TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Trope Description Improvement Drive

Go To

What it says in the title. EDIT: Link to auxiliary sandbox page

Some trope descriptions suffer from problems. Some possible ones:

  1. Attention Deficit... Ooh, Shiny!. A paragraph starts explaining element X of the trope, then it wanders off to explain element Y. Two paragraphs after that we're back at element X again. Nary a conjunction is in sight.
  2. Too long. Stuff that should go in analysis, or maybe in another trope, or maybe nowhere, going in the main space. Too much scrolling required before you can get to the examples.
  3. Fan Myopia. Some "this is how it happens in WRESTLING!" dissertation is taking up half of the page on a trope about white t-shirts. We already have a thread on that one - discussion about the general phenomenon goes there, specific candidates to deal with go here.
  4. General lack of balance and order. Something is emphasized at the expense of the other aspects of the trope, even though it has no right to be. Consequences of the trope come first, then related tropes, then a mention of the Trope Codifier, then common scenarios where it comes into play...
  5. Failure to answer the fundamental question up front: What is this trope? Not what it "might" be or what can "possibly" happen - what is it?
  6. Not enough meat. Juicy stuff is missing, like: When is the trope likely to turn up? Why would an author use it? In what ways does the audience often react? Which tropes are related to it and how?
  7. Spelling and grammar issues.
  8. The first line which makes honest-to-god sense is below the fold. e.g. Example as a Thesis that makes you go "huh?" instead of "ooooh".
  9. Bad Writing. Purple Prose, pitching the trope, Wanton Cruelty to the Common Comma.
  10. Egregiously Fan-Myopic quote.
  11. Jaywalking.

Bring up trope pages here so we can work on them. If no one does in a while, I'll try to dig something up.

edited 22nd Sep '11 10:48:59 AM by TripleElation

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#3826: Jan 4th 2022 at 6:09:56 PM

Well, that's because it's not about countering the narrative. That's Unpopular Popular Character. Adorkable is literally just "fans find a character endearing for their social awkwardness and nerdy qualities".

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
amathieu13 Since: Aug, 2013
#3827: Jan 6th 2022 at 8:56:30 AM

Looking at Children Raise You's description, it makes it come off as if it only applies when someone is left to raise a child that isn't their own. But from the laconic and the examples on the page, it's clear that it's to cover any situation when a young adult is forced to grow up by raising a kid, their own or someone else's.

Can the description be edited to remove some of the Example As Thesis?

Edited by amathieu13 on Jan 6th 2022 at 11:56:55 AM

Eiryu Since: Dec, 2013 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
#3828: Jan 7th 2022 at 12:50:38 AM

Revenge by Proxy is extremely long, meandering, and repetitive. Here is my suggestion to cut it down.


A character seeks revenge against their enemy by harming someone the enemy cares about.

Motives vary on this: the avenger may think it would hurt worse, they may think it's a more equivalent crime if someone close to them was hurt, or it may even be something else.

Often, the justification is that they want the person to suffer as they have suffered as a result of the act. Sometimes it's justified by claiming that the victim profited from the original crime. Of maybe the intended victim of the revenge is protected in some way, or if direct punishment or pain would not be satisfying enough. Killing a Death Seeker would not accomplish the level of mental anguish required for true vengeance, for example, but killing one of their loved ones while they live on...well, seeing your loved ones taken away from you, knowing that you yourself caused it, can be a Fate Worse than Death

Sometimes the villain feigns this to lure the hero within striking distance. If the villain is feeling particularly sadistic, they won't just torture and kill someone the hero cares about, they'll make the hero watch.

If the method of revenge isn't murder (it's usually murder), Cold-Blooded Torture may also come into play, possibly with a Past Victim Showcase. Particularly horrific when the target is a child, but no matter how horrible the crime being avenged (or how non-innocent the victim is), Revenge By Proxy is often a Kick the Dog moment, since the actual victim is considered only as a means to an ignoble end.

Villains may regard one of theirs as valuable as several of the hero's, and so regard killing several victims as mere even retribution.

Frequently a Bewildering Punishment for the victim, though this trope is more likely than most to have a Motive Rant.

Compare Misplaced Retribution and Sins of Our Fathers. See also Revenge Through Corruption when the method of revenge is trying to inflict a Face–Heel Turn on someone the character cares about. Threatening to do this is I Will Punish Your Friend for Your Failure or And Your Little Dog, Too!. Contrast Trial Run Crime.


Sound good to everyone?

Edited by Eiryu on Jan 7th 2022 at 2:50:52 PM

antenna_ears from California Since: Apr, 2020 Relationship Status: Coming soon to theaters
#3829: Jan 7th 2022 at 12:58:21 PM

Drama-Preserving Handicap isn’t just for antagonists, right? Because the first paragraph makes it seem that way.

It's a standard setup to have heroes race to stop the nigh unstoppable villain before he becomes all-powerful, unseals his true potential, or gets released. However; more often than not, the heroes fail. So, how's the average Farm Boy hero supposed to take on Excruciant, the Omnipotent! without getting turned to a fine red mist within five seconds of opening the door?

Give the baddie a Drama-Preserving Handicap.

Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#3830: Jan 8th 2022 at 11:03:53 AM

Well, that's because it's not about countering the narrative. That's Unpopular Popular Character. Adorkable is literally just "fans find a character endearing for their social awkwardness and nerdy qualities".

In that case, the Hollywood Nerd disambig page needs to be corrected because it's treating Adorkable as Unpopular Popular Character.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 8th 2022 at 11:06:52 AM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
gjjones Musician/Composer from South Wales, New York Since: Jul, 2016
Musician/Composer
#3831: Jan 8th 2022 at 1:25:33 PM

[up][up][up] I have no objections.

He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.
amathieu13 Since: Aug, 2013
#3832: Jan 8th 2022 at 4:18:13 PM

[up][up]I don't mind changing the wording of the page a bit, but to be clear, being unpopular/undesirable is baked into the dork/nerd stereotype. From Nerd: "Not, above all else, popular outside a very narrow grouping of fellow-nerds." (We don't have a page for dork because in media they are functionally the same as nerds)

Having unpopular in the description for adorkable is not inaccurate since being unpopular is often a part of being a nerd or dork

Edited by amathieu13 on Jan 8th 2022 at 7:19:51 AM

Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#3833: Jan 10th 2022 at 8:04:12 AM

[up] Yes, I get that. That's why I raised the subject in the first place. The trope description doesn't clarify that's what "dork" includes. As a result, there are examples on the page where the audience may think a character is adorable and dorky, but the setting itself hasn't portrayed them as dorky — awkward, yes; dorky, no. My attempt to point that out got me redirected to Unpopular Popular Character, so I'm probably not expressing my point well.

What I'm trying to say is that there are characters who are not being portrayed as dorks in-universe. Sometimes, they're portrayed as "adorably dorky" in-universe, but that's Endearingly Dorky, anyway. Sometimes, however, there is absolutely no sign of the subject even cropping up in-universe; a character has awkwardness or quirkiness of some kind, but the setting gives us no context for whether other characters have any opinion on that character's traits because it's not singled out in either a positive or negative way, it's just... neutral. The audience latches onto it, but characters in the setting don't.

That's why I think that some entries are either glossing over, or completely missing, the fact that "dork" does have negative connotations built into the word. If the character is in some way awkward but the setting isn't treating them as a dork, then that suggests that Adorkable isn't in play no matter how adorable the audience thinks that character is being. It's effectively conflating concepts such as "shy" or "awkward" with "dork"; while "dork" includes awkwardness, there's more to it than that.

Part of the reason for this, I think, is the fact that the description only includes "dorkiness" as one of several possible criteria for the audience reaction. So, while we discuss the negative connotations of "dorkiness", the audience reaction description is effectively telling us that the character can be dorky or nerdy or enthusiastic or vulnerable. It may not use the word "or", but it's basically giving tropers a list of traits to choose from, and that being "dorky" is optional; meanwhile, the Hollywood Nerd description is telling us that it's mandatory. So a character who is adorably shy or vulnerable in the show, but who has no "dorky" aspect, would still be regarded as Adorkable thanks to the way its description is written.

I guess my question is... is the "dork" aspect mandatory or optional? If it's mandatory, the trope description isn't conveying that, but the Hollywood Nerd description is. If it's optional, then the audience reaction description is fine, but the Hollywood Nerd description isn't.

Does... that make more sense?

