Created By: DragonQuestZ on February 27, 2012 Last Edited By: SeptimusHeap on March 15, 2012
Troped

Too Common For Examples

A predefined message for when a trope would just get flooded if it listed any examples, or just straight examples.

Name Space:
Main
Page Type:
Trope
Part of making a message to fill in some misuse with People Sit on Chairs on behalf of the TRS thread.

There are Universal Tropes and Omnipresent Tropes, and then there are these. These aren't chairs, but they are so widespread that listing any examples would literally mean listing almost every single work in that genre, medium, or more. Basically, if a work is in that category, it certainly has that trope.

This tends to come as two forms.
  • No examples whatsoever. Only the most super of Super Tropes get this treatment. They always have many Sub Tropes that are Super Tropes.
  • No examples on the page, period. This is reserved for the super-Super Tropes, which already have loads of Sub Tropes listed that would cover those examples.
  • No examples other than Playing with a Trope. For some really common tropes, playing it straight is the norm. Thus only playing it otherwise gets listed. This is also one of the few times it's valid to list an Averted Trope, since the lack of such common tropes affects the story.

Now it is important to note that this usually just means not listing examples on that trope page. Normally it is perfectly fine to list and explain a trope on work pages, since not all works do a tropes the same way.

Related to Missing Supertrope and Omnipresent Tropes. Not to be confused with People Sit on Chairs, which is about the lack of meaning.
IMPORTANT: Should this have a list of tropes like this, or just leave it as a predefined message?
Community Feedback Replies: 96
  • February 27, 2012
    Feather7603
    It could serve as an index.
  • February 27, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I don't know a list of tropes that are this other than Did Not Do The Research. Yes, it should probably get a list of them - basically administrivia + Predefined Message + list.

    Also, do not confuse with People Sit On Chairs, which is about events that have no meaning in storytelling, not merely too frequent.

    ETA: And flagged.
  • February 27, 2012
    lebrel
    It could use one or two examples under each of the possibilities, like The Protagonist or Conflict for "no examples". But personally I don't think it should have a list of "all tropes to which this applies".
  • February 27, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^Or that, maybe, for stuff that shouldn't go even on work pages.
  • February 27, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Why not?
  • February 27, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    Yeah, why not. Did Not Do The Research could make a good start. Conflict and The Protagonist may also fit on there.
  • February 27, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Did Not Do The Research is an incidental thing, and often used for Complaining. It's why we have Artistic License listed on pages instead.
  • February 27, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^AFAIK, the problem with DNDTR is pedantery and not complaining - factual accuracy is not an opinion and is unrelated to Complaining. Complaining comes in only by coincidence. Also, it is an extremely wide concept that really can't be used as a single trope. There was a TRS topic for that and it seems we concluded to leave DNDTR as a supertrope-index for subtropes like Hollywood X, but without actual examples.

    Artistic License is an artifact of the You Fail renames. It's simply Did Not Do The Research With Examples And A Different Name. We don't distinguish between the two terms as it would be unnecessarily subjective.
  • February 27, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "factual accuracy is not an opinion and is unrelated to Complaining."

    It's used for complaining. And the name itself implies something negative.

    "Artistic License is an artifact of the You Fail renames."

    Wrong. I started that trope as a counter to the "you fail" tropes, for when it was not failing, but putting the story ahead of the facts (as in they likely did do the research). The artifact came from renaming the "you fail" tropes after I made that page.
  • February 27, 2012
    dalek955
    I'm already using the "No Non-Playing With Examples" variant on Level Locked Loot.
  • February 28, 2012
    Routerie
    Did Not Do The Research is not a trope. It's an index.
  • February 28, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^It's a supertrope that is used as an index.

    "It's used for complaining. And the name itself implies something negative."

    Yes, it's true, but editorial intent is not particularly relevant here - Tropes Are Tools, after all, regardless of intent of those who list them.

