Hm. I do know that the "Mario headbutts blocks when he actually hits 'em with his fist" is still fairly active - one Level 30 Psychiatry strip had White Mage and Black Mage taking Mario to the hospital after he hurt himself trying to headbutt a woman's brick planter. EVERYONE in the comments called the creators out on THAT one.
The one for Pok´mon's gonna require a fine toothed comb. I don't really remember the whole Pok´dexes being given to few trainers save the Pokédex holders in the Pokémon Adventures and the "protagonists write the dex entries themselves" is pretty widespread. The Rotom Pokédex has been accused of making up its dex entries and there's the entries from Sword and Shield: Blipbug's Sword entry is unusually snarky and Roggenrola's Sword entry is plain WTF.
For Sherlock Holmes, ever since Guy Ritchie's films, he hasn't been wearing his deerstalker cap, smoked a pipe or said "Elementary, my dear Watson" except The Great Ace Attorney.
Finally, for Transformers, I have one of my own: TFWiki.net is firmly convinced that Bumblebee is still a prequel to Michael Bay's live-action films even going so far as to list it under their "Urban legends and misconceptions about Transformers" that it's a Continuity Reboot when it's pretty blatantly obvious it is a reboot and only has small connections to the previous films (Missing Megatron, Sector Seven with anti-Transformers weapons already). Plus the most obvious is I've watched the DVD special features and nowhere do they say the film's a prequel.
Whew!
Hi!
That page has had issues for a while, mostly with what people believe is "common knowledge". Take the Advertising folder (my comments in bold):
- Everyone "knows" that Betty Crocker was a real person while Chef Boyardee is a fictional character. But in reality, it's the other way around.note I've never heard of this before, much less the "everyone knows" part, I say cut
- The iconic mascot is actually named Smokey Bear, not Smokey the Bear.Truly a new level of pedantic nitpickiness has been unlocked, cut
- Until recently, Kinder Eggs have not been available in the US. The common assertion is that Kinder Eggs are banned due to children choking on the toys because they were too stupid to know there was a plastic egg inside. This is practically impossible since Kinder Eggs have been denied import since before they were created. In fact, the only confirmed cases of a child choking on one was in Great Britain and South America. Kinder Eggs were banned because of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 which forbade the inclusion of a non-nutritive element embedded inside the food. Kinder Eggs were not banned; they just didn't meet food standards.is that a common assertion?
- It is a commonly held belief that American beers have a lower alcohol content, but they are within the ranges of beers across the world. This belief comes from labeling and advertising. Europe displayed their alcohol content using Alcohol By Volume, but the US used Alcohol By Weight. Since alcohol weighs less, it resulted in a lower percentage displayed. After seeing poor sales, US manufactures switched to ABV as well; but the perception continued.I've heard that american beer is disparaged worldwide, not for being weak, but it's not a hill I'll die on
- It is often assumed that this video
was an actual television commercial for Windows 1.0. This was actually a Parody Commercial that was seen only by Microsoft employees. This is indicated by the P.O. box number given at the end of the ad (286-DOS), which obviously isn't a valid number.err ... what? who "often assumes" this?
Yeah, I'd say several of these "examples" don't really count as widespread enough. For my examples, a lot of fan works make fun of the incorrect Pokédex entries in some fashion like Ashes of the Past saying that the Pokédex writers got how Spoink works wrong (their hearts drive their springs) and one of Nan The Keyblade Master Super RWBY Gaiden chapters makes fun of the whole Spoink thing by showing it not dying when it stops bouncing ("Whoever wrote that is a liar"). Also, the TFWiki.net belief that Bumblebee is a prequel and not a Continuity Reboot is well known on their website because every time someone points out it's a reboot, they say "We don't actually know if it's a reboot because we don't know what "the start of a new storytelling universe is, as such we're declaring it a prequel"" even though it's pretty obvious it's a reboot (designs, story) save for a few small things (No Megatron for example)
Edited by FirstAidRules on Sep 11th 2022 at 2:42:29 AM
Hi!
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The only one I can weigh in on is Kinder Eggs. Yes, is an extremely common claim that the eggs were banned as choking hazards.
You might want to format that a little easier, since IDK what you're talking about and it's hard to understand what points you're making when everything is mushed into one paragraph.
Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 11th 2022 at 6:03:45 AM
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
- In Pokémon Sun and Moon, a popular fan theory that popped up after players finished the story is that the Ultra Beasts attacked and destroyed the universe all pre-Gen VI games are set in. This is only vaguely implied in the games themselves. The closest thing to confirmation we get is that a character from Gen III Hoenn has some vague memory of defending the Battle Tower from some threat before falling through a wormhole. All that is known for sure is that whatever it was, it attacked the Battle Tower (and by extension, probably the Battle Frontier) of the GBA/DS universe, which is a major step down from the complete universe annihilation that's theorized.
I believe this was quickly realized as incorrect such it is no longer widespread. Does it not count if it is no longer an examples or it quickly stopped being one?
