Trope Description Improvement Drive

Relative Button's description is too specific to a scenario, not to mention having Alice and Bob.

May I change it?

I am writing to bring attention to two pages:

1. I've reviewed Elective Mute, and I noticed from the YKTTW draft to present day, it seems the trope never includes the medical condition known as Selective Mutism. In that case, why the end of the first paragraph includes a link for a Selective Mutism website? Can I just unlink it to avoid confusion? (EDIT: it's not "unlike", but "unlink".)
2. I understand Dandere is a definition-only page, and based on the last paragraph, examples of this "trope" falls to either Shrinking Violet and Sugar-and-Ice Personality ("See Shrinking Violet and Sugar-and-Ice Personality for the more general term and examples."). I encountered an edge case where neither applies, so I suspect that the tropes listed on the quoted line should be expanded somehow—currently I think The Quiet One is probably the best option?

Edited by SamCurt on Feb 15th 2020 at 7:14:48 AM

1. I do not know enough to comment
2. Add The Quiet One to the "See" on Dandere? Sounds reasonable.

Edited by Tabs on Feb 15th 2020 at 11:50:26 AM

@Tabs:

Yes, this is what I mean by my second question.

Either the definition of Irony as She Is Cast needs to be expanded, or a lot of the entries actually on the page has to be cut for misuse.

Anyway, the trope is supposed to be about "a talented actor/actress is hired to act untalented." Most of the examples are simply "ironic casting" (e.g. a Jewish actor being cast in a Christmas movie, a singer who doesn't get to sing in a movie that's practically a musical, etc.)

If it comes to a situation like that, the best course of action is TRS, not this thread, which isn't to do with actually changing the meaning of a trope. (And even cutting misuse is easier with thread consensus, be it a project thread or TRS.)

I can't blame people for mistaking the trope for ironic casting with a title like that. I thought that that was what the trope was, too.

Maybe the trope is too narrow? Is there a good argument against broadening its definition to fit its apparent use? Are we being descriptivist or prescriptivist here?

I posted this in the ATT thread here, and there was some consensus but I would like to get more feedback before changing the description on Bad Writing Index. Please note that I proposed to move the "TV Tropes Troubles" section to Administrivia or someplace and to remove the puzzle design and game design sections outright. Here's a copy of my proposed revision (with Ferot's addition in there as well):

The proposed edit to Dandere above has been submitted to the Locked Pages thread for processing.

The description to Elective Mute doesn't describe the trope clearly enough.

Good lord,Death of the Author description is lengthy

Best Friend calls Childhood Friends a Sub-Trope, while Childhood Friends says that Best Friend is just one kind of Childhood Friends.

Which is right?

Well, Childhood friends aren't neccessarily best friends and vice versa. I think they are just related tropes

The first paragraph on Kitschy Themed Restaurant is a wall of text that should be split, but I don't know how.

Look for the subject of the paragraph, and see where it changes subjects. That's generally where you want to put a paragraph break.

I split food from architecture. Is that enough, or should I split meals from dessert too?

Looks good to me.

I have a query about Creator Backlash and Old Shame, that started off as a discussion on the Trivia.RWBY page (see here) and ended up on ATT (twice because real life got in my way and I forgot about bringing the examples here).

The first ATT discussion suggested that Old Shame might be more appropriate. The second was a suggestion I come to this thread to clarify what the two tropes cover.

The entries are:

• Creator Backlash:
  • The crew in general don't look back on Volume 1 with a lot of good memories, with Ruby's actress Lindsay Jones frequently wishing for a chance to redub the season and Miles Luna frequently bemoaning the Jaundice arc for taking too long.
  • Miles admitted prior to Volume 5 that he was painfully aware of how often Yang got shafted for screentime and plot relevance during the first four volumes, and specifically noted that Yang would get a lot of focus in that coming volume.
  • Since Volume 5, Luna has taken several small potshots at the season in retrospect, such as mocking several lines he wrote on the commentary track, noting that the team wouldn't be stuck in a house again all season for Volume 6, and specifically promising that Ruby would get more focus and her leader status would be more emphasized in the coming Volumes.

The reason I initially removed them was on the basis that the creators are picking out bits and pieces from the older seasons that they don't like or cringe over for various reasons. However, none of these creators hate the work itself, they're still producing new seasons for the work, and there are a lot of things about the older seasons that they are proud of.

I wasn't sure whether Old Shame would apply because that seems to rest on the work never having been popular, whereas RWBY is a popular work. Creator Backlash is about a work that is popular, but the creator hates it anyway.

The debating point on the discussion page was how to measure and categorise the level of dislike a creator has — is it the entire work or can it just be bits they wish they'd handled differently?

The debating point on ATT was whether Old Shame would be a better fit?

Overall, the confusion appears to be:

1. How best to describe the relationship between the fans, the creator?
2. What is the scope of the creator's dislike (the entire work, or acknowledging flaws they could have done differently within a work they otherwise like)?

My interpretation of the tropes is:

• Creator Backlash:
  • Fans like the work.
  • The creator hates the work
  • The trope is talking about the work in general, rather than disliking parts of the work.
• Old Shame:
  • Fans hate the work.
  • The creator hates the work.
  • The trope is talking about the work in general, rather than disliking parts of the work.

Is this understanding correct and are the trope descriptions clear enough to convey their intentions? Is the only difference between the two tropes whether or not the work classifies as 'popular' among fandoms? If so, how is popularity measured?

I seem to have a few questions here, so to summarise:

• Is my interpretation of the two tropes correct or incorrect?
• Are the examples Creator Backlash or Old Shame?
• Can the trope descriptions be improved?
  • Is the difference between the two tropes the work's level of popularity among fans?
  • If so, how can this be measured/identified?
  • Are the tropes clear enough on how the fans, creator and work relate to each other?
  • Are the tropes clear enough on what the scope of the creator's dislike is (acknowledging flaws, disliking the entire work, etc.)?

Edited by Wyldchyld on Mar 4th 2020 at 1:27:36 PM

According to the Subtle List of Trope Distinctions, the difference between the two is this:

So, it seems like Creator Backlash is for works the creator despises for reasons outside of the overall quality, and have a sizable fanbase. Old Shame is for works the creator despises because of its low quality, and has very few people defending it.

The Paranoiac description is an essay. Most of it needs to be put in Analysis/. But don't know which parts to keep. Everything above the "criteria" folder?

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 4th 2020 at 11:13:00 AM

I think part of the problem here is that examples aren't always necessarily talking about an entire work. Everything I know about RWBY specifically comes from osmosis via this very site, but in general I don't think it'd be unusual to have parts of a popular work (especially towards the beginning) that even diehard fans think could be better.

Edited by nrjxll on Mar 4th 2020 at 11:11:56 AM

I don't think O.O.C. Is Serious Business is the right trope here...

A Glitch in the Matrix says:

Out-of-Character Alert, I think

Yes, that's the issue.

In this case, the work is popular and has a sizeable fanbase as a result. However, there are quality issues that the creators acknowledge, along with things from the early days that they cringe about when they think of it or wish they could have done better.

So, they don't hate the whole work (indeed, they're still producing it), they just dislike certain things they wish they could have done better at.

The question is, does the trope description accommodate that?

It doesn't look like it. I think the whole work has to leave a feeling of regret.

Sidenote: Although Old Shame's description could stand to be concise/precise

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 5th 2020 at 8:18:04 AM