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.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

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

5th Mar, 2018 05:44:08 PM

I agree it should be moved.

Edited by ADrago
5th Mar, 2018 06:01:32 PM

Other similar pages are in JFF so yes.

6th Mar, 2018 12:46:14 AM

The historical argument for keeping it out of JFF is that the "work" exists in its entirety, unlike most other in-universe works.

However, it's clearly being troped as if it were in JFF, so I say go for it.

6th Mar, 2018 09:47:44 AM

It's not like the story doesn't have the tropes the page says it does. The description may be more elaborate and funny than normal, but its still a legitimate page. I say keep it.

7th Mar, 2018 05:36:41 AM

There are certain tropes that have been shoehorned or added without context, but that's no reason why a complete work must be regulated to the JFF namespace. Just reason for a clean-up.

7th Mar, 2018 09:55:27 AM

"The Ugly Barnacle" is not a work.

7th Mar, 2018 04:30:11 PM

Either the tropes need to be accurate to its appearances in the show or it needs to be in JFF. I think the former is more appropriate, considering it's a real work by all means, it's just not a huge one. It having a small mention on the Spongebob pages where applicable(whether it's a small split, like two of the same works with a Film and Anime difference, for instance).

7th Mar, 2018 07:34:49 PM

As currently constructed, "The Ugly Barnacle" belongs in JFF because the huge number of shoehorned trope examples is part of the joke. Being attributed in the article description to a fictional character, as opposed to the person(s) who wrote the episode the work appears in—indeed, most of the work description appears to have been spun from whole cloth—also indicates a JFF conceit.

7th Mar, 2018 08:54:27 PM

The Ugly Barnacle isn't a Show Within A Show either. It's, what, three lines of dialogue in an episode of "Spongebob Squarepants"?

No way should it have an article in the Literature namespace. Three lines of dialogue in a cartoon is not literature.

7th Mar, 2018 09:17:36 PM

All of the Oral Tradition works are in the Literature namespace.

Also; yes, "The Ugly Barnacle" fulfills the requirements of a work.

Edited by crazysamaritan
8th Mar, 2018 12:12:09 AM

The page can stay where it is, but if it does so tropes need to follow the articlespace guidelines. Literary farce is not by default forbidden.

8th Mar, 2018 12:01:15 PM

^^I guess this is the "shake my head and walk away" stage of the discussion.

Three lines of dialogue in an episode of Spongebob Squarepants isn't oral tradition. It isn't literature. It isn't a work. The existence of this page is ridiculous, and it's doubly ridiculous in the Literature namespace.

We might as well make a Literature page for the "did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" speech from Animal House.

8th Mar, 2018 01:56:29 PM

"For Sale: Baby shoes, never worn"- Story by Ernest Hemmingway.

Edited by crazysamaritan
8th Mar, 2018 03:03:50 PM

That reminds me, Fix-It Felix Jr. has been made into a real, full game. Should it be moved to the VideoGame/ namespace?

8th Mar, 2018 08:28:20 PM

^ Yes, but with the fictional "backstory" removed.

9th Mar, 2018 10:32:29 PM

Are joke examples allowed in the "normal" namespaces, though? The page is clearly written as a joke, and I do remember it used to beling in JFF.

9th Mar, 2018 11:20:49 PM

Septimus indicated that they are not. The work description would also have to be completely rewritten because serious work articles require factual accuracy, and the current description probably isn't even accurate in-universe. (Classic in the "Pacific Literary Canon"? Yeah, right.)

Note also that the article should probably be Spoilers Off because the story's entire text appears in the page quote, so there's nothing to spoil.

9th Mar, 2018 11:56:35 PM

Is letting "The Ugly Barnacle" (TUB) have a "real" page meant to be a precedent, as opposed to a one-off? Theatre alone has countless works within a work (i.e., songs, especially songs whose main purpose is exposition) that tell a complete in-universe story in more detail than TUB. Do these also merit their own pages? If so, then fine; policy would be consistent. But if not, then it is unclear why TUB would merit special treatment.

I see a potential problem with giving separate pages to in-universe works such as TUB: it could confuse casual browsers who aren't familiar with the parent work, especially when (as in the case of TUB) the in-universe work and the parent work are in different namespaces. Perhaps we should have an "In Universe" namespace for such things?

10th Mar, 2018 01:39:08 AM

One off. Jokes and not-serious things usually only work if they aren't overdone. I am not keen on a JFF move because that namespace is for totally joke-y things, and this one is not.

10th Mar, 2018 03:27:21 AM

Then you better make a page for that Ernest Hemingway story, because if it doesnt have a page "The Ugly Barnacle" shouldnt either!

