Ask The Tropers - TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Appeals to the troper hivemind...

If you want to propose a new trope, use YKTTW; if you're looking for a particular trope, try Lost And Found. For a discussion on a particular topic, head over to the Forum instead.

Show only:
Add A New Query

Spinosegnosaurus77
Medium:
10:49:57 AM 28th Aug 2015
edited by Spinosegnosaurus77
see/hide 11 replies  
crazysamaritan
12:14:37 PM 27th Aug 2015
"Weak" —> lacking in strength

"Fragile" —> lacking in sturdiness

Spinosegnosaurus77
12:26:19 PM 27th Aug 2015
crazysamaritan
12:32:19 PM 27th Aug 2015
Strength — ability to crush a tomato.

Sturdiness — ability to eat a bad tomato without getting sick.
JoieDeCombat
12:38:51 PM 27th Aug 2015
Looking at the edit in question, it seems to me like the removal of the example is splitting hairs. As written, the example seems to be using "weak" to mean the same thing as "fragile," since it mentions relying on someone else for protection.

That said, I'm not familiar with the work in question. But people do use "weak" to mean "unable to take punishment," not just "unable to dish out punishment."
crazysamaritan
01:03:28 PM 27th Aug 2015
The hairs that are being split stem from categorical misuse of Fragile Speedster as "low-power, quick moves". Therefore, "weak" is verboten.
Bisected8
02:54:58 PM 27th Aug 2015
To put it another way;

"Fragile" = breaks easily.

"Weak" = the counterpart of the word "strong", giving it a fairly broad meaning which can include "fragile".
MorningStar1337
03:09:31 PM 27th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
So what us Fragile Speedster supposed to be, dies if enemies look at it funny or fast but the attacks aren't as strong as those of slower characters?

I;d say that if the latter is the intended meaning that a TRS trip is necessary regarding the name, but I think that there were prior unsuccessful attempts at fixing it there (Plus it's locked)
DAN004
06:09:00 PM 27th Aug 2015
Fragile Speedster has been discussed A LOT because of the word "fragile".

That, and because we have Glass Cannon and Stone Wall (and Lightning Bruiser). All of them brings the trifecta of attack, speed, defense to Fragile Speedster (and Mighty Glacier)'s simpler distinction.

If we really wanna retweak it (like, again), I suggest that we make 2 subtypes of FS: actual "fragile" speedster and a speedster that doesn't deal much damage.
Candi
06:56:50 PM 27th Aug 2015
A required secondary power of speed is durability. Otherwise physics ensues. Speedsters without durability are by default 'fragile', even if they are MMA-strong and skilled.

However, lack of super-durability is not the same as not being able to deal an effective attack.

Me thinks some tweaking and twisting at the least is in order. Does there exist a trope where a powered person can't deal an effective attack using their power, but the power is useful in non-combat situations? (Or is that too broad?)
DAN004
07:30:12 PM 27th Aug 2015
Candi
10:49:57 AM 28th Aug 2015
Thanks muchly! :)

close replies  

DAN004
Medium:
08:31:31 AM 28th Aug 2015
Dunno, but some examples in Improbable Weapon User are about actual weapons (swords, guns and such) that just looks weird.

Can something be done?
see/hide 1 replies  
Larkmarn
08:31:31 AM 28th Aug 2015
Example?

close replies  

MarqFJA
Medium:
07:19:30 AM 28th Aug 2015
Hot Scoop says this about the origin of the title: "Title is Just for Puna three way one on exclusive, catch and scoop-neck top."

The "exclusive" part and "scoop-neck top" are easy. But what does "catch" have to do with "Hot" or "Scoop"?
see/hide 21 replies  
Tarlonniel
06:25:49 AM 22nd Aug 2015
Hmmm - well, the word "scoop", at least for me, has associations with baseball as well as ice cream and reporting (scooping up a line drive, for instance). Maybe that's what they were going for.
randomsurfer
07:22:57 AM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by randomsurfer
I think the "catch" is that...oh jeez, I can't think of how to explain it...like, the guy who successfully picks up the girl is said to have caught her, she's a catch. Though it could be used for men too, like where a woman is looking for a husband and "catches" a rich doctor. A janitor or even a salaryman wouldn't be a catch.

Frum Urban Dictionary:
catch
A really attractive girl who all the guys want to go after.
"Hey man, that chick is such a catch!"
—by blobgonogo December 16, 2012

3) Can be used to describe Chicks
3)Steven - "man is my girl a catch"
—by Mangles September 19, 2005

EDIT: Is Silent Hunter still around? That's the troper who ykttw'ed it originally, and the "three way pun" is there in the original ykttw writeup - in fact it's practically the only thing in the writeup. Anyway, if SH is still around they could be asked.
JoieDeCombat
09:06:29 AM 22nd Aug 2015
I'm also not sure what scoop-neck tops have to do with anything.
randomsurfer
01:51:29 PM 22nd Aug 2015
Scoop-neck tops show off Absolute Cleavage.
JoieDeCombat
04:10:27 PM 22nd Aug 2015
By the definition of Absolute Cleavage, no they do not. They may or may not show off some regular cleavage, but as they're not automatically associated with either hotness or reporters to my knowledge, the relevance seems slim at best.
gallium
06:18:25 PM 22nd Aug 2015
Hot Scoop is "sexy reporter", which is obvious enough, but it has nothing specific to do with cleavage and that should be excised from the definition.
MarqFJA
11:44:16 PM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by MarqFJA
A scoop-neck top's tendency to cleavage-revealingness makes it eligible for being a form of Fanservice Costumes and Rule of Sexy. That is what it has to do with the trope: A reporter can have her sex appeal emphasized by giving her an outfit that highlights her more sexual attributes — in this case, her bust.
gallium
12:35:19 AM 23rd Aug 2015
There are a million ways to make a sexy person look sexy, of which a scoop top is only one. And we have seen by this very discussion that talking about scoop tops for no particular reason leads to confusion. Scoop in the sense of "big news story" makes sense for this trope description, "scoop" as describing one particular style of sexy clothing does not.
JoieDeCombat
04:30:34 AM 23rd Aug 2015
Especially when scoop-neck tops are not known as an inherently sexy article of clothing.
MrDeath
06:12:23 AM 23rd Aug 2015
Agreed, "scoop" referring to an article of clothing I hadn't heard even existed until this discussion makes no sense for the trope namer. "Scoop" as a big news story is a near-universally-known term and obviously what the trope name's about.
GnomeTitan
07:23:24 AM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
Also, I don't think female reporters are generally associated with scoop-neck tops or vice versa.

EDITED: When I think of how attractive female reporters are usually portrayed in fiction, I think it's more common for them to wear button-down shirts with a traditional collar.
MarqFJA
10:52:41 PM 25th Aug 2015
Sheesh, it's called a pun for a reason, people. Obviously the main intended meaning is the "big news story" sense, with the scoop-neck sense being a bonus.

"Especially when scoop-neck tops are not known as an inherently sexy article of clothing."

Google begs to differ.
GnomeTitan
02:58:13 AM 26th Aug 2015
Yes, but for the pun to be effective I think there should be some connection between female reporters and scoop-neck tops. Without such a connection, it just becomes so far-fetched that it's pointless.
MarqFJA
11:47:23 PM 26th Aug 2015
There is a connection: That "big news story" in a single word is a homophone of the word used to denote that aforementioned kind of top. They're technically two different words that just so happen to share the same spelling and pronunciation. It may be coincidental, but it's still a logical connection nonetheless.
wrm5
12:47:17 AM 27th Aug 2015
The title IS a pun, but linking it to Scoop Neck Tops is a bit far-fetched.

It'd be sort of like arguing that the pun in Fair Cop is actually Cop -> Copper, which might be in a button on a sexy blouse. :p
GnomeTitan
01:29:43 AM 27th Aug 2015
^^Marq FJA: I know that it's a pun on "scoop == exclusive new story" and "scoop neck". My point is that the connection is just a set of hompohones and nothing more. For a pun to be effective and funny there should be another connection as well - the two homophones should have the same (but unexpected) associations.

Since I don't associate scoop necks with reporters in any way other than the homophony, the pun just falls flat for me.

Rjinswand
02:12:45 AM 27th Aug 2015
If we had a picture of a hot journalist character in a scoop neck top, we could make it the page image, and put that pun into the caption. As of now, it doesn't work, since there's no reason to mention a scoop neck top.
SeptimusHeap
02:28:16 AM 27th Aug 2015
This appears to be a discussion for the Trope Talk forum, I think.
MarqFJA
05:16:21 AM 27th Aug 2015
Good point, but I'm not sure if anyone here is interested in continuing the debate, given that it seems no one is actually advocating for removing the line in question (which hasn't caused any problems so far, BTW).
gallium
05:59:14 AM 28th Aug 2015
I'll advocate for removing the line. Makes a reference to scoop-necks which is 1) fairly obscure and 2) in no way associated with reporters. Invites confusion, which is why this query was filed.
JoieDeCombat
07:19:30 AM 28th Aug 2015
Agreed.

close replies  

jormis29
Medium:
05:59:06 AM 28th Aug 2015
edited by jormis29
killniggas put a wierd racist screed on The Man In The Moon. I have edited back but he/she needs to be banned/bounced so doesn't do it again. (you may also want to erase the edit from the history if possible).
see/hide 5 replies  
Adept
12:42:16 AM 28th Aug 2015
I think that handle alone should have warranted suspicion.
SeptimusHeap
03:30:00 AM 28th Aug 2015
Bounced.
bwburke94
03:40:33 AM 28th Aug 2015
The only real surprise here is that it took until 2015 for the Moon Man crew to get their hands on this article. Racism on TV Tropes is a no go.
Elbruno
04:52:58 AM 28th Aug 2015
edited by Elbruno
"I think that handle alone should have warranted suspicion."

What's the bad meaning of "Man in the Moon"?
bwburke94
05:59:06 AM 28th Aug 2015
"Handle" refers to the username, which if you weren't paying attention is "kill" followed by the n-word.

close replies  

lalalei2001
Medium:
03:29:08 AM 28th Aug 2015
edited by lalalei2001
Is there any significant difference between And Show It to You and Beat Still, My Heart other than one title being easier to remember?
see/hide 2 replies  
Morgenthaler
12:56:28 AM 28th Aug 2015
According to the descriptions, And Show It to You is ripping a heart out of someone's chest and holding it up. Beat Still, My Heart is just about a disembodied heart beating. The latter can be (and usually is) a result of the former, but the heart could also just be a sitting in a box, for instance.
SeptimusHeap
03:29:08 AM 28th Aug 2015
Another Trope Talk question, I would say. That said, I'd say these are different tropes.

close replies  

Midna
Medium: Western Animation
07:42:42 PM 27th Aug 2015
edited by SeptimusHeap
I just cut an entry from the Dethroning Moment of Suck page for Family Guy for being, bluntly, one of the creepiest fucking things I have ever seen on this website. Snowy Wolf thought it was a shameless ratings grab for the show to kill off Brian only to bring him back later in the same season. Fair enough, I agree. But then he decided to attack the writers directly. This is a direct quote: "You are worthless, sick insects and our world has no use for your kind."

Is this the sort of thing someone can be warned for? I know the DMOS pages are entirely about complaining, but throwing a harsh personal attack at a group of people for writing a crappy episode of a TV series, all but telling them to kill themselves because the world is better off without them, is breaking at least two TV Tropes Customs (don't be a dick, don't bash on creators).
see/hide 10 replies  
nrjxll
09:04:55 PM 26th Aug 2015
I'm pretty sure the thing to do there is cut the attack on the writers, not the entry as a whole.
wrm5
10:22:08 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
^ No, that's NOT the thing to do. The entire point of Dethroning Moment is for people to express their opinions in their own way. If you mangle the entry in order to remove parts that you object to, then it's not their opinion being expressed anymore, it's yours.

From the Dethroning Moment rules...

  • Editing another person's entry should only be done for the following reasons, or ones very like them:
    • Correcting grammar, spelling, format, and punctuation,
    • Fixing red links and other broken links, renamed tropes, and examples of Square Peg Round Trope.
    • Moving to a more appropriate page, either because the moment was filed under the wrong type of work or because a page dedicated to the work has or was created.
    • Removing inappropriate uses of ALLCAPS, bold, and italics,
    • Deleting links to inappropriate websites, and
    • Removing anything else that would violate website policy which Darth Wiki hasn't been given specific allowance for.
Editing for clarity is one thing, but if you change the essence of what was entered, you are vandalizing the entry of someone else and that is just as bad as, if not worse than, removing an entry without proper justification.

Calling the creators of the show "insects" and saying they need to die might be disturbing to you, but it doesn't fit any of those guidelines except maybe the last one.

