Trope Description Improvement Drive

Okay, so I finalized my draft for High-Speed Battle. So, here's my proposed description rewrite:

Now, is it finally okay to go?

Edited by I--Vanya--I on May 6th 2021 at 6:25:30 PM

I think Last Disc Magic might be a bit dated. To give an example:

I'll grant the premise that there was a time that may have been true, even if I suspect that was before the wiki was even founded. However, most video games these days that use a stat system have a "magic strength" stat or something similar, which usually increases with levelling up and equipping new wands the same way a physical fighter would increase strength. On the whole, the way the whole page is written reflects a serious lack of familiarity with video games from the past couple of decades.

When I bought up Fur and Loathing on the Soft Split cleanup thread, someone suggested that the description may need improving. I've copied and sorted some stuff out (undid the soft split, alphabetised, ect.) in Sandbox.Fur And Loathing.

Minorica added this to the description of Offending the Creator's Own. I don't think that's true or necessary, right?

Also, is it OK that Splash of Color's description is only two sentences? It's a pretty self-explanatory trope; I don't see the need to pad it out.

My concern about the description of Fur and Loathing is that it rambles all over the place, and has a lot of real world commentary mixed in with the trope. Couple of specific call-out points to get started:

• Is the paragraph about fur industry revenues really relevant to the trope? It seems to be trying to contrast the media-portrayal trope with many people in real life disagreeing or not caring, but it's clumsy.
• The first paragraph states that this trope is not about the politics of wearing fur, (And immediately undermines it's statement by running on about real-life PETA efforts) but the third (Referencing "Still the Eighties") seems to be taking a stance against anti-fur celebrities.
• The comments about Cave men and indigenous cultures wearing "Skins" rather than fur —Distinction Without a Difference— Has anyone actually seen this in a real work?

Edited by underCoverSailsman on May 10th 2021 at 3:13:45 AM

wrt Offending the Creator's Own: That doesn't fit at all, no. Remove it, is our onion.

Just Friends has this at the end of the description:

Editor's note: Also, just because a boy and a girl are together, that does not automatically mean that they are dating.

As much as I enjoy seeing that fact acknowledged (since I've had guy friends in the past that everyone in school thought I was either dating or had a crush on), it doesn't need to be in the description.

I apologize for the bump, but is my suggestion for High-Speed Battle description update okay to go?

I think so.

Not sure if this is the right place, but this is in the description of Vapor Wear:

Is this really necessary?

Given this trope is NRLEP, the relevance of that bit is speculative, and and women not wearing underwear has been a thing since before the pandemic, it can safely be cut.

Witch Species isn't needing the species to actually be a witch, right?

It seems to talk too much about witches?

I got around to doing an update of the description for Guide Dang It!, found here, Sandbox.Guide Dang It. It was pointed out in the completed Guide Dang It! TRS thread that many of the bullet points didn't depict actual Guide Dang It moments and some of the description could be more clear about GDI being the lack of information in a game, requiring a walkthrough to proceed short of spending hours trying things out. I added a different list of bullet points towards the bottom that should hopefully point people in the right direction for some examples.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure Overarching Villain is doing a good job of explaining what it's supposed to be and why it's a trope. It struggles to explain its relationship to, and distinction from, tropes like Big Bad and The Heavy.

If you've got a show where the Big Bad and The Heavy have been involved since the beginning, and all the villains are a part of the Myth Arc to a greater or lesser degree, where's the separation? And how many villains in a single work does it anticipate being examples of this trope?

As the description currently stands, any long-term villain that's part of the Myth Arc is an Overarching Villain, which means in some works, several of the villains could be argued as falling under the trope. That ends up guaranteeing that if the Big Bad is the Myth Arc villain and The Heavy is carrying out their will, then both the Big Bad and The Heavy would be labelled as the show's Overarching Villain. In some works, several villains might be in most of the show as part of the Myth Arc, suggesting that multiple villains in some works will be the show's Overarching Villain.

Looking at the draft trope (from 2014), the Laconic appears to summarise the point of the trope very well: a villain who is around for all, or most, of the series. In some works, this could be most — or even all — of the villains. That brings us back to multiple villains being the Overarching Villain of some works.

That's how it comes across, but is that a considered consequence of this trope? Looking at the draft discussion, I'm not sure if it is. There are a couple of comments in the draft that express the same confusion I'm expressing here. The confusion was dismissed, but I think it's valid. I feel that this might be one of those "notable doesn't automatically mean trope-worthy" situations. At the very least, there's something broken at its core that was flagged at the time, but never fixed.

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 20th 2021 at 5:53:13 PM

That description looks good to me! It does a good job of breaking down the differences between tropes that could be easily confused.

Quick question: Blue Liquid Absorbent has this line:

"Blue liquid was first used in place of the others probably for the simple desire to not Squick out viewers, especially those who might be eating at the time. This, before the Internet age, placed some of these products in the "Yes But What Does It DO?" class for viewers under a certain age. Seriously, how does one tell a Poise pad from an Always pad if you don't know the liquid color?"

Problem is, "Yes But What Does It Do" is a redirect to Side Effects Include..., which...doesn't really seem to fit the situation. So I was thinking perhaps:

"Blue liquid was first used in place of the others probably for the simple desire to not Squick out viewers, especially those who might be eating at the time. Before the Internet age, this left viewers under a certain age asking, "Yes, but what does it DO?" Seriously, how does one tell a Poise pad from an Always pad if you don't know the liquid color?"

Note to Self has a Self Demonstrating that takes up the entire description, leaving it very unclear what the trope actually is. Does it require the character to anticipate some kind of memory loss, or is it for any instances of leaving notes for oneself, or any instances of the phrase "note to self"?

It's been a few days, though I've only seen one response. Is it okay to replace the Guide Dang It! description with the one currently in the sandbox? Didn't want to do so without making sure there was some kind of consensus.

The description of Chaste Toons is a mess. Initially, I thought it was just Nephewism but for animation, but it turns out it's a separate trope entirely. Not that you would understand that from the description;

Nephewism is "a character is raised/adopted by their aunt and/or uncle". Chaste Toons is supposed to be "an adult character has young relatives but no children of their own" but according to the description, it's "cartoon characters have nieces and/or nephews but no children of their own." I brought this up in another thread and part of the response was basically that the description leans too heavily into how children's cartoons use nieces/nephews. For one thing, the "non-animated version" line should be removed since Nephewism has a Western Animation folder; second, Chaste Toons has plenty of examples that aren't from cartoons (including a Live-Action TV folder) and it's not supposed to be exclusive to nephews (other family members can be used). I think I should try rewriting it, but I want more feedback first.

I just looked at Straw Feminist, and, uh...it doesn't have a description. At least not a real one. It transitions directly from the introduction to the disclaimers. I know it's a controversial trope and all, but it should at least have something to explain how the trope is used.

That's quite deliberate since way back before it kept turning into essays about Real Life.

Understandable, but it sort of means the current description is pretty useless since nothing is actually described. It's like a ZCE in description form, or a laconic with extra fluff. There's no substance.

If the issues happened long ago, couldn't we try again? We could just try adding a paragraph about how the trope manifests in fiction, see if it attracts more issues, and worst case scenario we could revert the vandalisms and lock the page. I don't want to brush this off as an issue that won't recur since it might, but I also don't feel comfortable just leaving it in this non-helpful state.

Big Bad seems to have a way-too-long description. To me, the first sentence seems to be only one about what the trope is.

I don’t see either complaint of yours at all.