• 6 Dec 7th, 2016 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 8th Dec, 2016 01:06:04 AM
    Right now there's lots of debate as to whether or not various tropes count for Pokemon Sun and Moon. I'm trying to take it to the discussion page, but people keep adding them back anyway. Reply

      Courtesy link.

      I note that Reyn's edit to Genre Deconstruction makes zero sense in terms of what a "deconstruction" actually is.

      Do you have a list of some of the folks doing this? Or is a cursory glance at the history all we need to know?

      I know demongodofchaos2 was at least vocal about it counted as Darker and Edgier. This kind of topic also affected the YMMV and Nightmare Fuel Pages, but the related edits were buried in the history. Of the recent 10 edits on the main page only the Genre Deconstruction (By Reyn Time 250 ) remains relevant to the topic What Art Thee posits.

      TBH, I feel like Deconstruction should be treated like Unfortunate Implications in that it requires a source to be cited to count. Since the trope is supposed to be about how the conventions of a genre would realistically play out, but the way i see it it feels kinda shoehorned most of the time. I fear it could reach a point where everyone would claim stuff like "this is not a Sugar Bowl where Everyone Lives, its clearly a deconstruction!" (Doesn't help that the most cited cases of Deconstruction, Evangalion, Madoka and Watchmen, tend to be pretty dark)

      This specific case feels more like a shoehorn, as the Mons genre was Deconstructed since birth and this reads more like franchise deconstruction instead.

      I disagree about needing citation, but the thing is these entries are wholly unrelated to Genre Deconstruction unless Genre Deconstruction means... actually, I honestly am not sure what it could mean to make that addition make sense.

      And yeah, Mons and Genre Deconstruction has the weirdest relationship.

      If they're adding them back instead of participating in discussion, that's problematic in and of itself.

      Put commented out notes when removing problem examples to the discussion page.
  • 2 Dec 3rd, 2016 at 11:11AM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 11:33:00 PM
    I made a Fanfic rec page for My Hero Academia, but I have no clue how to index it.

    Could someone please tell me how or walk me through how to do it? Reply

      First, to answer your question, Fanfic Recommendations is the index. You add a link to the page (FanficRecs.My Hero Academia) under the anime and manga section.

      Second, all you've done is create a page with a link on it, one that isn't even relevant. It should look something like this page and actually be recommending at least one fanfic, preferably more.

      Thank you Rogue.
  • 1 Dec 7th, 2016 at 7:07PM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 10:00:43 PM
    I have to get this problem clarified before proceeding since I have read quite a few questions of this nature lately.

    Due to the fact that Kono Subarashii Sekai ni Shukufuku o! gains a Officially Shortened Title by Yen Press. By policy I should move the title to Konosuba (note the capitalization). However, LightNovel.Kono Suba (note the Camel Case) has already been launched as a redirect for this work. Would I be required to cut the latter page before proceeding? Reply

      Technically you just need to edit the redirect and give it a custom title with correct capitalization. See Bookends for an example of that.
  • 1 Dec 7th, 2016 at 6:06PM
    Film
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 07:15:40 PM
    Can you fix the quotes page on the trope page "The Temptations"? I got the quotes on the page aaannnnd... they looked wonky. Can someone fix it, please? Reply

      Since I have not seen it and have no idea how those quotes are meant to fit together, I'll do the next best thing and explain how.

      Preface the first quote on the line with ->, which will create quote formatting. Bold the character name. If there are lines that follow, end each subsequent line with double to make new lines. Example:

      Troper: Hello.
      Troper 2: Hello.

      Can't get the formatting to work right here, but check out any other quotes page to get an idea.

      Courtesy link: Quotes.The Temptations
  • 4 Dec 6th, 2016 at 9:09PM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 06:55:33 PM
    What is the difference of Undignified Death and Dropped a Bridge on Him? Reply

      Dropped a Bridge on Him is about a sudden unexpected death. Undignified Death is about a humiliating or embarrassing death.

      A character's death could very easily be both (especially if it is also a Karmic Death or Death by Irony), but either trope works equally well individually.

      Also, Dropped a Bridge on Him is kind of a messy semi-YMMV thing - it's widely used as "complaining about deaths you didn't like".

      That's misuse, though.

      I think it's misuse stemming from a fundamental problem with the definition (as exemplified by the name), though.

      My point is that Undignified Death doesn't have any of those issues; it's just an ordinary trope. Whereas Dropped a Bridge on Him should be approached with extreme caution.
  • 7 Dec 6th, 2016 at 7:07PM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 05:14:05 PM
    I launched a page for the TLP of "Not-Fishing Rod", but I named it "Rod-and-Reel Repurposed". However, when the page popped up, the title was listed as "Rodand Reel Repurposed". I submitted a request for a custom title, but will it still have to be linked to as "Rodand Reel Repurposed"? Reply

      You botched the naming. It should have been Rod And Reel Repurposed.