The proper thing to do in this case is to simply report it. The mods will decide if it's too much.
nrjxll
12:10:25 AM 27th Aug 2015
Ah. The policy on normal pages is to remove problematic elements from an example while otherwise leaving it alone, but since I could be quite happy with the DMOS pages being cut for all I care, I admit I'm not as familiar with the rules for them.
SeptimusHeap
02:31:47 AM 27th Aug 2015
Added a link to Midna's post. And wow, is that entry hyperbolic. And a This Troper.
SolipSchism
08:05:52 AM 27th Aug 2015
wrm, I'm almost positive a phrase like "Our world has no use for your kind", at least when speaking about real people, violates site policy since it implies that the author is wishing death on whoever they are talking about. It's not a threat per se, but are we really going to draw a line between threatening someone and wishing death on them? None of it belongs on the site.
katethegr8
08:38:18 AM 27th Aug 2015
edited by katethegr8
I agree with SolipSchism.

In my opinion, that whole page needs to be looked at, because there are some entries that contain borderline personal attacks/wishing injury or death on the writers. It's kinda scary. No other DMOS page I've seen contains this much vitriol and creepiness.
Ramona122003
09:21:38 AM 27th Aug 2015
I was under the belief that even in DMOS you cannot insult the author or make personal attacks, that all criticisms are to be directed at the work in question exclusively. You can say you hate something or thought something was really stupid without telling the creators to go drop dead.
Midna
09:29:02 AM 27th Aug 2015
I commented out Young Princess Zelda's entry for "Herpes the Love Sore" for my part, because it wasn't completely unsalvageable but it did call Andrew Goldberg a dipshit.
AegisP
07:08:43 PM 27th Aug 2015
Why are you so in favor of keeping such a nasty and hateful entry wrm5
wrm5
07:42:42 PM 27th Aug 2015
Why are you assuming that I'm "so in favor" of it?

What I said was simply the truth as I saw it. It would be a mistake to confuse that for taking sides.

close replies  

TokoWH
Medium:
06:59:21 PM 27th Aug 2015
edited by TokoWH
What do we do with WMG pages that have become nothing more than a place to complain about stuff? Because from I'm reading of the Cartoon Network page, it's mostly just a bunch of nostalgic ramblings and Take Thats disguised as WMGs by those who don't like the fact their show's not on the network anymore. (Granted, I realize some of this was written during the network's massive decay, but still...)
see/hide 5 replies  
MyFinalEdits
07:22:55 AM 27th Aug 2015
You should suggest a cutlist, then.

Much like Headscratchers, WMG is meant to be for healthy fun, not ranting about trivial things.
GnomeTitan
07:51:53 AM 27th Aug 2015
Is it really appropriate to have WMG pages about creators (I assume CN counts as a creator here)?
TokoWH
08:07:04 AM 27th Aug 2015
edited by TokoWH
I would say they should only be kept if the creator block / network in question has a meta-plot going on with their bumpers like Toonami, and even then, limit all the WMGs to the meta-plot itself. I know the [adult swim] WMG page has some mild complaining in regards to Cartoon Network as well, in addition to how it's being handled itself, so...

Anyways, I added the page to the cutlist, and am thinking about doing the same for [adult swim], even though it's nowhere near extreme like the page for CN is.
MorningStar1337
03:16:11 PM 27th Aug 2015
In the case of CN and its sister networks listed in Toko's post I think part of it (at least for Toonami anyway) is speculation of what shows will air in the future. I think that aspect should be reason enough for let the pages stay (with the offensive content removed) but then again since the only point of reference I have is Toonami's page (and the guesses I refereed to concern shows that were already made/aired on the block or elsewhere), I'm gonna err on the side of caution and say cutlist the CN page.
Candi
06:59:21 PM 27th Aug 2015
Recreating a page properly is sometimes easier than trying to clean up a stable's worth of mess. The WMG page can exist, it just has to have appropriate material on it.

close replies  

eroock
Medium:
02:26:32 PM 27th Aug 2015
edited by eroock
[removed]
see/hide 0 replies  

close replies  

mlsmithca
Medium:
01:33:11 PM 27th Aug 2015
Editor rian95 has rather severe problems with English grammar. I've sent a grammar notifier, but am not sure if something further is advisable.
see/hide 1 replies  
Fighteer
11:10:05 AM 27th Aug 2015
I see it. Looks like Google Translate.

close replies  

TrevMUN
Medium:
07:48:54 AM 27th Aug 2015
edited by TrevMUN
While doing some crosswicking, I noticed that Elbruno had gone through the Mana Meter article and commented out practically half of the examples, sometimes leaving an additional comment explaining why, sometimes not.

I figured I'd repair the examples Elbruno commented out until I noticed that this was done to examples which seem perfectly valid to me as-is. For example:

  • Dragon Rage's Cael Cyndar has a real interesting one, instead of it being a actual meter his Mana is represented by a bunch of particles swirling around a gem.
  • In Star Control II, spaceships in combat have battery meters, in red; many races have a special way of filling them, from the Pkunk's psychic insults to the Druuge's sacrifice of crew members.

Is there something wrong about them that I haven't caught?
see/hide 15 replies  
Elbruno
12:28:36 PM 26th Aug 2015
I left a comment on top of the page explaining my reasoning: "Not only explain in what form the meter appears, but also what it is used for in-game."

Mana meters show up for different kinds of uses. They could be used for special attacks (magic or otherwise), a variety of support abilities, a single ability, as the source of the only means of attack, etc.

I commented those out because they explained what the meter is called or what it looks like, but not what they use the meter for. I feel that's an important bit of information that's worth adding, even if it's just a simple explanation like "used for magical attacks".
rodneyAnonymous
01:30:42 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by rodneyAnonymous
Just a disinterested third party, I agree with the OP that it was hard to figure out the reasoning behind the changes you made. Yes, the edit reason describes them in general, but the list of different reasons ("Example Indentation, Word Cruft, Not an Example, and especially Zero-Context Example") left me wondering which of those the examples in the OP were about. None, apparently. They look good. It was that they don't explain how the meter is used. Okay. It is reasonable to demand entries clear that bar. Just another voice saying that wasn't plainly obvious to me.

The answer to the question in the OP, though, is "yes".
TrevMUN
01:38:09 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by TrevMUN
Hmm. Elbruno, just to clarify, you commented those out because you were concerned the meters and systems described in those examples didn't actually involve anything befitting the trope?

If that's the case, I'm not sure going to those lengths was necessary. Trying to explain in detail how some of those work could get wordy (for example, how ships in Star Control 2 use the Battery Meter), and I noticed you commented out examples you felt were too long. Being general about what they do while specifying what they do would just result in repeating the trope's introduction, in many cases (e.g., explaining the Battery Meter in general terms would just result in saying "every attack or special ability drains the Battery Meter in some way").

I mean, if that's what the examples need, then I'll step up to bat and do it for them, it just seems superfluous to me as their presence as an example on that article implies they perform the functions as described.
GnomeTitan
01:46:40 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
I think commenting out the examples just because they weren't complete was a bit drastic. There's a reason the rule forbids Zero Context Examples, not "Insufficient Context Examples". The way I interpret the rules is that an example can be removed or commented out, if it's Not an Example or a Zero-Context Example, otherwise it should be repaired.

What would I have done in this situation? I would probably have posted in the relevant Discussion page, explaining that these examples needed some more information, and waited a while for input until I'd done anything further.

But I'm not a mod and I'm wrong just as often as I'm right, so take this with a grain of salt.
rodneyAnonymous
01:56:01 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by rodneyAnonymous
Yes, to further elaborate: "Insufficient context" is not normally a reason to comment out an example entry, so I overlooked the possibility that was Elbruno's reason.

I completely agree with the above comment and its suggested course of action.
Fighteer
02:12:13 PM 26th Aug 2015
I concur with Gnome Titan. Large-scale page actions are generally not something you want to take on without consulting anyone.
shimaspawn
05:06:08 PM 26th Aug 2015
On the other hand, we encourage people to comment out examples with partial context all the time. Especially when the only context given is a character name. Making new fuzzy lines just confuses people.
Elbruno
05:41:50 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by Elbruno
I started commenting out partial context examples after coming across with a Diablo example that was along the lines of "Diablo has the mana sphere". While not a classic ZCE, it still tells very little to the reader about the use of the trope.

While I will concede that simply commenting out all partial not-exactly-ZCE examples may have been somewhat drastic on my part, I see it as shimaspawn does, and I still stand by my initial point that they could be improved with an explanation on how these respective games actually use the mana bar.

"I mean, if that's what the examples need, then I'll step up to bat and do it for them, it just seems superfluous to me as their presence as an example on that article implies they perform the functions as described."

Isn't the point of the no ZCE rule to avoid these issues of motives and uses of a trope being "obvious" enough to figure out by virtue of a work simply being listed on the page?
TrevMUN
06:06:53 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by TrevMUN
Elbruno, with regards to what you and shimaspawn are saying in defense of commenting out these examples, they aren't a case of an asterix and a character name. I just reviewed the Administrivia page for Zero-Context Example, even—they provide far more detail than any of the common offenders listed there.

In the case of the examples I pointed out, any reader will easily understand that, by virtue of being listed as an example, the mechanic in those games do what it is the article says these sort of mechanics do. While I'm not opposed to detail, I don't think a reader necessarily needs to know everything that depletes the meter to get the gist that, hey, this is an example of a Mana Meter from a game.

From the way you admit they are "not-quite-ZCE," I'm a little worried here that Zero-Context Example is being used overzealously in the same fashion that Just A Face And A Caption has been in the past. Rather than a case of trying to cram a square peg into a round trope, it's looking to me like a case of trying to cram a square peg into round Administrivia.

As Gnome Titan said, though, I'm no mod, so I can't make that sort of call.
Elbruno
06:27:29 PM 26th Aug 2015
That's why I said I concede that I went overboard with my "purgue everything!" reaction after seeing that Diablo example. Those partial examples may have been worth bringing up in the discussion page for improvement, but outright commenting them out may have been, or outright was, too much.

And I'm not trying to make them pass off as ZCE, I'm just using the reasoning behind the rules against them as the motive why I think those examples could be improved.
Larkmarn
09:09:05 PM 26th Aug 2015
I'm actually with Elbruno on this... while those entries have more information, they lack context. They talk about the meter, but they don't explain how the meter is the trope.

To use an exaggerated example "This game has a meter that is red" is just as much a ZCE as "this game has a meter" even though it has more information
Candi
10:37:26 PM 26th Aug 2015
Needs a middle ground. The examples need to explain why it's an example of the trope, and that includes how it works. It's the difference between plugging something in to recharge it (that's just electricity) and powering up by absorbing enemy attacks, for just one example.

I think the examples need two parts: Why they are a Mana Meter, and how they work as a Mana Meter.
GnomeTitan
11:39:27 PM 26th Aug 2015
I agree that the examples seem incomplete. I just think that wholesale commenting-out without discussion is a bit too drastic (and I note that Elbruno seems to agree with that).

I'm aware that the definition of a ZCE means that it doesn't have to have literally no context, but I interpret it as meaning that they have so little context that they don't add any information to somebody who isn't familiar with the work. Hence it's no loss to comment them out. The examples here don't seem to fit that definition, though.
crazysamaritan
07:33:10 AM 27th Aug 2015
Based on those examples, I cannot tell if the Dragon Rage or Star Control II meters are for "mana", "hit points", or "score". Examples are supposed to be written as if the person reading them is not familiar with the trope or the work.
GnomeTitan
07:48:54 AM 27th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
I think we can all agree that those examples are incomplete and require more information. If we really need to discuss that point further, perhaps there's a better forum than ATT?

close replies  

MarqFJA
Medium:
05:20:50 AM 27th Aug 2015
edited by MarqFJA
Am I the only one who thinks Scar Survey and Every Scar Has A Story overlap too much to be distinct tropes? I should note that their YKTTWs were submitted and launched with only about a month between them, and the later draft (which is Every Scar Has A Story's) doesn't reference the earlier trope, so it may be that the one who wrote Every Scar Has A Story wasn't aware of Scar Survey.

... Besides, when I read the name "Scar Survey", I thought it was about the viewpoint camera lingering over the scar(s) in question when they're first revealed or focused upon, which often gets followed by the viewing character asking the scarred one about said scars, or the latter correctly or incorrectly guessing that the former is about to ask that question and preemptively answer it.

PS: This is just to confirm whether or not I'm mistaken about my assumptions. If it turns out that I am indeed right, then I'll proceed to either making an appropiate TRS thread or putting it on my to-do list if the TRS is full.
see/hide 0 replies  

close replies  

Loekman3
Medium:
12:14:54 AM 27th Aug 2015
Well, I originally wanted to create new Self Demonstrating pages for both Finn and Jake but after Fighteer [PMed] me on the issues regarding those two girls (Subjective shipping and grammar issues) I decided to go back to my created character pages to revise them.

What I am asking is that should I tweak them to make any hints of Bubbline as minimum as possible, should I polish them to make it a better quality, or should I delete them? And what should I do about my other three character pages?
see/hide 12 replies  
wrm5
06:52:08 PM 25th Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
What you should do is make sure that you're doing quality work, instead of just pumping out pages left and right.

Make sure that whatever you put up is canon. (Bubblegum/Marceline is not canon.)

Make sure you're using proper spelling and grammar.

Make sure you're making something interesting and fun, not just copy-pasting their character sheet but with the word "I" instead of "he" or "she."
lexicon
07:12:10 PM 25th Aug 2015
If you mean delete the text then absolutely don't do that. They might have to go on the Cut List. When you reference pages please say what they are instead of sinkholeing them in 'two' 'girls' 'my' 'other' and 'three'. Besides that I second everything wrm5 said, only use canon, use proper writing, and be self demonstrating.
Loekman3
12:19:27 AM 26th Aug 2015
Got it then. And one more thing, is Hulk allowed to smash people who are not in a self demonstrating entry? Cause I sorta added both the Toddler Titans(The "Teen Titans" from Teen Titans Go! and Plain Girl(Bella Swann from Twilight) as one of the characters Hulk will smash.
wrm5
01:01:44 AM 26th Aug 2015
That entry on SelfDemonstrating.Hulk seems abnormally eloquent for the Hulk... I think you should think more about how the characters talk and what sort of things they would say.
SeptimusHeap
01:11:35 AM 26th Aug 2015
As a general rule, if the speech style of the characters is not unique or interesting, it does not merit a Self Demonstrating page.
GnomeTitan
01:23:35 AM 26th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
What Septimus said. The only point of having a Self Demonstrating character page is that the character would describe themselves in a more amusing manner than you would when writing as yourself. Usually this is because they have a very special way of expressing themselves. It could also be because they have a unique outlook on the world.

This means that such pages are difficult to write, because you really have to capture how the character speaks, writes and thinks. Don't attempt it unless you're sure you can carry it off.
Larkmarn
05:20:49 AM 26th Aug 2015
^^ That. The first thing to do is decide if the character merits a Self Demonstrating page. Now, that isn't asking if the character is popular or interesting enough, it's asking if a page from their POV is sufficiently unique for whatever reason, be it a verbal tic, an odd outlook (characters with No Fourth Wall are among the best candidates for an SD page), or something unique to how they speak to put the page in their voice.

If it's just a character sheet that happens to be in first person, then it's not worthwhile.
phoenix
07:13:51 AM 26th Aug 2015
edited by phoenix
So, essentially, a Self Demonstrating character page should only be made for a character who has something to actually demonstrate.

Maybe we need some sort of system to ensure that these pages are of decent quality, like making them go through YKTTW or a dedicated thread or something.
GnomeTitan
07:18:12 AM 26th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
And it's not just the fact that a SDCP (self-demonstrating character page) for a character that has nothing to demonstrate will be rather dull and pointless.

What's worse is that a badly-made SDCP will actually defeat its own purpose and misrepresent the character - for example, if we have an SDCP for a character who is a stickler for grammar and talks like a book, but the page displays bad grammar, misspellings and colloquialisms.
SeptimusHeap
10:02:33 AM 26th Aug 2015
^^I am raising such pages in the YKTTW Crash Rescue now.
Candi
10:46:55 PM 26th Aug 2015
There was also a discussion a bit back about making SDCPs for characters with limited verbal language. The thread was specifically about Pokemon, but the principle applies to other characters, such as Hordor and Groot.

It boiled down to 'don't do that'. A page of repetitive sounds effects is neither amusing or interesting.
bwburke94
12:14:54 AM 27th Aug 2015
^ Which kind of sucks, because my Denning page made it onto Funny.TV Tropes!

But it wasn't really much of a loss.

close replies  

StFan
Medium: Anime
10:32:38 PM 26th Aug 2015
I'm pondering about which title is the correct one for the page that is currently under Anime.Arrietty.

The original Japanese title is Kari-gurashi no Arietti. The page presents The Borrower Arrietty as a direct translation, and points out that Arrietty is the title for the UK and Australian distribution, and The Secret World of Arrietty the title for the US (which is also a different dub).

All three titles are in English (and the other two are currently redirects), so I wonder which one should be given priority. (Just for the record, Wikipedia currently uses Arrietty too.)
see/hide 9 replies  
jamespolk
06:01:56 PM 25th Aug 2015
Since there is no single official English title, apparently, I'd say whoever gets there first. Which I guess would be whoever created the page as Arrietty.
crazysamaritan
06:11:47 PM 25th Aug 2015
The rule is, "most recent translation wins".
RoseAndHeather
06:36:10 PM 25th Aug 2015
Well that's a stupid rule, because then we have to change the page every time a new translation comes out. What's the point of that?
bwburke94
08:44:58 PM 25th Aug 2015
Even though the US translation technically came out after the UK translation, the gap between the two is short enough that there is no single most recent translation; they were likely both in production at the same time.

I'd keep the page where it is.
crazysamaritan
04:05:16 AM 26th Aug 2015
^^ It fixes pages like Lupin III from being named Rupan III.
StFan
04:43:44 AM 26th Aug 2015
Yeah, that's why I thought. I hesitated doing any move on my own when I first saw the page, and I see there're good arguments to keep it under the current title.
jamespolk
05:29:44 PM 26th Aug 2015
"Even though the US translation technically came out after the UK translation"

What? Is there a difference in the script between the American and British dubs? Because otherwise it's the same translation, both being in English.
sgamer82
09:13:16 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by sgamer82
I'm not familiar with the work but my understanding is that the issue is more with the title, which is different between the US & UK releases.

BTW, is there an administravia page that explains that "most recent" rule? I do Japanese-to-English migrations as a pet project on the wiki and would like to have it for reference. How to Create a Works Page states use the official English if there is one but makes no mention of what to do when there are conflicting English titles
Candi
10:32:38 PM 26th Aug 2015
The 'most recent' thing was mentioned here by one of the mods within the last couple weeks (either Septimus or Fighteer, I think). I always thought it was first translated title wins, but apparently I was wrong. (shrug)

close replies  

TobiasDrake
Medium:
04:56:17 PM 26th Aug 2015
Episode titles are to be surrounded by quote brackets, but I'm not clear on how this interacts with punctuation. Standard sentence structure puts punctuation inside the quotes, and I want to double-check to see if that's how we're supposed to be doing it on the wiki. Which is correct?

  • In "The Episode Where Stuff Happens," stuff happens.
  • In "The Episode Where Stuff Happens", stuff happens.
see/hide 19 replies  
Discar
01:13:40 PM 24th Aug 2015
That's an American vs British thing (first is American, second is British). See American and Commonwealth Spellings. Short version: First one to get there wins.
Fighteer
02:10:59 PM 24th Aug 2015
Incorrect. Trailing punctuation goes outside the double quotes when you are not directly quoting dialogue in American English. That or I was taught wrong.
KorKhan
03:01:07 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by KorKhan
This website reckons it's an American vs Commonwealth thing, and that commas and periods (full stops) almost always go inside quotation marks according to the American system. A relic of 19th century typesetting, apparently.
Micah
03:11:57 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Micah
The Chicago Manual of Style says periods and commas always go inside quotes, while other punctuation goes outside when it's logical. The only exception given is if you're writing about computers and describing a specific string to be typed (in which case you should be logical no matter what).

This is referring specifically to the American style; it sends readers to the Oxford Style Manual if they want to follow the Commonwealth style instead.
MrL1193
03:19:17 PM 24th Aug 2015
As an American, I was taught that punctuation like question marks and exclamation points can go inside or outside depending on whether or not they're part of the quote itself. Commas and periods, however, go inside no matter what, and it's there that the rules differ between American and Commonwealth English.
bwburke94
07:58:26 PM 24th Aug 2015
I'm American and I use outside punctuation for commas.

There is no one "American English" rule for inside/outside punctuation, regardless of what Chicago says.
Candi
08:10:52 PM 24th Aug 2015
The problem is that the American English rule applies to conversation, not episode title formatting. When it comes to episode title formatting, the comma should be outside the quotation marks, since the quotes are part of the episode title.
Micah
11:46:18 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Micah
...no it doesn't. You might think it would make more sense if it did, but that's not what the stylebooks say. Chicago specifically has this example sentence when talking about title formatting:

  • Three stories she never mentioned were "Are You a Doctor?," "The Library of Babel," and "Diamond as Big as the Ritz."

Note the commas/periods inside the quotes, as well as the question-mark/comma combo for "Are You a Doctor?"

I mean, we certainly could choose to adopt a nonstandard punctuation convention, or go totally British, and the world wouldn't end or anything. But make no mistake — any time you're putting a comma or period outside a quotation mark, that's what you're doing.
bwburke94
04:35:56 AM 25th Aug 2015
This wiki doesn't confine itself to any one national variety of English.

Editors should just use whatever format they prefer, and in the vast majority of cases it will be fine.
homogenized
10:00:54 AM 25th Aug 2015
Is it frowned upon to edit a page solely to make the quotation marks conform to whatever style you think is correct? Because I've seen it done a few times. Well, I guess reverting it would be pointless either way.
KorKhan
10:18:50 AM 25th Aug 2015
It falls under the rules for American and Commonwealth Spellings, so yes, that would be frowned upon. Although some of those people may be editing in good faith, correcting what they mistakenly believe to be poor grammar or typos.
jamespolk
06:08:49 PM 25th Aug 2015
I'm an American and this

"Stuff Happens,"

has never looked right to me. Is the punctuation mark part of the title? No.
crazysamaritan
06:09:32 PM 25th Aug 2015
edited by crazysamaritan
In which case, PM them, link the grammar rules, and leave it alone otherwise. :-)
randomsurfer
08:03:47 AM 26th Aug 2015
^^I'm an American and this

"Stuff Happens",

has never looked right to me. So there you go.
Larkmarn
08:16:00 AM 26th Aug 2015
^ Ditto.
homogenized
10:09:17 AM 26th Aug 2015
I'll throw in my two and two thirds cents and say that neither looks right to this Canadian, but that's the limits of non-handwritten text for you. Can't expect to make interobang style punctuation for all combinations of "top oriented" and "bottom oriented" marks after all.
mlsmithca
04:03:54 PM 26th Aug 2015
I divided my childhood between the United States and the United Kingdom, and

In the episode "Stuff Happens," stuff happens.

has never looked right to me either, especially for punctuation marks other than a comma or full stop, or if the title already ends in a punctuation mark, so I absolutely disagree with the Chicago manual on the latter point.note  For dialogue,

"Stuff happens," said Bob.

does look right, though.
MrL1193
04:30:01 PM 26th Aug 2015
All this talk about what "looks right" is besides the point. The point is that there are established standards in different parts of the world for both "Commas and periods go inside no matter what" and "It depends on the context." Therefore, under the rules listed on American and Commonwealth Spellings, you can use whichever style you prefer, regardless of where you live, but you're also supposed to leave other people's writing alone when they use the other style.
shimaspawn
04:56:17 PM 26th Aug 2015
So long story short, they're both right. Just write as you were taught.

close replies  

GnomeTitan
Medium:
01:09:29 PM 26th Aug 2015
I've noticed that when some tropers write about what a character in a TV show does, they don't use the name of the character, but the name of the actor. For example, if they write an example for Charlie's Angels they'll write something like:

  • Trope: In one episode, Farrah does this.

instead of

  • Trope: In one episode, Jill does this.

I assume this is not desirable. After all, Farrah Fawcett wasn't playing herself, she was playing the fictional character Jill Munroe.

Is it OK to change such usage on sight, or does it require discussion first?

see/hide 13 replies  
wrm5
01:33:11 AM 26th Aug 2015
I'd go ahead and change it.
Irene
01:35:26 AM 26th Aug 2015
There's absolutely no reason we should note the actor unless they're specifically relevant, which should be in Trivia at most. We're troping the character and their actions in the particular work, after all.
SeptimusHeap
02:12:29 AM 26th Aug 2015
Nope. Character names, please.
bwburke94
03:30:35 AM 26th Aug 2015
In a nutshell: don't reference the actor in the example unless the actor is relevant to the example in a way their character is not. So unless the trope is something like Actor Allusion, it's a no-go.
StFan
04:47:47 AM 26th Aug 2015
When I started troping on the wiki years ago, that was one of the things that annoyed me the most, so much I made an entry on How Not To Write An Example about it.

