Ask The Tropers

... I gotta say, that's a lot of commitment.

I know, right? The subpages are amazing XD

There was an ATT thread on this subject before. Some, including me, suggested it be moved to the Just for Fun namespace. But we decided to keep it in the literature namespace since unlike other shows within shows that have just for fun pages, we hear the story in its' entirety.

I'll say here what I said in the other ATT on this, namely, that this is in no way a work and putting it in the Literature namespace is goofy. Just For Fun, please.

Literature. Literary farce is perfectly fine to host.

Two lines of dialogue in one episode of Spongebob Squarepants is not a work of literature.

If a six-word story is a piece of literature, then so is The Ugly Barnacle.

^Since that six-word story probably never existed, as the page itself notes, that's not a good piece of supporting evidence.

This is, again, a couple of lines in an episode of Spongebob Squarepants. It's not a story, it's not a work.

The Ugly Barnacle has a beginning, an ending, at least one character, and a moral (or an attempt at one), that makes it a story. It has been written down, that makes it literature.

Although I do think we should limit it to tropes that actually, demonstrably happen in the story, instead of theories and making stuff up.

This is the third ATT thread about The Ugly Barnacle. First, second. It's clear that people want something done about this, so I've posted a comment on the "Suggesting new namespaces" thread with a solution to this problem, and for other works within works as well. It's about introducing a new namespace.

I'm with Zuxtron. If we want the page on the main literature namespace then it has to be just what is in the work, no more no less. If we want the wild fun version then it has to go in Just for Fun. Or it could go in both, have a JFF version of the page and a Literature version of the page, each with the applicable write up.

One issue is that, according to this thread, Just for Fun pages shouldn't get subpages.

And now there's an edit war. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Literature.TheUglyBarnacle

Should the issue be discussed with them?

The Ugly Barnacle has not been written down! It was two lines of dialogue in an episode of Spongebob Squarepants. For that reason alone it should be removed from the Literature namespace tout de suite. Is there any other instance where ten seconds of dialogue in a television cartoon has gotten its own status as a work?

^ Man Getting Hit By Football You're asking for a very specific thing. This is pretty close though.

The Magnificent Three only has a few bits shown, but is in-universe a full-length movie.

^Those probably shouldn't be work pages either. But at least they were presented in something resembling the namespace they're in—although not really, they should both be in Western Animation...

But lines of dialogue aren't literature.

OK, seriously, any attitude creeping into comments is not appreciated.

Did The Ugly Barnacle get published literally anywhere besides within the script of SpongeBob SquarePants?

Aside from memes, it appears not.

If its entire content is within the work of SpongeBob SquarePants, then all the jokey content (that appears to comprise the majority of the existing page in the Literature namespace, as well as the subpages) should be at JustForFun.The Ugly Barnacle. Any legitimate content can be integrated into the WesternAnimation.Sponge Bob Square Pants pages and subpages, and retain differentiation through headers/folders.

Er, we don't have a standing policy that Show Within a Show (which is what this is) can only be troped on the page for the original work.

deleted post

I believe the Literature namespace was chosen because works of Oral Tradition are always placed in Literature first.

Obviously, there are differing opinions among the mods as well. We are discussing as a group to reach a consensus. Locking this query until that decision is made. Thanks for your patience.

OK, here's the mod fiat.

Literature.The Ugly Barnacle as is is unacceptable in a main wiki namespace, as a work that only exists within the universe of a real-life work and as primarily populated with speculation, jokey content, creative writing, etc. It (and the content of its subpages) should be moved to JustForFun.The Ugly Barnacle. Note: the subpages should not be maintained as subpages - YMMV.The Ugly Barnacle, Characters.The Ugly Barnacle, et al should be integrated into JustForFun.The Ugly Barnacle. If there are icons that show up (such as the one for Trivia/YMMV) in the primary JJF page, that'll be something to put on the fix list so there is no confusion about the appropriate location. I don't know at this time if that will happen.

As some mods noted in discussion, the very best possible case for a Show Within a Show to be on the main wiki in its own page is that it's fully realized within the real-life work and all examples for the SWAS are written appropriately for the main wiki. That is not the case for Literature.The Ugly Barnacle and therefore we do not feel that such a ruling would be appropriate. For now, legitimate tropes for the Show Within a Show should live in the real-life work page.

Should Literature.The Ugly Barnacle be made into a redirect and then cut when all the wicks are corrected?

The wick list is still available even after a page is cut, so I don't think that would be necessary for that reason. I think the auto-index can catch any of those 38K+ inbounds, so I'd disagree with making Literature.The Ugly Barnacle into a redirect to JustForFun.The Ugly Barnacle.

EDIT: I just moved the page, to get the ball rolling. Tagged this thread and mentioned the previous namespace (in case anybody in the future has any questions).

The page with all the made-up stuff will be moved into Just for Fun and will no longer be treated as if it were real? Great, finally. (And any actual tropes the story uses go on SpongeBob SquarePants's page).