That Guy
The current image we've got now is of Alfred, Batman's butler. If you don't know Batman, you don't know Alfred, which means that this image is JAFAAC because Alfred's pose is not suggestive to me of above-average loyalty. It's just some guy, holding what looks like a costume of some kind.
Edited by SemiCasualObserver I reject your requirement for a witty statement or fanboyish squealing in my signature.
How the hell does that image illustrate loyalty, except using a fucking irritating meme? Nothing would change if you just used the text.
Hide / Show Replies
You need to calm down, you're getting too close to this. Objectively, what does the image show? To me it's a guy with a sword on one arm and pumping his fist with his other arm, standing on top of a destroyed mecha (or at least some machine with a person inside), Badass Cape waving in the wind. There are clouds behind them, so its probably high up or even airborne. The implication is that he just destroyed it. Since it's on this page, he probably did this out of loyalty. Am I wrong in that analysis?
I don't care about the meme, or the show itself particularly. The image illustrates the trope, and that's what's important.
And as to your edit summary, I have in fact read the page before and I do know what it means: Just A Face And A Caption. You, apparently, do not, per my previous edit summaries (even if you are not the same person, they still apply).
Edited by Westrim I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
You need to calm down, you're getting too close to this. Objectively, what does the image show? To me it's a guy with a sword on one arm and pumping his fist with his other arm, standing on top of a destroyed mecha (or at least some machine with a person inside), Badass Cape waving in the wind. There are clouds behind them, so its probably high up or even airborne. The implication is that he just destroyed it. Since it's on this page, he probably did this out of loyalty. Am I wrong in that analysis?
I don't care about the meme, or the show itself particularly. The image illustrates the trope, and that's what's important.
And as to your edit summary, I have in fact read the page before and I do know what it means: Just A Face And A Caption. You, apparently, do not, per my previous edit summaries (even if you are not the same person, they still apply).
Edited by Westrim I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
It doesn't illustrate the trope unless you already know the character, and it's a motivational poster. Both are no-nos, hence deleted.
Having just destroyed something doesn't imply "loyalty " at all. Being on this page is all that makes that image imply "loyalty". With a different caption, it would work just as well as a page image for something like Curbstomp Battle or Colossus Climb. Saying "it's on this page, it must be that he did it out of loyalty" is feeble reasoning at best.
And Westrim, trying to rules lawyer that because it isn't "just a face" it can't be JAFAAC is ignoring the whole point of JAFAAC: if the image is of a character, and the only thing that indicates that character is an example of the trope is a caption saying so, the image is JAFAAC in spirit, even if it's Just a Body and a caption.
The fact that a detailed explanation needed to be added in the example is a solid indication that it falls afoul of the guideline prohibiting JAFAAC.
Edited by Madrugada ...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I never said differently; to quote myself, "The implication is that he just destroyed it. Since it's on this page, he probably did this out of loyalty." We can't have a discussion if you don't read all of what I say. And the reasoning I wrote was a measured response, more than enough to counter someone who was swearing, citing an invalid trope, and saying that the image was not applicable at all.
It's not rules lawyering to say that something is not what it is not. JAFAAC is Exactly What It Says on the Tin, and there is absolutely nothing on JAFAAC to indicate it covers anything more than that. I could see stretching it to include an characters entire body, but certainly not a dynamic shot of someone in action, with said person occupying a fraction of the image (his face isn't even drawn well in the shot). And as I have said, it is what he is doing (standing on a machine he just destroyed), not who he is that is significant, which doesn't fit JAFAAC in any form.
Looking at the history, there's no indication that that explanation "needed to be added"; the editor just wanted to go over how cool they thought it was, and apparently wanted to try out hottips. It was explaining what he did, not why it was the trope.
I have more to say, but I'll save it for the thread Acritdy set up.
I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
I never said differently; to quote myself, "The implication is that he just destroyed it. Since it's on this page, he probably did this out of loyalty." We can't have a discussion if you don't read all of what I say. And the reasoning I wrote was a measured response, more than enough to counter someone who was swearing, citing an invalid trope, and saying that the image was not applicable at all.
It's not rules lawyering to say that something is not what it is not. JAFAAC is Exactly What It Says on the Tin, and there is absolutely nothing on JAFAAC to indicate it covers anything more than that. I could see stretching it to include an characters entire body, but certainly not a dynamic shot of someone in action, with said person occupying a fraction of the image (his face isn't even drawn well in the shot). And as I have said, it is what he is doing (standing on a machine he just destroyed), not who he is that is significant, which doesn't fit JAFAAC in any form.
Looking at the history, there's no indication that that explanation "needed to be added"; the editor just wanted to go over how cool they thought it was, and apparently wanted to try out hottips. It was explaining what he did, not why it was the trope.
I have more to say, but I'll save it for the thread Acritdy set up.
I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
This image has been removed for violating site policy on Fauxtivational Poster page pictures.
...Clarification, looks like Westrim is camping out to insure no one moves against this. Suit yourself- I've no interest in an Edit War. But this is an argument you will lose. The Admins have been quite adamant about this policy.
Edited by SomeGuy See you in the discussion pages.
What is the site policy on motivationals? I know they aren't the best choice, (as I say in the discussion linked to above), but I've never seen anything about them on any administrative pages. Where can I read this policy?
In the meantime, so far as I know when there's a discussion about something, the original state is preserved. I've said as much in the page history. Am I wrong on that?
And I'm not camping, I just checked my watchlist after checking over my entries. I expect to be otherwise busy for the next several hours, so I was checking before I left.
Edited by Westrim I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
What is the site policy on motivationals? I know they aren't the best choice, (as I say in the discussion linked to above), but I've never seen anything about them on any administrative pages. Where can I read this policy?
In the meantime, so far as I know when there's a discussion about something, the original state is preserved. I've said as much in the page history. Am I wrong on that?
And I'm not camping, I just checked my watchlist after checking over my entries. I expect to be otherwise busy for the next several hours, so I was checking before I left.
Edited by Westrim I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
Much policy is unwritten due to TV Tropes' informal structure. In this specific case, the policy is on the Fauxtivational Poster page.
The reasoning for it is largely aesthetic. The black area around the image is ugly and draws attention away from the actual picture. The picture itself with a normal caption box would be much prettier. Additionally, the work of having to edit images in this manner acts as a sorting process for "images that really work" versus "images that someone thinks are cool because of a meme".
Original state is preserved under normal circumstances, but as this image violates site policy it didn't occur to me to check for ongoing discussion. It's really moot point since a violation like this will be removed the minute Fast Eddie becomes aware of it.
If you really think is a good page image, you should remove the fauxtivational border. Right now that's the single largest strike against it.
Edited by SomeGuy See you in the discussion pages.
Okay. It's a little annoying that people were attacking me for not knowing something that isn't noted anywhere, but whatever. Maybe later I'll make a thread in Wiki Talk to see if a page defining image policy is a good idea.
Regardless, I took the image down and have a cropped version posted in the related thread.
I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
Okay. It's a little annoying that people were attacking me for not knowing something that isn't noted anywhere, but whatever. Maybe later I'll make a thread in Wiki Talk to see if a page defining image policy is a good idea.
Regardless, I took the image down and have a cropped version posted in the related thread.
I rarely visit the forums to avoid the cynicism ooze.
Why is killing a minion with Undying Loyalty considered a Kick the Dog moment?
Edited by superboy313