Follow TV Tropes
Comment them out as Zero Context Examples, and put a note about it at the tope. Expanding them to proper examples is naturally preferable, though.
See also the Fixing zero context examples thread.
edited 23rd Mar '13 10:26:17 PM by AnotherDuck
I Know What You Fear has types in examples and description.
Declaration of Protection has a lot of types and it doesn't even look like they would cover every example. Are we trying to get rid of the types completely so it's just one list?
I don't see any "types" there, although I see a confusing soft split.
Yes, there's "The protected person is a Badass themselves," "Failed To Protect Them," etc. Shouldn't those 8 be merged together?
This thread isn't about pages that list ways in which the trope can manifest (if those are too narrow and causing confusion, the page could be run through the Description Improvement thread); it's about pages that literally have Type I, Type II, etc., attached to permutations of the trope. The presence of such type labels leads to people just providing "Type X" as the "explanation" of examples, which is bad both because it makes it hard to tell if the character/whatever actually is Type X and because it forces readers to navigate to the trope page if they want to have any idea what the example is talking about.
Incidentally, The Leader has come to my attention via the Five-Man Band cleanup as something which still has types.
edited 10th Apr '13 9:46:43 AM by Nocturna
Spin-Off is soft-split into eleven numbered subtypes. That's ridiculous. It's not even funny.
I don't even know where to start sorting out this mess of an example section.
edited 27th Jun '13 12:01:03 PM by Prfnoff
I metioned that earlier in the thread and Ironeye suggested that it may be a good idea to turn it into an index and split off the types to their own tropes.
*Sigh* Another 2300+ wick job? I hope not.
That would probably be a separate thread.
I think this is a stupid way to go about removing type labels. Type labels are intended to say something meaningful, even if they don't say it well; simply removing them, instead of rewriting them properly, usually makes it impossible to tell what they were supposed to be.
Type labels are sometimes just redundant, and it's better to just write how the example uses the trope. In those cases just deleting them (with appropriate changes in description, examples, and wicks) is a good option.
Lead Bassist have a big problem with Type examples. I have sorted the examples, expanded a handful and de-typed a couple or them, but it needs someone that recognize the bassists and what they are known for, and someone that knows music and knows who is generally known.
Villainous Friendship has numbered type labels, but I'm uncertain if the page even needs delineated "types" in the first place.
Never Gets Drunk has type labels as well.
I restored the subtypes to Meteor Move. I don't think cleaning up examples of trope subtypes justifies deleting the subtypes altogether, unless they're a gaggle of minor variations that distract from the definition (which is why Lower-Class Lout is now in the Trope Repair Shop).
Here's a list of these types of pages I found. If assigning type labels is deemed bad practice in general, we should really clean these up. Most of them do appear gratuitous or out of place.
edited 3rd Sep '15 12:42:18 PM by Morgenthaler
Been doing a little work on cleaning up type labels independently wherever I spotted them before I realized there was a project thread dedicated to it. I'll try to document anything else I do here as I go.
Reviving this discussion so we can clean these up. Let's do these a few at a time to make it more manageable.
Easy fix, let's just ax the type labels. "Non-abuse mistaken for abuse" and "abuse mistaken for non-abuse" are just two sides of the same coin.
This needs to be merged. I don't see any sort of subtrope meaning added by the reveal of the tentacled monster's head, just a small internal variation.
This looks to me like at least two different tropes. There's The Family Band, which is a pretty self-evident concept. Other variations look to me more like cases of Real-Life Relative, Sibling Team, or Romance on the Set depending on permutation.
Yeah, I'm not seeing why this has to be subdivided into different sections. It's just variations of the same trope.
All variations on the same trope. Streamline the description.
So this is just "immortal person who looks old"? While I agree that the trope definitely exists (as an inversion of Immortality Begins at Twenty), the mix of types and named internal subtropes is just confusing. Thoughts?
Streamline the description by merging the three, though I do think "snowlem that was once human" has the least reason for being, as it can easily overlap with the other two.
edited 3rd May '16 1:48:28 PM by Morgenthaler
Are we still doing this? Or since TRS is now open and we have a dedicated thread to removing crap tropes back to YKTTW, are we going there instead?
edited 3rd May '16 11:38:51 AM by TheOneWhoTropes
Trope Repair Shop is and has always been rather crowded. Though I don't think there are too many "Type X" trope pages left to sort through, I think a similar thread for cleaning up unnecessary soft-splits and idiosyncratic example sorting would be worthwhile. Does anyone else think such a thread would be worthwhile?
There is only one page on TRS at the moment, due to cutting of things the mods deem to not be an issue (or go to this other Long term thread for that). And because I worked hard to get what I could done.
Extreme Omnivore's subpages have "Type One" and "Type Two" folders.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?