Fix Up Example Indentation Wherever It Is

We have this mess in Good Lawyers, Good Clients:

• Every Ace Attorney game. The actual subversion does come up too, being able to bypass Wright's Lie Detector.
  • Also, there's one case in which in the process of getting his client acquitted of a crime he didn't commit, Phoenix actually, unknowingly, gets him acquitted of several (non-violent) crimes that he did commit. And because of double jeopardy, he can't be tried again.
  • Some clients are guilty of crimes other than murder, and they often get prosecuted for them afterward. Examples include Lana Skye in the first game (fabricating evidence with Gant, admittedly while being blackmailed) and Machi Tobaye and Vera Misham in Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney (the former for cocoon smuggling and the latter for forging the diary page that got Phoenix disbarred).
  • This is mostly justified for the series, for multiple reasons. Phoenix, Mia, Apollo and Athena all hate taking guilty clients, and three of them have different ways to tell if someone's hiding something from them. Combined this with the fact that the games are based on the Japanese Bench system, where 99% of all defendants were found guilty, and you have a pretty justified reason for the player to naturally trust that the client is wrongly accused.
  • This was even one of major reasons why we see the real killer in the opening to the first case in the series. They did this so that players would automatically be on their client's side, knowing for sure they're wrongly accused. In fact, the only times in the series where the real killer isn't shown in the first case of the games is in the third and fourth games, both of which have Phoenix Wright himself as the defendant. People would obviously assume that the most important character of the series is innocent. In all the other games, the true culprit is shown to make sure players don't suspect that their client might actually have done it, for any players who are starting the series with that game.
  • This also makes sense in universe, that the protagonists will get mostly innocent clients wanting their help, especially when Phoenix and Apollo become rather famous in the legal world as attorney's who seek the truth. Guilty clients naturally wouldn't want their defense: As soon as Phoenix/Apollo/Athena found out they were actually guilty, or so much as had an incline they were, they'd be screwed.
  • In The Empty Turnabout, a fan-made case:
    • Subverted with Athena Cykes of all people, who actually killed Simon Blackquill but was acquitted by Apollo... even though he genuinely believed she was innocent.
    • Zig-zagged with Nathaniel Marston, the current case's defendant. He confessed to the crime, but Apollo believes that he didn't do it. Fast forward to the end of the trial, and Marston is found guilty as he wanted. It's implied that he didn't really do it.

We have an overlong, unorganized analysis with what sounds like some irrelevant points mixed with played straight, subversions and a zig-zaggging example (the whole The Empty Turnabout group was added by me). I've tried to fix this, but I can't get my head around it. Ideas?

I've found some indentation problems on Characters.MUGEN:

---

• Ms. Fanservice: She takes it Up To Eleven with her general attire, Dragon Busters, and her Midnight Bliss outfit. She takes the trope up to ''twelve'' with her nude SFF and her other official art.
  • Boobs Of Steel: And how. They are her primary source of fanservice most likely because of this trope, almost constantly in motion, and the muscles are meaningless trope is in full play and exaggerated as a result. Under the effects of Midnight Bliss while fighting naked, they get to almost as big as her head as a result of not wearing clothes.
  • Cute Little Fangs
  • Instant Awesome Just Add Dragons: And while she is not a giant, winged, fire-breathing monstrosity covered in scales (and her being a dragon is ambiguous), she is still an awesome draconic figure nonetheless.
  • Shameless Fanservice Girl: Without a shadow of doubt.
  • Sexy Horny Dragons: In comparison to the other girls (who are moe) Grizela ditches the cuteness look and goes straight for sex appeal. She's aware of her status as this, taking pride and advantage of that fact too.
  • Stripperific: Her default outfit. Her Midnight Bliss outfit is this in volumes as it's just two belts barely managing to cover her naughty bits.
    • Full-Frontal Assault: An official patch has her fight completely naked. Find it yourself if you can.^note If you can't find it, it's at x.fanatail.com. Obviously NSFW, so look at your own discretion.
  • The Tease: Hoo boy...
  • Walking Swimsuit Scene: Her attire is a bikini, most likely to not hinder her much when she brawls.

---

Maybe it's just me, but this looks horrendous. Any way to fix it?

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

All individual tropes should be on their own main bullet, not subbullets to some other trope. Personally I think it makes sense with logical grouping like that, but it's not the wiki standard. Might also want to remove the link to the nude patch.

Check out my fanfiction!

The jokes section of Mathematician's Answer is a mess. It has dozens of indentation violations and a ton of Word Cruft. Most of the text that introduces a joke is "Another joke:", "Yet another one:", etc. Shall I remove these lines and leave the jokes naked? As in:

• Another joke:
  Alice: A or B?
  Bob: Yes.

to

• Alice: A or B?
  Bob: Yes.

I think quotes floating around are not kosher, but they should be better than the same Word Cruft over and over again across the page.

Another akternative is to take the info in the quote and convert it into normal text.

Like:

• Whenever someone asks if somebody else would like one thing or the other, but the response is just "Yes."

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

Everything Is an Instrument, especially the Music folder, has enough of a mix between General examples and poor indentation that I'm mildly worried about fixing it myself. Does someone else have more confidence they can repair the poorly indented examples?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I know Funny pages are a common target for bad indentation, but I'm hoping that since Deltarune is the big new game of the moment, it'll set a good precedent if its Funny page is perfectly indented. I added a commented out note asking tropers to not add second-level bullet points to expand on existing examples, but it seems to be ignored.

Game Theory (Lyrical Nanoha) is a bit of a trainwreck, and I haven't finished reading the fic so I don't want to dive into what is surely a minefield of spoilers.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

Show Within a Show has a problem, I especially had a look at the TV sub-page, and it's a mess.

The biggest problem in my opinion is that the trope has 4 types, and the examples are supposed to be sorted out that way.

However, there are examples that have features of several types at once, or there are several examples from one show, but each is of different type.

This leads to ugly formatting and repetitions like the following:

I propose we get rid of those type labels and just make a normal list without soft-splitting the page.

But it would be a huge change for the page, so I thought I should ask first. What do you say?

Edited by XFllo on Jan 16th 2019 at 3:48:01 PM

I think Type 1 should be drafted in TLP, spinning it off into a Sub-Trope for works that show characters "backstage". I don't see much purpose in separating the other types.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Thanks for the feedback.

May I ask why you think type 1 is tropeworthy (distinct enough to have a page of its own) while the others are not?

I'd be willing to take it to TLP myself, but I don't see any distinction (for now).

It could be hard to distinguish differences and nuances: sometimes there are protagonists involved in the production (Joye in Friends), but at times they are supporting cast (like the theatre in Midsummer Night's Dream or in Hamlet).

My proposal is just to sort the examples, get rid of ZCE and natter and correct the indentation; generally, the types should be mentioned just in the description (no need to label each example and state whether it's type 1 or type 2 or combination of all 4).

Listing the type labels:

---

Type 1 is distinct enough from the other "types" to form a Sub-Trope because examples usually involves Show Business Tropes and other Trivia-trope examples in an In-Universe fashion.

In contrast, types 2, 3, and 4 are hard to distinguish differences and nuances. How can the Show Within a Show become a plot point if none of the characters are fans? Why would we see enough of the Show Within a Show to recognize it is eerily similar if none of the characters are fans? If the Show Within a Show is eerily similar, doesn't that provide a plot point?

---

• Joey's acting career in Friends
  • Joey is a character outside of the Show Within a Show.
• Pyramus and Thisbe in Midsummer Night's Dream
  • Bottom (and buddies) are characters outside of the Show Within a Show.
• The Murder of Gonzago in Hamlet
  • Hamlet (the director/producer) is a character outside of the Show Within a Show.

In type 1, the characters are involved in the production of the show.

• Most episodes of The Simpsons don't have any backstage scenes for The Krusty Klown Show, and Krusty is rarely shown to be involved in producing The Itchy & Scratchy Show.
• Home Alone has Angels with Filthy Souls, but none of the characters are involved in producing the movie.
• Watchmen includes the comic Tales of the Black Freighter, but none of the comic's creators appear in the story itself, being there purely for the parallels to the actual comic.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Well, that sounds like an issue for TRS.

Why?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Well, the issue is fixing up a trope. Splitting up a trope and creating a sub-trope or merging tropes has to be approved by more people and Trope Repair Shop is the place for it.

No, creating a subtrope can be done in TLP.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

OK then, I didn't know that.

Trying to clean up Phineas and Ferb, found this, really don't know where to begin cleaning it. Can everything under the main bullet be deleted, or...?

• Chaste Hero: Phineas is almost ridiculously clueless to Isabella's affections.
  Isabella: I still need to get my You-Wouldn't-Know-Cute-If-It-Bit-Your-Leg-Off Accomplishment Patch.
  Phineas: (Beat) Cool, let's go!
  • Of course, in "The Chronicles of Meap", Phineas built a "cute" radar and Isabella spent most of the episode claiming to be interfering with the tracking. When she finally outright says it, Phineas promptly says he already took her cuteness into account, and when disabling the "Isabella safety" the radar promptly exploded. However, cuteness is treated like a calculable measure here...
    • In "The Beak", Phineas indirectly refers to her as the most important person to him, but it could just be Superhero X in a nutshell.
    • Phineas trying to hide his secret from Isabella makes her the only character to which he seems very uncomfortable to hide secrets from.
    • Phineas eventually understands Isabella's feelings only after she kisses him, of course Isabella did this before their memories were wiped so he has no recollection of the event.
    • In the Flash Forward episode "Act Your Age", he begins to realize his own feelings for her as teenagers, at which point Isabella's ostensibly put it behind her. At the last minute, they talk this out and finally get a Relationship Upgrade.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yes. That've very natterific, so away with it. Maybe I'd incorporate something from the second sub-bullet about the cuteness radar thing, but it's probably not necessary. Clear, concise, witty.

In trying to crosswick for Confess My Love, I ended up discovering just how damn nattery and poorly indented GuideDangIt.Eastern RPG is. Cleaning up, but it's very long.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Hot Witch: The first entry for Buffy has two examples written as one. It's written in such a way that I find it impossible to separate it and have enough context for each. Anyone familiar with the show enough who could rewrite it?

• Buffy the Vampire Slayer:
  • Willow and Tara. Both women were undeniably attractive for the most part, they avoided the stripperiffic outfits common to the trope and both tended to be quiet and shy, especially Tara. Exceptions were a dream sequence of Xanders where both wore revealing dresses and played up their lesbian relationship and a dream sequence of Willows in the same episode where Tara had a Toplessness from the Back scene. Witches, or "Wicca" as they are called in the series, are an ambiguous Witch Species, magical ability is implied to run in families, but Willow (stated to be the most powerful witch on the planet at one point) has no lineage at all.^note The distinction between Witches and other types of magic users in the Buffyverse is unclear, but seems to be related to the user's inherent magical ability, their specific practices, and the Ritual Magic they use to alter reality to varying degrees. These uses include but are not limited to telekinesis, mind control, magical tracking and raising the dead.

Edited by XFllo on Mar 17th 2019 at 12:19:20 PM

I think Eurovision Song Contest needs a bit of a clean-up, indentation wise.

Creator.Jacqueline Wilson is a mess. (I'll try to clean it up later if no one else is on it. I ran across this page when dewicking Green Eyes.)

I'll Kill You! has a lot of indentation problems. Mostly natter...

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

What's the best way to fix these examples from No Such Thing as Wizard Jesus?

• An entry in the Dune Encyclopedia claimed the Bene Gesserit existed millennia before humanity developed spaceflight, and more-or-less specifically stated that Jesus was nothing more than a premature — and, therefore, failed — Kwisatz Haderach.
  • Of course, the Dune Encyclopedia also deconstructs Paul Atreides as a mythic figure and comes to the conclusion that he never truly existed, so the Encyclopedia is considered an in-universe work rather than Word of God.
    • As Frank Herbert notes in the foreword, the Dune Encyclopedia is a work of Fanon that he appreciated, but reserved the right to overrule at any time.
    • Also, according to Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson's prequels about Butlerian Jyhad, Bene Gesserit were created long after humans went into space.

• The Nightside books and other series by Simon R. Green always make a point of saying that "only one man could ever bring the dead back to life" (and the resurrected Judas explicitly identifies Christ as that man) - completely ignoring that in the Bible, Elijah and Elisha could raise the dead as well, and some mediaeval saints were also said to have been capable of this. (Undead beings don't count.)
  • Its possible that Green overlooked Elijah and Elisha and others, on the other hand, most Christians would tell you that no, Elisha, Elijah, etc. did not raise anyone from the dead. They were ordinary men, and had no supernatural abilities or nature. Rather, it was God working through them that brought the dead back to life; they were merely His instruments. Thus, Jesus (being God) being the only man that can bring the dead back to life is quite correct.
  • In The Unnatural Enquirer John Taylor says only one man ever came back from Hell, and that was Jesus. Perhaps a bit of a retcon?
    • Considering that John himself spent most of Hex and the City accompanied by Sinner, a man who was booted out of Hell for still feeling love, he was probably using hyperbole with that one.
  • Heck, in the books even angels, God's own stormtroopers can fix practically anything except death.

