to be is a curious thing to do.

They wouldn't be the only aversions only trope on the site. Besides, these would be the places that it's noted that reality works differently.

These examples - the ones not absorbed into subtropes like Minovsky Particle - are not examples of them introducing facts and running with them, though. Instead, they are examples of points of a lack of external consistency that are not plot necessary.

edited 14th Nov '10 10:02:01 AM by CTrombley

Looking at the examples though a lot of them are things that ARE internally consistent but don't match up with the real world. The first entry on Physics Goof is Air Gear and mentioning how the skates don't work with real world physics. They're changed to fit the narrative. And honestly, I think those are the examples most worth keeping. They're the ones that are interesting.

edited 14th Nov '10 10:11:08 AM by shimaspawn

There is a problem here. Like Reality, Unless Noted is a different trope. The trope there is not "some things in fiction are not realistic." The trope is "the audience is expected to assume that things in fiction not explicitly said to be different from reality, are like reality". "Like Physics Unless Noted" would be a trope about how it's generally understood the audience expect fictional physics to follow real life, except where they are made explicitly different.

This is related to, but distinct from, what we are talking about here, which is more like "sometimes writers make mistakes when talking about physics for the purpose of plot." The basic subject matter may be more or less the same, but it's covered from a different perspective, and with different emphasis.

I think such a name would be counter-intuitive.

I think we can very easily position these things as clues to a pseudo science. Anything that is just one writer screwing the pooch we can discard. I can see some opening remarks in variations of "In our continuing investigations into the nature of Imaginary Physics, we come across these facts which do not fit into the narrow confines of Mundane Physics: [ and so on ]."

edited 14th Nov '10 10:17:14 AM by FastEddie

And that is why I agree with FE that Physics Goof is the best of the names proposed.

EDIT: I meant what girlyboy said.

edited 26th Apr '11 11:46:00 AM by Madrugada

Maybe...but it's so twee. Shudder. Ah well. I guess people like twee.