That was especially bad with some iconic actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger; from many of the examples you'd think the guy is a mass-murderer.
Larkmarn
06:54:18 AM 26th Aug 2015
Yeah, I've done it myself especially in films where a famous actor's character's name is sorta forgettable, but I at least always say "Arnold's character..." rather than say he does it himself.
GnomeTitan
07:14:30 AM 26th Aug 2015
I think it can be justified to mention the actor's name if the work or the part are not well known, but the character's name should still be mentioned:

"In this Schwartzenegger movie, Arnold's character, Bob, does this", or "Bob (played by Arnold Schwartzenegger) does this".

Fighteer
07:24:02 AM 26th Aug 2015
That assumes standards of notability, and reads like an advertisement. "Look, Brad Pitt was in this film!"
GnomeTitan
08:48:39 AM 26th Aug 2015
That's true, but the reason I don't mind it is that it helps identify the work. If you just see the name of the movie and the character's name, you may not be able to identify it, but if you also see Brad Pitt's name, you go "Oh, it's that movie where Brad Pitt plays an orthodontist".
SolipSchism
12:12:02 PM 26th Aug 2015
If a reader needs to know the cast listing for a movie, they should go to Wikipedia, or better, IMDB. We're here to document tropes in stories, that's it. Short of trivia, there is literally no reason you would ever need to know anything about the actors in a work in order to trope it. We're not here to help you "identify" works. presumably, if you're reading the page, you've already identified it, which is how you found the page.
Fighteer
12:33:45 PM 26th Aug 2015
Or you can pop over to You Know That Show. You can also go to the article on Brad Pitt and check its related links.
GnomeTitan
01:06:23 PM 26th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
I get it, and I see why it's not a good thing. I was just arguing that there is at least some justification for the practice (in which, for the record, I don't indulge myself).

^^SolipSchism: it's no problem if I'm reading the work page, because it should describe the movie, mention actors, anyway. I agree that there's absolutely no need to mention actor names in the trope list on a work page. I was referring to the case where you're seeing a work mentioned on a trope page. (This is just to explain what I meant - I'm not trying to argue anything anymore.)

^Fighteer: Or I could just click on the link to the work page (which is, of course, what I usually do).
rodneyAnonymous
01:09:29 PM 26th Aug 2015
"Bob jumped over the lazy dog" > "Bob, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, jumped over the lazy dog" >> "Arnold Schwarzenegger's character, Bob, jumped over the lazy dog" > "Arnold Schwarzenegger jumped over the lazy dog"

close replies  

lalalei2001
Medium:
05:53:16 AM 26th Aug 2015
see/hide 21 replies  
SatoshiBakura
08:02:59 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Is this worth putting on Funny.TV Tropes? Cause I mean...just what the hell?
sgamer82
08:03:09 PM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by sgamer82
Except for "PM" and "Suspend", as starters. Oh, and Cut List.
wrm5
08:50:49 PM 23rd Aug 2015
It's not THAT bad... looks like someone who seriously does not get how new page creation works.
Zyffyr
11:27:33 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Oh, it IS that bad.. the description has major grammatical problems, there are no examples, the bad namespacing, what I assume is an awful attempt at indexing.
SeptimusHeap
01:54:25 AM 24th Aug 2015
I've cutlisted the page and messaged the account. If someone wants to talk about them for grammar, sure.
DracMonster
07:05:54 AM 24th Aug 2015
Aw, now I wanna see what I missed!
SatoshiBakura
07:23:26 AM 24th Aug 2015
^ Read what is so funny about it on Funny.TV Tropes. I made an entry for her there.
Rjinswand
08:03:33 AM 24th Aug 2015
Oh come on you guys. It was the Mona Lisa of TV Tropes, and you deleted it. Well, maybe more like LHOOQ than Mona Lisa, but still...
Adept
11:22:21 PM 24th Aug 2015
^^ Actually the SuperButterBun Youtube channel does exist, so it's not just something some random troper dreamed up of (assuming that the creator herself made that page).
wrm5
11:47:46 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
Oh, I see. So the mods DO allow Peanut Gallery-ing, it just has to be confined to Funny.TV Tropes. :p
bwburke94
04:33:54 AM 25th Aug 2015
There is no such thing as notability, so if anyone actually wants to take on making a page for SBB...
DracMonster
07:43:19 AM 25th Aug 2015
Has this person created an actual video? There really needs to be some media associated with them first. Creating a page just to mock them would really not be kosher.
bwburke94
09:17:05 AM 25th Aug 2015
^ Hence why Chris-chan is still on PRLC?
jamespolk
06:09:50 PM 25th Aug 2015
I read something like this, and I think that there really should be such a thing as notability.

But that article as created was pretty awesome.
wrm5
06:49:53 PM 25th Aug 2015
There's no such thing as notability, but there IS such a thing as "existence."
Adept
08:10:14 PM 25th Aug 2015
@DracMonster: As I've said earlier, the channel does exist [1]. It's rather new, but at least the (now deleted) page wasn't created out of someone's acid fantasy.
jamespolk
08:40:42 PM 25th Aug 2015
The thing is, though, that There Is No Such Thing as Notability leads to gibberish articles like the one that inspired this comment thread.
wrm5
09:35:41 PM 25th Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
Poorly made gibberish pages with terrible grammar will still get made regardless. Just look at what happened here a little while ago. That wasn't caused by There Is No Such Thing as Notability, it was caused by stupid people being stupid.

What the There Is No Such Thing as Notability rule does is it allows underappreciated works that really Need More Love to be seen. It also prevents the wiki from getting bogged down in wikipedia-style bureaucratic bullhockey. As it says on the main page, We Are Not Wikipedia, let's keep it that way.
GnomeTitan
03:00:04 AM 26th Aug 2015
Indeed. The fact that the article is poorly written gibberish has nothing to do with the notability of the subject, and everything to do with the person writing it.
Fighteer
05:10:28 AM 26th Aug 2015
edited by Fighteer
Let's put it this way: we don't allow articles to be made purely for self-promotion, and the only reasons anyone other than a YouTube channel's creator is going to make a work article on TV Tropes for it are (a) to mock it, (b) because it has actual content that people are interested in.

That latter is TV Tropes' "notability" standard — people (other than the author) are interested enough in something to create an article for it, and that article is interesting to read.
SatoshiBakura
05:53:16 AM 26th Aug 2015
^ Also, you need to make sure it has a certain number of tropes. After all, we are called TV Tropes.

close replies  

DAN004
Medium:
05:13:05 AM 26th Aug 2015
How can I know when a trope page was first made? I'm talking about older ones, not new ones (that can be checked in Launches)
see/hide 5 replies  
wrm5
01:02:10 AM 26th Aug 2015
AFAIK you can't.
SeptimusHeap
01:10:02 AM 26th Aug 2015
The page creation date is visible to moderators; you can ask us.
DAN004
04:53:06 AM 26th Aug 2015
Okay, I want to know when Deconstructed Character Archetype was made.
Fighteer
05:11:19 AM 26th Aug 2015
May 12, 2014 according to the info box.
DracMonster
05:13:05 AM 26th Aug 2015
If it has a YKTTW attached (on the discussion tab) you can usually get a fairly close estimate from that, too.

close replies  

bwburke94
Medium:
03:45:22 AM 26th Aug 2015
Why is The World Cup an index???
see/hide 0 replies  

close replies  

Ramona122003
Medium:
11:53:02 PM 25th Aug 2015
Hello, me and another troper I having a disagreement on Dragon Ball Super.

I wrote these entries about a week ago under Too Dumb to Live:
  • Despite all the warnings King Kai gave, Goku had to fight Beerus and even starts the fight as a normal Super Saiyan thinking that would be enough.
  • Just like the movie, Buu had to eat all of the pudding. He even goes the extra mile and attacks Beerus. Granted, he doesn't know that Beerus is a god and a very powerful one, but it is still a jerk move on Buu's part.

Ispotaflaw erase these without an edit reason, so I put it back saying that no reason was given. They erased it again under the reason that it did not fit the trope description. They later re-added it under Idiot Ball.

To my understanding Idiot Ball is when a character does something uncharacteristic stupid for them in order to move the plot. Both actions done by the characters in these examples are within character for them.

So, which one of us is right or should the entries be completely erase?
see/hide 20 replies  
wrm5
04:33:53 PM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
It doesn't belong under either.

Too Dumb to Live is a Death Trope. It ONLY applies if a character dies or suffers a Fate Worse Than Death as a result of their actions.

EDIT: Or at the very least, that they SHOULD HAVE DIED as a result of their actions, but were saved at the last minute by Deus ex Machina. Then it's Subverted Too Dumb to Live.

Idiot Ball is, as you described, when a character does something uncharacteristically stupid in order to advance the plot.
Ramona122003
04:55:12 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Well, in Goku's case he did nearly died but he was healed. Buu only lived because he can regenerate from almost anything. Under normal conditions, they both would be dead.
wrm5
05:03:42 PM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
Except not.

"Normal conditions" does not mean "what would happen to you, Average Joe Human".

It means what would happen to the characters.

Goku nearly dying happens so often it is normal conditions, and like you said Buu can regenerate from almost anything.

And when I say "should have died" I don't mean "it could have happened, maybe". I mean that there is absolutely no logical way that they could possibly have lived except pure, unadulterated, Deus ex Machina.

So no, it REALLY doesn't count.
Ramona122003
05:13:26 PM 23rd Aug 2015
just because Goku nearly dies often shouldn't discount an example, especially since he was the aggressive when Beerus wasn't even doing anything and he was warn several times why this was a bad idea.

I do agree about Buu since he didn't know about Beerus, but he kept up the same action in the next episode despite what happened and only live because someone had to save him.
wrm5
05:40:46 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Well, I can only speak for the movie, not the series.

Maybe someone else will chime in?
DracMonster
05:47:13 PM 23rd Aug 2015
In my opinion it doesn't count as Idiot Ball because throughout the series, Goku systematically ignores people telling him "No! You mustn't fight HIM! He's invincible!"... and beats them, of course.

Ignoring this sort of advice is not uncharacteristically stupid for Goku — in fact, it would be out of place if he actually listened to it.
Ramona122003
08:14:23 PM 23rd Aug 2015
I think we can all agree that Idiot Ball isn't the right trope. I think the main issue is if Too Dumb to Live is. It seems the primary requirement for Too Dumb to Live is that Goku or Buu should have died by their actions. My argument is that they would have died if they didn't received help or they weren't extremely tough.
wrm5
08:48:08 PM 23rd Aug 2015
The thing is, with a trope like this, I think we need to be a lot more discerning lest we open the door for a whole lot of misuse and shoehorning. Too Dumb to Live IS a Death Trope, and while it can be subverted by having the character live, I think that should only count in EXTREME cases.

Sure, if Buu wasn't a Person of Mass Destruction who can regenerate from even LESS than a single cell, and if Goku wasn't a planet-busting super-saiyan, and if death actually mattered at all in Dragonball, and if pigs could fly, then maybe their actions might have made them Too Dumb to Live...

But if we allow that, then we also have to say that Luke Skywalker was Too Dumb to Live for trying to blow up the Death Star in an X-Wing because he might have been screwed if he wasn't a jedi... and basically every other character who has ever gone up against difficult odds and lived.

Also, come to think of it, does Buu really count? Buu was a jerk, but IIRC, I don't think he KNEW Beerus was the unstoppable god of destruction at the time. As far as Buu knows, HE'S the most powerful being in the universe. So while picking a fight with Beerus is a stupid move to the audience, it wouldn't be so stupid to him.
crazysamaritan
08:59:18 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Not "should have" — it is for characters that die from stupidity. The only thing that might allow for characters who survive to count is when Bad Writing is involved.

You're saying that Goku trying to fight someone more powerful than himself (a saijin drive) is inconsistent with Goku's character?

You're saying that Buu's regeneration, established as a villain trait since the Cell Games, is inconsistent with Buu's powerset?
Ramona122003
09:33:50 PM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by Ramona122003
Going on a mission with a high chance of death isn't Too Dumb to Live though, so that Luke Skywalker example really doesn't make sense. As I said, Goku was the aggressor. Beerus wasn't looking to fight him and was about to leave. Beerus also didn't want to fight Buu, he just want pudding. In both cases, the situation was completely avoidable and nearly got them both killed. I also don't see how having an easy access reset button in the Dragon Balls discount any act of stupidity that can lead to death. The trope doesn't say, death needs to be permeant.

As for Buu, he knows that there are several people stronger than him and acts respectful towards them. I already said that Buu eating the pudding and challenging Beerus isn't in itself Too Dumb to Live since he didn't now how powerful Beerus was. It should count, however, since he kept trying to fight Beerus despite being hammered over and over again, nearly dying each time.

For example of something with a high chance to death and stupidity, if you walk in the middle of a gun fight when everyone tells you to stand back, get shot up, but live because the bullets happen to not hit any vital areas, that should still count as too dumb to live since you're only alive because you were lucky.

