Doesn't sound like complaining to me.
Hammer of the Pervs
I can see the complaining there. It should be rewritten so it isn't Example As Thesis. Also, "anyways" is not a real word.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
The filidh that cam frae Skye
Hammer of the Pervs
Yeah, in dialect, just like "ain't" is a real word in dialect. That doesn't make it okay to use in trope pages. Use anyways and ain't and innit to your heart's content on the forums, but not in articles.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
Gentleman Troper!
It strikes me as perfectly cromulent.
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
The filidh that cam frae Skye
Regardless of how the word "anyways" is used, how can we rewrite this trope description to make it more neutral?
Halper's Law: as the length of an online discussion of minority groups increases, the probability of "SJW" or variations being used = 1.
Hammer of the Pervs
There was a lot of Word Cruft in the first two paragraphs. Here's a a slimmed-down version
. It could probably use more information, but at least now it's no longer an Example As Thesis with a scoop of Complaining About Fictional Religions You Dont Like. What do you guys think?
edited 10th Apr '12 1:40:52 PM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
Hammer of the Pervs
So, we wanna do something here? I'm fine with my rewrite, does anyone have any issues with it? Otherwise I'll make the swap and we can move on to other issues.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Looks fine to me.
R.I.P 2 My Youth
Ditto on Catbert.
It doesn't matter if it's in the dictionary, it sounds unprofessional.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
I thought we were going for "breezy language", not professional. If professional is the standard, we need to do something about Martello's use of sentence fragments.
Perhaps that is the wrong word. It sounds semi-literate. "Breezy and smart", not "breezy and sloppy".
This is about formatting, not content, but How To Write An Example says "This Wiki should at least look professional despite having a breezy attitude."
edited 12th Apr '12 10:16:32 AM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
One Winged Egret
Just sounds casual to me. Frankly, objecting to it sounds ridiculously pedantic from my perspective. Everyone knows what it means. Might as well be asking people to stop splitting infinitives.
Not that there's any need to squeeze it in whenever possible or anything.
edited 12th Apr '12 11:05:52 AM by Clarste
Hammer of the Pervs
@Catbert - are there fragments in my rewrite or are you making a joke about my tendency to write that way in the forums?
@Clarste - everybody knows what ain't and innit mean, too, but that doesn't mean we should use those idioms in the main wiki. It's not pedantic to correct wrong word choices in an article, it's just being a good writer and editor.
Anyway, that's hardly the point of this thread. Does anyone have any problems with the sandbox version or should go ahead and swap them out?
edited 12th Apr '12 11:47:02 AM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
Hammer of the Pervs
Okay, swapping them out, hollering for lock.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
Now, the basic idea of this trope is "a fictional religion that takes parts of its theology from two or more existing religions", and is intrinsically neutral. However, the description sounds a lot like complaining:
One of the reasons this method is sometimes favored is because the ideas, being quite a hot button issue, can be blended together into something homogeneous and inoffensive, with all the hard-to-swallow parts of foreign philosophies glossed over or omitted entirely. No one can then say the Author Did Not Do the Research, since he's creating an entirely 'new' religion or philosophy.
As you can see, this description pretty much accuses all Interfaith Smoothies as being the result of the creators being lazy, and they're all just toned down, Theme Park Versions of the religions that they're based on. Now how can we rewrite the definition so that it doesn't sound like complaining?
edited 13th Apr '13 7:47:31 AM by SantosLHalper
Halper's Law: as the length of an online discussion of minority groups increases, the probability of "SJW" or variations being used = 1.