Description may not match examples & wicks: No Celebrities Were Harmed

The description makes this look like it's entirely about cartoon characters manifestly based on (usually) contemporary celebrities, in terms of voice and mannerisms. The examples include that, but a lot of examples are Expies of celebrities, sharing both mannerisms and biographies (or at least the popular versions). Which is it? And if it's solely the former, is there a trope for the rest?

I've wondered about this myself. Maybe this trope should be defined as a subtrope of Expy? I.e., "Expy of a real-life celebrity?"

BTW, the trope image (or at least its caption) isn't helping. I had to go down to the examples to realize the characters aren't supposed to be the "real" Bush and Rumsfeld, but different characters with many of their assumed characteristics.

Wow, I'm glad I looked up this trope before I used it in my discussion of the Nasty Grace trope, because it did not mean what I thought it did.

I say expand.

Expand to the assumed meaning.

Is this taken care of?

Add links to suspiciously similar tropes, like Expy, Captain Ersatz, and Lawyer-Friendly Cameo.

Has this been cleared up?

Nope. We've still got a gap between the text and how the trope is used. The text makes out it is animation-only, the examples range the genres.

I see no reason why we shouldn't remove the artificial restriction and make the trope match the usage. Here is my proposed new version of the text: No Celebrities Were Harmed.

Bump. Is anyone gonna actually DO anything?!

Edited the the paragraph to make the description not specific to animation.

Why did this need "Trope Repair" for a quick edit job?

When a trope is broadened or narrowed, it's generally a good idea to get other people to give a say on whether or not that's a good idea. That said, I think we're good.

Seconded.

So can this thread be considered resolved?

Yes.