Western Animation Star Wars The Clone Wars Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics
 

Werebazs
Topic
12:39:07 AM Jul 5th 2012
edited by Werebazs
Wouldn't it be time to split the trope examples into alphabetic folders on this page? It's really starting to get too long. Edit: Since noone replied, I went ahead and added the folders.
Westrim
Topic
06:17:14 PM Nov 4th 2011
The thread for the discussion about Badass Army.
JBK405
06:32:28 PM Nov 4th 2011
edited by JBK405
It seems simple enough to me. As awesome as Mandalorians are in general throughout the Star Wars universe (And trust me, I love 'em), we've never seen them engage in battle in this series. No en masse encounters, no advances, no retreats, etc. The only combat we've seen has been limited engagements with not even a dozen people. The clones we've seen work in the thousands, same as droids and Gungans and the other armies, but not Death Watch,

Boil it down: We've never seen them work as an army.

For all we know the majority of their numbers are pathetic weaklings who will run screaming from a single lightsaber. Do I think that's actually the case? No, I don't, they're probably awesome ('Cause they're Mandalorians), but we haven't seen it. Until we actually see a Death Watch army in action, or at least more than five people, we can't list them as the trope.
Skywalker007
Topic
09:56:49 AM Jul 15th 2011
I jut start the characters page. Any help would be appreciated.
DeathCloud
12:03:08 PM Jul 15th 2011
This page need to include every character, even main chacters from movies.
Skywalker007
09:53:31 AM Jul 16th 2011
Just rearrange the character page a bit. Anakin Obi-Wan, Palpatine and Bail name are on the page. I don't have a lot of time so I don't put the related trope yet. I might forget some of the character too so feel free to remind me the one that I didn't put yet.
Skywalker007
Topic
06:59:05 PM Apr 4th 2011
Just wandering, but is there any character page for the series? Or for any Clone-wars era character in particular?
KilgoreTrout
04:11:22 PM Jun 3rd 2011
Doesn't appear to be. You could create one, or get one started.
JBK405
Topic
12:16:36 PM Jan 19th 2011
edited by JBK405
Old Man Ho Oh, I accidentally submitted my last edit before I was done commenting (My last sentence became somewhat gibberish) and I'm hoping to avoid an edit war. Let's take this here, shall we?

1) All opening notes of the sectionectomy page refer to the editing/deleting/splitting of whole pages, referring to independent trope pages. If an example section is too big delete the whole section, if the article has poor focus then delete the article, etc. At no point does it refer to the deletion of individual trope examples on other pages.

2) "Leaves only the definition, and some scar tissue saying 'No examples please. This only defines the term'" - This description, from the fourth type of sectionectomy (Which Bechdel test is included in) clearly describes a Trope page, since it refers to leaving in a description of the term.

3) Tropes that are not supposed to be placed on other pages have headers which say "Do not put on a works page." See Complete Monster, Love It or Hate It, Ruined FOREVER, etc. There they explicitly say that this is a YMMV trope or trivia and is not proper to place on another page.

The Example Sectionectomy process refers to the management of trope pages that are bloated, out of control or filled with natter and personal opinion. It does not refer to a trope becoming verbotten on other pages.

EDIT: Oh, and like I pointed out in my edit comment, the very name is indicative: Example Sectionectomy. As in "removing of the example section" (Like "Appendectomy", removing of the appendix). I'm sure it's probably not the accurate medical term if such a term were to exist, but its meaning is clear.
ZeitgeistGlee
Topic
04:21:32 AM Dec 31st 2010
Moral Dissonance needs a reworking. Sounds like it was written by a Fandalorian.
JBK405
09:07:08 AM Dec 31st 2010
edited by JBK405
Re-write, sure, but don't respond in the page (Natter is never helpful).
ZeitgeistGlee
07:44:41 AM Jan 1st 2011
Yeah my bad, forgot about the discussion page.
JBK405
10:13:58 AM Jan 1st 2011
edited by JBK405
Eh, it's oka, it happens (I've done it).

Anyway, my point was that the clones are slaves, not just draftees. As I said in my edit comments draftees have rights, responsibilities, etc. as part of a larger society; they have some sort of say in how their society is run (Voting and the like), expectations for eventually getting out of the army, etc. Clones have no say in their government, no option to ever leave the military (Bad soldier or debilitating deformity? Not honorable or medical discharge, but manual labor), and no life before the military.. Draftees have a childhood, they have a life before the army, clones are grown for soldiering and spend their childhood in training.

Now, even assuming that clones are just draftees it is still Moral Dissonance. The morality of The Draft as a whole is complicated and not meant for this forum, but the details of their particular situation still cross the line. All real-world drafts have service times (You are drafted for three years or five years or whatever), clones are drafted in perpetuity. Draftees can (and are) discharged or disqualified from service. Grievous wound? Medical discharge. Failed basic training despite best efforts? Honorable discharge. Severe and debilitating congenital mutation or disability? Exempt from service. What about the clones? For every option: Keep serving. Period.

Clones can never leave the service. They never had a life before the service. They have no presence in, input on, control over or impact on the society they are supposedly fighting to protect.

By almost every definition they count as slave labor, and if that doesn't work for you they are an exploited and conscripted class just about equal to Jews and Serfs in the Russian Empire before the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty (Yeah, I know, random analogy)
Skywalker007
12:54:16 PM Jul 27th 2011
edited by Skywalker007
It clearly moral dissonance; however, if you really think about IS THE JEDI REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS? It was Palpatine and Sifo-Dyas who should take the blame.

1) It is true that the clone trooper creation came from a Jedi master. But Yoda and the rest of the council doesn't seems to know or approve about it to begin with. Blaming a mistake of one Jedi on the whole group for this is bias and unfair.

2) Military doctrine is a complicated thing. It is nigh impossible that Jedi, a half-monk half-police, would immediately write them while they are on the frontline. It was probably written by some other military officer.

3) Those clones are bred to have only one purpose: become a soldier. Unlike normal soldier, they initially know nothing about outside world.

If they were to release into outside world IMMEDIATELY after they fly out of Kamino they probably just stand there at the spaceport, confused.

Whatever there mindset are, it would take a lot of time to integrated them into normal society. And since this is the clone of Jango Fett, a hire gun who kill for money. It would be more complicate than freeing clone of random Joe. Sadly, their situation is almost the same as convicted.

4) They are in war!!! Jedi are busy on the frontline to begin with. How are they going to settle clone civil right while Seperatist army keep attacking them. And let face it, they and the clone are in the same boat. Stuck in a war that Palpatine created.

5) Jedi are order by the senate to fight for the republic. They are powerful but they clearly need to take 'mission' from the senate which they can't argue against them (it's the people voice and Jedi respect that) until they are sure that Palpatine corrupt them to the core(too late in Ep III).

Let's think of it like RTS game. Jedi are obviously hero unit. They are powerful but they still need to take order from you. Of course, you can't beat the game with hero unit alone so you need to build several other unit too. Think for a moment. Am I going to blame the hero unit for building them? Of course not. It my decision and I need do that to beat the game.

That's the same for the relation between Palpatine, Jedi, and the clone as well. Both Jedi and the clones are just pawn for Palpatine. Therefore, Jedi shouldn't be blame by Palpatine decision.
Julep
Topic
11:27:18 PM Nov 8th 2010
edited by Julep
I only have a simple question about the CW page : why are all the Cmo listed under the YMMV section ? I understand that these series are a huge Base Breaker, and that some tropes (Canon Sue, Growing the Beard, The Wesley) are YMMV stuff, but every other series, animated or not, have real Cmo pages, on the main page, or on dedicated ones.

Same for Large Ham, Nightmare Fuel or Tear Jerker. It is weird to see all these very common tropes under the YMMV one.
Westrim
Topic
10:52:52 PM Oct 13th 2010
edited by Westrim
The twileks, by virtue of existing, had a home planet in the films; it just wasn't mentioned. That it is presented the way it is in the tv series automatically overrides any other portrayal save the movies.

The comparison I'd use is to the death star design and construction, which though not mentioned in the first trilogy obviously happened since, hey, there's a death star. In the books that was stated to be in the Maw- the movies completely changed that. First mentioned in the books, but movie portrayal wins. It's as simple (if incredibly annoying) as that. The trope does not apply, because it's not different sets of canon, it's different layers.
JBK405
07:21:22 AM Oct 14th 2010
edited by JBK405
You are absolutely correct, this canon overrides the canon of the Expanded Universe and nobody is contesting that (Well, I suppose a lot of people actually are contesting that because they don't like what the show is doing, but not me. Well, okay, I actuallly don't like a lot of what the show is doing, either, but I do accept it as canon, and all of my edits reflect that). However, the In Name Only trope still applies. I wasn't sure when I originally added the trope, I didn't think it fit to only characters or planets within a larger setting, but Uncl Ghost pointed out that the In Name Only page does explicitly cover that.

