Is this an example?

Does Catching Some Z's apply if a character just says "I'm gonna catch some Zs"? Or does it not, and as a Stock Visual Metaphor, have to not be in text?

RWBY has had a bit of a problem with the Ambiguously Bi trope for Yang.

The original entry was deleted as not applying by someone, then readded as Ambiguously Gay. I pointed everyone to the Discussion Page to stop it from turning into an Edit War. Two people engaged and agreed it should be Ambiguously Bi, but it could use more input than just two people (plus me, to make three), given that it's been a bit of a controversial subject.

The Discussion Page conversation is here.

The Ambiguously Bi entry is this:

Ambiguously Bi: Yang has demonstrated interest in men, such as openly gawking at the shirtless male students at Beacon, and more than once she's all-but flirted with Blake, winking at her while promising to dance and flirtatiously calling her "feisty" being some of the more prominent moments.

edited 6th Aug '17 4:12:30 PM by Wyldchyld

This is wrong, isn't it? ... Do we have something like Never Trust A Cover? (Ref to Never Trust a Trailer)

Oh, there's Covers Always Lie...

Contemptible Cover:

• Beyond Beyond, a rather slow-moving Danish CGI movie with heavy themes of grief and death, is not an entirely kid-unfriendly movie, but one that could be hard to sit through for younger audiences. So having a cover like this◊, excising any of the film's darker elements, is very, very misleading.

edited 7th Aug '17 11:42:02 AM by Malady

Yeah, that's straight up Covers Always Lie, and not Contemptible Cover.

I would like to know if this is an example of Hoist by His Own Petard.

• Hoist by His Own Petard: He is finally defeated in part by the effect of his own card. Number iC1000: Numeronius Numeronia is ridiculously overpowered, with 100,000 ATK and an effect that causes him to win automatically if you don't attack it. Even if you can summon a monster strong enough to do so and survive, it can also negate that attack, which activates the auto-win effect. But only once per turn. When Yuma manages to boost Utopia to 102,000 with Nash's help, Don uses the negation effect, only for Yuma to attack a second time with his Double or Nothing card, the same Spell he used in the duel he first met Astral.

Per the rules of the game, the Character A's opponent Yuma's hand is hidden, so Character A's couldn't have known Yuma would have a card that can allow his monster to attack again. Thus, that is outside of Character A's plan or gambit.

Doesn't seem like it. No one's plan is thwarted by a previously laid plan of theirs, that they forgot to account for.

... Fanfic section of that trope, in The Last Spartan, has some guy have the same thing done to him that he did to others. That's not Petard, that's A Taste of Their Own Medicine, right?

edited 8th Aug '17 9:27:41 PM by Malady

I'd like opinions on this entry in Master of None:

• The yathinshree and the true necromancer straddles the line between Crippling Overspecialization and Master of None. The idea behind both classes is that they're necromancy-focused prestige classes that use the mystic theurge's mechanics to get the best of both worlds out of both arcane necromancy and divine necromancy, while trading some of the theurge's advancement for necromancy abilities. The problem is, divine necromancy already does most of the things arcane necromancy does, so the actual benefits of this are minor, and most of their abilities are worse versions of the necromancy spells they would have had if they'd just stayed arcane or divine all the way. The result is a character that throws everything into focusing on dual-magic necromancy... and yet ends up being considerably worse at necromancy than a straight wizard or cleric, considerably worse at being a Red Mage than the mystic theurge, and infinitely worse at everything else.

The entry originally claimed that the classes "manage[d] the rare accomplishment of being both Crippling Overspecialization and Master of None," which is a contradiction in terms: you can't be both a generalist and a specialist at the same time. I deleted it with that edit reason, and troper MBG restored it with minor wording tweaks.

The entry text makes it sound like the classes are just... bad in a way that has little to do with how specialized or generalized they are. I'm inclined to call this shoehorning. Opinions?

It's not Crippling Overspecialization, because it's less specialised than some other classes, and it's not the lack of other options that hurts the class.

It's not Master of None, because it's still only about two classes that are already somewhat similar to begin with. They presumably still can't do things fighters or rogues can.

Agree that it's a misuse of both tropes. The "line" between Crippling Overspecialization and Master of None is a gap the size of the Grand Canyon. They're at the opposite extremes of the spectrum.

In Voltron: Legendary Defender season 3, Lance is promoted to the Red lion, making him The Leader's right hand man, and thus The Lancer. Since his name is actually Lance, is this an example of His Name Really Is "Barkeep"?

edited 10th Aug '17 6:08:56 AM by mistertapman95

Only if "Lancer" is a term used in story. That trope is when what's assumed to be an In-Universe nickname or title is their actual name.

edited 10th Aug '17 6:11:07 AM by sgamer82

So I have a question about how Outliving One's Offspring is played in the Flash comics. I added this to Nora and Henry Allen's character page:

• Outliving One's Offspring: led to believe this by a doctor who lied to him that his son Malcom died soon after he was born. In reality the doctor gave his son to another family who actually lost their biological son. Henry never found out the truth.

