Needs Help: Not Wearing Tights

So: "Not Wearing Tights". Seems pretty self-explanatory to me, right? This is the trope you use to describe superheroes or supervillains who don't wear Standard Superhero Suits or whatever. You click through to the page and you see a picture of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine wearing pants instead of the comic-book version's skintight suit and you read a quote from Heroes from D.L. saying "Yeah, like Batman and Robin. Only... I ain't wearing no tights. You can wear tights, but I'm not wearing tights."

And then your eye flicks to the actual description, which says, "These superheroes just aren't called superheroes. They often don't wear costumes or use code names, but they have abilities far beyond those of normal men, and are superheroes in all but name."

These are clearly two completely unrelated tropes. I think playing Guess That Trope Definition would probably support splitting "functionally superheroes but not called that" off onto another page — and not just because I got to Not Wearing Tights in the first place from the Worm cast page which used the trope to refer to a supervillain gang that wore businesswear instead of costumes.

We'll need a misuse check to find the proper course of action.

"Superheroes in all but name" is not a trope, though.

I would suggest that the description be changed to match the actual examples.

I thought I had seen some examples of superheroes-but-not-called-that in the examples section, but in retrospect Not Using the "Z" Word would probably capture most of those.

Honestly, I expect the costume examples to outnumber the s-word examples.

Spark 9 raises a good point; thusly, I'll support a pure redefinition here.

Same.

My vote goes for redefinition. Differently Powered Individual covers the one described by the article.

edited 22nd Apr '13 3:27:03 PM by EditorPallMall

Is this even a trope at all?

I think it's real — the example I came from was in Worm, where a team of supervillains wore formal businesswear — suits and dresses — rather than any kind of armor or costume. One character explicitly says that if it weren't for the mask, the leader of the group would look more like a CEO than a supervillain.

Maybe we should rename it, the current title makes it sound like it's not tropeworthy.

I don't see the problem with the present title, but if you want to suggest another one, that's fine.

Non Custumed Super Being?

Bumping the thread.

Non Costumed Super Being isn't bad, but I still don't see the problem with Not Wearing Tights as a name.

Yeah, the name doesn't really need a change. Really, the only thing that needs a change is the definition itself. It would be fine but for that.

My beef with the name is that there's more standard super hero/villain wear than just tights.

edited 12th May '13 11:28:20 AM by shoboni

Of course there is — Coat, Hat, Mask, Mini Dress Of Power, any kind of Powered Armor — but I think we can make that clear just by writing a good description.

Speaking of which: what about replacing the first paragraph with the following two?

Among the most iconic aspects of superhero fiction are costumes. Superheroes, supervillains, super pizza girls — if you seek to become a legendary force of heroism, terror, or whatever, more important than having the superpowers, the training, or the equipment is having an Appearance Most Distinctive. Tights, Capes, Coats, Hats, Masks ... the details are less important than the style.

That said, some people just don't bother. Those people belong on this page.

But one of the wiki rules is(aside from some of the tropes that couldn't be renamed because they became a Trope Of Legend, or became common outside the wiki) names should be clear and tell what he trope is.

...a point. Possibly a very strong one — the title as stands could be interpreted as simply referring to aversions of Superheroes Wear Tights.

I'll sleep on it.

I agree, that's a good point.

What about Non Costumed Super?

I found that the current definition is a bit broad. "They often don't wear costumes or use code names, but they have abilities far beyond those of normal men, and are superheroes in all but name" covers also gods or people from legends like Beowolf or Hercules. This becomes problematic when there're tropes like Everyone Is a Super (so everyone have powers far beyond those of normal people in Real Life, but given the setting their powers are commonplace and thus "normal", so do they still "have abilities beyond those of normal men"?) and things like Old World Of Darkness, which is (in)famous for "everyone is a supernatural", are listed as examples.

edited 21st May '13 12:24:24 AM by IraTheSquire

Yeah, I think maybe it should be limited only to 'verses where costumed supers are the norm?

Limiting it to universes where costumes are the norm makes a lot of sense — that would remove judgement calls about (say) which supernatural (or Badass Normal) crimefighters count as superheroes and which don't.

Limiting it to universes where costumed supers are the norm actually misses a lot of the actual examples. I'm not talking about Gods here, but about characters that are clearly based on Western comicbook conventions, but eschew the typical costume ensemble while still remaining true to the superhero genre.

Also true.