Anyway, the canonicity of this show and the expanded universe is not relevant to the In Name Only trope. The trope is not "People got it wrong" or "Official canon is different," but "something is being used that originated elsewhere and only matches that first thing in very superficial ways (Like the name)." George Lucas has every right to cange details like these, and for all I know he had these details mapped out in his head long before any EU novels or comics were written, but as it stands a lot of these details, like the natue of Ryloth or Greedo's history (Although I have to point out I never liked Greedo's history in the EU anyway, and the story that is was described in was, itself, an In Name Only depicition that violated already-established canon, but that's neither here nor there), did first appear in the EU and do not resemble their original description in anything except name. That's In Name Only by definition. It doesn't mean these depictions are wrong or that the first depictions are right, it doesn't mean that they are irrevocably canon because they came first, it just means that they used to be one way and now, for whatever reason, they are a different way.
UnclGhost
07:46:45 AM Oct 14th 2010
Right, which source canonically overrides which doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not it's an example of the trope. It's not like there being a higher source instantly creates an Orwellian Retcon for the depiction in real-world sources. Maybe in canon Ryloth was always rotating, the Lurmen were never at war with the Amani, the Republic was always at war with the "Separatist Alliance" and never the "Confederacy of Independent Systems", and so on, but that doesn't change the fact that in the real world, there were works showing things differently.

Again, the quote from In Name Only:

Occasionally this will expand to include the names of the character(s), setting, whatever. But the point is, you wonder why they ever bothered with borrowing the material in the first place if they felt the need to change everything.

Names of characters, settings, and whatever? Check. Wondering why they ever bothered with borrowing the material (and they did borrow from it, hence the name)? Check.
Westrim
02:07:22 PM Oct 14th 2010
You missed that last word there. Change 'everything''? Change even many things? Definitely not check. Ryloth may be Ryloth In Name Only, and a couple other characters and groups are completely changed but that doesn't make the show Star Wars In Name Only, or In Name Only a trope that is relevant to the show itself. It might be worth noting on the page for Star Wars as a whole, though.

And my point before was, it's not borrowing the material; it is the material now. The novel depictions are now In Name Only to it, regardless of chronology.
JBK405
02:42:46 PM Oct 14th 2010
edited by JBK405
Hold on, wait, I think we're all arguing different things. I (And I think Uncl Ghost) am not saying that this is Star Wars In Name Only, which I think is what you think we're saying. We're saying that certain parts of the series, like individual planets and some characters, are In Name Only representations of those characters or planets, not that the entire series is so different as to count as In Name Only. Ryloth is Ryloth In Name Only, Greedo is Greedo In Name Only (Although again I've got to point out I really did not care for the "original" Greedo backstory, so I definitely spport their change here), the Talz are Talz In Name Only (Their hat in the EU is extreme pacifism, even leading to heightened stress when fighting in a simulator), etc. The series itself, though, is not an In Name Only adaptation of Star Wars, as the universe as a whole fits in just fine. If we were saying that the show itself counted as In Name Only then you would be absolutely correct in pointing out how this is just as close, if not closer, to the original canon as the EU is.

Am I right in that we're misunderstanding each other?
UnclGhost
03:46:25 PM Oct 14th 2010
Yeah, no one's saying that the show is Star Wars In Name Only, just that these items are In Name Only to their original iterations. If you're saying that it has to apply to the show as a whole to be added, then as the quote I put illustrates, that's just not the case, since the trope can include "character(s), setting, whatever", not the entire work as a whole.

And again, even though it does override the original depictions for canon purposes, even (and especially) when these depictions have no appearances in or direct connection to the movies at all (for instance, Asajj Ventress), the point is that they borrowed elements causally, as in, the original depictions came first. By your logic, if there really was a Metroid movie about a robot cowboy angel that was deemed to be canon, then it wouldn't be In Name Only. The trope doesn't only apply to off-model depictions that aren't themselves canon, it's as simple as that.
KJMackley
11:18:56 PM Oct 15th 2010
In an EU as expansive as Star Wars there are going to be any number of contradictory elements as new material is being written and each writer is doing their own things. I know the Death Star has had many original designers, (and Boba Fett escaped from the Sarlacc in multiple ways) so choosing just one of them for a new adaptation would result in an Unpleasable Fanbase. Trying to be faithful to every EU story would be impossible. Broad Strokes and Armed with Canon describe that concept far better and more accurately than In Name Only (and, like it or not, In Name Only is a trope with negative connotations editors use to slide under the Complaining rule).

And just from the way it is being used here I am wondering how far off something has to be in order to be In Name Only? Ryloth is still the homeworld of the Twileks, Greedo is a slimy enforcer for Jabba the Hutt, Mandalorians are known as being proud warriors. All of them originated with the movies (maybe not the name Ryloth, but certainly the Twileks) so you can see it as taking an element from the movies and using the EU as inspiration for their own version.

Long story short, this way of using In Name Only is like saying the Tim Burton Batman is In Name Only to the Adam West Batman.
UnclGhost
12:59:24 AM Oct 16th 2010
So... it would be impossible not to animate a day/night cycle, or read (literally) the second sentence of the Wookieepedia article (and they have said they refer to it from time to time). You might have a point about choosing which version to show if the topic at hand was something like Boba Fett or the Death Star or the Death Star plans that had undergone a million retcons already... unlike Ryloth. But again, the point isn't whether or not it's justified, it's whether or not it's present at all, which, as long as In Name Only isn't a Subjective Trope, has little to nothing to do with whether or not people use it to complain.

Ditto with whether it was inspired by the movies; the important part seems to be which version is better-known. I mean, how tenuous does the link to the movies have to be before you'd consider it to be sufficiently original to count? For example, take Bothawui. Bothans were originally mentioned in a throwaway line in Return of the Jedi and it could have referred to anything. The authors of the EU made them into catlike aliens and created a planet, Bothawui, that they originated from. From this planet's very first appearance, it was a fairly terrestrial planet. Then, when it appeared in the show, it was arbitrarily made into a gas giant with rings. Fortunately, this was retconned to be a different planet also named Bothawui, but can we at least agree that if it hadn't been retconned, that would count?
JBK405
08:37:28 AM Oct 16th 2010
edited by JBK405
KJ, you're right that Name Only is often used a complaining point, that it is frequently used to say something "doesn't count" or "isn't really an adaptation", but that's not really the case here. It does take more than a single change, something beside "Hey, his shirt's a different color, that's not really Boba Fett!" but a lot of the features here really do fit.

Ryloth, for example, has more going on about it than just they day/night cycle. There are also the heatstorms, the subterranean cities designed to withstand those storms, etc. Yes, it was still home to the Twi'lek's, but nothing Twi'lek-specific was in the episode, either. Nothing of their culture, history or even naming conventions came up in conversation. The episodes placed on Ryloth could have been put on almost any other planet, with the species shifted accordingly, and they wouldn't have had to change a single line except for the name of the planet and the species, since the episode contained nothing apart from the name of the planet and species to tell us this was Ryloth. It could have been an episode about the Aqualish, or the Gotals, or even the Drach'nam and the episode would have been exactly the same.

Broad Strokes and Armed with Canon are very good tropes for what they do, but they cover general adaptations (Strokes) and what is "right" (Canon), whereas the Name Only trope is referring only to specific people/planets (At least, as we're using it) and is not concerned with "right" or "wrong," Name Only is only concerned with first. Like I said, the EU is not better than this series, its canon is not harder and George Lucas has every right to make changes (And, like I said, I actually approve of many of the changes). However, no matter how official or right Lucas is, some parts were in the EU first and, when portrayed here, matched their original portrayal only in their names. That's In Name Only right there.

P.S. Oh, and the Greedo thing. In his origin from the EU he wasn't a slimy enforcer for Jabba the Hutt. He and his people, a clan of Rodians, had spent his childhood living as farmers on an unidentified world because other Rodians were trying to wipe them out (I can't recall the reason). When discovered, in Greedo's teenage years, they fled to Nar Shadaa and Greedo became a petty criminal stealing car stereos (I mean that almost completely literally, as he actually narrates how he often strips down personal Hutt conveyances when they are left unattended). His beef with Han Solo comes up here when, since he is planning to buy his own ship, he stops into a shop and sees Han buying some new pieces of equipent. Being a young criminal he tries to shoplift them, Han catches him, and Greedo is kicked out of the shop. A few years later he ends upon Tatooine apprenticed to a pair of bonty hunters, but he himself has never hunted anybody or had any experience in the field, the only thing he ever shot was a droid (In the back) and the droid was okay, too. The two hunters send him after Solo not because they even want Greedo to catch him, but because the Rodians who were hunting Greedo's clan found out where he was and payed off the two to get Greedo killed. That scene in A New Hope was essentially an execution, sending a punk kid who had never killed anything in his life against a deadly fighter.

