What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/CommonKnowledge

MagBas
topic
11:52:15 AM Oct 12th 2013
This page is currently participating of a votation in the "Pages that need the YMMV banner" thread in the "Projects: Long Term/Perpetual" list in the forums. If someone wishes give a yes(or a nay") to this- or any other page being voted...
Towersixteen
topic
02:24:21 AM Sep 14th 2013
edited by 24.125.205.29
Just cleaned up the Video Game section, it was a bit of a mess. to give some reasons- This trope should be about media, not hardware or business practices(I could understand someone disputing this one). This trope should be about misconceptions common to a casual viewer. A lot of stuff that was there was just things that happen to annoy the fandom when someone gets it wrong, but not particularly "common knowledge". This trope should never be subjective. If you have to give a long-winded explanation about how the little details of something TOTALLY imply your point, it probably doesn't apply. Finally, holy natter, batman. Some of the stuff I removed was probably salvageable, particularly if we MUST have hardware crap in there, but not until someone goes through and is willing to transform paragraphs into sentences.
Larkmarn
topic
10:50:51 AM Jul 19th 2013
Shouldn't the Oedipus Complex example be in theatre, not Mythology?
Kernik
topic
11:54:41 AM Mar 3rd 2013
Kernik11:51:24 AM Mar 3rd 2013 I lack the requisite editing skills, but under Western Animation..... Scooby Doo's pals are now officially titled "Mystery, Inc." both in-Universe and by show title in one of the two currently concurrent expressions of the franchise. Also, the My Little Pony:Fi M show has, as of the 65th episode, 13th and final episode of the 3rd session (so many marketing trope pages to reference), officially used the common fan-speak word for winged unicorns, in-Universe. The Call a Pegasus a Hipogriff example worthy, mythologically inaccurate word for a winged unicorn, that so many fans knew for certain was the the correct in-Universe term, despite it's only use in the series has being recently and not in reference to any winged anything, but to a piece of abstract jewelry (So many wicks needed here, so many Trope pages referenced-puns and coincide tail horse references aside this requires attention concerning half-dozen different tropes, at least; so little editing skill). These two bits of ascended fannon demand edits I can not provide!

(Clearly evidenced in that I can't even get this as a New Topic, instead of a Reply...well, hopefully this time I did...)
AnotherDuck
topic
02:09:56 PM Jan 8th 2013
I pulled the example of Link being an elf. There are conflicting view of whether or not he is one. He is inspired by an elf, but whether or not that makes him an elf by another name or not depends on how you define it. He's not of a race named elves, but he does have the traits of an elf, based on an elf. In other words, the example is arguable.

Relevant: http://mynintendonews.com/2012/11/04/miyamoto-talks-about-the-origin-of-link/

  • Also, Link is not an elf, despite what many people believe. Just because someone has pointy ears doesn't mean they're an elf - his long (and that's specifically long, since a lot of other characters have pointy ears too) pointy ears signify he's of Hylian descent. He's not a fairy, either - this confusion arises from the fact he is called a "fairy boy" in Ocarina of Time, which means he's a boy who owns a fairy, not a boy who is a fairy.

Prfnoff
topic
01:22:43 PM Oct 21st 2012
  • He's [Zeppo Marx] actually the fifth member. The fourth member, Gummo, quit around World War I, long before their movie career.

This is technically true, but people don't call Ringo the fifth member of The Beatles.
TwinBird
topic
12:42:34 AM Sep 8th 2012
This reads like it comes from Cracked:

  • Everybody knows that the famous lost city of Atlantis is either one of two things:
    • A) A majestic city-state that sank to the ocean floor and became one of the "great mysteries" of human history when its location was lost.
    • B) A thriving underwater city populated by a strange species of humans who can survive underwater.
    • The truth? It's neither. It's not even part of Greek mythology. It was a hypothetical city that Plato invented so that he could use it as an example in the Socratic dialogues. It never really existed. Ever.

