Murderous Mannequin & Golem

I've been working on Living Statue for the past few weeks (it's a big update; a request for community review is likely to follow sometime this week). I'm at the point I find further improvement difficult due to organizational matters, so those need to be addressed. There's many, but the following two should clear up much if dealt with.

Murderous Mannequin:

• Too narrow a trope, imo. We don't have anything for living mannequins in general and as a result there's some tortured entries on Murderous Mannequin to address the "murderous" part and some entries on non-murderous mannequins on Living Statue that I can't move as they are (though some I've cut over to a work document).
• My proposal would be to rearrange Murderous Mannequin like Scary Scarecrows (good and evil are separate example sets) and to rename Murderous Mannequin. "Murderous" is intent, "scary" is interpretation, so "scary" doesn't contradict non-evil scarecrows the way "murderous" contradicts non-evil mannequins. I suggest "mindful" or "mysterious" to maintain the alliteration.
• Murderous Mannequin seems to be treated as something of a general "animated human (or animal) body stand-in" trope. I've removed a few wax statue entries, there's an animated armor entry, and a few others are similarly technically not a mannequin. Would anyone object to properly turning it into a super-trope (with Animated Armor, Eerie Anatomy Model, and Scary Scarecrows as sub-tropes)? It would take some of the pressure off Living Statue.

Golem:

At present, the Golem description is incoherent, repetitive, and does a bad job at explaining things. (I needed multiple visits before I finally understood that in modern fantasy the term "golem" is used for "artificial pseudo-elemental" in general. Most content in the description of Golem does not apply to fantasy golems.) Rewriting it would be easy enough, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think classical golems should be split off. They have about as much to do with fantasy golems as Frankenstein's monster does and that creature has its own page too. And I suspect the presence of classical golems discourages from adding undefined fantasy ones. I'm fine with doing the work, but I'm not willing to invest in a TLP that might go nowhere, so I'm looking for thoughts beforehand. (This relates to Living Statue in the sense that explaining the difference between one and a golem only is needed for fantasy golems and the page presence of classical golems complicates this.)

Thanks in advance.

Edited by Pfff133 on Jan 19th 2020 at 11:05:08 AM

Let me complicate matters with related tropes

• Creepy Doll
• Flesh Golem
• Living Statue
• Perverse Puppet
• Rock Monster

We can never truly eradicate the coronavirus, but we can suppress its threat like influenza

Argh, don't get me started! I'm trying to keep focus on a small area where I can maybe make a difference, but I do feel that the pages for and relating to "living [something] monsters" are due for a large scale cleanup.

Rock Monster is a must-have to cover things like TLOZ's gorons and the Never-Ending Story's rockbiter, but imo shouldn't cover golems, elementals, or statues. Flesh Golem and (the inadvisably named) Snowlems are worthwhile in theory, but they cover creatures that'd never be covered on Golem, so that just muddles the term "golem". And the fact Chucky has entries on Perverse Puppet, Creepy Doll, and Living Toys illustrates that that corner isn't glowing either.

Oh, and there's Demonic Dummy as well

We can never truly eradicate the coronavirus, but we can suppress its threat like influenza

And there Chucky is again. Great. Simulacrum coverage on here is a joke. At a glance, I'd say the best course of action is to fuse demonic dummy and perverse puppet into one page dedicated to living non/pseudo-toy dolls (ventriloquist dummies, hand puppets, marionettes, that kind of thing) regardless of alignment. I'm not sure whether Creepy Dolls then should stay as it is (presuming it's a significant subtrope of living toys) or be for dolls that are used to unsettle but that aren't alive.

Anyway, step by step here. If anyone could chime in and give their view on my proposals/questionsm, that'd be great.

I like the idea of broadening the "mannequin" trope to include examples that are non-murderous, but that still aim to be scary in some way.

Regarding the use of the "mannequin" trope to handle non-mannequin humanoid figures, I'm not sure that it's misuse, myself. Figures like wax statues can take on very similar roles, and be used in very similar ways to mannequins, and thus by Tropes Are Flexible there may be an argument for at least some examples to fall under the "mannequin" trope.

I do think that it would make sense to have a super-trope to creepy mannequins, eerie anatomy dolls, animated armours, and so on; they have a fair bit in common, I feel.

