Discussion Webanimation / RWBY

I've sent a request to the mods. Just hang tight.

We don't want main redirects to work pages. Please don't create them. Those that already exist are leftovers from a time when there were no namespaces.

Well, it's kinda hard to get to the page if you don't know the subdirectory (in this case, Web Animation). There are buttons for subdirectories for films, but not yet web animations.

Can we at least get some text on the main page that contains the link to the proper RWBY page? Such as "If you are looking for the work by Monty Oum and Rooster Teeth, go here:"?

If it helps I just finished manually correcting most of the wicks pointing to Main.RWBY so that they now point directly to WebAnimation.RWBY.

So, question. Do you think the mystery of what happened to Ruby's mom, Summer, would be considered a Myth Arc or no?

That's been through clean-up threads in the past to established whether the Maidens and Pyrrha classified as Chosen Ones at all (I think it was Is This An Example?). The feedback is no; just because someone gets chosen for something (in this case Super-Empowering) it doesn't mean The Chosen One (or similar) is in play for that character.

The Chosen One and its relatives are about that one character that has been chosen by some force of destiny or a being of equivalent stature to be the one hero who has to save everything, or upon whom the fate of everything depends. The only character that meets that standard is Ozma, which is why Oz and Oscar have all the Chosen One tropes (and therefore the God of Light is The Chooser of the One). It's also why Ruby is troped as The Unchosen One because she's assumed leadership of The Chosen One's mission.

The Chosen Many also requires there to be an organisation of special individuals and there is no organisation of such beings in this work.

Just asking I always ask before adding a trope onto a page.

Per Administrivia.Red Link, we always link to TV Tropes even if it does not have a work or creator page yet and is a red link. This helps in creating pages in the future.

Yeah, it spares people having to create the links whenever they stumble across a wiki reference after the page has been created. These red links will just go live and the work will already have been done.

Agreed. Many of them seem to be more interested in just detailing chunks of events from the show than in actually drawing attention to how the tropes are in play within the events described.

For what it's worth, there is a dedicated character page clean-up thread. I've just brought it up here.

The reason the RWBY clean-up thread was created was, in part, to keep RWBY from taking over all the other clean-up threads.

The thread is here. Cleaning up Wall of Text entries is on the list (along with a lot of other things people have spotted).

Agreed. The page is currently a bit of a mess and far longer than it needs to be.

Everything from 'On April 1, 2016....' onwards can be moved to the Franchise page, leaving only the relevant information behind.

I went ahead and moved the franchise-specific information across to the franchise page.

They're already too involved with the plot to be a MacGuffin. However, MacGuffin is a sub-trope of Plot Device. The most appropriate trope that applies to the Relics is probably Ancient Artifact. We don't have enough information yet to know exactly how they empower the people who have them, we only know they do.

I think it may be time to split into pages, probably just two or three for now, but as Volume 5 draws nearer, more and more tropes will be added.

We could do what Red Vs Blue does and split the pages by arc. The Vol. 1-3 steelbook refers to those volumes as the “Beacon” arc. Make a page titled “RWBY: Beacon” and move any tropes that apply solely to the first three Volumes there.

That would only be a good idea if the story arc theme continues, and we're only going to know that with hindsight.

Just want to point out that the page is now giving a too long warning. We need to split it up soon.

What's wrong with adding a picture for the different seasons and making it look more fun?

Too many images. If there are going to be volume-specific ones then what's the point for a general image?

No, they're main characters. Just because they're not first in the line to have their back stories revealed doesn't make them 'lime light' characters. Now, if the shopkeeper gets a back story episode, he'd be this trope.

Let's see if the list can be cleaned up, and see what's left. I can see a couple of examples are shoehorns. As it stands, the creators do like doing things like that it could end up with a long list even after a clean up. I'll put the examples I think need to be removed into this discussion thread.

Okay, Call-Back examples I think need to be removed as shoehorns or because they belong under different tropes.

A Call-Back is something that makes an earlier event plot relevant again. If it's just a nod to something that occurred before, like an internal Shout-Out, it's not a Call-Back.

The rest of the examples on the work page, I rewrote to be relevant to the Call-Back trope. There are a lot of them still, so a new page for the trope may still be a good idea.

• Jaune's fight with an Ursa has him dodging a sweeping attack by jumping, only to get punched out of the air right afterwards. Just like Weiss in the White Trailer. [Reason: The animators just seem to like this battle move. It appears all over the place.]
• Penny has some similarities to Ruby when it comes to making friends. She even mentions "going shopping, and painting our nails, and talking about cute boys" like Weiss did sarcastically in Episode 3, and Ruby took at face value. Ruby herself lampshades this.[Reason: This may be a Continuity Nod instead.]
• Volume 2 starts with the man whose Dust shop was robbed in Volume 1 re-opening for business. And then he gets robbed again. [Reason: This is an internal shout-out at best, which isn't what Call-Back is.]
• While Mercury and Emerald are walking toward Tukson's, one of the establishments they pass has the dance club music from the Yellow Trailer playing. [Reason: This is an internal shout-out at best, which isn't what Call-Back is.]
• In Vol. 2 Episode 1, Nora sings "I'm queen of the castle" again during the Food Fight. [Reason: This is an internal shout-out at best, which isn't what Call-Back is.]
• Just before the food fight kicks off in earnest, Ruby is holding a carton of milk. She still hasn't grown up much. [Reason: Shoehorning.]
• "Welcome to Beacon" has Neptune introducing himself to Weiss by calling her "Snow Angel". He's much more successful than Jaune was. The episode also has Weiss making a comment about Yang busting up a club (referencing the Yellow Trailer). [Reason: This may be a Continuity Nod instead.]
• Interactions between Sun and Blake outside of Beacon: [Reason: This is more like Ironic Echo or some other trope. It's not Call-Back, however.]
  Sun: I knew you looked better without the bow. (S1E15)
  Blake: I knew you would look better in a tie. (S2E6)
• Nora wears a t-short with Boop on it. [Reason: This is an in-joke, not Call-Back]
• In "No Brakes", Weiss faces down another tall enemy with an accordingly gigantic bladed weapon, like in the White trailer. Blake also attempts to decouple a pair of train cars with her blade, as she did in the Black trailer, but this time, the cars separate on their own before she brings her sword down. [Reason: shoehorning. Continuity Nod at best.]
• Nora using her hammer to propel herself across long distances (first shown in Volume 1 Episode 8 to launch across a broken bridge) returns in the Volume 2 finale for the final fight. [Reason: Shoehorn. It's just a battle technique she can do whenever she needs to.]
• The Volume 3 intro sequence begins with a rose petal against the moon, similar to the way the Red trailer began. [Reason: possible Continuity Nod.]
• In "Round One," Nora belches loudly like she did at the end of the food fight in Volume 2. After Nora belches, Jaune makes a reference to the very first thing he did back in Volume 1: [Reason: Continuity Nod at best]
• "New Challengers" has Sun try to brush off Neptune's embarrassing attempts to hit on Team NDGO with a take on Neptune's "Ignore him, for he knows not what he says" to make up for Sun saying he was going to the dance dressed like normal in "Burning the Candle". [Reason: Ironic Echo, or some other relevant trope. It's not Call-Back, however.]
  Ignore him, for he...yeah, he's dumb.
  Jaune: If I barf, I'm blaming you.
• Episode three has Qrow and Winter make several references to things we've attributed to Ruby, Yang, and Weiss. Qrow showcases Red Eyes, Take Warning like Yang, while Winter performs a Blade Run on Qrow like Weiss did in to the Knight in her trailer. Their fight ends up destroying the courtyard, which was supposed to happen during Ruby and Weiss's first meeting if it wasn't for an animation error (and the dialogue claims did occur). In fact, Qrow's overly casual attitude throughout the scene and Winter's frustrated response is very similar to Volume 1's Ruby/Weiss relationship. Some things apparently run in the blood. [Reason: As this example indicates, Generation Xerox is probably more likely to be the relevant trope.]
• In Volume 1 Episode 8, Nora and Ren ride on an Ursa. In Volume 3 Episode 10, Scarlet and Sage are seen riding on an Ursa. What makes it funnier is that Nora and Scarlet are both redheads and that Ren and Sage both have green as part of their color scheme. [Reason: In joke, not Call-Back.]
• In the Black trailer, when Adam cuts through a Spider Droid, the scenery around him turns red and black, with Adam hunched over and his sword held straight out behind him. The shot of him slicing Yang's arm off in "Heroes and Monsters", features the same colouring and pose, with the only difference being Yang's hair and gauntlets being left yellow in the shot. [Reason: Shoehorn. This is just part of the animation and nature of his attack moves.]
• Volume 3 has several of these:
  • Volume 1 has Cardin shoving Jaune in a rocket-locker then sending it flying with him in it. Pyrrha does the exact same thing in the Volume 3 finale, to keep him from getting killed at Cinder's hands. [Reason: This is a foreshadowing set-up and is under that trope.]
  • In Volume 1 Episode 8, Ruby uses Weiss' glyphs to run up the side of a cliff after having hooked a Nevermore by the neck with Crescent Rose. In the Volume 3 finale, Weiss uses her glyphs to allow Ruby to run up the side of the CCT to get to the top where Cinder and Pyrrha are fighting. She even lampshades it by saying, "You can do this." [Reason: This is Continuity Nod because the real link is Ruby saying 'I have a plan' and Weiss responding 'You always do'. The wall run itself is clearly just a tactic strategy Weiss can use whenever she needs to, which would be a shoehorn, it's the dialogue that's important, and that's Continuity Nod instead of Call-Back.]
  • In the Volume 3 finale, Cinder kills Pyrrha with an arrow to the heart just like she had killed Amber an episode prior. [Reason: Shoehorn. Cinder is an archer. There's only so many ways to shoot a person before it gets repetitive. Importantly, the way the arrow kills Pyrrha is completely different to the way the arrow kills Amber.]

Shall we create the new Call Back page now? I'd like to do that, but I'm a bit afraid of messing something up.

You're right; the show's names do come from a wide variety of inspirations. But some of the characters have names that are not real names at all. I would leave it as Aerith and Bob and say something like this:

• Aerith and Bob: The characters' names run the gamut from mundane (James, Peter, Lisa) to unusual but not unheard of (Pyrrha, Yang, Neptune) to exotic or totally imaginary (Ozpin, Salem, Nebula). Crosses over with Melting-Pot Nomenclature, as the show draws inspiration from a wide range of cultures for many of the names.

Salem is actually a legitimate name in real life. In the UK, it's a boy's name rather than a girl's name, but it's a unisex name in the US. It had a low level (but statistically recognised) use prior to the 1990s, but saw a large upswing in use after the 1990s - the uncle-stuck-as-a-black-cat in Sabrina the Teenage Witch made the name more popular - enough to have statistics compiled on its use as a baby name by both the US and the UK (for example, in 2012, there were seven male babies who were given the name Salem).

Nebula is also a name that does the rounds for kids - along with names like Rain, Rainbow, Cloud, and so on. Not exactly a name I'd ever give a kid, but some people have.

There are certainly a couple of artificial names in the show (Ozpin being the big one) but, with the exception of Ozpin, most of the artificial names are created the same way parents create 'unusual' names in real life (Jaune, for instance, has been used as a baby's name at least twice that I know of, long before this show ever came along - and, yes, the parents' in both cases just took the French word and turned it into a name, knowing that it wasn't a real name).

To my mind, the show seems to be mostly Melting-Pot Nomenclature, but I can agree that there is a bit of Aerith and Bob going on where Ozpin is concerned (and perhaps one or two others; Taiyang and Qrow might be examples, but Salem, Nebula and Raven are not - although Qrow might just be tropable under something that discusses funky name spellings instead).

My Nayme Is

I suspect people are using the WoR segments she narrated.

Episode 1 opened with a narrated disagreement between two characters, a man and a woman. The man was introduced extremely quickly (Ozpin). The woman was never openly mentioned, but continued to narrate the WoR segments until Ozpin took over the narration of them. The finale of Volume 3 is a continuation of their Episode 1 debate, finally revealing the appearance and name of the Female Narrator.

It's pretty obvious from the very beginning that this female is a character who was going to appear in the show at some point. In that sense, she does indeed have a delayed introduction, especially compared to the speed of Ozpin's introduction.

However, with the exception of the WoR which are additions to the show, not part of the actual episodes, I completely agree that there's an issue of her lack of actual narration. The narration in Episode 1 and the WoR is more like back story and world building, it's not narrating the story that's unfolding in the first three volumes, and the final reveals that what the Episode 1 narration really is, is a villainous gloat to Ozpin - the villain gloating about their plan.

That means she's using Evil Gloating to introduce the show that sets the scene for the summation of her Evil Gloating (as the Volume 3 reveals).

She's not a Chekhov's Gunman, though. It's pretty clear from Episode 1 that, if Ozpin is the school's headmaster and the one driving the main character's schooling and development, then his unnamed counterpart has to be equally important.

Ozpin and Salem's conversation could count as Opening Dialogue or Opening Narration, with application of Tropes Are Flexible. But even if you don't count that, she definitely counts as a narrator for the WoR segments. And regardless of whether or WoR counts as part of the Volumes themselves, it's still part of the show.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that this is much more Delayed Narrator Introduction than Narrator All Along; Salem wasn't an actual character until the end of Volume 3. And I think it's also worth noting that Salem is in the credits exclusively as "Mysterious Narrator" until Volume 3, so clearly RT sees her as a narrator.

She was a character right at the beginning, too. It's obvious the two narrators were arguing about something specific and plot-related and that the 'small soul' was going to be Ruby. Then the male was introduced immediately, making it pretty obvious the narration was about some kind of feud between them that would become clear as the story unfolded.

It's not that she wasn't a character from the beginning (she was), it's just that her appearance was delayed.

The problem isn't whether the Female Narrator was ever a narrator (she clearly was). The problem is whether her narration examples fit the Narrator tropes, which have specific descriptions.

I agree that Opening Monologue would be an appropriate description of the beginning of Episode 1 (depending on how Ozpin's rebuttal factors in), and that Narrator All Along doesn't apply. The problem with Delayed Narrator Introduction is that it's talking about narrating the unfolding story until the narrator introduces a new character... as themselves, and that's how we find out how the narrator fits into the unfolding story.

Salem's WoR narration is more like a couple of history classes than narrating the unfolding story. The information in the segments are very important to our understanding of the story, but aren't the story itself. The same is true for Ozpin's narrations. He hasn't been troped with any narration tropes so far either, despite doing all the same narration as Salem.

I say that Tropes Are Not Narrow. I agree that Salem's narration had more to do with backstory than the story itself but we had The Narrator and she was later revealed to be actual character. Quoting Delayed Narrator Introduction "This trope is when the person narrating the story is introduced as a character part way in and reveals this is who they are". That's what happened, Salem was narrating and leter revealed. Arguing that this was backstory rather than the story itself seems like a nitpick.

Salem didn't introduce herself to the audience the way Delayed Narrator Introduction covers. The narration was never to the audience. It was an in-universe narration, revealed at the end of volume 3 to be an on-going (and current) debate between the two characters involved. Salem doesn't say 'Oh, and by the way, that woman over there is me'. She's too buys saying 'yeah, Oz, you've got a point, which is why I'm gonna destroy humans to destroy you'.

Her narration (and Ozpin's narration) doesn't play the role of the Delayed Narrator Introduction. It's an in-universe conversation with another character and doesn't break the fourth wall the way the trope usually does.

Except that Oz almost certainly knew everything Salem said in the initial narration. She mostly told us Remnant's backstory, which was for benefit of the audience, rather than Ozpin. You're right that this isn't the usual way this trope is handled, which is exacly why i said that Tropes Are Not Narrow. Delayed Narrator Introduction is about showing Narrator's identity, it has nothing to do with contents of narration itself. The fact that Narration is actually in-universe conversation doesn't matter. Just because trope is handled unusually, doesn't mean it's not present.

And when was it out of context?

I'm also thinking that perhaps the Monsters of Grimm should have their own page as well. At the moment they're lumped onto a catch-all page that has human enemies, technological 'enemies' and the Creatures of Grimm themselves. Since the Grimm have a different section per species, it's fast taking over the page. I think the human villains and the monsters need to be categorised separately.

I'm not sure what to suggest about the technology, since (one obvious exception aside) I'm not sure technology should be classified as 'characters' in the first place.

It made a reference to Pyrrha's death. I just rewrote it to remove that reference. I have the same question about spoiler tagging, though.

See Handling Spoilers and How to Write an Example (Avoid Spoilers section). The point is about swiss cheesing a sentence, which we're not encouraged to do. Blanking out parts of a sentence to leave an incomplete one behind (or zero context information unspoilered) does. It's been mentioned in the past on ATT and in the forums as well (can't remember which thread, though).

The reference doesn't need to be in the example at all, however, so I'm fine with it being removed.

I see what you're saying, and I guess this is kind of a moot point now, but I think clearing this up now will probably help in the future. It seems there's a difference in what is we consider swiss-cheesing. I don't think that spoilering the last half of a sentence while leaving the topic un-spoilered counts. My understanding is that swiss-cheesing is if you're whiting-out parts of a sentence so that the actual subject of the sentence is unclear. I don't think that leaving the the first half of a sentence (the general topic) alone while spoilering the second half (the specific plot-related stuff) is confusing enough to be swiss-cheesing.

Flame Bait should never be listed. Also, we should never import drama and we're not supposed to trope real life.

What happened between Shane and Rooster Teeth is an issue that lies between an ex-employee and the company they used to work for. We shouldn't be troping anything at all from that letter.

It counts as Creator Backlash and Artist Disillusionment at the very least.

It doesn't count as either. He wasn't the work's creator, and his letter never attacked the fans.

While the letter is an example of Creator Backlash, I personally feel we should only have the bare minimum mention of it because said letter is major Flame Bait.

The Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment supercedes the need to trope stuff.

Leave it off the wiki.

I say leave it off. Shane, whilst being Monty's friend and apprentice, was not one of the inner creative circle so his letter (which is terribly biased with his Creator Worship of Monty) is too Flame Baity to bring on for what basically amounts to 90% ranting at Rooster Teeth for not doing things 100% as Monty would have and 10% "Monty told me this once so this is how it should have been ignoring the fact that Monty talked to a lot of people about his ideas and changed them all the time."

We don't need to add more drama to the page.

Yes, the letter is utterly pathetic bullshit, but A) Creator Backlash counts for literally anyone involved in a project, even a one-time guest star or something, and B) it happened, and deserves a mention. Giving a cursory mention to the fact that he wrote a letter won't cause huge fights or drama here.

My point is, it happened, and deserves a mention, at least.

It really doesn't.

It LITERALLY HAPPENED, and is fucking RELATED TO RWBY, which means, by definition, IT DESERVES A FUCKING TROPE MENTION. I will do a bare minimum edit that won't provoke an argument.

Doing an edit at all will provoke an argument. You shouldn't decide to make an edit when a discussion about whether or not any edits should be made has not been resolved. Especially when the consensus is leaning towards not making any mention of it at all.

^^ ... no, no it does not. We don't trope real life. We trope works of fiction. Why would we include that in there?

We do trope real if it's related to the creation of said work of fiction, this is common site practice. You can't be that paranoid that you think "Oh, if we mention that it happened it might cause a small argument that could be easily resolved by a mod, obviously we should pretend it didn't happen."

The letter isn't about the work or its creation. It's about a break-down in the relationship between an employer and a former employee, and why that relationship broke down from the ex-employee's point-of-view.

