Rename so Blue hair is not a big deal: You Gotta Have Blue Hair

Lately I have been coming across wicks where they must point out when this trope is literal.

Such as

Can we switch with the redirect You Gotta Have Colorful Hair (which still leaves room for insert color here You Gotta Have Green Hair type potholes for character pages.) to stop this? Having Blue hair is nothing special compared to green or any of the other impossible hair colors.

Another option is split the trope by hair color (making this a Super-Trope) and list the common personalities associated with said color with the personality specific tropes (Such as Shy Blue-Haired Girl) made subtropes of that respective color page or merged into a general trope (like the way Rose Haired Girl is now, which most of which are a more girly version of the red head tropes).

Once you break the You Gotta Have Colorful Hair barrier they really are Taste the Rainbow (very rarely with actual black as that does not show up well in black outlined animation as it loses detail.)

That I disagree with making someone with an impossible hair color is a trope.

edited 7th Nov '11 2:00:36 AM by Raso

Definitely the second option. "Hair has a color of some kind" doesn't mean anything by itself.

I like the supertrope option.

Giving someone dyed hair isn't a single trope because you could do it for any reason. It could be a rebellious teenager (that's a trope) or it could be human-like alien (also a trope). If you draw the characters, hair color could mean anything, or it could mean nothing - if you aren't drawing them realistically, you can pull out any color you want just for the hell of it.

So if a character's blue hair shows that she's shy, put her in Shy Blue-Haired Girl. If another character has blue hair just because one of the first characters did and blue then just entered the universe as a hair color option, then no, don't put that down anywhere.

Hair dye do not exist unless directly stated or heavily implied (Same way for color contacts.) what you see is what they are.

The second a work breaks into Impossible Hair Colors that is a trope as you just broke from reality. (Same for Implausible Hair Color to a lesser extent)

edited 7th Nov '11 7:03:52 AM by Raso

Oh, you mean works that contain any odd hair colors? Maybe. But that can't work on a per-character basis.

For examples, would the blue-haired lawyer in The Simpsons (who has no name other than "blue-haired lawyer"!) be an example of this, or of anything? No. He has blue hair, but some characters in the show just do. It doesn't signify anything.

Am I correct in understanding that the basic concept of the trope is using impossible hair colors, usually bright and easily ditingueshable ones, as a way of making it easier to tell characters apart?

If that is the case, this sounds like it should be reworked to make this clearly and strictly a visual artistic style trope rather,

As well as being about the personalities, which is why I like the idea of supertrope.

But the supertrope takes away from the idea of personalities by inviting examples of hair colors unattached to any personalities.

This is what I mean:

Another option is split the trope by hair color (making this a Super Trope) and list the common personalities associated with said color with the personality specific tropes (Such as Shy Blue-Haired Girl) made subtropes of that respective color page or merged into a general trope (like the way Rose-Haired Girl is now, which most of which are a more girly version of the red head tropes).

I'm calling "it ain't broke" on this. You have yet to prove to me that this trope has any problems at all. Simply "People are saying it's literally blue!" is not a valid argument for a rename, split, or anything. While it's true that we wouldn't have used a title like this if we made this trope today, if you can't prove to me that this trope is being misused in some way, then I object to doing anything at all.

edited 7th Nov '11 12:01:14 PM by Insignificant

I don't agree with the rename. From what I can see, it's much more common for something like

• You Gotta Have Green Hair: Blah blah blah has green hair and blah blah blah

to show up. Yeah, people might attach more importance to blue hair than other unnatural colors, but underuse would be if that green hair example wasn't included at all.

edited 7th Nov '11 12:04:23 PM by Arha

We've actually been through this one before. It's not being underused for other colours, and it's always a deliberate act that says something about the work when a character is given an unnatural hair colour. You're free to make all the subtropes you want, but this trope is working and it's working well.