It's probably true that Plato invented it, and of course true that it never existed, but it is not true that the city is presented as hypothetical. This misconception comes (at least in Cracked) from a quote regarding a different city that (an almost totally fictionalized, by that point in Plato's career) Socrates had presented as hypothetical, his famous Republic. Critias says that it reminds him of the real city his grandfather was told of by Solon as a boy (never mind this would make his grandfather impossibly old by Critias' birth), and the rest is mythology.
diamonddmgirl
topic
11:08:18 AM May 15th 2012
  • When somebody was described as being Son of god that meant they had a divine right to be king not that they were literal the physical child of a deity for instance even though Alexander The Great was referred said to be the Son of Zeus everybody know his Biological father was King Phillip II. This creates some interesting contradictions with the people for people that take Jesus was the son of god literally ignore the fact he had to have been descended from King David through his father Joseph to be the Messiah

I removed this because it's Flame Bait, and also because the phrasing makes it sound like whenever anyone from any time or culture called any other person "son of god" they always meant it figuratively, which can't possibly be true.
VeronicaWakefield
topic
08:41:11 AM Feb 25th 2012
  • Hercules had super strength.

... clarification? Are you saying this is a misconception, or that people don't realize it, or ... ?
OldManHoOh
topic
09:30:20 AM Jan 26th 2012
The bit in the Zelda section which starts "The Legend of Zelda series has no continuity or plotline, and is simply the same game done over and over with different graphics." — that only focuses on the "no plotline" part, not the "same game" bit.

It fits the trope, no question, but I can't think the best way of phrasing it.
Jonn
topic
03:16:38 PM Oct 18th 2010
edited by Jonn
* Nintendo's critics frequently cry that it needs new I Ps, instead of just Super Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. Apparently Battalion Wars, Hotel Dusk: Room 215, Professor Layton, Animal Crossing, Custom Robo, Drill Dozer, et al. don't count as "new".

This was deleted by Blork using the following reason;

Other than Hotel Dusk: Room 215 and Professor Layton, they don't. The Nintendo Wars series dates back to the NES.

Battalion Wars shares thematic elements with Nintendo Wars and Advance Wars, but is a different series. Only the Japanese version shares the name. Drill Dozer was released in 2005, and was intended to be a new series. Custom Robo dates back to 1999. Animal Crossing is from 2001. Hotel Dusk: Room 215 is from 2007, as is Professor Layton. Then there's 2001's Pikmin, and another tentpole franchise I forgot that got started in 1996; Pokémon. Unless your definition of "new" only covers the last three years, Nintendo has had plenty of new I Ps, even if they haven't all been successful. The reason whiny fans complain about Nintendo "only" making rehashes is that they're the only Nintendo games said fans will even consider buying. How many of those seven franchises I just named are commonly associated with Nintendo in the public consciousness?
Tomwithnonumbers
06:26:47 PM Mar 7th 2011
How many are famous/good full stop? 3.

Besides your definition of time is a little screwey here.

Why is 1996 even in doubt? That was in the 90's, we're not even in the naughties here. It came out on a Gameboy (colour?) and we're just about to have a 3DS. Pokemon is not new. And by most standards of new "10 years ago" doesn't count either. Professor Layton is your best and most definitely true counter example. And Hotel Dusk, and Drill Dozer are the only others which I would consider reasonably new (5 years is still a pretty long time). Please compare: Gears of War 2006, Uncharted 2007, Little Big Planet 2008, Fable 2004 (that ones getting old) Killzone 2004 (and not many would really consider that one a new franchise), Resistance 2006

Whether you should remove the example all together is your call. I really don't think it's reasonably to use franchises before 2004 (Halo is hardly fresh for MS), considering that the PS2 was launched in 2000, you're talking about nearly two generations ago.

So it's up to you whether you leave Professor Layton, Hotel Dusk and Drill Dozer as valid counterexamples which they are.

And the bit about Mario on the page is ridiculous and exactly gets wrong the definition of franchise. Releasing new games under the Mario name is exactly what people accuse Nintendo of doing
Jonn
02:53:13 PM Mar 21st 2011
Wait, so only "famous" franchises since 2004 count? The usual assertion is that Nintendo never innovates. Not "recently". Never.

