Misuse as a VerbalTic: Understatement

Remember the problems with X Just X? Where people wouldn't elaborate on any reason why the trope applied to the media, thinking X Just X was enough? Well, it's gotten that bad. The word is linked to in over 8000 articles. This is not a small number.

The "trope" should be used in situations where the characters themselves understate things. Granted, I don't think we should get rid of it (it has brought a little under ten thousand people to the wiki) but at least change it from being a TV Tropes Verbal Tic to an actual article about when people understate things.

It's getting a bit overused, don't you think?

EDIT: Well, for whatever reason, I can't post responses. But as long as nobody has any problems with this, then I see no more need for repair. If a moderator could lock/delete this, that would be appreciated.

edited 3rd Jun '11 2:10:02 PM by Prinnish

...

Not again...

I find Understatement to be one of the many great quirks of TV Tropes, due to only being used as potholes, able to be used in an objective way, and having almost no chance to being misused. I'll hate if we cut down on it too much, then we'll lose yet another informal aspect.

Unlike, say, If You Know What I Mean, the words that are getting hyperlinked are, in fact, intended by the editor to be euphemistic understatements.

So while it may be the Troper equivalent of Alt Text, at least it's still technically correct in context.

(must resist OVER 9000!!! joke)

Yeah, I've run into at least a dozen instances of this being used in pages. It's getting out of hand, but then again, it's being used "correctly" in most of the instances I've seen.

I think its perfectly fair to highlight tropes that crop up within our own writing itself. It should, at least, be safe for appearing this way in page description spaces (it's a principal way for how wicks get spread around the wiki). It should be as acceptable as potholing Pun under an original pun written by a troper.

I can see a case against potholing Understatement in examples, however. Examples should be definitively clear first and foremost; making Understatements in examples can, perhaps, get in the way of clarity and straightforwardness, especially when people reading about them are completely unfamiliar with the example.

edited 8th Jun '11 11:51:57 AM by SeanMurrayI

I don't see a problem with it. It appears a lot, but it's mostly used correctly and can be quite humorous. Keep.

And there's nothing wrong with Alt Text.

This isn't a problem.

Any other objections?

No problem with using it correctly, but I've increasingly been running across it potholed with words like "very" and "extremely", which I think is a problem. Added a note warning against such use to the page which was immediately removed with a "What?", but it happens often enough that I think it should be addressed in some form.

Do not put note warnings directly on the page like that. Those belong in the edit reasons.