Main Word Cruft Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

06:38:22 AM Jun 24th 2015
Word Cruft, Natter, etc. should be mandatory reading material for new tropers.
11:40:19 AM Mar 12th 2013
edited by RatherRandomRandy
Question, why is 'Subverted by' word cruft? Say for example I write an example on a program called Alice and Bob and I say: 'Incredibly Obvious Bug: Subverted by Alice when she notices a bug left for her, and destroys it without commenting in the episode 'Alice Is Recruited'.

Does that in itself become word cruft, and why?
06:01:56 AM Jan 21st 2013
Can we throw in Averted Hard, Brutally Subverted, and other such intensifiers that generally just mean they didn't use this trope?
06:05:37 AM Jan 21st 2013
Oh goodness yes. The impact of something can be described in the entry; no need to pad things out with those intensifiers that often mean it's not that way of playing with a trope anyway.
01:30:46 AM Oct 12th 2012
Is it an example of word cruft when the trope example consists entirely of the words "Take a wild guess"? It's an example of something annoying, I know that much.
09:34:38 AM Oct 12th 2012
Yep. It manages to be Word Cruft and a Zero-Context Example — either remove the cruft and pull the remaining trope to the discussion page (unless it's one of the really self-explanatory ones) or correct it and put the character name/whatever.
06:14:11 AM Oct 10th 2012
edited by Katsuhagi
Does anyone else think "it should be noted" is an example of Word Cruft? I keep seeing it used in contexts that suggest it is, and it seems to fall under several of the categories on the main page.
01:22:41 AM Nov 23rd 2012
YES. "It should be noted" is pointless. We don't care whether something should be noted or not.
03:51:09 PM Jul 29th 2012
Another rule should be 'No Time Sensitive Language'. People are going to be reading these posts weeks, or even years from now. If you mention "In the most recent issue..." or "During last week's episode...", no-one will know what you are referring to, because those times don't mean anything to them.
01:39:30 AM Jul 30th 2012
06:07:18 PM Apr 17th 2012
Is it just me or is "though" becoming something of a Verbal Tic on this wiki? I keep running across people putting it in when it really shouldn't be, and it can be cut without damaging the meaning at all.
12:02:55 PM Sep 21st 2014
Being part verbal tic and part intensifier, would "egregious" be in this list somewhere?
12:46:30 PM Sep 21st 2014
It falls under "bogus intensifier", yeah.
06:52:16 AM Jan 29th 2012
Most of these are good tips but I don't like the bit that says we should avoid using real long words.

(I tried to keep em all under seven letters or less though, I respect TV Tropes' authoritah!)
06:07:05 PM Apr 17th 2012
edited by Katsuhagi
[Wrong topic]
05:23:46 AM Jan 8th 2012
edited by GracieLizzie
What's wrong with saying literally when something does literally follow a trope name that often wouldn't be mean literally? For example in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic magical Zap Apples are rainbow patterned when they ripen and at their best, therefore Everything's Better with Rainbows can be taken as literal example - rather than 'there's a cool rainbow themed thing in this episode' because the apples are better when they are rainbow patterned.
09:56:55 AM Jan 8th 2012
edited by Katsuhagi
I think it refers to it being used for emphasis rather than to describe something as you've put it. Hence when it's an "intensifier", it doesn't serve any purpose besides emphasis. From The Other Wiki:
An intensifier makes no contribution to the propositional meaning of a clause but serves to enhance and sometimes to give additional emotional context to the word it modifies.
05:44:15 PM Jan 6th 2012
"To clarify" and "to expand" should also probably be added, since it's when people add to an example and really should just merge it into the original paragraph.
09:08:50 AM Jan 13th 2012
"However" and "though" can usually be cut too, since they tend to be a precursor to Natter, so they might be considered for addition to the list.
06:12:56 PM Dec 9th 2011
Under the "passive-aggression masquerading as example" entry, someone should really put "Um" there.

Whenever I see "um" followed by something on this wiki, I click away, because much smug, passive-aggressive whinging will follow.
10:02:05 AM Dec 15th 2011
I was coming here specifically to ask if To be fair, To be honest, and For that matter could be added, but I hope you don't mind that I piggyback on yours, because half the time these three fall under that as well. In the case of For that matter or anything sounding similar, it STARTS OFF sounding like it will agree with the sentence/paragraph above...but then it doesn't. It seems like we will need to catalogue ALL cruft everywhere in all forms in order to properly curb usage.

On a less serious note, does anyone else really really feel a major buzzkill when someone explains an entry TOO much? First bullet point lays out the situation. Second bullet point typically points out the Fridge Whatever of the situation for those that don't know the character/series/universe that much Third bullet point points out how much help he needed to do this making it seem much less amazing. IF IT IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR BUZZKILL, JUST STOP, PEOPLE! I DON'T CARE HOW AWESOME IT REMAINS IN FUNCTION, YOU JUST REMOVED ANY IMPETUS TO READ IT!!! See the fantastic four entry on Locking MacGyver in the Store Cupboard for example.
08:42:09 AM Dec 22nd 2011
Seconding adding to be fair, to be honest et. all, since I just automatically cut those when I see them and mention Word Cruft in the edit explanation.
09:22:30 AM Jan 4th 2012
"To be fair" is like TV Tropes' Verbal Tic at this rate. We need some very obsessed people to clean up the pages.
05:43:45 PM Jan 6th 2012
Well, I'm one, so I zap it on sight.
02:20:51 PM Dec 5th 2011
We might want to add that it's unnecessary to add a YMMV disclaimer when something is already on the YMMV page since I keep seeing that, and it's just redundant.
09:06:51 PM Sep 19th 2011
I want to slap "Troper Institution for Re-Education" with Maximum Fun Chamber, but I'm not authorized to edit this article. Can someone with the authority to do it be a chuckle-worthy jokester and add it in? I think it's a good fit.
05:43:30 PM Sep 10th 2011
This may seem like a stupid question, but is Word Cruft bad in Sugar Wiki, or is it unavoidable due to being a place for gushing?
11:23:20 AM Dec 11th 2010
What about the phrase "Played painfully straight-"? Tropes Are Not Bad, and all examples are assumed to be played straight unless otherwise indicated. If the example is Unfortunate Implications or Did Not Do The Research or something of the like, just say so.
06:08:44 PM Feb 15th 2011
I think it means to be played too straight. For instance, King Kong(1976) plays Mars Needs Women roughly straight, King Kong(1933) plays it painfully straight.
08:42:46 AM Dec 15th 2011
I would presume that those examples fall under something like trying too hard. Shoehorning a trope, if there's a trope or term for that somewhere.
05:31:06 AM Nov 16th 2010
There's no guidelines on when "Bogus X" are or are not bogus. Removing the example Boguses entirely would be a regrettable blow to the site, so I'm inclined to ignore both guidelines entirely.

