TV Tropes meta thread

I always found it weird that Kraken and Leviathan is one trope, because they don't have much in common besides being Big Scary Sea Monsters. Leviathan's counterpart, Behemoth, doesn't seem to have a trope.

Behemoth might already be covered by another trope since its a name that pops up fairly frequently

There are tropes such as Behemoth Battle and Tiny-Headed Behemoth, but both of them use it to mean Big Scary Monster.

I would think Sea Monster would be a redirect to Kraken and Leviathan because the latter sounds kind of like it could be a broader sea monster trope (since some trope names make the tropes sound narrower than they actually are), but I checked and the former is actually a separate trope with the latter being a subtrope.

Sea Monster being a Super-Trope is logical to me as it's obviously broader. I'd rather consider wick checking Kraken and Leviathan because it's actually not about krakens or leviathans, and isn't doing what Sea Monster doesn't.

I agree that it's logical now that I've seen the pages instead of just seeing the names mentioned in this thread. I'm not sure why, but I just initially expected Kraken and Leviathan to be a counterintuitively named trope about sea monsters in general instead of being a subtrope to a separate Sea Monster trope (rather than the latter being a redirect to the former).

Edit: Huh, I just looked at the pages again and they were both made on the same day (June 5, 2010).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Feb 10th 2024 at 10:18:31 AM

I just thought of another example of our new trope, Accidental Good Outcome.

In It's Magic, Charlie Brown, thanks to Snoopy accidentally turning him invisible, Charlie Brown was finally able to kick the football, and then he rubbed his long-awaited victory in Lucy's face.

So Snoopy is the superhero we both need AND deserve. ;)

He most certainly is.

I recently had a memory of an old interaction I had on TVTropes years ago. I think it was on some page that has been long cut, like Wall Banger.

It was when Conversation on the Main Page was still allowed in some form or another. Someone was complaining about a show getting a fact wrong, and I had to correct them because I thought it wasn't wrong^note It was about Jimmy Neutron stating that Australia is not a continent, and I answered "that's right, the continent's name is Oceania" - as far as I know, I think it's some kind of Values Dissonance where Americans consider Oceania the geographical region Australia is part of while Europeans consider it a continent whose biggest country is Australia.

Instead of correcting me, they just potholed my entire subbullet to What An Idiot.

Kind of uncalled for, especially considering you were right.

TFW you delete an entry you've accidentally duplicated after having to copy-paste when the lock expired, but get notified anyway 😭

I see Sandbox.Title Goes Here was created today then cutlisted.

Edited by Amonimus on Feb 15th 2024 at 7:36:10 PM

There's a part of me that wishes every possible "Title Goes Here" page was pre-emptively locked

Until the day someone tries to make a page for a real work with that name. Lol

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 15th 2024 at 11:45:56 AM

PHEAR: https://www.amazon.com/Title-Goes-Here-Harvey-Stanbrough-ebook/dp/B00RNM65MA

https://www.freejazzblog.org/2016/03/evan-parker-amm-title-goes-here-otoruko.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Album_Title_Goes_Here

Edited by Malady on Feb 15th 2024 at 9:12:43 AM

Lol, yeah those pages would be the exception. But they'd probably need to be disambiguated if they were all made, so it wouldn't actually affect Title Goes Here much.

It bothers me personally when examples aren't alphabetized, but is that something worth going into a page to fix? For example, on the Literature.Literal Minded page: Why the fuck are the Animorphs examples halfway down the page? The rest of the page is ordered alphabetically by work title, but there are a few glaring examples that can't be ignored. Is that something that's worth fixing?

For works alphabetization is mandatory. For tropes I'm still a strong advocate of this cleanup.

Anyone is free to alphabetize trope pages if they would like to, but yeah it isn't mandatory.

Interestingly, today I found an example that alphabetized Nintendo's consoles. I think for that case, a chronological order works better, especially since they were sub-bullets instead of standalone examples.

Edited by FernandoLemon on Feb 15th 2024 at 6:37:34 AM

I also prefer chronological order with consoles. That, and since a decent amount of Nintendo's consoles have the company's name in their full official names (the exceptions that come to mind are the Wii, the Wii U, and the Game Boy line), you'd be alphabetizing under N a lot of the time with alphabetical order.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Feb 16th 2024 at 9:21:47 AM

Is it possible for a the "Related pages" inbound count to fail? I'm looking at 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure's inbounds and apparently there are 0, despite its subpages having 100 (more or less) inbounds.

Query Bugs

That or there's just genuinely no inbound links. Its not completely impossible, just very unlikely

I've been browsing the Related pages, and it seems that no matter how obscure the work, it does have inbounds (sometimes an amount of them I have no idea where'd they be coming from), so I kinda think it must be a bug.

Edited by rasterax on Feb 16th 2024 at 9:23:05 PM

You can tell a lot about a troper's YouTube feed by the types of videos they post in the "Tropefy the above video" and "Crappy Video Examples" threads.

Just noticed that Seinfeldian Conversation has a visible creation date of April 28th, 2007, making it the only date I've seen that predates June 14th, 2007 (when creation dates began to be tracked). Why is this?

What makes this even more odd is that the page has been around since at least January 9th, 2007.