Follow TV Tropes
Same. I see it as the colon prefacing a list.
I consider the colon to be superflous. The bullet points clearly indicate what is an example of what.
Plus, I think a colon makes it look a bit cluttered if the trope or work title itself have punctuation, like the many Excited Show Title!
Super Mario 3D Land and Super Mario 3D World have tropes indented under Video Game Settings. This looks like it would be hard to fix. 3D Land has this:
Video Game Settings is a supertrope. You only cite them if they are used by the work and there is no specific subtrope for the instance.
So all material that fits the subtropes there should be put under the subtrope in question, which in turn it's its own subbullet. If there is anything that fits Video Game Settings and not its subtropes, it can be put under Video Game Settings, otherwise remove the Video Game Settings example.
Similar problem in Sonic Lost World:
And in Super Mario 3D World:
Not sure if this's legit or not.
@55 needs the tropes put under their own bullet points, not as subbullets. @56 seems to describe how the example fits the potholed tropes rather than the trope is listed under. Also, spoilering a whole subbullet is wrong.
Normally I would do this myself, but I am in the middle of namespacing right now. Can't Catch Up is a mess of thread mode.
Just checked Characters.The Legend Of Zelda Skyward Sword and found a complex case of indentation:
edited 25th Aug '16 4:22:45 AM by Gosicrystal
Seems to read just fine if you simply remove all bullets (except the top level one, of course). Often that sort of thing does need a touch of editing, but in this case, I think you're fine with the wording as it stands.
What about this one I found in Being Watched?
Characters.Dota 2's subpages are a mess. I did the pages for Strength heroes, but I don't have the patience to do everything by myself.
The first thing that needs to be done there is to give the first example its own bullet. That's the easy part.
The second thing that needs to be done is to get rid of the sub-bullets for the second example. That's a little messier. If the sub-bullets were simply natter (as they so often are), you could just delete them, but in this case, they seem like they might be relevant, so it may be worth some rewriting.
If necessary, you could convert the quote from a screenplay-style offset quote into a normal inline quote (no indenting or fancy fonts, just: Spongebob says, "blah blah"). Then you could just run the whole thing together. Not an ideal solution, but better than what's there currently!
Let me try:
That's...yeah, not great, but minimally acceptable. If I had more time/knew anything about the show/understood the example a little better, I'd probably rewrite the whole thing to be more clear, but I don't.
edited 27th Aug '16 5:23:42 PM by Xtifr
Wouldn't the "parodied and subverted" thing be the rare Unparodied type of Playing with a Trope?
Um, yeah, probably. I was more focused on the indentation issues (since that's the topic of this thread), but I'd endorse that change as well.
Wow. AccidentalInnuendo.Video Games is a big mess. Already fixed Pokémon, which was probably the biggest problem, but there's more to go.
edited 5th Sep '16 5:29:57 AM by Gosicrystal
How do you fix an example like this? I've run into a good bunch of them since I registered:
< Trope X page example list >
Do you delete the specific example from Work Z, delete the general statement about it, or what?
The "In fact, the whole Work Z is this: blah blah blah" part must be rewritten to eliminate the natter element. That is, just state what else in the work fits as an example of the trope. Next, put that entry and the other at the same bullet level. Like this:
Yeah, that would do if the natter entry was as specific as the other one. But what if the natter example is so general about the work that it renders the specific example (the above one) needlessly specific? Like the trope happens so often in the work that the specific example is needless elaboration and a general statement would do? Do you still remove the natter example?
I'd generally resolve the first example into the more general statement, but only if it's a recurring element. We prefer specific to generic and that means tossing out the natter. There's no such thing as "needlessly specific", just "Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness".
YMMV.The Force Awakens post-release is a chaos wherever Kylo Ren is talked about. Alternative Character Interpretation, Base-Breaking Character... Some entries are just rewordings of previous ones, like "Is some good inside him? Elaboration...", "Can he still be redeemed? Elaboration...". But indentation chaos is not only limited to this character.
edited 25th Nov '16 11:57:54 AM by Gosicrystal
WebVideo.Sword Art Online Abridged has chronic Example Indentation issues and some generally bad example write-ups. I've done some cleanup but more help would be appreciated.
Just to check: Useful Notes don't get a special indentation policy, do they? Because UsefulNotes.Toronto has a mess when talking about landmarks...
edited 11th Jun '17 2:58:36 PM by Gosicrystal
In my opinion, landmarks could potentially have subbullets for when they appear in specific works. Anything that talks about the landmark as it is in real life should be in the main point, though. Like:
Not sure how kosher that is, but it makes sense to me as a bulleted list. At any rate, appearances in works are what's actually relevant for TV Tropes.
Fixed that up.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?