And no, I am saying both Buu and Goku are in character, which is why it is not an example of Idiot Ball. I am saying there are examples of Too Dumb to Live because Goku was warned several times not to mess with Beerus and Beerus wasn't looking for a fight, but Goku insisted that they have a match and started the battle at his lowest level to boot. Buu kept fighting Beerus after he established that he was much stronger.
wrm5
09:15:35 AM 24th Aug 2015
Unless they changed it from the movie, Beerus WAS looking for a fight. I haven't seen DB Super yet, but in the movie, the entire reason he woke up early and came to Earth was because of a premonition he had about a Super Saiyan God who could give him a worthy challenge.
Ramona122003
05:01:46 PM 24th Aug 2015
Actually, when he was on King Kai's planet, he wasn't looking for a fight. The moment he found out Goku knew nothing about a Super Saiyan God he was ready to leave. Goku stopped him in both the movie and Super. On Earth, he was still looking, but was enjoying the party. He was even about to leave, saying he was mistaken about the Super Saiyan God. Then the pudding incident happened.

Yeah, Beerus was looking for a fight, but against a particular opponent. He wasn't just randomly attacking people.
TobiasDrake
05:25:47 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by TobiasDrake
I'm adding my voice to say it doesn't count, and I have seen both Battle of Gods and Dragon Ball Super. Goku picked the fight on Kaio-sama's planet despite the urgings of Kaio-sama not to, but this is hardly the first time Goku's been warned against this sort of behavior.

Beerus could have killed him, Beerus didn't. Beerus could have annihilated him by flexing too hard, but he instead opted to deal just enough damage that Goku could survive. Thus, this does not even count as a subversion. Goku is not Too Dumb to Live, merely Too Dumb To Not Be Knocked Unconscious, and that's not a trope.

If you want an example of a subversion of Too Dumb to Live, Goku's fight with Frieza is perfect. Goku is repeatedly warned against fighting Frieza but shirks the warnings and does so anyway. The inevitable outcome almost ensues; a prolonged battle allows Goku to fire off every gun in Chekhov's Armory and each one fails until finally, Goku is at the end of his rope. His last hurrah, the Genki-Dama, has failed. He has nothing left and Frieza's about to kill him.

Then an Eleventh Hour Superpower suddenly amps up his power level and he's able to effortlessly make short work of Frieza. He had no way of accounting for the Super Saiyan transformation and didn't even know such a thing existed prior to the start of the battle. After spending so long firmly establishing that Frieza is insurmountable and that Goku's death is the only possible outcome, the trope suddenly does not happen at the very last second.

Meanwhile, an example played completely straight is Vegeta versus Frieza. After spending the entire arc alluding to the fact that Vegeta is outright terrified of Frieza and trying to achieve immortality because it's the only way he could ever stand a chance of beating him, Vegeta grabs the Idiot Ball once Frieza shows up in person, openly mocking him and daring him to transform and "Show us your TRUE power!"

Frieza promptly transforms, kicking off the battle. When he reaches his final form, he takes Vegeta up on his offer and shows some of his true power, killing Vegeta in the process.

With Beerus, there was no, "Suddenly, it doesn't happen." Beerus didn't kill Goku because he just didn't.
Larkmarn
05:40:03 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by Larkmarn
I'm going to go ahead and say Goku vs. Freiza isn't an example of Too Dumb to Live, subverted or otherwise because Goku really had no other choice. His options there were "fight Frieza and probably lose" or "let Frieza win, become immortal, and terrorize the galaxy forever. Oh, and you and your friends will probably die anyway."

Just because Goku's death is likely doesn't make it a dumb decision. It's the only decision.

Better example of a subverted Goku Too Dumb to Live is his toying with Frieza. Rather than just kill Frieza quickly and immediately, he toys with him, and even gives Frieza some of his energy. The reason this is so dumb is that the planet is blowing up and he's wasting precious time he could spend trying to find a way off. But he doesn't, and almost dies, until one of Frieza's ships just happens to appear and he gets in.
KingZeal
09:50:27 AM 25th Aug 2015
I'd also like to mention that in Japanese shonen works, rushing headlong into danger with no thought for the consequences is a very archaic bushido principle. Japanese characters act with no thought for consequences (especially when it's merely their own death) because it's considered virtuous and heroic to do so.

There are actually terms for this called "dokishugi" (the principle of heart) versus "kekkashugi" (the principle of results/consequences), which is an extremely common theme in Japanese media.
Ramona122003
09:55:43 AM 25th Aug 2015
I think we got off topic.

I will say that the examples I posted aren't' Too Dumb to Live on the grounds that no one died. Although, I still say it should count because they would have died if Beerus wasn't so merciful and the situation was something they created themselves, so completely avoidable. But, I don't want this conversation to continue.

As for the Frieza fight, they really had no choice but to fight him. After Frieza found them after the Namekian dragon died, there was no escaping. The only person who could have avoided the whole thing is Piccolo who wished to be brought to Namek to fight Frieza. It's even more dumb/selfish on his part since his life is tied to the Earth's Dragon Balls, meaning if he died then Krillin and Gohan went through all that crap for nothing. And Vegeta didn't grab the Idiot Ball since him daring Frieza to show his true power is perfectly within his character and he honestly didn't think Frieza would become that much more powerful and that he had three transformations.

I do agree that Goku prolonging his fight with Frieza did boarder on Too Dumb to Live, but Goku wasn't in his right mind either. By the end of the fight, both Frieza and Goku had Sanity Slippage.
KingZeal
10:14:15 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by KingZeal
Again, you're thinking of this from the perspective of a culture that cares about outcome first and foremost. Dragon Ball, like most Shonen, doesn't work by that logic. The characters' priorities isn't to stay safe, or to survive, or even to win.

With the exception of Krillin and non-warriors (like Gohan—but even he goes back and forth with it), their priorities are to face the strongest opponent possible and put forth their absolute best effort. The other things are all secondary to that.

Thus, I can't really call anyone in that series "Too Dumb To Live" because their actions went along with their goal (again, to fight the strongest opponent and put forth their best effort). To me, qualifying for this trope would require that staying alive would be a higher priority—which it isn't.
Ramona122003
05:27:11 PM 25th Aug 2015
No offense, but I don't remember tropes being limited to culture. That is Value Dissonance anyway.
KingZeal
07:42:32 PM 25th Aug 2015
edited by KingZeal
My point isn't that it's related to culture. I'm arguing that it's only "dumb" if they did something which has no logical purpose. For example, the page image of a woman running toward danger, despite the fact that she clearly is trying to escape danger. It serves no logical purpose and goes against the character's motives.

In this case, it fits completely into the character's motives. They don't just want to win...they don't just want to fight...they want a specific type of fight. The first sentence of the trope is "The character who puts life and limb at risk by doing things that no sane human being would do." and further down the line says: "If the character's actions are motivated by romantic feelings, be extra careful when labeling a work with this trope."

In other words, a character whose priority is something deliberately unreasonable may not qualify for this trope.

Let's put it this way: for this instance to qualify, almost every single example of This Is Something He's Got to Do Himself, Leave Him to Me, and Let's Fight Like Gentlemen (that has higher stakes than mere competition) counts for this trope. Goku's entire personality is that he doesn't really care about an opponent vastly outmatching him. Most of the Z-Fighters are the same, when they're still actively competing. When they Can't Catch Up is when most of them start thinking about survival.
Ramona122003
11:53:02 PM 25th Aug 2015
We both agree it fit with both characters, which is why it isn't Idiot Ball. However, it is dumb since the situation was avoidable, Beerus wasn't looking for a fight, there was absolutely no reason for either to put their lives at risk, ect. And what you state is culture.

But as I said, this is off-topic and the original matter is close.

close replies  

MarqFJA
Medium:
10:48:37 PM 25th Aug 2015
edited by MarqFJA
Does Competent Army seem like a good, less Trope Namer-dependent redirect to Men of Sherwood, which is essentially described as standing at the midpoint between Redshirt Army and Badass Army (competent enough to not be redshirts, but not enough to be totally badass)?
see/hide 8 replies  
bwburke94
09:39:34 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Yes, it seems good.
gallium
10:07:09 PM 23rd Aug 2015
So wait, this trope is "an army that isn't particularly awesome but also is not terrible", or something? In other words, an average "competent" army?

How is that not People Sit on Chairs?
MorningStar1337
11:25:18 PM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
Yeah it seems to me that it would get sent to the cut list, Redshirt Army is tropeworthy because They so Bad that they would get decimated if the opponents looked at the funny, Badass Army is notable for the being the reverse, being able to Curbstomp any other army just by looking at them funny.

A So Okay, It's Average army is well, Chairs
GnomeTitan
01:16:26 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
No, it would not be a good redirect.

The trope description for Men of Sherwood explicitly says that it's not an army. The trope seems to be about a small, informal force of people who are reasonably competent. A Competent Army would be a large, formally organized force of reasonably competent people, which is something different.

Men of Sherwood is, again according to the trope description, the "average" counterpart to Badass Crew, not to Badass Army.

I think Men of Sherwood may be tropable precisely because of this, but it's a bit in chairs territory anyway. If anybody feels strongly about it, they should open a TRS thread (yes, I know, TRS doesn't accept new threads right now because of the backlog, but it can wait).

EDITED: Now I see that the trope description also says that it's the competent converse of a Red Shirt Army. The trope description seems to contradict itself.
DAN004
01:31:24 AM 24th Aug 2015
TRS plz.
GnomeTitan
01:38:31 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
Discussion of a proposed redirect does not belong in TRS. Discussing what needs to be done about Men of Sherwood does - as I wrote above, the trope description is self-contradictory, and others are questioning whether it's tropable or PSOC. I don't really feel strongly enough about the issue to open a TRS thread, though.
SeptimusHeap
01:49:32 AM 24th Aug 2015
TRS is closed now, so it'd be a case for your To-Do list instead. That redirect is not good but we do have a redirect discussion thread.
MarqFJA
10:48:37 PM 25th Aug 2015
Oh. I didn't know about that thread. Cool.

close replies  

lexicon
Medium:
04:09:55 PM 25th Aug 2015
I found this latest edit on Princess Bubblegum strange. It was changed from, "That's right, we're in a lesbian relationship, something that will never be shown in the cartoon because it's a cartoon for children," to "That's right, we're in a lesbian relationship, something that will never be shown in the cartoon because then it wouldn't be allowed in less progressive countries," because "How about going for the actual reason instead of acting like kids can't deal with two girls together."

If it will never shown in the cartoon then where did this come from? Wouldn't the more simplistic way it was written fit better?
see/hide 15 replies  
sgamer82
09:44:25 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by sgamer82
It's nattery in any case and also a case of a self demonstrating article referring to real world stuff which, while I'm not sure if it's kosher, doesn't sit right with me. Honestly, i think both versions of that note are unnecessary natter
wrm5
11:45:32 PM 24th Aug 2015
Except that's NOT the "actual reason," unless this person is aware of some magical land far over the rainbow where they have blatant sexuality of any sort in their kids' shows.

Also, TV Tropes has no intention of making itself a battlefield for social justice warriors. That too.
MrL1193
11:47:37 PM 24th Aug 2015
I'm not familiar with the show, so I have to ask...Is this character supposed to have horrid grammar? I'm seeing all sorts of errors (such as "We used to in a relationship"), and it's enough to be distracting.

Oh, and the tone of the note doesn't sit well with me in either version, to be honest.
wrm5
11:50:18 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
^ No, she doesn't. I've only seen maybe half of the first season, but from what I've seen Princess Bubblegum is a Science Hero with impeccable grammar as would be expected of that trope. The bad grammar is all just bad tropers.

As for the note, I haven't seen enough of the show to know... is that thing about Bubblegum and Marceline being lesbians canon, or just something some fans made up? Because unless it's canon it proooooobably shouldn't be on the page at all....

EDIT: Apparently the Word of Gay for PB and Marceline is "somebody on the show said they overheard somebody else on the show possibly say this".... that sounds pretty dang tenuous to me, sort of "friend of a friend of a friend" type stuff, certainly not reliable enough that we should be plastering it all over the wiki like it's God's Own Truth.
Rjinswand
03:31:57 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by Rjinswand
According to The Other Wiki, it went like this:
  1. An episode had some Ho Yay between the two.
  2. A third party made an episode recap, where they implied that it's canon.
  3. Later both the third party and the show's producer removed the recap, and said it's not canon: "we got wrapped up by both fan conjecture and spicy fanart and went a little too far."
  4. Even later the voice actress for one of the characters said that she heard the creator say it's canon. The reason she gave for why it wasn't explicitly stated in the show is actually the one provided in the last edit: "I don't know about the book, but in some countries where the show airs, it's sort of illegal."
So yeah, the reason provided in the edit is true, and the previous version was wrong. However, I think it's still not canon until the creator himself says it.