      My bad. Is there any way to fix it?

      Cutlist the page and recreate it after it's deleted. Just put "created with bad camelcasing, need to recreate" as the cut reason.

      Make sure to save the page source in a text editor or on a sandbox page.

      ^ It is a Main/ so you have to get a mod to do it or relaunch it from the TLP

      Oh oops

      I've accepted the custom title.

      Thanks.
  • 2 Dec 7th, 2016 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 04:27:10 PM
    User Darthrail has been making a lot of lengthy edits to The Force Awakens regarding feminism and Rey's character. I don't necessarily disagree but while not to the same degree as previous MRA vandalism from the opposite end of the political spectrum, the newer edits seem soapboxy. Is this kosher? Reply

      You're right. It's not as disruptive as MRA-heavy edits, but there's major soapboxing going on.

      While I think it's factually true that a lot of reactionary groups attacked the film and its cast, I'm pretty sure that we're not supposed to bring that kind of thing up.

      1) Troping RL drama: we don't do that

      2) Possible Flame Bait kindling

      3) Possible drama importation

      Cut it.
  • 7 Dec 7th, 2016 at 8:08AM
    Film
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 01:44:02 PM
    So there are two examples of Kick the Dog under The Terminator. By definition, Kick the Dog is doing something evil just for the hell of it. Not really sure if either of these examples fit.

    The first one is that the T-800 runs over some toys. It wasn't that he ran them over on purpose, he simply saw no reason to avoid them when they were in his way. Pretty sure that an aversion of Pet the Dog does not automatically default to Kick the Dog.

    The second example is the ternimator gunning down some dogs in the future. That's being pragmatic if anything, seeing as they had compromised his disguise.

    Just wanted to make sure there was an agreement here before I axed the examples. I already removed a misused example of Pet the Dog. Reply

      To retain the title analogy, Kick the Dog is opposed to the neutral of Left The Dog Alone. Usually it means going out of their way to do something evil. I would accept the "driving over children's toys" as intended to show that the character would do the same if it was a dog (except dogs tend to move, so it wouldn't work).

      The second example doesn't seem an example; the dogs are an active threat to the Terminator, not just running around).

      Still, the T-800 didn't go out of his way to run over the toys. They were in his way, and he saw no reason to avoid them. For an emotionless killing machine, anything less than a straight line to your destination is inefficient.

      That, and the character in question isn't human; it's a programmed robot. It doesn't feel any need to do evil; it's just programmed to follow orders and directives. It ultimately has nothing against human characters trying to stop it, it's just doing what it needs to do to complete its mission.

      I don't think Kick the Dog can be applied to a character like this.

      Kick the Dog isn't a character motivation though (For the Evulz is the character motivation), it's something the creators show the character doing to clue the audience into how the character thinks. The "any collateral damage is acceptable" is a motive that can be ascribed to the T-800. It does not attempt any mitigation of collateral damage, even if that mitigation would cost no effort.

      Even ignoring the fact that he's a machine, the first one is a huge stretch (seeing that they're just toys), and the second is definitely not an example. My vote is to zap the entire thing.

      Edit: I've changed my mind about the first one, so ignore that. I was focused on people using the word "evil", but the trope allows for things that are just mean or uncaring.

      I'm with crazy. The entire point of it is that they're so inhumane that they don't care about the Dead Doll Shot. It's an intentional act by the creator to clue the audience in that "hey, these guys? Total assholes."

      Second is massive name-based shoehorn, though.

      Alright, I cut the second example. I still believe the first example doesn't belong, but if everyone is saying keep it, I'll leave it alone.
  • 0 Dec 7th, 2016 at 12:12PM
    I was going through Trivia.Golden Time and saw the example under Name's the Same:
    • Name's the Same: Linda's first name is "Nana", and her punk-rocker friend who lives next to Banri also goes by that name.
    Now, I'm not familiar with the work, but it sounds like just a case of One Steve Limit where two characters in the same work have the same name, not two characters from different works share a name like Name's the Same. Can someone familiar with Golden Time confirm or deny this? Reply
  • 1 Dec 7th, 2016 at 10:10AM
    Western Animation
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 12:03:17 PM
    We got a mild Bluenose Bowdlerizer on Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. The rest of his edit seems to be legit, though, so if it's important enough for you guys perhaps just a simple PM to tropower should suffice? Reply

      I'd call those to be justified edits. We don't need to use PG-13 language on a G-rated film.
  • 8 Dec 6th, 2016 at 5:05PM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 11:54:54 AM
    I'm a little confused about this trope and how given that it's supposed to be a macguffin made into a person (which to my understanding seems like a person whose only purpose is to move the plot ...and not much of anything else), which means that there should be a difference between this trope and say... Apocalypse Maiden, The Chosen One, or Sealed Insidea Person Shaped Can

    I understand how overlap is possible but when does a character go from being a mere Living Macguffin to any of these other tropes about a character relevant to the plot in one way or another? Or are ALL of those characters inherent macguffins? I mean since the trope itself is divided into more categories -some of which feel either really narrow or way too broad - and the main page description mentions the chosen one trope and at no point makes the distinction about the whole thing.

