Follow TV Tropes
Chopped back Real Life on Too Dumb to Live. Didn't chop it completely, but I really wanted to...
I'm working on Planet of Hats right now, but I have a question. There are a ton of Star Trek examples, because Trek is the Trope Codifier. For each example, there are several bullet points underneath it explaining in further detail and listing the times it was subverted. From what I can tell (I've only seen a single episode of Star Trek), a lot of it is good and non-nattery, but there's just so much that any meaning is lost in the noise. Is it acceptable to prune it down and just note that "this is occasionally subverted in the Expanded Universe"?
Edit: By the way, I just excised another impressively long bullet point from Planet of Hats. If any Star Trek fans want to try and make sense of it, it's on the discussion page.
edited 2nd Sep '10 6:27:35 PM by Oonerspism
Would moving the Planet of Hats stuff on Star Trek to it's Trivia page be too much?
edited 2nd Sep '10 7:23:03 PM by Deboss
Second Verse Curse is full of Natter, often of the This Troper variety.
Good news: I cleaned it up some and organized it a little.
Bad news: I now doubt it's tropeability at all. People forgetting lyrics isn't an intrinsic property of a song, and by the bottom of the page it degenerated into "This song has 2 extra lines in one version that are cut out of the remix!!"
edited 3rd Sep '10 10:41:32 AM by Yamikuronue
I think I got the worst of it out, though Ass Pull needs a going-over, just to be sure.
Periphery Hatedom. I removed a bit of natter from it but there's a lot more to it. Does the Barney And Friends entry really need to be that long?
No, it doesn't. It also doesn't have it anymore. Neither does the rest of the liveAction TV section. I'm scared to tackle the Film section.
I nominate Periphery Hatedom for an Example Sectionectomy if it's that much of a pain. I don't see creating a list of things that are seriously hated by a large group of people... Oh wait, that's what The Barney became isn't it? Would a "less than one hundred words per entry" rule be useful?
edited 3rd Sep '10 3:40:42 PM by Deboss
^ Impossible to enforce. Unfortuneately. I'd prefer Twitter rules: 140 characters or less.
Archive Binge and Archive Panic need some serious work. Tons of Natter, self-references, and This Tropers. Both of them have a Troper Tales page too, so the self-reference is even more irritating. I'll put work in when I have time, but it'd require a fairly decent amount of work to just define the general examples, as opposed to the specific ones that belong in Troper Tales.
I'm beginning to feel that examples such as "Most type_of_media fall into this" are really, really bad. They're not helpful to understanding how the trope was used, and they attract examples as second bullet points, often spilling into third bullet points, when each example should be its own top-level bullet in the first place. Almost every page I've cleaned up has had one of those that spiraled out of control.
^ Those should be deleted on sight. They aren't examples, they're blanket statements that add no information whatsoever, and as you say, attract Natter like a spilled soft drink attracts wasps.
Can someone take a look at WallBangers.Video Games? I read through the page and felt like joining the fight, the Natter was so poisonous. (I didn't, of course.)
While I'm thinking about it, WallBangers.Western Animation has some Creator Bashing going on, specifically Ted Turner. I mean, I know the guy's got dodgy priorities, but linking to a review that makes him sound like Stalin reborn just bugs me.
edited 5th Sep '10 9:20:45 PM by lee4hmz
On Good Is Not Nice, one of the examples is The Bible. That one entry has gone through a cycle multiple times where contributors will put down justifying edits with regards to Jesus. Those edits are countered by other edits, which are countered again, until another contributor cuts out the Natter, and brings it back to the base entry, after which the justifying edits start all over again.
Not mentioning Jesus has been tried, but usually when that happens, someone will come along and say "including Jesus" on the next bullet point, which causes the cycle to repeat.
The page is not a Natter magnet. It's just that one entry.
^^It was cleaned, but someone just put the natter back on the page.
Well, it's certainly a wallbanger. *sighs* I hate the people who revert clean up.
Put in a ban warning in comments under the Bible.
The entire namespace in general could stand to have a thorough acid bath. I've never seen such sanctimonious whining and bitching and moaning in all of my time being on this site.
In a Natter Triage sense, is it even worth bothering with Just for Fun and Darth Wiki pages at all? The patient's already dead, and likely to be repeatedly resurrected as an undead Natter Ghoul.
I'd limit serious cleanup activity to the regular trope pages myself. It's a tough enough task without taking on something like cleaning the Augean stables of Wall Banger.
I got a little out, but can someone else do a going over of He Panned It, Now He Sucks!?
edited 7th Sep '10 9:50:34 AM by OldManHoOh
People are entirely welcome to work on Sugar Wiki, Darth Wiki, etc.
But the words "thankless joyless never ending task" will have seldom seemed more relevant than 30 minutes after you begin. Worth bearing in mind (though stick at it and you have my enormous respect)
Komodin, I cleaned out the Video Games section a few days ago. After an anon tried to put it all back, someone else put my fixes back.
Webcomics is routinely cared for by Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan.
edited 7th Sep '10 11:51:38 AM by Rebochan
In case that anon's IP wasn't already banned, I made sure of it.
Way back at the the Planet of Hats question: An 'aversion' is almost always zappable. Instances of where a trope doesn't get used being a uselessly wide field. As you are discovering.
edited 7th Sep '10 9:43:53 PM by FastEddie
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?