• We aren't shown what the effects of the masquerade being unveiled on Doctor Who have been on the world's religions, but one can only imagine what the effects would be if the Time Lord's regeneration powers would be if revealed. As it is, it's a little suspicious that none of the Doctor's many, many companions has ever brought up the similarities.
  • Although River comments that she hates hearing about kind wizards in fairytales, since they always turn out to be The Doctor.
  • He has met Jesus, in fact. When aliens got the entire history of Christmas wrong, he explains it was nothing like that, "I was there." Of course, we could never get to see that meeting on screen. Ten also mentions having been to the first Easter. We never do find out from him what really happened, though, due to his Attention Deficit... Ooh, Shiny! interrupting that train of thought.
  • The Doctor fights a being who claims to be Satan in "The Impossible Planet" / "The Satan Pit". Interestingly, the crisis of faith he suffers during the episode is not due to following any kind of religion, but because "Satan" asserts that it had been bound on that world since before our universe began. While the Time Lords mastered travel between parallel universes, pocket universes, and had ventured from the beginning and end of our own, they never found any evidence that a universe could have existed before our own. The Doctor even goes so far to claim that even if one had, he believed it impossible that anything could have survived the collapse of reality before the Big Bang kickstarted it off again.
    • Funnily enough, though, his former companion Sarah Jane had no trouble believing that the Ancient Lights came from the pre-universe when they appeared in The Sarah Jane Adventures.
    • In the expanded universe, it's absolutely positive that there are beings from before our universe. The Guardians are among them (possibly the last surviving Time Lords from the previous universe), and even they have higher powers they defer to. If an Abrahamic creator God of this universe exists, he's less ultimate than the Guardians, and not that more powerful than mortals like Rassilon or the Council of Eight or the Doctor (who were all able to rewrite the fundamental rules of this universe's reality, which ought to be no easier than writing the original rules).
  • In Torchwood: Children of Earth, reference is made to a religious woman who committed suicide after the public revelation of the existence of aliens, claiming that "Science has won".
  • Torchwood: Miracle Day comes close to breaching the subject, but still never deals with it explicitly.
    • In the Torchwood universe it seems to be canon that there's no existence after death, which suggests that Jesus/Christianity/many religions are fake, but the series it branched off from and all other adaptions of the series have never confirmed that this is the case. Most likely because Torchwood was made to be Darker and Edgier than its parent show, while Doctor Who usually leans towards optimism and All Myths Are True or Aliens Did It. So while fake!Jesus is implied in Torchwood, it's contradicted by the rest of the canon.
    • The parent show may have a different answer about the afterlife, but it's definitely not the Christian one. It's hard to make sense of stories like, say, Dark Water if people are souls who go to Heaven and Hell rather than just some kind of process attached to their physical brains. (Of course in the Expanded Universe there are a ton of contradictory afterlifes, from Katarina going to Hades to everyone leaving "N-Forms" to live in "Null Space" after they die.)
    • Meanwhile, in the Expanded Universe, Jesus was definitely a real person, and at least most of the things in the Gospel stories are true (and even non-Biblical myths like the Spear of Longinus), but the one question that's left open is the Resurrection.
    • The Faction Paradox spinoff has a technological afterlife (the Doctor's former companion/TARDIS turns herself into a megacity at the end of the universe and resurrects every human who ever lived). And Jesus is definitely there, but he's not sitting on a Revelation-style throne, he's just a carpenter and boatwright who tells the children stories and won't say whether he's the Son of God. And, even if he isn't, would a technologically-resurrected Jesus be the Son of God anyway, or just his human essence? That question leads to the Arian heresies and so on, so the author decided to leave it up to the reader.

• Prior to the 1800s and the age of rationality, attempting to explain miracles in the context of the developing fields of chemistry (alchemy) or tricks/hoaxes demonstrated to be possible later was carefully avoided, primarily due to the Church's tendency to set people on fire for doing so.
  • Though this is perhaps more on the order of "No such thing as science Jesus".
    • To a degree this is still true. It's alright to point out some bearded man in India is "turning sticks into snakes" by holding his hand over the snake's eyes, which causes them to freeze. It's something else altogether to suggest Moses might have used the same trick.
    • On the same note, there is an aversion with the Egyptian priests from that story. All the Bible has to say on the matter is that they reproduced the trick by "secret arts" (although the snakes produced were weaker and quickly devoured). The traditional interpretation is that they used evil magic, but most modern portrayals present it as them using trickery while Moses (or Aaron in the actual Bible) did it for real.
  • There's also been different views of the issue throughout history. With certain groups like the Jesuits arguing scientific understanding as understanding of God's creation, while others argue it is picking apart at the very notion of God.

Sorry for the huge post, I think I heard folder markup doesn't work on the forums?

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?