    Did Not Do The Research went through TRS for misuse as a trope and a rename was rejected because of 35k inbounds. There it was also said that it's a supertrope that is used as an index and not as a trope to avoid overuse - not all instances would be tropes, some are People Sit On Chairs. We are supposed to put all instances in Artistic License Indexes and then into a subtrope of DNDTR if there are enough examples for one. I don't know if the complaining issue came up, but in the You Fail threads I read that it was the name which invites Natter by sounding negative (the concept isn't negative).

    Artistic License itself is unrelated (other than by name) to Artistic License Indexes, otherwise it would need a differentiation between deliberate and accidental, which does nothing other than creating subjectivity.

    Incidentally, are there other supertropes that must noe be used themselves, but their subtropes can?
  • February 28, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    Update from TRS thread:
    1. No Such Thing As Too Common To Trope has been proposed as an alternative name for this, or as a redirect to it.
    2. We might want to point out Missing Supertrope Syndrome here.
  • February 28, 2012
    lebrel
    ^ No Such Thing As Too Common To Trope actually sounds like a better redirect to People Sit On Chairs, assuming we beef up the "commonness is not chairness" part of the page.

    A mention of Missing Supertrope Syndrome souds good.
  • February 28, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I think we might wait until this one is launched. For me, No Such Thing As Too Common To Trope is closer to this than Chairs, especially since that would make Chairs a digression about the exception, I'm afraid.
  • February 28, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Those are two separate messages. How could "this is a trope, but don't list examples on the page" be the same as "being common doesn't stop this from being a trope"?
  • February 28, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    This was an idea in the TRS thread, and it's a better way to say "It's Too Common For Examples what matters here, not People Sit On Chairs!"
  • February 28, 2012
    troacctid
    I think it's extremely rare for a trope to be too common for examples.
  • February 29, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    This YKTTW is about deflecting misuse of People Sit On Chairs. Many people assume "too common for being a trope". There is no such thing as a trope too common to be a trope, only a trope too common to have straight examples. And they are not extremely rare.
  • March 7, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    BTW, this is Up For Grabs, especially if someone can write an even better description.
  • March 7, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I added the link to the TRS thread and tweaked the first and last paragraph a bit, to note that Universal Tropes and Omnipresent Tropes both accept straight examples and that Too Common For Examples stuff doesn't necessarily have a place in examples lists respectively.

    Now, should we make this an index? I think that Did Not Do The Research could be indexed here.

    On a final note, when this is launched (first to Too Common For Examples and then Administrivia.Too Common For Examples), we could clean up the People Sit On Chairs wicks by crosswicking them to this one, possibly namespacing People Sit On Chairs in the process.
  • March 7, 2012
    shimaspawn
    I really don't think this is what we need to clean up the People Sit On Chairs misuse. 99% of that is not being misused for this idea. That trope is being misused by people who think common isn't a trope. The only way to fix the misuse is a page along the lines of Nothing Is Too Common To Trope. Launching this as it stands is only going to make the misuse of People Sit On Chairs WORSE.

    The misuse of People Sit On Chair is a Bad Thing not because those people are right on Wiki Policy, but because they're Dead Wrong. We need to tell those people to cut out persecuting things for being too common. Not make it worse. This is a step in the completely wrong direction.
  • March 7, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    Agree on the points - People Sit On Chairs needs only the cleanup of the wicks, and this one is here to point out what PSOC is not about.

    About Nothing Is Too Common To Trope, I'm not sure how to relate this to Too Common For Examples - maybe making yet another guideline? Or repurpose this one into that?

    Also, could you avoid bold, please? It looks like you're yelling at us.
  • March 7, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Sorry, was meant for emphasis, not yelling.

    I'm just saying that this is so very rare it doesn't really need a policy page. I think it would be better as just a couple of sentences on the bottom of Nothing Is Too Common To Trope than it's own page. The title itself of this one is prone to the same misuse as people sit on chairs.

    We have a big issue with people shooting down supertropes as too common. This would just further exacerbate that issue.
  • March 7, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    So, we repurpose this to be a policy page Nothing Is Too Common To Trope, to point out what chairs isn't so that the misuse there stops?

