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
Move your first paragraph to the final position, and I think it will work well. You don't generally want to spend more time talking about the trope that it isn't before you explain clearly what it is. Make the current first a "contrast with:" paragraph at the end.
Something like this:
" An artifact or entity appears different depending on the observer.
" With Something for Everyone, an object or entity will reflect or emulate specific traits that are more dependent on the goal of the effect than on the object itself or the observer's expectations, though the observer's mind will usually play a role in what he or she sees. If Bob casts a Glamour spell that is intended to make him irresistably attractive to everyone who sees him, Alice may see him as Orlando Bloom, while the Face Hugger sees him as Second Officer Kane. Or in the case of an Artifact of Attraction, instead of having an innate power to make people want it specifically, it may simply imitate every observer's most personally coveted object. Lord Voldemort will see it as the Philosopher's Stone, Gollum will see it as the One Ring, and so on.
" To put it another way, with Something for Everyone, an observer may or may not see anything remotely representative of the object in question, as the appearance-shifting effect is intended to convey a particular quality, and it is the effect, not the object itself, that does the legwork of matching that quality to an observer.
" Contrast with Appearance Is in the Eye of the Beholder, where an observer typically sees something that is genuinely representative of the artifact or entity in question, but filtered through the observer's expectations or assumptions, rather than the true form.
edited 22nd Sep '14 3:32:14 PM by Madrugada
Clog the thread? Not so.
Put each successive draft in a new post; that makes it easier for folks to find it.
General procedure is to give it a few days and people will comment, either negatively or with suggestions, or positively. Generally, if about a week goes by with no objections to the proposal, you can go ahead and make it.
Fair enough. I appreciate the advice, as I'm still learning my way around here behind the curtain.
Second Draft:
An artifact or entity appears different depending on the observer. It will reflect or emulate specific traits that depend on the goal of the effect, more than on the object itself or the observer's expectations. However, the observer's mind will usually play a role in what he or she sees. The object or entity will almost always have a "true form" that might be seen if the effect is dispelled.
When Something for Everyone is in play, if Bob casts a Glamour spell that is intended to make him irresistably attractive to everyone who sees him, Alice may see him as Orlando Bloom, while the Face Hugger sees him as Second Officer Kane. In the case of an Artifact of Attraction, instead of having an innate power to make people want it specifically, it may simply imitate every observer's most personally coveted object. Lord Voldemort will see it as the Philosopher's Stone, Gollum will see it as the One Ring, and so on.
This trope also applies in cases that aren't about desire or attraction. Perhaps the effect makes a monster terrifying, by explicitly Invoking Why Did It Have to Be Snakes? for whoever encounters it.
Note that an observer may or may not see anything remotely representative of the object in question, as the appearance-shifting effect is intended to convey a particular quality. It is the effect, not the object itself, that does the legwork of matching that quality to an observer.
Compare and contrast Appearance Is in the Eye of the Beholder, in which an observer typically sees something genuinely representative of the artifact or entity in question, but filtered through the observer's expectations or assumptions, especially if the thing doesn't have a "true form" to begin with. The observer is, in a way, seeing an honest representation of the thing in question; it's just not really the true form.
edited 23rd Sep '14 1:10:19 PM by SolipSchism
Yep, but as Mark Twain supposedly said: "Those that respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made."
A big issue I'm noticing with All the Worlds Are a Stage is that the description trope-names too much ("Zant Stage Rush", "Viewtiful Joe Rush", "Ganon's Tower"). I think all type names must go by Shaped Like Itself for the sake of clarity. Just what kind of stage is one that is called "Zant Stage Rush"? Unless you're familkiar with the work it comes from, you'll have no clue until you read the definition.
135 -> 180 -> 273 -> 191 -> 188 -> 230 -> 300 -> 311Well, that covers the "level sections" part, but the rest just seems like borderline Word Salad.
There has been some discussion in trope talk
and TRS
about the misuse of Big Bad, and how it's filtered into the descriptions of other tropes (like Arc Villain) and altered the wiki mindset. Since it is easily one of the top tropes on the site an actual TRS is probably out of the question, but I figured a refinement of the description and a more passive clean-up would be better.
The description seems pretty solid at first glance, but it leaves a lot of wording up to interpretation. An effective summation of the trope is that it is the villain who drives the plot. Unfortunately, it is being misused as the most notable villain of the story, regardless how vital they are to the plot. We actually had a discussion where we had to explain why Gaston from Beauty And The Beast is NOT a Big Bad, because he has little to do with the primary narrative regarding the Beasts curse and his relationship with Belle.
Among the discussion we've had is that the Big Bad originated In Buffy The Vampire Slayer as the primary villain who fuels the story in a Half-Arc Season, and whose defeat resolves the story. It gets complicated when applied to anything beyond that, as some examples want to say that a villain of one episode is the Big Bad of that episode. And it's to the point Arc Villain was apparently created to be a subtrope of Big Bad that the Buffy examples fit better. Trying to apply it outside the strict Half-Arc Season is what's caused the problems.
