Allowing Zero Content Examples on character pages

After a quick wick check revealed Action Girl attracts ZCEs like honey draws flies, I have begun the most epic TRS thread ever. (I'm not joking; this is one of the Tropes of Legend, with 10k+ wicks to handle.)

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

Well, atleast my banishment had some good come out of it.

How would Elemental powers fit in here though? Seriously, explaining how someone has an elemental power, when it doesn't describe anything about them personality wise, seems like a moot function, other than simply explaining how those powers work for some series, but in games, where the power is usually relegated to one move, it becomes even more of a problem, as for example, Elizabeth from Persona 4 Arena already has all the description we can put on without outright describing the actual moves.

edited 15th Aug '14 4:12:09 PM by serialkillerwhale

@KJ Mackley

Badass is a bad example to use. On its page you can see this line:

And on Administrivia.Example Indentation Intrope Lists Badass is used as an example what not to do (not going to quote it here). Based on these two things if multiple Badass subtropes apply you don't need to add Badass and thus you can avoid the whole "look at all the other badass tropes on his character sheet" problem.

I much prefer that description over no description at all. You could also mention in what ways he expresses his grumpiness.

Action Girl and Badass tropes are, when you consider all the misuse, those I think are completely broken without description, since they're basically just gushing and adding a tag to characters you like.

Check out my fanfiction!

@ serialkillerwhale

I would say they don't, at least not in the way you were using them on Persona 4 Arena. To take an example, Wind Is Green applies to the work as a whole, so you trying to put it on the page is shoehorning a work trope into a character one. It also is completely and utterly worthless; what relevance does that have to the character? Why is it noteworthy that Wind Is Green for her? Is wind not green for everybody else? Why is this a subullet when we already know she can control elements because it's listed under "Elemental Powers?"

The best way to handle it would be something like this:

• Elemental Powers: Elizabeth naturally uses all four Persona elements (Fire, Ice, Wind, Electricity) in her fighting style.

Simple, short and to the point.

edited 15th Aug '14 6:19:11 PM by Shaoken

Hmm, interesting take. Would have been better, but that forgets nonelemental/almighty, light and dark/

What's there to tell for Action Girl? How about who she fights and how she wins?

We often and easily forget how much tropes depend on context. Establish that she is an able combatant by recounting at least one example where she fights, or if fighting is her career; further, show that this is atypical of females in the work or in the franchise to which the work belongs.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

No matter how it gets sliced you need context. Many of those who want them to be allowed seem to keep forgetting a fundamental aspect of writing anything on tv tropes. When you write examples, tropes, works, anything, you are supposed to write it as if you are writing it for someone who does not know the work or the details behind the tropes. That would mean there should never be any zero context examples ever.

Who watches the watchmen?

I haven't read all of this discusion, but to cut in without context, I agree that most things work better with context. However I do think there's certain tropes or certain exampes of tropes where little more context can be added.

Take Badass Longcoat for example. Some of the examples have context that is valid (i.e. Bob got his longcoat from his father and wears it while fighting demons) but most of the examples are pure filler (i.e. Joe wears a black longcoat with gold buttons.) That example gives us no more info on the trope than just "Joe wears a Llongcoat, unless the gold buttons are somehow relevant. But since there are a few tropes that are so self explanatory or some examples that follow the simplest example of the trope so obviously, I don't see the need to give extra context to everything.

Actually it can sometimes make it hard to find the interesting examples, the ones that are actually played with, when every example needs context. But sure, some tropes could use context.

With Badass Longcoat we have a problem with tropers using it to say "Badass who happens to wear a longcoat"; the trope is more of a badass indicator, so it should explain how the longcoat indicates badassery.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

But I'm not really sure how you would do that. After all, pretty much every example would boil down to: Bob is shown as a badass when his coat flows dramatically in the wind and/or shows his shadowy attitude. It's used so similarly in every that any attempt to explain context will almost always just be the inclusion extraneous information which doesn't explain the actual trope any better than just "Bob wears a long coat. "

Same with, say, Lying Finger Cross or Chair Reveal. They are rarely played with our used in any way other than the obvious, so pEople add random kinda - related information about when it happens and who does it, but not why. In cases, those trope are self explanatory

Just my two sense. Most tropes aren't that clear cut, of course

Lying Finger Cross is very easy to add context to. What lie?

Chair Reveal is mostly about when and in what situation it happens, and who it's revealed to.

Check out my fanfiction!

For Badass Longcoat I'd put what's happening when he's in that longcoat and maybe where it came from. Is he fighting or going to fight? Does he hide weapons under there? Does it blow in the wind? Did he get it by killing the previous owner or something? Does it give him an attitude that others respect? None of the examples have all of these.

None of the Badass Longcoat examples need all of those things. But every examples needs at least one of them. Sometimes the Badassness comes from how the character got it but none of the other characters pay any attention to it. Sometimes it's how the coat looks and is described, but how he got it is never mentioned.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.