    Anyway, it's late evening to me so I will have to drop off this discussion now.

  • March 8, 2012
    shimaspawn
    That works for me.
  • March 8, 2012
    TheGreatWhamini
    What about bad jokes? Star Trek spinoffs are notorious for this. They're usually one-liners, and usually unfunmy.
  • March 8, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^Please read I Thought It Meant and the TRS thread. It's about tropes too widespread to get examples, not about jokes.

    ^^Would Tropes Are Not Rare and Common Isnt Chairs make good redirects to such a guideline?

    On a second thought, I think that this page could make an index for such tropes like No Real Life Examples Please does, and that the Nothing Is Too Common To Trope should be a separate guideline page. Opinions?
  • March 8, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Nothing Is Too Common To Trope is a separate message, and I was going to make a new ykttw for that if no one else will.

    This ykttw is more for those pages that have too many examples to list. And it doesn't matter if they are rare, they do happen.
  • March 8, 2012
    shimaspawn
    They shouldn't have a pre-defined message though. Those are for common issues. Not rare issues.
  • March 8, 2012
    MorganWick
    A lot of times, people will say PSOC to mean "it's too common to trope" when it's just an Omnipresent Trope, which doesn't get examples. That may be where this YKTTW came from.
  • March 9, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    If I understand, Too Common For Examples is to be an index like No Real Life Examples Please to list entries without straight examples or no examples at all.

    Nothing Is Too Common To Trope is going to be an administrative guideline/predefined message to point out that People Sit On Chairs is NOT "too common to trope".

    [[by Nucturna's suggestion]]
  • March 9, 2012
    Nocturna
    ^ There is no Too Common To Trope page being made. If you're referring to this draft, it's Too Common For Examples.
  • March 9, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "They shouldn't have a pre-defined message though. Those are for common issues. Not rare issues."

    This isn't about "should". This is about curtailing misuse that is being done.
  • March 10, 2012
    shimaspawn
    This will cause more misuse though. Not curtail it. The problem is that people are looking to try to cut examples from things that are not too common for examples. This will make the misuse and the problems worse. Not better.
  • March 10, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I think we are confusing problems here. Chairs being misused to shoot down Missing Supertropes is something that needs No Such Thing As Too Common To Trope YKTTWed (or sandboxed).

    This YKTTW could become Too Common For Straight Examples if the risk of it being misused as a substitute for "it's too common so it's chairs" is too high - I still think it's useful, even if No Such Thing As Too Common For Examples is more important.
  • March 12, 2012
    crazysamaritan
    Most of this comment thread is retreading old ground covered by the trs thread. Please check out that thread.

    We also need to explain why this is related to Missing Supertrope, because I don't see that, here.
  • March 12, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^I think the issue is that this was first proposed as a solution to the problem identified by TRS but then TRS decided that there is a better solution.

    So, we can still make this, but we'll need to make Nothing Is Too Common To Trope its own YKTTW.
  • March 12, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "The problem is that people are looking to try to cut examples from things that are not too common for examples."

    Um, I haven't really run across that. And even then, the reason I made this is some claiming that too common for examples means it's also too common to make a trope page at all.
  • March 12, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^Yeah, I've never seen that request either, not even when walking through the depths of the morgue. That said, we don't need more problems than we already have, so it's probably better to turn this into an index for things that have been made Too Common For Straight Examples and leave the PSOC-fixing to the new YKTTW about Nothing Is Too Common To Trope.
  • March 12, 2012
    shimaspawn
    It's something that happens a fair bit here in YKTTW though where people insist that supertopes would be better as indexes, even when the entire reason for the supertrope's creation is to stop people from shoehorning bad examples into subtropes they don't fit.
  • March 12, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^Aha. However, I've heard that there is a problem with creating new YKTTWs so the Nothing Is Too Common To Trope YKTTW - the actual fix to the People Sit On Chairs TRS thread - will have to wait.

