Follow TV Tropes
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Switch with redirect?, started by IronLion on Dec 30th 2010 at 6:58:26 PM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Rename, started by LukeBitts on Apr 13th 2011 at 7:22:56 PM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: (Again) Rename, started by Kexruct on Aug 28th 2011 at 4:47:42 PM
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Ambiguous Name, started by TropesForever on Sep 23rd 2016 at 8:58:00 AM
Does anyone know what newspaper and review this is actually from? My Google searches have produced no results. XD
To my mind there are two mistakes in the caption explaining the page image:
1) To somebody using a computer, it makes no practical difference if what they're sitting at is the actual computer or just a terminal connected to it; they come to the same thing, and claiming they don't is at best nitpicking.
2) Granted that the computer the girl is using isn't "her" computer in the possessive sense (she owns it), nonetheless it quite clearly is "her" computer in the weak indicative sense at the very least (it's the one she's using at the moment).
I may be missing something, but why is it granted that it isn't her computer in the possessive sense? IIRC, Tomato most certainly is Ed's computer. She brings it with her when she joins and takes it when she leaves.
The claim that "There's only a monitor in that shot, not the whole computer" seems false as well. It's right there under the monitor, inside its case.
So, these comments aren't just nitpicky - as far as I can tell they're just wrong.
>I may be missing something, but why is it granted that it isn't her computer in the possessive sense?
You are definitely missing something; "granted that..." usually (as it does in this case) means "I haven't seen the show in question, so I will have to take the word of those who have." Indeed, I have never even heard of this show outside of this wiki; I don't think any of the British channels have picked it up.
To my mind, there is a third mistake. The caption chides the errant writer for the emphasized spelling of the ship's name, but that is how it is inscribed on the ship's hull:
Obviously, the article was referring to the show's name and I've never seen anyone write the title in that stylized manner aside from referring to the ship.
Trope name is completely inscrutable AND isn't explained on the page. One oversight would be tolerable without the other, but what you have here is a trope name that's useless for communicating the trope and no way for those locked out of the (apparently INSIDE) joke to even educate themselves.
Well, it is explained on the page, just not in the description. But it is quite inscrutable to anyone who doesn't know the backstory.
If you're referring to the extended picture description, "explained" is a pretty strong word.
I agree, this trope is in dire need of attention from the Trope Repair Shop; just about any alternative name, such as Total Research Failure, would be miles better. Unfortunately, because there were too many entries in the TRS and the older ones weren't being worked upon, it is now restricted to 100 entries at a time; and this "solution" has arguably just swapped the old problem for a worse one, namely that it is now nearly impossible to get a vacant TRS slot to list articles.
Actually, it's no longer restricted.
That said, a rename was proposed in the past and always shot down, so it won't likely pass.
When I visit the TRS it still looks to me as if the restriction is in place; below the line "1 pages in this list" is still a box giving the number of slots available, which when I look at it is always 0.
That counter is outdated. It should be working now.
Took me ages to actually figure out what this trope is, and even then, the name means ill probay think it's a hacking trope when I come across it again in the future.
So I suppose this has been reiterated, but I have seen Cowboy Bebop and I still had no idea what this entry was supposed to be about. Initially, when just relying on information available on the trope page (that is, not relying on the examples) I was trying to think of an example where Jet or Spike received misinformation through their computers and drew a blank. Eventually the trope was made clear with the picture included in the anime/manga link, but having to explore the examples to understand the trope is problematic at best. Either this example needs to be included on the trope's main page, or the entry needs (significant) reworking.
[Redacted, already there]
The caption going on about how the computer isn't present in the picture is extremely pedantic. I vote that part be removed.
I found a Played for Laughs variant in a forum discussion.
It seems that the poster is ignorant about video games, but does a Bait Then Switch at the end by bashing the show.
Can we change the name of the trope? It's not self-explanatory in any way unless you happen to know what it is about. The page image is helpful of course, but I think we shoudnt rely on that to describe the trope.
Pretty much anyone who watches Cowboy Bebop knows there's something wrong when a spaceship is sitting down to chillax and points at "his" monitor.
Case in point.
Right, I don't watch cowboy bebop, I had never even heard about the show before this trope and it took me longer than just reading the description to understand what the trope was about... I still think we should change to something better
I agree,not everyone has watched that show, and not everyone who watches the show even knows of this hapening. They may understand that Cowboy Bebob can't sit at a computer, but that doesn't mean they'll realize what this trope is about from reading its title. It doesn't really explain what the trope is about which can lead to Square Peg, Round Trope or worse. Hell, when I first read this tropes name I thought it meant when someone isn't paying attention because of the way it was used. They weren't using the trope wrongly, but it wasn't very clear as to what it meant.
