Misused: Ambiguous Situation

Turning this into a Super-Trope seems like a good idea to me.

Posting this comment to make public that I voted in favor of "Turn into a Super-Trope to select several other 'Ambiguous' and 'Unclear' tropes that more fit the current use, similar to Hate Sink, requiring to move examples to subtropes that fit". I didn't upvote or downvote any of the other options.

I started this thread because of the trope's fuzzy definition that invited speculative troping. What does "turning this into a supertrope" achieve in this regard?

1. Turning this into a super trope will reduce redundant entries (meaning invalid examples can be struck down in a one-and-done) and generally make the trope easier to monitor 2. Even if the first point didn't matter, if we're cleaning this trope up anyway, we might as well make the change now so long as we agree it's a good one

for supertroping.

Okay, so now that it's a super trope, what do we do with examples that don't fit a sub-trope?

They stay, unless they're just outright misuse or ZCE.

Working on listing out subtropes and contrasts, overall cleaning up the heading to guide cleanup.

Would it be misuse to add this to Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted?

• Ambiguous Situation: There is a scene where the zookeepers at Central Park Zoo talk to DuBois and all they hear is her speaking French. It's not clear whether this was a perspective switch or if French people are keeping their fluency in English a secret from American people.

The Rarispy just added this to Catch Me If You Can. Should I remove it?

• Ambiguous Situation: It's not made clear if Brenda cooperated with the FBI to bring Frank in because she was coerced to, or willingly agreed to because she was heartbroken over everything Frank told her about himself being a lie. Since she never appears again after the scene in Miami, we also don't learn if she was able to keep her relationship with her parents or not

It doesn't look like the description was rewritten to reflect the "implied to be ambiguous in-universe" rule the crowner voted in favor of.

Would tweaking this paragraph work?

On-Page examples that I think should be cut:

• Batman and Harley Quinn sees Black Condor mentioned as a member of the Justice League. However, given many members of groups likes the JSA, Seven Soldiers of Victory, and others were subject to Team Member in the Adaptation during Unlimited and because Black Condor was The Ghost, it's unclear on if it's Ryan Kendall, who was a member of the Justice League International — or if Team Member in the Adaptation is in play for either Richard Grey Jr. (the original Black Condor) or John Trujillo (the man who replaced Kendall after his death in Infinite Crisis). The film does not specify which Black Condor is mentioned in the work. This is an irrelevant "question" because the character doesn't even appear in the film.
• In Back to the Outback, it's established at the start of the film that humans can't understand what the animals are saying, but Norine appears to be able to anyways. Does Norine truly understand what Maddie is saying, or is she just really good at interpreting what animal noises and body language means? No in-universe mention for either possibilities
• In 5 Centimeters per Second, Takaki sees a woman in his dreams that looks like Akari, and he later sees her while awake in the final part. She never speaks in his presence, however, which makes it unclear whether she's actually Akari, a lookalike he's projecting her likeness onto out of his longing for her or, given that they cross paths at a place that was significant to their childhoods that he just coincidentally happened to be at, an outright hallucination. The film ends without declaring any way. Official artbook A Sky Longing for Memories is similarly evasive. No in-universe mention for either possibilities
• Finding Nemo:
  • At the beginning, it's revealed that Marlin and his now-probably-deceased wife Coral met when Marlin asked if there was a hook in his lip. This sounds like a line a fish might use to tease around the idea of kissing, but Marlin has been shown to be a bit of a worrywart even before the barracuda incident (when it showed up, he insisted she get inside), so it's unknown why he was asking. Seems more like a Double Entendre
  • At one point, Marlin and Dory are looking for a way to Sydney and Dory claims she can speak whale and asks a whale for a ride to Sydney. They end up in the whale's mouth and it spouts them out in Sydney. While Finding Dory reveals that Dory really can speak whale, it's left ambiguous as to whether it heard them and was giving them a ride to Sydney, or it didn't hear and accidentally swallowed them while trying to swallow some krill. The possibility of the latter interpretation is never brought up.
• Incredibles 2: When most of the superheroes, including Elastigirl, have hypnotic glasses on and are doing the villains' bidding, Elastigirl's baby son Jack-Jack uses his telekinesis to take off her glasses. It is unknown whether he knew the glasses were bad, he was just copying what his two older siblings were doing, or if he was just doing it out of babyish curiosity. No in-universe mention for either possibilities. More of an Alternate Character Interpretation
• In Peter Pan, Captain Hook is seen wrapped in a blanket with his feet in a bowl of water. It's unknown if he's sick or not, because while he has a headache, he did just bump his head, and he was sneezing, but that could've been from the cold. The thermometer reads high, but that was after Smee put blazing hot water in the bowl. Nitpicking too much on a comedic scene that's clearly not supposed to raise questions or need a definitive explanation
• Up: At one point, Russell explains that his parents are divorced, and that he calls his father, but a woman named Phyllis, who isn't his mother, tells him he bugs his father too much. Phyllis could be his stepmother, his father's secretary, Russell's older sister, or hired help (such as a nanny or maid). Again, overanalyzing irrelevant details that's not a really important plot point.

Agreed, all of those are cuttable.

Oh, and since the in-universe ambiguity is required, should we remove the following paragraphs from the description?

I'd like to move my Calvin and Hobbes entry discussing whether he's actually afraid of baths, or feigning fear because he Hates Baths, but I'm not sure whether it belongs on Alternative Character Interpretation, or Alternative Joke Interpretation.

Alternative Character Interpretation.

Seconded. I believe that's the most fitting trope in this case.

I forgot about this one. I think the issue was that people immediately started worrying about examples before we really cemented the changes... and that supertrope cleanup is hard because of how many things there are to go through.

First things first: Has the description actually been updated?

Macron said she updated it (in the mod chat, not the forums).

I didn't really have to do much. All I did a few months ago was implement what I suggested a couple of posts above here. I didn't think to announce but I guess it wouldn't have made much of a difference progress wise.

Edited by MacronNotes on Sep 25th 2022 at 8:06:43 AM

Just making sure since I tend to lose track of these things and wanted to know what we had left to do.

I guess all that's left is to worry about the wicks. I'd jump in but I'm still focused on Uncanny Valley.