Talk:Rigged Riddle

We have either 9 or 13 examples depending on how you count, a good and thorough description, and I added a couple categories. Shall we kick it into the street to survive on its own.

And no one said no in a week, so out the door into the cold streets of the main namespace it goes.

I was hoping to get in a couple more examples, but was sidetracked from ATT matters and other things due to mental health. That said, I had no issue with it launching, and I like that Henery managed to contribute a couple of solid examples as well.

Is the current definition Too Rare to Trope?

Half a year in the Trope Workshop and only four examples... I'd say it's too rare to trope, yes.

If Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks and Vafþrúðnismál count as 2 different sources, and I think they should (in which case maybe the formatting should change, but I think it is fine), then maybe it should count as 5 examples. And 5 is technically enough to launch.

One could argue that they both count as the same example, Norse Mythology, Whoever added the section to the page certainly thought so, and I'd be inclined to follow that reasoning. we do the same with more modern works - or, at least, I do the same with more modern works.

And quoting from the New Tropes Checklist: "the Mods won't launch their own trope candidates without at least ten"

I was actually the one that added them to the page. Of course I am biased about them counting as 1 source or 2 sources since it might be the difference between this page getting launched or not.

About the: New Tropes Checklist: "the Mods won't launch their own trope candidates without at least ten" Not sure that applies here since I added Rigged Riddle trope to the workshop and, as far as I know: I am not a mod for this website. I also have never been a mod.

Sorry, I was trying to imply that five tropes might not be enough, even though that's what we say in the guidelines. My bad.

Agreed.

Okay, since the current definition is apparently declared Too Rare To Trope. So now the question is: Do we throw it out, or do we broaden the definition: (e.g. allow extremely obscure trivia like Grant's empty grave to count)

I'm inclined to leave that up to you, as the trope proposer.

Not terribly interested in broadening, but my language in the edit history summaries seems to have committed me to broadening it.

I'd definitely agree to a broadening or at least further clarification.

Would you like to write the new broadened definition?

I could give it a college swing, but I'd rather let others try first assuming they're interested.

It's been a month since @Umbire the Phantom offered to let somebody else write a new description.

In the interests of getting the Trope Workshop down to a more manageable size, I'm calling a 30-day warning on this one. If there aren't any updates to the trope page (not the talk page) before March 27, we're reverting to the Too Rare to Trope decision and deleting the page.

I was hoping someone would've taken me up in that time, but I guess I'll have to give it a go myself, then.

...Nothing done on this page since January 24. Are we looking at a potential delete?

I gave folks a month to do something. We can wait the remaining 10 days.

But if nothing's been done by then, I won't ask - I'll just nuke the page.

In the midst of some renovations now. Tell me how they look.

I think it's too broad now. The knights and knaves puzzle isn't rigged. With a regular knights and knaves puzzle/riddle a person is given all he the information needed to solve it (in principle, if he can put things together is another matter).

With a regular knights and knaves puzzle/riddle a person is given all he the information needed to solve it

The normal version, yes - but its many variations are another question entirely, and the one such example I added indicates that it was very blatantly rigged against the opponents. The Knights and Knaves article even notes that the creator of the puzzle made several more difficult permutations of it that don't see nearly as much use.