Trope Description Improvement Drive

Irony has a folderized section "types of irony". For the Analysis.Irony?

Sure.

this comment

Anyone else thinks that Badass and Child Duo description's way of declaring that the baddass being male and child being female is a pure example comes off as sexist and disturbing?

Seriously, all the trope requires is one of them being badass and the other being a child. Any example that fits this definition is straight. Genders do not matter. Yet they are being misused.

I think it might be more about:

"of goodness, interest, or circumstances beyond his control, to protect an orphaned, unrelated young"

In that while you can have Papa Wolf / Mama Bear-s being the badass for their kids, it's then "this trope AND one of these other ones" instead of "Just This Trope"?

...

Analysis.Badass And Child Duo also says:

"Badass and Child Duo requires The Badass to have been a Badass from the very beginning, and at all times, but Papa Wolf can be any kind of person weak or strong who will become badass when their children are threatened."

Edit 2: The page even notes the wordplay in:

Edited by Malady on Feb 20th 2023 at 4:59:44 AM

I would just remove the word pure. It would not be surprising that the gender ratio for this trope shakes out badass man/child girl due to Men Are Tough + Women Are Delicate + Children Are Innocent, nor would it be inherently sexist to note that.

Edited by Synchronicity on Feb 20th 2023 at 9:26:56 AM

I concur. It's not sexist to point out how a trope gets played/shown in fiction. Just remove the "pure" part and add that "despite this, it's not limited to a male badass and a little girl duo, female badasses and little boys duos count too" or something.

The Not Catch is barely thriving, and the description is short on related tropes. Any ideas?

> Found in 19 articles, excluding discussions.

Since January 1, 2012 this article has brought 232 people to the wiki from non-search engine links.

Feels like it should not have been launched to be honest.

Besides Amusing Injuries (already cited in the description), I am not sure what else to use.

The related page has it also listed on Barely Missed Cushion and Bait-and-Switch Compassion, so we can start there. Looking through the Zany Cartoon index, we could also link Slapstick, Impact Silhouette and Wrong Parachute Gag. And while these could be stretches, consider also Winged Soul Flies Off at Death, Unexplained Recovery, and Yank the Dog's Chain.

Edited by amathieu13 on Feb 22nd 2023 at 3:18:31 PM

Should Demonic Possession be listed as a subtrope of Grand Theft Me? Grand Theft Me mentions Demonic Possession but not the other way around for some reason.

Edited by molokai198 on Feb 22nd 2023 at 5:21:25 AM

That question is probably best fit for the Trope Relationships thread, but I think Demonic Possession should be considered a Sub-Trope to Grand Theft Me, since the latter is a broader case of body/host hijacking.

Corrupt Corporate Executive has gotten prettyyyy long. There's three paragraphs detailing variations that I think can be moved to the Analysis page for the most part. What do others think?

Move to the Analysis page.

Can we have a rule like the one for Character Specific Pages in which trope descriptions can't get longer than 550-600 words (note: the character numbers will vary due to potholes or lack of them)? Because they slow down the page and this will help make viewing easy. If they still get longer than that limit we move what can be moved to an Analysis page.

So, I've been doing some wick cleansing for Coitus Ensues as part of a cleanup for TRS. While doing so, I realized Sandbox.Golden Seals has several potholes which don't seem to be used correctly. However, I realized the sandbox said that I should see ATT or this thread before making big changes.

So, would it be ok if I swap out the first mention of CE with "have sex"^note if you have any other suggestions I would like to hear them and cut the other potholes? (I get these aren't big changes, I just wanted to check up with this thread just in case.)

Do you think Then Let Me Be Evil and Had to Come to Prison to Be a Crook should be listed as related, since they both are about a character being treated badly/as a villain and ending up becoming genuinely a villain as a result?

No, because one is a meditated result of ostracism, while the latter can happen without the recipient ever noticing how much they have transformed.

Virus and Cure Names is literally a single sentence... we can at least list some common forms the name relations take. Action-counteraction, creature-weakness, cures with spoonerized or rhyming names...

So I stumbled upon Overranked Soldier just now, and was struck by how both it and General Failure have bits in their descriptions displaying what strikes me, as someone with an interest in military history, as a touchingly naive faith in the modern military's ability to weed out incompetents before they reach a high level, which 20th-century history has definitely not always born out as true. And while we don't really need to be arguing about the relative competence of real-life military leaders, this does seem like a particular problem for Overranked Soldier in particular because it's explicitly a trope about breaks from reality. That said, I also don't want to run into ROCEJ issues or anything by unilaterally editing the descriptions.

Just found Original Man. Doesn't mention Adam and/or Eve.

Anyone against appending "May be named Adam and/or Eve." to the end? With Adam and/or Eve saying "May be the Original Man."?

Probably

Magic Ampersand has problems. A couple tropers over the last fifteen years have altered the description to where the definition has become muddled: we're not sure if it's supposed to be A) "fictional tabletop RPGs use D&D-style naming conventions", B) "D&D Bland-Name Product", or just C) "fictional Tabletop RPG". Most of the usage seems to be definition A based on the Magic Ampersand Wick Check.

We also have a competing TLP draft, Tables & Toppers, that we're not sure whether it can coexist with Magic Ampersand.

Basically, I'm wondering if this needs to be a TDID topic or a TRS topic at this point.

Bumping my post since it's getting buried and several days have passed.

Wanted to overhaul the description of Waggle for clarity.

My proposed writeup:

At Deal with the Devil are

"any trickster can be used. ... This trope includes crooked deals between any corrupt exploiter and a desperate pawn."

and

"note that this trope is about deals with the actual demonic beings. A deal with a really evil but otherwise standard (meaning: not demonic) villain is not an example"

contradict each other?