After consulting other tropers on the Trope Talk forum under the heading "One off trope on long running character" I have placed Jerk With the Heart of a Jerk on the main page under "Depending on the Writer" since we both agree it it not Odin's normal characterization. I have whittled "What the Hell Hero?" down to the bare minimum needed removing details we both have added so neither of us can say "But you added this...." This should remove any controversy on that entry.
Hide / Show Replies
I'm fine with moving it to Depending on the Writer, but you forgot to add the entire context. Odin is listed as generally portrayed as a Big Good as you wanted, but Matt Fraction and John Byrne's portrayals should also be noted and briefly accurately explained.
Edited by 77.234.43.180
After suggestion, I changed the trope to Character Derailment, and moved it to YMMV.
I'm assuming tropes shown in the various animated features would go on these pages? Or not? Those retellings are close enough to the comics continuity (or at least the spirit of that continuity) to not require their own pages, don't you think?
Hide / Show Replies
I don't think so. Most animated features already have their own page with a character page. Any tropes related to the character's appearance on whatever show you are thinking of should go there. For instance, Thor shows up on the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon and Avengers: EMH. On those shows respective character pages he is listed along with accompanying tropes. The same should be for other animated features as well.
Can you think of a reason why it should be otherwise?
I did not vandalize Amora's entry. We need only the trope and a brief description of it in the story with maybe a short example. Some of her trope entries are too long so I have removed the unnecessary language while including mentioning of the examples. A lot of the text that has been removed is needlessly repetitive. In the past, moderators have told me that tropes are to be short and to the point. Walls of Text are strongly discouraged.
Edited by seekquaze1 Hide / Show Replies
(Note: not trying to do anything underhanded or sock-puppetty her—computer crash, lost password, new Tropes Handle—it was a whole big thing) Okay, I've looked through the site, looking for the rules regarding 'We need only the trope and a brief description of it...with maybe a short example'. I find no such rule. In fact, the most clearly stated rule seems to be that the site abhors rules, and feels that they are generally not needed. Likewise, making trope entries 'short and to the point' is something that is obviously not a site rule, as some of my favorite pages here are VERY detailed. I agree that walls/mountains of text are aesthetically unpleasing, but I disagree that the entries you altered were walls or mountains of text. Instead, you seem to have a very clear notion of what, stylistically, any given entry should look like, and edit/delete them based on that criteria. I submit to you that this is not sufficient reason to do so. Edits should be made only if the edit increases the clarity or entertainment value of the entry. Deletions should be performed only if the trope is factually inaccurate (and you are SURE of that). I completely understand being annoyed or dissatisfied with the style of a piece of writing; I am a semi-professional writer myself. However, this is not a manuscript being written by you, or me, or any one person. This is a collaborative effort, and in the interest of everyone getting along and enjoying the dissection and discussion of stories that we love, I recommend restraint on the edits and deletions. Again, this isn't a short story or book. In this case, less isn't necessarily more; more can actually be more. I sincerely hope we can get along, here—I wouldn't be putting in the time and word count if I didn't love these characters and these stories.
Previously, I was in a dispute with another contributor who insisted on walls of texts among other things who refused to reasonable discuss things at all unlike you. A moderator finally stepped in and that is what the moderator told me. It still looks too long to me, but like you I wish to avoid an edit war and fully admit I may be wrong. I have put in for a moderator to look at it to let them decide. Does that sound fair to you?
Edited by seekquaze1
Alright, time for clarification on the Amora entry. There are actually a few issues here:
- The proper use of bullet points.
- The proper amount of detail.
- Willingness to edit or delete entries.
First up, the use of bullet points in Amora's entry is, well, poor. There should never be just one bullet point at a particular level. The explanation for Squishy Wizard is a good example, but there are several others. Second, there should only be multiple bullet points if there are several separate examples, not just clarification to an existing one—see Statuesque Stunner for an example of the second. Third, all associated examples should be at the same bullet level. It's All About Me is an example of this done wrong: the general explanation is sandwiched in with a specific case (Thor's feelings for Sif and Jane) at the highest level bullet, while two other specific cases are put at the second level bullet. What should be done is that all three specific examples should be placed at a second level bullet.
The apparent main issue is the acceptable level of detail. The correct amount of detail is all that is necessary to explain how the trope applies, but no more than that. To return to It's All About Me, the third example has way too much detail. The complete mechanics of "returning" Skurge, and the reactions are of no relevance to the example. The important part is her self-centered nature: "Amora later attempts to return Skurge by infusing Donald Blake's beheaded body with the essence of the World Tree and overlaying Skurge's personality on the resulting golem-like creature." It doesn't matter how Thor feels. It doesn't matter that the golem turns out to not have the same personality as Skurge in the end. I could see an argument for including the fact that she tricked Blake out of his body, but the full details of that transaction are not required. You should not ramble on, giving a full explanation for all of the related events.
Finally, you should be willing to edit and delete other people's entries...because the entries aren't "theirs" in the first place. One of the biggest problems we have on the wiki right now is people not altering any existing text. In this case, edits that cut out unnecessary details increase the clarity of the example, and are thus valuable edits.
The key is to cut out the right parts. For example, neither version of the Squishy Wizard entry is a good one: the long version gets bogged down in explaining everything, while the short version cuts out most of the concrete details that make examples work (and has awful bulleting).
