Follow TV Tropes
Would you say that the sarcastic tone of the first and third paragraph of We've Got Company is appropriate? If no, any idea how to phrase this differently?
edited 15th Jan '18 3:46:47 PM by eroock
I don't know if it's Word Cruft per se, but it's certainly editorializing, which violates wiki policy. The multiple page quotes also violate policy.
Weird, those two quotes seem to have been there since pre-2012. It can be discussed in the general quotes thread.
Concerning the word cruftiness of the first two paragraphs... yeah that seems inappropriate on one level and okay on another. For example, phrasing like the following could probably be cut: "single most-used" (there could only be one most used), "across the board" (idiom), and "with aplomb" (we get it, they embrassed it). In the second paragraph, the phrase "the phrase can now be" should be revised to be less time-sensitive. That second paragraph may need revising to compensate.
The third paragraph's wording is mostly okay, imo, but the By "No", I Mean "Yes" nature of the third paragraph should be revised, I think.
Also the page looks like someone took a thesaurus to it. "Aplomb," "cadre," "gadabout," "unflappable." These aren't usual words to use. That said, those words on the page seem to originate from pre-2010.
edited 16th Jan '18 7:24:22 AM by WaterBlap
I don't think the tone is sarcastic. It's just a little bit complaining. Calling a trope dumb isn't appropriate. I don't think it's correct to say that the trope doesn't have any meaning anymore just because it's so common. It still shows off the same type of character trait.
Making a note this has been moved to Long-Term/Perpetual since word cruft is one of those evergreen clean-up efforts.
Quick question. Is it word cruft if one lists multiple aversions of a trope before listing straight examples?
For example, there are too many godawful Hate Sink entries to count which follow the "you can't hate x, you can't hate y, but you can hate z" formula. My contention is that this style of formatting is a waste of characters in an entry.
Space that could be spent describing how a character is an asshole, is instead wasted on listing aversions. (I don't know about anyone else here, but if I am reading a Hate Sink entry for a character, I don't think that whatever reason the other characters are disqualified is relevant to why this character in particular is an asshole.)
Edited by SkyCat32 on Nov 27th 2019 at 5:50:01 AM
I hope that rjd1922, ~War Jay 77, ~Willbyr & ~gjjones don't mind if I ask for their input on the above post, seeing as they have been on this site for longer than I have.
Edit: It's 22, not 92. Crap.
Edited by SkyCat32 on Nov 27th 2019 at 6:00:43 AM
I would say that's cruft, yes.
I concur that it's cruft as well.
I think it's OK to describe, for example, why Umbridge is more hateable than Voldemort, but not in the format you described.
Something like, "Dolores Umbridge lacks the charismatic traits of even Lord Voldemort" perhaps?
That's fine; listing aversions is not.
Agreed all around. The editorializing needs to be culled from this definition, and extraneous aversions need to be removed wherever theya are.
This will replace Umbridge's current word-crufty entry at HateSink.Harry Potter
Just bumping to keep this thread alive.
We seriously needs a word cruft clean-up thread for now.
Do exaggerated descriptions (especially on Moments subpages) count as Word Cruft? For example, a Nightmare Fuel entry saying something like "THIS IS THE MOST FUCKING TERRIFYING PANTS-SHITTINGLY THING EVER".
Edited by jandn2014 on Jun 13th 2020 at 12:53:46 PM
I would say so.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?