Trope Description Improvement Drive

Thanks.

Does:

• Unable to get boss HP from the Enemy Scan function (such as the HP displaying as ??? if you try)
• Cannot flee from a boss

count as Contractual Boss Immunity to Enemy Scan and fleeing?

- The latter sounds better for a "Plot Mandated Fleeing Failure" trope, for plot-important battles that don't allow fleeing, since that's a more general and more common thing instead of just for bosses. Allows Tutorials and Bosses and some other stuff too?

Sorta like Point of No Return, for battles? Might even be Point of No Return. But after that Point.

Edited by Malady on Dec 22nd 2022 at 5:48:26 AM

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

So recently I had some confusion over what Salvaged Story means, and I was given a link to this. I was told that it's when a story element that audiences approve of and consider to be an improvement/fixes something that came before. However the description of the trope on the actual page made me think it's when sequels/prequels introduce retcons that fix a problem people had with a piece of media, since it only mentions retcons specifically. So I think the description of that trope needs to be more clear to avoid future confusion.

Agreed. It was published in a rather short span of time to address a gap that needed to be closed (for context, the redefinition and recategorization of Author's Saving Throw resulted in a lot of "straned" entries that needed a new home so Salvaged Story was created in response to that). Now that it's managed to establish itself and thrive reasonably well, it's a good time to polish the trope definition if there are any issues.

In the last sentence in One Drink Will Kill the Baby, there's a part that contradicts itself without evidence that supports that claim.

It claims that:

First of all, what survey? Second, how can something that happens IRL be averted? Third, that last bit — "some midwives and even gynecologists have said that half a glass of wine or even a full glass of wine (usually red, for some reason) is acceptable or even healthy (it's not)", what's the proof that drinking full/half a glass of wine isn't healthy if gynecologists themselves say it's acceptable? Is it healthy or not healthy?

So, should we reword that last paragraph and add links to trusted articles?

I'd like to improve the Speedrun article description because I feel it's inaccurate, confusing to read, and doesn't really reflect the state of modern speedrunning. I tried to do a complete rewrite a few months ago, but it was rejected on account of being too large a change to make without consensus.

The list of problems I found is quite long so I'm not sure of the best way to present them. Should I just post them here a few at a time?

I'd think that be helpful for people who don't know enough about speedruns to see the problem at a glance.

- Could stick them in a folder, but a few at a time is easier to comprehend.

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

I posted this on trope talk and got told to post it here:

I'm kind of bothered by the description of Tropical Island Adventure and how it seems to take it as an agreed-upon fact that tropical islands are "less civilized", which plays into certain racist ideas about the areas mentioned in the description (Caribbean, Oceania, Southeast Asia). I feel like it should be reworded to say that they are often thought of as less civilized and people may choose them as a setting as a result if that's the "vibe" they are going for.

Should North Sentinel Island be mentioned in the description as an example of a "less civilized" tropical island?

Kirby is awesome.

While I wouldn't mind rewording it a bit to emphasize that the idea of these places as being "less civilized" is a stereotype, I'm pretty sure that's part of the trope. It's a reductive portrayal of a place because the emphasis isn't really on an accurate/3-dimensional depiction of the place and its people/history, but more on it as a backdrop for the (often foreign) protagonists to play around in. The exoticism is the point.

Yeah id support that rewording

RE: the Speedrun article, I'll start with the first section of the description as there are multiple issues here:

No there aren't, or at least, "Regular" isn't the name of any recognized speedrun type. Obviously the article simply means that speedruns are either tool-assisted or not, but the way it's written implies that "Regular" is an official term. This is misleading.

This is incorrect - "regular" speedruns (ie. those performed by humans) are not the same thing as Real Time Attack. RTA is simply a method of timing a speedrun, and it isn't the only way.

This is not true. Speedrunning is simply completing a game or challenge as fast as possible. It has nothing to do with hardware, or using an "actual copy of the game". The rules of speedrunning are decided by communities, not by definition.

This is not true. Speedruns can be timed any number of ways - the method used is decided by the community that is speedrunning the game. (not to mention that some games don't have a real ending anyway). In any case, the details of how to time a speedrun are not really part of the definition of what a speedrun is. Also, this sentence is followed by a note that immediately contradicts it anyway.

This is true, but it contradicts the earlier point that speedrunning requires the "original hardware". It's also irrelevant to the definition of a speedrun - speedrunning has nothing to do with emulators or hardware. It's just about completing something as fast as possible.

This may be true, but it's still irrelevant to the definition of a speedrun.

This is not true. Emulation refers only to the use of software to emulate hardware. It has nothing to do with playing games frame-by-frame - you can do this with any game if you have the required tools. Emulation is not a prerequisite.

While this is true, glitch exploitation and RNG manipulation are staples of human speedruns too. They're not exclusive to TAS. Also, this doesn't really explain what "manipulating random events" actually means.

This is not true. Speedrunning communities can time TASes however they like. There's no hard rule. Some early speedrunning sites did have this rule, but it's 2022 now.

While I have weaker knowledge on speedruns, I do recognize and agree with hawthorn here.

Edited by Amonimus on Dec 27th 2022 at 3:39:44 PM

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Is the folder "Tropes common to the subgenre " in Lifetime Movie of the Week too snarky/bashes the subgenre?

^there's a lot going on with that page that raises some questions. While I don't think that folder is overly bashy, it's VERY long, longer than most indices. And the page is soft-split between straight examples and parodies.

This is a hard one, because this is one of those genre tropes and we're still figuring out just how to cover genres properly on the site. I don't feel comfortable changing the page all that much w/o a larger discussion tbh

Do I need to get more consensus before I can change the Speedrun article? The first change I want to make is to remove the entire section I discussed above, as nearly every part of it is either wrong or irrelevant. At most I would keep the definition of a speedrun (completing a game as fast as possible) and note the existence of tool-assisted speedruns and how they differ.

That seems like a pretty reasonable change. Even if that information was accurate, the length of that section would still probably be a little much when a simple definition suffices.

On Villain Has a Point, the point of the trope is that the Villain has a point about his motives, the hero, or the nature of the world they live in that the hero realises they can't disagree with, leaving the hero feeling anywhere from uncomfortable to despairing as a result.

However, there is a single sentence about this trope applying to villains versus villains: "With straight villains this can be even easier when they go against other villains who give them plenty of things to criticise and be right about." This sentence was unilaterally added in 2017.

There's also an expansion of the trope here, changing it from just being villains to any detestable character, whether a villain or not: "Compare Hypocrite Has a Point and Jerkass Has a Point for other characters designed to be detestable who nevertheless are right about something. For characters that unintentionally make statements that the audience agrees with, see Strawman Has a Point."

This was unilaterally added in 2014 as "Compare Jerkass Has a Point and Strawman Has a Point for other characters designed to be detestable who nevertheless are right about something." and changed in 2022 to the current state, quoted above (which seems to include a misuse of Strawman Has a Point, which is an author tract designed to illicit an audience reaction, meaning it's not unintentional if the audience agrees with the point).

Looking through the web archives, the trope was about a villain having a point that hero is disturbed to find they can't disagree with, and even creating the possibility that this is an Anti-Villain rather than a Villain (although that bit is ambiguous).

This is the oldest description I can find (4th January 2012):

So, it looks like the original trope relationships have all been messed about, especially Strawman Has a Point, which looks like it was originally intended to be for cases when the author wants to make a point about something, and wants the audience to agree with that point. Instead, the original statement about Strawman Has a Point has now been given solely to Well-Intentioned Extremist ("Due to the nature of their villainy, if they become too excessive in their methods they can easily fall under Well-Intentioned Extremist." is now the current statement), with Strawman Has a Point now being used for the purpose of expanding the trope to non-villains. This shift began early in 2014, when a troper broke the link between Strawman and its original context, and then late in 2014, the brand new use of Strawman (as an expansion into non-villains) was created by a different troper).

So, the question is... do we cut the trope back to its original intention? If so, we'd only be looking at changing or removing the three sentences I've highlighted, as the core of the trope has survived very well. But, would we have to do a wick check to see how much misuse there is?

Edited by Wyldchyld on Dec 30th 2022 at 6:36:07 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.

I'd advise you to do a wick check before making a major change to such trope.

As an unrelated note, How you do that? I would like to know for the future, if I need it.

EDIT: Thank you very much.

Edited by SoyValdo7 on Dec 29th 2022 at 9:00:00 AM

Valdo

How to Do a Wick Check

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

So, Shotoclone seems to kinda contradict itself on whether or not the joysticks motions Forward+Down+Down-Forward are a requirement or not; it says a "true" Shotoclone has it, however, the rest of the description doesn't make it sound like it. Should the part be reworded, removed, or did I just misinterpret it?

(For the record, I tried asking the trope's cleanup thread about it. However, I didn't get a response.)

x4 Yes, that was what I was checking. If I do a wick check for this, where do I need to put it? Do I start a trope talk thread for Villain Has a Point and attach the wick check to that thread?

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.