Are these Character Tropes?

I think Heel–Face Turn is a character trope since it involves a character turning to the good side.

My feeling is again context based. But in general Character Pages largely exist for specific works and specific versions. You have many versions of Batman depending on adaptations and many of them have Character Pages. Whereas stuff like Mythology Gag largely applies to a lot of franchise and overall body of lore. So if there is a a Character Page for Christian Bale Batman and he makes a joke about something related to Adam West Batman which is not in continuity, then that should go on the main page. Because it doesn't have anything to do with that version of a character. In most cases, Mythology Gag works like that.

Irony i think can work in a character page but specific kinds of Irony, like a certain reveal about Jon Snow in Game of Thrones later seasons happening in a particular time has Dramatic Irony for his character but not for the show as a whole. So there it works. Foreshadowing if we are dealing with a particular direction or revelation about a character and not the plot on the whole then it's fine.

"It involves a character" includes stuff like Big Damn Heroes, Escort Mission, Open the Door and See All the People, and Revealing Cover-Up. I don't think those are character tropes.

It's becoming more and more clear that nobody is in clear agreement over where the line is drawn, if there even needs to be a line drawn, and why a line would be drawn. The way I see it, we can't just allow any trope on the character page just because "it involves a character" in the context. Almost any trope could be said to be about a character because characters are the ones that do things. If we go simply by context, then all of these things are true:

1. A trope like Irony can count if the irony involves a character. 2. A trope like Revealing Continuity Lapse can count if the lapse affects a character. 3. A trope like 20 Minutes into the Future can count if its where the characters live.

A line needs to exist somewhere. We need some metric. Going solely based on context means any trope can be justified on a character page.

I did draw a line against Mythology Gag since there it clears applies to something that has nothing to do with a particular character's arc in that story and version and applies to the work in question. Foreshadowing probably doesn't work in a single movie but in a long TV Show, franchise, or book series where you have multiple characters and arcs and subplots, Foreshadowing in specific character or so on might be easier than to do Foreshadowing for every story arc and so on and so forth.

Those are stuff and situations that needs to be considered. Franchise works inherently deal with multiple works and entries. I think if there are doubts and issues about some tropes, hashing it out on Discussion pages and ATT for specific claims works case-by-case.

I draw the line between what defines or describes who the character is, and what's an event in the character's life.

Me Too!.

Edited by WarJay77 on Dec 10th 2018 at 9:53:49 AM

Like Uncle Ben's death is Death by Origin Story but Peter Parker saying It's All My Fault is his reaction to the event as a character...if I follow your meaning. But then Death by Origin Story appears in a lot of character pages too...whereas Uncle Ben would be a Posthumous Character right?

It's probably difficult to draw any discrete line regarding which tropes are allowed. It all depends on context and if it involves the character enough. There will be exceptions on both sides as if irony sometimes fits it sometimes won't. Personally don't think Shout-Out should be a character trope as a character who references something would be an expy whole any reference they make to something else should be listed on the euros work's page

Yeah Shout-Out should go to the main page. Only if that indicates this person knows high culture or is attuned to pop-culture like Wicked Cultured or Pop-Cultured Badass or something. Those two are character traits, the first one isn't.

And Expy boy...that one is dangerous. I believe there's an entire cleanup thread for it somewhere.

I believe there is a difference between an ordinary event and a character choice that leads to Character Development, and the latter should be listed on Character Sheets because they define a character. Notably, all tropes related to heel-face and face-heel turns, Heroic Sacrifice, Friend-or-Idol Decision, relationship tropes, death tropes and the like. If you'll check Related, you'll see that these tropes are de-facto listed on thousands of character pages.

Also if something happens to a character every time across different works, it is worth mentioning on the Character Sheet. I.e. there is a gag in MCU when Thor has his face smashed against the glass in every movie he is in once per movie. It doesn't happen to any other character or in the MCU movies without him. Like that ;) I believe in such case Glass Smack and Slide, a "plot" trope, can be mentioned on his page because it is associated with this particular character in the franchise.

So, context.

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 11th 2018 at 11:06:31 PM

I agree with 4tell0life4 and Asherinka. When an entry for a trope includes something that defines the character or helps you to understand them or includes interesting information about them, I think it can be put on the character sheet. The context here is what matters, not the trope itself. So I think it's hard to strictly define what tropes should never belong there because with some trope it really matters what the entry is exact about.

I also agree with Asherinka pointing out tropes that apply only to a certain character over a franchise. Especially when a franchise has Loads And Loads Of Characters it becomes quickly very confusing when all those tropes are put on the franchise's main page. It's just nicer when you find everything relevant applying to a character on their specific sheet.

