There's been a lot of talk lately about how Tropes Needing TRS is getting too long and backed-up, as well as about how many of the tropes added might not even need TRS action at all. It was decided we should make a short-term project thread to clean out the page before we take any more drastic actions.
Some potential guidelines for what might need to be removed:
- Tropes added without enough discussion or a prior wick check (does not apply to issues such as Not Thriving)
- Entries that either misunderstand the trope or require more consensus about the trope's usage first
- Things that already have open or finished TRS threads
Note: This thread is specifically about maintaining the TNTRS page itself and the entries on it, not for discussing potential TRS threads. Please use Trope Talk or the TRS Meta Thread
for that.
Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 7th 2024 at 1:47:52 PM
I probably just overlooked that entry while doing the cleanup.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallJust found out the trope I put on Tropes Needing TRS has an asterisk next to it, so I wanna discuss it.
Dismissed Gender is basically a fucking mess. It was created in 2007 so that's probably why. It's a trope about "Concepts and situations in a work that would be problematic or more acceptable if the genders involved were switched around." So, let's see how many issues it has:
- It has non-standard formatting. The fictional examples aren't sorted by medium but are lumped all together.
- It has a "general" examples section which not only violates the Examples Are Not General rule but also lists situations that can go in the description itself.
- It only has 19 wicks for a trope that existed for 10+ years and...
- ...Cross-wicking examples is a problem since the on-page examples are all over the place. Some are about the audience's reaction, some are about a fictional work's pre-release decisions (trivia), and some are just ZCE.
- This trope speculates and is about audience reactions to certain elements, so it should probably be YMMV.
Should it have a separate discussion thread, or discussed here, or be put on the TRS Queue (which I know is getting longer now)?
Per this discussion
on Dismissed Gender, I'll remove it from Tropes Needing TRS to the TRS queue. Just letting y'all know.
I've been helping to dewick The Chick and noticed that a fair number of wicks are incorporated into examples of The Team. To be more precise, several off-page examples of The Team are formatted in supertrope-subtrope format and are low on context, similar to how Five-Man Band was before it went through TRS. The on-page examples are better in the context department, but the majority are still formatted improperly.
Does anyone else have opinions on the matter?
Cave Johnson, we're done here.I feel like most of those are sorta... FMB holdovers that got moved, rather than legit examples of The Team, just as Five Bad Band saw a lot of examples moved wholesale to Five-Man Band. IDRK what to do about them though since deleting them feels a bit excessive (since they're not technically misuse)?
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallCan a trope be sent to TRS merely due to having a Non-Indicative Name?
The trope in question is "Reborn as Villainess" Story. It was launched in December 2021 and described a sub-genre of (mostly) East Asian fiction (originated in Japan, but the page also includes examples from China and South Korea, as well as a few from other countries). The tropability of the concept is not in question and judging the 75 wicks as of the time of writing, there is little to no misuse.
As I noted on its discussion page
, however, there's a problem with the word "reborn" in the title, because while the Trope Codifier involves Media Transmigration of the Next Life as a Fictional Character variety, a significant portion of the more famous works of the genre does not involve any kind of reincarnation or transmigration. I suspect the word "Reborn" might mislead editors about the diameters of the trope, but is it a reason to request TRS? In that case, do I still need a wick check?
If the name is misleading, a check is still required to prove that it is causing misuse.
Would need statistics how many of "Villainess Isekai" are reincarnations and how many aren't.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupOkay, I've been on the Is This An Example thread
trying to figure out what to do with an example of Four-Man Band that seems shoehorned, but which has the added complication of being the trope image (The Real Ghostbusters).
Every example on the trope page is laid out like this:
| Only Sane Man | Winston Zeddmore |
| The Smart Guy | Dr. Egon Spengler |
| The Casanova Wannabe | Dr. Peter Venkman |
| The Butt-Monkey | Dr. Raymond Stantz |
It was pointed out
by ~Amonimus that this renders every entry on the page useless. No-one can tell if any entry is an example, shoehorn or misuse. They suggested it needs a TRS action.
So, what's the best way to proceed here? I haven't added it to the Tropes Needing TRS page because I don't know if a wick check is needed, and what to check for if one is done. So, any advice how to proceed with this one would be gratefully appreciated.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
I might be wrong though I think those context-lacking Five-Man Band examples are supposed to be cut.
![]()
My advice is to leave it alone until TRS gets it, 'cause Amominus is correct— the ZCE table format is not helpful. If it turns out the only action the discussion decides on is to eliminate the tables and crosswick, then it's fine to proceed with cleaning up.
Or
For this individual example, it appears each member has one of the tropes listed in his section of the character sheet, so if you want to, you can assemble a Four-Man Band entry for the work page. If TRS redefines or rids Four-Man Band, the effort would be for nothing.
Edited by Tabs on Jan 18th 2023 at 1:34:37 AM
![]()
![]()
Have you considered a minimal solution of asking Image Picking to pick a new page image?
I mean, it needs TRS regardless, the image is just an extra thing.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSo, there was a brief discussion
on Significant Sketchbook's definition + scope, but it stalled. I've found some problems with this trope.
- The description is somewhat unclear. To reiterate, it has two completely different concepts merged into one trope: "a character's sketchbook adds a hidden dimension to them and makes them bond w/ another character" + "a sketchbook, in general, has significance in various ways; it's a MacGuffin, includes a hidden detail, etc."
- The trope isn't listed on the Plot Device index, and Bookish Tropes describes only the 1st concept. note Meaning, the trope leans more toward the 1st concept and the 2nd concept is not relevant/outside the trope's scope. Also, there's no other brief description of the trope to go by other than the one on Bookish Tropes.
- I quickly examined the wicks, and most examples are either ZCEs or more about the 2nd concept with only 4 examples or so about the 1st concept. So the trope might need a rewrite as the 1st concept is too narrow.
Should I take it to TRS for being unclear/all over the place, and does it need a wick check?
Uncanny Valley Hot Babes in Your Area Are Looking To Know YOU! Click Here to Sign Up for FREE! | Not quite back tbh. Don't expect much.![]()
Yes, it needs a wick check and, after you have that, it seems appropriate to bring it to the TRS.
Needs Help works as a catchall if you aren't sure about its category.
I'd go with unclear description as that seems to be the root of the problems, but it's up to you.
Trailblazer of old tropes. (She/her)I think Most Common Super Power might need a rename, as anyone not familiar with female superheroes could very well mistake it for practically any comic book superhero's signature power.

So, per a recent PM conversation with another troper, It Makes Sense in Context and Makes Just as Much Sense in Context don't have an asterisk despite being tropes that, if they are indeed pothole magnets, would likely need a wick check. Is this intentional, or an oversight?
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall