Follow TV Tropes
I think “check” should be included here. Specifically, I often see examples that act as though they are checking items off a list (x requirement? Check. Y requirement? Check.) which ruins the readability of the example.
I think "Played with" should be included here. It gives me an impression the example's author doesn't want to accept that Tropes Are Tools or doesn't know that Tropes Are Flexible.
Ahem! Playing with a Trope (...so url is messed up in discussion page too? Just search for it then) is real thing. While such example should be more specific (usually subversion or downplayed), it has nothing to does with "don't want to accept that Tropes Are Tools or don't know that Tropes Are Flexible".
Hi, just wanted to double check this makes sense before I publish it, as I've not edited TV Tropes policy pages before. I think it keeps the original meanings of these examples, but hopefully it's a bit easier to decipher and more accurate.
Positional comparatives: "Similar to the example above," "Unlike the previous example," "Speaking of that," "As just discussed," "See [other trope/work]," etc. Entries tend to move around. Tropes may be renamed; ...
"...at the start of a paragraph is not a license to spend the rest of said paragraph..."
For a page about avoiding unnecessary words, indulging in the old "said [noun]" schtick should be avoided. Replace "said paragraph" with "it".
Word Cruft, Natter, etc. should be mandatory reading material for new tropers.
Yeah. It's me... Should've read it a while ago...
Question, why is 'Subverted by' word cruft? Say for example I write an example on a program called Alice and Bob and I say: 'Incredibly Obvious Bug: Subverted by Alice when she notices a bug left for her, and destroys it without commenting in the episode 'Alice Is Recruited'.
Does that in itself become word cruft, and why?
Can we throw in Averted Hard, Brutally Subverted, and other such intensifiers that generally just mean they didn't use this trope?
Oh goodness yes. The impact of something can be described in the entry; no need to pad things out with those intensifiers that often mean it's not that way of playing with a trope anyway.
Is it an example of word cruft when the trope example consists entirely of the words "Take a wild guess"? It's an example of something annoying, I know that much.
Yep. It manages to be Word Cruft and a Zero Context Example — either remove the cruft and pull the remaining trope to the discussion page (unless it's one of the really self-explanatory ones) or correct it and put the character name/whatever.
Does anyone else think "it should be noted" is an example of Word Cruft? I keep seeing it used in contexts that suggest it is, and it seems to fall under several of the categories on the main page.
YES. "It should be noted" is pointless. We don't care whether something should be noted or not.
Another rule should be 'No Time Sensitive Language'. People are going to be reading these posts weeks, or even years from now. If you mention "In the most recent issue..." or "During last week's episode...", no-one will know what you are referring to, because those times don't mean anything to them.
See Examples Are Not Recent.
Is it just me or is "though" becoming something of a Verbal Tic on this wiki? I keep running across people putting it in when it really shouldn't be, and it can be cut without damaging the meaning at all.
Being part verbal tic and part intensifier, would "egregious" be in this list somewhere?
It falls under "bogus intensifier", yeah.
Most of these are good tips but I don't like the bit that says we should avoid using real long words.
(I tried to keep em all under seven letters or less though, I respect TV Tropes' authoritah!)
What's wrong with saying literally when something does literally follow a trope name that often wouldn't be mean literally? For example in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic magical Zap Apples are rainbow patterned when they ripen and at their best, therefore Everything's Better with Rainbows can be taken as literal example - rather than 'there's a cool rainbow themed thing in this episode' because the apples are better when they are rainbow patterned.
I think it refers to it being used for emphasis rather than to describe something as you've put it. Hence when it's an "intensifier", it doesn't serve any purpose besides emphasis. From The Other Wiki:
"To clarify" and "to expand" should also probably be added, since it's when people add to an example and really should just merge it into the original paragraph.
"However" and "though" can usually be cut too, since they tend to be a precursor to Natter, so they might be considered for addition to the list.
Under the "passive-aggression masquerading as example" entry, someone should really put "Um" there.
Whenever I see "um" followed by something on this wiki, I click away, because much smug, passive-aggressive whinging will follow.
I was coming here specifically to ask if To be fair, To be honest, and For that matter could be added, but I hope you don't mind that I piggyback on yours, because half the time these three fall under that as well. In the case of For that matter or anything sounding similar, it STARTS OFF sounding like it will agree with the sentence/paragraph above...but then it doesn't.
It seems like we will need to catalogue ALL cruft everywhere in all forms in order to properly curb usage.
On a less serious note, does anyone else really really feel a major buzzkill when someone explains an entry TOO much?
First bullet point lays out the situation.
Second bullet point typically points out the Fridge Whatever of the situation for those that don't know the character/series/universe that much
Third bullet point points out how much help he needed to do this making it seem much less amazing.
IF IT IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR BUZZKILL, JUST STOP, PEOPLE! I DON'T CARE HOW AWESOME IT REMAINS IN FUNCTION, YOU JUST REMOVED ANY IMPETUS TO READ IT!!!
See the fantastic four entry on Locking MacGyver in the Store Cupboard for example.
Seconding adding to be fair, to be honest et. all, since I just automatically cut those when I see them and mention Word Cruft in the edit explanation.
"To be fair" is like TV Tropes' Verbal Tic at this rate. We need some very obsessed people to clean up the pages.