I also think that Heel–Face Turn belongs on character sheets because it's a trope that involves very important information about a characters intentions, alliances etc. I would argue that it is as much a character trope as it is a plot trope.

If you have a franchise with Loads And Loads Of Characters it becomes quickly very confusing when you have to search each and every character listing, which often are divided on multiple pages, just to find plot tropes. It's just nicer when you find everything relevant applying to the plot on the main page.

A running gag can apply to a character. It's something that's describes and is expected of the character. I've covered that before.

Whether something is being done often isn't an argument for it being correct. There are tons of generic "examples", so by your logic, those should be allowed. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's right.

And again, plot tropes on character pages is why we have a problem with spoilers on character pages.

How is it a problem when most character pages have spoiler tags on them? At least most pages I edit (or a warning that all spoilers are unmarked).

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 11th 2018 at 3:18:37 PM

Just a general observation. Most of the time I hear complaints about spoiler markup used incorrectly, or about tropes spoiling just by their very appearance is on character pages. Or having unmarked spoilers that block the access to the page by anyone who's not finished the work or doesn't care about spoilers.

I don't see how people misusing spoiler markup on character pages (if that is truly an issue, haven't seen that so far) is related to which tropes should be on those pages. By that logic, if there is a problem with spoilers on work pages, the "plot tropes" should be removed from them alltogether. Just to be safe.

But wouldn't it be a good compromise to put a trope like that on the main page and on the character page? Rewrite it bit so that the entry on the character page focusses more on the character and the one on the main page focusses more on how it relates to the work's plot.

A duplicate examples isn't a good idea, and if it's relevant for the main page, it should go there.

There isn't nearly as much of a problem with spoilers on the main work page as there is on the character pages. So no, it's not "by that logic", as then the current situation also needs to adapt to fit your argument.

Couldn't you put a policy that says Character pages are allowed to have unmarked spoilers similar to say the Heartwarming and other Reaction pages. You can put a warning and so on.

That actually could be a decent way to divide tropes from main and character pages. The main page should be more accessible and newbie and casual friendly, while those who know and care would go to the subpages.

Can we just put these tropes in character pages until someone says otherwise? Because I don’t know anymore.

A consensus is clear enough I think against Mythology Gag being there...so that one is off.

The others as long as you make it clear it pertains to one character's arc and it doesn't touch on stuff in the main page and doesn't repeat its fine.

What's so wrong with duplicate examples though? Again, when you have character pages -> work page relationship, I can see the point. But when it is character pages -> franchise and work pages -> franchise, it is more of a "matrix" than a "tree," and things tend to repeat in the matrix structure by definition.

Franchise pages themselves are not currently used for plots at all but rather for settings with overall tropes like Magic A Is Magic A or Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism being listed there. Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Mythology Gag is currently listed on 1560 Character Sheets. I just started checking random examples, many of them deal with character names, costumes and abilities. Do they really not belong there?:

• Arrowverse: The Legends
• Dark Souls III: Lords of Cinder
• Batman: The Animated Series – Allies
• Game of Thrones - House Bolton
• MCU: Yondu Udonta

here

I'd keep those, but if the decision is made that they don't belong, we probably need a new project to clear those pages up.

Edited by Asherinka on Dec 11th 2018 at 8:30:16 PM

I assume that this is to discuss what fits in with character pages and not. The actual clean-up can happen after that once a decision is taken on what to keep or leave out. And surely the fact that it's so widely used and overused even if it probably doesn't fits is why we are debating this, right?

I legitimately think that Mythology Gag which refers to overall franchise stuff and not that specific version of a character in a specific version of a story, should not be there. I say this with the Hypocrisy Nod that I might have done so in the past myself out of habit and trend but looking here and seeing the arguments I think that doesn't fit. Nor does Shout-Out.

I think stuff that deals only with that version of a character particular to that story should be there.

See, pointing out the usage doesn't really prove anything other than that it happens a lot. It doesn't prove anyone right or wrong, and, assuming it's misuse, widespread misuse is still misuse. It doesn't magically become right just because it happens a lot. Granted it's not necessarily wrong either, but there's zero point in relying on usage to prop up an argument- otherwise you may as well say that we should allow ZC Es because it happens a lot. It doesn't prove you right, it doesn't prove anyone right, it doesn't further the debate at all.

In any case, franchise character pages are still split up among adaptations (or at least they should be) and not every franchise has characters with overarching narratives and the like. Take Pokémon: lotsa different continuities and mediums and adaptations, and the character pages follow suit with that, and a trope that would apply to Red in the manga would not belong on Red the game character's page. In other franchises this may be different as there is a main canon and then other branching works, but even so, tropes like Dramatic Irony and Mythology Gag tell us nothing about the character themselves which is what character pages are troping, so they shouldn't be there, franchise or not.