How is this trope played? It should be note that in the comics, Malcom immediately reveals his backstory, and he was introduced in the Bronze Age. There is no mention of a deceased twin brother in the Silver Age.

edited 10th Aug '17 11:55:23 AM by DamagedHen

Going back to Master of None, I took a look at the other examples from D&D, and I found that most of them don't really fit all that well either. The only class that's actually a true jack of all trades is the Bard, which isn't an example anyway, since it's a strong class in the right hands. The rest are basically combinations of two or a few classes that don't synergise well, but all of them leave them with a ton of things that's outside their specialisation.

Fair point. And differences in GMing style (skills and spells that have roleplaying applications can be massive Game Breakers in one GM's game and Useless Useful Spells in another's) and party composition (a generalist may be the party MVP in a three-man party and a redundant waste of space in a six-man) make it tough to make definitive statements on the value of different builds / classes.

More specifically, now that I have a little more time:

• Mystic Theurges: The Red Mage, basically. While they're technically only magical classes, they cover both main types of magic (arcane and divine) and can with the help of said magic become melee fighters as well. However, the example ends with, "they're still very powerful classes pretty much by virtue of being casters", so think that disqualifies them. They're not the strongest, but they're not weak either.
• Multiple Attribute Dependence: This doesn't specify an example, so I'd call it generic.
• 3E monk: This is a lack of synergising within the class, rather than any kind of jack of all trades. At least the example doesn't describe how it's a jack, so I'd delete it.
• Soulknife: Not familiar with it, but the example doesn't describe any kind of wide skillset, in particular with being limited to one specific weapon, so at the very least it needs a rewrite, but doesn't look like an example to me.
• Medium armor: While it kind of tries to be an example, it's a one-dimensional scale from light to heavy. Is that enough?
• Genies: Example claims the jann is the weakest, but fails to specify why the versatility doesn't hold up. I also don't think the competitive balance holds up here, as it's about different creatures not necessarily meant to be balanced against each other.
• Hexblade: Seems like a proper example. Might need a cleaner writeup, but seems to fit.
• Bards: Covered that. Not an example. Just require smart and/or creative players.
• Certain official NPCs: Specific characters lumped in one example. If characters are allowed, then they might fit. They're essentially trying to be too many things at once, which just spreads the experience levels and skill points too thin.
• Multiclassing when poorly done: Hypothesising, and not a proper example.
• Humans: I don't think discounting an advantage by just looking at before the advantage comes into effect is fair, nor is appealing to house rules. And they're not really weak to the extent the trope requires.

Does anyone agree or disagree with that?

edited 10th Aug '17 4:12:31 PM by AnotherDuck

Hello everyone! I need help with figuring out how to place this prospective example that I want to add in a Translation Trope.

What is/are the difference(s) between "Blind Idiot" Translation and Lost in Translation? Because to me, based on their respective descriptions in their Main pages and definitions in their Laconic pages, they sound like they mean the same thing. "Blind Idiot" Translation is described as "a translation from one language to another where the translation is overly literal, grammatically incorrect, very awkward, or clearly misses what the word or phrase was supposed to mean" and Lost in Translation is defined as "when the translation fails to preserve the original meaning." The part where I think they're the exact same is how they both talk about "this translation misses what it was supposed to mean in its original language" ("Blind Idiot" Translation) and "this translation loses its original meaning in its original language" (Lost in Translation).

Because of my confusion over these two tropes, even after reading their descriptions and definitions and looking through each of their examples, I want to learn from anyone here who knows more about these tropes what exactly is/are the difference(s) between them.

The reason why I asked this is because I want to add the following, but I'm having trouble with the appropriate trope:

• "Blind Idiot" Translation OR Lost in Translation: In Episode 12 of the Boruto anime, when Boruto and Mitsuki talk about Naruto, Boruto says "Kaachan ni deredere shite." "Deredere" translates to "lovestruck" in English. Thus, when that sentence is accurately translated to English, Boruto is saying "He's lovestruck towards Mom." Yet, oddly enough, the English subtitles given by both Crunchyroll and Viz translated that sentence to "He makes Mom do everything." However, each of Crunchyroll's non-English subtitles gives a translation that is closer to what was said in the original Japanese. Here are two examples: the German subtitles translated that sentence to "Er himmelt Mama an" ("He adores Mom"), and the Italian subtitles translated it to "Fa tanto il carino con la mamma" ("He's so cute with Mom").

Of all of the Translation Tropes that are provided here on TVTropes, I think the bungled English subtitles mistranslation would be a case of "Blind Idiot" Translation (because the English subtitles translation is incorrect, very awkward, and clearly misses what the original sentence was supposed to mean). However, I think it is also a case of Lost in Translation (because the English subtitles translation failed to preserve the original Japanese meaning). Would this sub mistranslation example accurately fit both of those tropes, or just one of them?