    About^: I've the distinct feeling that this is a deeper issue in YKTTW that we can't fix from one go. I don't know what to do to fix that, other than to preemptively rename this index into Too Common For Straight Examples and to point out that it is an index, not ''this supertrope is Too Common For Examples so let's make it an exampleless index!"
  • March 12, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Perhaps we drop "too common" from the name, and find a better form?

    As for the notion of calling on this for tropes, we can't fight that notion. The best we can do is make it clear in this message that there has to be some proof that such a trope is so common that examples would be too much to list.
  • March 12, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^I'd simply rename it Too Common For Straight Examples. The first paragraph of the description already says that it is only for tropes that have examples in all works. I'll tweak the description for that.

    Also, any luck in creating a new YKTTW?
  • March 12, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    1. The thing is there are tropes like Plots, Conflict, and Characters that are so common, even Playing With A Trope versions would be too long. That's why they are strictly indexing their Sub Tropes.

    2. Yes, finally.
  • March 12, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    In this case, we'll keep this name and simply clarify the description to make clear that it isn't supposed to be misused. Maybe a "beware Missing Supertrope syndrome though" warning?
  • March 12, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Perhaps we could split. No Straight Examples Please for those that are too common for straight examples, and something like Super Trope Of Super Tropes for tropes that are too common to list anything but sub tropes.
  • March 12, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I'm on two minds on that. Perhaps it's better to see other people's opinions.
  • March 12, 2012
    lebrel
    ^^ I'm in favor of keeping it all in one place, personally.
  • March 12, 2012
    Unknown Troper
    I don't think it should be an index, but rather something like Needs More Examples, Rolling Updates, etc. Only more a comment here, as a response to People Sit On Chairs (if it actually is this).
  • March 12, 2012
    shimaspawn
    This should not be used in the YKTTW. It's very rare that this is going to exist. There are maybe 12-15 tropes on the whole site this should actually apply to.

    All this as a page is going to do is cause massive trope decay by stopping supertropes from having examples. Most of the time we want examples even on high level supertropes because people shoehorn in bad examples to the subtropes.

    Defrosting Ice Queen has this issue. Tom Boy has this issue with it's subtropes. Every time we removed examples from all but the highest level supertropes, bad things happen.

    It's one of the big issues with Missing Supertrope Syndrome. Trope decay from not being able to put examples on a supertrope.

    We're all ready having this idea applied to supertropes that are meant to stop Square Peg Round Trope. We need a way to stop people declaring things Too Common For Examples. Not encourage it.
  • March 12, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ That would apply to tropes to common for any examples, but those where the straight examples are too much aren't quite that rare.

    Plus if you are worried about using the message wrong, then let's come up with a better name.
  • March 12, 2012
    shimaspawn
    No, I'm worried about the message existing honestly. It's not the name I object to. It's the concept. The attitude behind this page is the cause of wide spread trope decay and misuse. It actively hurts the wiki. Having this page exist encourages that poisonous attitude we're trying to stomp out. We want people to stop thinking what this page says.
  • March 12, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ You can't stomp an attitude out. If one could, we might have found a way to end any and all edits that are natter or complaining.

    Could this message be misused for what is worrying you? Perhaps, but that's why we should look for a name that reflects that attitude less. If you are against this due to thinking we can magically make an attitude go away, that's not possible.

    An attitude is based on human nature. The best we can do is guide human nature, not change it. So we make this message into something to guide them, not withhold it as though we can change how people thing.

    So what names reflect the proper use of this trope more than what some think it would mean? That is possible to do.
  • March 12, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    This is why I'm repeating the split I suggested.
    • Super Trope Of Super Tropes implies something special and rare. If someone jumped on just any trope for being like this, that user would have a lot of burden of proof to claim it's that common.
    • No Straight Examples Please also implies a special situation, and must again meet a burden of proof.