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 10th 2022 at 8:41:04 AM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
amathieu13 Since: Aug, 2013
#3834: Jan 10th 2022 at 10:07:51 AM

[up]I think I get your point. Hollywood Nerd originally had a similar issue in that the trope description was "a character is treated in-universe as a Nerd despite not really having many nerd qualities (socially awkward, associated nerdy interests, etc) outside of looking like a Nerd in the most superficial sense (i.e. through dress)." But a huge chunk of the examples dropped the in-universe component entirely.

You're saying that Adorkable's description reads like being an actual dork or nerd is not necessary to the trope, but just one of many traits along with being socially awkward, clumsy, etc. However, the Hollywood Nerd description of Adorkable makes being a Nerd a requirement to Adorkable. That about right?

From where I stand, I've always interpreted Adorkable to mean "this character is a Nerd in-universe and while this makes them unattractive and unpopular in the work, the audience loves them for it." And I'm pretty sure that's what the trope is supposed to be, but if the description is implying otherwise this might be a bigger issue worthy of a wick check.

Edited by amathieu13 on Jan 10th 2022 at 1:08:14 PM

wingedcatgirl mys. minty from the silly dimension from lurking (Holding A Herring) Relationship Status: Oh my word! I'm gay!
mys. minty from the silly dimension
#3835: Jan 10th 2022 at 2:42:49 PM

Virtual Soundtrack fixates too strongly on fanfic when there's nothing fanfic-specific about the concept. It does acknowledge that other kinds of works have it too, but it's awkwardly tacked on at the end.

Suddenly I'm... still rotating Fallen London in my mind even though I've stopped actively playing it.
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#3836: Jan 12th 2022 at 8:03:37 AM

I may have asked this, but is there a way to fix the Hustler description to explain who that even is? The "One use of the term" section takes most of the space and essentially talks about Hustling the Mark.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Anarchist2 Confounded by avatar changes Since: Apr, 2020 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Confounded by avatar changes
#3837: Jan 12th 2022 at 2:11:39 PM

Is this part of Fallen Princess's description unnecessary?

  • This trope appears a lot in science fiction and fantasy shows since their target audience is generally exactly the same kind of geek that the princess ends up hanging out with. Thus they can simultaneously fetishize the cheerleader image while assuaging their perceived audience by confirming their beliefs that all cheerleaders (and people in the higher strata of the school system) are stuck up snobs, with few exceptions. It also lionizes the viewer by showing the geeks to be more interesting and "cool" in their own way than the cliques. Of course, the character doesn't have to be a cheerleader for it to work—just someone who's in a clique of attractive, desirable, and deeply unpleasant people.

Unicorndance Logic Girl from Thames, N.Z. Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Logic Girl
#3838: Jan 12th 2022 at 5:58:19 PM

So, I Thought It Was Forbidden seems to have two varieties, the first one being something that we're told is dangerous but seems perfectly safe, and the second of which seems very similar to Protagonist-Centred Morality.

For every low there is a high.
Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#3839: Jan 12th 2022 at 6:18:33 PM

You're saying that Adorkable's description reads like being an actual dork or nerd is not necessary to the trope, but just one of many traits along with being socially awkward, clumsy, etc. However, the Hollywood Nerd description of Adorkable makes being a Nerd a requirement to Adorkable. That about right?

From where I stand, I've always interpreted Adorkable to mean "this character is a Nerd in-universe and while this makes them unattractive and unpopular in the work, the audience loves them for it." And I'm pretty sure that's what the trope is supposed to be, but if the description is implying otherwise this might be a bigger issue worthy of a wick check.

That's it. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, but worded so much better.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
JRads47 Since: Nov, 2014
#3840: Jan 13th 2022 at 6:43:33 PM

WWRU is making attempt to spoiler out any mention of the two Spider-Men variants on Film.Spider Man No Way Home, even though the page states that their involvement was an open secret and shouldn't be spoilered because of it.

Anarchist2 Confounded by avatar changes Since: Apr, 2020 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Confounded by avatar changes
#3841: Jan 14th 2022 at 1:14:53 AM

Per word of mod, the alternate Spider-Men are spoilers. (That query should probably also be on this thread instead.)

Edited by Anarchist2 on Jan 14th 2022 at 1:16:08 AM

Malady (X-Troper)
#3842: Jan 14th 2022 at 1:11:12 PM

Double Unlock makes itself sound rare? But I don't think so?

Most of the time, unlocking the content is all you have to do. But every once in a while you'll run across a game that requires you to not only perform some feat to unlock the new item

But tiered unlocks, where learning it even exists, is one of the two unlocks, that kind of thing seems to count?

Most / many Role-Playing Games with a Skill tree hide what the higher levels are until the lower ones are unlocked, then the actual higher level needs to be unlocked?

Then again, why do we need to say anything about rarity. Anyone against removing those parts of the sentences instead of inverting them?

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
wingedcatgirl mys. minty from the silly dimension from lurking (Holding A Herring) Relationship Status: Oh my word! I'm gay!
mys. minty from the silly dimension
#3843: Jan 14th 2022 at 1:47:21 PM

Just stumbled onto Rules of Orphan Economics and uhhhh not entirely sure what this trope even is, that description is so rambly

Suddenly I'm... still rotating Fallen London in my mind even though I've stopped actively playing it.
Malady (X-Troper)
#3844: Jan 14th 2022 at 2:14:52 PM

"Friends" Rent Control-ish in that Orphans seem to have access to Dark Matter / Dark Money as to not starve to death somehow.

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
amathieu13 Since: Aug, 2013
#3845: Jan 14th 2022 at 7:24:02 PM

[up][up]oh wow that is really bad. I feel like this is trying to cover three separate tropes or maybe it's covering one really poorly.

This could be covering a "Suddenly Orphaned" idea that covers stories about kids who are made into orphans quickly and they must deal with the fall out.

Looking at the laconic on Orphaned Index it says this: "Orphans will either be totally provided for or will have to scrape by on their own" but that feels like two separate tropes combined into one, one of which is already covered by Orphan's Ordeal. The other trope, an orphan who shouldn't be able to afford their lifestyle somehow does so, often without explanation, and always without the orphan having to do anything, could be its own trope.

I think this needs a rework tbh.

themayorofsimpleton Short-Term Projects Herald | he/him from the Island of Koridai (Captain) Relationship Status: I won't say I'm in love
Short-Term Projects Herald | he/him
#3846: Jan 17th 2022 at 11:05:23 AM

Brought this up some time back, but I didn't get a response.

The Generalissimo's description has a long list of leaders that the trope is supposedly based on. See:

Tends to be based on one or more real-life military dictators, and particularly Latin American ones, who experienced so many that they created their own term to describe such leaders as a caudillo. Common inspirations include Fidel Castronote , Fulgencio Batista, Juan Domingo Perón, Augusto Pinochet, Rafael Trujillo, Alfredo Stroessner, Francisco Solano Lopez, Porfirio Diaz, Victoriano Huerta, and Hugo Chávez. The many generals that led the Argentine and Brazilian military regimes are also favorites.

While traditionally Latin American, this type of villain can be based around any nation, particularly those of various developing and/or third-world regions across the globe. This trope is often used to make an Anvilicious point about said real-life dictator's policies.

If East or Southeast Asian, expect them to be an Expy of Chiang Kai-shek, Hideki Tojo, Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, Park Chung-hee (and his successor Chun Doo-hwan), Hun Sen, Than Shwe and especially The Rulers of North Korea.

If European, usually expect them to be based on fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franconote , and Ioannis Metaxas, or communists, such as Leonid Brezhnev, Nicolae Ceausescu and Josip Broz Tito if Eastern. Other prototypes include António de Oliveira Salazar, Alexander Lukashenko, Ramzan Kadyrov (and his father Akhmad), and Slobodan Milošević.

The Middle East and North Africa is another favourite location for these types of rulers to thrive, especially in more contemporary works. Prototypes include Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad (and his father Hafez), Omar al-Bashir and Hosni Mubarak.

Sub-Saharan Africa is another common location. Usually, generalissimos from this region are based on Idi Amin, but others, such as Charles Taylor, Siad Barre, Mobutu Sese Seko, Robert Mugabe, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mengistu Haile Mariam, and Hissene Habre are also fairly common.

Does the list necessarily have to be this long? And if so, can it be cut down at all?

Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#3847: Jan 18th 2022 at 5:10:57 AM

Where did all these type names at The Stool Pigeon come from? I would also question the video linked at the bottom.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
MacronNotes (she/her) (Captain) Relationship Status: Less than three
(she/her)
#3848: Jan 18th 2022 at 5:44:09 AM

I looked at the page history (this edit) and it looks like some one added the names to the attributes for Added Alliterative Appeal. I think the types themselves were there since the page was created.

I honestly think we don’t need all of these types and that this trope should have a more concise description though.

