Follow TV Tropes
SugarWiki.Genius Programming opens with a complete explanation of the code that is the page quote. I know it's Sugar Wiki, but I'm pretty sure examples still go in the example section?
The problem is, if we remove this, it leaves a three-sentence paragraph that barely explains the... what do we call Sugar Wiki items, cupcakes? I'm calling it a cupcake. If we take out the example-above-the-fold, we're left with a three-sentence description that barely explains the cupcake, with probably the most informative sentence being "The opposite of DarthWiki.Idiot Programming."
When I found Puzzlement About Payment via Needs Wiki Magic Love, it had a single-sentence description. I tried fishing around on TLP Crash Rescue and this very thread for pre-existing complaints about it, and found out that while there was a complaint on TLP Crash Rescue, apparently nobody ever got around to unlaunching it. So, pessimistic at the chances of getting a two-year-old page unlaunched, I took a stab at expanding the description. I have a lingering suspicion that what I did was not quite good enough, but at least it's better than leaving it in cobwebs.
...describes the whistle as sexual in nature, so after consulting Trope Talk, I started a draft on Trope Launch Pad for the kinds of whistles described by the shoehorned second paragraph. I started a thread on Trope Repair Shop before I found this thread.
This was buried without any response, so I'm saying it again: Technician vs. Performer is a bit skewed in the "performer" side of the trope. The writeup could be more neutral.
How accurate is the description to Goth? It's lengthy and goes on long tangents about what goth is, which seems more suited for a Useful Notes page. The "Goth is not..." section in particular seems dubious. From what I've seen online, the only requirement for being goth is liking Goth Rock, so the parts about it being a lifelong thing seem a bit much.
That whole thing kinda reads like a relic from when goth was The New Rock & Roll.
I'm in the process of trying to get the finalized TRS decision for Suddenly Voiced to finish up. The first two (maybe three?) paragraphs need to be adjusted to fit the new definition of "character that speaks finally gets voice acting".
I'd highly prefer making the change in the sandbox, since we got examples being transferred over to the transplant trope.
Edited by Berrenta on Sep 7th 2019 at 10:37:41 AM
The first half of Goth (up through "Please note: Goth as a subculture dates to the late '70s...) seems fairly accurate as far as goths in fiction. I say everything after that could probably be moved to a Useful Notes page.
Goth the character archetype in fiction, Goth Rock, and the Goth subculture are all different. The goth trope in fiction isn't about being a fan of Goth Rock, it's about dressing and acting in a certain way. And the goth subculture, while based in Goth Rock, is also associated with Industrial music and sometimes Black Metal. Imo Goth the page should be about the first one, although perhaps more splitting analogous to how Emo Teen, Emo, and Emo Music are all different pages would be good.
Edited by naturalironist on Sep 7th 2019 at 8:25:12 AM
It's not bad, but the reference to looking identical to a parent is a different trope (Strong Family Resemblance), so probably shouldn't be mentioned in the trope description. That'll cause confusion. Also, I still think there's too much emphasis on talking about real life genetics. We can do an Analysis page to discuss that if it really needs to be discussed, but that bit can be stripped out and put at the end. I've rearranged your suggestion in the following way to show what I'm trying to say:
When two or more fictional characters reproduce, a logical next step for many creators is to concoct an appearance for the offspring. One method for reflecting the relationship between the child and their parents is for the creator to make the child resemble both of its parents simultaneously: their body types, hair styles, facial features, and other physical characteristics are patched together to create the child's appearance.
For example, Alice and Bob have a daughter who inherits her mother's freckles and exact hair style, along with her father's eye colour and big feet. Other examples might include a child that has two-toned hair or Mismatched Eyes, so that both parents' most recognisable characteristics are represented simultaneously.
As a sub-trope of All Genes Are Codominant, real-life genetics may take a back-seat to LEGO Genetics and Artistic License – Biology.
Compare Gender Equals Breed, where the child looks like the parent whose gender it shares, and Strong Family Resemblance, where the child's appearance is based on just the one parent.
Contrast Random Species Offspring, where the offspring is a different species altogether from their parents, and Hollywood Genetics, where the offspring ends up with physical traits that neither parent has.
See Superpowerful Genetics for superpower heredity.
I have a question about the Disabled Snarker trope. I'm not sure it's clear about why it's an actual trope. It starts off promising then descends into a The Same But More Specific version of the Deadpan Snarker trope.
For there to be an actual trope, I would assume that something about the disability, or the state of being disabled, is why they're a snarker. Otherwise, what's the connection? If there is none, it's just 'snarker who happens to be disabled' — which isn't a trope.
I've put into bold the parts of the trope description I'm concerned about.