The elaboration for Prolongation: robo-speech specifically complains that it delays useful information and that it makes one sound like a robot. 1. Sounding like a robot is perfectly fine 2. It HASTENS useful information 3. Although the accusation of prolongation is only in the name and not in the elaboration, the opposite is true: the troper sounds like a robot specifically because extra grammar is being eschewed. On the above grounds I would encourage people to totally disregard that one as well.
10:33:07 AM Nov 5th 2010
edited by Filby
I like the page and the purpose it serves, but is the "retarded gibbons" comment near the end necessary? Sorry to get all PC, but equating developmental disabilities to stupidity or worthlessness is not cool.

(Gibbons are fair game, though, the manky bastards.)
08:40:14 AM Dec 15th 2011
Since it specifies specifically gibbons, then no, take thee's PC ass to the nearest volcano marklarfarklar
05:54:11 PM May 15th 2013
No, it does not. It specifies a huge chunk of the internet populace as being "retarded gibbons" simply because they answer rhetorical questions. The fact that answering rhetorical questions is a useful way to deflate them and their argument didn't enter into the editor's mind.

It's still word cruft because it drags things on, but that doesn't mean people are *stupid* for using a useful argumentative strategy.
03:44:34 PM Oct 2nd 2010
End of 'Subverted as verbal chaff' contains Ascii character 9516 ┬, for no discernible reason. Should be removed (by someone who can bypass the lock on the topic).
07:13:39 AM Aug 31st 2010
"Played straight and subverted"

I read through and agree with the various "crufts" but I'm having trouble with this one. Why is this phrase bad writing? A given work might indeed play a trope straight, then deliberately avert it (and even call attention to the fact. For example, a videogame might start you off with ShortRangeShotguns then reward you near the end with one, or a move using them, that compensates for your lack of range, via technology, phlebotinum or some other reason. In that case, wouldn't the trope have been both played straight and subverted?
06:02:44 PM Feb 15th 2011
edited by requiem18th
01:35:02 PM Oct 4th 2011
I think it's covered by "If it's two different examples from the same work, separate them into two sub-bullets." Also, check Not a Subversion
05:51:51 AM Aug 31st 2010
The punchline of the rhetorical questions part should obviously be "Given these odds, do you really think using rhetorical questions is a good idea?". But oh well, you can't have everything in life.
04:00:57 PM Aug 21st 2010
If something is subverted, why is saying "Subversion: whatever the example is" unequivocally terrible? I presume the alternative is "Subverted in whatever the example is".
11:18:03 AM Dec 11th 2010
Good question. I second it.
10:07:45 AM Jul 6th 2010
The Take That seems rather excessive.
11:59:25 AM Jul 6th 2010
What Take That?
03:59:59 PM Aug 21st 2010
edited by StandingSpace
aargle blarge
12:17:05 PM Sep 6th 2010
This page does sound mean spirited at places. Until a cure can be found, the best that can be hoped is that these people are tracked down and sent to the Troper Institution For Re-Education or a license to spend the rest of said paragraph noodling around on whatever topic randomly crosses your lobes is excessive for something that people do automatically in most cases.
10:07:51 PM Mar 13th 2012
That whole bullet reads like it was written by a Straw Vulcan who would prefer the wiki read like a lab report.
10:11:23 PM Mar 13th 2012
What martian reads this page and thinks: "I bet the author dislikes humour?"
03:27:45 PM Mar 23rd 2013
This one.
05:44:34 PM May 15th 2013
edited by
Seconded kraas. There's a difference between being helpful and being hostile, and this page crosses it at several points. Economical writing is a valuable skill so it isn't like the content should be cut, but it'll be a hell of a lot better if it doesn't try to lord over the people who it'd help the most.

Protip: accusing a good chunk of the internet of being as intelligent as a "retarded gibbon" says more about the accuser than "a good chunk of the internet."
10:56:51 PM Aug 26th 2013
There's also:

Prolongation: robo-speech: Some poor souls begin every example with "Subversion:" or "Inversion:" or "Film example:" or, in desperate cases, "Another example:". The motivation, of course, is to delay, even for a moment, that dread instant when they have to start saying something. The only significant effect is that they sound like a robot from a '50s B-Movie. Easy to clean up.

Or, you know, they could just be ignorant of how to pothole. If they're afraid of "saying something" they could just not contribute their example.
06:35:45 AM Jun 24th 2015
edited by NonSequiturWalrus
I quite agree with Born In. At first, this page seemed funny, but it began to cross a line.
Collapse/Expand Topics