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.
Not just this page. They've been doing this to many ymmv pages by taking the removed family unfriendly aseop and adding it as another trope to the ymmv page.
Edited by miraculous "That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
The probability of two different YMMV items being accurately described with the same text is pretty low, particularly if the text in question is that dang lengthy.
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
Do we need to make a note on Edit War about this? This is not the first time I've seen an entry deleted for being misuse, only for the person to copy it back onto the page under a different trope.
No. It's too into-the-weeds and ignores that one can be mistaken about a trope and then add an entry back under the correct trope. I don't think this is one of those cases.
Family Unfriendly Aesop doesnt even exist anymore!
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
^That's why the Family-Unfriendly Aesop entries were deleted. The OP asked whether it's kosher to add them back as examples of another trope (which somebody had done).
To answer the OP, moving an entry from one trope to another is completely kosher, provided the example fits the new trope. If it fits the new trope better than the old one it's even desirable. We definitely shouldn't forbid that.
However, in this case, it's dubious whether they really fit the new trope, or if somebody is just trying to preserve the examples by shoehorning them into a new trope. That's not kosher.
So what do we do. Since according to one of the above posts they have done this with allot of this deleted entries for other works. Also being familiar with the work I don't know if they count. I mean I don't much about Informed Wrongness to say if they meet the standard.
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
Reading the examples again, it looks to me like the first bullet is a genuine fit for Informed Wrongness (assuming it isn't misrepresenting the facts of the movie) — though the Beautiful All Along bit seems irrelevant — while the second one is not.
I'm not entirely clear what the second bullet is even trying to say, to be honest.
Edited by wingedcatgirl Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
The first only really gets one thing wrong. Namely only two of her friends actually give her a hard time. Lilly and her boyfriend Nate. The other is mostly supportive. Other than that maybe. Though yeah I don't know Beautiful All Along really affects anything about her being in the right or wrong.
The second one I really don't know. Because I don't think that is what the movie was getting at.
Edited by Bullman Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
Some of what they've added are straight shoehorns
They added this to Goldfinger when it's easily still one of the more popular bond films
- Audience-Alienating Premise: Being a lesbian is bad, as the tragic fate of Tilly Masterton demonstrates. And to make sure the reader gets the point, there is also a Character Filibuster by Bond, musing on how our decadent society produces damaged and unhappy people like her through its permissiveness and political correctness:
Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterton was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and 'sex equality'. As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits — barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but had no time for them.
This to Justice League. Despite not changing any of the text so it ends up being an accidental Aesop....and reading the first Part as unintentional
- Accidental Aesop: Though this probably wasn't intentional, the first episode can fairly easily be seen as having a pro-nuclear weapons slant. That same general actually inspires Batman to get on board with funding the Justice League. In a universe where alien supergods regularly try to conquer the Earth (not to mention all the ordinary alien threats that try to conquer regularly), having extremely powerful weapons (such as nukes) probably isn't a bad idea, and the League comes around to building their own BFG, a "gun with the punch of a nuclear weapon" Kill Sat that proves to be handy fighting the Dark Heart, citing the Thanagarian invasion as their main reason for doing so
Put this under Matilda under Values Dissonance where in not sure what they even mean. Matilda's parent's are abusive anyway so that seemed weirdly missing the point
- Some parents see this in Matilda's adoption by Miss Honey. As in, Matilda allowed the first nice person she saw to adopt her. When you consider the actions of some teachers these days, some parents find the Aesop unfriendly just because the nice adult happened to be a teacher.
And so and so across multiple pages.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
^ Yeah those seem like shoehorns. Especially the Matilda one which seems to be missing the whole point.
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
For the Matilda one, I was saying how nowadays parents would be suspect to a teacher adopting a child given the recent "allegations" with teachers. With the JL one, it's stated in the example that it was probably unintentional, so Accidental Aesop seemed like a perfect fit. Maybe I should have removed the redundant opening sentence.
As for Goldfinger? Well, yeah, maybe putting it under "Premise" was not correct, since it's really only one questionable aspect of an otherwise well received work. I was doing this out of a combination of wanting to preserve the opinions and a genuine desire to fit still valid statements that no longer ascribe to a since deleted trope to actual ones that they fit better as Gnome Train stated. There were many that I believe I did a good job on, and I hoped not to be doing anything "wrong", but I guess you can't get them all right. So the question is, are we really going to have to go and check to see what I got right and what I got wrong and see what needs to be fixed? Sorry for any problems. I hope the right outweighs the wrong. I am now swearing off on doing this without help or asking for thoughts first. Please do not suspend me.
That doesn't at all come through in that entry. Plus im not sure what your getting at.
Most of these old family unfriendly entries are complaining anyway. We dont need to add them back.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Do you want me to help come through my own work and see what is and was not right and what should be changed or simply removed?
I'm a bit late in getting to this conversation (I was asleep for most of the afternoon), but Family-Unfriendly Aesop was renamed to Hard Truth Aesop a while back due to frequent misuse, and it's no longer YMMV, so it doesn't belong on YMMV pages (per What Goes Where on the Wiki). Ferot removed those Family-Unfriendly Aesop examples as part of the trope's cleanup effort.
Edited by GastonRabbit Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Yes, they were deleted because HDA (formerly FUA) does not equate to "botched aesop", but rather "sad but true aesop", but few people bothered to move the examples to what DID amount to expressing the fact that the lessons were botched. Only a hand-full of them were moved to Broken Aesop or Clueless Aesop. Many were simply removed outright rather than moved to the appropriate places. Surely a flawed moral is worth pointing out on our wiki?
Worth noting that HarleyQuinnIsGreat has been expressing the desire to just outright complain about "bad aesops" for some time now.
I gave up on that.
For the record, I have seen those criticisms of The Devil Wears Prada before, so maybe if rewritten, they could fit better under some other trope. I know people consider Nate Unintentionally Unsympathetic because he comes across as shaming Andy for dedicating so much time to her work, and the story's been criticized for implying women can't really balance personal relationships and hard work (I don't know if I agree with these criticisms but I've seen them). Maybe with a proper citation this could fit Unfortunate Implications or something instead?
As for the only other story I know here, Matilda... I get the idea behind the Values Dissonance entry, but I don't think it's coming from the right angle. It's not like the movie suggests teachers are by-and-large trustworthy (the principal being a major antagonist), but maybe the informal adoption process could be more suspicious to modern eyes? It seems to suggest a creepy undertone to Miss Honey and Matilda's relationship that isn't there, though, and might have its own Unfortunate Implications about adoption in general.
v Ah. Still unfortunate implications gendered or not, it just gets brought up a lot in discussions of the working woman in media, I believe.
vv If those entries are already listed then there's no need to shoehorn in a different trope to say the same thing.
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
^^ I am not saying that they don't count, but the page already has Unintentionally Unsympathetic and Unfortunate Implications entries that say the same thing. Besides I think the first entry could work if it gets a rewrite.
Edited by Bullman Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
This is getting too long for Ask The Tropers. Seriously, why do queries keep attracting borderline offtopic and useless commentary?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Worth noting the troper's been permanently bounced for ban evading so all these edits will be reverted anyway.
v bobg but yeah, keep an eye out for this (as well as examples defending Justin Carmichael).
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
To note, the ban evader was bobq. That way if similar entries show up, we can look into it for possible ban evasion.
On The Devil Wears Prada HarleyQuinnIsGreat just added these entries
.
The thing is that this is the same entries that Ferot_Dreadnaught deleted a few days ago here
.
Is this allowed.
Edited by Bullman