Follow TV Tropes
Yeah, full-fledged definition changes generally require TRS. This thread mainly covers clarifying existing definitions.
The description of Fork Fencing is a bit anemic, but there's a much more meaty description on the accidental duplicate Trope Launch Pad draft Fork You. Does somebody want to assimilate the draft's description into the already-established trope's description?
Any issues with shortening Gold Digger as mentioned here?
Alternate Character Reading has an incredibly long description which has so much info it could be its own useful note. Is it common for a trope to have a have a note page next to the main page? If we do, I think we can easily lift the bullet points from main and rewrite them for better standalone reading as a useful note.
Edited by shadowmanwkp on Oct 3rd 2019 at 1:43:01 PM
I do believe Furigana is a good useful note material.
Celebrity Toons is as bare as it gets.
"Sometimes a celebrity is offered their own cartoon. They are made mostly to showcase the celebrity, and nothing more.
If they don't bother showing up to do the voices — which is quite often the case — it becomes Not Quite Starring. For the Internet-age, fanmade equivalent, see Real-Person Fic. See also Band Toon."
The main description of Letters to the Editor could use some more length.
So someone brought up a questionable Tear Jerker in the "is this an example" thread, and I thought "well that's a good question, I should read the page to figure out whether this qualifies".
It, uh. Doesn't actually say.
It's simply about "sad moments".
That may be, but the description doesn't say that.
Sad moments that occur in the work. I would presume Fridge Sadness wouldn't apply.
Should Walking Spoiler have a list of model acceptable examples, to make it more concretely clear what counts as a Walking Spoiler?
It's context that makes a Walking Spoiler. While the "models" above can serve as examples, there may be cases where those happen and yet it doesn't make them a walking spoiler.
Writing up this suggestion / change before I forget: In Is this an Example (more context in the link within the link as well) I asked about The Woman Wearing the Queenly Mask being an Always Female trope but having a line in the description mentioning male regents that might be confusing, allowing more male examples without really giving a reason why the trope focuses on females.
XFllo suggests removing it, and said I should I ask here for more input.
The indices Always Female and especially the Gender Dynamics Index explicitly say why this should be very rarely applied to males, but I need to succinctly note this (or just remove the line).
How about rewriting it as:
Edited by Darkaros on Oct 5th 2019 at 11:40:46 AM
Something like that could be good. Walking Spoiler is often misused as "there's a twist that involves this character" when it should be "the character's entire identity is a spoiler", and giving examples of how that could actually work helps.
The suggested rewrite...
...is better than the current line...
...but I would suggest trying to merge the two, as something like this:
I was going to replace "exquisite" with "glorified" in my suggestion, but I'm second-guessing that word choice because it might sound like passive-aggressive complaining.
Edited by Miss_Desperado on Oct 6th 2019 at 12:53:45 PM
Shouldn't most of Preppy Name be moved to an Analysis page?
Maybe, but the trope seems very culture-dependant, so it might need a lot of description to ensure the entries' contexts are given.
Like, "Libby" might only be preppy in 1980s America, or something.
But, I guess this trope is "Rich / Upper Class, and has a name that reflects it".
Which makes giving context a little easier?
It's not just the name being Preppy, they have to be too? But, without the extra info, how would people know if it's subverted? Preppy Name but class doesn't match?
Edited by Malady on Oct 6th 2019 at 1:37:59 AM
This was removed from Dystopian Oz because it was mentioned in the TLP that the description was too long:
This has led to countless other theories such as the Wicked Witch of the West being an allegory for the American west, the Scarecrow representing the troubles of American farmers in the late 19th century, and the Tin Woodsman representing the American steel industrial workers. That's even ignoring darker reinterpretations of the characters, such as how W. Geoffrey Seeley wrote in 1993 that the story is about Glinda convincing an innocent child to kill the last remaining Wicked Witch so that she can have full reign of Oz.
It was stated that it should go on an Analysis page but the Analysis page has since been cut. So, should this be added to the description again?
It's a very long description. It'll only get longer if people add more regional variants on the trope later.
@Natural Ironist: but if the twist outright changes the way you see a character and/or reveals their true nature, then they qualify for Walking Spoiler.
From Walking Spoiler:
I like that write-up a lot, especially the changes to the latter sentence. "Glorified" seems a bit harsh to me as well. I'm wondering if I should add "in the setting" such as:
To give some leeway/context to when Always Female can be Gender Flipped (while still disallowing examples like the one I removed way back in Is This an Example), but it might be redundant.
That's nonsense. Twists can be so hard that people's mind breaks. When it's hard to talk about the character without mentioning the twist, then he's a Walking Spoiler.
So, if I understand this correctly, the murderer in any murder mystery story, no matter who it turns out to be, is a Walking Spoiler?
You can talk about the murderer by name without mentioning the fact that they are the murderer, or talk about "the murderer" without mentioning who they are. Literally everyone in Murder on the Orient Express is not a Walking Spoiler.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?