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
The description on Transgender Fetishization could use at least some looking at. I'm taking this from this ATT thread
concerning editing warring on the page (which has already been dealt with).
I really don't think the RL examples in the description make a lot of sense, since the information about hijra or onnagata could be in a RL section instead. The information in the fourth paragraph could be more concise, not "recent," and pushed into a RL section.
That said — for the sake of transparency — I think this information should be left off the page because I think it should be NRLEP, but one thing at a time.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyCan I get some feedback for the following:
- Sandbox.Magic Versus Science
- Sandbox.Improbable Chopsticks Skill
- Sandbox.Going Critical
- Sandbox.Multipurpose Tongue
- Sandbox.Magic Versus Science
- Minor grammar edits: inserted auxiliaries ("is often seen"), capitalization (magic, science),
- Why is Real Life potholed as "In ages past"? That seems like a sinkhole.
- I would take out "theory" because that implies the scientific method, where you're trying to say "not specifically scientific."
- I'd suggest moving "This trope builds on the potential factors that cause a divide between the "science" and "magic" in a work," to either a an italicized line at the top of the page (similar to on Hanlon's Razor) or to move it to the first paragraph.
- Sandbox.Improbable Chopsticks Skill
- Should a wick to the Old Master be retained or not?
- I think "Compare Improbable Weapon User when the character can use chopsticks as a lethal weapon," should be included.
- Sandbox.Multipurpose Tongue
- I've suggested some big changes in the following folder.
In ages past, the distinction between magic and science did not exist. The "wise man" of the tribe parceled out wisdom that had been gained from experience. The body of human knowledge was not specifically religious nor scientific nor magical in nature. But the body of human knowledge grew regardless, creating new divisions, new words, and new restrictions. So, astrology became astronomy, alchemy became chemistry, and willow bark tea became aspirin, and so on.
Multipurpose Tongues can do a lot more than taste, such as grasp, sting, or bash objects. A great variety of creatures could possess this kind of tongue, but they're usually reptilian or amphibians — or have a corresponding Animal Motif.
A Multipurpose Tongue is sometimes fully prehensile, allowing characters to grab and carry things solely with their tongue. A possible justification for a Multipurpose Tongue may be that it's coated in some sticky substance or it simply has tiny suction pads like an octopus's tentacles. Alternatively, a Multipurpose Tongue could be covered in a slimy substance, allowing the character to escape a grapple hold with their saliva. Particularly in the case of stinging Multipurpose Tongues, the appendage may have a venomous (or poisonous) component that causes paralysis in the target.
edited 4th Apr '17 4:08:24 PM by WaterBlap
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyThank you; new perspectives help me. These three feel much better with your advice.
- Sandbox.Magic Versus Science
- Most of that is semantics; doesn't matter either way, but "materials" versus "materialistic" is very different. Eye of Newt are materials for Ritual Magic. I still used the wrong word though, I meant materialism (physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter).
- I'm having trouble figuring out a way to justify the whole paragraph. It's really there to rant about how this trope makes no sense, but the description is still pretty long without it. Removed it and rearranged the remaining paragraphs.
- Cannot place it as an italicized line (Hanlon's Razor line is a quote, this isn't), but I did move it to the first paragraph.
- Sandbox.Improbable Chopsticks Skill
- I dunno. Is it relevant that the character may be an old fighter able to easily defeat several younger opponents? Younger characters possess this skill as well.
- Improbable Weapon User is for a character who exclusively uses "non-weapons" as combat tools. You're thinking of Improvised Weapon for one-time examples, and Fork Fencing is a subtrope to that.
- Sandbox.Multipurpose Tongue
- Tweaked from what you suggested (poisonous means that you ingest it, which is why contact-poison was used instead).
I feel like Luck Stat could do with a little rewriting for clarity, though nothing so substantial that would require taking it to the Trope Repair Shop.
edited 6th Apr '17 2:39:50 PM by Karxrida
@craxymartian You may wanna check Sandbox.Dude Not Funny as I might have replaced your work by mistake. Either that, or you mistook my entry as one of yours.
I have shortened the entry as well as generalizing the list. I have also have separated the origins of the trope into the analysis page (but i haven't created it analysis page yet). This is all I could re write to make it more of an in-universe example.
Yes, ~Kindle 4 Light, somehow my stuff was lost, as I mentioned I was working on it back in Feb. Link
Restarting at Dude Not Funny 2; I think you're focusing on the wrong part of the trope, Example as a Thesis style; the trope is about an in-universe reaction, not potential triggers to the reaction.
(Minor point, I'm not Crazy Martian; I happen to be Terran
)
- ~Morgenthaler — how do you feel about Sandbox.Improbable Chopsticks Skill?
- ~Anddrix — there's two tropes you were asking for revisions to.
- There's Sandbox.Dude Not Funny and Sandbox.Dude Not Funny 2 we'd like feedback on.
- Is Sandbox.Viewers Are Morons sufficiently improved?
edited 24th Apr '17 1:34:24 PM by crazysamaritan
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.Double posting because I accidentally posted (on mobile), and I'm using this to send PMs to tropers.
