Trope Description Improvement Drive

Trope definitions should not be modified unilaterally, so revert first, and request dialogue.

edited 24th Feb '18 10:36:03 PM by SamCurt

My change was based on how a SNK Boss is basically required to have an element of Fake Difficulty to them. Something cannot both be Nintendo Hard and Fake Difficulty.

- Why can't it be? Something could be Nintendo Hard and the Fake Difficulty aspects send the difficulty Up To Eleven?

Can I add a line to Treasure Room about Schatzkammer, a.k.a Real Life treasuries / treasure chambers, being the possible inspiration for the trope?

edited 27th Feb '18 6:10:45 PM by Malady

Well, Nintendo Hard is essentially a very tough but fair challenge.

A SNK Boss stacks the deck against the player by breaking a mechanic/rule that neither the player nor the A.I. is normally not allowed to break. It is all about being a challenge by playing cheap.

It also comes down to a question of quantifiablity. "A really tough boss" sounds an awfully lot like the subjective That One Boss. "A boss that deliberately breaks gameplay mechanics" is quite a bit easier to define objectively.

wouldn’t be sure about the Schatzkammer, it seems like the trope stemmed from how people imagine treasure being stored fancifully rather than in actuality.

For all, does the discussion about SNK Boss warrant a TRS?

- I have no objections to The Amazing Blachman starting one... But I think the problem may be in Nintendo Hard, 'cause we don't have a clear definition there?

It's not like Statuesque Stunner which requires a description of beauty, or a one of the Fanservice Tropes, and a certain height minimum.

Maybe define Nintendo Hard as requiring a minimum number of its constituent tropes? And not relying on Goddamned Bats, 'cause that's YMMV.

But, every Schatzkammer is a Treasure Room, right? I can put them as Real Life examples?

Re Schatzkammer, of course.

May want to ask about SNK Boss and Nintendo Hard in Trope Talk.

Small Taxonomy Pools's description needs work, as explained here; not to mention that all the examples are general.

after reading that, I’d vote to send it to TRS to have a full and varied discussion on what the description needs to include, and how much, and whether examples are to be kept; if so, to what context level. It currently looks like a waffling essay on the subject of fictional ecosystem creation, and could do with input on its direction and the purpose of the description.

I might start a TRS thread for it.

Only listing general examples (as it currently does) is not OK, but I'm not sure it should list specific examples, since it's omnipresent and we already have Seldom-Seen Species (which can't decide which animals are "seldom-seen" and which aren't, maybe it could use some work) for aversions. But what do you mean about how the description tries to be about fictional ecosystems and stuff? It looks pretty coherently about only certain animals being well-known to me.

edited 7th Mar '18 7:06:49 PM by Lymantria

the "some groups..." bit in the second paragraph, and the "filming on location" part, and then it refers to some families of flora/fauna (?) that are uncommon? I'm using the term ecosystem to refer to flora and fauna local to an area.

I still don't see it. None of those seem to be talking about fictional ecosystems to me. The filming on location bit is talking about how filming in a location where obscure organisms live might result in them being in the work unintentionally.

edited 8th Mar '18 4:07:01 PM by Lymantria

Well, I perhaps wasn't using the word totally accurately, just because I couldn't think of a more appropriate one for what I was seeing.

Infallible Narrator is about a level of detail that is unrealistic, like the Laconic says, right?

Not about their writing ability, which would be All First-Person Narrators Write Like Novelists?

Although, Infallible Narrator is called the opposite of Stylistic Suck... But that might be wrong too...

So, is Literal Surveillance Bug not a subtrope of Animal Espionage, because the former is robots / technology, while the latter is organics?

'Cause I moved an example out, based on that, without disagreement from the Is This An Example thread...

edited 9th Mar '18 6:35:49 AM by Malady

So what should be done with the page? Even if the description is fine, the examples are still all general.

Infallible Narrator is a narrator who is not just never inaccurate or unreliable, but to the point of including extra details that might be irrelevant. Basically the opposite of Unreliable Narrator, in my understanding, or Photographic Memory applied to plot.

Up to you, I’d still vote TRS if the examples are said to not reflect the purpose nor the context of the trope by multiple people as that might need to be addressed by an expansion to the description.

edited 9th Mar '18 3:21:09 PM by lakingsif

So, gonna change "opposite of Stylistic Suck" into "opposite of Unreliable Narrator"...

And this:

To:

edited 9th Mar '18 3:33:51 PM by Malady

Yeh, nice and simple :)

Can I add a paragraph into Inconsistent Coloring on the In-Universe causes of it, like dyes, lighting, magic, etc?

The Composite Character trope has the following paragraph:

"In some extreme cases with certain stories that have regular adaptations every few years, an Era-Specific Personality gives them the opportunity to fuse specific versions of the SAME character in different adaptations, making someone a composite character of him- or herself. "

This part- that was added without discussion in 2004- makes no sense. The rest of the description mentions that the trope is about different characters being merged, not the same.

Well, I, at least, guess that the answer is yes .

edited 11th Mar '18 8:11:03 AM by MagBas

sounds good

No, I get that. Might need to be written better, but it's like, in Comic A, Captain America was X, in Comic B, Captain America was Y, in this movie, Captain America was bits of X and Y.

- Can I also reorder the first paragraph from this:

To this?

Linking to the Duplicate Tropes thread...

Not sure what thread to center the discussion, but Inconsistent Coloring seems to have some relation to Kaleidoscope Hair, due both being tropes about color change, so I think the description should mention it, but not sure if they're duplicates...

I should probably edit the IC description with the current set of changes, then update further if the situation changes... .... Yeah, gonna do that.

Hmm... New thought, Inconsistent Coloring is for when the color doesn't actually change, it's just lighting or something, and Kaleidoscope Hair is for actual changes...

edited 11th Mar '18 8:44:58 PM by Malady

Sorry if I'm late, but I'll look over Small Taxonomy Pools some more and take it to TRS if I think it's worth it.