It's just importing drama.

^^ No... we don't. We don't trope the creators, we trope the works.

What the above tropers said, leave the letter and all the drama with it off the wiki.

"Note: For it to count as this trope, it should be a whole arc, not just one or two episodes. If just one character leaves, or it lasts for a very short time, it falls under other tropes."

Since it's 6-8 months after Volume 3's end, I'd say it's an example. I doubt team RWBY is going to be back together by the end of Volume 4 in any case.

The trouble with the 6-8 months is that it's a Time Skip. It happens off-screen.

Ok, so, how long do we need to wait till it counts as an arc? 3 episodes? 4? 6? 8?

I'm not sure. However, perhaps the first episode or two will give us a good idea of whether this is going to last the whole volume or be solved in a couple of episodes..

After volume 1 finished airing, the RWBY crew said that volumes 1 and 2 would comprise season 1, but that was before story elements were moved around, extending the arc into 3 volumes. Since then, I haven't heard any news on the topic.

Definitely a shoehorn.

- Yang's Aura being golden embers is seen in the Volume 2 opening. A character's Aura material can also be seen sometimes in the show, with Ruby's rose petals being seen multiple times and Blake's black butterflies briefly visible in the Black Trailer during her assault on the Spider Droid. Yang's Aura flares many, many times, showing golden embers. In the volume 2 opening, we see all four Auras active and shown: Ruby's rose petals, Weiss's snowflakes, Blake's black butterflies, and Yang's golden embers.

- That is not obvious at all. Every time a character's Aura has been depleted, there has been some indication. With Jaune, we have the aura meters. In the fights in the tournament, we have the bell, plus we were introduced to the "aura-depleted" animation. In three different cases, this animation always plays to show a character has been drained of Aura—Mercury, Amber, and Pyrrha, though the latter comes after this event (though, still before the livestream). Blake does not show it and neither does Yang. There also was no "offscreen fight". We see everything that happens between Blake and Adam, it's just set up against other scenes to show that other events are happening while this one is happening. The "obvious conclusion" was the one that plagued this wiki, that Adam's sword could pierce Aura.

- Yes we do. The summary came in the livestream. An actual summary by the creators, referring to Yang and how her arm came off.

So far, your three points are wrong and the tropes still fits.

Completely agree with Zaptech and Karxrida. This is shoehorning.

Ok Silence, tell me this: How did that Word of God provice any context to this example? We saw what happened, whe know that Yang attacked Taurus and he retaliated cutting her arm of, apparently getting through her aura. WOG didn't add any context to this, because this was never taken out of context in the first place.

Yes??? It did???

Word of God provided the detail necessary to know that Adam's attack broke through her aura completely, rather than ignoring it. They also saw fit to tell us that Yang had been fighting previously and that her Aura was not at 100%, like most people thought it was: that's definitely context. I'm not sure what's difficult about this to understand. If you have a better trope I'd like to hear it.

First of all we KNEW already that Yang was fighting before, because when she was talking with Blake through scroll we've heard her fighting. Even just before she saw Adam she punched some White Fang. The only new thing is that Adam apparently broke through. That's detail, not context. We knew the context from the beginning, how can you say that It Makes Just As Much Sense In Context when it was never out of context in the first place? I think the trope you're looking for is Voodoo Shark, although i'm not sure if it actually fits. But it definitely does not fit here.

I agree it is shoehorning. I even would go on to say that with the provided context it makes more sense than before; after all, we've seen Adam's attack before, and it appears to be simply a single, very powerful strike. I buy it broke through Yang's aura completely, though I also agree the golden embers we see from the wound is simply what's left of her aura trying to heal her and prevent her from bleeding out (we see a similar effect when Pyrrha gets shot in the heart)

That wasn't Pyrrha's aura, that was....well, sparks....I don't wanna talk about how Pyrrha died okay.

Look, I think people are misconstruing things. Sure, it looks like she incinerated Pyrrha, but if you rewatch the scene, what Cinder actually did was turn her to glass, and scatter her as glass dust. The sound she makes while disappearing is a lot more like the tinkling sound of glass than anything else.

She was turned to ash. But ash, glass, etc., doesn't matter because she's deader than dead.

Ash can be made into glass, she turned her to super heated glass, then scattered the ashes. If it was disintegration there wouldn't be anything to blow away, since disintegration is the destruction of matter.

Shoehorning, etc.

I agree there is a lack of "sweet" to say it was a Bittersweet Ending.

The note is Natter and the latter had an actual effect.

I'm going to leave this for a couple more days to see if anyone else responds. If not, I'll add it back with the note and second bullet point removed (and clean-up the word cruft, while I'm at it).

I'd argue against the Pyrrha one being a senseless sacrifice. as the Trope page makes it clear what it would take to subvert it.

"For this trope to be subverted does not require that it have been a Heroic Sacrifice. What needs to happen is that the previously "senseless" sacrifice was actually either a Batman Gambit on the martyr's part to create an exploitable weakness for the hero to use later, or doing so by sheer dumb luck."

