Trouble with: Reports Of My Death Were Greatly Exaggerated

Now I'm not sure you know what rude language looks like.

"It was about tossing a bone to the pedantic nitpickery who somehow didn't understand the point of the trope. A simplification of the trope into a single sentence to assist those in the studio audience who didn't get the joke, as it were."

So rather than assume the description is the problem, you're blaming us for not knowing. Since you admit you had to clarify it, you admit the description was flawed. Yet you still blame us for it.

"the paragraph that seems to be giving you so much heartburn"

Still blaming us for your bad information.

Those are why we called on you.

edited 8th Apr '11 4:16:59 PM by DragonQuestZ

I'm not trying to be rude to you or anything, but the facts are that you stated that there was no problem with the trope definition and then a bit later, you edited in something to correct the problem with the definition, then proceeded to claim that we were at fault for not understanding something that wasn't written on the page at the time. So yes. You objectively did lie.

Oh, Worldmaker, I keep forgetting to mention this, so here I go — my core problem with the article's current writeup is this:

If, as you say, the only requirement for this trope is "a person is mistakenly presumed dead" and anything else is irrelevant, then why does the lead paragraph(s) focus 80% of its attention on irrelevant details instead of the actual trope?

That's what gave me trouble sorting the wicks by usage, because I don't have a clear picture of what the trope is supposed to be in the first place.

The Law of Conservation of Detail applies to trope writeups just the same as fictional works ... (which is also what mkes Example as a Thesis a Discredited Trope).

edited 8th Apr '11 10:07:27 PM by Stratadrake

Thank you for calling me a liar to my face. Did you ever consider that I made the page correction after you said you were somehow unable to comprehend the nature of the trope? Or were you too busy looking for a malicious explanation to consider that?

I do understand that what is clear to one group of people can be perfectly opaque to another group, even when the first group sees things as not only clear, but obvious. Hence my addition of the first sentence. However, I do believe your portrayal of the trope as utterly baffling and confusing is a case of mole-hilling and nitpickery.

edited 9th Apr '11 12:17:40 AM by Worldmaker

It doesn't matter if you think it's minor. You still try to be nice and helpful with explaining the trope, or else will get treated as someone who just causes trouble.

Trust me on this.

I'm really confused on this one. It looks like Worldmaker has created a new description (which I read as very similar to Legally Dead) and deleted the old one. What direction do we want to go with this one? Rewrite, cut, crowner?

The current name is awfully stock-quoteish.

Apparently it's a quote from Mark Twain.

Mark Twain? I thought he was dead.

Description seems fine. Name is dialogue-ish (whether it's a famous quote or not), and so many works use it as a Stock Phrase, anyway.

Exaggerated Reports Of Death would be a little awkward, no?

edited 14th Sep '11 5:30:24 PM by ArtemisStrong

Not Dead?

The current writeup, for its worth, doesn't sound like a duplicate of Legally Dead, which is a plus. It simply says that a character is presumed dead (in-universe) but later turns up alive and well ... kinda Super-Trope-ish, in a way.

Naming the trope after that popular Mark Twain quote might be an issue, but only if it's being interpreted as a list of quotations and not the actual trope.

So if the description is fixed, can we close/delink the thread now?