Now, that one probably wouldn't count as an example of In Name Only now that I think about it, there are elements of "real" Greedo in the show and he originated in the movie first, but like I said I never liked that origin so I am more than happy they ditched it.
KJMackley
09:29:16 AM Oct 17th 2010
The reason I'm against using In Name Only in this way is because it is (and even admitted as such) stetching the boundaries of the trope. In Name Only deals with adaptations having little in common with the original story. This example is more akin to a Canon Immigrant not having much in common with the EU or AU inspiration. It's vaguely similar but an ultimately different concept.

And to look at it a different way, Star Wars: The Clone Wars may technically have a higher priority canon than most everything else but it is still not the primary canon. EU is EU. Because the show is EU it can't be INO to Star Wars EU because it is Star Wars EU. The final few episodes of Star Wars: Clone Wars is incompatible with the novel Labyrinth Of Evil, so which would be In Name Only to the other?

And (like I mentioned before) there are better, more accurate and more descriptive tropes to describe what is going on. The use of In Name Only just seems like an attempt to complain more about a simple Continuity Snarl.
JBK405
09:56:12 AM Oct 17th 2010
Like I said, you're right about better tropes for the general status of the show (Broad Strokes), but In Name Only can also apply to specific and limited instances within the show, the page for the trope itself explains this can cover just individual characters, it does not need to mean the entire production is a drastically altered version.

Not every change to a character equals In Name Only, I've already accepted that I jumped the gun on listing Greedo on the list since his changes really don't count, and those examples shold be deleted if added, but if there is even just one single adaptation that fits the trope then it should be added to the main oage, since that one single adapation is an example of the trope (The list of tropes isn't "These tropes happen all the time," they are "These tropes occured at least once within the series"). Complaining aside, Ryloth had all of its distinctive details removed; I don't mean one single bit (The day/night cycle, which seemed to start this argument) but everything about the planet, including established architecture styles, habitats necessitated by the environment, etc. To quote the INO page: "But the point is, you wonder why they ever bothered with borrowing the material in the first place if they felt the need to change everything."

Like I said before, INO is not releant to canon at all. The subject being adapted could be a completely original character created by a Fan Fic writer with absolutely no connection to SW or canonicity at all that George Lucas happened to read one day and decided to put into the show. If the adaptaion resembles the original in name only, despite the original not being canon at any level at all, it is still In Name Only. The trope is only concerned with "first" and "different," and here the original depiction was one way, with many specific details, and the aaptation was so different as to resemble the original in name only. Here's how you can tell he trope is in effect: If they had changed the name, would have been able to tell in any way that it was an adaptation of the original?
UnclGhost
02:27:13 PM Oct 17th 2010
I'd also like to point out that TCW isn't considered EU, due to Lucas' involvement; it's somewhere between the films and the EU, and not just in terms of canon precedence. But even if it were part of the EU, that doesn't preclude the possibility of INO. The trope would apply just as much to an EU novel with the same depiction of Ryloth as it would here. This isn't like saying "Anakin in the show is Anakin INO because he acts differently than in the movies and EU," this is an objective difference.
KJMackley
02:00:15 PM Oct 23rd 2010
Evidently no one is going to unanimously convince the other of their POV, but I will just leave this discussion with the fact that there is no other example on the In Name Only page that resembles the way it is trying to be used here. Every example there is about adaptations (either the story or individual characters), not about canon (the shows higher canon ranking) vs EU (everything else).
UnclGhost
12:14:18 AM Oct 24th 2010
I think that's more of a problem with the map than the territory, so I'm going to re-add INO, since it in no way conflicts with the page's given definition and fits the trope as explained by JBK.
JBK405
Topic
10:02:48 PM Oct 11th 2010
edited by JBK405
I'm not sure which trope this belongs to, but in Brain Invaders (Season 2, episode 8) I noticed that Ahsoka is holding her fork in a reverse grip (With the tines extended past her pinky, instead of extending past her index finger), the same way she always holds her lightsaber. It's minor, but I feel this should be noted as a way that her character is being consistently animated and portrayed in different situations. However, I can't think of what trope to put it under. Maybe Meaningful Background Event, but it isn't a background event, and it's not really meaningful, either. It has the same problems with Funny Background Event, again not being particularly fnny or in the background. Stuff like this is normally under Continuity Nod ("XXXXX does YYYY just like he did back in episode XXXX"), but in this case it really isn't a continuity nod, since her reverse-guard is an every-episode event, and it's just more of the same as opposed to referencing something that occured in the past.

