TV Tropes Org

Forums

Projects: Long Term/Perpetual:
"Trope Name: Type X" Cleanup
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [90]
1
 2  3 4

"TropeName: Type X" Cleanup:

Dragon Writer
Type Labels Are Not Examples. Requiring a reader to visit page B (whether off or on the wiki) in order to decipher an example given on page A is bad form and needs to be fixed (or nuked).


So if you see any citations that look like this:

  • "TropeName: Of the Type [X] variety."

Then either explain it or zap it. Also consider checking the TropeName page and questioning whether it really needs numbers or labels designating each item — consider zapping them too if it doesn't. (WARNING! Before taking that last step, you need to do a full Wick Check and cleanup of its usage.)

Known offenders spotted in the wild:

(This is by no means a conclusive list.)

Prior offenders, since resolved:

Any volunteers?

edited 27th Jun '13 6:13:00 PM by Stratadrake

Dragon Writer
As an example, I scanned through the related articles of Boss Game and replaced about five or so "Type X" citations with further explanation. For example, on ''Alien Soldier:

from:
Boss Game: Type 1.

to:
Boss Game: Stages are generally short, with only a handful of enemies at a time in the spaces between one boss and the next.
 3 Final Starman, Mon, 23rd Jan '12 5:10:37 PM from Clinton, Massachusetts
Yeah, this problem can just ruin an example. Like on Characters.Spongebob Squarepants, SpongeBob is labeled as a type I/V Anti-Hero Depending on the Writer with zero elaboration. Likewise Patrick type all of 'em except III, Squidward type I/II, and Mr. Krabs III/V. This leaves the characters far too open to interpretation, to the extent that no information can be drawn from the examples. I think maybe Mr. Krabs, if anyone, is any sort of Anti-Hero, but I can't tell judging from the lack of context. It really doesn't help that the Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes is a broken mess currently under repairs.
 4 Ironeye, Wed, 25th Jan '12 2:19:43 AM from SoCal Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Cutmaster-san
Tropes are ending up in the TRS precisely because of this problem (for example, the sliding scales of Antiheroes and Antivillains). It is to our benefit to not only clean these up, but rewrite the descriptions of these tropes to prevent further misuse of this sort.

In any case, I'm in (subject to time availability, of course).
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Dragon Writer
Apocalypse How comes to mind for precisely this reason, but we've got a separate thread for that....

BTW, I also recently launched Type Labels Are Not Examples.
 6 Acebrock, Fri, 27th Jan '12 10:22:13 PM from So-Cal Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
What about Zettai Ryouiki (SP?)? Its description quite literally says [[quoteblock]]Examples should be limited to Rank A and B. Use the page image to identify them. [[quoteblock]] in the last line of its description.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
 7 Final Starman, Sat, 28th Jan '12 12:29:14 PM from Clinton, Massachusetts
[up] Hm… maybe something like, "…but not to a great extent." Although that might be Word Cruft and sound like shoehorning, so don't just take my word for it.

edited 28th Jan '12 12:29:44 PM by FinalStarman

 8 nrjxll, Sat, 28th Jan '12 2:38:29 PM Relationship Status: Not war
To be quite honest, I don't think that's even a trope as such to begin with. More like an anime fan phenomenon.

 9 Final Starman, Sat, 28th Jan '12 3:34:40 PM from Clinton, Massachusetts
[up] It's a Costume Trope. Yeah, people fetishize it, but it still has a right to be listed on pages!!. Any idea whether or not my suggestion is any good though?
 10 nrjxll, Sat, 28th Jan '12 3:56:26 PM Relationship Status: Not war
The "Rank A" stuff is part of the fetishization, though - it doesn't have anything to do with the literal costume trope that's the only thing keeping it from being an Audience Reaction. But this is more an issue for TRS then here, though I'm not certain what can realistically be done.

◥▶◀◤
I dunno this seems more counter-productive then productive.
Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com
Underwater Kiss had types A and B. I gave them names (which still works as A and B with initialism) and wrote a brief description other than Exactly What It Says on the Tin. Currently working on the wicks. Feel free to improve.

The ranks of Zettai Ryouiki are actually referred to by letters outside TV Tropes, to my knowledge. I've seen it, at least, though it's not impossible that that originally comes from here. Still, it's about grades rather than types.

edited 8th Jul '12 9:59:35 AM by Feather7603

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.
 13 Septimus Heap, Sun, 8th Jul '12 10:02:49 AM from Madrid, Spain Relationship Status: Mu
Another Wizard boy
The ranks of Zettai Ryouiki are necessary to distinguish the personality types and to prevent trope decay.

Underwater Kiss wicks are done. Most of them didn't mention which type, though, which on one hand points to that it's not necessary to have different types, but on the other hand, it does make for good categorisation on the trope page, as there is a different emotion attached.
The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.
 15 Dragon Quest Z, Sun, 8th Jul '12 10:44:26 AM from Somewhere in California
The Other Troper
[up][up]I understand the ranks, but perhaps the names should clarify both the length and personality.

Also, Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes has names that signify the type, so perhaps the type numbers should just be replaced with those.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
I tossed up the type titles to the summary in the description, and removed the numbers from the lower headers, but the numbers should probably be kept until the wicks are fixed, since you need a reference unless you do it all at once. With over 1400 wicks, that would take a while.

edited 8th Jul '12 11:28:47 AM by Feather7603

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.
In my opinion completely Zero Content Examples are not better than type labels. Do you agree?

 18 Septimus Heap, Mon, 9th Jul '12 8:21:19 AM from Madrid, Spain Relationship Status: Mu
Another Wizard boy
[up]They are exactly the same. In fact, Type Labels Are Not Examples is a sub"trope" of Zero-Context Example.

Dragon Writer
Zero Context Examples are often identified by some flavor of Word Cruft. A "Type X" example isn't Word Cruft, but it's only meaningful to those who already know what the definition of X is (and don't have to consult a separate page to find out).
What I mean is that there no point removing type labels without adding details.

 21 Septimus Heap, Thu, 30th Aug '12 8:28:36 AM from Madrid, Spain Relationship Status: Mu
Another Wizard boy
Run Away Hide Away, per the discussion page.

 22 Ironeye, Sun, 4th Nov '12 11:53:51 PM from SoCal Relationship Status: Falling within your bell curve
Cutmaster-san
Bumping in part to throw Immortality at its subtropes on the list—the page even says that the examples haven't been cleaned up.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Shows Damage needs some help with this. The description has dropped the type numbers, but they're everywhere else.

 24 lu 127, Mon, 5th Nov '12 7:56:37 AM from the Capital of Light Relationship Status: Loves me...loves me not
Was that some sort of half-done TRS?
何も恐れる事わ無い
 25 Septimus Heap, Mon, 5th Nov '12 7:59:33 AM from Madrid, Spain Relationship Status: Mu
Another Wizard boy
Don't think so. It has an archived discussion, so if it was, the TRS thread would be gone.

Total posts: 90
1
 2  3 4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy