Trope Description Improvement Drive

no, it's a word.

Said word doesn't make sense in this context, tho.

i always thought it was used ironically in the Roadrunner shorts.

Had to do some digging and turns out it exactly what it means. It's an undecipherable acronym in Looney Tunes and meant as a joke since their products are in fact not the peak.

Jazz has 5 quotes, which aren't even at the top of the page where they should've been. Instead, they are incorporated into the trope description itself.

This page has been brought up in quote discussion thread (feel free to weigh in, because consensus is split over which quote should be left). But once we pick which quote to leave, move it to the top, and cut the rest, the description will stop making sense. Since changing the description might be beyond the scope of quote cleanup, I'm bringing it here.

My suggestion is to cut the first paragraph and rewrite the second one to remove the refences to the multiple quotes (and maybe the link to the Other Wiki too, because I doubt it adds anything)

Original:

What is Jazz? Here are some (attributed) answers from a few of the best and most influential jazz musicians of all time:

[5 quotes]

Okay, so that probably didn't help much. But, in our defense, defining jazz really is hard. (Just look at what The Other Wiki has to say about that!) So maybe we can just stick with the following: At its heart, jazz is about spontaneity. That usually means improvising, the art of playing (to a greater or lesser extent) without a script and being free to play whatever you like, sometimes without even confines of traditional music structure (which is what Free Jazz is all about).

New version:

Defining jazz really is hard, so maybe we can just stick with the following: at its heart, jazz is about spontaneity. That usually means improvising, the art of playing (to a greater or lesser extent) without a script and being free to play whatever you like, sometimes without even confines of traditional music structure (which is what Free Jazz is all about).

I don't mind incorporating the quotes somehow, but not in quote format. Maybe it can be something along the lines of "What is Jazz? Well, everyone has a different answer. X once compared it to blah blah, while Y simply called it yadda yadda".

Asking again about the current description for Platonic Boy/Girl Heroes.

Edited by nanakiro on Sep 25th 2022 at 2:04:27 AM

I commented wherever it was you originally brought up the description that it was indeed weirdly negative and needed a rewrite.

I like that.

What's a good definition of Long Title? Since it doesn't seem to mention its precise requirements and there's some that are facing deletion:

Longer than a Character Name and the Noun Phrase, is a decent starting point.

That sounds like a good starting point!

Looking at the page, I'd say that additional bits, like adjectives or possessives, make the title Long again, do you agree? Such as "Harry Potter and the Secret Chamber Pot of Azerbaijan".

...

Is it TRS territory if we decide to allow titles based on long words, like "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? Since the page seems to clearly say that they currently don't count?

Edited by Malady on Sep 26th 2022 at 9:01:42 AM

I guess if numerous pieces look deliberately tacked on, it looks more fitting as an intended long title, or if the rest of the book had short titles to contrast, etc. Mostly right now, it's a "I know it when I see it" deal. Less than a line on a laptop/two lines on a phone screen - I'd hesitate to add it as an example.

Yeah, it doesn't feel like something that can be boiled down to an exact science. It's a judgement call.

FYI, I made a Clean Up thread for Long Title.

Do you all think Dark and Troubled Past should be listed on Tear Jerker's "Tropes that often result in Tear Jerker moments" section? I'm partly wondering because the similar Freudian Excuse is already listed.

The page for Small Taxonomy Pools mentions and uses the Linnaean taxonomy system in its description for how we classify species relationships. I would like to propose changing it to the Cladistics system instead of the Linnaean system. Professional taxonomists have put the Linnaean system out of use by for quite some time now, having been replaced by Cladistics. Main reasons being that Linnaean system predates the discovery of evolution, and cannot have families within families which is why birds were classified as separate from reptiles, it also had sharks and lampreys listed as amphibians as amphibian was a wastebasket taxon, the whole system doesn't exactly work and break down when you apply it to evolution. This is why Cladistics superseded it, as it categorizes animals by their relationship to their most common ancestor, as such it can have families within families. Linnaean is still used by layman out of tradition, but professionally the way we classify animals now has been replaced by cladistics.

Edited by ArcticGrill on Oct 3rd 2022 at 6:26:02 AM

That page is written more like a UN page than a trope...

So if Small Taxonomy Pools is a Useful Notes page it can't be updated or have a note put on in the description if it has outdated info on it?

It isn't a useful notes page. It's a trope page. Being written like a useful notes page is a problem to be solved.

Exactly. This might require TRS more than this thread.

So should Shallow Taxonomy Pools should be put through the TRS since it's written like a UN page and not a trope article. Stock Dinosaurs I do agree needs a re-working as while it is good for the most part, there are a few bits of very information well known paleontology fields that aren't present in the trope description, as well as some outdated (but not horribly so) information in some of the descriptions well. Being the fact that we actually do have fossilized feathers from an unpublished T. rex foot, etc.

Edited by ArcticGrill on Oct 7th 2022 at 5:07:23 AM

Small Taxonomy Pools (and Stock Dinosaurs by extension) is already on the TRS Queue.

Edited by harryhenry on Oct 4th 2022 at 8:50:54 AM

Empty Nest doesn't need the wikipedia link, yes?

It indeed does not.