    EDIT:

    @Xtifr: Thank you for the answer, but now I see that I need to clarify a little more:

    I know that in the most basic level Living Macguffin has little if any to do with the tropes I listed before, my confusion comes from the fact that in the Macguffin page we have this laconic description:

    An object that, while not relevant to the main narrative, is frequently pursued throughout it.

    Whereas the Living Macguffin has this one:

    A plot object that is a person.

    So, follwing these thread, my question basically boils down to this: In a narrative context, when or how does a character stop being a Living Macguffin? For example you said that this person's value is determined more by other characters and how much they pursue it rather than for the overall plot right? So this character could be a princess or a diplomat who at the end of the day doesn't not accomplish much but their purpose to the story is met for the simple fact that they are wanted people in the setting right? But a character with an established personality who happens to grab the Distress Ball is not right? Or a character who is The Heart of the team and is pursued for their importance to the main characters, or ( sorry I swear this is the last example) an established character (with personality, motives and connections to other characters) who is pursued by some unknown attribute that for a while is not specified to the audience so for a while they are indeed a Macguffin of sorts, their pursue fuels the plot at least half of the time, and at some point their importance in indeed a pivotal part of the Bad Guy's evil plot? Are they still a Living Macguffin?

    Hope this is not too convoluted or something. Reply

      Um, there's no particular connection between those tropes at all, except that they often happen to be used together. An Apocalypse Maiden or something Sealed Inside a Person-Shaped Can makes a convenient Macguffin, but there's nothing inherently Macguffin-y about those tropes. In the case of The Chosen One, in particular, it's actually rare for one to be a Macguffin, but it's still a common type of Living Macguffin. Many LMs are TCO, but few TCOs are LMs.

      edit to clarify: the point of MacGuffin is that it should be important to the characters. These other tropes are simply easy ways of making a living person be important to the other characters.

      Ah I see what you're saying. (This is in response to where you edited your original post—it would have been clearer if you'd simply replied.) Yes, it can get fuzzy at times. But having character development does not actually stop a person from being a Living MacGuffin. It's not what a character is. It's a role they can play.

      For example, in one episode of Bones, the protagonist gets kidnapped, and the rest of the cast spends the episode following clues to try to find her. Despite the fact that she's the protagonist, and a fully developed character, she became a living macguffin for that episode.

      I see.

      It's a bit odd because of the past laconic description (something about them being wanted despite doing nothing IDK) I always assumed that the trope only applied to characters who are only one tier above being living props, if that whereas there are way too many examples and wicks that equate being wanted to being thia trope regarless of the reason or its importance to the plot and I wanted to check that.

      As for the 3rd example (along with the Bones one you provided) seems a bit like a stretch to consider them Macguffins since they do affect move around the plot and the Macguffin trope says that in order for something to be this, their special attributte is not just mundane, but also interchangeable with any other special object or character in the setting.

      Dunno maybe I'm being too picky, but that sounds like any person with non-mundane special attributes (whether is supernatural, magical, prophecies etc.) that undoubtely affect or move the story for more reasons that their pursue itself would be disqualified of being a Living Macguffin at all.

      But again that could be just me.

      Some of the MacGuffin snowclones are more accurately described by the shared supertrope of Plot Device. A Plot Device does not have to be interchangeable with anything else. The Bones example is a MacGuffin (random bystander could be used in place of the character, with her being Trapped by Mountain Lions and unable to help).

      Oh, sorry I never watched Bones so I wasn't aware of the specifics, so in that case is there a trope for a character or object that is very, very important to the plot but the audience is not told why until very late into the story (chances are that it's part of The Reveal) but when it's done it ties in with the plot just fine, and they continue to be important afterwards?

      For the rest, checking the Plot Device page they seem to support the idea that for an object or character to truly be a Macguffin (besides the ones already stated) they must be billed as important but never used or said importance to never accomplish anything within the plot right? Following that along with your statement that many Macguffin tropes are snowclones - I agree btw - Is there really such a need for so many of them? Especially when some of them are further divided in even more subtropes - some of them waaay too specific IMO - it feels like the trope really needs a cleanup.

      If you want to build a more though understanding of Plot Device and its subtropes, I suggest starting a thread in Trope Talk.

      Maybe I could although dunno if it would be for the Living Macguffin or the Macguffin trope as a whole or its numerous subcategories.

      Thank you.

      When different pages give slightly different definitions of a term, it's often a sign that our definition(s) don't quite match those in the outside world. (Which happens—someone comes along and corrects—or "corrects"—the definition in one place, but not another, and we end up with a variety of definitions scattered across different places.)

