In uffish thought
Opening and bumping. This got overlooked; I'm sorry.
The page itself has misuse in every folder too, which I generally regard as worse than wicks being misuse. I think merging it with Alledged Lookalike (and cutting the numerous entries which are just fraternal twins or the like) is a good plan.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
I am looking through the examples and seeing a lot of misuse.
As I said in the older thread, "non identical twins" are not a trope, thusly I am inclined to agree with a merge.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Hi
+1 to merge based on the previous posts.
There seems to be a trope with actual examples there. Just a lot of shoehorning
The trope is the characters are In-Universe identical twins, but look nothing at all alike to the audience.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
iRidescence
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Basically it's informed identical-ness, which is exactly what Alleged Lookalikes is about. This trope seem to be a twin-specific subtrope which doesn't have that much correct usage, hence why I proposed the merge. Non-Identical Twins is way too broad of a trope name anyway.
Merge I'm ok with. You're right, that is a better title from a misuse standpoint.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
"Non-identical twins" would of course be fraternal twins, which would be a better name—if there were any need for a trope for fraternal twins, which I guess there isn't. So, yeah, merge with Alleged Lookalikes.
edited 31st Aug '14 11:19:13 AM by gallium
No, the other one.
Non-Identical Twins is Alleged Lookalikes, but with actual twins. I don't see that little difference adding enough to make the tropes separate. The heart of the trope is still, "These two characters look the same to people In-Universe, but to the audience they're obviously different looking," and them being actual twins doesn't make the effect or narrative different.
Check out my fanfiction!
Right now it looks like Non-Identical Twins is meant to be a subtrope of Alleged Lookalikes, but I am not seeing a compelling reason for the split. I would support a merge.
edited 2nd Sep '14 2:48:59 PM by rexpensive
World's Toughest Milkman
+1 for a merge. The name does indeed seem misleading (fraternal twins is what I assumed it would mean), and it doesn't seem like a particularly important or significant variation of the broader supertrope.
edited 7th Sep '14 1:39:22 AM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
That's 9 votes in favour of a merge, for the record.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
iRidescence
How many votes do we need, actually?
I don't know, but count me in as another vote in favor of merging. I'm not sure what the trope is here that Alleged Lookalikes isn't.
iRidescence
Bumping. We are now at 10-0 in favour of a merge. Is that sufficient, or will a crowner be needed?
And how does one merge pages, by the way?
Redirect the page, ask for the discussion page to be moved, cutlist any subpages and move good examples and wicks over.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
World's Toughest Milkman
10 is a pretty small number of votes, whether or not a crowner is involved, but the unanimity of opinion probably counts for something. If there hasn't been any dissent in the next couple of days, we might want to ask for a mod to render judgment, as if there had been a crowner. (The mods may or may not agree, of course.)
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
I don't really like a merge here, the characters being twins is a significant (and meaningful) change to the trope.
I rather have a rename to something like Alleged Identical Twins (Allegedly Identical Twins?) or Unidentical Indetical Twins.
edited 19th Sep '14 1:46:57 PM by m8e
World's Toughest Milkman
Ok, would you care to explain why you think this doesn't fall under The Same But More Specific? Because I don't really see it.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Agreed; you could maybe make a case that Alleged Lookalikes "but they're supposed to be identical twins" is distinct enough to merit its own trope, but as the OP stated most of the examples are misuse. I'm not sure there's an actual trope there.
No, the other one.
There is an actual trope. The problem is if it's distinct enough from what would be its supertrope. Which most of us think, since, at least speaking for myself, the added specification doesn't seem to add anything to the actual trope, other than the specification in itself. A subtrope should be a case of 2 + 2 = 5. I just see a 4 here, and then it's basically just a case of Lumper Vs Splitter, since if a specific subtype of a trope is very common there might be a case for splitting it even if the added specification doesn't add anything meaningful.
Check out my fanfiction!
World's Toughest Milkman
Looking through the examples, there are almost none that actually meet the trope. There are: shapechangers who do a less than perfect job, fraternal twins who look similar but not identical, people who are mistaken for twins despite not looking much alike, identical twins who adopt different hairstyles or have other superficial distinguishing features, non-twins who believe they look identical but aren't, non-twins who are called twins but aren't, characters who were twins in the original but weren't in the adaptation, and, of course, a bunch of ZCEs.
Actual examples: Film:
- The Krays
- Twins (I think).
Live Action TV:
- Victorious (a show-within-the-show example).
Theatre:
- A production of The Comedy of Errors.
Ambiguous or ZCE: Anime & Manga:
Comics:
- Unnamed comic by Walter Moers
Video Games:
Note that those last three can't be actual examples, since this is a casting trope, unless they're show-within-a-show examples.
I don't think I've ever seen an example of this trope myself, either. So, on the "common enough to justify a same-but-more-specific subtrope" idea, I'm gonna say no.
ETA: That's four correct examples (and three unclear) out of forty-two on the page itself (where the level of misuse is typically lower than in the wicks). This is, if nothing else, a trope with serious problems! And I'm not seeing any strong patterns in the misuse either, so redefining it to match the misuse doesn't seem viable.
edited 20th Sep '14 10:36:13 AM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
iRidescence
The wick check in the last thread shows that the correct usage of this trope is less than 20%, although given the number of inbounds, we can't probably cut it outright.
- 1 from me for the merge, though to make it official we should probably crowner this
edited 21st Sep '14 4:31:43 PM by tryrar
iRidescence
I made the crowner
, if it's still necessary.
Crown Description:
The trope name is overly ambiguous and tend to be used in its literal meaning. The description of the trope is The Same But More Specific to Alleged Identicals.
Alright, so I raised this issue a long time ago in another TRS thread
, but the discussion clocked out before anything was fixed.
Anyway, to summarize, the trope has a horrible name. It's about twins who are stated to be identical In-Universe although they don't look alike at all. Most of the examples and wicks are either about literal non-Indentical twins (i.e. fraternal twins or basically aversions of Always Identical Twins) or plain shoehorning.
I would propose a rename, since the current name is too general and attracting misuse, but since it only has 94 wicks, and (according to the last wick count) less than 20% correct usage, it could also be merged to Alleged Lookalikes, which is a Sister/Supertrope of this one which does not involve twins.
Any further thoughts?