Trope Description Improvement Drive

Just bringing up yet another case of Chick misuse brought to the FMB page. Again the most likely to be used incorrectly if any of the five are used incorrectly. The acceptable range of that archetype should be clarified as the other four have be clarified time.

Also aside from the scope of The Chick (still waiting for feedback on the sandbox posted a while back) the other recurring issue is if Five BAD Band is even really a thing.

The individual villain tropes are fine for the bad band, but the specific arrangement of those five working together as Five Bad Band has had a lot of problems.

Reposting of the last page:

The description in Knight Templar was changed recently- between other things, the bits about anti-heroes were moved to the first paragraph and "this extreme becomes tyrannical sociopathy" was changed to "will do anything for them regardless of the effects on themselves or others."If the deity behind one of these churches is one of these, on the other hand, you've got problems — count on an Easy Road to Hell due to them being so impossibly strict that few (if any) of the mortals under them can live up to their standards of morality." was changed to " Some stories go as far to portray the deity/deities they worship as this."

Any opinions about the changes?

I've argued this for ages. It seems like every actual example - which aren't common to begin with - is an explicit evil counterpart to a good Five-Man Band, and that's already covered by The Psycho Rangers.

Meta Power Up seems to imply that Experience Booster and the other tropes in its description are subtropes, but it could be more explicit?

Basically by giving a bulleted list of subtropes, like other pages?

Also, what is the significance of One-Word Title, 'cause it doesn't say on the page? Is it 'cause it's short and therefore snappy? Inherently mysterious due to the lack of information?

All Swords Are the Same... What is it? ... Maybe put that on Trope Talk?

... What is this thread for? I guess for any case where descriptions may need reworking, whether it's because it's unclear, or just overly verbose, but clear...

edited 13th Jun '17 7:16:39 AM by Malady

Awful Wedded Life has been used since October 2010 to describe works that portray marriage horribly in whatever medium, but the current description indicates that it is only meant to describe a genre of Dom Com.

The only change that's really needed is in the first sentence. Replacing it with something like, "In contrast to the expectation of character's to be Happily Married, characters in an Awful Wedded Life serve as evidence against the institution altogether," would help the page as a whole.

edited 16th Jun '17 12:34:41 PM by DustSnitch

Conscription has a f***ing huge description, most of which segues into the Truth in Television aspects of the trope. I intend to transplant most of it to an Analysis subpage, but I'm not sure where to make the cut-off point.

Would anybody be opposed to me adding this (or something similar) to the tail end of Familiar?

edited 17th Jun '17 11:09:20 PM by Karxrida

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Sandbox/Conscription

Better?

RE: Big "WHAT?!": I support taking off those "WHAT?!" since that's not even a self-demonstrating article. Just saying "what" isn't the trope. I'd imagine it'd fit better as an "Annoying Younger Brother" sort of trope. That said, the page itself admits it's an Overly Long Gag.

I think the description could just be:

And just keep the compare/contrast sections. I don't even think that second paragraph comparing it to Flat "What" works, though.

Much better, if the excised text is to be put in an Analysis subpage.

Anyone else want to give their two cents on this?

Cram School has the same problem with Conscription—more than half of the lead is about real life. I'm new to this—should I cut the real-life parts to analysis as well?

Maybe change the description of Administrivia.People Sit On Chairs into this more concise explanation by Fighteer?

Most of that explanation is about things other than PSOC. Defining something by saying what it's not is very poor form and rarely effective.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Sandbox/Conscription

Is this good enough for a swap over?

My opinion is still "Yes" under the assumption that the excised text is to be transplanted to an Analysis subpage.

Tis done!

And finalized by adding Analysis.Conscription to the Analysis index!

I took the liberty of correcting the English grammar of Analysis.Conscription.

Compound Title:

That "can be strung together to form a title for the whole thing" shouldn't be there, right? Else that'd usually make a really Long Title...

Also, it's a type of Idiosyncratic Episode Naming right? A.k.a a Sub-Trope?

Nope, that seems to have little to no collision. The word "work" could be changed to "collection" or something.

"the individual titles of parts of a larger work" means that there are at least two titles, both of which can be put together to make a phrase. For example, Walk the Dog and then To the Park. Long Title is one title; for example, Walk the Dog to the Park (or whatever).

How is it not a type of Idiosyncratic Episode Naming? It's a specific pattern / theme for titles of the parts of a collection...

It's like the type of Idiosyncratic Cover Art where they form a bigger picture, except for titles.

Also, it's the "form a title for the whole thing" part I disagree with, 'cause that sounds like the titles of the separate parts fuse together into a separate title, where I think it should be "form a longer phrase".

edited 12th Jul '17 7:37:18 PM by Malady

The different books in a series are not episodes. A movie and its sequel are not episodes. Chapters are not episodes.

They form a title for the whole work, not just a phrase.

edited 12th Jul '17 8:16:10 PM by Madrugada

- Wait, do you think that IEN applies to television only 'cause the entries seem to disagree.

Same with Compound Title? At a glance, I can't find any entry saying the compound is the title for the collection as a whole.

Goodnight, I hope I can make sense of this in the morning.

edited 12th Jul '17 8:48:22 PM by Malady

I guess I'll give up on that, 'cause of lack of response... And move onto Extruded Book Product.

How are they defined? I assume a mix of ghostwriting + Strictly Formula? It has no Laconic for a quick understanding of what the trope is...

Or is it based on the speed of production being massively higher than average / usual? 'Cause if Strictly Formula is a requirement, then I'm not seeing how William Shakespeare fits as an example?

Basically, I'm wondering what the Laconic of this trope is...