Is this an example?

On another note, PlayingWith.Xenafication claims that it's impossible to subject the trope to Justified Trope treatment, because any in-universe justification automatically makes it Character Development. That doesn't make sense to me; you can have an in-universe justification that is not Character Development ^note a change in characterization over the course of a narrative, i.e. it happens as part of the plot prorgression rather than something the character already starts with., but rather a difference in the character's Backstory between the source material and the adaptation that makes the character becoming an Action Girl in the latter when she was not one in the former make sense.

Take Wonder Woman for instance, who is a prime example of the trope: Her Post-Crisis incarnation being significantly more of a hardcore, willing-to-kill-if-necessary Action Girl than her Pre-Crisis self makes sense, as the Amazons in Post-Crisis have their warrior-woman roots played up much more prominently than their Pre-Crisis version, and consequentially WW would've been raised with a stronger emphasis on the warrior ways than her Pre-Crisis self. That looks like a valid Justified Trope example of Xenafication, doesn't it?

edited 30th Aug '15 6:56:29 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

How in the everloving crap did Xenafication escape our Character Named Tropes policy? It should be a poster child for rename.

edited 30th Aug '15 7:06:21 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'm not entirely sure how she's changed, but wasn't Wonder Woman an Action Girl from the start? Starting to kill opponents just says it's Darker and Edgier, not that she's more of an Action Girl.

Anyway, I'd say whatever brought up the Character Development is the justification for the trope (it's a Character Development trope, after all). I'd also say that it doesn't really make much sense to label it as justified, since the non-justified version is just a character martially improving for no reason at all. Or in other words, it's a trope (at least the way I see it) that is justified by default, and as such saying it's justified is less notable (read: meaningful) than when it isn't.

I would also say that contrary to what the description claims, it's not a subtrope of Adaptational Badass, because it doesn't need to be in an adaptation.

Probably grandfather clause. Is it misused in a way that can be tied to the name?

Check out my fanfiction!

The trope even says that the Trope Namer is not an example of itself. How much more archetypal can you get?

edited 30th Aug '15 7:52:28 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, from what I do know of the Pre-Crisis WW (which isn't in-depth, mind you), she was far from as action-y as the Post-Crisis incarnation is, bieng a firmly Thou Shalt Not Kill Technical Pacifist whose lasso was explicitly created for her by the author just to give her a non-lethal main weapon to fight with, and relied more on wit and intelligence to win the day than physical violence. And apparently, Amazons back then only learned how to fight for self-defense.

... How on Earth did you get that it's a Character Development trope? It's specifically defined as the character starting off in the manner described, not developing over the course of the story into that state.

Nope, don't see it. The overwhelming majority — if not entirety — of the examples that I see on the trope article involve adaptations.

It's apparently because Xena became a role model for many subsequent heroines, starting a trend of "make her like Xena to make her popular with female readers/veiwers!"

edited 30th Aug '15 8:29:31 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

The polar opposite of Chickification is exactly that. I also don't count sequels in a series as adaptations. They're in the same continuity.

Check out my fanfiction!

Chickification is also listed under Media Adaptation Tropes. Just saying.

That aside, seems to me that Xenafication is in a state that needs TRS'ing, be it the Trope Namer issue or its actual definition and its relationship to Chickification.

On a tangentially related note, what term would be inclusive of proper adaptations and sequels?

edited 1st Sep '15 3:08:13 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

From the Gravity Falls page.

I have two questions about this.

1. As it's listed on the main page instead of YMMV, does Questionable Consent need to be called out In-Universe? In the episode, nobody ever actually calls out the fact that Mabel has effectively roofied two characters together. The conflict arises when the sudden relationship damages the social group and is resolved when everyone comes back together as friends. By the end of the episode, the couple is still together and Mabel's resolved not to undo it. Thus, while Questionable Consent is certainly present, it's entirely an audience reaction; the characters in-universe all seem blissfully unaware.
2. "See Headscratchers for more details." ...I'm inclined to assume that anything directing someone to Headscratchers for information should be snipped, but I want confirmation before I do so.

edited 31st Aug '15 2:48:20 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

YMMV can only be on the main page if it's In-Universe in some capacity, while any mention of things like Headscratchers is a complete no-no.

edited 31st Aug '15 4:32:13 PM by Karxrida

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Would it be appropriate to use Fantastic Honorifics for real-world honorifics? Because currently people are using, say, UsefulNotes.Japanese Honorifics to note whatever weird way the series/character is using the honorifics, but useful notes aren't supposed to be used as tropes.

Just delete them. Fantastic Honorifics need to be made up by the writer.

edited 1st Sep '15 9:01:23 AM by Karxrida

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Japanese honorifics are important enough to storytelling, and are used as tropes. They're often quick ways to show relations between characters, maturity, and other concepts. If they don't belong on that page, they should be moved to a regular trope page. Personally I don't have a problem with listing examples on that page, though.

They have little to nothing to do with Fantastic Honorifics (other than the small detail of being honorifics and often equivalents), and there real life examples don't belong at all.

edited 1st Sep '15 9:26:06 AM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!

If Japanese Honorifics were to get its own trope page, I'd suggest the page itself not have any examples. Reading "this person called someone else sensei" 50+ times doesn't make for a compelling read, especially since the only point of the trope is for saying "this work is in Japan/is Japan-lite" or "this person is Japanese".

Plus we don't need to trope everything about Japanese culture.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Any trope that's just "this happens" is either a Zero Context Example, or People Sit On Chairs. But reading the examples there, a lot of them have actual context that explains what the different honorifics mean in those situations, especially when there's a change.

Plus we don't need people whining about there being too many Japanese culture tropes.

Check out my fanfiction!

There is also the fact that many tropes are so omnipresent that they don't bother listing straight examples on their own articles unless there's something special or unique about the example, on the grounds that the majority of straight examples would be pretty much identical in how you'd write each entry. Japanese Honorifics are omnipresent enough in Japanes ficiton that I think it would be appropiate to only list examples where there's something that is particularly notable about the honorific usage should be listed.

edited 1st Sep '15 10:50:59 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I had started to write the example below for Strength Equals Worthiness, but then I started wondering if it didn't fit better in MacGuffin Guardian. What do you think, and would it fit in (an)other trope(s)?

• In the fourth GrailQuest book, Voyage of Terror, the protagonist Pip can meet with the god Hephaestus himself, who has just forged a breastplate which is the best armor in the whole game. Hephaestus offers to give it to Pip — but only if you best him in combat. You can refuse, as when he starts announcing his stats, it looks like a completely unwinnable fight. But the god is actually fair-play, and notably allows Pip to wear the breastplate before starting, and to give him the win if Hephaestus lose a set number of Hit Points (instead of his huge total).

In Jurassic World, the artifically created hybrid species Indominus rex is described as having been designed to be "bigger, better, [and] scarier" than any species the theme park has ever featured (including the by-now-very-famous Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor). And indeed it seems to deliver, judging by the first phase of the Behemoth Battle in the finale between the I. rex and the resident T. rex. It later transpires that InGen had deliberately designed the I. rex as a prototype for a potential weaponized dinosaurs project that they intend to pitch to the government, hence why the hybrid possesses extarordinary traits (e.g. Chameleon Camouflage) that, as put by the scrupulous CEO of Masrani Global Corp.^note InGen's current parent company (who knew nothing of the aforementioned project), are useless for its supposed intended role as a new theme park attraction.

The question that comes to my mind from that is this: Does this qualify as an example of Genetic Engineering Is the New Nuke?