Regarding elementals and rock-monsters, I would argue that an Earth/Stone/Rock elemental could well be a Rock Monster in form. (Indeed, the trope page for "Rock Monster" even links to the Elemental Embodiment page, I believe.)

I may be mistaken, but my impression is that it's less "pseudo-elemental" than "fantasy robot", but often extrapolating the original's construction material into other, sometimes more-fantastic substances.
(In D&D, a term sometimes used in place of "golem" is "construct", if I'm not much mistaken.)
As to splitting the golem article... I think that doing so could work. The classical golem is a big part of the origin of the fantasy golem, I do think, and thus I'd want mention of it on the page. However, it's also by now distinct enough that a traditional golem is a thing quite different from a fantasy golem.
I might analogise with tabletop RP Gs: they were born from tabletop strategy games, as I recall, but it wouldn't make much sense to have a single article covering both.
It's just that in this case, alas, the same word is often used for both types. :/

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jan 21st 2020 at 4:23:40 PM

My Games & Writing

I think Demonic Dummy and Creepy Doll have merit as depictions of specific toys and are valid individual tropes, but I always have trouble remembering what Perverse Puppet is really meant for, and don't see it used often. That's the one I'd take aim at. At the very least, I'd rename it to make it clear that it's about haunted/possessed toys rather than just unnerving ones.

For the mannequin trope, I think "Macabre Mannequin" would work well as a more neutral name.

Edited by 8BrickMario on Jan 22nd 2020 at 9:01:32 AM

The modern fantasy golem often has the elemental look, though. Look at Rock Golem◊ from Warcraft 3, for example.

And then there are "flesh golems" in some stories that are pretty much Frankenstein's Monster.

Edited by Snicka on Jan 25th 2020 at 10:31:48 AM

True, but often enough it doesn't. See for example these D&D golems: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Iron_golem
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Sand_golem
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Stone_golem
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Adamantine_golem

Moving away from D&D, Magic the Gathering seems to have a number of robot-like golems:
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=+[golem]
(The forum doesn't like those square brackets, and the pictures are small, I'm afraid. However, some of the images are clear enough that a robot-like appearance is visible, I feel.)

And in the cases in which they do resemble elementals, I suspect that this more reflects that depictions of two creatures of the same composition may sometimes be similar, even if the creatures are narratively different.

That is, an Earth elemental conceived as being composed of rocks and a stone golem conceived as being composed of rocks may sometimes be depicted similarly, since they're both in the end composed of rocks.

And naturally, it's entirely plausible that depictions of elementals have influenced depictions of golems, without the latter being intended as related to the former.

Also, see this Wikipedia article on D&D "constructs": [1]

Note in particular the second paragraph, which looks to take direct inspiration from the lore of traditional golems in noting golems as being often extremely literal-minded in obeying orders. Furthermore, it refers to constructs as "mindless automatons"—which is a pretty good description of a "robot", I argue.

(The "Forgotten Realms" wiki has a similar description: [2] )

Of course, that's just one franchise, and not all such constructs exactly fit that mould—but it is a fairly large and influential franchise, and an example of the modern fantasy golem as often being essentially a "magical robot".

Overall, it seems to me that the central narrative thread of fantasy golems is: "magically-/supernaturally- constructed servant/warrior/automaton"—i.e. a fantasy robot.

My Games & Writing

I've started up drafting new descriptions for a potential golem split, so hopefully I can TLP that in two weeks or so. Just for the record, I find "fantasy/magic robot" a good explanation and it's going into the new description, but it didn't make things click for me. This is because robots have such a vast range of roles and many robots in fiction technically are fantasy/magic to begin with. Of course, "pseudo-elemental" isn't sufficient either because elementals are always pure while golems can contain multiple origin materials and not all iterations of fantasy golems have a particular affinity with their material, but that's the explanation that made things click for me. (I'm not sure about the look thing, though. I've never associated elementals with a particular look and those four D&D links don't strike me as not-elemental looking.)

Point taken on elementals as rock monsters.

As for the whole mannequin thing:

1. Wax statues are on my radar as a potential separate page. This is firstly because they walk a fine line between statue and mannequin, so a separate page will avoid confusion. But also, wax statues have a distinct use as something of a clone in many works they show up in.
2. If "mannequin" won't do as a supertrope, then what term would do? "Construct" is likely going to be the collective term for an index or a page similar to The Undead, so that won't do.
3. Macabre Mannequin is noted as a potential name when I get around proposing specific changes to the page.

I'm not sure that the roles of fantasy golems are that different from those of sci-fi robots: artificial helpers, servants, or warriors, intended to to mindlessly follow the orders of their creators. Sometimes they go rogue, or carry out their orders in so mindless a way that it runs counter to the intent of their creators.

(That said, I will note that I may not be sufficiently read on the matter; perhaps there are a great many stories in which they're used very differently.)

I think that my objection to "pseudo-elemental" is less the above, and more that elementals are narratively different: they are, I think, generally independent entities (as opposed to constructed ones), with minds of their own, that may be encountered in their element or summoned to do the bidding of a magic-user.

In that last they're more akin to spirits than fantasy golems, I feel. (When they're not in fact a class of spirit.)

That's fair. Although to my eye the metallic ones do look awfully robot-like.

But narratively speaking, how do animate statues, wax-figures, and mannequins differ? I feel like they're fairly similar—the only difference that occurs to me offhand is likely environments and the idea that a wax-figure or statue may once have been a living person.

But at their core, you have something that looks oh-so-human, so human that you could almost see it moving... Was it in that position when I glanced away...?

Dolls, for contrast, have the implications of childhood, beauty, and safety, undermined by being able to act when they should be inert.

I'm concerned that, by splitting wax-figures, statues, and mannequins, we might fall into The Same, but More Specific—that, at least, is how the distinction between them feels to me.

Forgive me, I think that I've lost track of that part of the discussion. What would this be a super-trope to, and what were we saying about it...? ^^;;

If we're willing to give up the alliteration, perhaps another suggestion might be "Disquieting Mannequins"?

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jan 29th 2020 at 1:47:57 PM

My Games & Writing

I hope I do not offend in that I don't respond to the matter of golem definitions here further. As I'm trying to write descriptions for a potential split now, I think it's more efficient to discuss it at a future TLP.

As for which simulacrums should have their own pages and which not, that can do with more discussion here.

The answer to if there's any difference depends on how much the differences there are are valued. Like, living statues has a lot of hidden potential subtropes because there are many types of statues. Busts have a strong affinity for horror settings as "that thing on the mantelpiece", Ninomiya statues and pauper statues are likely to be harmless, Kali statues are swimming in racism, caryatids and other build-in statues are half-genius loci, etc. These are differences, but not enough to justify splitting pretty much for the single reason that there's too few examples to justify a separate page. Context goes lost with that (I've cut out a lot to keep the description fit for general reading), but so be it.

At top level simulacrums can be split in two categories: truly artificial constructs (golems, scarecrows, figureheads, etc) and demi-biological creatures (homunculi, mandrake roots, clones, etc). Aside from that I think no one would "feel" it to be right to have one page to dump snowmen, voodoo dolls, Terracotta armies, and much more alike, it's just also not recommendable for readability or informativeness.

TVT already has plenty of splits (in the case of dummies & dolls, maybe one too plenty). Looking at living statues, which is sizable as is and still not anywhere near complete even when I've deliberately not added topiary (overlap with plant person), fountains (overlap with magical fountains), grave goods (overlap with golems, dolls, and "mannequins"), and wax statues (overlap with mannequins), nothing is won by forcing them in over handing them their own subtrope pages. I'm thinking that a simulacrum/construct index could look something like this (trope names & relations not definitive):

• Animated Tattoo
• Crafted Grave Companions
• Demonic Dummy
• Frankensteins Monster
• Golem
  • Flesh Golem
  • True Golem
• Living Drawing
• Living Statue
  • Eenie Meenie Miny Moai
  • Extraordinary Topiary
  • Living Figurehead
  • Living Fountain
  • Our Gargoyles Rock
  • Snowlems
  • Wax Statues
• Living Toys
  • Creepy Doll
• Magical Mandrake
• Murderous Mannequin
  • Animated Armor
  • Eerie Anatomy Model
  • Living Training Dummy
  • Scary Scarecrow
• Our Clones Are Identical
• Our Homunculi Are Different
• Plebs Pro Toto (living objects that are alive as far as the presence of bio form goes. Say, the difference between a cuckoo clock being alive and only the cuckoo inside being alive.)
• Robot
  • Clockwork Creature
  • Hologram
• Voodoo Doll

Still leaves questions where to stash creatures like the shitennou from Flint the Time Detective (roses turned into mons without any plant affiliation), the cast of Creepy Crawlers (goo golems?), and several others, but this would cover most and, I think, set a working starting point for future developments.