What it says on the tin: a character with some sort of disability and strong sarcastic tendencies. This can be portrayed in a variety of ways — maybe they use snark as a coping mechanism or way to vent, maybe their position as a social outsider has given them an irreverent view of the world, maybe the author is deliberately trying to avoid the Inspirationally Disadvantaged stereotype, or perhaps smartassitude is just endemic to the character's nature. Subtrope of Deadpan Snarker, usually overlaps with Emo Teen to some extent if the character fits that age group. Compare Disability as an Excuse for Jerkassery; also compare Cuckoosnarker who is snarky in spite of having his/her head in the clouds (may also overlap with this trope if the disability is mental).
If the character is physically disabled, they may also be a Non-Action Snarker.
Okay, to deal with the bold points:
The disabled snarker is a character with some sort of disability and strong sarcastic tendencies that are linked in some way to their disability. This can be portrayed in a variety of ways — maybe they use snark as a coping mechanism or way to vent, maybe their position as a social outsider has given them an irreverent view of the world, or maybe the author is deliberately trying to avoid the Inspirationally Disadvantaged stereotype.
Subtrope of Deadpan Snarker. Some teenage examples might overlap with Emo Teen. Compare Disability as an Excuse for Jerkassery; also compare Cuckoosnarker if a snarky character has a mental disability that is being used to portray them as having their head in the clouds.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 8th 2019 at 7:27:41 PM
to Disabled Snarker changes.
Found another one after seeing a character added to Yellow Eyes of Sneakiness just for having yellow eyes (which is fairly ordinary in the setting of the work in question).
I think the issue is that the current description of the trope is quite different to the original trope. I've traced back the origin of the change in trope description to an edit that was made on the 11th August 2018, where all the extra information was added.
There is no edit reason attached to this change, so there's no way to know from the edit itself if this was an agreed changed or just someone acting on their own — I'm suspicious it's not an agreed change because of the lack of edit reason.
I feel the original description was clear enough: the sclera is the point of the trope and, where it's an iris, the shape of the eye is such that no sclera is visible leaving the yellow iris to fill the eye and effectively act like a sclera. Examples are even included (eagles, snakes, etc.)
The changes, however, remove the emphasis on the sclera to make it optional between sclera and irises. It also adds in a very confusing, poorly worded paragraph that talks about variations of the trope where the important thing is the colour of the centre of the eye (green or non-green) and then launches into discussions on good characters with yellow or amber eyes and no green centres.
I feel this change has completely muddied the clarity of the description and watered down, or even changed, the original purpose of the trope. A lot of recent examples seem to be about characters with yellow irises that aren't necessarily about symbolism of an unscrupulous nature but may fall more in line with 'irises turn yellow when angry or upset' and some real life examples of people with iris colours that can look yellow in certain lights (which definitely isn't the purpose of the original trope). (Note: I have not done a proper wick check to see if there's misuse of the trope going on — after all, every trope has one or two dodgy examples on its page.)
Should we roll this back to the original description?
Also, if the trope is trying to capture a different 'yellow-eye' trope, should that bit be sent to the appearance clean-up thread that's dealing with eye colour tropes?
What does everyone else think?
Historically, this is probably inspired by canines, felines, rodents, reptiles, and birds of prey, which can have Amber, yellow, or Orange irises, and are associated with being conniving, clever, and wise. Also reptiles and toads are sometimes associated with villainy, and can have yellow eyes. Ironically in these animals what you're usually seeing are larger irises which were probably mistaken for a yellow sclera. In particular, the visual itself might be related to the reflective eyes of many animals in the dark, which explains the particular bright palette in contrast with dark or dim figures.
In Real Life yellow and brown in the sclerae or the cornea in people is unhealthy. It's usually a symptom of allergies or liver disease — yellow sclerae are a typical symptom of jaundice.
Compare Supernatural Gold Eyes.
Historically, this is probably inspired by canines, felines, rodents, reptiles, and birds of prey, which can have amber, yellow, gold, or orange irises, and are associated with being conniving, clever, and wise. Also reptiles and toads are sometimes associated with villainy, and can have yellow eyes. Ironically in these animals what you're usually seeing are larger irises which were probably mistaken for a yellow sclera. In particular, the visual itself might be related to the reflective eyes of many animals in the dark, which explains the particular bright palette in contrast with dark or dim figures.
A variant of this trope is a sneaky or crafty character with yellow or light-yellow eyes that have green or yellow green centers to them. Sometimes, the green-centered yellow eyes are used to accentuate the character’s sneakyness, craftiness, meanness, and/or evil in relation to non-green-centered yellow eyes or to distinguish them as the crafty or evil ones within works made up of largely or mostly yellow eyed characters. Non-green-centered yellow, gold, or amber eyes are more apt to be portrayed as normal or least less decidedly crafty or evil and are more apt to show up on good and ostensibly good characters.
In Real Life, yellow and brown in the sclerae or the cornea, not the iris, in human beings is unhealthy. It's usually a symptom of allergies or liver disease — yellow sclerae are a typical symptom of jaundice.
Compare Supernatural Gold Eyes, Black Eyes of Crazy, and Red Eyes, Take Warning.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 8th 2019 at 11:05:32 AM
Can this be removed from the description of Raised as the Opposite Gender? I don't really understand what it's trying to say, and someone being forced to behave as the gender opposite their birth sex doesn't make them transgender.
Yeah, aside from there being a cautious editing problem, it's coming across as natter.
Brought over from the Is This An Example? thread. An entry on RWBY was changed from the Disinherited Child trope to Passed-Over Inheritance because two children in the family have been disinherited and the Disinherited Child trope says it can only apply to one child. For more children, Passed-Over Inheritance should be used.
However, Disinherited Child appears to be for where a bad situation leads to a character who is an heir being removed from that position (i.e., being disinherited). Passed-Over Inheritance is for situations where people have assumed they're entitled to an inheritance, but only find out during a will reading that the deceased excluded them from receiving any inheritance at all (hence 'passed over' — they were never intended to be heirs in the first place, they just thought they were).
The entry that was changed from one trope to another was, to summarise: Dad makes oldest child the heir to his company. They fall out over her career choices so he disinherits her and makes his second child the heir (one of the main characters, who starts the show as the heiress, so this back story). Part way through the show, Dad disinherits her because he doesn't like her career choices (or rebellious attitude) and makes his youngest child the heir. So, both his daughters have been disinherited, knew the moment it had happened, and know who the current heir is. Meanwhile, Dad is still alive, so there's no will reading or post-death reveal involved.
So, it seems to me that Disinherited Child is being unnecessarily restrictive about claiming it can only apply to a single child, and it's misusing the Passed-Over Inheritance trope by acting like Passed-Over Inheritance is just a multi-child version of Disinherited Child. Also, someone on the Is This An Example? thread pointed out that the Disinherited Child page quote is about two children, not one.
I don't think the problem is with Passed-Over Inheritance. I think Disinherited Child is the one that requires the clean-up: both how many children it can refer to and it's misrepresentation of, and relationship to, Passed-Over Inheritance.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 8th 2019 at 12:58:44 PM
~Wyldchyld, I like your rearrangement of Patchwork Kids, thank you! Much more concise. I've replaced the description on the trope page with an edit reason pointing to this thread.
Trope: Hyperactive Metabolism.
I just noticed that a section in the description doesn't make sense; near the bottom of that description, it says:
"A vampire sucking blood to heal himself could make sense, if only because we can't really deny it. Other monster novels ) enhanced metabolism. The down side is that if they don't eat lots of food often, they begin to starve quickly."
The problem part is this:
"Other monster novels ) enhanced metabolism."
This is incredibly unclear, but the rest of the description is flawless; I don't know what the original writer of this line meant to say, so I'm hesitant to just outright delete it - instead I'll leave it for actual writers to judge and fix.
Not sure that these potholes are right...
While the terms might fit, they're both redirects and those targets don't seem to be the best fit for what's being turned into a pothole?
The Golden Rule:
Let's just say, Deontologism is more than just "propagating justice" and Utilitarianism is more than just "prioritizing the needs of the many".
I don't see any reason why the description makes a distinction about number when the concepts don't match. Adhering this would mean the page quote would need to be removed when it adequately demonstrates the trope.
This part in Subverted Suspicion Aesop
"A reason why this happens is that the writers don't want to expand the main cast, so it's easier to add an antagonist who wouldn't logically stay around after the episode ends.
This is often used with aliens; see We Come in Peace — Shoot to Kill, type 2. When it isn't used for the sake of Speculative Fiction, it's used because, after all, it could be Paranoia Fuel, and the writers don't want to use this trope without Unfortunate Implications on any real people, like the problem Too Smart for Strangers creates for your new babysitter. (In Speculative Fiction, this can cause problems for Innocent Aliens; see We Come in Peace — Shoot to Kill, type 1.) However, the normal version of this trope can also be used alongside the subtrope; see the details at the top."
I'm not sure how this adds anything to the trope.
That sounds more like Sixth Ranger Traitor.
Dig Attack seems to have a stub for a description. It's barely any longer than a Laconic—which, perhaps not coincidentally, the page lacks.
Kiss of Death doesn't, like, actually at any point say what the trope is?
Does Rapid-Fire Descriptors and Long List have any relationship?
It seems a string of adjectives is a Long List, so Sub-Trope?
Whoops, reposted on Setting Up Trope Relationships.
Edited by Malady on Sep 23rd 2019 at 5:43:24 AM
Suggesting Wrong Assumption to be rewritten to be a supertrope to Mistaken for Index and a slew of other tropes.
- Sounds like a big change that should go through TRS, but maybe not.
There's only ~100 wicks to change if you needed to change them.
If you're making it such a big Super-Trope, most entries should fit in at least one Sub-Trope.
I think it'd require TRS too. That sort of action changes the trope's meaning and use.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?