Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
The abuse of commas (which forces the reader to read the whole thing in one go without pausing) is indeed inappropiate. Also, I'm not sure if there's anything there that should be considered "obvious".
I'm not familiar with those films (I stopped caring after the third movie), so I'm afraid I can't do much to improve that example.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
My God. "It should be obvious" is basically this person's Verbal Tic. o_o;;
Reading over it... you don't really need to know the movies to know this is gibberish. A lot of what he put can basically be restated as "there was an explanation, but it was different" which is NOT the trope - Adaptation Explanation Extrication is for when something explained in the source is not explained in the adaptation, not simply when it's explained differently. Other parts of that seem to be just basic trivia about what was adapted from where and why this guy thinks they did it, without even mentioning any concept of explanations.
Edited by wrm5
Holy cow, some of those must be the mothers of all run-on sentences!
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.AdaptationExplanationExtrication
Not sure what to make of those X-Men entries.