And lastly to answer your immediate question: here's some minimal definitions. The living statue trope and subtropes have an artistic component. The mannequin trope and subtropes are about an bio-looking object taking the place of a body in a job that doesn't require movement (scarecrows scare away birds so a human doesn't have to, training dummies take a beating so a human doesn't have to, mannequins show off clothes so a human doesn't have to, etc.). And wax statues fit both categories, so instead of making things confusing for editors they're best of on their own page. Examples enough to justify it. And like I said, unlike the two supertropes wax statues have a tendency to be depicted less as statues and more as the people they are designed after (without them being haunted!). Only thing that should be noted is that living candles in bio form are technically statues of wax, but those ought to go under Plebs Pro Toto.

You listed Animated Tattoo there. I don't think it's "thematic" enough with the rest of the listed tropes.

We can never truly eradicate the coronavirus, but we can suppress its threat like influenza

I'm still unsure on that and similar "body derived" created creatures, like living shadow and living reflection. But it is something to keep in mind until an index description is penned down and any arguments for or against have taken shape. Fact is that simulacrums/constructs as a creature category are a fairly recent invention and its exact range is new terrain.

I would argue that, with the exception of the artistic element (which might just be represented as a crossover between the "animate statue" trope and Art Initiates Life), those describe their functions, not their narrative purposes.

That is, it seems to me that the place that an animate statue takes in a story is very similar to the place that a mannequin takes in a story: the inert thing that looks so close to a full human, and that, anomalously, moves.

(Busts I might consider as separate, but the two types of statuary do shade into each other in their uses, I fear.)

Hmm... In this case, are we talking about the fantasy sort, which I'd argue has more in common with fantasy golems, or the horror sort, which I'd think has most in common with animated statues?

That's fair (as long as it doesn't affect how these tropes are arranged, of course), and no offence is taken. ^_^

I think that it's worth observing that a given representation can be composed of more than one trope. For example, you yourself pointed out that figures built into a place might overlap with the Genius Loci trope. That doesn't, I argue, mean that they form a distinct trope all their own—merely that there are two tropes at work in such depictions.

I might suggest a partial index (leaving out a lot for the moment, just because I don't want to type the whole thing out right now) something like this:

• Animate Inanimate
  • Art Initiates Life
    • Animate Tattoo
  • Traditional Golem
  • Fantasy Golem
  • Living Statue (which would include mannequins in the main trope, not the sub-tropes below)
    • Eerie Anatomy Model
    • Living Fountain
    • Our Gargoyles Rock
    • etc.
  • Living Toys
    • Creepy Doll
    • Demonic Dummy
  • Robot
  • etc.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Feb 2nd 2020 at 8:24:05 PM

My Games & Writing

Pinging ~War Jay 77 , ~Arctimon , ~naturalironist , ~MacronNotes , ~Alice Macher , and ~alnair20aug93 .^note Explicitly not pinging that other person because their presence won't be conductive to a solution.

Also pinging ~Theriocephalus , ~El Buen Cuate , and ~IúkaSylvie .

You've all shown interest in the (Kabbalic) Golem situation, so I take it you all want to discuss along how to proceed from here. Please do view my numbered breakdown over here before participating so we all know where we stand.

For ease of access, here's the TLP and here's the ATT.

And now to summarize my view/vision on (Kabbalic) Golem. Simulacrums are by far my favorite type of monster and because of that I'd like to improve coverage of them on tvt. I hope this won't be taken as an attack on tvt or any previous editors, but the best I can say about simulacrum coverage at present is that it's bad. The situation with living dolls is the most telling, but the fact that there's literally four definitions of golem (Kabbalic, fantasy, simulacrum, and monster) in use without distinction and with liberal application (why are we calling Pinocchio and Smurfette golems?) isn't great either. There's no mandrake article, Voodoo Doll is ambiguous whether non-Voodoo curse dolls can be included, Gargoyles covers living statues, organic "originals", and non-living architecture, Murderous Mannequins hasn't really got a reason to be evil-only since a living mannequin is trope enough, Animated Tattoo could use an improvement drive, there's a pretty big need for a non-categorizable simulacrum trope (right now Golem is the simulacrum junkyard) not to mention a category page (both of which I was working on, btw), and many examples and wicks haven't been updated since a better trope became available.

What I'm trying to say is, for the sake of discussion, that I'm not looking at this as just golem concerns. I'm looking at this as simulacrum concerns. Splitting off Kabbalic Golem from Golem (and maybe one day giving the Golem of Prague its own page) gives me a tool to improve references and associations on other (simulacrum) pages. At this point, I cannot with absolute certainty say that every step I (intend to) take is one in the right direction, because I'll need to do and then see where I bump into issues, but I do think I have a reasonably functional mental map for what would work.

The Golem description pre-split off was incoherent at best. It said much but explained nothing about the Kabbalic golem, and fantasy golems, despite being half or so of the examples, got one paragraph to them. For Kabbalic Golem, I expanded (and corrected) the relevant parts, and that's also what I did for Golem thereafter. Why I chose to split off Kabbalic Golem and not Golem is simple: much like Zombie has overtaken Voodoo Zombie, so too is the fantasy Golem leading in the last 40-30 years compared to the Kabbalic Golem. Also the fantasy Golem is a product of putting four "myths" together, so technically it is a higher level definition than Kabbalic Golem.

Now let the discussion (re)commence.

Edited by Pfff133 on May 2nd 2020 at 6:03:42 AM

I've no problem at all with there being a separate trope entry from the main "Golem" one. All I wish to point out is that "Kabbalic" is not a word. Neither in English, nor in any other language. The word you're looking for is "Kabbalistic."

Given that TV Tropes standards include proper English spelling and grammar, and that any errors in English be corrected, I therefore suggest once again that the trope page be renamed "Kabbalistic Golem," even if it requires a relaunch of the page. Many thanks!

IMPORTANT ADDITION to the discussion: the split-off trope's name. Mea Culpa for forgetting to add that before and my thanks to Alice for bringing it up.

As I said on the tlp: Title is up for debate. I understand that golems predate Kabbalah, but it was the best title I could think of. True Golem, while a neat pun imo, might agitate people. Traditional or Classical Golem might make people think only golems that actually are traditional (rather than take from tradition) should go here. And Mystic Golem sounds too vague.

My own choice to tlp the trope as Kabbalic Golem was that, if nothing else, it had something predictable to it in regards to the (Voodoo) Zombie split.

And as for "Kabbalic" specifically... it really is a word. Wiktionary has it (note the quotations). I acknowledge the assertion that "Kabbalistic" is used more, but that includes usage that specifically is about practioners/followers of Kabbalah instead of the mysticism itself (I'm not sure how to say that better). There are also other spellings, like "cabalistic", which I didn't go with because "Kabbali(sti)c" matches better with Kabbalah (and thus might improve association-readability). I'm not against using "Kabbalistic" instead, but I've kinda done a lot of reading into golem stuff and I would like an argument of equal weight to go with "Kabbalistic".

Regarding the name, kabbalic is not in Merriam-Webster's but kabbalistic is.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

I'm only here for the dewicking process, as I do with unlaunched tropes.

I never saw the behind-the-scenes of this; all I know is the surface of it, and the trope only caught my attention after it was unlaunched. I also apologize if failed to notice and if I failed to contact you of what was wrong.

Fortunately, the Wayback Machine preserved some snapshots of some of your work. Although it's from the first week of it's launching, it's better than nothing.

• April 13 archive
• April 17 archive

I do think that "kabbalistic" is more common, and it sounded better. I don't even know what "kabbalic" means.

Edited by alnair20aug93 on May 3rd 2020 at 1:51:39 AM

ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔|I DO COMMISSIONS|ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔

Noted, I will not insist on your further participation. And thanks for the links, you're the first of the bunch that actually reaches out to me and actively helps out. I appreciate that.

Though just two questions:

• In regards to de-wicking, have you already done so for Kabbalic Golem or do you still plan to do so? Depending on your actions, I might like to save the current Related first so I won't have to re-search when (since it looks to be a when issue and not an if) this gets relaunched.
• When you say you "don't even know what "kabbalic" means," what do you mean by that?

Edited by Pfff133 on May 2nd 2020 at 11:41:33 AM

No problem.