Releasing new games under the Mario name is exactly what people accuse Nintendo of doing

Meanwhile, Nintendo keeps pointing out those are spinoffs with the same characters. Equating them to the main series is intellectually dishonest, but it's an argument people make.
TwinBird
topic
07:59:30 PM Oct 1st 2010
edited by TwinBird
I've moved the "literature" entry for the Bible to "mythology," since there's an extensive entry on it there, and no one reads the Bible for literary value - even in its own language, most of it is fairly dry, and in modern language, it's been translated to hell and back. Also, I've cleaned up the Natter, and as for this sub-entry:

  • The Bible's full of this actually. There's all sorts of things people "know" that have little or no basis in scripture. Stuff like the biblical condemnation of homosexuality (there are arguably two homosexual love stories, David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, Jesus in all his 33 years on earth couldn't be bothered to say one single thing about it), the fact that fallen angels are demons (this is never stated, the opposite in fact, as the fallen are said to be bound in everlasting chains), Satan being the same as Lucifer (never stated), and even God's omniscience (God often questions and in Exodus, Moses talks him into changing his mind). The book isn't as clear as The Fundamentalist would have you believe.

I've removed it entirely. Just wrong, wrong, wrong, right down the line. It's written in a crufty way "The Bible's full of this actually," and the points are pretty much all wrong.

  • The biblical condemnation of homosexuality (there are arguably two homosexual love stories, David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi, Jesus in all his 33 years on earth couldn't be bothered to say one single thing about it).

Male homosexuality is a death penalty offense under Mosaic law. Male and female homosexuality are both attacked by Paul in Romans. The form of male homosexuality generally practiced by the Romans is attacked by Paul in Corinthians, and even if it weren't, he spends the rest of the epistle attacking desires of the flesh in general. There is no legitimate question that any Christian sect that considers Paul divinely inspired should not condone homosexuality. One thing that's true - unlike his attacks on dietary laws and the death penalty, Christ said nothing about homosexuality. There's a case to be made for David and Jonathan, but (ironically, since the Old Testament has nothing against lesbians) Ruth and Naomi, who are in-laws, require quite a reach.

  • The fact that fallen angels are demons (this is never stated, the opposite in fact, as the fallen are said to be bound in everlasting chains).

...maybe. Christ describes him as having "fallen from Heaven," but this may just be him coming down to wreak havoc.

  • Satan being the same as Lucifer (never stated).

This was up before and it led to a fight. The page posted identifies them both together by a common metaphor of, wait for it... falling from Heaven. The first one, however, can be read as a metaphor, involving no angel or demon at all, and the second can be read as I've just said.

  • Even God's omniscience (God often questions and in Exodus, Moses talks him into changing his mind).

Mainstream Christianity holds these questions as rhetorical, and Moses (do you mean Abraham?) changing his mind isn't necessarily incompatible, depending on your definition of "omniscience." Isaiah, the Psalms, and Christ all make reference to God's omniscience.
78.105.234.201
12:01:41 AM Oct 5th 2010
The point was that the bible wasn't as clear as it is made out to be in common knowledge. And I challenge anyone to logically back up the clarity that the fundamentalist claims.

But never mind, as it really doesn't matter that much to prove such a point in an otherwise secular wiki.

Kernik
12:48:03 PM Mar 3rd 2013
edited by Kernik
I hear a lot of references to the (jokingly created, not cannonical or even apcriptical) Book of Hezekiah, of late, the source of many pithy statements not found in any creed's official text. ( see http://bookofhezekiah.webs.com/thebookofhezekiah.htm) This definitely bares referencing here. I can't help but feel however that a lot of the arguing going on above is due to differing interpretations, different translations, different options as to what I cannon and what is fannon and the like...maybe we can more constructively discuss it under Cannon Discontinuity or Broken Base or Depending on the Writer ( or in some cases translator.....Philip K.Dick famously went on a rant once about a unfortunate translation of the relegious term "Logris" ...or may be it was "Christoi"...and asked "What if the source material were translated so?" He then gave the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist an interesting spin, what with Jesus the greasy distributing copywrites to the people....) but the fact of the matter is, there exist widely differing versions of the "same" "one true" Bible Sacra: it gets very hard to say what it dose or dose not say, even when the speakers agree on the the majority of what is there. They exist, and different people think different ones are correct....but it always sounds strange when they say "This is what is said," rather than, "this is what my version says." I've actually known people willing to kill or die depending on one word that is actually different in different printings of "the same" translation and targets a different group.
72.213.155.22
topic
09:11:47 PM Jul 4th 2010
About the Pokemon example, the thing most people are focusing on regarding Pikachu's ability to ignore Ground-type immunity was his battle against a Rhydon owned by Blaine which spawned the "Aim for the horn!" meme, not his battle against Brock's Onix. Should any mention of this be made, or the example be removed?
TwinBird
topic
10:54:23 AM Jun 5th 2010
The Columbus bit needs cleanup badly. To start with, he did discover America for Europe; the Vikings had no idea that the lands to the west extended so far south. He was looking to get to "Cathay" and "Cipango" by sea, which everyone (incorrectly) thought was possible, but hugely impractical due to everyone but Columbus thinking (correctly) that you'd have more ocean to cross than the entire width of Eurasia.
CesarB
topic
05:43:47 PM May 6th 2010
  • Speaking of people who insist on using scientific-sounding words, "oxygen" isn't a synonym for "air". Only about 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen, and thank goodness for that. Trying to breathe in a pure-oxygen environment would kill you, not to mention that any fire would set the whole atmosphere ablaze. Which admittedly would be a lot of fun to watch, but not conducive to supporting life. If one wants to write an Expospeak Gag involving air, "atmospheric gases" is a better substitute.
    • I'm not sure how that is a thank goodness. If the atmosphere were pure oxygen, presumably we would have evolved to breath pure oxygen (assuming we did in fact evolve in this hypothetical scenario).

I removed most of the above (leaving only up to "only 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen"). There are several situations where breathing pure oxygen is used on purpose. It was one of the causes of the Apollo 1 fire (in pure oxygen, things we normally do not think as easily flamable are); it is used on medicine (including hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which combines pure oxygen and high pressure); the masks used on airplanes during decompression incidents also use only oxygen; it is used to prevent decompression sickness; and so on (this all was just doing a quick look at Wikipedia). A 100% oxygen atmosphere would also not "be set ablaze by any fire", since you would still need a fuel, and then it is not 100% oxygen anymore (oxygen is only the oxidant).

Of course, pure oxygen is not 100% harmless; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
TwinBird
07:14:35 PM Aug 1st 2010
Also, it occurs to me that I've never heard "oxygen" used to mean "air" before, except in the context of breathing, in which case oxygen is what's important; the nitrogen could all be (and in artificial environments, often is) switched out for helium and it wouldn't make the slightest difference.
Kernik
11:51:24 AM Mar 3rd 2013
edited by Kernik
I often hear people call the gas they suck in order to talk, "oxygen," but then, I do spend a lot of time hanging around with people who like to put on pretentious aires but are very self conscious of their lack of scientific training. Perhapse this should best go in the Real Life or Troper Tales section of a technobabble related trope, such as Spock Speak? I feel like I have seen fictional characters do the same but can't bring an example to mind....a recent episode of Ben 10:Omniverse featured an space-man dangerously assuming that our air did not contain nitrogen, as he kept hearing Earth natives refer to it as oxygen ("an oxygen atmosphere," I assume), and then asserting that he was not to blame for the ensuing disaster, due to his being mislead—is this a suitable reference? In any event, I have heard the word misused in the manner originally described, often, but I travel the circles of the pseudo-intelligencia, and they are desperate to use words worthy of their positions of authority. I would not have commented at all, except that I keep placing replays here contrary to my intent, and am unable to figure out how to completely erase them save by replacing them with an apropos one.
back to Main/CommonKnowledge

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy