What it says in the title. EDIT: Link to auxiliary sandbox page
Some trope descriptions suffer from problems. Some possible ones:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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...
- 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?
- 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?
- Spelling and grammar issues.
- 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".
- Bad Writing. Purple Prose, pitching the trope, Wanton Cruelty to the Common Comma.
- Egregiously Fan-Myopic quote.
- 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
As a quick history check, the description seems to have been rewritten into its mostly present form in 2014
-
The age European culture has assigned to the end of 'childhood' has grown over the years and an 'inbetween' period was added in the 1960s or so - 'teen-age'-hood - but the meme remains: a child is a Blank Slate not yet sullied by the evils of the world. Only upon coming of age do they lose this innocence and the protection it confers. A child's death, even that of a boy, is a tragedy; but a young man just a year older than him is in the most expendable demographic in the world.
-replacing this previous paragraph:
The bits about the US in particular were trimmed off in 2023
per ROCEJ discussion
and the bits about girl children in particular were cut later that year
.
yeah, i'd support just reverting back to the short version.
it's beginning to look a lot like christmas...Is it okay if I add this to Bait-and-Switch Lesbians? Namely as a preventive measure to prevent certain fans (including myself) from adding any ships they view as "bait" regardless of canonicity.
Do note that there is a fine line between this trope and a popular gay pairing simply not becoming canon, even if that pairing's relationship was never intended to be romantic in the first place; as tempting as it can be to add any semi-popular gay ship that is sunken by the narrative in favor of the hetero option, there has to be concrete and objective Homoerotic Subtext and/or Ship Tease between the two characters before the switch happens for it to qualify for this trope.
Also, as the name indicates, there has to be a switch, if there is no actual switch (e.g. the relationships being kept open-ended and/or two same sex characters simply staying friends and not hooking with each other or the opposite sex), then it doesn't count for this either.
Edit: Trimmed things.
Edited by Tylerbear12 on Apr 18th 2025 at 11:27:38 AM
As has been pointed out in these
two
Ask the Troper threads, the trope description for Neglectful Precursors is very confusing to read and understand because the description is written as if it were a court case. In addition, because the description is written as a court case, the majority of the examples are also written as court cases, which also makes it hard to read and understand if they actually count as examples or not. The description of the trope should be rewritten to remove the court case writing and replaced with a more clear and concise description of the trope in line with Clear, Concise, Witty
I 100% agree with a revamp of the description for that trope, it's a weird gimmick that makes it difficult to read and understand.
I've always advocated that the page as-is fits JFF more and it needs to be completely rewritten.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupNot Quite Starring's description sounds incredibly snarky. Here's an excerpt as evidence:
Yes, that seems a little overly sarcastic. Seems to be a holdover from the original version of the page
in 2006.
Edited by Theriocephalus on Apr 23rd 2025 at 12:20:27 PM
If it were about In-Universe portrayals I'd be OK with it, but since it deals with real-life stuff I agree that it's too snarky.
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall
x11 circling back to this.
i'm not very practiced at writing for descriptions, but how's this?
whoops, double-post.
the quote & first line of Faux Symbolism seem to imply it's an Audience Reaction for seeing symbolism that isn't there, but the rest of it says it's about symbolic imagery being used for no clear purpose. skimming the examples, i see a little misuse, but none of that sort specifically, so should they be cut?
it's beginning to look a lot like christmas...Umm, I wouldn't say it looks like Audience Reaction - tropes are, well, symbols. And ingrained ways of seeing the world, cultural - intersubjective, not purely subjective, like Audience Reactions (which may be see as tropes that are not yet codified properly, sort of). The quote in the trope page comes from New Testament, which fits the description.
As for your version of the paragraph, it's short and to the point and I like it.
![]()
![]()
Rewrote Not Quite Starring's description to sound less snarky. Is this appropriate?
Jump Scare says there are no examples because we may get sued for scaring someone to death. I feel that's too much of a hyperbole.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupGoing by No Video Examples, Please!, maybe that part could be reworded into: "Especially No Video Examples, Please! Such videos are banned due to health and safety concerns."
Edited by MyFinalEdits on Apr 25th 2025 at 12:45:01 PM
135 -> 180 -> 273 -> 191 -> 188 -> 230 -> 300 -> 311Godwin's Law of Facial Hair has a really long description. While I think a large part of it is necessary, it goes into a two paragraph long tangent about the toothbrush mustache's real life popularity, which can be shortened significantly. I'd rewrite the the following paragraphs.
The toothbrush mustache has a long history with silent comedies and comedians because it was famously worn by Charlie Chaplin and Oliver Hardy. Charlie Chaplin had this mustache for his role as "The Tramp" in 1915 because he always thought it was comical, and some sources claimed it allowed Chaplin to be more expressive with his face during performances. Oliver Hardy had the toothbrush mustache since "The Lucky Dog" in 1921.
To simplify, I'd just keep the first sentence of each paragraph to get the main point across and cut all the unimportant rambling.

the section of Children Are Innocent talking about child labor is worded really strangely.
"After several decades the grassroots belief in and support for "childhood" became so strong that children under certain ages were actually forbidden from doing certain types of work despite the dedicated lobbying of business interests [...]"
it's beginning to look a lot like christmas...