      So I went to The Other Wiki, and there seems to be some inherent ambiguity in the definition of the term. So much so that they end up just listing three prominent filmmakers and their differing definitions, rather than saying "this is the one."

      It does seem to be sort of a mess, and probably worth at least a trope talk thread, if not actual repair shop. Unfortunately, for such a widely used set of tropes, cleanup, if there is a problem, is likely to be a nightmare. *sigh*
  • 9 Dec 5th, 2016 at 8:08PM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 08:16:00 AM
    On the Moana page I had added an example under Broken Base and another troper deleted it. They said that fans complaining about the name counts more as Fan Dumb than a Broken Base. Does it? I don't personally mind the One-Word Title trend Disney has but I do understand the disdain towards it. It seems to go beyond just Fan Dumb behavior. Some consider them too bland, too generic, etc. Reply

      For the record, it was brought up here

      Basically, the issue is the one word title thing has been going on longer than Disney/Tangled, but it's only now that people seem to be complaining about it, which is pretty odd.

      That's because it didn't become a trend until Tangled. Now almost every film has a single word title—Tangled, Frozen, Zootopia, Moana, Gigantic... I remember the original problem arising because Tangled was a last minute change. For years it was Rapunzel but a year or two before release they announced a name change. People didn't like it because it was generic, nonsensical (I guess it refers to tangled hair?), or they felt it was only chosen to avoid the Girl Show Ghetto.

      That doesn't even make sense then since, you know, Moana isn't even a One-Word Title. Certainly no more than Rapunzel.

      Discussion is here.

      In my opinion it doesn't make sense because, well, it's just inaccurate. As I said before, Moana isn't a One-Word Title. But Disney's had works with One Word Titles... and in between many of those movies that they list they've had plenty of movies with fuller titles. It's just a kind of nonsensical argument.

      It is one word technically, it just so happens to be a name. I didn't pay too much attention to people complaining about the name though so I am not an expert in their arguments.

      ... then it's not a One-Word Title, though. That's a Character Title.

      To adress the original question, a Broken Base requires that there be at least two vocal factions in the fandom: one that thinks something about the work is good / great / the best thing about the work and another that thinks the same thing is bad / awful / destroying the work. The thing they differ on is the Base Breaker. Simply not liking the name or naming trend is not a Broken Base.


      So for the sake of discussion, what if there are two distinct, virulent sides completely at each other's throats, but (like this case) the argument is nonsense?

      Keeping in mind that this example doesn't apply (because no-one is saying One-Word Title is good/great/awesome), if a picayune thing is Serious Business for the fanbase, it still counts.
  • 24 Dec 6th, 2016 at 7:07AM
    Film
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 06:35:11 AM
    A few days ago I noticed that the entry for Seldom-Seen Species on Moana listed the character Tamatoa as a Cocunut crab, a land dwelling, tree climbing, fruit eating, tailed crustacean, despite having none of those traits, being a sea dwelling, bottom feeding, shell decorating Dresser crab. I corrected this, noting the reason why, only for Troper Planet Eating Warlord to revert it with no edit reason given. I contacted them via PM, and the only reason they gave was an art book they don't remember reading. I requested they change it back for lack of or faulty evidence, but all P Ms since have been ignored. Reply

      Well, he's certainly edit-warring and not leaving edit-reasons and a cursory glance at the page tells me he's very wrong (I don't know what a dresser crab is, but I can tell that thing sure as hell isn't a coconut crab).

      A dresser crab is a species of crab well known for decorating their shells.

      Have you ever seem video of those crabs that stick anemones and stuff on their shells? That's one species, and they look absolutely nothing like a coconut crab.

      Oh, dear, oh, dear. Suspending that troper.

      And the edit war continues, with two more troopers.

      Sorry about that. However, Andrew Chesworth - one of the artists who designed Tamatoa - says that he's a coconut crab, which is supported by his fourth pair of legs having little pincers, something decorator crabs don't have but coconut crabs do. Also, Tamatoa didn't always decorate his shell, and didn't start decorating it until after his rivalry with Maui started.

      Writers are not Marine Biologists. Here's a picture of a Coconut Crab. This crab lacks those little pincers you describe. A lot of them do. And you notice something else? The Coconut crab has a distinct 'tail' section of it's body, a defining feature of Coconut Crabs, One Tamatoa lacks.

      As for the 'didn't start decorating until Maui' bit, Maui is involved in a whole host of origin myths, both in the film, and in Real life Polynesian culture.

      After a period of browsing Google images, I think I've come to a conclusion, Tamatoa has traits of Both Coconut and Decorator crabs, he's not a perfect fit for either one.

      True, Tamatoa doesn't have the characteristic tail that IRL coconut crabs have, but coconut crabs (and crabs in general) aren't 50 feet tall, nor do they have vertically-opening mouths, barnicle-encrusted teeth, or sing glam-rock about how shiny they are. The writers and artists may not be marine biologists, but they are the writers and artists and if they say Tamatoa is a coconut crab then that's what he is regardless of the discrepancies between him and real-life coconut crabs, unless another Word of God source says Tamatoa is a decorator crab (which he doesn't particularly resemble either).

      At the very least, we can mention the discrepancies under Art Major Biology or a similar trope, can't we?

      When the mods tell you Word of God can be wrong, and the majority of troopers involved in a discussion disagree with your edit of choice, Take what compromise you can. Tamatoa has far more in common with Decorator Crabs than Coconut Crabs, everything from anatomy, to behavior to habitat.

      I'm not saying that you're wrong about Tamatoa not resembling IRL coconut crabs, just that Word of God is that he's a coconut crab.

      How's this look:

      • Art Major Biology: Tamatoa is stated to be a "kong-sized coconut crab" by artist Andrew Chesworth, though he lacks the characteristic tail and land-dwelling habitat of real life coconut crabs, acting more like a giant decorator crab.


      There was a discussion about the bee-like creatures from Donkey Kong Country before. We went with what the designer said they were then.

      The "Word of God can be wrong" comment is what's confused me the most, since I've always been under the impression that Word of God statements are irrefutable unless countered by another Word of God source, and that all other points of contention against them - no matter how valid they are - are Fanon Discontinuity.

      ^^^ The way that's written, goes against what you want. If we went trough with that, the page would contain conflicting information.

      ^^ That has nothing to do with this now does it? The consensus here has been a majority in favor of Decorator crab.

      ^And finally, from Admistrivia, Fan Dumb

      The Theocrat

      A fan who takes Word of God to its logical extreme. While some fans take the Death of the Author and Fanon Discontinuity concepts too far and call out the creator for things in canon they don't like, some fans simply like to dabble in the occasional bit of Fanon Discontinuity or perhaps pen an Alternate Universe Fic. This is something which does not sit well with the Theocrat, who will demand that all "true fans" adhere to Word of God to the letter. Things such as expressing support for a non-canon couple or casually stating that you don't consider a statement a creator made at a convention about a plot point in the series finale to be part of your personal canon will get you stoned or burned at the stake by these fans, and if you dare write a fanfic that deviates from canon even a tiny bit, expect this fan to bombard you with flames in your review section or endlessly nitpick "what you got wrong", even if the fic itself is well-written and compelling. They might even go so far as to flame you for speculation on the series that later gets Jossed, demanding that you go back and delete your own posts if later story revelations contradict what you wrote. A fan who expects everyone to adhere to Word of God to the exact letter (even in media where canon is kept ambiguous).

      ^ I don't see how it goes against what I want as it's written, since what I want is to note both the Word of God statement and the forum's decision so as to avoid people doing what I did: coming to the Moana page off the Disney wiki (which calls him a coconut crab based off the artist's statement) and/or from Andrew Chesworth's Twitter page, looking at the TV Tropes character page calling him a decorator crab, saying "Hey, wait a second, Word of God says he's a coconut crab. I'd better fix this." and inadvertently restarting the edit war.

      However, if you can think of a better way to rephrase it, I'm all ears.

      Like I said in the post ^^^^^^^, that you rejected, Under seldom seen species, list Tamatoa as BOTH.

      ^ Ah, I didn't notice you edited that post. That solution seems like it should work. Let's see... how's:

      • Seldom-Seen Species: Tamatoa combines traits of coconut and decorator crabs, two species rarely seen in media.

      Yes, that is the most accurate way to have this. It fulfills both Word of God, and the facts of real life that would have otherwise negated it.

      Alright then, I'll make the edit, if it's alright with you.

      The Theocrat Fan Dumb thing is about fans being angry when people form their own "headcanons." It has nothing to do with what should or shouldn't go on the wiki and isn't Administrivia.

      Mentioning both species is fine, but it should be clear what was intended.

      Also not sure about the "consensus" thing. Alright, most of us can agree it doesnt look like an actual coconut crab, but no one else said it's definitely supposed to be a decorator crab.

      The species being coconut crab being Word of God only was mentioned after the "Oh, dear, oh, dear. Suspending that troper." I am not sure if Fighteer said " Word of God can be wrong".

      Yeah, that didn't come up at all.

      Word of God can be wrong and contradictory, but in this case, we should at least be mentioning the official species, and then we can point out how it's different from it or closer to another one.

      Also keep in mind that it is a cartoon animal. It's not necessarily going to be an accurate representation. In this case, coconut crabs have big claws and the character has big claws. The rest is artistic license. Honestly, I'm no crab expert, but it still looks closer to a coconut crab than a decorator crab to me. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say if it acts more like the latter or not.

      I once saw a black leopard called a jaguar by the co-writer of a graphic novel, even though they're quite different cats. (And look more similar than some species of crab.)

      In other words, even creators can be wrong about an animal's actual species. And that one does not look like any species of coconut crab I can Google, Word of God or not.

      Doesn't look like a decorator crab either, though. apart from the decorated shell. It seems to be a mixture of different species.

      All I'm saying is, if we need to specify what type of crab it is at all, that we write it as something like "He's officially a coconut crab...", and then point out the differences between it and a real one, which we already do with a lot of creatures on the site (most commonly with video game ones).

      Even if Mufasa didn't look or act much like a lion, we'd still mention that he's supposed to be a lion. That's what I'd do with the graphic novel example you mentioned as well, especially if it's called that in the actual story.

      This is all assuming the coconut crab thing is supposed to be official, of course. I'm just going with what Arawn 999 said. I don't know the creator and have no real interest in Disney's animated films. Not sure if he's called that on any official merch, like toys or anything like that.

      Not a discussion for this forum. Please use the discussion page, thanks!
  • 13 Nov 28th, 2016 at 4:04AM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Dec, 2016 02:57:23 AM
    Tropers.Chris X is a troper who frequents Overwatch pages and has often added massive walls of text and Fan Wank to examples. For an example, see the Hate Sink debate we've had for months on the main Overwatch page and the other sub-pages.

    Worse, they also are very bad at English and grammar, with almost every edit they make needing fixing. For two examples of this, please see their latest two edits on the Overwatch timeline page. I had previously fixed their misuse of "bodybuilding" but they added it back without even checking the edit history and my comment. Reply

      I'm going to bump this, but note that his (supposedly bad) English is really good.

      Oh.... I see. So this is where it is. The Fan Wank, I can accept that I might be wrong, and I try to alleviate that, and honestly, I tend to use Wall of Text to prevent things going to Zero-Context Example and giving all the context that enhances why the trope applies. But... Grammar? Are you sure it's just not you who's having overly high standards about grammars and English?

      I've edited other places and they seem okay with my supposedly bad English (which, yes, I admit I make mistakes at times, that's why I sometimes re-edit). Overwatch pages is the only place where there's someone who may be better in English than me, but somehow set overly high standards on them and will not accept anything less. If you want the Overwatch pages to follow your overly high standards of grammar, fine, I'll leave it alone. I'll also try to see your editing history, see where you usually edit, and leave it alone.

      While I will mind my grammars next time, you really want to re-inspect yourself, whether you're becoming a Grammar Nazi about your own overly high standards or not. Because I don't think I'm the only one you kept telling to fix grammars. Others have been subjected to this, not just me.

      Regardless of edit wars and Fan Wank (he edits the Paladins pages and I haven't had any instance regarding those), I can vouch for the English issues.

      Vouch for who?

      Chris I would recommend checking out tips on grammar.

      Well, I've directed you to the "Get Help With English" thread before. So, clearly, it's not just one person who's noticed it. You don't even have to look hard. Your last edit has at least three basic errors.

      It's not about being a perfect grammarian or whatever. It's about making sure your entries are easily understandable.

      I don't think that was the case, Supergod. You only noticed this because Nubian decided to bring her problems with me into that ATT topic where we discussed about Values Dissonance. All she got right was the thing about me using Fan Wank, which was my fault. And then, the only place she's using this high rule was in Overwatch, not the rest. I've been editing in other places, and no one has a problem with it. It's just her alone. I've edited in other places and no one seemed to have a problem so far, or even if they do have a problem, they tend to point it out nicely.

      EDIT: Because you actually pointed out pretty nicely, I decided to take a look at my last edit at the YMMV page of Paladins, and yes I did find three or four, and edited that. That was before I got Pegafoxx's PM.

      However, I still feel that the notion is most people here expect that before I even edit things, I should bring my edit in Get Help With English thread (and by that I mean everytime). I mean, I've been doing this whole editing things and people took it just fine. So how come it's just now that it's being a problem?

      I have no idea. But the bottom line is that just because no one ever complained about a problem before, it doesn't mean there isn't a problem now.

      So is what you're saying that I am now under scrunity from everyone in TV Tropes that whenever I want to edit anything, I should post first in 'Get Help With English' thread, is that what you're all implying? Just say so in the first place if that's what you want from me.

      And she said in PM that my ego was hurt. I'll admit one thing... my ego was pretty small in the first place, I never considered myself to be someone that good in English that when Nubian pointed that out I get mad. It's just that I feel completely unsafe to write anything in the Overwatch topic, I actually risk on a suspension. I still like this site, but I'll gladly sacrifice not writing in the Overwatch topic until I get a good hang on grammar, which I don't know when it will satisfy her. I'll just chalk it up as 'forever'.

      In other words, I'm now frickin' scared to edit things in Overwatch.

      There were/are still errors, so, yes, I'd recommend using that thread until you feel you have a better grasp. I don't think your command of English is that bad, but you need to work on your word choices. Don't look at it as a punishment or anything like that. Again, it's not about being perfect, but it's important is that people understand what you write. Other tropers shouldn't have to keep cleaning up after you.