I had originally thought it was limited to the superhero genre as a source of superpowers, or at least limited to explicit cases of getting superpowers through genetic engineering/therapy even if the work is not in the superhero genre; but seeing that the article quote comes from the Jurassic Park novel and reading some of the examples, I'm beginning to think that the description may need some tweaking to avoid excessive focus on superheroes and their genre.

edited 1st Sep '15 12:37:09 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Does the scene quoted on the top of WebAnimation.Teen Girl Squad really count as Death by Flashback? I always thought The Ugly One approached that lunchlady after telling Cheerleader that she hasn't gotten a Valentine from her yet. Additionally, the Homestar Wiki's transcript doesn't say, "(Cut to flashback...)" before the scene.

The scene in question for people who didn't see this episode: https://youtu.be/ugqniGO4IJc?t=80

edited 2nd Sep '15 7:04:55 AM by dsneybuf

On Final Fantasy V, a troper added a lengthy subulletted essay under Off-Model about the fact that the characters have a Sprite Design and an Art Design which are totally different, and the GBA/mobile remakes use Art portraits but keep the Sprite appearance ingame.

I don't think this is Off-Model, since that trope is about errors due to budget or engine limitations or what-have-you—the ingame sprites aren't "weird renderings of Amano art"; they were designed by a separate artist and used on purpose. (And the fan reaction stuff doesn't seem relevant to the main page.) The two-separate-designs should probably go somewhere because it is notable, but it seems like it's under the wrong trope.

Yeah, Off-Model isn't about different designs in different contexts. Small pixel sprites, portraits, and polygon figures are all different art forms that work better or worse with different styles.

Can't check the link atm, but doesn't look like an example. Involes death and a flashback, but not Death by Flashback.

I think it probably counts. Not entirely sure.

Don't think it's MacGuffin Guardian. He's not really guarding an artefact as much as simply wanting to test him before giving it to him. Still sounds like it fits Strength Equals Worthiness, though.

Check out my fanfiction!

That's what I thought. (Any idea what an appropriate trope might be, before I plunge into the related indices? The sprite/art designs from FF 5 are radically different from the art in a way that 4 and 6's aren't [where for the most part it's "simpler design" rather than "entirely different"] so it should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page.)

ETA: Never mind, found it.

edited 2nd Sep '15 1:44:40 PM by eowynjedi

• Truth in Television: From the landscape to the flora and fauna, rural Oregon is extremely well-represented in the show. Even the layout and occupants of the town, while exaggerated a bit, would fit right into that environment.

...Truth in Television isn't a trope. Should it be listed on a Work page?

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Moved per advice from PM

Is this situation Uncanny Family Resemblance or Strong Family Resemblance?

• The situation is there are three brothers.
• Two of them look almost identical with one stated being the younger of the other. It's not revealed yet if they're twins or not.
• The third brother looks like an older version of the older of the aforementioned two but it has yet to be stated if he's the eldest brother.
• No parents have been revealed so far.

edited 3rd Sep '15 2:39:31 PM by Elfkaiser

Sounds more like Shown Their Work. Unless it's shot there for the purpose of accuracy, or is said to take place there because it's shot there.

I would at most count it as Strong Family Resemblance, if that. Nothing uncanny about it, like it would be for more distant relatives.

Check out my fanfiction!

Some points that I raised from here prior to being advised to move

• Confused because descriptions of Strong Family Resemblance and Uncanny Family Resemblance seem to contradict that it should belong to Strong Family Resemblance
• Strong Family Resemblance description talks about it being specifically a parent and a child that look the same.
• Uncanny Family Resemblance has a line saying compare Strong Family Resemblance, where both relatives are parent and child.
• Uncanny Family Resemblance has examples which are close relatives but aren't a parent and a child. example: sister and brother, brother and brother.
• Uncanny Family Resemblance seems to be a exaggerated version of Strong Family Resemblance as there are examples of it's not just a parent and child situation. Everyone in a close relative family looks the same. Eddie Murphy's The Nutty Professor, Kind Hearts and Coronets, and Goofy are named.

Additionally, adding to the confusion Strong Family Resemblance says it's about when a parent and child look the same. However there are examples that don't even mention parents.