Edited by MacronNotes on Jan 18th 2022 at 8:44:45 AM

Macron's notes
Wyldchyld (Old as dirt)
#3849: Jan 23rd 2022 at 12:47:56 PM

Okay, in the course of looking to improve the Laconic.The Dreaded over on the Laconic clean-up thread (here), I ran into the issue that it's not well-known that The Dreaded is supposed to be the most feared character in the work because they are a character that is defined by fear. Using the trope for any character that happens to make people afraid is trope misuse. There's rarely going to be more than one or two such characters in any given work.

So, I had a closer look at The Dreaded and Terror Hero, and discovered a wider problem. Fortunately, both of them still have accessible drafts (The Dreaded (created in 2009) and Terror Hero(created in 2011)). The two problems are defined below:

Problem 1: Anti-Heroes

  • The Dreaded states that it is for villains and anti-heroes. Batman is the trope image. Heroic equivalents should be placed under Terror Hero.
  • Terror Hero states that it is for heroes and anti-heroes. Batman is the trope image. Villainous equivalents should be placed under The Dreaded.

Right there, we have a problem: where do anti-heroes go? Where does Batman go? This anti-hero issue goes right back to the Terror Hero draft. It didn't exist when The Dreaded was created to cover both villains and anti-heroes (it clearly had both the Joker and Batman in mind during the draft). When Terror Hero was created, it was clearly intended to be the heroic equivalent of The Dreaded, but didn't spot the anti-hero issue it was creating, as Batman was clearly factored in during the draft stage.

Problem 2: Heroic Sub-Types

Despite it being the heroic counterpart to The Dreaded, Terror Hero states in the middle of its description that a sub-type of Terror Hero is The Dreaded; this isn't possible if The Dreaded is supposed to be the villainous equivalent.

The original draft listed five "Types" of Terror Hero.

  • Type 1 is The Cowl, of which Batman is the defining example.
  • Type 2 is the mean Warrior Therapist.
  • Type 3 is the kind that intimidates others through a show of force.
  • Type 4 is generating fear through supernatural means.
  • Type 5 is the reputation; the mere presence of this type of hero is enough to generate terror. There was no attempt to make The Dreaded a sub-category of Terror Hero, the only problem in the draft is the anti-hero overlap with The Dreaded. The "Types" themselves are fine.

In 2013, there was an Type Labels Are Not Examples clean-up. The troper who cleaned up the Terror Hero types unfortunately didn't indicate in their edit reason whether the changes were just them making a unilateral change, or whether the choices they made were as a result of consensus. However, it is their edit that introduces The Dreaded sub-categorisation. They changed the Types as follows:

  • Type 1 to "The Cowl" — No problems here.
  • Type 2 to "Mean Warrior Therapist" — No problems here.
  • Type 3 to "The Intimidator" — No problems here.
  • Type 4 to "The Master of Illusion" — Problem: this strips the original Type 4 down to just one trope (psychic assaults and Mind Rape are supposed to be included in Type 4).
  • Type 5 to "The Dreaded" — Problem: The Dreaded is being misused to represent a sub-type of Terror Hero.

Conclusion

Problem 2 is easy to solve — we just change the names of Type 4 and Type 5 category "heading" away from Master of Illusion and The Dreaded to something more appropriate. It doesn't have to link to another trope, and it might be best if it doesn't. That way the freedom to explore those type categories isn't artificially constrained by any trope, and we don't have to worry about trope misuse or shoehorning in the process. I'd suggest changing "The Master of Illusion" to "The Mystical Mind-Bender" — or something better if anyone can think of something. "The Dreaded" can be changed to "The Reputation" (again, if someone has a better suggestion, suggest away).

That leaves Problem 1, what to do about anti-heroes. The obvious "easy" solution is to make The Dreaded about villains and anti-villains, and Terror Hero about heroes and anti-heroes. That causes an obvious domino effect on anti-heroes that are listed under The Dreaded, and given that some are as huge as Batman, this impact probably won't be small. This may be a TRS situation rather than a description clean-up, as anti-hero was built into the drafts of both tropes.

So, what needs to be done? Thoughts welcome.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 23rd 2022 at 12:55:58 PM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
amathieu13 Since: Aug, 2013
#3850: Jan 24th 2022 at 7:39:15 PM

Idk if this even needs to be fixed, but this description for a wrestler is basically a wall of blue text of links pointing outside the site


Total posts: 6,234
Top