      About the weightlifting vs. bodybuilding argument, it looks like the former is more relevant to that bit of backstory.

      I checked the wikia again (about bio) and found nothing about weight-lifting, but instead body-building. It's either that or I simply read it wrong. The latter can happen at times.

      And by 'keep cleaning up', do you mean 'every time' or 'often'? Because I admit, one of the things that I really hate is that the times I did right were not even put in consideration and the perception is "I never did anything right". While I admit that I made mistakes at times, I do know that sometimes I got it right. Yet no one remembered those times. Is that the trope Accentuate the Negative? I think that this is why I'm very angry and lashed out at Nubian... because from her words, she thinks that all I do is just wrong things every time with absolutely zero times I did things right. Without even checking.

      Hm. According to the official site, it's both, so we were BOTH wrong.

      Can we just say 'both half-right'? Logically if it's 'both wrong', that's like saying if I added "Running", while you insisted "Gymnastics". That is what I'd call 'both wrong'. We're both half-right because while we didn't say the complete correct word, we actually said parts of them, which is technically correct.

      Probably this is going to be seen as 'unimportant', but eh. More typing, more practice. No need to debate this further, I'll just keep my feelings to myself.
  • 18 Dec 4th, 2016 at 7:07PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 08:31:40 PM
    What is the general opinion on such Tropers?

    On the one hand, I myself have taken an interest in a lot of videogames and movies I wouldn't have given a second glance because of TV Tropes and find it justifiable on the grounds that it would give it more exposure to the Troper's works.

    On the other hand, it seems like the sort of thing that a very annoying person would do.

    So, thoughts?

    EDIT:

    Conclusion:

    1. The Troper's intention must not be to advertise his work.

    2. The Troper must not point out the reactions of the audience.

    3. The Troper must not act like a self-aggrandizing twat that praises his work's quality.

    4. If there is criticism to be had, the Troper has no right to censor it. And if he ends up hating his work and wants the page gone, then too bad. It's here forever.

    Opinions however, are either: "You can do that, but it's best others put it here" Or: "Eh, sure. Knock yourself out, just follow the rules"

    Reply

      When you make pages for your own works, the temptation is to use TV tropes to advertise your fic. This is NOT the purpose of TV tropes. Tv Tropes is a Wiki, a database of fiction, fandom, and storytelling. Tropers who trope their own works are prone to misusing the wiki, meaning more work is required from other tropers and the mods to clean up their mess.

      Tropers who make pages about their own works are as varied as the other works here. I don't think there is really a general opinion on these kinds of tropers.

      As long as they follow The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours, stay away from populating audience reaction and such subjective pages, and don't treat it as a media release to advertise, it's not really a problem.

      edit: double post, whoops

      edit 2: or some kind of weird display error on my end??? What the original post said was that it's not always necessarily self-pimping- some people just get a kick out of assigning tropes to things.

      edit: double post, whoops

      edit 2: or some kind of weird display error on my end??? What the original post said was that it's not always necessarily self-pimping- some people just get a kick out of assigning tropes to things.

      When I was doing a course in game design I made a detailed tropes page for it as it was part of the criteria, and it was based on the novel I'm writing. Would I put up these trope pages or one for the Dragon Age: Inquisition fic I'm writing? Sure I would if someone were interested, but I'd much rather someone come across the game I wanted to make or the story I want to write and make the page themselves because as the creator I don't want to come across as promoting my work by creating the page or dictate what does and does not belong.

      Certainly if a page existed for one of my works then absolutely I would add to it to the best of my ability but I want others to jump in first and launch said trope or work first. Just me.

      Do it right and it's fine. And by right I mean "trope accurately, don't look like you're gushing about your own works."

      Do it wrong and you're masturbating using this site. And no one likes that.

      Promoting or not, if they do it right by our standard and policy then it's as good as any trope page for indie works.

      Creating pages for one's own work is absolutely fine. No Audience Reactions, though, these are for audiences to add.

      So it's possible but:

      1. The Troper's intention must not be to advertise his work. 2. The Troper must not point out the reactions of the audience. 3. The Troper must not act like a self-aggrandizing twat that praises his work's quality. 4. If there is criticism to be had, the Troper has no right to censor it. And if he ends up hating his work and wants the page gone, then too bad. It's here forever.

      Opinions however, are either along the lines of: "You can do that, but it's best if the work gets a page on TV Tropes on it's own merits by being noticed and enjoyed by other Tropers instead of being shoved in." Or: "Eh, sure. Knock yourself out, just follow the rules"

      I myself lean towards the former, but wanted to hear someone else's opinion.

      1. Well, we can't detect intention online, do we? But blatant advertising usually get trimmed if it isn't beyond salvagatable. 2, 3, & 4. right

      Well, we have Troper Works index, so we aren't against it at all. There's also DarthWiki.Unpublished Works.

