Allowing Zero Content Examples on character pages

Ah... No, I never did that.

The issue that bothers me on the across the board enforcement of this rule is an issue of indicative-ness and redundancy. Especially given the push several years back to ensure that as many tropes as possible had names that were descriptive of the trope itself without needing to read it, or general, such that they could be given without confusion, it sometimes results in situations where tropes names themselves are already given in a way that deal with the need for extra context. Another issue is example overlap, in which examples covering the same character are distinct but in description cover the same things - or, in another sense, an general example that recurs across the entire page yet must be reiterated every time, despite not being situation specific, but those two are situational and lot less noticeable than the redundancy issue.

I recently ran into this on the Quack Pack character page I just wrote, which, on second viewing, does have some tropes that need description (The Unintelligible, Chaste Toons or Hulk Speak, for instance), but also has many others for which a description would be unnecessary. Basic list of said tropes, which I will definitely argue on a case by case basis: Funny Foreigner, Deadpan Snarker, Kid Hero, Hair-Trigger Temper, Narcissist, The Prima Donna, Big Eater, The Professor.

To be honest, my stance here is less because of that page specifically, but because of the effects of this I see across the site. I've occasionally run into character pages with large chunks of missing examples that were removed from the page, but which I was wary of reintroducing because I legitimately couldn't think of any descriptions that weren't superfluous and unnecessary, and didn't want to make waves by pushing the point until now. The end result of this, even with a lot of creative wording of descriptions, is a lot of Shaped Like Itself - descriptions that describe their tin exactly as the tin itself describes it.

I think the issue here is contextless enforcement, or perhaps the assumption that this rule justifies itself and thus doesn't need context. It reminds me of the extreme enforcement Just A Face And A Caption got, which eventually started to bleed onto tropes where the face, itself, was indicative of the trope and was ignored because - without context - the image was Just A Face And A Caption. It's enforcement of a rule without the actual substance of what the rule is intending to accomplish.

That said, I do understand the need to enforce things less because of the characteristics of the thing they're ruling over, but because enforcing them makes running the site easier (it's what happened to YMMV tropes, after all). If that's the case, then that's - unfortunately - the case.

Either way, if it's ruled that that's just the way it is, then I'll submit to the ruling however much I object to it, but my issue here is that do think that in the end that this is a rule that needs to be applied case-wise, not absolutely and indiscriminately.

edited 14th Aug '14 11:38:36 AM by KnownUnknown

You're missing a key element: these descriptions are not redundant and unnecessary. They're the very purpose of having the tropes in the first place.

My issue with that is that it's an incredibly general statement that at the very least requires elaboration to justify. That's what I meant when I said that an issue could be the assumption that the rule justifies itself: taking the response on it's own, the justification becomes "these descriptions are not redundant because these descriptions are inherently not redundant, and that's the way tropes work" which misses the point of the counterargument by inferring that it doesn't exist - without giving actual premises or reasoning.

At the very least, I would like to discuss the examples of several tropes that have been in contention either now or in the past, with descriptions that are agreed are necessary for the sake of relaying the trope (rather than a trope that obviously requires a description and thus isn't indicative of a necessary universal application of this rule). A big issue with arguing for or against rules like this tend to ruling from a single bad example. The problem here isn't that there's something wrong with the rule itself, as much as that it shouldn't be applied universally.

edited 14th Aug '14 11:57:22 AM by KnownUnknown

A trope that is "self-explanatory" may not actually be a trope. We've discussed a number of those in Trope Repair Shop.

Some prominent cases include clothing and appearance tropes. For example, "wears a hat" is not a trope, nor is "has blonde hair".

edited 14th Aug '14 12:03:20 PM by Fighteer

So true. If it has to be all Zero Context Example it's People Sit On Chairs.

That's still a generalization that doesn't actually give any reasoning or context, which is exactly the problem here.

I posted a list, and I'm still willing to argue each on a case by case basis. I can also probably find more. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with case wise.

edited 14th Aug '14 12:04:21 PM by KnownUnknown

The ones you listed all require explanation. But for the sake of elucidation, feel free to pick one of them and make your argument.

No, you explain. You're the one advancing this argument after all.

edited 14th Aug '14 12:05:03 PM by Fighteer

Explain. Let's start with Narcissist, as it's a dictionary term (which, itself, describes an actual character type) and the trope does not differ from the definition of the term itself.

The reason I asked for explanation, however, is that "no, it's not" is not a rebuttal. If you believe none of the tropes given are self evident, then you ought to be able to explain why each is insufficient.

edited 14th Aug '14 12:08:59 PM by KnownUnknown

I'm sorry, but you seem to be missing how debate works. You have to advance a hypothesis that contains enough reasoning to be capable of refutation, otherwise we enter an "uh huh", "nuh uh" slapfest. It's also extremely poor debating ethics to force your opponent to offer their counterargument before you've made your actual argument.

For the sake of not running around in circles, while Narcissist may have a textbook definition, that doesn't mean you don't have to explain how a particular character fits that definition. It can be as simple as, "Bob spends all day admiring himself in mirrors, and criticizing his appearance is his Berserk Button."

Trope examples should be interesting. They should illuminate. Write for an audience that knows nothing about the work or the character, and entertain them with a sufficiency of detail for them to grasp how the trope applies.

edited 14th Aug '14 12:20:34 PM by Fighteer

Narcissist, per its description, is "the mindset of characters whose behavior is strongly symptomatic of narcissistic personality disorder. " It's not the mere colloquial meaning.

^^ The issue with that approach is that is applies specifically to instances that exhibit the trope in unique, non-indicative ways. If a character is narcissistic in a sense that is individual to themselves, then of course they require additional explanation.

