Is this tropeworthy/Chairs?

Yeah, the tropes that are actually referring to a group of several tropes just united by a common topic have always bothered me, and I felt they should be split into several tropes. Another example that bothered me is Side Effects Include..., which seems to just be a basket include every possible thing a drug commercial can do, I feel like it would be best split up into tropes for every "type" it lists. Same thing with Eagleland which is really two tropes only united by them both being portrayals of America. I wouldn't mind TRSing Side Effects Include... myself and I wonder if anyone else is interested in splitting up Amusement Park or Eagleland.

Edited by molokai198 on May 9th 2023 at 8:02:56 AM

Re Wheelchair Woobie: if wick check comes up to be mainly about wheelchairs (which I also suspect to be the case—I always take it as referring to the symbolic value of wheelchairs, and I only knew today it applies to any disability), I suggest to conform to actual use (which doesn't count as misuse).

Exactly this. I didn't say locations can never be tropeworthy, just that as currently defined and named this isn't really focused on anything specific other than the location showing up (and you can see that from just taking a glance on the on page examples) and this is a fairly common issue. Similar to all of the weapon tropes that are currently being dismambig'd and split, there needs to be a consistent portrayal across works. Amusement Park's first sentence suggests that it should be "Amusement Parks are common places for confrontations", which, though still pretty broad, could be a trope, sure, but most of the examples don't focus on a confrontation between characters, just that the characters visit one and an assortment of things happen.

Edited by amathieu13 on May 9th 2023 at 9:22:02 AM

Split Amusement Park or Eagleland into what? What different ideas do they include that are tropeworthy in your opinion?

Eagleland does explicitly have a soft split, used to be called type 1 and type 2 but now is just called "america the beautiful" and "america the boorish". some of the examples still refer to type 1 and type 2. probably wouldn't be that hard to split them

Yeah I could entertain an Eagleland split based on the dual definition.

My sense WRT to Eagleland is that type "2" is so directly a mirror image of "1" - to the point I think it's directly related to various types of real-life political stupidity, although that's not really relevant to the trope aspect - that a split isn't as logical as it would be with most internal subtropes.

There may also be cases where both types apply, but I'd also like to respect the No Type Labels rule.

Edited by Amonimus on May 9th 2023 at 7:31:41 PM

Just noting here that a crowner TRS to split Eagleland was made a decade ago and the option was voted down.

However, I don't think Eagleland has tropeworthy issues (and none were raised) so I don't think this thread would be the thread to discuss that trope.

The trope is "stereotypes about the USA". I think it is tropeworthy enough. Of course, the USA appearing in a foreign work in itself is not, it has to be portrayed in a stereotypical way.

Everyone is discussing Eagleland but what is the consensus on splitting Side Effects Include..., which as I said seems to be a list of every trope that could apply to a drug commercial put into one basket?

Side Effects Include... is a stock phrase version of "Hollywood Bad Medicine". Aside the description being larger than I'm comfortable with I don't see an issue with it.

You could interpret Side Effects Include... as being just "drug commercial lists side effects", but it also has four variants that all represent wildly different interpretations of the commercial and how the side effects are included. Even if we don't want to split it into four separate tropes, I find it odd that the page isn't split into the four categories like what is normally done for tropes that have very different subcategories, and most of the examples don't actually refer to a subcategory at all but just are like "x drug commercial lists side effects" with another random factoid about the commercial that doesn't connect to the subcategories. I just think it's very odd how it's written and it would be better if the subcategories were separate tropes or at least separated in the page.

Edited by molokai198 on May 10th 2023 at 2:00:58 PM

Eh, I think soft splits are the devil so I am more than OK with the way Side Effects Include... is laid out. Now if people think the concepts would be better off split into separate tropes, I'm fine with that too. Just no soft splits, please

These are, abridged

• Avoiding naming what they help with, Read the Fine Print
• Bread, Eggs, Milk, Squick list of rare and dangerous conditions
• PSA
• Strawman Product

I personally thought of fictional examples of listing hilariously improbable ailments.

Maybe it can be split, but that's for another thread.

Even if not soft-splitting it, I feel it would make sense to clean it up so that examples talk in more detail about which one of these tactics the ad is using.

I mean, that sort of gets into type labels. It doesn't matter which "type" is being used, or at least it really shouldn't matter.

Coat Cape and Coat Over the Shoulder?

If they're all "cool ways of wearing coats", then honestly, slapping "cool" and "badass" over everything feels like a way to evade looking like a chairs-y trope by giving it the "Rule of Cool" purpose when actually it's actually not noteworthy.

Coat Over the Shoulder, at least, is a specific form of Modeling Poses and Stock Poses. Coat Cape... Eh, the most I can say is that it's about wearing an article of clothing in a manner differently than it's intended to be worn, which can certainly be novel but I wouldn't call very meaningful.

There's no rule that says wearing a coat like a cape isn't what's coats aren't made for. It's just the norm. Jackets are normally worn on the upper body, but they're sometimes tied around the waist to appear stylish ^note tho I saw a girl wearing it this way to hide a red stain a bully painted the character's pants with so it'd appear as if she menstruated on her pants, and that's tropeable, but that's kinda trivial to trope. It's just one of the ways jackets can be worn, same goes for coats.

I feel like both can be merged with Badass Cape and have it expanded to allow coats. IDKY we have so many "cool ways to wear coats" tropes. But the argument that it's a modeling pose is a somewhat compelling argument for keeping it.

I mean, it's sort of a modern version Badass Cape. Because wearing a cape in a modern setting doesn't often look badass, it looks cheesy. While a coat is cool and acceptable, while also being more practical.

One doesn't exactly wear a coat in Coat Over the Shoulder. It's more about holding a coat ("bonus points" for anyone using their index finger only) in this casual, "cool" way. The crucial thing is that it's about how one poses with a coat, not simply where the article of clothing is placed.

Just discovered Crossword Puzzle, which seems to have the same problem as Amusement Park. It lists in the description a whole assortment of various ways crossword puzzles can be used meaningfully in fiction, but there is no unifying trope in it all besides "crossword puzzles exist".

That brings up a whole slew of tropes on the Stock Puzzle index, which share the same issue. Some are def better than others though (compare Songs in the Key of Lock to Klotski )

Edited by amathieu13 on May 14th 2023 at 8:53:50 AM

There are many puzzle-based tropes whose solution is used in fiction as a plot device, though. Usually in works about riddles and mysteries.

There's a difference between "There's a puzzle in this work, 'nuff said" and "This work has a puzzle, but I'm too lazy to elaborate on how the story revolves around it so I'm just putting it as a ZCE to let someone else do the rest of the job".