• I plan to dewick them; It's almost 4 AM where I'm from as of this writing, and it's past my bedtime. In the case of some unlaunched tropes that needs a rename (provided they're not rogue launched tropes), I sometimes comment the wicks out from the indexes rather than fully deleting them, though that depends on how zealous I am regarding dewicking. Sometimes I just comment them out until heyre relaunched or discarded, other times I dewick them entirely off the face of the wiki. In your case, I plan on commenting them out.
• This is the one of the few times I have heard of "kabbalic". I know more of "kabbalistic" really.

Edited by alnair20aug93 on May 3rd 2020 at 3:55:57 AM

ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔|I DO COMMISSIONS|ᜇᜎᜈ᜔ᜇᜈ᜔

Okay, well, to put my two cents into this...

I'm not entirely familiar with the background of this discussion so I won't try to get too involved into it. I will say that completely restructuring a page's description is a very... big... thing to do, so I can see why doing it without extensive involvement by other tropers might ruffle feathers.

Anyway. Regarding the potential trope itself, I'm going to want to have a proper look through the relevant pages myself at some point, but I can see why some more precise definitions and subtropes seem to be needed.

• Golem is, indeed, an extremely broad trope as things stand now. It seems to cover more or less any form of fantasy automata — living statues, magical robots, even living homunculi if Smurfette is listed there — which can easily lead to focus issues in the trope itself and its examples.
• Modern fantasy golems do, in my experience, share a number of traits that can easily form the core of a trope. I'm not sure how much or how little the current Golem trope emphasizes that, but as far as I can tell:
  • They're usually built to be strong, loyal and tireless workers; the fantasy equivalent of working robots. They usually look like large versions of whichever species made them.
  • They tend to be mindless, or at least severely unimaginative — they're unable to interpret orders beyond the most literal meanings, they repeat tasks indefinitely unless told to stop and often carry on orders long after they become irrelevant, they cannot be reasoned with, intimidated or bribed, they may even be immune to mind control on account of not having minds to begin with. This may be used to set up stories about one trying to Become a Real Boy. Off the top of my head, Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, Warhammer, Warcraft and Fablehaven all interpret golems along these general lines.
  • They can made of almost any material, although stone, earth and metal are the most common, which can be used to modify their toughness (clay->stone->steel->fantasy metal golems as increasingly tough variants, for instance, or glass or crystal golems as literal glass cannons), give them extra abilities (lead golems that give of toxic dust, say, or uranium golems with radioactive auras) or associate them with specific factions' themes (wood golems for nature-dwelling groups, flesh golems for less than scrupulous ones, etc.) Basically, if there's a material that has a useful property you can make a golem out of it that also has that property.
• This could serve as the core of a stricter definition for a generalized golem trope.
• Classical mythological golems are, as had been said, fairly distinct from what fantasy golems have become — if I recall correctly, the archetypal Golem of Prague was fairly intelligent and self-aware, was animated by a word written on its forehead in a way modern golems almost never are, and existed to be an active defender of its community instead of a mindless worker. Golems with these characteristics still pop up in fiction, and this type seems to me to be distinct and common enough to make for a well-rounded trope of its own.

My impression is that a good course of action would be to use Golem as a the overall supertrope for mythical and fantasy robot equivalents, and organize more specific variants of that theme (like classical golems, Flesh Golem or Improvised Golems) as subtropes. The question would be how much to narrow down what Golem currently is.

Edited by Theriocephalus on May 2nd 2020 at 4:45:51 AM

So I didn't want to post here until the situation seemed to have cooled down a little, and also so I can collect my thoughts better.

My biggest issue concerning the description change was how little discussion there was regarding it. Now I did see this thread before the changes were made, but not many Trope Talk threads actually result in changes happening to the trope, so I didn't feel compelled to speak up before. It was only afterward that it became a bit of an issue.

Actually, it was brought to my attention first thanks to an ATT thread started by ~Water Blap, so I'll invite them as well to share their own thoughts on the matter.

However, I don't necessarily think the split is a bad idea. I just feel like more people should've been involved first- maybe even TRS.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I did see the thread but didn't think Kabbalic Golem was going to be sent to the TLP and that Golem since major things like that don't usually happen in trope talk.

I didn't think Kabbalic Golem really needed to be split from Golem at first but I am pretty neutral about it and I don't really have any useful to say about the split.

Macron's notes