^ Out of curiosity, which dictionary are you using that only includes that definition? Oxford and Dictionary.com both include the colloquial and note that your definition is a specific jargon for a specific context, and Merriam-Webster only has a single definition that uses the colloquial meaning specifically referring to vanity, so inferring that only the psychological definition is relevant and the colloquial is not, despite being part of the actual definition, is misleading at best.

edited 14th Aug '14 12:22:57 PM by KnownUnknown

Narcissist: Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter thinks that his winning Witch Weekly's Most-Charming-Smile Award five times in a row is better than Harry risking his life fighting the dark lord repeatedly.

You don't just say, "Gilderoy Lockhart is narcissistic."

^^The trope has one specific meaning. The term means more than that in the dictionary and colloquial usage. It's not a "self-demonstrating" name.

^^ The issue isn't that there's only one way of describing the trope, but that for certain tropes the mere obligation of describing them may be superfluous, and that they may be acceptable when left on their own. Just because you can describe a trope shouldn't mean you have to unnecessarily.

^ NVM, just a sec.

edited 14th Aug '14 12:27:28 PM by KnownUnknown

You are missing the point. The trope is not about the colloquial meaning. Claiming that the name is "self-demonstrating" implies that the trope is exactly what the name means colloquially. Which is wrong.

False, false, and false.

^^ So your point is that having more than one definition - I again bring up context; if that meaning is only relevant in the very specific instance of psychology, while the general definition of the term is not only the most used, but the most meaningful as a whole, why is that definition irrelevant. Merely having more than one application doesn't make individual meanings less relevant - this is another case by case issue: the psychological meaning would have to justifiably overshadow the general meaning for that to be the case.

^ Again, you refuse to actually field an issue without context. Justify your objections - debates don't work by flinging ideas at those who disagree until they decide to listen, nor does fielding an opposing opinion require sitting around waiting for those who disagree to agree with you.

Your refusal is impossible to actually debate against, because you give no actual argument. It's effectively meaningless.

To deal with the last time you responded in this way:

So then, your assertion is that my original post - which initially introduced the list - lacked reasoning?

edited 14th Aug '14 12:34:50 PM by KnownUnknown

There is no such thing as a trope that is so self-explanatory that it does not require context. Well, that's not quite true: we identify certain Omnipresent Tropes that are notable only by their absence; the fact that someone is The Hero or the Big Bad can be observed without going into details that are apparent within the work's description. But for that same reason, we don't list them with other examples.

I'm going to turn this around and place the burden on you. Come up with specific cases, from actual work articles, where you think a trope example shouldn't require explanation. We'll dissect them.

edited 14th Aug '14 12:34:52 PM by Fighteer

I'm a bit confused at this. It's not true, but it's true with exceptions (which is my entire point)? And not only that, but despite those exceptions, the universal nature of the rule as a whole is absolute? That's the crux of it: that "well, it's not quite true" is a lot more meaningful than just applying to one or two tropes.

In any case, I have my own list, but I believe we're still on Narcissist. My response to your last objection was something along the lines of "that approach applies specifically to examples that are unique to the trope itself, not in a general sense, and thus a new approach may be needed."

So... ignore the issue entirely?

edited 14th Aug '14 12:39:23 PM by KnownUnknown

If you just want to read the trope list and don't care about the descriptions of the tropes because you find them redundant, just read the left part of the list with all the blue links before the colons, and you'll be fine. Even a redundant description doesn't harm the page. It makes it better, because it encourages other tropers to also write descriptions rather than just plopping down lists.

We're not about list making. We're about describing tropes.

That said, I don't think there's a huge problem if a few tropes out of many are without descriptions, especially if context for the ones without descriptions can be inferred from the rest of the text. However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be better if someone came along and added a description to them. And if most tropes are without description, it is a significant problem.

I gave an example of how you can have context for Narcissist. What's your problem with it?

Why would you ever list Narcissist as a general trope, without explaining how a particular character displays its characteristics? That's a perfect example of a trope where the details are the point, and the trope is uninteresting and uninformative without them.

Because it is a general trope. Details are essential, but I picked Narcissist for a reason: not only is it self evident, but a typical Narcissist entry will tend to include other "narcissist" tropes (the one I'm talking about includes It's All About Me and The Prima Donna, for instance, and arguably Jerkass too, though that one can always be described in other ways), most of which will generally require the same definition and context.

I've run into this across the site, as well - character pages made up of like tropes that say the exact same thing, but which need to have descriptions lest they be cut. It's a side-effect both of sister/sub tropes and trope titles being indicative.

In a situation where Narcissist is the only applicable of such tropes, and thus the only thing that signifies those characteristics? Sure. In a situation where it's one of a crowd? It's description becomes superfluous.

In the discussion I had with the mod this first came up with, I also noted the difference between "category" tropes and, for lack of a better word coming to mind, "instance" tropes - where being listed with the former signifies that the character simply is an application of that character (which may but doesn't always merit explanation), whereas the latter is something the character expresses as part of the plot and thus always (or at least usually needs explanation). The idea that a character is a narcissist may be distinct from the ways they show that narcissism, and in situations where you have multiple tropes signifying the same thing, it may be prudent to elaborate on the latter while letting the former lie.

Also, and this is absolutely distinct from the debate itself and more just a legitimate confusion: I ran into an issue with supertropes as well. Power Trio, for example, is a set of subtropes rather than having characteristics of its own, so I left the initial Power Trio example undescribed while planning on filling in the relevant subtropes later (in this case, The Lancer/The Chick, then Fighter, Mage, Thief and Freudian Trio - I haven't gotten around to it yet). Legitimately asking here: should I have just made up something for Power Trio, or do the elaboration of the subtropes, themselves, count as an indication of the whole supertrope?

edited 14th Aug '14 12:53:31 PM by KnownUnknown