This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Working Title: This Troper: From YKTTW
This Troper: Hi...I'm kind of a noob around here, so can you help me out with something? As You Know, in an attempt at weird self-reference (and also because I couldn't think of anything better), I chose "This Troper" as my handle. I was wondering if I could put something along the lines of "Alternately, the handle of TV Tropes contributor This Troper," at the bottom of this entry. If I need to change my handle, I will do so willingly. Thanks! ^_^
Fast Eddie: pulled ...
- Note that you should never ever ever link This Troper to your contributor page. If you're going to attribute it to yourself, just use your dang name.
Ununnilium: That's true, but I really want to put that somewhere. @.@
Big T: What's so silly about an entry that encourages people to find more creative ways of writing than simply using Find-Replace on the word I?
And I'm with Uun on this. I actively convert linked ThisTropers into the troper's name, and then modify the text to compensate. Leaving them alone makes it look like we encourage that sort of thing (which is why I used them when I first got here).
Ununnilium: Awesome quote. XD
Well, This Troper thinks that anybody who has a problem with the This Troper statements ought to head over to the discussion on the search page. As far as I can tell, it pretty much says that we shouldn't make up arbitrary rules just because some people think it looks bad. I'm actually thinking about going on a crusade of using This Troper in every example I create, especially since you admit in this article that you won't delete them.
Yes, it bugs me that much.
Ninjcarat: Hwa? I don't know what you're rebelling against, but bizarre passive-agressive crusades are not the answer, Mr. Anonymous Guy.
Ununnilium: Indeed. O.o And I don't know about anyone else, but I will delete them if it's inappropriate.
Mr. Anonymous Guy: I just don't like deleting information because of arbitrary rules. I wrote that in such a "passive-aggressive" manner because I wanted to make a point. I've read people who say they will delete This Tropers on sight (including a certain admin), which I think is just as bad an overreaction. But now I realize that most people will actually try to integrate the information in the This Troper statement before removing it. That I have no problem with. And if the information is entirely inappropriate for this wiki, I have no problem following Mr. 110's lead.
(And no, I never did add any This Tropers. What am I, crazy? I don't want to end up like Guess Who [blocked and permanently dishonored on the main page....]]
Ununnilium: Fair enough.
Ununnilium:
This Editor shows examples of:
- Third-Person Person: Nearly all people who use this noun phrase will also employ the third person. However, the use of a person-neutral noun phrase has no bearing on the matter per se, but the fact that verbs, which only should be declined in the first person, will be declined in the third person. It is, technically, bad grammar in the sense that the verbs don't agree with reality, although following phrases will usually be declined to match, e.g. 'This troper and his father are'.
...what?
...no, seriously, what? I'm not sure how this counts as an example of that trope, or as something that should be on here.
And then:
). This Troper, it seems, has not only watched more hours of television and videogames than they have been alive, but is also a Real Life invokee of Split Personality.
See, this is a nice, clear example... of just using "This Troper" instead of "I" for a personal anecdote.
Hieronymus: Almost anyone who uses "This Troper", for some reason, uses the third person at the same time. The fact that using "This Troper" for "I" is not the same thing, but yet somehow always coincide is why it's worth mentioning. Speaking for myself, my biggest complaint with "This Troper" is that it is in fact a literal inaccuracy. The fact that This Troper is not fundamentally a TPP but most always is an example of a TPP is why This Editor should be described as an example of TPP.
Ununnilium: No, third-person goes correctly with "This Troper". Which sounds better, "This Troper am" or "This Troper is"?
Fast Eddie: I agree that this needs a rewrite to emphasize that "This Troper" is 100% bad and that a person who can't write an article or example without making it about them self should just tip off back into the dark, or to start a blog or something.
Kizor: I'm recovering and have a couple of ideas - can I have until Sunday, Whatever Time Zone, to try it?
Kizor: Okay, until Monday. There was an unexpected convention. Here I go...
Kizor: Note to self:
- Hey Its That Voice (This troper is willing to bet that the one who voiced Shakti is Kath Soucie. She just sounds A LOT like Aerie from Baldurs Gate.)
- The previous troper is correct. Kath Soucie does appear in the Sacrifice vocal cast list.
- It doesn't mention which part she does, though, but said troper is 100% that the part Kath Soucie does in Sacrifice is Shakti.
- In addition, we have Kevin Michael Richardson (Sarevok) as Pyro, Grey DeLisle (Viconia, Nalia) as Persephone, and Tony Jay (The Transcendent One) as Mithras. Infinity Engine fans have a treasure trove of voice actors to recognize in this game. Oh, and who can forget Tim Curry as Stratos?
- WHAT? Viconia and Nalia has the same voices? Wow... but this starts to go very off-topic here, sorry.
- The previous troper is correct. Kath Soucie does appear in the Sacrifice vocal cast list
Crazyrabbits: I approve this entry.
Dragon Quest Z: The cut list complaint for this states no one listens to the description before using. The problem is the description is really long. If you want to make a point, make it concise.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Description edited. I'll add that "you're not gonna read this before linking to it" was self-defeating.
Fast Eddie: Edited further. Outside of Troper Tales, it should end altogether.
Inkblot: Thanks, this is much better.
WVI: Who the hell says first-person writing is frowned upon here? As long as it looks good, nobody cares. Third-person is arbitrary.
Freezair For A Limited Time: Seconded. It's about whether or not it looks good in context, not whether or not it fits some arbitrary rule. Don't we hate arbitrary rules around here...?
Ununnilium: Um, yeah. How is This Troper 100% bad? O.o
Fast Eddie: Well, it isn't arbitrary. The issue is that if you get one "this troper" on a given page, you get a hundred. Also, it is distracting and off-point, in the vast majority of cases. The reader thinks "Who is 'this troper'? Should it matter? Would it be a different example if it were a different troper?"
It only really works in Subjectives and Troper Tales.
Freezair For A Limited Time: ...Do they? It's never bothered me. The first couple of times I came here, it just struck me as being another part of the Wiki's color, and quickly went invisible to me.
WVI: Look, I don't see why we can't just say "I". It's one letter. It makes things so easy. For everyone.
Fast Eddie: Don't write about yourself. It is not about you. Don't say "I" or "this troper" or "this editor" or any of those. It is a difficult idea for some people to grasp, that the article is not about them, but with some help they can make the conceptual leap.
In Troper Tales, "I", or even signing the thing with your handle like we do in discussions should be cool, as that is essentially just a specialized discussion area, which is about the person.
WVI: Eddie, I'm talking about places in which you have to speak about yourself to make a point. I've updated the description to match this.
Fast Eddie: Strongly disagree. There is no reason to use it in an article. Especially not "I" — no reader knows who that is, nor should they care, or be distracted by it.
WVI: There are places in which it's appropriate to account personal history in order to make a point besides Troper Tales. I'm not saying let's throw anecdotes around like candy. Edit: Also, you've mentioned twice now that someone who reads "I" or "this troper" will apparently find some significance in that and be distracted by the main point. Who on Earth does that?
Crazyrabbits: I do, for one. It's quite annoying seeing an example that ends with, "This troper was sure it would play out that way" or "I can't believe it happened like that". No one knows who you are, just like no one knows who I am. Trying to force personal titles has no bearing on any other reader except the person who posted it. I try to go out of my way to remove any "this troper" remarks, because it IS distracting. Save the "I" or "This troper" remarks for the discussion pages. For everyone's sake.
WVI: What kind of backwards-ass psychology is that? Even pretending an average person would over-ponder the use of a single pronoun, overbearing attempts at NPOV are much more noticeable.
Rebochan: It's not trying to force NPOV. These pages are biased as heck. But the point is that nobody cares whether you, I, or any other person on this site adds their stamp of approval or pointless anecdote.
WVI: The only problem with that is that you assume all anecdotes are pointless.
etherian: I added the example about personal opinions, but it could probably use a better quote. By the way, I'm new to editing, do new discussions go on top or bottom?
Randallw: Wow, I totally missed the point. I'd seen 'This Troper' spread about and assumed it was just the acceptable way of referring to oneself here.
Rebochan: That's part of the problem, really - since getting rid of all the This Troper examples is a monumental undertaking, there's still plenty of them all over the site. Which only confuses people because they assume that if these are everywhere on the site, it must be okay, so they make even more. I try to do my part and kill them with extreme prejudice (and fire), but This Troper is a most dastardly foe.
Mr Death: Anyone else see a massive disconnect here? You say This Troper needs to end because it's distracting and it goes against the point of the wiki, and people have all sorts of problems with it...and at the same time say it's hard to get rid of because everybody uses it and seems to think that it's an integral, accepted part of the wiki and its character.
Are not the users the ones who define what is or is not the point or object of the wiki? From reading this discussion page, it seems like the same set of people keep saying This Troper is a horrrrrrrible thing, while everyone else thinks it's cool. What happened to the rule by consensus? When did it become "a couple people think it's wrong, so CHANGE EVERYTHING"? Are there really that many people who are "distracted" by This Troper that it's a problem, or are we trying to enforce a rule that nobody seems to care about? I mean, really, the This Troper page reads like a scolding, as if we've been a naughty child.
Honestly, I always saw the anonymity of This Troper as the point of linking to it. It changes an "I" to something broader, speaking as the userbase of the wiki. Who cares if Mr Death thought something was cool, or cried at a tragic plot twist? Putting This Troper instead implies that it's not just me talking, but the whole mess of us.
Dalantia: Which is why it is wrong and bad, because we do not agree - and because the article is not about you, or making you feel that everyone agrees with you.
Robrecht: Personally, I actually like This Troper and it's supposed 'abuse' (by which I mean the meta-trope, not the page), because it sets TV Tropes squarely apart from The Other Wiki in our general feel and tone. Lots of people add personal touches to examples they add without using This Troper and sometimes that annoys me a lot more than for instance someone adding a fairly neutral example and then using This Troper to give a personal observation. This Troper isn't about remaining anonymous (using an unqualified 'I' is no less anonymous). This Troper is a trope in itself (and a TV Tropes meme and a meta-trope at that) used by people who want to give a point of view, personal insight or alternate interpretation and I personally applaud this. It's quite a bit more friendly and less intrusive than the eventual edit warring that occurs from people altering another's addition without discussion or consent from the original author, as happens far too often on The Other Wiki.
Rebochan: Yea, but why should anyone care what "This Troper" had to say? It just encourages people to stop adding constructive information and just devolve into Conversation In The Main Page. You're not supposed to add your personal opinions to a trope example. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Instead of saying "This Troper feels this is silly and dumbfaced", just fix the entry. If there's reasonable disagreement on a trope example, just add that there is disagreement ("Some people feel that Dumby Mc Dumb Face is a dumbface. Others think he is brilliance incarnate!"). The personal voucher of a single individual actually lessens what could be a reasonable addendum to an entry into just one guy throwing out a useless observation.
We're not formal like The Other Wiki, but the pages aren't supposed to be chat rooms. And unlike the other wiki, the discussion pages on the trope pages encourage free discussion of both the trope examples and the page content themselves. There's a plethora of places to work them out.
Also, This Troper is a frequently mocked and derided trend off the site, so it may set us apart, but it's not a good thing.
Robrecht: Honestly, this page as an article is no different from the use of This Troper in an article. It's basically Complaining About Shows You Dont Like. It's not constructive, it doesn't give a single good reason not to use This Troper, other than 'the people who made this page don't like it' and 'using this does not conform to the views the makers of this page have on editing this wiki'.
Rebochan: Did you skip past all the parts of the page that discussed why it's bad form and why using it is bad writing? Because this page exists to explain that.
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Just because it would be ridiculous to cut the page doesn't mean that the page won't be cut if it's on the Cut List. Some cutmasters are more careful than others....
BritBllt: It has to be said...
"Maybe This Troper should run. This Troper thinks This Troper should. Actually, This Troper just wants to hear This Troper talk about This Troper - THIS TROPER!"
My apologies to The Simpsons. >_>
Paradoxic Title: I'm considering performing a mass delete of "This Troper" from certain Video Game-related tropes (Game-Breaker, That One Boss, etc.). Should I go through with it?
Paradoxic Title: Here's the edit reason I'll use: "Will everyone please stop saying this? I mean, check this page and see what it says. It's unnecessary, since we're here to discuss the trope, not to talk about ourselves." (I hope that encapsulates the intent of this page correctly If this isn't a good idea/ will get me banned, please try to dissuade me from doing so. Any comments? Help? I want to show my love for this wiki, and I figure that this is the best way to do so.
Rebochan: That's what I've been doing on every page as I go. It's a good plan.
Dalantia: I strafe them when I see them depending on my motivation to edit the page, whenever I'm actually looking at the site, personally.
Reecer6: I think there's WAY too much 'This Troper' on the Troper Tales. It's missing the whole point! TT is SUPPOSED to be about you!
PuppetChaos: THISTROPERTHISTROPERTHISTROPERTHISTROPERTHISTROPERTHISTROPERTHISTROPERTHISTROPERTHISTROPER
Sorry.
I had to.
CAD: If we delete this page, people are going to still say This Troper without the link. In fact, a lot of people already are, so they don't link to this page, and don't see this page's message. So deleting this page will just make things harder.
And honestly? As a reader of Troper Tales, I really couldn't care less who the article is about. I don't care if it's "this troper" or "I" or "someone I knew"... that's all superfluous anyway, I just want to read the actual content of the entry. So I really don't see what the big deal is with using the term "this troper". In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's iconic to this site, and a nice way of explicitly stating that you're remaining anonymous. I think at this point it's just bugging a lot of people because it's too cliche.
Grimace: For the record, you can cutlist this all you like - This Troper is still going to put "This Troper" in entries. So, you know, go crazy. (and what's wrong with using "This Troper" anyway? I thought we had a whole "Third person" schtick going on here?)
Madrugada: As CAD said, cutting the page won't do a thing to solve the pothole problem.
- And Grimace, No, we are not all about the third person here. Read the page — there's a reason that This Troper is discouraged; if your post in in an area where personal opinions and experiences are relevant, like Troper Tales or a discussion, use "I" or your handle —- you're talking about your own opinions or experiences, not those of some mythical, anonymous somebody-else's. If it isn't one of those places, your opinion or experience isn't relevant.
Some Sort Of Troper: I think it it clear from the way the article is written that it was created in response to people writing "this troper". This page also covers the use of the first person in inappropriate pages and I have no idea as to how exactly cutting the page that says "don't do it" is going to help. Also, I think it is inappropriate that something be put on the cut list when it's just an idea or suggestion and this is part of a solution to a wiki wide problems. Bring it up for discussion in the proper place rather than an overflowing cut list.
Fast Eddie. I made it so that it always shows up in red, but left the article in place. Maybe that will be a step toward healing people of this verbal tic.
Heh Man: Not all natter is bad....
Grimace: My above statement was perhaps a little overzealousness on my part, mainly reacting to seeing another "odd" article needlessly put up on the Cut List. I came to its defence, but in all the wrong ways, looking like a bit of an eejit in the process. Ahh, live and learn...
macroscopic: I've always thought it was useful that people pothole it. Put it this way: if they can't pothole it they'll just say "this troper," but as it is they're providing potential readers/other editors with the knowledge that it's bad every time they use it and if the problem ever dies down we'll have an easy way of hunting down the last bits of it by looking at the wicks. With the page redlinked I'm afraid people will read the page less without actually helping the problem.
berr: I don't have a problem using This Troper. I feel it's just slightly more formal, to tell you the truth, in those rare instances when self-reference is called for in a casual shared/encyclopedic work, be it a scientific paper or what have you. Natter is the problem, not Inspector Javert-like dedication to specific style guide.
Encouraging people to use their own names would not eliminate Natter but encourage it, especially since encouraging tropers to use their own names on Troper Tales would make it feel more like a blog, with established users versus known users versus Unknown Tropers. And I agree with people who say that it is something unique to this site. It is part of TV Tropes' "brand" so to speak.
Sure, I agree with making this page be a warning page about overuse / abuse of "This Troper", because that will help cut down on Natter. But natter is the issue, not what people call themselves when self-reference is sometimes called for. My personal opinion, unasked, I know. :-)
Rebochan: But outside of Troper Tales, there is no point for self-reference - they're absolutely meaningless and create Natter. Inside Troper Tales, self-referencing your personal experiences is the point.
berr: I disagree. Anecdotal examples (attested examples, not Troper Tales), and figures of speech that require reference to a narrator, are legitimate uses of the indirect first person. TV Tropes is not an encyclopedia. Even if you want to be as formal as a scientific research paper, there are legitimate uses of the first person in a scientific research paper and they are always constructed along the same lines as "This troper" ("the author of this article" etc.) In short, I disagree. Not all uses of the first person are Natter. Besides, I don't see what there is to get so butt-hurt about. Natter is the enemy, not figures of speech like "Not Making This Up" Disclaimer or This Troper.
But whatever, man... "You can build your filthy little world without me! You tell young This Troper that I intend to paint Just Bugs Me with his blood. TWO COATS!"
berr: Also, in my opinion, tropers should not be required to reference their names in Troper Tales. It discourages some folks from piping up. Not everyone is outgoing about their experiences like that. I agree with the person who said that they didn't really care who supplied the anecdote unless That Troper wanted us to know their identity. I
I know I've been reading a book called "You are Not A Gadget" that rails against Internet anonymity and the supposed ills caused by people not signing their name and address on everything posted, * but I thoroughly disagree with the author: there are social situations in real life that mirror that. If you're being filmed for a documentary or TV show, for instance.
Poochy.EXE: I think we've managed to create a new problem, namely some really badly-done Bluenose Bowdlerizing of instances of "This Troper", in an attempt to curb the the overuse of "This Troper". I just found a bunch of examples in the No Yay history where entire paragraphs were removed because they had one easily-removed instance of "this troper" in them. Prior to that, the Rubber-Band A.I. page saw a Bluenose Bowdlerizer who clumsily changed instances of "this troper" to "I" - without even bothering to change the sentences to first-person! Your Mileage May Vary, but I feel "I thinks he once saw..." is considerably worse than "this troper thinks he once saw..." It's like trying to kill a mosquito by shooting an ICBM at any wall it lands on. So can we please add something to the article cautioning against it?