While she has no way of knowing it at the time, Pyrrha's decision to confront Cinder leads Ruby to the top of the tower, and her death unlocks Ruby's power, which ends up derailing Cinder's plans.

in other words, Her sacrifice directly leads to Cinder's plans being foiled. Hence, not this trope.

Okay, I've put the trope back on the page with the following wording:

• Senseless Sacrifice. In "Never Miss a Beat", Flynt takes down Weiss then prepares to join Neon against Yang. Weiss tackles him into a lava plume, depleting her aura and removing her from the contest. However, Flynt gets back to his feet and remains in the fight.

The note has been removed and the Pyrrha example has not been readded.

It's under trope repair and is being revamped as a fanspeak term. Even before then, it was always suggested that people choose specific badass tropes and only ever use the generic one if no specific tropes applied.

Is that what you call a "burst of exposition"? Because I can tell you, what you are referring to is not a clue or allusion in any way. It's a single mention with no context.

Imagine if, in Harry Potter, Lupin's "crystal ball" Boggart had never happened, or Snape had never forcibly brought up the issue of werewolves, leaving the only "clue" being that Lupin was ill a lot. A viewer would not be able to tell at all that Lupin's being ill was significant until the revelation of his being a werewolf, and that would negate that as foreshadowing.

...what?

Your definition of foreshadowing goes completely against what the actual definition is. The second sentence in the Foreshadowing description page actually says that it can be an offhand comment or action.

"It could be a wayward comment or action, an event that doesn't make sense until later, a Meaningful Name, a rare blood type... so many things can warn us of the future. The foreshadowing may be ominous, or mildly suggestive, or it could merely be Obvious In Hindsight."

Foreshadowing needs to be a big enough nugget, is what I'm saying. What is happening here is the equivalent of one character saying "the moon is bright tonight" in one scene of a media series, and many seasons later the moon explodes or reveals itself as an enemy. That would not make the moon comment foreshadowing.

The foreshadowing may be ominous, or mildly suggestive, or it could merely be Obvious In Hindsight.

Ozpin's eye comment is none of those things, at all.

No, it doesn't. The Foreshadowing description page outright says that a wayward comment or action can be foreshadowing. Ozpin's statement to Ruby, complete with significant pause afterward, is more than enough. By that trope's definition, it counts.

No, the comment wasn't ominous, mildly suggestive, or Obvious In Hindsight, nor is that really relevant, because the description page says that it "may be" any of those things.

You might not think that it's foreshadowing enough, but that's irrelevant to the trope description. There is no "minimum" fore foreshadowing listed on that page.

Then you and I are going to disagree on this eternally.

You may have been picked up on this, but most people didn't. It's not even a "left field" kind of comment. Most people simply thought Qrow would have silver eyes, because the very next thing he talks about is Qrow, and lo and behold, later in Volumes 1 and 2 Ozpin is shown to know Qrow personally.

It was definitely foreshadowed.

I agree it was definitely foreshadowed. Whether or not individual fans think it was a good quality foreshadowing is neither here nor there, since that's audience opinion. However, the storyline definitely made a point of making sure fans knew there was something significant about Ruby's eye colour from the very beginning in a scene that kicked off a conversation that led to her being pushed ahead of her age-group by two years.

The link was so obviously a set-up that the fandom has spent three years speculating about what abilities and connection to her mother it meant Ruby would have.

Sorry Silence but you're wrong. Foreshadowing is not subjective trope and the fact that Oz mentioned her eyes did suggest that her eyes will be somehow important in the future, whether you like it or not. You may or may not disagree whether it was foreshodowed well or if it was foreshadowed enough, but that's beyond point. Whether you like it or not it's a fact that it was foreshadowed, period. Ozpin mentioned her eyes giving clue that her eye color will be important later, FNDM was discussing this matter for three years, now that we know about it it's obvious that Oz was refering to silver-eyed magic, this is exacly what foreshadowing is. Seeing as 80% of people talking here agree with me i'm putting it back.

Im just gonna make one and take any punishments...

Karxrida asked a mod. Apparently. I see no evidence of it anywhere, and I'm waiting for a reply. Just hold off before reverting.

So let's discuss this since Fighteer put this on the backpedal a bit.

Basically, before there were a huge amount of spoilers (I counted over 100 spoiler tag markups before I purged it all). Those making editing a massive pain due to how hard it is to make a spoiler entry look good, on top of the fact that a huge chunk of the page was hidden. The fact that this work is ongoing only compounds these issues, since everything new gets tagged and it increases the percentage of hidden entries.

It is far more painless for editing's sake to just get rid of the tagging and place a big warning for page viewers.

RWBY is not a work with a major twist every episode, and the page wasn't even close to the ridiculously white level some pages can get. Absolutely nothing about the page was violating spoiler policy, and saying "100 spoiler tags" is meaningless because tags vary in size. It's a big page. It has lots of tags. That's not a big deal.

Maybe a few of the individual tags could have been toned down or removed. But RWBY just does not need to have all the tags removed. It's complete overkill.

Is it overkill? Probably. But I think it's better this way because ease of editing and page presentation.

We only strip all spoilers from a page when it becomes a major issue and is violating policy, usually on character pages. And even then, the tags are just stripped out for everything before the current season. If someone doesn't like spoiler tags, they can turn off spoilers in their profile or even click the little toggle on the sidebar.

Again, overkill, and I'm voting to revert. I can fix it manually myself, no need to deal with the headache of having the mods roll back the page.

Revert please.

Revert.

sorry. computer spazzed and did a double post. A mod can delete this post if they wish.

Looks like I'm in the minority, but I think we need some more votes.

I'll personally ask Fighteer for a revert if it comes down to it.

I'm not as familiar with the main RWBY page as I am with the character pages, but on the main page I have noticed a lot of all-white entries in places, along with a lot of lazy tagging (half a sentence, or half a paragraph, where proper rewording could put the example in line with the spoiler policy).

If the decision is made to keep spoilers on the main page, a clean up is probably needed (the character pages, too).

Oh, forgot to clarify vote: I'm not a huge fan of removing spoiler tags on the main work pages. It's usually the character pages where spoiler tags get fully removed. RWBY should be kept in line with other works, and a clean-up performed of all the lazy tagging.

The character pages have already been cleaned. Only current season spoilers are tagged.

And we can't do a full revert, because there were a lot of other things mixed in with it, like ZCE cleanup. I'll do it manually.

Can we discuss what should be hidden and what shouldn't?

Done.

And yes, we can discuss what should and shouldn't be hidden. I think I left most of the obvious spoilers unmarked (the food fight is not a spoiler, the fact that Blake fights Roman is not a spoiler, and Raven's name isn't a spoiler because it doesn't mean anything out of context), but there's more that's up in the air. We can probably remove the tags from any spoilers about Blake being a faunus, but I left them for now.

Blake being a Fanus should be unmarked because it's an early reveal.

The fandom also saw the reveal coming from the very first episode of the show (the news report of the faunus protest) so it wasn't much of a reveal anyway.

Current season spoiler tagging is a mess, hence my comment.

Think I got all the cat faunus spoilers from the main page.

As for the character pages, I'm not seeing anything particularly objectionable. There was one volume 2 spoiler on Ruby's section, one unmarked Fall Maiden spoiler on Pyrrha's, one non-spoiler on Penny's, and a few non-spoilers on the Vytal contestants page, but that's it. Was there anything in particular you were looking at as problematic?

All-white entries and lazy tagging (such as half a sentence inside and outside a tag or zero context outside the spoiler tags). I've cleaned up a lot of it over the past few days anyway, but there's still a fair bit around.

There have never been any rules about that. All-white entries (as long as the name is not tagged) are not ZCE's, and there's definitely no rule forbidding having half a sentence in the tags and half out.

Whiting out entire examples (excluding the trope name, but the entire entry is whited out) has been discussed a lot on ATT. I've seen a few mods tell people not to do it. The Spoiler Policy also has a good practice guide about not swiss cheesing entries.

I wouldn't say either of those two tropes apply. She was ambushed by a team that had been selected for very specific abilities and the plan designed on the basis of that. Despite all the planning, and despite it being three-on-one, she gave them a tough time.

It's just a case that 'unimaginable power' does not equal 'unbeatable'.

I think it was cutlisted. Since RWBY doesn't need to get past tv ratings for content like many shows, it can have innuendo and doesn't have a censor radar to fly under

Ah. Meh, it was interesting while it lasted. Maybe replace it with similar tropes in the main?

It's an assumption.

Nope, not anymore. The name on the grave in the red trailer is not exacly clearest but readable, and clearly readable in ep. 1 vol. 3, Summer Rose. Yang in ep. 6 vol. 2 already stated that Summer is Rose's mother.

You might want to ask here.

I'll save you some time: No. It's Five-Man Band; you're proposing a group of four.

Oh okay... Sorry I never saw the gender specfic part [more specficially the only one female part unless I misunderstood it.] and the four part was because I read on the five bad band that there is not always five members but no less than four[or maybe it was no more than seven?] and I thought since it was just the evil version of the five man band I thought it would be the same rules but thank you for explaining this.

From the "Show cuts" list on Cut List:

"It only has three entries, and two of them are Fridge Horror, rather than NF."

This was also tweeted by Monty, so this is considered canon by Word of God.

Yep, from what I can tell it's indeed Word of God.

I have thought of this too.

Maybe, but the main page works just as well. Basically it would require someone with the time and patience to make every page and add tropes. I certainly don't, once was enough.

Go ahead and get started, then.

Well, to be honest, there aren't many creepy things in RWBY.

However, something comes to mind. In the video about Dust that was released before episode 5 of Volume 2, it says some people induced Dust in their bodies, right? Now, I'm sure we know how Dust is. I wonder what would the consequences be...I wouldn't like having electricity running through my muscles and veins all the time. Or fire. Or ice.

Looks like shoe-horning to me. From reading the trope page, Ruby isn't sanguine at all. The only character in the group that fits the Sanguine description is Yang. The only person that fits the Choleric description is Weiss and nobody in the team fits the remaining two.

In terms of the Combo Ensemble part of the trope, it still looks very dubious. Ruby comes closest to being the Idealist (Melancholic/Phlegmatic) but it's shoehorning to try and fit her into everything that description says and she doesn't fit any of the other options without aforementioned shoehorning. It's the same for all the team: Yang's closest to the Guardian (Phlegmatic/Sanguine) but not good enough to say that trope properly suits her character, and it requires painful character twisting to try and apply Blake and Weiss to the remaining two options.

I don't think the trope should be applied to Team RWBY in either format.

Really, only Blake's is "obvious." As you said, Ruby's isn't obvious but it's got Word of God so I'll concede that one, and Yang's isn't obvious at all. In fact I doubt it entirely, as her name is a shout out to Bruce Lee. Nothing else about her is dragon-like, unless you want to claim her fire-ness is dragon-y but that's a stretch and a half.

Motifs tend to be physical designs, personality quirks and symbolism Correct?

Can you really call it a motif if Blake is literally a Cat girl, and even then Blake's Cat-ness is so subdued, I'd almost say they are trying not to have Blake have cat-like traits. Now if only she broke into Gratuitous French!

Ruby is taking the original concept that Ruby was suppose to be a wolf girl but got changed, however she lacks any real nods to wolves or behavioral quirks associated with the animal -Weiss has more wolf motif traits, The lone wolf variety, but even I wouldn't say she has a wolf motif-

Yang has been symbolized by the Sun/Fire imagery/allusions, but other then her Name. No there isn't much Dragoness to her

Weiss... Someone wants Weiss X Velvet that is the only real answer here

Besides, since Ruby is based on Little Red Riding Hood, it's weird (but not out of place) for her to have a wolf motif since, well, wolves are her enemy, right? Word of God says it's What Could Have Been and in the series her wolf motif only appears once (as Circling Birdies).

Blake is obvious.

Yang is quite a stretch, but then again, Team CRDL has its members having bird names.

Weiss... nah.

Go for it. Don't do many folders, though; the scroll bar is not yet at minimal size.

I've split the page into 3 folders, is that good for now?

Considering it was followed by a series of trolling edits, it would seem that some detractors are starting to get petty.

Yeah, but we cleaned it up and banned the trolls. Next time you see something like this, report it on Ask The Tropers.

I would say to put the tags on the whole thing, name and all.

I covered up a few that I saw, mainly Wham Line and Wham Episode, which were the biggest examples of what I was talking about (made even worse in that they were right next to each other for comparison).

They said it would be two weeks from that video, so we'll probably find out about it in a couple days.

That looks like a really badly written trope to me. It sets itself up to be insectoid-only, but then starts suggesting it's actually about any kind of monster enemy but insects tend to be the most common type of monster army created.

There is an implication in RWBY that it is some kind of war, or at least the humans view it as a sort of war, so I don't know if the trope is entirely inappropriate... just really badly described.

Bug Wars is a reference to Starship Troopers' Bug War. A war against insects is most in the spirit of the trope due to triggering fears related to insects, but it can fit any pretty much any war against an animal-like enemy.

Removing it. As things are, the evidence (Weiss's scar) points towards the knight being a real thing, and any theories otherwise do belong to WMG.

There is one in the New Media section.

Go to FanficRecs.RWBY and start editing. Be sure to copy over the standard Fanfic Recs templates.

I apologize to anyone I may have upset. It wasn't my intention. I'm uncertain if you're aware that your examples are both my posts.

Nevertheless, you're correct that I have made at least a few edits that drastically altered an original post when I got carried away. I tend to see a lot of redundancy and a lot of opinionative flagellating. In fact, I changed the above mostly because I regretted posting the *raspberry*

And again, I'm sorry if I heavily altered posts that were not my own and I'll steer clear in the future.

... no. It's Animesque, but that doesn't make it anime any more than Avatar: The Last Airbender.

Just checking.

I'm down with yoinking it.

Maybe just link to Episode 1?

I thought it was weird as well. The first word of the first paragraph links to the RWBY part of the Rooster Teeth website, so there's already a link people can follow to find the episodes.

Yoinked all but the first episode. Thanks for the input.

I edited it. Doesn't make much sense to have a list for one episode.

Yeah, I suppose so.

Animation Bump

Thanks.

I saw it. I don't remember when, but the entries referencing it check out.

Perhaps removing the folder and the description of the trailers and just put them at the bottom where trailers usually is. The description does seem rather unneccesary now that the series has premiered.

Condensed them down a bit, like you suggested. How's it look now?

Much better, thank you.

Yes it was confirmed by Barbara in podcast 244 and Monty at the RWBY panel at RTX.

Does anyone know why that is?