People will do the literal thing for any trope because they're under the mistaken idea that it's clever. Any name we give the trope will get those. Even tropes where a literal interpretation is wrong get those.

edited 7th Nov '11 12:44:19 PM by shimaspawn

How about at least 20% misuse? The trope is about the work using impossible hair colours, not characters who have impossible colours. It's an art trope, not a character trait trope. So any mention in the Character namespace is automatically wrong. [hottip:* exceptions exist: Euphimia's hair is pink = incorrect example. The hair of Brittainians tends to be technicolour = correct example.]

According to the current trope, Bulma having blue hair is not an example. Bulma having blue hair makes Dragon Ball an example. We do not have tropes for "this guy has blonde hair", so why should we have tropes for "this guy has blue hair"?

edited 7th Nov '11 1:28:25 PM by crazysamaritan

That's not how the trope has ever been used or defined. This has always been a character trope from the earliest examples.

edited 7th Nov '11 1:31:02 PM by shimaspawn

Even if it was how the trope was defined, that's a really petty issue to have with it.

What? How can you read the current description and think this is talking about an individual character? This is like the 8 faces of anime, only it is a trick used to avert minimal appearance issues, instead of accidentally creating them.

When did People Sit On Chairs become a petty issue? (confused here)

Because you're saying that while Bulma is still an example of the trope, it's only indirectly, and that qualifies as misuse.

It's not only anime. It's not confined to any media. The earliest examples of the trope were entirely characters and any idea of it representing whole works is a recent evolution of the description.

No, Dragon Ball is an example, because it has Bulma. If Bulma talks to a girl about something other than boys, she has not Passed The Bechdel Test, Dragon Ball has. If she is in a group, and each character has to use a special skill only they have to pass, she hasn't used an Eigen Plot, Dragon Ball has. If she has Minimalist features, then Dragon Ball is an example. If she is consistently drawn with no appreciation for reality, then Dragon Ball is an example of Deranged Animation, but Bulma isn't.

Works tropes aren't character tropes, they just affect how the character appears and interacts.

the only thing I said was anime was the 8 faces thing. I didn't claim any limitation on this trope. How do I find the original ykttw?

Note, the 8 faces I mentioned is Only Six Faces.

edited 7th Nov '11 3:32:41 PM by crazysamaritan

I support this as a supertrope much more now that I realize it applies to works but never characters.

This trope is older than the YKTTW, but I've been around for quite some time and I remember the last time this came up in TRS. The trope was clearly character focused then. It also had a much shorter description. It seems someone decided to add a lot of analysis to the description that obscures the actual trope.

The trope is about characters having blue hair. The analysis about why works do this in the description is the problem.

edited 7th Nov '11 3:46:20 PM by shimaspawn

Thankfully it doesn't look like the edit history has been purged since I can see edits dating back to 1st August last year. The expansion of the intro was done by Westrim in August last year according to the history (exact date according to edit history: 15th Aug '10) with multiple edits giving reasons as:

"Regardless of what happens with renaming it, it needs cleaning. I'm gonna get started. (As for the quote, it's ambiguous whether it regard blue hair as impossible, or as a stand in for black). So, first the intro. "

"Well, dang. I'll see if I can lengthen the intro again then"

and

"Adding more to the intro and deleting Plausible hair colors, which was entirely hair that was either normal or justified by the setting (say, cyberspace). "

I see there has also been another couple of antvasima's old socks tweaking it as well though.

edited 7th Nov '11 4:05:35 PM by CrypticMirror

Yeah, like I said, it's supposed to be a character trope. Westrim and Antva just butchered the trope description. It shouldn't be that hard to cut it back down to the character trope its supposed to be instead of this huge nattery mess.

Totally support taking the chainsaw of restoration to the description in the name of clarity and keeping the trope on-topic. We can dump all the extraneous stuff in the analysis tab if we feel the need to keep it.

edited 7th Nov '11 4:16:42 PM by CrypticMirror