TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread for ongoing cleanup projects.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

LordGro (Old as dirt)
2014-05-26 09:09:05

The problem with self-referential humour is that it's not funny. And there's nothing more sad than humour that is not funny.

Also, this rule is by no means new. It's been there a long time.

Edited by LordGro
AzureSeas Since: Jan, 2011
2014-05-26 09:32:11

There's also the fact that people would pothole things like Understatement at every opportunity, often when it barely applied, and even misused at points. It makes everyone look like they have incredibly low standards, or don't even know how their own stuff works. The site's supposed to be about documenting tropes as they happen in media, not tropes as random folks on the internet use them. That is a whole lot less fun.

MathsAngelicVersion Since: Mar, 2013
2014-05-26 09:56:23

Thanks, AzureSeas. I still think banning it is too strict when the trope isn't misused, though. Two questions: Why doesn't the Pothole Magnet page warn against it? Are pot holes (or wicks at all) even allowed on Playing With pages?

Edited by MathsAngelicVersion
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010
2014-05-26 12:30:03

"The problem with self-referential humour is that it's not funny. And there's nothing more sad than humour that is not funny. "

That's awfully subjective. I think a better reason is that it can give things kind of a cliquey feel. The wiki's had problems with exclusion already, we don't need more.

MathsAngelicVersion Since: Mar, 2013
2014-05-26 13:12:52

nrjxll, you have good points. I guess that some self-referential humour won't cause too much exclusion and that for instance fixing Zero-Context Examples is more important, but it's hard to know how much is too much. I can't know what someone new to this wiki will think when they read the pages, and we don't want to risk losing potential future readers/editors. Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, are Pot Holes and wicks allowed on Playing With pages if they for instance apply to the hypothetical characters or scenarios?

Edited by MathsAngelicVersion
LordGro (Old as dirt)
2014-05-27 12:25:05

Let me clarify: Neither tropes nor self-references are inherently funny. The idea that mentioning or potholing tropes, including humorous tropes, is in itself humorous, is wrong.

A lame pun doesn't magically become clever and witty just because you pothole it to Incredibly Lame Pun. An anticlimactic list is funny or not, but potholing it to Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking is not what makes it funny. A joke works or it doesn't work, but a joke that relies on a potholed trope to "work" does not actually work.

I assume you are a fairly new editor? Please consider that for tropers/readers that have been frequenting the wiki for years, there is nothing remotely original or new about potholing understatements to Understatement, stealth puns to Stealth Pun, running gags to Running Gag, overused running gags to Overused Running Gag, and so on. It has been done to death. It has become repetitive and predictable, and repetitiveness and predictability is the opposite of humour.

Fighteer MOD (Time Abyss)
2014-05-27 12:32:13

As much as we may amuse ourselves with our attempts at cleverness, it becomes old after a while. A very short while.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
FastEddie MOD Since: Apr, 2004
2014-05-27 14:41:03

I changed the text to an excerpt from Lord Gro's post above. The rule that was there was a bit murky.

I'm not sure how someone could read the Pothole Magnet list and not get the point. I suppose you have to be like painfully blunt to get the point across.

Edited by FastEddie Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Candi Since: Aug, 2012
2014-05-27 15:53:28

Fighteer, as a follower of the Not Always Right site (among other things), I can guarantee that "painfully blunt" is the only thing that gets through to some people.

Edited by Candi Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
Top