- ~Adept and ~Xtifr, what do you think of the repair/discussion for Sandbox.Magic Versus Science? ~Water Blap, did you have more opinions?
- ~Septimus Heap, how do you feel about Sandbox.Going Critical?
- ~Pagani800, how do you feel about Sandbox.Multipurpose Tongue?
![]()
It's a lot better. Can I just edit if I want to add anything to it? But first, are jellyfish techinally venomous even though they sting?
The tentacles are how they eat, so it's the same principle as snake venom.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.Swapped out:
Still want input: Next up: Link to TRS threads in project mode here."Funny Aneurysm" Moment mentions Rock Hudson in the fifth paragraph, but provides no elaboration whatsoever.
It also mentions "Pentimento Paradigm", but how it's described sounds like a different trope entirely, and despite being potholed to it, not related to Reality Subtext, either.
Some time ago, this bit was added to the description of Knight Templar:
"In fact, many Knight Templars are fully aware of the immorality of their actions but don't care."
Opinions?
I recently added a "see also" line to Weirdness Coupon pointing to Unusually Uninteresting Sight, since that's a potential reaction to Weirdness Coupon.
edited 7th May '17 11:22:22 AM by Karxrida
Just found out about this thread.
I added the "Not always rocks" to Rock of Limitless Water, because I don't think it's limited to just rocks?
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576Next time, ask for discussion first. One troper's opinion in Trope Finder isn't a very solid basis to change a trope definition on.
I'd say that no, it's not strictly limited to rocks, but it shouldn't include things like bowls, decanters, jars, basins, and such. They are different in that they contain more liquid than they should. Rocks and rock-like objects are not expected to contain any at all.
i noted that, in 29 jan, wellspring added the following things to the description of Fox News Liberal:
Like any straw man trope, the *INO character's job is to seem to be representing one point of view when in fact he is promoting the opposite. What makes a Fox News Liberal/MSNBC Conservative different from other straw men is:
- They appear on a news show, pundit panel, or other non-fiction political broadcast.
- They claim to be sincerely representing their own point of view. They're not playing a fictional character or being sarcastic/satirical.
- They take positions or use debating tactics that help their opponents. (Thus, YMMV when it comes to whether a given person actually qualifies. A good sign is seeing who mostly quotes, links, or references a pundit. If the pundit's appearances are far more often used as ammunition for their opponents than their allies, it's a good chance they're a Fox News Liberal.)
And, finally:
Also, keep in mind that a Fox News Liberal might be sincere, having been given the job because they're singularly ineffective at presenting their viewpoint.
Opinions?
The rhetoric of "They claim to be sincerely representing their own point of view" implies that their views are not sincerely held (that is, they claim to be sincerely representing their POV, "but really that's just a claim"). It could just be changed to "They are not playing a satirical or sarcastic role, and they aren't playing a fictional character." The third bullet point seems silly to say, and it relies on the silly rhetoric of the second bullet in order to make sense. The implicit argument here is that (1) they don't genuinely hold the viewpoint they represent and (2) they are present in the segment in order to help those who hold the "opposite" view.
In reality, a Fox News Liberal could very well genuinely hold their viewpoint and simultaneously not know what they're talking about. I would think such a person was hired because they're not very good at arguing, which would make it easier for their opponents to counter their viewpoints. While this can make it look like the individual is trying to help their opponents, I'd think it was the HR who went looking for the right person for what the company wanted (which would usually be someone easy to argue against, at least for this role).
EDIT: I'd also like to contest the sentence following that bulleted list. I was gonna bring it to the page's discussion page, but if we're already talking about it...
I think Golden Mean Fallacy needs to be cut from the page. Just because someone suggests a compromise does not mean the Golden Mean Fallacy is in play. The fallacious argument would have to assert that there are two sides that are both extreme, and then find a third side (i.e. a "golden mean"). Moreover, the argument would have to assert that the third side is best because it is neither of the two extremes. Sometimes compromises are best because they result in the least amount of long-term suffering, and such an argument is not saying that the compromise is best because it's not an extreme (the compromise could be equivalently extreme, just towards a different political axis or something).
An erroneous idea in modern politics is that there are only two sides to any given issue, but — speaking generally — there are usually many sides to a particular dilemma. Sometimes, there's just conservative and liberal sides, but other times, there's multiple points of view within the conservative side of the spectrum and multiple points of view in the liberal side of it.
I don't want to keep ranting about this one thing, so I'll just leave it at that.
edited 12th May '17 11:37:44 AM by WaterBlap
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyI think the whole fifth paragraph with the Roger Ebert quote on "Funny Aneurysm" Moment should be cut because it doesn't fit the trope. It sounds like a separate trope entirely.
Also, the note about the World Trade Centre appearing in a work made (or set) before 9/11 not being an example was changed to call it "cringeworthy" for the Twin Towers to appear even if a joke resembling 9/11 isn't made. I don't see how the mere presence of the Twin Towers is cringeworthy. A joke like the one shown in the page image is definitely cringeworthy, but the mere presence of the towers is nothing.

Spin the Earth Backwards is written in Example As Thesis form and badly so. Can anyone turn this into a proper trope description?