That said, I'd just move it into the example section since it's not exactly canon, and to avoid further natter and edit wars.
emeriin
05:06:07 AM 25th Aug 2015
Hi that was me. Like Rjinswand said, my edit reason was because of what the voice actress said (link here), and maybe it was slightly personally worded, but given other cartoons like Steven Universe showing female beings as a couples, I felt like the actual reason would be better.
Karxrida
10:29:34 AM 25th Aug 2015
If Word of God Jossed it then no mention should be made, simple as that.
Larkmarn
11:08:00 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by Larkmarn
It sounds like St. Paul said that God said that they dated at some point.

Not sure where exactly that lands on the canon-scale... but it's SD anyway so I inherently don't give a rat's ass. Though is there any reason for that page to... exist? She doesn't seem to have any sort of tone or gimmick to necessitate an SD page.

Between that and the grammatical issues I really wish SD pages had to go through YKTTW.
lexicon
01:09:21 PM 25th Aug 2015
It would probably be good for self demonstrating pages to go through YKTTW. Self Demonstrating/Marceline also talks about the lesbian relationship. Kids shows can have romantic relationships but I don't know if this is one of them.
Fighteer
01:52:41 PM 25th Aug 2015
This whole thing is a perfect example of why speculation about a character's sexual identity should be forbidden, or at the very least restrained to canon information.
Larkmarn
01:52:52 PM 25th Aug 2015
edited by Larkmarn
Given the same guy made both Bubblegum and Marceline, and also has links to (not yet made) pages for the two main characters on the show, should we maybe... ask him to run it through YKTTW first? Because these pages are nothing more than their character sheet but in first person.

... also kinda worrisome that the Marceline page was, as originally made, nothing but shipping the two.

EDIT: Okay, he's made at least four SD pages in less than a month. None of which are particularly... notable.
Fighteer
02:00:10 PM 25th Aug 2015
edited by Fighteer
Hmm. I wonder if we need a restraint on Loekman3... sent a PM in any event.
wrm5
03:31:13 PM 25th Aug 2015
^^^ I would say it should be forbidden in most cases, but not all. YMMV is one thing, but when you have a Self Demonstrating page that basically says "By the way, I'm totes gay (except Word of God says I'm not, but screw 'dem!)" ya know, that becomes a problem.
nrjxll
04:05:50 PM 25th Aug 2015
This whole thing sounds like yet another addition to my ever-growing list of why Self Demonstrating pages are way more trouble than they're worth.
SeptimusHeap
04:09:55 PM 25th Aug 2015
I am fine with having a "non-distinct styles cannot have Self Demo pages" standard for self demonstrating articles. Most of the recent ones are very lame.

close replies  

KingZeal
Medium:
01:03:52 PM 25th Aug 2015
On the World's Best Warrior page, someone just added a Real Life section which begins with some sort of "ground rules" for what sort of examples should/shouldn't be added.

To me, this just seems like more trouble than it's worth, but I wanted to get other opinions before I nuked it.
see/hide 4 replies  
Fighteer
09:51:48 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by Fighteer
I agree. Seems pointlessly subjective. Might want to take it to the RL cleanup thread, though.
KingZeal
12:29:52 PM 25th Aug 2015
Well, can I actually do that?

I'd love to, but from what I can tell, I'm banned from trope/page improvement threads as well as conversational ones.
wrm5
12:57:41 PM 25th Aug 2015
Oh, someone else might need to do it for you, then.
CobraPrime
01:03:52 PM 25th Aug 2015
Added it

close replies  

MorningStar1337
Medium:
04:31:10 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
Got a PM about the lack of an index for a page I recently made (TheInfiniteLoops.Innortals Loops, one of 3 pages I split from Fanfic.The Infinite Loops due to the usual reasons a page has for getting split) I also asked about indexing in the Locked pages (that was linked from How Indexing Works) and index finding threads

Lengthy Explanation Now I'm considering moving the contents of that page back into a folder on the Main page and then cut-listing the subpage as an alternate solution if the main page isn't converted into an index and another index for the subpages isn't found.
see/hide 1 replies  
SeptimusHeap
04:31:10 AM 25th Aug 2015
I've got it.

close replies  

FuzzyBoots
Medium:
04:24:39 AM 25th Aug 2015
The Housemaid needs to be marked as a disambiguation page.
see/hide 1 replies  
FuzzyBoots
04:24:39 AM 25th Aug 2015
Never mind. I fixed it.

close replies  

jjjj2
Medium:
04:22:44 AM 25th Aug 2015
Ok this has been bothering me for a while. The Living Dead is a trope. I'm not disputing that it's a thing, one of the second episodes of The Wire has an instance of a corpse breathing if you slow down the episode. However the trope description say it's specifically about actors portraying dead corpses, but since they're human they breath like we all do. Shouldn't that make it trivia, because unless it's in-universe then it doesn't affect the flow of the story at all.
see/hide 6 replies  
GnomeTitan
12:42:29 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
It's not really a trope, since it's not a storytelling device, but it's not trivia either. "Trivia" on this wiki means things that are not apparent from watching the show, reading the book, or whatever, but where you need additional information. Dawson Casting is an example of trivia, because you can't see (or aren't supposed to see) that the actor is much older than the character.

DracMonster
02:12:48 PM 24th Aug 2015
Corpsing is a kissing cousin to this (how appropriate!) and currently is treated as a trope. Although now that this question has come up I realize that's probably incorrect too.

They both feel like trivia to me, although that's really a question for Trope Talk.
GnomeTitan
01:31:29 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
No, it's not incorrect.

There are tons of "things" on this wiki that are treated as tropes even though they don't fit the strict definition of "trope" as a storytelling device.

The impression I get is that there are certain exceptions to what is treated as a trope: YMMV items, Trivia items, and Useful Notes - and Creator and Work pages, of course. Basically everything else is lumped together as "tropes".

Perhaps a moderator could comment on what's the official stance on this?

EDITED: I see now that I forgot Administrivia and Just for Fun entries in the list of exceptions above. I may very well have forgotten more, but I hope you get my point: there are a bunch of different "things" that are not tropes in the strict sense, but that are handled as tropes on the Wiki.

SeptimusHeap
02:58:46 AM 25th Aug 2015
These things are classified as Trivia at times, e.g Blooper. The Trivia namespace thread is here.
GnomeTitan
03:42:16 AM 25th Aug 2015
So what are the criteria for when something is Trivia, apart from the one I mentioned above (things which you need external information to notice)?
sgamer82
04:22:44 AM 25th Aug 2015
I think it mainly means that, unless it's in-universe, it should probably go into the Trivia tab

close replies  

Elfkaiser
Medium:
04:21:05 AM 25th Aug 2015
Having a bit of something that's been bothering me that I might need others' opinion on since I'm not exactly sure what to do. Kinda concerns the latest chapter of The Seven Deadly Sins and certain recent revealed information.

In the manga, there's this character who looks like a deceased character. They uncannily look the same and even have the same name. Throughout the story, there have been several hints and such that suggest these two may have a close connection to one another. This has led to several fan theories which ranged from reincarnation, to the living character being the child of the deceased one.

Just very recently though, it was revealed that the living character is actually the reincarnation of the deceased one.

Here's kinda the problem. It's kinda a big reveal and as such I spoilered any new information I added related to the characters. However fellow troper sorako unspoilered most of the info with reasons such as "That's not a real spoiler, it was made obvious since long ago" and "The incarnation thing is no real spoiler, it was made obvious since long ago." I sent sorako a little comment about this with my opinion on the matter and even stated I didn't want to engage in an edit war since it being spoiled or not will eventually become moot in the future when more chapters of the chapter come out. Kinda like how it's moot now to put a spoiler that Nami from One Piece was a member of the Arlong Pirates.

Here's the thing though, despite stating I didn't want to engage in an edit war, the info being unspoilered at least for the moment has been bothering me. Sure it's a I Knew It moment with decent foreshadowing beforehand, however I kinda really feel that it should be spoiled for at least until the moment the manga reaches several chapters later.

As such, I'm not exactly sure whether it's right to just leave the info as is or put them behind spoilers. Any opinions would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
see/hide 4 replies  
Karxrida
11:34:55 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Karxrida
Unless there was also strong evidence to suggest against them being the same person on top of the evidence suggesting he was, it honestly just sounds like a Captain Obvious Reveal. Having the same name and a similar appearance kinda clinches it for me.

EDIT: Oh wait, Captain Obvious Reveal is YMMV. Um, I dunno what to do then.
nrjxll
11:45:04 PM 24th Aug 2015
From the sound of it, while the connection between the characters may have been obvious, it sounds like there were multiple theories about its exact nature. So I would consider that a spoiler. Whether it actually should be spoilered is a different question, though, given that this wiki generally tries to avoid them when it can.
Elfkaiser
12:50:00 AM 25th Aug 2015
Well, I'm just asking if it could at least be spoilered for the moment. When enough time has passed like when the weekly manga reaches around chapter 200 (137 as of this writing) or something, the spoiler can be taken out per the spoiler rules of Tv Tropes I believe.

A bit of further information on the subject, this particular character being revealed to be the reincarnation of the other is further that much of a big reveal as it relates to a third character, or more precisely the very main protagonist of the entire series. It sheds more light on a character who has aspects that are still a bit of mystery to both readers and his allies in-universe alike. The gist of it is Reincarnation Romance although prior to the very recent 100% confirmation, there was a scene in the past wherein the main character was asked if he projecting his dead lover onto a similar looking stranger.

There were also some fan theories that main character was the father of the reincarnated character since both apparently came from the same kingdom. These came despite certain questionable interactions.
sgamer82
04:21:05 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by sgamer82
Personally, if it's treated as a reveal in-story, even if it is obvious, it should be tagged and treated as a spoiler.

To draw from personal experience, and since One Piece was already used as an example, I can offer the example of Roger, a major character in the series' Myth Arc. Roger is largely Only Known By His Nickname of "Gold Roger". His full name reveals him to be connected to a specific set of characters, in one case by direct bloodline.

Even though this reveal is made early on (as in volume 17 or 18 out of 75+) and Roger's actually the second character with this linking name we learn about, it's only ever referred to in-story a handful of times. Because of that, I treat it as a spoiler and, when I see someone using the full name I swap it to the nickname "Gold Roger" unless the situation warrants, such as Wham Line.

Usually, the only time I would not treat something big like these examples as a spoiler is if it's impossible to mention the series without referring to it or if it's a Late-Arrival Spoiler that's freely and openly acknowledged in-story after its reveal or even out of story via things like opening sequences or book covers. For instance, it's hard to justify spoiler tagging a major side character's death when there's a manga volume literally titled "The Death of Portgas D. Ace."

In the end, I say spoiler tag it since we are to assume no prior knowledge and because it wouldn't be obvious to someone who wasn't regularly following the series and/or who didn't pick up on the hints. Just avoid wall o' white entries if at all possible.

close replies  

thecarolinabull01
Medium: Videogame
04:09:44 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by thecarolinabull01
The Unexpected Character entry for WWE Video Games is getting a bit long and will only get longer as time goes by. Would it be unreasonable for me to make a separate page for that entry? If not, how do I do it?
see/hide 3 replies  
thecarolinabull01
12:14:06 AM 25th Aug 2015
Sorry for bumping, but I don't want it to be ignored, even though it's a stupid question.
SeptimusHeap
03:01:20 AM 25th Aug 2015
Some examples need more explanation as to why they are being put there.
thecarolinabull01
04:09:44 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by thecarolinabull01
I know, and I have polished them up a bit.

close replies  

TobiasDrake
Medium:
02:59:38 AM 25th Aug 2015
In cases like Getting Crap Past the Radar, if the Work has its own page, should the trope itself be deleted off the Work page?

It seems to me that entries like

aren't really contributing much, but I may be wrong.
see/hide 6 replies  
Micah
03:59:50 PM 24th Aug 2015
I would leave it, but include a link to the page for the convenience of anyone who came to the work page looking specifically for it.

(If not this, at least leave a commented-out note in the right place, so people don't keep trying to add it back again...)
MacronNotes
06:07:58 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by MacronNotes
I would delete it since it's not really necessary. I mean, if a show has a radar page, it would show up as tab on top of the page like any other subpage. Like say for example, Pokémon
wrm5
06:26:20 PM 24th Aug 2015
I've seen that a lot, I'm a little curious myself.
Larkmarn
09:12:22 PM 24th Aug 2015
I think including a link to the page is very much preferred, since it prevents people from readding the same trope on the page.
GnomeTitan
01:09:28 AM 25th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
It is less intrusive to add a comment at the place where the trope would go in the trope list:

[double-%] Getting Crap Past the Radar has its own page. Please add any examples there rather than here.

Of course, some careless troper might miss this (especially if they aren't alphabetizing properly) but if they are that careless they'd probably miss it even if it weren't commented out.

In some cases, such as YMMV tropes and trivia, a comment is the only way to go. We can't really have trope lists full of entries such as:

since that would mess up the page completely.

SeptimusHeap
02:59:38 AM 25th Aug 2015
That is up to one's judgment, basically. Such links can be search helps for non-intuitively named tabs.

close replies  

DAN004
Medium:
11:38:02 PM 24th Aug 2015
Fuel Meter of Power has... some issues. The page itself said that it should be merged with Cast from Lifespan for starters.

Can something be done here?
see/hide 5 replies  
Someoneman
09:55:55 AM 16th Aug 2015
I think the trope's distinct enough from Cast from Lifespan, so replacing the note with "Compare with..." would be fine.

The only problem I have is that the title brings to mind Diegetic Interface rather than a power that has non-rechargeable limited uses.
DAN004
04:14:32 PM 16th Aug 2015
And since it says "fuel meter", shouldn't the examples be rechargeable?

Otherwise how would it relate to Power Source or Insert Payment to Use?
DAN004
05:30:37 PM 19th Aug 2015
Bump?
DAN004
06:00:39 PM 24th Aug 2015
Bump
Elfkaiser
11:38:02 PM 24th Aug 2015
I guess the name could be changed a bit to better clarify being about unrechargable powers that can only be used for a limited amount of times.

close replies  

lalalei2001
Medium: Videogame
08:00:13 PM 24th Aug 2015
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=TearJerker.PokemonBlack2AndWhite2

Ghetsis tries to freeze the player solid, not kill them. The 'killing them' thing was a misinterpretation of the Japanese version from before the game came out.
see/hide 2 replies  
wrm5
12:26:27 PM 24th Aug 2015
...okay?

Why are you bringing this here? If you think it's wrong you can change it, with a note that you're taking it to the discussion page and post your arguments there.

Also, just as an aside, if you're talking about the example I think you are, it seems more like Nightmare Fuel than Tear Jerker to me.
bwburke94
08:00:13 PM 24th Aug 2015
It's a YMMV trope. But we don't really need to go any further with this since we've established it was a mistranslation.

close replies  

MorningStar1337
Medium:
01:54:05 PM 24th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
Okay Since I got the go-ahead to split the page for the The Infinite Loops, I must confess that due to the way the page is set up, there are inconsistencies with other trope subpages:

  • First off there is an alphabetized list of folders, but those are for works that have fanfic in this setting, no the actual tropes
  • Secondly I also made another page for a specific folder (One for the original snips writen for this setting)

From this three more questions arise form this:

  • Is any of this okay? (putting tropes in folders named for official works that have fics in this setting, making a page for just one folder, everything that came before the actual trope list, etc.)
  • Are there any other fic pages with folders named for the works they are a fic of?
  • Finally, is there an indexing markup? I think there is for cases where a work has both tropes and sub-pages (usually Literature), but I forgot what it is
see/hide 0 replies  

close replies  

kablammin45
Medium:
09:32:30 AM 24th Aug 2015
Relating to The Kings Epic Adventure: Should we go ahead and make a page for Geibuchan himself/herself since there's a page for their most notable work and not the creator themselves?
see/hide 1 replies  
Fighteer
09:32:30 AM 24th Aug 2015
Creator articles are a free launch. Go for it.

close replies  

randomsurfer
Medium: Western Animation
09:31:39 AM 24th Aug 2015
Are real life people's appearance in media "tropes?" I've seen things like on The Itchy & Scratchy Show where the very first example listed is:

(I'm ignoring the example indentation error for now; if it shouldn't be listed then there's no point in fixing that when it'll just get deleted anyway.)
see/hide 5 replies  
Larkmarn
08:44:40 AM 24th Aug 2015
No, Useful Notes are not tropes.
wrm5
09:10:20 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
I've also seen people list works pages like this too. If it's listed at all it should be something more like...

TheOneWhoTropes
09:22:47 AM 24th Aug 2015
I said use Historical-Domain Character, but for this example, I think The Cameo will fit better.
wrm5
09:25:20 AM 24th Aug 2015
^ HDC could also work.
Fighteer
09:31:39 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Fighteer
Historical-Domain Character is the proper trope. Never list the Useful Notes page as a trope example.

close replies  

Rjinswand
Medium: Webcomic
08:30:16 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Rjinswand
Stjepan Sejic's web-based fancomic Twitch will be published as an official comic book in Fall 2015 under the name Switch. Can this page be moved to ComicBook/Switch?
see/hide 27 replies  
Larkmarn
10:15:37 AM 19th Aug 2015
edited by Larkmarn
Redirects Are Free.

But existing in a new medium doesn't erase the original from existence, so there's no point in moving it.

EDIT: Scratch that, I'm confused. Looking at the page, the "webcomic" Twitch doesn't seem like it ever existed, it was just a working title and preview for the comic book. Then yeah, it should be moved to Comic Book.Switch and turned into a redirect.
Rjinswand
10:31:29 AM 19th Aug 2015
I'd like to disagree, for the following reasons:

  1. Sejic himself said that he treated Twitch as a pitch for a comic book. When his pitch got popular on the web, the Top Cow honchos decided to approve the pitch and publish it, under the name of Swtich. So, one can see Twitch as a mere Working Title for Switch.

  2. Swtich will be drawn by the same Sejic, will feature more new material, and if popular will be an ongoing that will get a much bigger audience than the original webcomic.

  3. In any case, Twitch doesn't belong to the Comic Book namespace, as it's either a Web Original or a Webcomic.
Larkmarn
12:16:00 PM 19th Aug 2015
... so we agree then.
MorningStar1337
01:06:05 PM 19th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
Wouldn't that comic lead into some legal problems for Top Cow or will it have the Serial Numbers Filed Off a la 50 Shades of Grey
MattStriker
02:12:46 PM 19th Aug 2015
Doubtful, considering that they own the rights to the original series.
Rjinswand
03:37:04 PM 19th Aug 2015
edited by Rjinswand
@Larkmarn: Oh ok, I didn't initially see your edit. How should I go about the move then? Just blank one page, and paste its contents onto another?

@MorningStar1337: It's going to be published by Top Cow, the same company that publishes Witchblade.
Candi
10:01:47 PM 19th Aug 2015
^No page blanking. Page blanking primary pages is a #1 do-not-do.

I would say copy and paste, turn the other into a redirect.
KyleJacobs
10:29:35 PM 19th Aug 2015
edited by KyleJacobs
Misread the above. Just to make sure I have it right - Webcomic/Twitch will be made a redirect to ComicBook/Switch, right?
SeptimusHeap
02:08:06 AM 20th Aug 2015
To Webcomic/Switch, I think.
Rjinswand
02:32:26 AM 20th Aug 2015
edited by Rjinswand
@Candi: Thank you!

@SeptimusHeap: Why "Webcomic" though? Switch will be an actual Comic Book series made from dead trees.
Larkmarn
05:28:16 AM 20th Aug 2015
^^ Seems like calling this a "webcomic" would be like calling ComicBook.Transformers More Than Meets The Eye a webcomic because previews get posted online before every issue. The intention always was to get it out there as an actual comic book, but previews were posted online to garner interest, and in comic book format.
SeptimusHeap
09:26:10 AM 20th Aug 2015
There was a statement here that it goes into Webcomic/, hence my words.
Rjinswand
10:40:02 AM 20th Aug 2015
edited by Rjinswand
^ Sorry, it's probably my post that caused confusion.

I meant that if we use the name "Twitch" it should be under the Webcomic namespace, but I'd suggest that we rather use the name "Switch" and have it go under the Comic Book namespace. I hope I've worded it clearer this time.
crazysamaritan
06:28:39 AM 21st Aug 2015
... Why not both?
Rjinswand
07:30:13 AM 21st Aug 2015
^ Because it's the same work. Why does one work need two separate pages, if the tropes are the same?
crazysamaritan
11:43:44 PM 21st Aug 2015
But it isn't the same work. Twitch is a pitch or Pilot work. The first printed comic may not use the same tropes.
Rjinswand
01:33:52 AM 22nd Aug 2015
^It's the same work, by the same creator, they just changed the name.
bwburke94
01:21:16 PM 22nd Aug 2015
Switch, in addition to being more or less the official name, avoids namespace collision with Twitch.
Rjinswand
01:58:44 PM 22nd Aug 2015
^Eh, there'll be collision with Switch!, Switch! and Switch!.

The point is, even Sejic himself acknowledged it's the same work, just renamed: (link)
GnomeTitan
07:27:04 AM 23rd Aug 2015
This accentuates a problem with the namespaces for comics: a work can go from being a web comic to a comic book or vice versa without adaptation. This means that the distinction is somewhat artificial. Do we actually need separate namespaces?
StFan
09:04:17 AM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by StFan
The rule in this case is "first serve": the work keeps the namespace of the medium it was first published in. That's why Girl Genius stays in the Webcomic/ namespace even after being published as a graphic novel, many anime series are in the Manga/ or LightNovel/ namespaces unless they are Anime First, etc.
GnomeTitan
10:54:08 AM 23rd Aug 2015
Yes, that's at least unambiguous (unless it's released simultaneously as a webcomic and in printed form, but that must be unusual).
Larkmarn
01:50:35 PM 23rd Aug 2015
In this case, the page indicates that the version posted on the web was essentially a preview for what was always intended to be a comic book.

Which leads me to believe it should go into the Comic Book namespace.
Rjinswand
02:46:19 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Rjinswand
@StFan & GnomeTitan: That's an understandable rule. However, in this case, it's not quite that clear. As Larkmarn mentioned, the web-published part was always intended as a temporary form while Sejic was trying to persuade his bosses to publish it as a Comic Book. It was kind of like a Kickstarter, only done on Deviantart. Would a Kickstarter-published preview mean a work should be listed under Webcomics?

That said, Girl Genius was first published as a Comic Book. However, it's still under the Webcomic namespace, probably because it got a lot more popular when it became a Webcomic.
GnomeTitan
03:26:46 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by GnomeTitan
My feeling is that the current namespace systems for "western" comics - Newspaper Comics, Comic Books and Web Comics - is broken, because it's really just one medium and three distribution methods. This means that a work can move between the namespaces without adaptation: a web comic may be published in print form, a visual novel may be serialized in a newspaper, three panels a day, etc.

Granted, there exist three different kinds of comics that tend to coincide with the distribution forms: a typical webcomic is different from a typical newspaper comic, because they are published in different ways and under different conditions. That's of course why we have three different namespaces, and it works well in clear-cut cases. The problem is when we have overlap, or when a work changes its distribution form.

EDITED: I don't see a huge problem with this, but there are problems, and I wonder whether we really need three different namespaces for western comics.

SeptimusHeap
03:39:13 AM 24th Aug 2015
Folks, this discussion is starting to take over ATT. There is a thread stickied in Wiki Talk about namespaces, please use that one.
Rjinswand
08:30:16 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Rjinswand
^ Sorry; I haven't expected it to turn into such a discussion. I've reposted the question in the Namespace sticky thread on Wiki Talk.

close replies  

Karxrida
Medium: Videogame
06:21:59 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by Karxrida
Ninplanet123 added a link in YMMV.Super Smash Bros that was said to contain some NSFW stuff. I have not clicked the link because I don't want to have anything risque in my browser history, but based off of the context it's probably porn. I deleted it just to be safe.
see/hide 1 replies  
Larkmarn
06:21:59 AM 24th Aug 2015
Eh, it honestly seems like it's trying to give context, which is appreciated, but yeah, the link had to go.

close replies  

MorningStar1337
Medium:
12:31:07 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
At the request of the community of The Infinite Loops I'd would like to Ask The Tropers about what to do about the Quotes page there (specifically the Author section)
see/hide 6 replies  
Karxrida
09:05:17 PM 16th Aug 2015
I have a better question. Why aren't there separate pages for the fics and that normal page just for tropes common to the fics?

So many words.
MorningStar1337
09:09:43 PM 16th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
Dunno, despite being claimed as an ever-expanding Genre, it feels a lot more like a Shared Universe, and it's possible that the Archive Panic led to slow updates.

The other answer is that by nature, parts of the pages are attributed to multiple authors and setting, leading to split pages bloating the wiki with multiple stubs (Not to mention the events listed on the recap page probably needing their own pages). The same thing happened in the The Conversion Bureau pge so that might be an issue with pages for fanfic universes prone to Recursive Fanfiction in general

EDIT: Just noticed that TCB has actually split off into some pages for the fics...
MorningStar1337
12:53:16 PM 17th Aug 2015
Bumping because there is still the matter of the quote page...and I don;t know if there are any threads for fixing them or not.
MorningStar1337
12:40:10 PM 18th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
One more Bump, this time with context (and an awareness that Spacebattles does not have any say on what to do with the page)

But, the Quote page has two sections, one for in verse quotes and another for the Authors's posts. While I underatand that the creators can be quoted, the issue lies in the size of the latter section and the potential of Drama Importation I was wondering what do you guys think about this page and what to do with it?
Fighteer
12:52:56 PM 18th Aug 2015
Quoting authors seems off-mission, unless it's for Word of God purposes.
MorningStar1337
12:31:07 AM 24th Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
Okay now someone brought back the part I deleted, I'd like to ask people to look over the page and see if that section qualifies as Word of God or not (as well as the edit reason, the removal seems rather unpopular at Spacebattles and I'm not gonna risk bans by engaging in edit wars).

close replies  

Morgenthaler
Medium:
01:18:54 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Reporting page blankers on An American Nerd In Animated Tokyo, Korino Bara, and Solstice Twins. alphamale2k14 at least seems to have been acting on good faith but is just clueless about how and when pages should be deleted, but the other two look more like authors trying to remove their own work, one of them under a suspiciously similar handle.
see/hide 2 replies  
SeptimusHeap
01:05:59 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Suspended "the other two", alphamale ought to be messaged.
Morgenthaler
01:18:54 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Ah, my apologies for not providing a courtesy link to the handles. I've messaged alphamale2k14.

close replies  

DAN004
Medium:
01:06:35 PM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by DAN004
Is there any reason why Fire and Ice Love Triangle has to follow a specific gender dynamic? I.e it has to involve Two Guys and a Girl, can't it be Two Girls and a Guy as well?
see/hide 1 replies  
SeptimusHeap
01:06:35 PM 23rd Aug 2015
Trope Talk question the way I see it.

close replies  

DragonQuestZ
Medium: Videogame
11:11:17 AM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by DragonQuestZ
We have pages for Dark Souls, Dark Souls II, and Dark Souls III. I'd like to make a page for the whole series (that yes would note Demon Souls and Bloodborne as being spiritual entries) and move tropes common to the series to it. Would it be best to bump the first game to VideoGame.Dark Souls I and make the current page about the series, or make Franchise.Dark Souls and make that the series page?
see/hide 9 replies  
SeptimusHeap
12:46:33 PM 21st Aug 2015
By all looks, we currently have only pages about the games. Thus, Franchise/ is not permitted.
sgamer82
01:20:54 PM 21st Aug 2015
Which, if I'm not mistaken means that VideoGame.Dark Souls 1 could be there specific game while VideoGame.Dark Souls would be the series page.
DragonQuestZ
03:47:53 PM 21st Aug 2015
Okay, I'll be making that page today.
bwburke94
05:31:29 PM 21st Aug 2015
The first entry would be at VideoGame.Dark Souls I to match the Roman numerals of the other two.
DragonQuestZ
11:59:50 PM 22nd Aug 2015
How do I change the page to a work type? I haven't been able to figure out how to do it on the redesign.
Candi
02:44:56 AM 23rd Aug 2015
You have to go to the locked pages edit request thread and ask.
DragonQuestZ
02:56:16 AM 23rd Aug 2015
But the page isn't locked. I just need to change the type.

Even if that is the designated place to do that, it's pretty counter-intuitive for those trying to figure out how to do it.
StFan
09:09:53 AM 23rd Aug 2015
True, but it's pretty much how things are for now until a website redesign.

The edit request thread for locked pages is basically the one thread to make any request for a change that can only be done by mods. This include moving discussion tabs for moved page, and changing a page type to another.

Note, though, that giving a type to a page that wasn't given one yet can be done by regular editors with the "un-typed pages" tool in the Tools menu.
SeptimusHeap
11:11:17 AM 23rd Aug 2015
You can amend the explanatory Administrivia pages pointing to that thread until then.

close replies  

RayAP9
Medium: Film
10:44:04 AM 23rd Aug 2015
For those who have seen Avengers: Age of Ultron:

At one point during the film, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark argue about whether or not it's morally acceptable to try ending a war before it begins. Stark mentions that the reason they fight is so they can end it and no longer have to fight. Rogers disagrees.

Would it be considered Fridge Brilliance to say that Rogers might have an ulterior motive (perhaps subconsciously) in not agreeing with Stark, since one of the themes of the film is that he's fearful of a world where there's no war for him to participate in?
see/hide 2 replies  
StFan
09:32:05 AM 23rd Aug 2015
I don't think it would fall in Fridge Brilliance, as it's too arguable a point. It's more of a YMMV thing, most likely Alternative Character Interpretation.
KingZeal
10:44:04 AM 23rd Aug 2015
IIRC, to be more accurate, what Steve actually says is that trying to "win" a war before it starts leads to innocent people dying. If I'm right, that small wording is a distinction that I've seen lots of people miss.

Trying to end a war before it starts can just be considered diplomacy or cooperation. It can involve anything from cooperation to rethinking one's position. On the other hand, trying to win a war before it starts typically means crushing the other side before they even have the option to fight. That sort of thing is what tyrants do.

close replies  

jormis29
Medium:
03:36:52 AM 23rd Aug 2015
edited by jormis29
Cardinal1989 removed references to destroying country music in Evil Genius as a good thing with the edit reason "Removing YMMV content". The problem is that the game describes it as a good thing so should the entries be restored?
see/hide 3 replies  
Nohbody
12:45:13 AM 23rd Aug 2015
Yes. Include a [[invoked]] tag (which doesn't show up in the displayed page, making it less obnoxious than the second option of...) or InUniverse, either of which tells the wiki server to not flag YMMV tropes that are deliberately invoked by the creator as needing to be moved.
jormis29
03:21:26 AM 23rd Aug 2015
It's not YMMV tropes she/he was removing
Ramidel
03:36:52 AM 23rd Aug 2015
Restore it with an edit reason, possibly clarify in the trope that was removed that the "good thing" is In-Universe.

close replies  

Micah
Medium:
12:16:04 AM 23rd Aug 2015
Is there a procedure for adding things to the Issue Helper? Because I think I see this kind of pothole:

  • Princess Leia reveals at the end of Episode VII that she was working for the Empire all along.

often enough that it deserves an automated message, and none of the current ones really fit.
see/hide 1 replies  
Morgenthaler
12:16:04 AM 23rd Aug 2015
It's a form of Fan Myopia, which is usually the comment I leave behind when I clean that up. Though "state the source" is listed on How to Write an Example, it's technically a type of sinkhole, so we could also add an item to that page and use the sinkhole notifier for this type of malpractice as well.

close replies  

Spinosegnosaurus77
Medium:
07:08:46 PM 22nd Aug 2015
Kirby Buckets is completely broken, but the trivia tab seems okay.
see/hide 1 replies  
wrm5
07:08:46 PM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
It looks like thelelfamily made a YMMV page and a Trivia page for a... work? Creator? That has no main page.

And matchingbox has absolutely atrocious English and no concept of alphabetizing.

EDIT: I googled it. Apparently Kirby Buckets is a TV show.

close replies  

Piando
Medium:
06:15:42 PM 22nd Aug 2015
This may sound stupid but how do you upload images?
see/hide 1 replies  
Fighteer
06:15:42 PM 22nd Aug 2015
Sidebar menu -> Tools -> Image Uploader

close replies  

lexicon
Medium:
12:21:14 PM 22nd Aug 2015
Would the most recent edit on Sensitive Guy and Manly Man be natter? The second bullet starts with 'however' so I think that whole bullet can go.
see/hide 3 replies  
JoieDeCombat
06:54:32 PM 21st Aug 2015
Yeah, I don't really see any relevance to the trope there.
lexicon
11:52:56 AM 22nd Aug 2015
So that makes it natter?
rodneyAnonymous
12:21:14 PM 22nd Aug 2015
Being Conversation in the Main Page makes it natter. If it were relevant to the trope, maybe it should be absorbed into the single bullet (instead of afterwards as a double bullet). Those are different issues.

close replies  

sgamer82
Medium:
10:46:23 AM 22nd Aug 2015
A troper's having trouble getting folders to work on WMG.Five Nights At Freddys 4. The page is pretty dang large so I'm was wondering what the character limit was before folders got wonky.
see/hide 5 replies  
MorningStar1337
05:20:36 PM 21st Aug 2015
371000 apprently. And are you sure the page is the one that's actibg up. I'm currently asking about splitting a larger page with a large amount of folders and none of them are acting up. It's possible that its a large folder that messing up the code.
Fighteer
09:43:31 PM 21st Aug 2015
Folders have a maximum size before they have to be split.
Candi
11:27:55 PM 21st Aug 2015
^^A folder can bork without the page being at character limit. That's generally the point the troublesome folder is split off into a subpage, often along with any others that are on the big side.
sgamer82
09:30:01 AM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by sgamer82
So it's more the folder length than the page link? I'll play with that a bit when I get a chance at home.

EDIT: N/M already done
wrm5
10:46:23 AM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
^ It's a bit of both.

Folderizing can help, and larger folders break more readily than smaller ones, but there DOES come a point where the page size itself gets SO MASSIVE that no amount of folderizing can help.

Really, there is no set policy. It's more about what works/feels the best for the page in question.

close replies  

Karxrida
Medium:
07:59:21 AM 22nd Aug 2015
Just Here To Comment just made a suspect deletion with a rude comment in YMMV.Super Smash Bros.
see/hide 10 replies  
MyFinalEdits
03:29:41 PM 21st Aug 2015
Sent a rudeness notifier.
Karxrida
03:47:19 PM 21st Aug 2015
Still need to know what to do about the deletion. I don't following any of the shipping aspects of any fandom, but his comment admits that the example in question exists to some extent.
Irene
04:19:26 PM 21st Aug 2015
If it exists, then the example overall is valid, if written properly. It looks fairly zero context to me, though.
wrm5
04:26:49 PM 21st Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
*ahem*

The rule on YMMV is that YMMV items are ONLY allowed to be deleted in three cases.

1. If they're factually inaccurate. ("Factually" here meaning objective facts, not whether it's a fact that people have that opinion.)

2. If they require citations, like Unfortunate Implications.

3. If they're flamebait.

This is none of the above.

Put it back up.

EDIT: Or 4. If they're a Zero-Context Example... but I'm not convinced this is.
Karxrida
04:44:06 PM 21st Aug 2015
It doesn't look ZCE to me, either. And even then you don't delete those, you hide them so someone can fix it.
Karxrida
07:57:05 PM 21st Aug 2015
Re-added the example.
Karxrida
10:53:40 PM 21st Aug 2015
He just deleted the entry again with another rude comment.
Candi
11:26:08 PM 21st Aug 2015
(puts out headache meds for the mods)

Wait for the mods to deal with his edit warring, then put it back.

There's a 5 to wrm5's list: YMMV can be deleted for misuse of a trope.
SeptimusHeap
01:27:48 AM 22nd Aug 2015
Edit ban issued.
wrm5
07:59:21 AM 22nd Aug 2015
^^ Right, that too.

close replies  

eroock
Medium:
07:57:29 AM 22nd Aug 2015
What medium would examples of Calvin and Hobbes fall under? I saw it under Comic Books and Newspaper Comics.
see/hide 2 replies  
Adept
04:21:00 AM 22nd Aug 2015
It's supposed to be Newspaper Comics, but sometimes people just put everything under the Comic Books heading, which is incorrect.
wrm5
07:57:29 AM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by wrm5
There were Calvin and Hobbes books, but they were just collections of the newspaper comics, so I really don't think it counts as a comic book series.

close replies  

Aurevoir
Medium:
07:16:16 AM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by Aurevoir
May I have permission to lend your information on your website?

I only use it for educational purpose. No commercial included.
see/hide 1 replies  
Bisected8
07:16:16 AM 22nd Aug 2015
The wiki's under a Creative Commons license, so you're probably OK.

There's an email address at the very bottom of every page if you want to get in touch with the admins directly, though.

close replies  

MorningStar1337
Medium:
01:29:41 AM 22nd Aug 2015
edited by MorningStar1337
Okay now I decided to echo Karxrida's concerns about the sheer page of The Infinite Loops because I find splitting it into subpages (3 subpages for the works getting looped in + one for either The First Crash or Innortal's original snips) to be rather ideal in this case

the numbers at the bottom left read 522772 and 44 FYI and the page itself is on Overly Long Pages

The question is "Should I split the page"
see/hide 2 replies  
MorningStar1337
08:23:25 PM 21st Aug 2015
Umm...bump?
SeptimusHeap
01:29:41 AM 22nd Aug 2015
Well, why not? We don't have a don't-split-overly-long-articles-by-default policy.

close replies