The reason why I ask this is because according to How to Write an Example, it is bad to add multiple tropes with a slash, even though I still see it on the links of the Creator and Music pages for famous people, such as Whitney Houston's page. For example, one of my own mistakes with doing this was when I wrote Heartwarming in Hindsight/Hilarious in Hindsight for the YMMV page of Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2 back in April (which I have since fixed, just now actually). So if this bungled translation does indeed fit both tropes, but I can't use slashes because I know now that it's against the editing rules to do so... how should I write this to fit both tropes without the use of a slash? Or should I pick one trope that best fits it over the other? Or does another trope in Translation Tropes fit this example best, instead of the two tropes I suggested above? Or... what do you guys think? Help me, please?

Thanks in advance!

edited 10th Aug '17 9:19:43 PM by mouschilight

Is this an example of Prop Recycling?

A costume is designed for a comic character, but is never used for that character and only exists as concept art. This costume is later used for a totally different character.

To me it sounds closer to Whole Costume Reference, but that still doesn't seem to work because the costume in question was never officially used for the chatacter it was originally designed for.

It is supposed to be

• "Blind Idiot" Translation = Overly literal translation and/or leaving inappropriate japanese words in, the latter is flame bait.
• Lost in Translation = When what is being translated just does not work in the language it is being translated to.

However the actual pages are a disastrous mix of everything under the sun. I could see a repair shop.

Prop Recycling is for actual prop recycling, not design recycling. It can exist digitally, but only if the same assets are used, such as a model of a vehicle used in several animated films. If you remake the same prop, it doesn't count.

It's not Whole Costume Reference either, unless it specifically references that, rather than just takes the design because it was left unused.

No opinions on the D&D examples, or should I just cut the ones I think should be cut?

edited 11th Aug '17 11:27:32 AM by AnotherDuck

Thank you, that clears things up.

So you think my example doesn't fit either "Blind Idiot" Translation or Lost in Translation? If not, then do you think it fits any other trope in Translation Tropes?

And you're absolutely right. The reason why I'm so confused about my example is because of exactly what you just said: there are a lot of ambiguous examples, a hot mess of examples that don't really fit what is described, in "Blind Idiot" Translation and Lost in Translation, so when those conflicting examples in both tropes left me confused, I had to ask for clarification. I did ask a moderator about the differences between both tropes, but I was still left confused, hence why I came here.

Can anyone give me advice on what to do from here? How do I bring those two tropes to attention, in need of a repair? I'm just getting the hang of using forums, so I'm not sure where to go from here. Any friendly advice is much appreciated!

edited 11th Aug '17 1:52:07 PM by mouschilight

From AndTheFandomRejoiced.Marvel Cinematic Universe:

• After the lackluster response to the first season helmed by Scott Buck, the announcement of Raven Metzner as the second season's showrunner, whom Jeph Loeb has described as an Iron Fist fan with an understanding of martial arts films, has been welcomed by fans.

Considering Raven Metzner wrote the panned Elektra movie, does it feel too early to make this sound like something good? Since I still haven't seen a whole episode of Iron Fist myself (or Elektra, for that matter), I don't know how exactly the public has generally taken the news.

edited 11th Aug '17 4:25:09 PM by dsneybuf

From YMMV.Harry Potter

" Harry Potter through the course of his adventures, despite the great demands of fighting a Dark Wizard, never stops slacking of his studies, breaks countless school rules, displays poor sportsmanship and rarely considering the interests of his team or how it could affect them and their standing when he goes off on his own, and in Book 6, via the Potions book, indulges in what is more or less academic plagiarism. Likewise, while painted as an All-Loving Hero he is shown using two of the Unforgivable Curses (Imperio and Crucio) without any reprimand from his peers and elders even if both are considered taboo In-Universe, and one of them is a curse that tortures people (which he used before the highly moral McGonagall)."

I don't feel like picking this apart point by point, but it really seems like the person who posted it is Ron the Death Eater ing Harry.

edited 11th Aug '17 6:35:50 PM by kquinn0830

I am wondering if the following Games count for Four-Seasons Level.

• Touhou: The 16th game, Hidden Star in Four Seasons, has the incident be the seasons going out of control. Causing Reimu, Marisa, Cirno and Aya to travel through parts of Gensokyo that wind up in the winter, autumn and spring.
• The Hub levels of Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! are themed after the seasons. Summer Forest, Autum Plains and Winter Tundra. Spring is left out for some reason.

I ask this because the trope seems to be about a single level with a gimmick being "traveling" though the seasons on that level and I'm wondering if the trope is flexible enough to cover games where the levels simply have a seasonal theme.

(and IIRC HSIFS takes place in the summer, so one area was relativity untouched)

edited 12th Aug '17 11:43:20 AM by MorningStar1337

I'm playing God Eater 2 right now and wondering if something that happens at the end of every mission would count as Camera Screw. It goes from having a free camera to focusing on the last defeated enemy, which also seems to nearly reverse your control inputs for a few seconds while it's there. It only lasts for a few seconds out of the 35-ish post-mission seconds that you have to go around collecting things, but it's still a little annoying. Not sure if it counts as an example, though.