Alternate Aesop Interpretation
- "Magical Mystery Cure" has "A True, True Friend" deliver the intended Aesop about helping friends find their true selves in musical. But the prominence and fantasticness nature of the cutie marks/destinies swap caused many to see it as "don't blindly follow perceived destiny, especially if you're bad at it/it makes you and others miserable" and/or "you can Screw Destiny and be who you choose/want to be" despite more-or-less contradicting the happenings of the episode.explanation
As AAI requires it can realistically fit within the work/alongside the intended Aesop, I'm asking if Common Knowledge is the better fit as it contracts the intended Aesop. My question is does it not count as it seems those who saw the work came off with this wrong impression as opposed to it being obvious to anyone who saw the actual work?
The Kinder Egg example sounds like a case of technical truth. While there are no cases of children choking on them, they've been banned from the US because there is a danger of that happening.
Actually, we may have to take a step back and get a basic definition of what TVTropes definition of Common Knowledge is.
I'm not a fan of the trope description, stating that it's something "everyone knows" but isn't true. What kind of yardstick are we using to determine the "everyone"?
Also, I noticed this trope is NRLEP, which is weird because so much of it relies on what real people think as opposed to what's in the work, so I don't exactly know how that will figure in.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I think the Sun and Moon one is less "common misconception" and more "a popular fan theory". There is a difference between believing something is canon and having a popular headcanon about something ambiguous.
This sort of thing is the exact reason this whole debate started; I agree that these things are technically "real life" but others don't.
Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 11th 2022 at 7:02:35 AM
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I'm Sad Frogerson.
I feel there's also some overlap with the Mandela Effect, since one's about misconceptions from people who haven't seen the work and the other is about misconceptions from people who have seen it.
Here's what I'm trying to say:
Yeah, I'd say several of these "examples" don't really count as widespread enough.
For my examples, a lot of fan works make fun of the incorrect Pokédex entries in some fashion like Ashes of the Past saying that the Pokédex writers got how Spoink works wrong (their hearts drive their springs) and one of Nan The Keyblade Master Super RWBY Gaiden chapters makes fun of the whole Spoink thing by showing it not dying when it stops bouncing ("Whoever wrote that is a liar").
Also, the TF Wiki.net belief that Bumblebee is a prequel and not a Continuity Reboot is well known on their website because every time someone points out it's a reboot, they say "We don't actually know if it's a reboot because we don't know what "the start of a new storytelling universe is, as such we're declaring it a prequel"" even though it's pretty obvious it's a reboot (designs, story) save for a few small things (No Megatron for example)
Hi!
HoMM Fan
I'm honestly of the opinion that Common Knowledge borders on being too contradictory to exist on TV Tropes.
We have no such thing as notability, but Common Knowledge, by definition, requires notability to keep it from just being a list of every single possible misconception ever.
The amount of examples I see that are about extremely niche or obscure topics that only a small subset of people even know about is kind of stunning. It feels like it also overlaps hard with Fandom-Enraging Misconception in several ways as well.
It feels like Undermined By Reality to me, something that already overlaps with other tropes and is mainly used as "achkually" fuel.
May be worth a wick check later on down the line tbh.
"Grandmaster Combat, son!"
The more I look into this, the more it seems that Common Knowledge may not really be tropeworthy.
Looking at CommonKnowledge.Star Wars for example ... for one thing, Star Wars being one of the most popular franchises out there at the moment (Disney felt it was worth four billion dollars) means that everyone and their mother is familiar with a lot of the backstory. So instead it's mostly fans arguing hard over their interpretations of the films.
I don't see the tropeworthiness in allowing another space for fans to battle out canon, fanon and headcanons.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Should we take it to TRS then?
I wouldn't mind a TRS.
Now a lurker. Thanks for everything. | he/him
Undermined By Reality has actually been disambiguated itself for attracting complaining and overlapping with other tropes.
HoMM Fan
I mentioned it precisely because it got disambiguated.
Now a lurker. Thanks for everything. | he/him
Oh sorry. Misinterpreted your comment.
How is Common Knowledge different than Fanon, which I do not believe has rules about needing to be "correct" or canon consistent? Is that a question to ask elsewhere?
It sounds like the difference is CK is when there is an objective reason why few would see the work/the part of it that would show it's obviously incorrect.
Thoughts about these? Since it may need a TRS, ideas for a more indicative name? How's "Obscurity-Induced Misinformation/Misrepresentation"?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Sep 13th 2022 at 6:03:39 AM
Personally I don't feel Common Knowledge is even a trope. It seems to be a magnet for complaints and people defending their favorite works.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
The difference is that Fanon is a common headcanon a lot of fans have, while Common Knowledge is a misconception for non-fans. I'm not defending Common Knowledge here, but there's a huge difference between "getting a fact wrong" and "making fan theories".