    I should add that a lot of PSOC accusations on ykttw tend to get shot down if the trope is valid. So while it's unfortunately misused, a lot of users here a making sure false uses don't stick.
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Supertrope Of Supertropes should generally have examples. The few that shouldn't are weird wonky cases of which we have about five. Not something we should have a page to explain.

    No Straight Examples Please is also not something we want to encourage. Generally if a trope is written so it can't take straight examples it's written wrong. It encourages people to write tropes the wrong way around.

    I'm saying that this page itself is a bad idea. This page is about things we don't want people to do and don't want people to actually use. Ideally, this page will be linked a grand total of five times and be banned from the rest of the wiki. That's not a good basis for a page.

    We don't need this page. We would be better off without it and all of it's splits.

    The names are not the problem. This page's very existence is a bad thing that will hurt the wiki. The misuse of PSOC is people saying this when they shouldn't. Declaring pages to be this is the very thing we're trying to stop. This page's very existence validates something we're trying to kill. That's not good.

    Ideally, what we want to do is to retool all by the very highest level pages so that this message should never come up. We don't want this to happen to pages. We want to stop it from happening to pages.
  • March 13, 2012
    captainsandwich
    I fail to see the difference between these and omnipresent tropes
  • March 13, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "Supertrope Of Supertropes should generally have examples."

    What? I mean something like conflict and plots. Those are two of the broadest tropes we have. And they don't have examples, because they are genuinely too broad to list any.

    "No Straight Examples Please is also not something we want to encourage. Generally if a trope is written so it can't take straight examples it's written wrong. It encourages people to write tropes the wrong way around."

    It's not about how a trope is written. It's that a trope is so universal in a genre that it genuinely would take up too much space to list all straight examples. No matter how you write Superheroes Wear Tights, listing straight examples would still basically cover 80% or more of all superhero stories.

    "This page is about things we don't want people to do and don't want people to actually use."

    Um, is there a post or thread of someone like Eddie or Janitor, or at least a lot of the mods, stating they don't want any pages like this? Because honestly it looks like you are just unilaterally declaring we shouldn't to this, and I really hope that's not the case.
  • March 13, 2012
    MorganWick
    Perhaps Playing With Examples Only for "No Straight Examples Please"?
  • March 13, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    Yeah, we can't have examples of all supertropes including plot or conflict. And it is a fact of life that there are tropes that don't accept examples - Did Not Do The Research or The Good Guy Wins for example.

    Would Too Common For Examples Index be a safer name for this? I don't feel that many people would misuse that.
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    I think perhaps Supertrope Index might be the best thing to have a page about, It only needs a throw away mention that not all of them have examples because the subtropes cover them all. With a note to please list examples under subtropes if they fit. Something can't really be too common for examples without being a very high level supertrope.
  • March 13, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    ^I think that is a good idea, but "Something can't really be too common for examples without being a very high level supertrope." doesn't sound quite true to me, see The Good Guys Always Win as an example (although in this case the opposite The Bad Guy Wins is a bona fide trope)
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    ^ That one is already covered by the page Omnipresent Trope.
  • March 13, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    If Omnipresent Tropes already means part of what this is trying to cover, then we can leave it with that name anyway.

    But there is still the issue that some of the PSOC wicks are for pages that simply just don't have straight examples, showing that there is a message that needs to fill that gap.
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    ^ No, we don't need a message for that other than Stop Misusing People Sit On Chairs. That's a wick clean up needed. Not a new page.
  • March 13, 2012
    MorganWick
    ^^ Is PSOC being misused that way for anything other than Omnipresent Tropes and mega-supertropes?
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    It's being misused for a lot of things that are against wiki policy and to enforce troper's personal agendas. None of those things require pages. If PSOC is the only reason someone can come up with for no examples, it probably shouldn't be no examples.
  • March 13, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^^^ That's not a good message. And some pages really are too common to list the straight examples. I've seen them all over the site. It's already here. This is essentially to give them a proper name.