      Those four rules sound solid, and I'm in the "Eh, sure. Knock yourself out, just follow the rules" camp. A rabid fan isn't much different from a rabid creator, both just need a muzzle sometimes.

      The muzzle comment is hilarious. :p And I agree. (I know I've had my sit-on-my-hands moments.)

      Those points, plus Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement and don't harm the wiki, make a very nice synopsis of the issue.

      "You can do that, but it's best if the work gets a page on TV Tropes on it's own merits by being noticed and enjoyed by other Tropers instead of being shoved in." is not the policy. Pointing this out so that people don't start making up nonexistent best practices.

      Auto-Erotic Troping does make me wonder: It says there that roleplays aren't tropable unless they're intended for publication. However, we have an entire category for roleplays. What does that mean for those pages? The games covered there are (mostly, except Amatomnes) viewable to the public.

      I posted a separate question on this but it disappeared (I assume related to the bug that was turning everything I posted here from my laptop to double posts) So I may as well post it where the mention that got me wondering was.

      Auto-Erotic Troping does make me wonder: It says there that roleplays aren't tropable unless they're intended for publication. However, we have an entire category for roleplays. What does that mean for those pages? The games covered there are (mostly, except Amatomnes) viewable to the public.

      I posted a separate question on this but it disappeared (I assume related to the bug that was turning everything I posted here from my laptop to double posts) So I may as well post it where the mention that got me wondering was.

      "Viewable to the public" is the key requirement for any work, roleplays included. The point of that clause is to exclude chronicles of groups that happen to RP without any intent to publish, as they are almost always about the players instead of the game, and cannot be verified regardless.

      Basically if the RP group keep their play logs public, be it in text form or video, then they're tropable. Just make sure to trope Bob the Fighter instead of Bob's player.
  • 1 Dec 6th, 2016 at 2:02PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 03:19:22 PM
    A number of edits by res20stupid disregard proper indentation, and has also added natter and at least one violation of Examples Are Not Recent. The edits in question can be seen here, here, here and here, here (you have to look down further as it's older than the latest 10 edits). I'm afraid I can only fix the Watch Dogs example because I don't want to be spoiled in the other pages. Reply

      Suspension issued.
  • 1 Dec 6th, 2016 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 02:19:09 PM
    TLP in question: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=uvvthwilq6mocqtgtpwsxrbx

    I admit that it's too early for making a page for the next decade, and they're kinda nuking it, so can any mod delete this?

    Por favor y gracias. Reply

      It's already labeled as nuked, so nothing more can be done.
  • 4 Dec 6th, 2016 at 10:10AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 01:46:13 PM
    Many are using it to complain covertly by saying "Anime Crew(And its ALWAYS the Anime Crew) loved this character so much they harmed the plot/quality in X way". I think not only that the Anime Crew isnt the creator,but this complaining belongs on Creators Pet or in Darth Wiki, and I'm generous by saying that. Reply

      Anime Crew?

      The crew in charge of the anime adaptation of a manga. I've heard this complaint about those in charge of the adaptation basically putting their finger on the scale of a shipping war.

      Larkmarn gets me. Anyway, what to do? Are those kosher? Are any "The Anime Crew" legitimate at all since they are NOT the creators?

      Creator's Favorite should not be used for complaining. If it is, delete it.
  • 2 Dec 6th, 2016 at 12:12PM
    Videogame
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 01:40:46 PM
    Is it necessary to have a page or seperate pages for each and every prominent AU's in Under Tale like Outer Tale, Under Fell, and Under Swap? Reply
  • 1 Dec 6th, 2016 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 01:26:26 PM
    When it comes to characters with different ways to spell their names, does Tvtropes use the most common or most accurate? Kaori from Your Lie in April is spelled "Kaori" everywhere online afaik and the Crunchyroll subs used it, but apparently her name is more accurately romanized as "Kawori" (the show used it once too). Reply

      We go by the official English translation, so Kaori.
  • 3 Dec 5th, 2016 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 09:43:36 AM
    Big Beautiful Man is for in-series only examples, right? I know Big Beautiful Woman is. Reply

      Jesus, that's a mess. There are "this character's large size makes them more attractive," "this character is attractive in-universe and large (in a rotund way)," "this character is attractive in-universe and large (in a muscular way)," "this character is large in-universe and fans find them hot."

      ....

      I think this might need a Short Term Projects thread.

      ^^ The trope is about fat characters, right? Quite a few examples are muscular.
  • 1 Dec 6th, 2016 at 7:07AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Dec, 2016 08:05:36 AM
    The Infinite Loops pages in general need an overhaul, and the idea has come up to make separate pages for sufficiently large compilations. How exactly would that work, if it happened? Merely seperate fanfic pages for said compilations, smaller sub-pages on the main page, or what?

    Also, how does one say "This whole thing needs an overhaul" in troperese? Reply
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?type=att