Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
I'd agree. Omnipresent Tropes is for tropes that occur virtually everywhere, and there are a lot of works which don't feature characters dying.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I went ahead and moved it.
As I mentioned earlier in my little addendum, should I also move Emotional Torque in the opposite direction, from Universal to Omnipresent? It seems misplaced as well.
I noticed Character Death, which was apparently created as a Missing Supertrope for other tropes about characters dying, is indexed under Omnipresent Trope. Shouldn't it be a Universal Trope instead? After all, an Omnipresent Trope is supposed to be a trope so common, that straight examples hugely outnumber Aversions. But there are plenty of works where none of the characters die.
It could be argued that even in works without explicit character death, the characters' deaths are implied by the mere fact that they are mortals with a finite lifespan, and that the only aversions would be stories with an all-immortal cast. But to that I would say that if the death is not part of the plot or even so much as alluded to in the story, then this "implied" death would be a PSOC rather than a trope, since even a broad supertrope can only apply to actual storytelling elements.
I think that Character Death is definitely a Universal Trope, since it can occur in pretty much any kind of story regardless of genre or medium.
But I think it fails as an Omnipresent Trope since stories that don't involve anyone dying are not terribly uncommon, and listing every Aversion would cause needless clutter. This contrasts strongly with the likes of Nobody Poops, which is so ubiquitous that every Aversion becomes noteworthy, or The Antagonist, whose Aversion is seen as significant enough to be its own trope (And I don't see Everybody Lives as being equivalent to No Antagonist, since the former is only for individual episodes or arcs of works where death is common, while the latter is applicable any time there's no antagonist).
On the other hand, I can see why you wouldn't want it as a non-omnipresent trope, because although listing Aversions would be pointless and cluttery, so would listing straight examples, and the current page for Character Death outright says, in bold letters, that no examples of any kind are needed.
But even so, and even retaining the no examples warning, I think it would make more sense to be listed as a Universal Trope rather than an Omnipresent one, since it's not actually omnipresent.
EDIT:
And apparently having a super broad no-examples trope on the Universal Tropes index is not unprecedented, even if most of them aren't that way, as Emotional Torque is listed as a Universal Trope.
Although now that I think about it, I kind of suspect that Emotional Torque might actually belong on the Omnipresent list, as I can't think of any works that would intentionally avert that besides maybe a few forms of really dry non-fiction, which I think may be outside the jurisdiction of all tropes anyway since tropes are the tools for creating works of fiction.
Edited by BURGINABC