Trope Description Improvement Drive

In the forums, when there are multiple folders on a single page, trying to open any folder opens and closes the first folder instead. You need to include the [[foldercontrol]] markup to ensure your folders can be opened.

Regarding Hot Blooded Sideburns, as long as the character fits the personality requirements of the trope, I think it ought to be flexible enough to include women with earlocks (or w/e they're called). Though just because a character is Hot-Blooded doesn't necessarily mean their hair is Hot Blooded Sideburns? I would think the appearance needs to be consistent...? Maybe ask the appearance trope thread, idk.

edited 3rd Jan '18 12:45:42 PM by WaterBlap

Hot Blooded Sideburns description should allow eyelocks IMO. As for Asuka, I agree that it's a question better suited for the appearance trope thread.

So you're saying that for the inclusion of both female examples and alternatives to actual sideburns (such as earlocks), the description doesn't need any tweaking?

As for the Appearance thread, would it suffice to just copy-paste my original post from the other page when I take the issue there?

This paragraph was included in Villain Protagonist:

"This trope used to be employed for its' novelty value. These days, however, it's a lot more common for a character or group of characters who have been established as villains in a given universe for some time, to gradually become this trope, as part of a longer transition towards said characters either being neutral, or becoming heroic themselves. Making a villain a Villain Protagonist is a way to set up the longer transition which might come after an initial Heel–Face Turn, which gives the audience time to process and get used to the idea of the villain becoming one of the good guys."

Opinions?

Do we really have that many works that set up the villain as the protagonist with the objective of moving them towards a Heel–Face Turn? I'd say [citation needed] if that claim were made on Wikipedia.

edited 9th Jan '18 1:28:03 PM by Fighteer

I think it's a really badly worded way of saying "some people are confused by villains as protagonists, some works counter this by giving them a heel-face turn and a longer arc developing into the villain protagonist".

Yet Another Christmas Carol's description, besides being a bit long, has a paragraph that seems off to me but I'm not sure what to do with. Any suggestions?

"Almost invariably (see Blackadder's Christmas Carol for an exception) results in An Aesop. What Aesop is learned can depend, however. In the original Christmas Carol it was Scrooge being forced to confront what he had lost, and what the consequences of his current actions are and would be, that awakened the Christmas Spirit within him. Furthermore, the original had a generally horrible person Aesopped into decency, whereas some adaptations have resulted in a bizarre "You will be merry or else" lesson, where a character who simply doesn't like Christmas is taught the error of their ways. After all, Scrooge hated Christmas... Also look out for adaptations missing the point of the emphasis on Scrooge's grave during the future sequence- the point is not "Shape up or you will die" (so being nice makes you immortal?), but rather "Shape up or, when you die, nobody will mourn you.""

I think the description of Bulletproof Human Shield (which starts with an Alice and Bob Example as a Thesis) deserves a bit of a rewrite, especially the debunking paragraph that overconfidently bases its analysis on the idea that it "almost always involves at least one automatic weapon." I also doubt that "look(ing) very cool" is the main reason for this trope.

Villains Act, Heroes React says "No examples, try the subtropes", but doesn't have a list of subtropes.

edited 16th Jan '18 7:28:08 AM by wingedcatgirl

I'd hazard a guess and say that it's supposed to be referring to the first list... except that if that's true, the troper who edited that part of the description (back in 2012, according to the edit history) appears to have misinterpreted said list as being a list of subtropes rather than a list of tropes that Villains Act, Heroes React could use to manifest itself through (i.e. overlapping tropes).

Randomly Generated Loot says its a subtrope of Random Drops.

Shouldn't it be the other way around, as Random Drops is for enemy drops only, but Randomly Generated Loot is for any kind of loot?

edited 20th Jan '18 12:13:02 PM by Malady

Sure sounds like it to me!

eta: that is to say, I completely agree with you.

edited 20th Jan '18 2:00:18 PM by Xtifr

Is The The Title a super trope of The X of Y? Asking, 'cause if it is, I'll add it into their descriptions.

—-

Also, should I Am X, Son of Y be linked from the description in its index of Son of Trope, Daughter of Index?

edited 24th Jan '18 9:20:40 PM by Malady

Weird, it looks like The The Title is only getting examples where the title is "The X". It may have undergone Trope Decay because it looks like the TLP draft was specifically for series where more than one episode or chapter or book was titled The X, but a lot of the examples are just "This work is titled as The X."

To be safe, I'd say don't reference The X of Y. It may be worth taking it to the repair shop.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:47:04 AM by WaterBlap

- Started a TRS for The "The" Title. Anything I should change?

edited 27th Jan '18 4:07:04 PM by Malady

Whatever? ...

Should I add the following to the end of Rebellious Princess's description? Because they usually coincide? Or should I TRS Runaway Princess instead of asking for it to be a redirect, in the Locked Pages thread?

Isn't Alphabetical Theme Naming a supertrope of Alliterative Family, if this example in the former is valid?

edited 15th Feb '18 5:21:05 PM by Malady

Bump...

Can I add a line to Sports Widow and Married to the Job saying that they're sister tropes, both being people who about activities that take time, at the significant expense of other activities?

^ they're not really both about that, though. Sports Widow is "woman who has nothing to do when her husband ignores her to watch sports and usually resents him for it", Married to the Job is, well, doing nothing but your job

edited 15th Feb '18 7:28:21 PM by lakingsif

Any advice on the yet another christmas carol paragraph?

- But Sports Widow is for more than just sports? It's like the reaction to someone Married to the Job, but married to hobbies?

... I was searching for "A version of Married to the Job that applies to hobbies instead of jobs." via Trope Finder and Sports Widow was thought to be the best fit?

edited 17th Feb '18 8:12:37 AM by Malady

^ They’re still more opposites, though they are related. I guess you could say that sometimes, but not always, the partner of someone Married to the Job is a Sports Widow, and that a Sports Widow’s partner may make them this by being Married to the Job. It could be useful as most examples I’ve seen of the job version of SW are written as a MTTJ entry as “not them, but their wife is, so they...”

edited 17th Feb '18 11:33:43 AM by lakingsif

Some bits were added to the description to The Sociopath, including:

" In fact most healthy humans will have them in moderation as survival instincts"

and

"Lately it seems fashionable to claim to be a sociopath, confusing it with a drive for success at any means, sometimes by saying you make jokes about people in suffering, or don't care about people in an earthquake. Well, humour is one way to deal with tragedy. Real sociopaths won't make jokes, because it doesn't affect them emotionally either way. In fact sociopaths have almost no sense of humour, because they don't care enough about people to even laugh at their pain. And we can't continuously care about everybody and everything bad without emotionally suffering ourselves. Real sociopaths are pretty rare; they just end up in the papers a lot more than your average, decent human being."

Opinions?

edited 17th Feb '18 4:51:07 PM by MagBas

Seems more like discussion than description, and none of it is verified; it should probably be undone.

- But the connection should still be noted, no?

Yeh :)