Follow TV Tropes
Is this thread even required for crosswicking related tropes? I thought this thread was mainly for issues with clarity and readability. At least I'm getting that impression from the opening post (which I'm surprised isn't pinned).
Edited by GastonRabbit on Dec 8th 2019 at 2:49:41 PM
I agree. Crosswicking shouldn't require discussion.
The Cameo, as currently written, applies exclusively to appearances by (famous real people) and (animated characters). Is that and/or should that be the actual definition?
Edited by wingedcatgirl on Dec 11th 2019 at 2:35:25 AM
I know it can count in-universe characters who only appear briefly, so the description needs fixing.
I imagine it's meant to be the broadest supertrope of cameo appearances.
... Most of the listed subtropes don't qualify for The Cameo-as-written, and that's not how subtropes are supposed to work.
more like "that's not how the trope should be written".
My question is, is this "changing the definition" and needs to be taken to TRS, or is it "rewriting the description to be in line with what we all know the definition really is" and I can just fix it myself?
... Typing it out like that makes me think probably the first thing.
Edited by wingedcatgirl on Dec 14th 2019 at 7:29:09 AM
I can help, if you wish...
The description for Soul-Powered Engine consists of a single sentence along with what it overlaps with and see also. I would try to expand it myself but I originally went to the page in the first place to look for the exact definition as I was unsure of it.
And Your Reward Is Clothes's description clashes with its image.
New suggested description in latter half of this post:
IP thread was locked, so can't discuss there.
Too late here, so asking for any changes before I swap it in tomorrow or something.
I feel like making a sandbox to expand Two-Part Trilogy beyond the description's current 1 vs. 2+3 structure, i.e. accommodating other types of Two-Part Trilogy like 1+3 vs. 2 and 1+2 vs. 3.
Edited by Albert3105 on Dec 26th 2019 at 2:38:31 PM
I'd like to see it
[Trope Name] is self-demonstrating at the expense of clarity. It took me a while to realize what it's about.
The laconic helps.
[Trope Name] needs to go to TRS under "Unclear Description". Two other things about it:
Edited by Brainulator9 on Dec 27th 2019 at 3:49:18 PM
The Just For Fun version used to be at [Trope Name] Injokes. It was moved back to JustForFun.Trope Name a month and a half ago — I didn't see any kind of discussion around this, but I had assumed there was one.
But the whole joke is that it's about "naming blandly by naming it by what it is", so it can't be called by anything but "trope".
Then under Clear, Concise, Witty, we should drop the self-demonstrating name.
I think the self-demonstrating name works fine: it's not exactly the same as using "trope" as a placeholder. It's the confusing description I'm concerned about.
The definition is in here: "Definition of the trope, explaining that the trope occurs when specific lines of dialogue are replaced by general and generic descriptions, giving the appearance of a template."
The Victorian idea of a fairy is as tiny Winged Humanoids, right?
'Cause Fairy in a Bottle doesn't mention the Humanoid part, so I can't justifiably pothole to that...
Edited by Malady on Dec 28th 2019 at 6:58:01 AM
The Antagonist is really bad after the line about No Antagonist, and Iím not sure what some of it is supposed to mean
Yeah, that could all be removed.
That part of Antagonist was already removed, but I agree with its removal.
Purple Prose says:
Can someone provide me an example illustrating the differences?
It seems I was wrong about it being the difference between:
Edited by Malady on Jan 3rd 2020 at 12:48:06 PM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?