    You seem to be insisting that launching this will cause bad things, not realizing those things have already happened.
  • March 13, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    I got a compromise. If too common for any examples is covered under Omnipresent Tropes, how about we give this a similar name. Since straight examples are usually when something is really common in a genre or medium, then we can call this Omnipresent Genre Tropes. That would make it look not like the message you don't want people to abuse (which I agree with).
  • March 13, 2012
    MorganWick
    I'm immediately thinking, "Are there any tropes that don't have straight examples that don't fit either list?"
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Flame Bait. If they don't fit any of those criteria, then there's something wrong with the trope and the trope should be fixed.
  • March 13, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ You gotta expound on that, because that doesn't make any sense for the criteria I've been given.

    How could "this trope has something like an 80% or higher use among that genre/medium, therefore any uses of the trope would be practically the entire genre" mean "there is something wrong and broken about the trope"?
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    ^ In those cases, the trope should have examples. They should not be cut. It is very rare that something like that is used exactly the same and if someone is cutting the examples, then the fact that they were chopped is what's wrong with the page.
  • March 13, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Wait. Cutting? I think we're on different pages here. I meant nothing about cutting. I meant a trope where it's so common among the genre that examples would literally be almost duplicating the genre index (even with context), unless limited to Playing With A Trope. If some are cutting examples, those vandals, not people mistaking a message.
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    ^ A genre is much smaller than all works ever. Only Omnipresent Tropes should be without examples for that reason. It doesn't matter if you list the whole genre as long as the examples aren't Zero Context Examples. That's not a reason to remove examples. Besides, there are very few things that are actually that common. Generally when people think they are it's because of Fan Myopia or because everything they like in a genre uses that trope.
  • March 13, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Okay, I don't know about other users, but I mean stuff like Superheroes Wear Tights (which needs help, but that's for TRS), or a trope about manga and anime characters having big eyes. Such things are so common in their media/genres that it really would mean just copy-pasting the indexes for the works and adding context. It would take less page space to just limit them to Playing With A Trope.

    As in if some screw up, correct them. I mean the real thing.
  • March 13, 2012
    MorganWick
    Okay people, we need to start focusing on examples (Take Your Time, for one) if we want everyone to be talking about the same things. This is the second time shimaspawn was on a completely different wavelength from DQZ, and this time DQZ even brought up Superheroes Wear Tights earlier in the thread.
  • March 13, 2012
    shimaspawn
    ^^ That certainly doesn't occur in all superhero genre works. It's not even a majority. As I said before, it's broken in that it should have examples but doesn't because someone had a false idea that it was omnipresent when it's far from it.

    Encouraging that sort of thing is the very way this page will break the wiki. What the needs is clean up and the addition of examples.

    ^ Take Your Time, is common, but not universal. There are a lot of works that subvert it even without timers. As it stands, the page is a mess. It's not talking about the trope. It's giving examples from other random different tropes. It also really needs folders.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "That certainly doesn't occur in all superhero genre works. It's not even a majority."

    Um, not sure what superhero stories you're looking at where most don't involve tights of some sort.

    And I hope you're taking into account that the trope is more broad than what can be properly called tights.

    As for "break the wicki", that almost seems like a slippery slope argument, and you aren't even explaining how the slide will start, other than bringing up something that people already do here.
  • March 14, 2012
    shimaspawn
    The skin tight outfits are generally not used as much now at least on male characters, and even in the classics, Coat Hat Mask was generally more common though not as iconic. Female characters generally have skirts or things that don't have enough cloth to count. There's also the general armour types like Iron Man.

    Tights are just one of dozens of common costumes for superheroes. There's no reason to single it out. It may possibly be one of the most popular, but it doesn't account for the majority of examples and thus it's not omnipresent even in genre.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Again, it's not just a specific kind of suit that is generally thought of as tights. It's not as narrow as you seem to be stating.

    And even then, most superheroes have worn tights at some point (even Wonder Woman). Even the armored ones often wore skintight clothes underneath.