Well, I'm one, so I zap it on sight.
We might want to add that it's unnecessary to add a YMMV disclaimer when something is already on the YMMV page since I keep seeing that, and it's just redundant.
I want to slap "Troper Institution for Re-Education" with Maximum Fun Chamber, but I'm not authorized to edit this article. Can someone with the authority to do it be a chuckle-worthy jokester and add it in? I think it's a good fit.
This may seem like a stupid question, but is Word Cruft bad in Sugar Wiki, or is it unavoidable due to being a place for gushing?
What about the phrase "Played painfully straight-"? Tropes Are Not Bad, and all examples are assumed to be played straight unless otherwise indicated. If the example is Unfortunate Implications or Did Not Do The Research or something of the like, just say so.
I think it means to be played too straight. For instance, King Kong(1976) plays Mars Needs Women roughly straight, King Kong(1933) plays it painfully straight.
I would presume that those examples fall under something like trying too hard. Shoehorning a trope, if there's a trope or term for that somewhere.
There's no guidelines on when "Bogus X" are or are not bogus. Removing the example Boguses entirely would be a regrettable blow to the site, so I'm inclined to ignore both guidelines entirely.
The elaboration for Prolongation: robo-speech specifically complains that it delays useful information and that it makes one sound like a robot.
1. Sounding like a robot is perfectly fine
2. It HASTENS useful information
3. Although the accusation of prolongation is only in the name and not in the elaboration, the opposite is true: the troper sounds like a robot specifically because extra grammar is being eschewed.
On the above grounds I would encourage people to totally disregard that one as well.
I like the page and the purpose it serves, but is the "retarded gibbons" comment near the end necessary? Sorry to get all PC, but equating developmental disabilities to stupidity or worthlessness is not cool.
(Gibbons are fair game, though, the manky bastards.)
Since it specifies specifically gibbons, then no, take thee's PC ass to the nearest volcano marklarfarklar
No, it does not. It specifies a huge chunk of the internet populace as being "retarded gibbons" simply because they answer rhetorical questions. The fact that answering rhetorical questions is a useful way to deflate them and their argument didn't enter into the editor's mind.
It's still word cruft because it drags things on, but that doesn't mean people are *stupid* for using a useful argumentative strategy.
End of 'Subverted as verbal chaff' contains Ascii character 9516 ┬, for no discernible reason. Should be removed (by someone who can bypass the lock on the topic).
"Played straight and subverted"
I read through and agree with the various "crufts" but I'm having trouble with this one. Why is this phrase bad writing? A given work might indeed play a trope straight, then deliberately avert it (and even call attention to the fact. For example, a videogame might start you off with ShortRangeShotguns then reward you near the end with one, or a move using them, that compensates for your lack of range, via technology, phlebotinum or some other reason. In that case, wouldn't the trope have been both played straight and subverted?
I think it's covered by "If it's two different examples from the same work, separate them into two sub-bullets." Also, check Not A Subversion
The punchline of the rhetorical questions part should obviously be "Given these odds, do you really think using rhetorical questions is a good idea?". But oh well, you can't have everything in life.
If something is subverted, why is saying "Subversion: whatever the example is" unequivocally terrible? I presume the alternative is "Subverted in whatever the example is".
Good question. I second it.
The Take That! seems rather excessive.
What Take That!?
This page does sound mean spirited at places. Until a cure can be found, the best that can be hoped is that these people are tracked down and sent to the Troper Institution For Re-Education or a license to spend the rest of said paragraph noodling around on whatever topic randomly crosses your lobes is excessive for something that people do automatically in most cases.
That whole bullet reads like it was written by a Straw Vulcan who would prefer the wiki read like a lab report.
What martian reads this page and thinks: "I bet the author dislikes humour?"
Seconded kraas. There's a difference between being helpful and being hostile, and this page crosses it at several points. Economical writing is a valuable skill so it isn't like the content should be cut, but it'll be a hell of a lot better if it doesn't try to lord over the people who it'd help the most.
Protip: accusing a good chunk of the internet of being as intelligent as a "retarded gibbon" says more about the accuser than "a good chunk of the internet."
Prolongation: robo-speech: Some poor souls begin every example with "Subversion:" or "Inversion:" or "Film example:" or, in desperate cases, "Another example:". The motivation, of course, is to delay, even for a moment, that dread instant when they have to start saying something. The only significant effect is that they sound like a robot from a '50s B-Movie. Easy to clean up.
Or, you know, they could just be ignorant of how to pothole. If they're afraid of "saying something" they could just not contribute their example.
I quite agree with Born In. At first, this page seemed funny, but it began to cross a line.
I've been accused of "word cruft" for adding a single phrase "not to mention" to an Awesome Music page, and it seems unfitting to apply such strict standards to "talking about neat music you like."
While I can sorta see the point of adding some editorial standards to main pages, I see no reason why it should be applied to Just For Fun pages.
And frankly, most of this page reads like it was written someone who needs to have the stick surgically removed from their rectum. There are a lot of rules here that are written without considering context, or how different parts of the wiki might have stricter or looser standards. (I would expect "fun" pages to stick to these guidelines far less closely than Useful Notes pages, for example.)
Community Showcase More