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Before this thread goes cold, I was picking over the films section, and the DCEU entries seem to be emblematic of the problems the trope has. Can others take a look here and either confirm or deny what I'm sensing? (also I want to cut these):
- The DC Extended Universe:
- Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: Everybody knows that Batman chooses to spare Superman's life at the climax of the movie because their mothers have the same name. Not quite. While that revelation leads to Batman sparing Superman's life, it's more because it triggers his memories of his parents' deaths, leading him to the realization that he'll be no better than Joe Chill if he kills a man in cold blood. Fans and critics generally agree that this was a decent idea in theory; it's more the nonsensical execution of the scene that leads to it being mocked.note as i recall, everybody was mocking the entirely unrealistic way someone would talk about their mother, this seems like super defensive rationalization
- Everyone (starting with Bruce Wayne) knows that Superman callously "destroyed Metropolis" while figthing his enemies and made no attempt to minimise the casualties or try to lure the villains away from the population centers. Except, unlike Bruce, people who'd actually have the chance to see "Man of Steel" should know that, a) Supes was constantly trying to take the fight elsewhere, but was hindered by having to contend with and barely holding against several alsmost equally powerful and much better trained opponents; b) 99,9% of property damage was caused by the World Engine and by Zod personally (slicing the building in half, throwing the fuel tanker and the sattelite, punching Supes through buildings - that was all on him); c) luring Zod away was impossible, because the villain was hell-bent on killing as many humans as possible to hurt Superman and/or provoke him into killing Zod.more post-hoc rationalization and defensiveness
- Everyone knows the DCEU is more violent and angsty than previous DC films, particularly when it comes to Superman having considerable self doubt about being a hero and Batman killing people. On the other hand, Christopher Reeve's Superman almost constantly questioned whether he should be Superman, even turning human in the second film. And the Tim Burton Batman is noticeably kills both mooks and major villains constantly and The Dark Knight is given that name for reason.comparing Reeves to the DCEU in order to make the DCEU seem okay ...
- The DCEU has garnered a reputation for consistently putting out movies that are viewed as overly bleak and angsty, with later entries like Aquaman and SHAZAM! (2019) receiving positive early buzz for steering the franchise in a more colorful, fun and optimistic direction. The truth is, despite all the many, many jokes about the DCEU being "gritty and depressing", that really only describes the films where Zack Snyder had heavy involvement, namely Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Wonder Woman (2017) was already moving away from the bleak tone and murky color palette of Snyder's movies (with director Patty Jenkins explicitly citing the aforementioned Christopher Reeve Superman movies as a major influence on her work), while both Suicide Squad (2016) and Justice League (2017) were subjected to extensive Executive Meddling to make them Lighter and Softer after Batman v. Superman was panned by critics and experienced negative word of mouth from audiences. Furthermore, James Wan and David F. Sandberg, the respective directors of Aquaman and Shazam only signed on to direct if they could make their movies light-hearted in tone. More shockingly, Zack Snyder's Justice League showcased that even Snyder can infuse heavy amounts of levity in his moviemaking (also taking into account the fact that writer Chris Terrio said from the get-go before principal photography began that this film would be lighter and more hopeful, like Return of the Jedi was to The Empire Strikes Back, nobody said all subsequent films were going to be like Batman v Superman).having sat through the Snyder cut, there is no way anyone can claim that Snyder infused "heavy amounts of levity", many reviews singled out the fact that he routinely strips his heroes of humanity
If "Common Knowledge" is about errors that only non-fans who haven't seen the work would have, I don't think it's worth keeping as:
- It requires assuming they haven't seen the work in question or that the persons making it aren't fans which seems dicy (not even getting into degrees of fans). Critical Research Failure was axed because it required similar assumptions about audiences that proved impossible to separate from myopia.
- If non-fans how/why would they bring up the work enough to say it is common? How do we define common?
- What people don't know about a work they haven't actually seen doesn't sound like a useful analysis of the work.
At this point I'd say disambiguate "Common Knowledge" into things that can cause it (Mainstream Obscurity, Urban Legend of Zelda, Audience-Coloring Adaptation, ex.) and if there's something salvageable from the intended definition make that a new item with a clearer name.
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Sep 13th 2022 at 5:02:05 AM
So, I'm considering taking my example of "TF Wiki thinks Bumblebee is still a prequel to Michael Bay's films" and moving it to Pop-Culture Urban Legends as while there's a few bits that indicate it could be a prequel (No Megatron for starters), everything else about Bumblebee is pretty clearly a reboot and Rise of the Beasts continues to move in the Reboot direction, whilst the TF Wiki insists that the timeline will remain "vague" in some fashion.
Hi!
I also noticed that the page quote isn’t an example of the definition, as it’s not the characters getting facts about a work wrong, it’s them thinking that the mechanics of those works apply in real life.
This is a problem I've noticed on Common Knowledge and its subpages, along with a lot of the work YMMV pages that include it.
See, Common Knowledge is supposed to be for misconceptions made by people who aren't familiar with the work itself, often making assumptions about it based on Pop-Cultural Osmosis. However, a lot of the examples are for meta/behind-the-scenes stuff, which would fit better under Pop-Culture Urban Legends or some other trope.
Basically, if this misconception can easily be debunked by actually watching/reading/experiencing the work, then it's Common Knowledge. If it requires research as to what happened behind the scenes, then it's not CK.
Edited by MrMediaGuy2 on Sep 11th 2022 at 12:47:06 PM