Poor Image: Villainous Breakdown

Just a face but no caption, bit of a zero context example and I'm sure we can do better™.

Wow, that's horrible...so many different ways to interpret that. "LOOK AT MY ROCK! LOOK AT IT!"

We've had two previous threads and have had multiple pics put on subpages. I'm good to yank this one, tag the main page as having no pic and to come up with pics for the subpages, and call it good. Thoughts?

edited 9th Sep '13 5:37:52 AM by Willbyr

But that would involve thinking...

Go ahead.

Agree.

Huh, I could've sworn that this had Azula on it.

... anyway, why not Azula◊?

If the Western Animation page doesn't already have a pic, I'd be fine with it there.

Much to my surprise, it's blank.

I'm honestly surprised.

Don't we consider Azula's breakdown to be a spoiler? A think this applies to many Villainous Breakdowns.

Well, I highlighted the line on the main page that says it is frequently a spoiler.

But considering the images are on the subpages, they're technically below the example line, so you can come across the page without seeing the image. If you get to the medium page, you'll see the image, but you'll also see a bunch of examples.

I think Norman Osborn is pretty good at this, but I;m having a hard time remembering a specific instance.

Disagree. If you want to yank a picture because it's subject to too much interpretation, that's one thing. However, that's not nearly enough justification to cop out and decide to leave NOTHING in its place. It's a terrible idea if you're trying to attract a wide variety of viewers. Most visual learners who are newcomers to the website will feel no desire to check out the subpages because the main page is about as engaging as a Webster's Dictionary entry.

If not this picture, pick another one. We're supposed to be imaginative, aren't we?

edited 20th Sep '13 9:09:36 PM by Kira1980

Does it help with visual learning if you have an image that doesn't teach anything?

Read Willbyr's post again then read mine. I did not say that this image should be kept up. If it's too vague, it should be REPLACED. However, the argument that there is NO image out there that fits this trope is weak at best.

edited 20th Sep '13 9:21:01 PM by Kira1980

Speaking as a visual learner, yes. Even iff the pic isn't a blatantly obvious example, I feel motivated to look up the work in question and see for myself. That's why I've always encouraged interesting pics over dry but illustrative examples. They get me engaged and I want to look around more. That's part of what drew me to TV Tropes in the first place. Same with Trope Namers. Yes, some fall victim to Trope Namer Syndrome and just confused me (Tomato Inthe Mirror took me a while to grasp) but others made me want to browse more and learn about the works in question. I've always argued against the continual dumbing-down of this wiki that has happened in recent years, but I've been on the losing side so far, and I'm afraid that this site has lost a lot of the character it once had in the name of precision.

edited 20th Sep '13 9:40:19 PM by nitrokitty

Not sure what you're defending against, or what you think I implied. I just asked a question.

Don't be facetious. You implied plenty.

Do you mean that I don't think that image shows anything? I thought I had made that clear before that post. Otherwise I have no clue what you mean. I implied nothing I haven't done before here.

It sounded like you were using passive-aggressive sarcasm against him rather than addressing his concerns directly. Saying something like that does imply that you think the image doesn't work and you're insulting him by implying he doesn't understand why rather than explaining your side of the argument. It's dismissive and condescending. If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize, but that's how it came across.

This petty argument isn't getting us anywhere. Drop it and move on.

Keeping a bad pic is counterproductive to the overall page. I dunno why people are all of a sudden screaming about pulling a pic without a replacement, it's been done who knows how many times before. If the thread doesn't come up with a replacement, that's what happens...I'm not keeping any thread around indefinitely just so someone can maybe come up with something six months down the road. In fact, I get really annoyed when we have huge runs of threads after paring the list down because inevitably what happens is that a bunch of threads sit unattended and have to be clocked to force some kind of resolution.

There's no petty argument. There's just a misunderstanding.

More specifically I was wondering if it's a good idea to have an image on a page that isn't necessarily completely clear in how it illustrates the trope, or partially illustrates the trope, but is visually interesting, and not misleading or confusing. I'm often reluctant to pull images that don't harm the page, so it's a fairly important question for me.

At the very least, I believe we should keep this thread going since that there seems to be a material difference of opinion among viewers concerning whether the main page deserves an image of some kind. By its own admission, TV Tropes prides itself on being " a buttload less formal" than Wikipedia. So why not keep a fluid debate going on the set-up of a trope page under these circumstances?

edited 21st Sep '13 10:58:39 AM by Kira1980

What is spoilerish about Azula?

Up until the 2 episode series finale, she's a Magnificent Bastard and pretty much untouchable. Always poised, confident, and prepared. In the finale she goes through a breakdown which leads to her defeat. Seems spoilerish to me.

That said, if it's on a subpage it's fine, since it's technically below the examples line.

Well, if she's set up as a villain, we do expect a villain to go down at some point. I would not consider that very spoilerish, but others may differ.