Duplicate Trope: Pink Elephants

Renaming a trope (which is basically what you're suggesting) requires a level of misuse we're simply not seeing here. It's not a solution for "has some mild ambiguity in the description".

As mentioned in post #18

I'll agree; merge Pink Elephants and its examples into Mushroom Samba.

I'm more inclined to agree with Madrugada's distinction in [1].

[1] I made a crowner.

Hooked

Looking at the on-page examples, the majority (unsurprisingly) reference both alcohol and hallucinating creatures or specific things. Of the ones that don't, I count 12 which specifically reference alcohol, 9 which specifically reference hallucination visions, five about literal pink elephants, and one ZCE.

So both options work, but alcohol-related seems to have a slight edge.

Also noting: The Other Wiki has a related page, Seeing pink elephants, which says it's "a euphemism for drunken hallucination caused by alcoholic hallucinosis or delirium tremens."

We didn't invent this term. If we make it about something other than alcohol, I think we're going to confuse people and incite misuse.

Bringing the description of Pink Elephants closer to how wikipedia defines the term and finding a more suitable image for the page (via IP) should do the trick.

Yes, I think that would make the most sense. Unfortunately, that definition is currently trailing in the crowner, and the we-just-invented-it definition is leading.

I don't understand how the two leading options differ. Anybody?

What about the option to make it literally about Pink Elephants?

• {Visual Hallucinations caused by intoxicants} would include magical truth potions, but exclude any auditory hallucinations.
• {All Alcoholic Hallucinations} would exclude anything that wasn't alcohol-based, and include auditory hallucinations.

Um...the one that says "an alcohol-specific subtrope" means make it an alcohol-specific subtrope (which matches the Wikipedia page). The one which says "a {visual hallucinations caused by intoxicants}-specific subtrope" means make it a subtrope about visual hallucinations caused by intoxicants.

'd

That would be a complete redefinition, would require fixing pretty much every example and wick, and would be basically a random association of color+species for no apparent reason. (Yes, pink elephants are a bit more common than some other choices of color+species, but that's primarily because of their association with alcohol-related hallucinations. It's a common name for bars, for example.) Anyway, if that's what you really want, then you can vote for merge, and then take your new proposal to TLP if you win.

edited 14th Mar '17 1:45:48 PM by Xtifr

Not really, Pink Elephants themselves only appear in various hallucinations or references to hallucinations. Most of the examples are already like that.

It would be a sister trope to Hollywood Mirage and such.

edited 14th Mar '17 2:40:52 PM by Memers

Oh, yeah. That makes more sense. I still think we're better off going with the definition used by The Other Wiki, to avoid confusion. (Plus, that seems just a little too arbitrarily specific.)

The following option is the only one in Green, with a 13:4 ratio

• Make Pink Elephants an alcohol-specific subtrope (visual, aural, tactile hallucinations all included) to Mushroom Samba (this would mean moving non-intoxicating substances and non-alcohol substances (like drugs) to the supertrope).

Since it seems fairly clear which option is going to win here, I put together a sandbox which covers the slightly-modified definition, at Sandbox.Pink Elephants. Comments and criticism welcomed.

I didn't copy over the image, because I don't actually think it fits very well. Might be a good idea to send this back to Image Picking once we're done here.

Paragraphs three and four I think go to Analysis, and you don't explain why the related tropes should be compared (you did with the supertrope, so good).

I'm impressed by the amount of real life detail you were able to synthesize for the page.

Well, I mostly tried to make sure I didn't omit anything vaguely relevant which was found on the original. And perhaps I went too far with that. It's a fair cop.

In fact, the last three paragraphs (four, five and six) were either mostly or entirely cut-and-paste. The only part I added about related tropes was the mention of the supertrope. So thanks for complimenting that. I'll try to become less lazy and fix the others.

For paragraph three, perhaps it might make more sense to talk about how realistic fiction portrays it, as compared to the comedy version? I think that might make more sense than real-life vs. comedy. But I certainly think the comedy version (the end of the paragraph) is worth mentioning.

I have no attachment whatsoever to paragraph four.

The comedy point can be folded into the part on paragraph two, where you're contrasting RL vs Fictional portrayal.

Hmm, tried that, but I think it fit even better in the first paragraph.

Other than that, I think I've incorporated all your suggestions. See what you think.

Like it.

That's a good writeup, Xtifr.