I don't think either of those paragraphs are part of the definition at all. They're just elaborating on common ways the trope is used.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Gotta trope, dood!
Not sure about the first one, but the second one should probably stay on there. Often is not the same thing as always—It's usually part of the trope, and worth mentioning, although it's not always present.
They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?
Zzzzzzzzzz
The question is, is the trope "people fighting over silly shit" or is it "People fighting over silly shit used to underline the silliness of fighting"? Or maybe it's a third definition: "People fighting over shit other people think is silly". whichever one it is, we need to make the page clear and clean out examples that don't fit it.
I was around for the YKTTW, and the trope was originally intended to only include the second definition.
edited 16th Mar '11 2:48:42 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I see the Awesomeness.
If there's a "why it's used" paragraph, I'm inclined to shove it onto the Analysis page.
Fight smart, not fair.
Dragon Writer
So is this essentially the same problem as Completely Missing The Point and We Could Have Avoided All This had? E.g. getting potholed for fan speculation and complaining, instead of examples of it being mentioned in-universe?
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
What on earth is wrong with having a couple of paragraphs about how the trope is used? Isn't that the whole point of this website?
I agree that when you get a ridiculous essay into the cultural significance of the trope, exploring all the myriad possible ways it can be used, then it should be moved to Analysis. But a basic description of the kind of Aesop it might deliver, how it can be Played for Drama or Played for Laughs, and a couple of common subversions seem like basic components of a good trope description.
Look at it this way - showing how the trope can be used is likely to make readers think of examples they've seen, even if they didn't quite get that from the basic description. It does the same thing as Example As Thesis, conjuring up the outline of an actual story rather than simply objectively describing the trope.
Isn't Example as a Thesis considered a bad thing? Or at least one that's discouraged?
I see the Awesomeness.
It's generally discouraged if it can't get to the point in less than one paragraph.
Fight smart, not fair.
I made some fixes to the trope definition to make it more clear that part's not integral to the trope itself.
BUMP! BUMP! BUMP! Does this one still need work?
Zzzzzzzzzz
No, I'd say that it's done.
Objections to a lock on this thread?
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
None from moi. Let's lock it and recycle the key.
I just restored two paragraphs to the definition section of Silly Reason for War that had been deleted on the grounds that "most of the examples don't fit them". Top me, they're pretty important, changing the trope from "people fight over something minor and it's usually used as an Aesop about tolerance and/or the pointlessness of violence" to "people fight over something minor or silly." I think that's a pretty big change to make without discussion, even though it's true that quite a few of the examples that have been added don't have an explicit Aesop.
Here's what was cut:
This trope is often paired with An Aesop about how what we consider life and death, irreconcilable differences may really be petty when viewed by someone with no connection to the dispute, and maybe we should reconsider our intolerance. If poorly handled, this can become a Fantastic Aesop about Fantastic Racism when there are real and important differences between the groups that can't be solved by them simply deciding to "get along".
edited 16th Mar '11 2:04:34 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.