While I think it is possible for a standalone story to have a Big Bad, I think the description could use more emphasis on the Myth Arc nature of a Big Bad. They also have to be personally responsible for the conflict in the story, not just an opportunistic bad guy or the personification of a more general threat (like an invading army or social injustice). Thus while Gaston is not a Big Bad, Hades from Hercules or Scar from The Lion King can fit.
edited 6th Oct '14 2:04:44 AM by KJMackley
I maintain my position from that discussion that this is basically irrelevant unless you can prove that outside-the-wiki usage remains limited to the original definition.
I bring that up because the possibility that outside usage is sticking to the original definition is the only reason that definition is really relevant. We have a number of tropes where the concept as originally conceived doesn't actually match the wiki definition; for instance, Manic Pixie Dream Girl was originally an explicitly negative idea. I don't see any reason the fact that Big Bad originally had a more specific definition should be considered relevant today unless that more specific definition is what most people elsewhere understand the term to mean.
The current description of Big Bad is based on the trope namer, the wiki community has ignored the concept and wrested it into the "primary villain" misuse (You can actually tell when someone has added something to the original description to wrongly "clarify" it via Pot Hole or a parenthetical statement). That is different from something like Manic Pixie Dream Girl as we took the definition and found proper examples that happen to not be negative characters note .
But Primary Villain is clearly a tropeworthy concept. So I'm not sure why you're so bent on forcing Big Bad away from it and back towards what strikes me as an overly-specific definition just because it was the original one.
Cause at some point the essence and purpose of the original concept gets deluded to where it has no meaning. Primary Villain has an even more vague meaning that is basically synonymous with Villain Antagonist, which is where we get to Gaston. Big Bad is a specific concept like MacGuffin and even if it is being misused we don't just change the definition, nothing is gained by altering tropes based on misuse.
Again, Villain Antagonist should be what we use for "main antagonist". That's what Gaston and others like him qualify as.
Actually, when you get down to it, Gaston is more of a Plot-Irrelevant Villain as he hardly contributes anything to the plot until the climax.
edited 7th Oct '14 4:57:40 AM by SatoshiBakura
I think this whole debate is better off in the Trope Repair Shop.
Now, for me, Japanese Architecture has been creating some confusion about whether it's an Useful Note or a trope because of its long description. It ought to be specifically pointed in a particular direction.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanMy gut feeling is to make it a Useful Note because "Japanese Architecture" is People Sit On Chairs; some appearances of Japanese architecture might be trope-worthy, but the concept by itself is simply too ubiquitous and broad.
edited 8th Oct '14 2:35:33 AM by desdendelle
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.Question: Is there something similar to this thread for work pages that need... well, work? Or is this one good enough.
I ask because I just came across Colors, which I saw like two decades ago (not fresh in my mind, in other words), and the description is nonexistent. It talks a lot about the achievements elsewhere by the people in the production, but the only "description" is to point to the Wikipedia and IMDb entries for it, in violation of Weblinks Are Not Examples.
[edit]
Thanks, posted there.
edited 10th Oct '14 2:56:42 AM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to Trump@Nohbody: Yes, here
.
Does anyone mind if I remove the Real Life digression in The Pampas's description? It is a setting trope as-is.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Something for Everyone has a tragically unhelpful description that barely distinguishes it from Appearance Is in the Eye of the Beholder. As it stands, the only reason any of us over in the Lost And Found are able to come up with a coherent theory as to what it is is that the examples do a half-decent job of illustrating the difference.
The current description:
Some artifacts or beings look like different things to different people. The basis for the differences ranges from your worst fear to your greatest sexual fantasy, a favorite memory, or extremely symbolic representations of your psyche. Although usually an inherent trait, sometimes it's a simple Master of Illusion trick, and the thing does have a "true form" once you break through it.
See also Empathic Shape Shifter, A Form You Are Comfortable With and Lie to the Beholder. Sounds like but has nothing to do with Taste the Rainbow.
Rough Draft:
An artifact or entity appears different depending on the observer. Very similar in concept to Appearance Is in the Eye of the Beholder. In that case, an observer typically sees something genuinely representative of the artifact or entity in question, but filtered through the observer's expectations or assumptions. God, for instance, might look like whatever the observer expects God to look like, since You Cannot Grasp the True Form. Or an alien entity will appear in A Form You Are Comfortable With, not to deceive the hapless abductee, but simply to avoid freaking him out. The observer is, in a way, seeing an honest representation of the thing in question; it's just not really the true form.
Well, This Is Not That Trope.
With Something for Everyone, an object or entity will reflect or emulate specific traits that are more dependent on the goal of the effect than on the object itself or the observer's expectations, though the observer's mind will usually play a role in what he or she sees. If Bob casts a Glamour spell that is intended to make him irresistably attractive to everyone who sees him, Alice may see him as Orlando Bloom, while the Face Hugger sees him as Second Officer Kane. Or in the case of an Artifact of Attraction, instead of having an innate power to make people want it specifically, it may simply imitate every observer's most personally coveted object. Lord Voldemort will see it as the Philosopher's Stone, Gollum will see it as the One Ring, and so on.
To put it another way, with Something for Everyone, an observer may or may not see anything remotely representative of the object in question, as the appearance-shifting effect is intended to convey a particular quality, and it is the effect, not the object itself, that does the legwork of matching that quality to an observer.
It could probably use some explanation of related, sub-, and super-tropes as applicable, but otherwise I think it does an adequate job of describing what sets this aside from other, similar tropes.
edited 23rd Sep '14 12:57:52 PM by SolipSchism