10th Mar, 2018 05:31:38 AM

Rats. Then it can stay. Rats.

10th Mar, 2018 07:49:37 AM

"Rats"? No, I think the more relevant word is its reverse - "Star". As in Patrick.

10th Mar, 2018 08:03:24 AM

"I am not keen on a JFF move because that namespace is for totally joke-y things, and this one is not."

My kingdom for a "bangs head on desk" emoji...

10th Mar, 2018 11:54:00 AM

That's where you're wrong, Septimus. "The Ugly Barnacle" IS totally joke-y, at least as currently written. Even if there is a potentially serious premise, the page is written as a pure joke from beginning to end. While it could be reworked into a serious work page, doing so would destroy its essential character, which is to be a joke, and would also remove any justification for not allowing separate pages for the uncounted other in-universe works out there. Ergo, JFF—assuming this site's content rules mean what they say. (Sadly, I'm prepared to believe they don't.)

10th Mar, 2018 01:27:09 PM

Im posting this here to make it clear. I didnt mean to insult anyone, I just wanted to curse in a really innocent and corny way.

10th Mar, 2018 02:20:00 PM

The point is it needs to be rewritten to match what's actually in the show. It's a real part of the work, but only fanon content is on the pages. JFF is only for made-up stuff by the fans. Since there's real content to trope(it's not much, but it's there), it should be properly fixed up.

11th Mar, 2018 12:55:36 AM

...rewriting it to be a "serious" page would totally defeat the purpose. It was written as a joke from the very start. All those fanon and shoehorned tropes are parts of the joke. it not possible to have both the serious page in the Literature namespace and the jokey page in the JFF namespace?

11th Mar, 2018 01:40:56 AM

Ya, to me it seems like the page would need a serious cleanup.

The problem that I see here is that the page is on the one hand about a legit work (policy does not care about how long it is) but also used for idle speculation (we do have a couple other mainspace pages which are about made up but they are rare). Hence the proposal to clean out the stuff that isn't supported by the text.

11th Mar, 2018 01:51:54 PM

I also support the Just for Fun move because it's clearly a gag page expanding upon and exaggerating the gag into a full-blown fictional work.

Cleaning up into a "serious" page would totally defeat the point.

Edited by shoboni
11th Mar, 2018 01:56:53 PM

I think a JFF move would be appropriate, and in line with certain page re-defining actions of late. For example, the page for the anatomy textbook called Gray's Anatomy had always been in the Literature/ namespace but was originally a humorous page talking about the TV show Grey's Anatomy — recently it was rewritten to actually be about the textbook and its influence in written media and medicine. (I think it's still indexed as JFF because there is an occasional joke about the TV show, this wiki is funny, after all). In this case, it was possible to make the page more serious without affecting its purpose; the Ugly Barnacle page seems like being a joke is its purpose and to try and make it a more legitimate Literature/ page would make it a very out of place article.

Edited by lakingsif
11th Mar, 2018 03:55:22 PM

I'm trying to figure out of the tropes listed there are actually in the story, or if users are making them up while pretending they are part of the story. If the latter then, this fits as a JFF page, as JustForFun.Daring Do and JustForFun.Disneys Anne Frank do that as well.

12th Mar, 2018 01:01:48 PM

A lot of the tropes on the page aren't in the story proper and are various possible interpretations of it, but others are actually present.

why yes, a 3 sentence story can have very many interpretations, thank you for asking

13th Mar, 2018 03:15:37 PM

I forgot that most of the Daring Do, and all of the Disney Ann Frank, didn't really get shown. So do we know the content of The Ugly Barnacle, or is that being surmised for fun?

13th Mar, 2018 05:25:06 PM

We do know the content of The Ugly Barnacle: "Once, there was an ugly barnacle. He was so ugly that everyone died. The end." That is the story word for word.

13th Mar, 2018 06:40:35 PM

To be honest, moving this to Just for Fun would probably take significantly less time than getting rid of the speculation, interpretations, etc. that got us here in the first place. Alternatively, move this page to JFF and make a new page to cover what's actually part of the story (which Orbiting posted).

P.S. Kind of off-topic, but I think this page actually has more subpages than most non-joke pages I've seen (unless they're mostly or entirely redirects to subpages for SpongeBob SquarePants itself; too lazy to check), and that baffles me.

16th Jun, 2018 03:40:25 PM

Sorry for bumping this, but apparently someone tried to remove the content made up for the page, but it was reverted under the assumption that the person who removed it didn't have permission.

16th Jun, 2018 03:56:20 PM

^ can you post that to a new thread, perhaps linking to this one? It's a separate topic and this thread is already very long.