Any idea where it shold go?
UnclGhost
08:54:02 AM Oct 12th 2010
I'd say it's closest to Continuity Nod since it's a tip of the hat to some small detail that devoted fans will notice and appreciate.
KilgoreTrout
Topic
02:42:01 PM Oct 11th 2010
I think that the explanation of different levels of canon and the quote from George Lucas about the legitimacy of the EU belongs on the main page and is not irrelevant or too long. JBK apparently feels otherwise. What do others say?
MrDeath
03:00:01 PM Oct 11th 2010
Put it somewhere where a discussion of canon should go; one of the trops dealing with canon, perhaps. This page is about tropes used in this particular show, not how a whole franchise deals with the various levels of canon in the innumerable spinoffs.
JBK405
03:05:17 PM Oct 11th 2010
edited by JBK405
The information contained in that section is largely just a re-statement of the definition of the Broad Strokes trope (That the series takes some info from other sources and makes up some of its own). It does have series-specific info (The levels of canon of the different works) but it explains them as a justification for not adhering to them perfectly, an "It's okay that we're only using Broad Strokes because of XXXXX" kind of thing. It even starts with "As much as people complain when [the EU] is contradicted...." and then goes on to say why the complainers are wrong, which says that this is a Justifying Edit. It also then moves on into Fan Wank, since the second paragraph (Bulletpoint?) wonders if the series might actually be an Alternate Continuity all together, since it doesn't match the novels exactly.

Like I said in the edit notes, it's not because this info is wrong, it's not because I dislike this info, I removed it because it's redundant and unnecessary. "All works are canon, but some take precedence if there's a conflict" is practically the very definition of Broad Strokes, and is stated again right in the middle of the explanation, and is part of what is essentially a justifying edit, which are no-no's here. When I shortened the section I included a bit that explained that nature of Star Wars canon, and would have no objection to somebody expanding that with more detail (I did not go into what the different canon levels are called, or which are "higher" or "lower"), but as it stands these two paagraphs (Bullet points?) are not proper for this wiki.

EDIT: Oh, also, it is customary for a discussion to be had before a contested issue is added or re-added to the article (See my own discussion about Fridge Logic above this one), even if that means taking it out now even if it will be readded later. When two people are stuck in an edit-war it is supposed to be left out until a consensus is reached, a "better safe than sorry" mindset that prevents Edit Wars.
UnclGhost
04:52:51 PM Oct 11th 2010
The show uses much, much Broader Strokes when incorporating EU concepts than basically any other Star Wars work. I do agree with JBK that what was there before was redundant and in Thread Mode; explaining how continuity works isn't really relevant. However, we really should go into more detail as to how Broad Strokes applies here so it's not just an unexplained trope. There used to be more detail, anyway (I know because I added it then it got removed at some point). For example, it applies to things like Ryloth, where the planet from the EU is used, but one of its two defining features (that it doesn't rotate) isn't. If there's a trope for "they pointlessly changed a bunch of stuff even though the changes don't help the story in any way," then that would be a better place for any explanation of continuity.
KilgoreTrout
05:59:50 PM Oct 11th 2010
You know what the best way to prevent edit wars is, JBK? Don't delete other people's stuff. As I recall you already explained the reasons for a prior deletion because you thought you owed an explanation, and that was because you yourself hate it when somebody deletes your contributions. So unless something is really spectacularly offensive or something, I don't see any reason to delete it and I'm pretty sure I've never deleted anything that somebody else has added, except in the case of this entry where I deleted stuff that was put in place of what I'd written.

I'm in favor of leaving things as they are. And if somebody says something that I feel is wrong, I prefer to refute their argument rather than remove it. Part of the appeal of this wiki for me is that there are conversations in the entries themselves. Call it natter or whatever and say it's bad, but personally I like it. And when I make a point that George Lucas said that the EU was important only to turn around and treat it like it didn't matter, I would like for that to stay there rather than having it removed. If somebody deletes something I have written, it is as though they are saying "STFU", and like pretty much everybody in the history of the world I don't like being told to shut up.

And that is why I kept putting things back the way they were.
UnclGhost
06:32:40 PM Oct 11th 2010
KilgoreTrout, one of the policies of TV Tropes is to fix things rather than replying to them and explaining why they're wrong. For example, you can see why it might get redundant if someone listed a trope under a work, and then someone else replied saying "No, that's not what that trope means" and just left both the incorrect entry there and the correction. It is considered good form to explain why you're removing something the edit description though.

I mean, I'm with you, I think that the site is a lot more fun to read when people do discuss these things on the page rather than just making it sound like one person wrote it, which they didn't. It's just that this is what the site is defined as by those who run it and and the admins, for better or for worse.

Anyway, back to the subject on hand: is there anyone who would categorically oppose listing Ryloth as an example of Broad Strokes?
JBK405
06:39:03 PM Oct 11th 2010
edited by JBK405
Wow...um, no.