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Thank you for explaining the finer points of Bullet points—I'd not found any clear guide on their use. I'll admit to still being somewhat confused, though. If there should never be only one bullet point at any one level... how is there ever a first one that can lead to the second? It can only happen when a single troper has two examples in mind at any one instant? Anyone who has only one excellent point to make must stifle himself and move on, rather than list his so that someone else can be inspired by that to leave a second? That... doesn't seem right somehow, but okay.... I do see your point about keeping a given trope more focused on the trope itself, instead of trying to give background or put it in context (although it seems some minimal context is helpful in some cases) Deleting entries—I remain VERY reluctant to do that, unless, obviously, it is CLEAR that the entry is in error. The main issue I had with the other troper is that they were deleting entire entries, not because they were factually wrong, but simply because... well, I'm not quite clear on that. Because they were trying to streamline the page itself, by reducing the number of tropes listed? Isn't listing tropes (so that others can be informed and entertained) the entire POINT of this? Edits to an entry to make it read more smoothly, and be understood more easily—I'm totally on board with that. Chopping entire entries simply so that the Characters page can be read through in under five minutes makes NO sense to me. I'll work on streamlining the examples you pointed out. Thank you for taking the time to explain.
There will always be plenty of first-level bullets: each trope gets its own, and a character with only one trope isn't worth troping. Ideally, the example list will look something like this:
- Trope A: example
- Trope B: example
- Trope C
- Example 1
- Example 2
- Trope D: General statement
- Concrete example
- Concrete example
Unrelated, you should never use words like "recent" to describe an example. It may be recent now, but it won't be recent in a year, and will look downright silly in three years.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
I was not deleting entire entries. I was leaving the tropes and deleting what I viewed as unnecessary information and summarizing it in one or two sentences instead of a paragraph. For instance, I fail to see that Thor thinks "She tastes" like strawberries has to do with the related trope. That and at the time some of the wording was needlessly repetitive by repeating the same fact several times in different ways.
So I destroyed nothing. I tried to edit them down to their bare facts. I admit I may have gone a bit too far, but I destroyed nothing.
Edited by seekquaze1
I did not vandalize Amora's entry. We need only the trope and a brief description of it in the story with maybe a short example. Some of her trope entries are too long so I have removed the unnecessary language while including mentioning of the examples.
Is there some sort of 'Misogynist' trope that would fit Bor, after the events of Exiled?
And does his hatred of oath-breakers count as a Berserk Button?
Once Fear Itself is done, should we add The Serpent? I mean, he seems to be important.
Hide / Show Replies
Probable. I'm leaning to him being a one-shot villain, but at the same time this is one of the few if only Marvel event to have Thor has a primary focus so he could be considered important enough. Still, we want to avoid adding every one-shot character. The World-Eaters for instance I do not thing rank anywhere important enough. They were poorly developed and existed only to set up the returns of Odin and Loki.
I hate being geeky, but wouldn't this...
Lawful Good: Follows the laws of Asgard and his own code of honor. Conflicts often arise between the two.
Make Thor Lawful neutral?
Hide / Show Replies
This is failing on my part. Some of Thor's conflicts come from a combination of laws like I spelled out above and conflict between what he feels is right and what the law is. I've changed it to better reflect that.
Feel free to put him on the Lawful Good page, and to add various objective heroism tropes to him here.
I deleted the Roger Willis entry because as far as I know he has not appeared outside of that one storyline from Walt Simonson. The Thor comics have had so many characters appear for one or two storylines only to disappear later that to try and cover them all would require its own Wikipedia. Every character so far either appears time and again or has some great importance to the Thor mythos that Roger Willis just seems to lack outside of that story.
Truth be told I'm uncertain if even Bill or Laufey should be here. Bill is fairly recent and future story prospects look like he might appear again. Laufey appears every once in a while in flashbacks and is significant to Loki's story. Yet both have appeared so little I am still uncertain.
Still, I've added a Badass Normal section on the Thor main page.
Hide / Show Replies
Yeah, that's a really good point. I added Roger because he's one of my personal favorites, but if we add all the one-shot and incidental characters this thing is going to get too clunky.
I wouldn't be offended if you wanted to remove Laufey or even Bill. Laufey is only really important in relation to Loki and could probably be covered under "Abusive Parents" in Loki's section. Bill... well, Bill is kind of similar to the Roger situation. I love him, but we should probably focus on more major characters. That said, he DID play a very important role when he appeared — whether that role will have long-lasting affects remains to be seen.
Thanks for adding the Badass Normal section.
So, I'm trying desperately to understand: just why is Harald Jaekelsson considered a canonical character? Thor: Vikings was printed under the Marvel Max imprint (which are explicitly noncanonical) and the events of his mini-series have never been referred to in canon Marvel.
Indeed, they cannot possibly be canon because they result in far too many plot-holes! The story revolves around the vast majority of New York City being slaughtered by Harald and his crew of undead reavers; Marvel isn't Dragon Ball, those casualties couldn't just be handwaved back. That's just the first complaint I can name - it's featured on the Comics page for Idiot Plot for a reason.
So, even if Garth Ennis himself insists that Harald is canon, the rest of Marvel clearly doesn't agree with him. Why should we take his word over theirs?