I propose something a little more explanatory. Possibly 'Did You Even Watch It?' Or 'Critical Fact Checking Error'.
Take it to TRS. I agree that the name isn't indicative.
This page seriously needs to be massively cleaned up, or outright purged...
Aside from or two spurts of true Epic Fail here and there, the only real thing I'm seeing is just a whole lot of fantard whining and bitching...
Fantoids, or just douchebags in general, nitpicking over the smallest little mistakes, or just completely missing the point entirely of whatever was quoted...
Yes, calling the people who contribute to the page "fantard" and "douchebags" is a great way to start a discussion.
Be that as it may, John Casey 21 has a point - there's some serious Trope Decay going on here. I'm not sure exactly where you draw a line between getting just about everything wrong that it's possible to get wrong vs. failure to correctly identify all 600+ species of Pokemon, but I'm pretty sure there is a line to be drawn.
That's not what the line is supposed to be at all. The trope is, as I understand it, people who should get it right (either by profession or by simply being in a position where they shold know) getting it wrong. Like a movie reviewer apparently not having seen the movie, or a gaming webcomic getting something entirely wrong about a game series. It's not about "getting everything wrong that it's possible to get wrong".
What distinguishes simple Did Not Do The Research from this trope is in this trope, you'd have every expectation that they'd make an effort to get it right.
The way I see it, this is primarily a journalism-based trope. News people (like myself) are expected to fact check their articles.
I think the sheer number of criticisms on this page definitely draws the line with the whole "in a position where they should."
But I'm seeing way too many don'ts, which are quite frankly utterly ridiculous. Here are two examples:
A GOOD EXAMPLE: "There was a newspaper article about how "Sega's mascot Mario" was more recognizable than Mickey Mouse. If he's so recognizable, how do they not know what company he's from?" Pretty darned self-explanatory.
BAD EXAMPLE: "British teenage science magazine Flipside ran a small article on Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, listing a handful of returning characters as being 'Solid Snake, Roy Campbell, and Quinton Flynn'. The latter is the name of the voice actor for one of the characters." It's called a reflex typo, people... Everyone makes them all the fucking time. If you're a "news person", like you claim you are, then I think everyone on here would easily know you're bullshitting if you deny simple typos sliding under the radar. If reflex typos were such huge, inexcusable epic fails, then I can guarantee you we'd be having a whole lot of fucking college students dropping out, and a lot of "news people", like YOU, or whatever, getting their asses dusted on the resume.
This page needs to be cleaned up something fierce.
You need to calm down. There's no need to start swearing at me, or imply that I'm lying or bullshitting. Especially since I never said what you seem to think I did, so don't go putting words in my mouth (or at my typing fingers, as the case may be) either.
Fact checking is one of the first things journalists are supposed to learn. Yes, obviously typos happen, but we're not talking about typos, we're talking about factual errors. If you're going to write about a subject, you want to make sure that what you're writing is accurate, it's as simple as that. If I get a name wrong in an article, my editor, or a reader, calls me out on it.
Even if it applies only to journalists who make any error whatsoever, the page needs to be cleaned up. For one, many examples have nothing to do with media of any kind, referring only to 'people think' or something similar. Also, it's debatable whether movie critics should be considered journalists. While a critic watching a movie does take notes, their memories aren't any better than anyone else's so unless they note down the entire film then they can't be expected to remember every single detail, especially when watching 4 and 5 movies a week.
In general, before going nuts about an example, people should remember that fact checking is subject to cost-benefit consideration just like everything else. Some errors are egregious, but often enough it isn't worth the time to verify details that are beside the point for the great majority of the reading/viewing public.
I think movie critics should count. If you're reviewing something, you should at least be able to get the basic facts right.
If you think it needs cleaning up, then by all means, do some clean-up.
The reason the show is called Cowboy Bebop is not just because the ship is named Bebop. The main characters are bounty hunters who are called cowboys in that universe, so the name makes perfect sense as it roughly translates as "Bounty Hunter Ship" (pretty close to what the show is about)!
I don't understand the page title. Is it a reference to some meme or something? Because I've never seen that page image before. Is it common to just take a caption in the page image and name the trope after that? =/
The picture and the article are sort of self-explanatory....
Pulling the Pocahantas example. It isn't from a critic's review, it's from a joke by Dave Barry.
I thought that JK pronounced Voldemort as "Voldemore" with a silent t.
She did. But it doesn't come naturally to many English-speakers, especially In America! After all, the name sounds much uglier if you can hear the T at the end.
The Harry Potter films use the pronunciation with the "T."
My point was that it definitely wasn't Volt-emort as one troper called "Word of God".
This page is depressing...
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?