Repair, Don't Respond. It is Wiki policy that, if you see something you feel does not fit the trope, you remove it. Whether or not you yourself added it is irrelevent. This is not my opinion, this is a rule here. Conversation in the Main Page are actually something we are specifically told to avoid.

As I have said at least a dozen times I do not disagree with what was contained in these paragraphs. I am not saying you're wrong. What I am saying is that it does not belong at this point in the article listed with this trope.

The point of a Wiki in general, and the policies on this particular wiki, is that we can fix errors when encountered, and that sometimes includes telling somebody "Sorry, you made a mistake." I've made plenty of my own mistakes, I've deleted some myself when I realized this and I have had other people delete them if I never noticed it was an error, and though I was rarely happy to be told I was wrong, I accept that what I did was against the policy of this web-site (again, I point to the conversation on this very page where I am willing to talk about the Fridge Logic example, and which I stopped re-adding not because I have been convinced I was wrong, but because wiki policy says it does not belong).

I will continue to delete natter as it appears on this page not because I disagree with what is being said, but because it is natter. If there is a legitimate trope that the information should be placed in that is great, and Mr Death made a good point that it could probably be fit somewhere under one of the continuity tropes, but if it remains as natter it will be deleted as natter. This is not me saying "STFU" and I'm sorry if you interpret it that way, but this is TV Tropes policy.

EDIT: Uncle Ghost, I was thinking that maybe Ryloth and some other examples should be listed under the In Name Only trope, but I'm not sure if it exactly matches the intent of that trope. Ryloth is the previously-established Ryloth in name only, without its defining features, as are some other planets, species, characters and events. Wuuld that fit?
UnclGhost
07:28:51 PM Oct 11th 2010
I think that fits In Name Only perfectly. "Occasionally this will expand to include the names of the character(s), setting, whatever. But the point is, you wonder why they ever bothered with borrowing the material in the first place if they felt the need to change everything." Bingo. Adding it seems like it was the right choice.

Also, you're probably already aware of this, but the material you moved to Continuity Snarl probably needs a rewrite to reflect how it relates to the show instead of just being a now-contextless explanation of Star Wars continuity.
JBK405
Topic
10:03:58 AM Oct 5th 2010
The add-delete back and forth over Fridge Logic is getting tiresome and unnecessary.

This example of Fridge Logic, regarding the fire the Talz are burning, is an officially commented on, Word of God supported issue. It doesn't make sense, they admit it doesn't make sense, and it occurred to them as an example of Fridge Logic, meaning they realized it in retrospect well after the completion of the episode.

It should be noted on the main page as an example of the trope and as a Word of God comment. The reason Fridge Logic examples have been moved to It Just Bugs Me! is because they ae often not true examples of Fridge Logic, are just normal plot holes, or are fans picking at something they don't like. The header for the It Just Bugs Me! page states "This is either speculation or an audience reaction," whereas this issue is not speculation or an audience reaction, but confirmed production reaction.

Thoughts?
Westrim
01:38:15 PM Oct 5th 2010
I think you should read the edit notes. This Word of God is already noted under Bellisario's Maxim and the Fridge Logic page explicitly says not to put it on main pages.
JBK405
02:53:59 PM Oct 5th 2010
I've read the edit notes, and I'm the one who put it under Bellisarios Maxim to begin with. However, it is listed there because of the response to the issue, which was the Maxim almost verbatim, as opposed to the issue itself. There are many points on this page (And other pages) where the same event is listed under multiple tropes because it applies to all of them. Also, the reason the guidelines were changed to prevent Fridge Logic examples on the main page is because, to quote the Fridge Logic page this time, "This is either speculation or an audience reaction."

