The trope's in the caption.: Call A Smeerp A Rabbit

It's just a picture of an odd animal, with the caption telling us that they're supposed to be tigers, apparently. Can't we get a comic panel or something where the trope part is actually in the picture?

I disagree. The picture works just fine.

You know, at this rate all the pictures are going to have to be replaced by comics, because you can't illustrate some things 100% without words and sequential action. Personally I don't see a dif between having the picture's applicability to the trope explained in the caption and having the picture's applicability to the trope be explained in the dialogue bubbles. Either way, it is clear if you know how to read.

edited 2nd Jan '12 11:14:51 AM by Auxdarastrix

Captions are supposed to be supplementary at best. All the information should be in the image, so it's clear that it's an example of the trope. For all we know, the image on this page isn't an example at all.

JAFAAC, motion to pull.

edited 2nd Jan '12 4:08:31 PM by KaiserMazoku

Policies applied in an legalistic, over-zealous way make for silly decisions that end up making change for change sake rather than actually improving thing.

Good luck finding an example that isn't just an animal and a caption. Just because the caption is on the picture instead of below the picture doesn't make it any easier to read. If anything, it is usually harder to read.

edited 2nd Jan '12 11:17:31 AM by Auxdarastrix

^^Slow your roll. That is not the policy at all. If the caption makes it work, it works. The policy is to use page illustrations that work. Being down on captions is a personal quirk of some tropers, not site policy.

And be friendlier, dude.

edited 2nd Jan '12 11:12:32 AM by FastEddie

A) You have a picture of something that is not a tiger.

B) You have a something written telling you it is called a tiger.

I don't see any other possible way of illustrate the trope, baring a video telling you verbally it is called a tiger, and we don't use those.

I didn't mean to come off as unfriendly. Sorry if that's how it sounded. Wasn't my intention at all. I actually didn't even know that wasn't the official policy, I just kind of came to think so after being here for a while.

With that said, I still stand by my point of looking for a better image.

edited 2nd Jan '12 11:33:31 AM by KaiserMazoku

I don't see a problem with the current image. And I don't understand the current crusade to remove all images that need even the slightest bit of caption explanation for context and/or clarity.

edited 2nd Jan '12 4:21:48 PM by Martello

The issue with this image is that, for all we know, someone just took a random screencap from the first thing they found and stuck a caption on it that basically says "Hey, this is totally an example!". There's nothing in the actual image itself that conveys the trope, and it might not even be an example.

The trope is simply "Giving something weird the same name as a normal thing and expecting the audience to accept that it's the same thing." The page image is a good example of that.

Not good enough. By that standard we need to delete everything everyone puts up because it is might be false or faked. Citations aren't required.

Please either proof that it is not an example or explain how to demonstrate a linguistic trope without words.

edited 2nd Jan '12 1:18:42 PM by Auxdarastrix

That wasn't what I was getting at. What I mean is that we should try to find an image where it's actually clear, in the image itself, that it's an example of a trope. I'm not familiar with Monster Rancher, so if those creatures are called tigers in the series, then I don't know that. A better image, in my opinion, would be a screencap of a book or a sign or something that says they're tigers.

You learn that from the caption. I don't see why this is a problem.

I've already explained why it's a problem. The image shows some funny looking animals, sure, but there's no indication that they're called tigers in-universe. The caption is not part of the in-universe material.

Yes, there is an indication. The caption itself is an indication.

Is the fact that it is phrased as a rhetorical question throwing you off?

Besides, it doesn't really matter what they are called in universe, but that the combination of picture and caption demonstrates the trope. See the picture for Call a Rabbit a "Smeerp".

Seriously, I think you are just misunderstanding the image policies.

edited 2nd Jan '12 2:13:22 PM by Auxdarastrix

I've already apologized for my condescending comment earlier. It was wrong of me and inappropriate. I would appreciate it if you don't go down that same road.

EDIT: Since it seems that we're at a stalemate, the only thing left to do now is wait for a consensus.

EDIT 2: The image for Call a Rabbit a "Smeerp" is somewhat of a visual pun and not from a work, and those are generally allowed more leeway.

edited 2nd Jan '12 2:17:06 PM by KaiserMazoku

Motion to pull. There is a difference between the caption assisting the image and the image being entirely useless without the caption providing the context for it. This is a case of the caption doing all of the work and the image just sitting on the couch and watching TV.

Completely agree, captions shouldn't do all the work. That doesn't apply, though, not really. "All the work" is a dramatic exaggeration; that's not Just a Face, it's a picture of some beasts that totally aren't tigers. The guideline isn't "image wouldn't work without caption", it's okay if they complement each other. The caption wouldn't work without the image.

And anyway it's just a guideline. Every case is different. That page seems fine. There is almost certainly something better, but I see no suggestions in this thread.

Also: be nice. Assume good faith, and if someone shows a gap in knowledge, politely fill the hole. One of the reasons I like this forum is people are generally thoughtful and civil; I'm sure that is a common sentiment. Debates are about finding an awesome page image, not winning. We're all on the same side.

edited 2nd Jan '12 4:06:45 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Monster Rancher probably has a card game. Get a pic of a Tiger card.

We don't do Magic cards, so I doubt another CCG card would be acceptable. I still don't see the issue here and I know absolutely nothing about Monster Rancher.

We don't do gratuitous Magic Cards. In the case of Call a Smeerp a "Rabbit", that fact that the card has a picture of something that looks like a cross between a dragon and a unicorn and a tiger, sort of-ish; but identifies it as "a tiger" is an in-work example and would be acceptable.

See Memetic Badass. Note that being on a (fake) Magic card is part of what makes it illustrative.

edited 2nd Jan '12 7:41:28 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Supporting pull.

^^ Precisely. Rodney, thank you for finding that example; I knew there was at least one, but couldn't for the life of me remember what page it was on.

Im fine with the current image. It's pretty clear to me. Seeing the word Tiger on the image or on the caption is pedantic at best, pointless a distinction at worst. The end point is the same: It's clearly called a Tiger. It clearly doesn't look like one.

edited 2nd Jan '12 9:03:05 PM by Ghilz