    Plus claiming it's not that common anymore is going to be a hard sell, since it's still perhaps the most iconic superhero outfit, even more than capes. That makes it already something where if it's a superhero story, it's more notable to not play this trope straight.
  • March 14, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Skintight under armour is not that trope. That's basically saying that because a superhero wears underwear under their costume at some point, they count. I read a lot of comics. DC and Marvel use the trope for their most visible characters. It's really not common as common in the rest of the genre.

    I'm not thinking of it as being narrower than it actually is. I know what the trope is. I also know it's certainly not omnipresent. It's just not common enough. It's iconic. It's well known. It's mainstream, but that's not the same thing.

    Actual works don't use it as often as the public conciousness thinks they do.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "Skintight under armour is not that trope."

    I didn't mean a full suit of armor. I meant tights and some armor, like a lot of the Image comics characters.

    "It's really not common as common in the rest of the genre."

    Show it. Show me that the majority of superhero works, or at least the DC and Marvel ones, don't involve skintight bodysuits at any point. Heck, if you can look at 100% of the DC and Marvel superhero works listed here, and properly show that the majority never involved tights as the trope defined it, I will discard this YKTTW without another word.
  • March 14, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Never is a bit too strong. A character can wear an outfit once and something different the rest of the time. John Constantine, the Question, the Spleen, the main characters of The Boys. There are dozens and dozens of them. The earliest superheroes like The Green Hornet didn't wear anything even approaching the trope. That said, it's 3 am so my list is just what I can come up with in 30 sec. I can give you a much much longer list when I'm not awake.

    I really haven't seen much tights and armour, but I've seen a lot of full body armour.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    The reasons I wrote "never" is due to the fact that if it happened even once, it's an example. That is how this site counts a work as having an example of a trope.

    So if you meant the majority don't usually wear that most of the time, that is a different thing that what I meant... and does kind of mean this bet should be reconsidered, considering we seemed to be on different pages when we were discussing this.
  • March 14, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Generally people don't list characters who did something once in an obscure one-shot. Well, Suedenim does, but that's because she's awesome. Even so, just because you're a bit intimidated at compiling the list doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Um, if you mean that TRS thread, I wrote "I wish I could say I was daunted by the number of works I'd have to list", meaning I wasn't.

    And it wasn't always in "an obscure one-shot" that this happened. Some works could have had a character or two wear tights for about a year before switching costumes again. Plus villains count as well.
  • March 14, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Villains are even less likely to wear that trope though. They get all sorts of stuff. Common shouldn't mean, no examples. Ideally, that will get enough examples that supertropes start to form and it will only have the examples that don't fit in it's subtropes.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    I'm don't mean at all that "common means no examples". I mean "if it can be properly proven that most works in this genre/medium do this trope, then limiting at least the trope page to Playing With A Trope would be advisable". Now admittedly, not a lot of tropers would follow that properly, but the thing is they don't follow it properly anyway.

    This page is partly meant to be a message to make it clear which is the proper form and what isn't. That's also why I'm asking for a better title (and speaking of which, I just put that tag up).
  • March 14, 2012
    shimaspawn
    Limiting to playing with is generally done only because tropers can't be trusted with straight examples.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
  • March 14, 2012
    shimaspawn
    It's the reason that we limited Most Common Superpower. It was turning into a page about gushing about breasts.
  • March 14, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Well there is that, plus it's also hard to give straight examples of an aggregate trope.
  • March 15, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    BTW, this ykttw is an example of a trope that would be too common for examples. Saving a game is a trope, but with all the varied methods, it would be easier to just list examples on the sub tropes.
  • March 15, 2012
    shimaspawn
    No, that's an example of a trope that if it doesn't allow examples on the main page will turn the subpages into a mess. Anything that fits a subpage goes in a subpage, yes, but everything that doesn't fit any of them needs to go on the main. It causes massive trope decay when they don't allow that.
  • March 15, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Then why not reply on that ykttw, and let them know they should do that?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=dctvpparw6gm5mcqqk3665xo