Misused: Expy

I tried to YKTTW a separate trope for when the same creator makes an Expy, but it was shot down because that distinction was thought to be arbitrary. I still believe that it's a valid subtrope, though, considering the origins for this one.

*bump*

Clock is set.

Not sure if this has been brought up already, but I also noticed that Expy tends to be used whenever a character is based on someone else. Examples of those usually belong on No Celebrities Were Harmed or Write Who You Know.

That has been the issue since the topic start, more or less.

Hm. Though I think that was the only reference to Write Who You Know in this thread. I didn't search potholes.

edited 12th Jun '13 7:52:20 AM by MikuruFan

This trope is still a mess, as with the sub-tropes. I'm still for the supertrope idea, and this might need to be moved to Special Efforts.

I also still want something split off for same-creator expies, whether it be soft or hard split.

Captain Ersatz needs a rename as well, I think that would massively cut down on the misuse...

Well, first off, we don't have Special Efforts anymore.

Second, Captain Ersatz has more than 2000 wicks and inbounds.

It'll go to Long Term/Perpetual, then.

Can someone put a summary of the raised problems with the trope(s) being discussed and the subsequent conclusions that the thread has reached so far, so that we late-comers can have a general idea of what's what and all that?

The last time that happened was post 64, I think.

I'm re-binging the thread now to remember/learn what else has developed. Summary forthcoming (unless someone who has been involved more recently beats me to it).

edited 8th Jul '13 3:06:51 PM by Noaqiyeum

Tropes involved. Definitions are based on apparent thread consensus or uncontested assertions. Those which are undefined have not been discussed in any detail.

• Expy - The root one, supposed to be intentional similarity of a character to another. Commonly confused with all of the following tropes.
• Alternate Company Equivalent - Suffers from bad audience perception-based examples. Is easily confusable with Expy and Captain Ersatz.
• Captain Ersatz - Supposed to be identical in everything but name only, by a different creator and different work. Commonly confused with Expy.
• Counterpart Comparison - "Counterpart Comparison is quite a bit more than just "Fans seeing an expy where one might not exist." It's basically about an expy being treated the same as the character they were based on, even when they have a different backstory and whatnot."
• Distaff Counterpart - This one is way too broad in its use. It has the very vague definition of "female counterpart", but there's a lot of bad audience perception-based examples going around, not unlike the main Expy page. We're going to need to redefine this a little.
• Fountain of Expies - Needs no work done. Hoorah!
• Lawyer-Friendly Cameo - Unquestionably the character, but they make only a cameo appearance and the name or identity isn't explicitly mentioned. Very problematic because it's easily confused with both Expy and Captain Ersatz.
• No Celebrities Were Harmed - A character is clearly based on real-life celebrities. No work necessary?
• Re Ditto - A character who is initially an Alternate Company Equivalent has the traits that make them unique retconned away, making them more indistinguishable from the original inspiration; a Counterpart Comparison which becomes canon and leads to Character Derailment.
• Same Story, Different Names
• Serial Numbers Filed Off
• Similar Squad
• Spiritual Successor
• Spiritual Licensee
• Suspiciously Similar Substitute - Supposed to be identical to another character in the same universe or work. Should be used in place of Expy when it comes to characters in the same series/work.
• Write Who You Know - A character is clearly based on someone the author knows personally.

Decisions:

• Use Expy as the supertrope for all the others.
  • Rewrite the description to be about the supertrope
  • Make it pristinely clear that the resemblance must be intentional. In bold, if necessary.
  • Remove all the examples that are only based on fan perception.

Proposals:

• Merge Lawyer-Friendly Cameo and No Celebrities Were Harmed?
• Create a new trope for Expy's original, long-since-unsalvageable meaning (a creator reusing the same character concept in multiple works), tentatively named Reused Character Template or Reused Character Traits to match Reused Character Design?
  • Argument for; the argument against was made in a YKTTW somewhere.

edited 8th Jul '13 5:16:42 PM by Noaqiyeum

Regarding Counterpart Comparison, "being compared to another similar character leads to Character Derailment" implies that this happens within the show, when this appears to be purely an Audience Reaction.

Oops, you're right. It looks like the in-canon version is Re Ditto.

I'm liking this plan.

The cumulative work proposed in @189 amounts to 10000 wicks that need checking. Thus, I am going to immediately give it a .

I didn't propose anything, just summarise conclusions and suggestions from earlier in the thread.

With that in mind, however, what are you including in that figure? We're already in agreement that Expy needs to be fixed, so it doesn't make sense to just do nothing because anything useful would be too much work.

Sorry, I meant the proposals summarized there.

Expy and Lawyer-Friendly Cameo, mainly. I have an issue with making a wick cleanup as a) we do not really have the manpower for it and b) the standard to follow is not defined.

I stand by my approach :P

Lawyer-Friendly Cameo doesn't seem like it would need much of a wick check if we merge and redirect, unless I'm misunderstanding the procedure.

edited 9th Jul '13 10:30:26 AM by Noaqiyeum

You are misunderstanding the procedure, considering that the wicks would need moving.

As for @170, I honestly do not know how to know that an example fits.

I thought it was agreed to redefine Expy to match its use: Intentionally similar character by a different author. A supertrope to all those others.

edited 9th Jul '13 1:36:10 PM by Discar

That definition was ditched long ago, if it was here in the first place.

Umm, no, the ditched definition required that it be the same author.