Fan nitpicking, personal opinions and the like do not belong on this page, and a lot of what people term fridge logic is just "Hey, I can think of a better way to that," but an official example that does not verge into any of the no-no's listed on the top of both the Fridge Logic and It Just Bugs Me pages should be included.
UnclGhost
08:56:02 PM Oct 10th 2010
edited by UnclGhost
Hm. I personally don't like the choice not to include Fridge Logic examples on the main page, since it provides a good deal of personality and is a lot less subjective than a number of things that are apparently ok to include; however, if that's the rule, and the thing with the fire is going to be listed somewhere, I'd say Bellisario's Maxim only. That said, this might be a good scenario to use as an example of how the new policy doesn't work if there's further issue.
commando552
Topic
10:13:06 AM Sep 20th 2010
edited by Westrim
Did it bug anyone else that we finally got to see ARC troopers, and it seems that they are just the fucking babysitters for the cadets? Furthermore, when Fives and Echo are told they are to become AR Cs, it backs up the theory that they just guard Kamino. Is this a case of did not do the research that ARC is Advance Reconnaissance Commando, and guarding kids is totally not their fucking job or does this simply count as a lame ass retcon? Surely AR Cs being badass is canon thanks to the animated clone wars series, rather than the pansy representation they got in the last episode. Also, all the talk about team work being important to become an ARC annoyed me, as most EU representation portrays them as lone wolves who do not play well with others, but this is more of a minor niggle.
JBK405
10:26:00 AM Sep 20th 2010
It did seem to imply that Five and Echo would be staying on Kamino as guards as part of becoming ARC Troopers, but I really didn't get the impression that this was all that they did. My understanding was that, as elite troops, they are also responsible for some of the training of the new batch of clones and also have the high honor/responsibility of guarding their "home." For a really loose analogy, the original intention of the US Marines was to serve as a naval-based infantry with heavy emphasis on amphibious assaults, but they do a whole lot more (Including a lot of stuff not even tangentially related to water) because of their rigorous training and prestige. The ARC Troopers probably get a lot of non-ARC missions because they can do these other jobs as well.
commando552
11:49:40 AM Sep 20th 2010
edited by commando552
The phrasing along the lines of "you are now ARC troopers, Kamino will be safe with clones like you guarding it" just gave me the impression that this was their sole job. I perhaps wouldn't have gotten this impression were it not for the fact that these are the only ARC's we have ever seen, when we have seen situations where they otherwise could have been utilized perfectly. The closest we have gotten are Rex and Cody, who aren't ARC's yet seem a hell of a lot more capable than the few we saw in this episode. Even if it were the case that only a few ARC's guarded/trained the clones on Kamino, this would be analogous to crack Delta or SEAL operators training grunts at basic. ARC's should be even more elite than this as they don't normally operate in teams (that is a job for Republic Commandos which have been seen in previews for this series), they are like CIA wet-work assassin ninjas.
KilgoreTrout
Topic
06:56:07 PM Sep 19th 2010
I'd like to add how Grievous actually looked formidable in "ARC Troopers", as opposed to his other appearances where the Badass Decay was evident. Problem is, I don't know what trope it is when it's the OPPOSITE of Badass Decay, when somebody who had experienced the decay is suddenly a Badass again. Some time ago I went to YKTTW and suggested a trope for that called "Badass Regeneration", but people said that it sounded too much like Wolverine's healing factor and that there were two tropes already that kind of described that: He's Back and Let's Get Dangerous.

Anyway, I used He's Back in the main entry, but that got deleted because apparently it wasn't a correct use of that trope. Before I do anything else, I'd like to ask what trope would best describe Grievous returning to his Badass ways. Let's Get Dangerous? Took a Level in Badass (even though my understanding is that this trope is for characters who were never badasses to begin with)? Something else?
JBK405
07:19:52 PM Sep 19th 2010
I'm not sure what Trope would be best to describe this what you're talking about, but I will explain why I removed He's Back (I've never liked it when people take out my edits without explanation). He's Back, according to the description, is more of a character-based trope, it revolves around mentality and personality. A person has blue-screened, lost all self-confidence or given up the fight, but now has renewed vigor and determination. It doesn't mean his skills are back, but that he has decided to once again fulfill his role as The Hero (Or The Lancer, or whatever his position was). Grievous never lost his determination or hatrd of the Jedi, never thought that since he has lost before it is not even worth trying anymore, he just kept getting his ass kicked. In essence, he never "left," so he can't really be "back."
KilgoreTrout
08:40:30 PM Sep 19th 2010
Okay, I appreciate the explanation. Can you think of a trope that might fit better, if a trope exists for this sort of thing?
UnclGhost
Topic
06:35:48 PM Jun 3rd 2010
  • Uncl Ghost: I think that Did Not Care About The Research applies more here than that they just weren't aware they were messing with continuity (even if neither is actually a trope :P). True, Lucas isn't overly familiar with the EU, but the situation gathered from the writer commentaries seem to be more along the lines of them writing EU-friendly scripts or character concepts, then Lucas walks by and tells them to do something else, even after they point out the continuity damage, so what can they do. Did Not See The Research seems to imply that Lucas was writing the scripts himself and just wasn't aware anything adverse was happening as a result, which could hypothetically be true, but from what we've been told, he was made aware of the research but Just Didn't Care.
Collapse/Expand Topics