Ask The Tropers

The phrasing is rather hard to gist, but if you mean what can go to an Awesome/ subpage, then yeah it's basically a list of great moments as far as I know. See Moment of Awesome and any few pages from it for reference.

It's pretty much a collection of moments that various tropers found awesome.

The only real rules for Moments is:

• Don't exaggerate a blatantly un-fitting moment just to make it fit
• Be accurate to what happens in the work (similar to the above, but also includes not lying)
• No meta
• No scene summaries (describe the emotion, don't just give us a play-by-play)

Nightmare Fuel is the only one with really strict moderation because of just how often its used for shoehorns.

Got it, thanks.

Where does it say no meta examples?

Because meta has been used to shoehorn in stealth bashing/complaining (like it's awesome x work you disliked flopped).

We trope works, and meta isn't a work, so we can't describe it.

Meta stuff exists externally to the work, and moments pages are about the work. We can trope things if they're released on, say, DVD specials and the like, but that's it.

If you're asking where it's written down as a rule ... I can't find anything, we don't have an administrivia page for moment pages. Sometimes we have laid down rules on things (like statute laws), and other times it's simply the weight of prior discussions, queries, cleanup projects and the like (our version of common law).

It's one of those "Why would we need a rule saying that you're not supposed to address people as Sarah Jane unless that's their name?" It isn't a rule in the sense of "it's written on this page", it's a rule in the sense of "people keep confusing reality with fantasy and we need to remind folks sometimes".

I've never seen awesome used for complaining, but I've seen it used plenty of times for gushing about how much detail was put into a work.

^ It sometimes happens, along the lines of "[Character I don't like] gets his ass handed to him".

I've never seen Meta be used for bashing.

But it's very often used for shoehorning, especially to sneak in Real Life example about the work's creator.

So, define "meta." I recall examples being cut from Avengers: Endgame for talking about it's insane overperformance in the box office, which I get. But, say, is an actor's performance in a particular role "meta?" The performance is part of the work, and if it's an exceptionally difficult performance that is carried off perfectly, consistently through the entire film, can that be a Moment Of Awesome?

Sigh, look guys, I didn't intend for this thread to devolve into a debate on what constitutes "meta" or not, I was just stating the rules we use to moderate these pages. I especially don't really see a point in bumping this just to keep asking about it. We should make a wiki talk thread or smthn, this has been offtopic for several posts now.

No it is not. That's not something that happens in the work, which is what is needed. It is a "meta-moment", happens outside the narrative.

In work: "Character Bob heroically tapes his shattered knee together and scores the winning point at the end of the sportsball game, redeeming himself and simultaneously impregnating his barren wife"

Meta (not allowed): "Actor Bob heroically overcame a debilitating Snickers addiction and whipped himself into shape in order to play a sportsball athlete."

Though Awesome is not NRLEP (unlike Heartwarming and Tear Jerker, which are), so maybe meta awesome moments can be compiled together in some sandbox to transfer to the Real Life section.

Then for the matter on One Piece, there are several examples listed in Others about Oda's success and records. Could those go to Eiichiro Oda's page instead, as creator pages are kind of meta already.

^ Per Creator Page Guidelines YMMV entries can't go to Creator/ pages. (YMMV.Eiichiro Oda is to be cut, while at it.)

Yes, Creators can't get Moments pages either, because that'd be troping a real life person which we want to avoid. The exceptions are awesome/funny/etc. moments in works they've created/appeared in that doesn't have a page yet.

So if an actor plays in a short film or advertising where their character vaporises a meteor with their bare hands, that can go to the actor's Awesome/ page if the film/ad doesn't have its own work page. However, using the Awesome/ page to talk about how many awards and accolades they received isn't okay.

Ok. Is there any place to move the accolades One Piece has to instead of deleting them?

To YMMV.One Piece, if those aren't there already.

If you mean real-world Awesome, either just don't do that or come up wtih some sort of assorted stats that'd fit Trivia.One Piece.

I meant real life ones, like it being in the Guinness World Records. Thanks for the help.

I see someone moved them accordingly, but I've neglected to mention a few things:

1. I've thought we're talking about just two entries at should-be-now-in-the-cutlist YMMV.Eiichiro Oda. There's quite a lot at YMMV.One Piece, and considering the first one starts with plain gushing, these honestly should have been reviewed before adding.

2. By moving entries from Awesome.One Piece to YMMV.One Piece's Moment of Awesome, these aren't actually moved at all because Awesome.One Piece is a YMMV.One Piece subpage for listing Moment of Awesome.

Honestly, tropers need to chill on "I don't want it deleted" mentality. If we say no meta examples, they don't belong anywhere. The entries with big numbers could be rewritten to fit "General Trivia" under Trivia.One Piece, but we really do not keep author-praising.

(I'll clone this to Gushing thread since this query went quite off-topic ever since it was necro'ed)

Locking as resolved