Trope Description Improvement Drive

That's the thing though: it has to be judged by context. 4 deadly words: Case-by-case basis.

I would say that "case by case basis" pretty much rules out "the murderer in a murder mystery is automatically a Walking Spoiler, no exceptions".

Why would the murderer in a murder mystery be a Walking Spoiler? Isn't a Walking Spoiler someone who's very existence would be a spoiler? You can talk about the character who does the murdering without it being an inherent spoiler.

If there's the mystery of "who actually did it", the answer would then be a spoiler.

Yes, but that wouldn't make the character a Walking Spoiler, it'd just mean there's a spoiler involving the character.

Yeah, I don't actually understand why ~Miss_Desperado suggested this. I mean, I think it was rhetorical, but I still don't understand.

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Oct 7th 2019 at 11:13:42 AM

But try to look @ many character pages where the character is revealed to be a bad guy, or have their true nature be revealed. When it becomes hard to talk about a character without tripping the spoiler (i.e having to spoiler-tag a lot), then he's a Walking Spoiler.

If.

The point is, these sort of characters are not inherently Walking Spoiler characters.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 7th 2019 at 2:50:22 PM

Ehhhhh.

Talking about a character outside the context of a tvtropes character page doesn't require that you spoiler-tag anything spoilery about them, just that you don't mention it. I'd say they're only a Walking Spoiler if it's difficult to talk about them even then.

I thought I said "it's decided on a case-by-case basis" for a reason.

@wingedcatgirl: I didn't "suggest", I asked for clarification on what a Walking Spoiler could manifest as. Given the argument that sprung up afterwards, I don't think I was very successful in getting that clarification.

Edited by Miss_Desperado on Oct 8th 2019 at 8:27:42 AM

Is Feminist Fantasy overly broad, and seeming to be anything with a female Protag?

A TRS seemed to end on that note, but my attempt to revive it flopped, so I'm not sure anymore.

Edited by Malady on Oct 8th 2019 at 4:12:42 AM

I'm... not super clear what Feminist Fantasy is, but "the protagonist is female" would be chairs. The description on page says "At its most basic, this just means science fiction or fantasy whose main character is a woman who is the active center of her own story, making things happen." Which... excludes Pinball Protagonists. That's still pretty broad.

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Oct 8th 2019 at 4:38:28 AM

it was probably meant to be "anti male chauvinism", which could be a thing in older works.

Feminist Fantasy is beyond the scope of this thread, I think. I'm not sure what it's exactly about, and I think it needs the TRS to decide.

You wanna make it, or should I try again?

I just stumbled upon Talking Typography, and it doesn’t have a description so much as just a laconic on its main page.

I think this is a good question to ask.

Clueless Aesop had a section here.

Don't confuse this with a Family-Unfriendly Aesop either, because while again there can be some crossover, Clueless Aesops are acceptable lessons — at least, they start out that way. It's just that the lesson is handled in such a compressed time, in a manner that is so laughable (or even offensive), or is presented in such an out-there or age-inappropriate show that it ultimately ends up warped. The typical reaction is Don't Shoot the Message.

Going by its wording, it seems to say Family-Unfriendly Aesop are bad which isn't the case.

So Family-Unfriendly Aesop isn't about "bad message that the audience received"? (I'm half-joking)

Family-Unfriendly Aesop is an Aesop that goes against "accepted" morals, but isn't necessarily a bad moral- just unorthodox, and controversial.

I would guess, "viewers getting the bad message out of a work" wouldn't deserve to be listed anywhere on this wiki.

Of course, I'm talking about some examples that are just like that.

Edited by 4tell0life4 on Oct 11th 2019 at 11:28:21 AM

Bishōnen was recently added to this line on Pretty Boy:

This doesn't necessarily mean he's androgynous or looks like a girl, though. (That's a different trope, Dude Looks Like a Lady, Bishōnen, or Viewer Gender Confusion, if he's androgynous enough that the audience is genuinely confused about his sex.)

Can I delete it? Bishōnen is the East Asian equivalent of Pretty Boy, so I think it'd confuse people if it implied that Bishonens are prettier than Pretty Boys.

Agree

Girlfriend in Canada could use a lot of cleanup. Its issues are minor, but numerous.

Dawson Casting — the description mentions this:

In the case of voice acting that field has nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with vocal performance, as such only notable aversions are mentioned (consider what the point would be to list examples of Race Lift in voice acting).

Dawson Casting is Trivia, and as such can't be played with. Should this be removed entirely?