Is this an example?

Bifauxnen

• One of the earliest examples is Greta Garbo in Queen Christina. Her father King Gustavus Adolphus, lacking a male heir, essentially raised her as a boy, so she acts like a boy and dresses in men's clothes. But she still looks like Greta Garbo.

I P Med the person who added it and he's sure that the character has masculine elegance and style even though all he gives is 'masculine Greta Garbo'.

"Blind Idiot" Translation in Video Games (Preferred placement somewhere next to Metal Gear because Konami owns both Bomberman and Metal Gear) : BomberMan GB had an English version in a Korean Gameboy Compilation packed with Bomber Boy. English is far from an accurate description. Think of Metal Gear Engrish and have the same style of Engrish for the entire game's script. Laughably enjoyable and the game's even on Game Boy Color!

I will upload a video let's play of the game to show you what I mean.

edited 9th May '15 1:27:23 PM by JamesLeeMcKigney

^Lots of information about the game there, but next to none on why it is an example of the trope is you aren't familiar with either the game itself or the one it's being compared to. That's a lovely example of a long, detailed Zero Context Example. How it was packaged, whether it's an enjoyable game or not, and what platforms it's available on are completely irrelevant. It's still a ZCE and should be either rewritten to give context, or cut.

edited 9th May '15 9:41:22 AM by Madrugada

Would the following excerpt from Naughty by Nature's song "Everything's Gonna Be Alright" indicate the Bulverism at play, pun not intended? Maybe as a page quote.

"If you ain't ever been to the ghetto, don't ever come to the ghetto, 'cause you wouldn't understand the ghetto, so stay the fuck outta the ghetto."

Edit: The line ends a song about the point of view of the guy from ghetto, the vocalist. He basically talks about how much of all kind of bad stuff he had pulled through from young age. Song title isn't his words, but words of a refrain-like music/female-vocals sample.

edited 11th May '15 10:33:20 AM by SetsunasaNiWa

Question about an entry on YMMV.Honor Harrington, for Harsher in Hindsight:

• In a meta example, Cauldron of Ghosts, which was published in the first half of 2014 introduces a minor character for a single chapter. He's a police officer who is studious in his paperwork, diligently follows protocol, will turn over incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on the part of his fellow officers on his own initiative, is vehemently opposed to the use of excessive force or brutality... And is named Ferguson.

Setting aside for the moment my dislike of "meta" on general principles, it may just be that I need more sleep, but I'm not sure how that fits. (I get that it's referring to the events in Ferguson, Missouri, but I'm not sure how it's "harsher".)

Everybody named Ferguson who's a cop would become Harsher in Hindsight with that logic. Too much of a stretch. As Weird Al would say, learn to tell the difference between irony and coincidence.

edited 12th May '15 7:36:28 AM by Fighteer

Do legal guardians (or any other non-adoptive kind of caretaker for someone else's child) qualify as examples of Abusive Parents? In Neon Genesis Evangelion's official manga adaptation, Shinji used to be in the care of his uncle and aunt ^note one is an in-law, but no official source clarifies which one it was for 11 years since age 3, and they forced him to live in a makeshift room within the backyard shed rather than in the actual house, then later when he is mistakenly arrested by the police for appearing to steal a bike (he was taking it out of a trash heap), they scold him and refuse to believe his pleas of innocence. Nothing else is known about his stay with them, but the sum total was evidently enough to make him prefer staying with his new legal guardian Misato in Tokyo-3 in spite of her slobbiness and other issues, since when she confronts him when backed out at the last minute from his attept to leave Tokyo-3 for good, he tearfully says that he "doesn't want to go back to where he was."

edited 13th May '15 12:07:07 PM by MarqFJA

I would say that a legal guardian can qualify as an abusive parent, yes.

From Abusive Parents (near the bottom of the description): "While they do not have to be the child's actual, technical parents to be part of this trope, it's pretty important that they are closely related and live together, like a Wicked Stepmother or an Evil Uncle taking care of the Parentally Deprived. After all, it's much more disgusting that somebody related to the child could bring themselves to hurt them, rather than a mere foster family."

I assume we have a trope for an abusive foster family, then... although the example mentioned previously, of an abusive aunt and uncle, would fall under the scope of Abusive Parents.

edited 13th May '15 12:52:58 PM by Fighteer

Not sure if we do, but if I was naming it, I'd use Unfriendly Fostering or Uncaring Adoption. It's at least old enough to show up in the tale of Cinderella.

You know, I feel like technically-unrelated stepparents would be a weird grey area.

Part of the problem is that every other bad/good parenting trope seems to think that shitty foster parents would fall under Abusive Parents, whereas Abusive Parents itself says "No, don't put those here." It could be covered by an aversion/inversion of Happily Adopted, I guess.

Well, we do have Fostering for Profit, which could serve as a subtrope of this missing supertrope. Come to think of it, Abusive Parents seems like an obvious subtrope itself of the currently missing Abusive Family supertrope.

edited 13th May '15 1:17:03 PM by MarqFJA

This might be a topic for the description clean-up thread. If it's being used for all parents, blood or otherwise, then let's just go with the flow. It seems like a superior solution to trying to find a missing trope for abusive foster parents.

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask about this, but I just proposed this YKKTW and could use some help refining it/figuring out the trope.

Basically, there's this kind of "stock character" of a handsome, enigmatic immortal sorcerer who has some Evil Overlord trappings that is usually involved in a romantic plotline. Not all of these guys are evil, but they almost always have a reputation of being evil (often in terms of kidnapping maidens).

If a Recurring Character gets Transplanted in a Spin-Off show as a main character, does Promotion to Opening Titles still count?

edited 19th May '15 11:01:26 PM by nirao01

I don't believe so. Promotion to Opening Titles specifically requires a change to the credits of a single show; a Spin-Off is by definition a different show. Better Call Saul, for example, is not Breaking Bad.

Besides, that would make every Spin-Off that's about a relatively minor or supporting character from the main series an example of Promotion to Opening Titles, which would be a little silly.

edited 20th May '15 7:46:19 AM by SolipSchism

The last line in Choice of Two Weapons says that "The below example space is for examples that cover more than one of the above combinations." It's referring to the list of subtropes above that always involving wielding two different kinds of weapons at once, i.e. the trope's definition. Yet combining two or more of those subtropes results in the user wielding three or more weapons, as the example of Guts from Berserk illustrates (Bow and Sword in Accord + The Musketeer, as he is primarily a swordsman, yet also uses a repeating crossbow, a set of throwing knives, and a gun built into his prosthetic arm). Does this mean that Choice of Two Weapons is really Choice Of Several Weapons in definition, or at least that it can have that as its Exaggerated Trope form and/or a redirect?

PS: Choice Of Several Weapons isn't quite synonymous with Walking Armory, though it can overlap; Walking Armory is all about how you're carrying a lot of weapons on your person quite visibly in one way or the other, I think (like, you're Dual Wielding a pair of short swords while also carrying a BFS, an axe, a spear, a bow and quiver of arrows, and a warhammer on your back, as well as a few knives and daggers all over your limbs, plus maybe some smoke bombs in belt pouches).

edited 20th May '15 12:12:54 PM by MarqFJA

I think it means the space is for works that have multiple examples, as in, two or more characters who each fit a different subtrope; not works that have one character who fits multiple subtropes.

If there are characters listed who do use more than two weapons, I'd call that misuse.

EDIT: Actually, reading the description, it seems you're right on the money as far as what it's describing. However, I'd say it's misusing itself. One character using four weapons is not Choice of Two Weapons.

edited 20th May '15 1:03:02 PM by SolipSchism

Then what is it? I mean, if increasing the number of weapons is not how you make an Exaggerated Trope example of this trope, then I have no idea how an Exaggerated form would be like.

edited 20th May '15 1:17:57 PM by MarqFJA

A nothing? The quantity of weapons in a character's arsenal is not inherently tropable, unless they are wielding them all at the same time.

We have Weapon Of Choice as a trope because it discusses not only that a character favors a particular weapon but how that reflects on their characterization. Dual Wielding and its variants are also tropes. But "has four weapons" is just a fact, meaningless. It's not an exaggeration of anything.

I would go so far as to say that having two favored weapons is stretching the definition of a trope.

edited 20th May '15 1:22:02 PM by Fighteer

Well, from what I understand, the idea behind Choice of Two Weapons is that, besides having both weapons on his person whenever possible, the weapon types in question require such different kinds of extensive training to wield them properly (let alone expertly, as your average Hero Protagonist tends to do if they dont' start as bumbling heroes in training), that someone actually being as decent of an expert in both of those weapons as someone who dedicated himself to only one of them stands out as a bit unusual. Now extend this idea to more than two weapons; you can see how plausibility / Rule of Cool-ness increases in proportion to the number of weapons that one is wielding quite competently.

Heck, now that I look at the description, it's even in the first few lines:

edited 20th May '15 1:29:28 PM by MarqFJA

New question: Would a full-conversion Cyborg whose only remaining organic body part is their brain, a la Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell and Shadowrun's full-body cyborgs, count as an example of Brain in a Jar (with the "jar" being a mobile artificial/robotic body)? I want to make sure that Brain in a Jar isn't suffering from shoehorning of "examples".

Well the description of Brain in a Jar does have the following line in it:

So I'd say that so long as they don't actually fall into Man in the Machine (body in a machine as opposed to just the brain) then they'd probably be Brain in a Jar. It's just that the jar in this case has a bunch of extra do-dads.

Oh, I didn't notice that part. Neat.