[004]
Scorpio3002
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
We don\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it works differently than our understanding of physics. If the show elaborates on the moon\'s mechanics in future episodes, it does not wipe away the trope, it merely justifies it, or possibly subverts it if they give an explanation that is actually plausible. As I mentioned in my edit reason, TV Tropes has no \
to:
Nonsense. We don\\\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it violates our understanding of Newtonian physics. If the show elaborated on the moon\\\'s mechanics in future episodes, it would not wipe away the trope, it would merely justify it, or possibly subvert it if they gave an explanation that was actually scientifically plausible. Maybe we\\\'ll see the moon actually wax and wane in future episodes (in which case we would revise our understanding of the mechanics and their associated tropes), or maybe we don\\\'t. Maybe we find out that Remnant was actually the moon all along, maybe we don\\\'t. Maybe they retcon the moon\\\'s entire design, or maybe the show gets cancelled before another episode airs. Either way, as I mentioned in the notes of my last edit, TV Tropes has no \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy; we list the tropes associated with a work as it currently exists, and revise them as we gain deeper insight from further iterations of the work. As it stands, there is nothing about my entry that does anything but summarize the trope as we currently understand it.
Just like the \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy, TV Tropes also has no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
Just like the \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy, TV Tropes also has no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
We don\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it works differently than our understanding of physics. If the show elaborates on the moon\'s mechanics in future episodes, it does not wipe away the trope, it merely justifies it, or possibly subverts it if they give an explanation that is actually plausible. As I mentioned in my edit reason, TV Tropes has no \
to:
Nonsense. We don\\\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it violates our understanding of Newtonian physics. If the show elaborated on the moon\\\'s mechanics in future episodes, it would not wipe away the trope, it would merely justify it, or possibly subvert it if they gave an explanation that was actually scientifically plausible. Maybe we\\\'ll see the moon actually wax and wane in future episodes (in which case we would revise our understanding of the mechanics and their associated tropes), or maybe we don\\\'t. Maybe we find out that Remnant was actually the moon all along, maybe we don\\\'t. Maybe they retcon the moon\\\'s entire design, or maybe the show gets cancelled before another episode airs. Either way, as I mentioned in the notes of my last edit, TV Tropes has no \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy; we list the tropes associated with a work as it currently exists, and revise them as we gain deeper insight from further iterations of the work. As it stands, there is nothing about my entry that does anything but summarize the trope as we currently understand it.
Just like the \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy, TV Tropes also has no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
Just like the \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy, TV Tropes also has no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
We don\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it works differently than our understanding of physics. If the show elaborates on the moon\'s mechanics in future episodes, it does not wipe away the trope, it merely justifies it, or possibly subverts it if they give an explanation that is actually plausible. As I mentioned in my edit reason, TV Tropes has no \
to:
Nonsense. We don\\\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it violates our understanding of Newtonian physics. If the show elaborated on the moon\\\'s mechanics in future episodes, it would not wipe away the trope, it would merely justify it, or possibly subvert it if they gave an explanation that was actually scientifically plausible. Maybe we\\\'ll see the moon actually wax and wane in future episodes (in which case we would revise our understanding of the mechanics and their associated tropes), or maybe we don\\\'t. Maybe we find out that Remnant was actually the moon all along, maybe we don\\\'t. Maybe they retcon the moon\\\'s entire design, or maybe the show gets cancelled before another episode airs. Either way, as I mentioned in the notes of my last edit, TV Tropes has no \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy; we list the tropes associated with a work as it currently exists, and revise them as we gain deeper insight from further iterations of the work. As it stands, there is nothing about my entry that does anything but summarize the trope as we currently understand it.
Just like the \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy, TV Tropes also has no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
Just like the \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy, TV Tropes also has no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
We don\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it works differently than our understanding of physics. If the show elaborates on the moon\'s mechanics in future episodes, it does not wipe away the trope, it merely justifies it, or possibly subverts it if they give an explanation that is actually plausible. As I mentioned in my edit reason, TV Tropes has no \
to:
Nonsense. We don\\\'t need to know anything about how the moon works in this world to see that it violates our understanding of Newtonian physics. If the show elaborated on the moon\\\'s mechanics in future episodes, it would not wipe away the trope, it would merely justify it, or possibly subvert it if they gave an explanation that was actually scientifically plausible. Maybe we\\\'ll see the moon actually wax and wane in future episodes (in which case we would revise our understanding of the mechanics and their associated tropes), or maybe we don\\\'t. Maybe they retcon the moon\\\'s entire design, or maybe the show gets cancelled before another episode airs. Either way, as I mentioned in the notes of my last edit, TV Tropes has no \\\"Wait and See\\\" policy; we list the tropes associated with a work as it currently exists, and revise them as we gain deeper insight from further iterations of the work.
There is also no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
There is also no \\\"Redundancy\\\" policy, and no rule against listing the parent trope alongside the sub-trope. Additionally, I would argue that the first point about the shattering being held in place is an issue that extends beyond the moon itself, and well into the bounds of general astronomy and how gravity works in this universe; thus it falls more into the domain of the parent trope than the sub-trope. I also must note that this example had no speculation, which detracts from your case that I was writing all this as \\\"an excuse just to discuss different fan ideas\\\".
Maybe I would have played nice and just added that example to the WeirdMoon sub-trope anyway (since it currently doesn\\\'t exist anywhere on the main page anymore) if you hadn\\\'t shown a pattern of indiscriminately deleting everything I\\\'ve touched over the last day. I will admit to getting over-enthusiastic and writing possible explanations for tropes in places they didn\\\'t belong. That is not an excuse for deleting every trope I touched; even the ones that existed on the page before I edited them. TidallyLockedPlanet, for example, was a perfectly valid inverted trope: I merely changed the wording a bit, and added a potential explanation (which was a mistake). Someone else deleted my speculation, and the problem was solved before you deleted the trope outright for no apparent reason.
