[002]
pointillist
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* The yoga pose Wii Fit Trainer was taking as the beam hit her? [https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/11/05/super-smash-bros-ultimate-wii-fit-trainer-yoga-new-trailer/ That move has invincibility frames in Smash 4.]
to:
* The yoga pose Wii Fit Trainer was taking as the beam hit her? [[https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/11/05/super-smash-bros-ultimate-wii-fit-trainer-yoga-new-trailer/ That move has invincibility frames in Smash 4.]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don't think we need to have two separate sections for the tropes. For example, we don't do this on most other pages for something like, say,
to:
I don\'t think we need to have two separate sections for the tropes. For example, we don\'t do this on most other pages for something like, say, \"subverted tropes\" or \"deconstructed tropes.\" I think it\'s fair enough to put all of the examples in one group and say \"This is discussed...\" or \"[The creator] says...\"
Also, the \"activists cite\" and \"activists in the film\" is unnecessary. We are clearly not condoning any opinion simply by stating \"this happens in the work.\" We would usually say \"Bob discusses this,\" but we wouldn\'t say \"the priest discusses this.\" It just comes off as poorly written.
* RE: LostAesop: That doesn\'t seem to be an example. I would run it through the \"is this an example?\" thread, honestly. It\'s saying that the aesop concerns discrimination against men and men\'s grievances, but then the \"aesop\" that is \"forgotten about\" is Jaye\'s view of feminism...? More context needed, please.
* RE: MenAreTheExpendableGender: I agree that the \"even\" implies something about feminists on the whole, or makes an unfair assumption. Also, there seems to be a bit of \"troping by proxy\" here. \"Activists cite the fact that high fatality jobs are disproportionately staffed by men.\" Okay, I\'m confident that they did in the documentary, but these could be lumped together in one bullet (for a total of three, maximum), and the \"activists cite\" stuff is (a) redundant and (b) an element of poor writing (\'\'who\'\' said it; we don\'t need to know their \'\'title\'\').
* RE: SympatheticPOV: Everything in the parenthetical needs to be nuked. That has nothing to do with the work and breaks the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment. The use of the word \"unique\" is a pet peeve of mine since this is only theoretically unique and not actually so (\"relies on too much speculation\"). I have my doubts about this example on the whole and will think about a response, but I know that those two issues should be revised.
* RE: ValuesResonance and ValuesDissonance: I\'m not sure about the particular examples themselves (I\'ll look at it later), but \'\'\'if the work discusses the trope, then it goes on the main work page.\'\'\' That\'s the norm for the wiki.
* WhatHappenedToTheMouse seems to be misuse. It\'s about plot points that don\'t get resolutions but the example is about someone\'s initial response to somebody else\'s tone. Like, it doesn\'t seem to make sense to expect that to be a plot point or to be \"resolved\" in a narrative sense.
Also, the \"activists cite\" and \"activists in the film\" is unnecessary. We are clearly not condoning any opinion simply by stating \"this happens in the work.\" We would usually say \"Bob discusses this,\" but we wouldn\'t say \"the priest discusses this.\" It just comes off as poorly written.
* RE: LostAesop: That doesn\'t seem to be an example. I would run it through the \"is this an example?\" thread, honestly. It\'s saying that the aesop concerns discrimination against men and men\'s grievances, but then the \"aesop\" that is \"forgotten about\" is Jaye\'s view of feminism...? More context needed, please.
* RE: MenAreTheExpendableGender: I agree that the \"even\" implies something about feminists on the whole, or makes an unfair assumption. Also, there seems to be a bit of \"troping by proxy\" here. \"Activists cite the fact that high fatality jobs are disproportionately staffed by men.\" Okay, I\'m confident that they did in the documentary, but these could be lumped together in one bullet (for a total of three, maximum), and the \"activists cite\" stuff is (a) redundant and (b) an element of poor writing (\'\'who\'\' said it; we don\'t need to know their \'\'title\'\').
* RE: SympatheticPOV: Everything in the parenthetical needs to be nuked. That has nothing to do with the work and breaks the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment. The use of the word \"unique\" is a pet peeve of mine since this is only theoretically unique and not actually so (\"relies on too much speculation\"). I have my doubts about this example on the whole and will think about a response, but I know that those two issues should be revised.
* RE: ValuesResonance and ValuesDissonance: I\'m not sure about the particular examples themselves (I\'ll look at it later), but \'\'\'if the work discusses the trope, then it goes on the main work page.\'\'\' That\'s the norm for the wiki.
* WhatHappenedToTheMouse seems to be misuse. It\'s about plot points that don\'t get resolutions but the example is about someone\'s initial response to somebody else\'s tone. Like, it doesn\'t seem to make sense to expect that to be a plot point or to be \"resolved\" in a narrative sense.
