Loser
I think it makes sense to edit out all of the examples that do not mention characters who have a great deal of scars, if only because the name Covered in Scars seems to preclude those examples.
I am not quite as sure what should be done about the body part covered in scars examples. I feel like a character having a significant number of scars tends to have the same meaning in fiction as that person having scars all over the entire body. I wonder under what trope examples of people with scars all over one part of their body (e.g., their face) would fit if not under this one.
edited 1st Jan '12 11:28:08 AM by LouieW
"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d
Well, most of the scarred body parts are a better fit to Red Right Hand or Good Scars, Evil Scars. Especially as often times with a scared body part it's just one big scar over it from a single event. That's really not the same feeling as this trope which is more a cumulation of a lifetime.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Loser
Okay, that makes sense. What do you think we should do with examples of a character having a huge number of scars that are not spread across that person's entire body? Basically, I am wondering if there is a middle ground between having a few scars and an entire body covered in scars that could fall under the Covered By Scars trope.
"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d
I think that a character can have a couple of places scar free, normally it's the hands and the face so the scars can be revealed later, but they really do need a large number of scars over a significant portion of their body.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
I removed that warning. Hate those things. The description should be clear about what the trope is without having a part of it that seems to be a negative rule for people entering examples. "Don't do this, don't do that." Not a fun read for people (the readers) who weren't going to do either.
That is, the description is enough. In this case, the description is perfectly plain. Saying it twice doesn't really help.
Anyway, I have not noticed that these warnings ever have the effect intended. People careless with example entry will be just as careless.
edited 1st Jan '12 12:55:50 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
It wasn't getting bad examples before the warning was removed. I've had to remove bad examples ever since it was. It was working better for no warning.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Try it in the edit screen, rather than in front of the readers. I'll do this one and we can monitor to see if it makes a difference,
edited 1st Jan '12 1:04:54 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
All right. I'll lock this up then and keep an eye on it. Thanks, Eddie.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
This trope was supposed to be for characters completely covered in scars. A full body thing. There was even a warning not to add characters that just had scars on one body part. It seems someone has removed the warning and changed the definition for some reason and the trope had been getting trope decay with people who have one or two scars ever since.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick