Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / DemotedToExtra

Go To

May 30th 2016 at 6:38:06 PM •••

I know this may be a hot-button topic, but would some Christian sects' view on the Virgin Mary and saints qualify as such? I mean, Catholics and Orthodox venerate them, yet Protestants and the like regard them as supporting extras than as key figures in the Bible.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 29th 2016 at 12:50:25 PM •••

Unless you could find a work in which a Protestant downplays the importance of Mary deliberately to contrast with the CathOrthodox focus on her, I'm not sure she really qualifies. If any trope applies there, it's probably Ensemble Dark Horse or Germans Loves David Hasselhoff (for the CathOrthodox view)

Edited by DustSnitch
Dec 31st 2016 at 9:04:58 AM •••

A priest did corroborate on that in a New Year's Day sermon, where he lamented on how other sects seem to be dismissing or basically snubbing Her out as if She didn't do anything of major importance to the Gospel.

Edited by klausbaudelaire
Nov 3rd 2019 at 6:13:14 PM •••

Another note: Catholics and Orthodox alike venerate Her as an ordinary woman who had no trace of original sin (though this isn\'t mentioned in the Bible, ironically enough), but Evangelicals and other denominations downplay this \"ordinary woman\" angle by viewing her as just another lady who turns out to have given birth to the Messiah or something with far less in the way of veneration as how the CathOrthodox crowd view Her.

Edited by klausbaudelaire
Feb 7th 2011 at 1:12:20 PM •••

Sorry, guys, I wound up adding this article to the Cut List by mistake. I was trying to find something out. Really wasn't paying attention where I was typing and wound up using the submission form.

Kind of wishing there was a way to retract Cut List requests made by mistake right now.

Edited by TrevMUN Hide/Show Replies
Feb 7th 2011 at 4:42:04 PM •••

At first i thought it was someone bitching about the rename, but yeah.

Feb 5th 2011 at 2:18:58 AM •••

Somewhat related: Camacan kept changing the Isnt It Sad entries (which I had reverted on the Nasuverse-related pages) to Demoted to Extra. As far as I know the choice of which name to use is up to the troper. (What is the official Administrivia policy anyway?)

What is even the point of the use of alt trope titles when they kept getting changed?

Edited by HithertoAnIPAddress Hide/Show Replies
Feb 5th 2011 at 9:14:21 AM •••

I can understand changing it if it's just a pothole, but if it's part of the context of the entry then it might need to be reworded rather than just removed.

Feb 5th 2011 at 6:15:22 PM •••

My "beef" here is more of a matter of "principle", if you will:

1. "Isnt It Sad" is a valid alternate name to Demoted to Extra, and the former Trope Namer (which may matter); whether or not it has less-than-funny connections to some people is beside the point.

2. The choice of whether to use the main trope name or any of the alternate names in an entry should be up to the individual troper - they'll all redirect to the same page in the end.

Edited by HithertoAnIPAddress
Feb 5th 2011 at 10:06:39 PM •••

I have to agree there. Outside of creating easy redirects for navigating to articles directly by typing into the URL, I thought the whole purpose of alternate titles was to allow tropers the opportunity to use said alternate names in example lists where it would be appropriate.

Given that this trope was launched based on an injoke about a Nasuverse character's fate, I would think that using the original "Isn't It Sad" name would very much be appropriate in those articles. It's not like anyone browsing the article can't click the trope link and see that the trope's main name is Demoted to Extra, after all.

It seems self-defeating if people aren't allowed to use alternate (or former) trope name titles for examples—what purpose would those alternate names serve if they can't be used that way?

ccoa MOD
Feb 7th 2011 at 7:15:45 AM •••

Keeping the alternate name as a redirect serves two purposes: 1) External links from outside the wiki still go to the same page and 2) people who are unaware of the name change and wick it or wicks that don't get changed aren't broken.

It's standard procedure to fix the wicks when a trope is renamed. Especially if the old name was shown to be broken in some way (as this one was). There's no point in renaming a trope with a bad name if the bad name continues to be in common use.

If you feel this procedure is wrong, the proper place to debate it is on the forums, not on an obscure discussion page where no one will see it.

Edited by ccoa
Jun 18th 2010 at 3:11:47 PM •••

I see this was removed:

I suppose it's not strictly necessary, but it does get rid of the only explanation for the page image I can see. Was it removed for any special reason? I'm kind of sad to see it go, since the Self-Demonstrating Article bit was about the funniest thing I've seen on TV Tropes.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 7th 2010 at 6:22:35 PM •••

I'm guessing someone removed it because they thought it qualified as natter or that examples relating to TV Tropes don't qualify. I don't see what's so bad about it, though.

Jul 8th 2010 at 8:16:34 AM •••

I don't know if a reason was supplied, but it would have been nice to have it stay. I mean part of m almost thinks its cos someone doesn't want to show that TV tropes has flaws.

Tell you what though next time the image gets removed why don't we just remove the paragraph about Sacchin completely as well?

Aug 14th 2010 at 12:16:23 PM •••

Since people seem to want it back, I'll reinsert it with maybe a brief rewrite to mention the meme. If the person who deleted it really thinks it should stay gone, we can all figure out what to do here.

Jan 23rd 2011 at 9:57:38 AM •••

It gets even worse now that someone deleted the trope photo.

Jan 23rd 2011 at 10:35:21 AM •••

Someone deleted it and now they're having a discussion about it in the Image Pickin' thread that's linked to the main page. If you want the image back, post there and let them know you thought the Satsuki picture was fitting.

The funny thing is, apparently Satsuki's picture was already the subject of a previous Image Pickin' thread. I don't get why people are so adamant in taking it down, myself. It's like we're seeing the same kind of mentality from Wikipedians who stubbornly keep calling for AFDs of an article until it's finally deleted.

Edited by TrevMUN
Jan 23rd 2011 at 3:08:08 PM •••

I removed it because it's meaningless to anyone not familiar with the show. It's just a picture of a character looking sad, and there's nothing in the image that indicates that she used to be a main character.

Jan 24th 2011 at 1:49:42 PM •••

If I recall correctly, the caption for that image was "The Former Trope Namer. Isn't it sad, Sacchin?"

I have never watched her series, but knowing what series she's from isn't important at all to get the joke behind it (although her predicament is explained in the examples anyway).

It's a meta example because she used to be the Trope Namer, until someone came along and proposed that the trope be renamed. That demoted her, as far as TV Tropes is concerned, to an extra.

So no, it was not Just A Face And A Caption as you claim. People who take down images using that as an excuse really get on my nerves.

Edited by TrevMUN
Jan 24th 2011 at 4:08:46 PM •••

Sadly as much as I like the image it is an example of Just A Face And A Caption. I don't think there would be any good example of putting the trope in picture form even the currently tossed around idea of the Xmen movie posters. I think if we're going to be so strict about it we should just leave no picture rather than letting us have a bit of meta fun.

Edited by UncloudedTJ
Feb 4th 2011 at 9:19:35 AM •••

And while we're at it, I've reverted this deletion:

3rd Feb '11 8:27:53 PM curator Camacan 121.44.14.179
We've got enough cruff without rename history outside of Renamed Tropes. Particularly when we're trying to clean up after a meme outbreak. Memes are not tropes.
** Satsuki's lucklessness persists even here, on TV Tropes. This trope was originally named Isnt It Sad, after the meme in question. With the shift to a less esoteric title, Sacchin was—you guessed it—once again demoted in importance. Talk about a Self-Demonstrating Article.

I've said all I wanted to on the Image Pickin' Discussion, which seems to be going nowhere fast (pretty much a repeat of the last time, apparently). This, however, I'm not standing for.

I take serious issue with this guy's rationale. Even if he is labeled a curator, I find this to be a serious error in judgment. For one thing, he's trying to portray this as a "meme outbreak." There was no "meme outbreak" here. This is a years-long-standing article that was launched based on an in-joke from some anime's fandom, then renamed, then had the image relevant to the character of said in-joke removed and restored several times over the life of this article.

Someone taking note of the irony inherent in a character's former status as the trope namer getting systematically swept under the rug is not a so-called "meme outbreak," and it's not a "meme outbreak" when it's just one small sub-example that has been there for months undisturbed that doesn't even attract natter.

While we're on that subject, how the hell is "memes are not tropes" a relevant reason to delete an example of the trope in action? That's something you'd use to justify renaming or redlining a trope. I'm not buying it as a reason to remove a valid (if meta) example.

Edited by TrevMUN
Feb 4th 2011 at 8:42:20 PM •••

Agreed. This has been up for quite a while and it's sad to see that it's becoming so much the trope that it's being demoted to nonexistent. It's a joke yes but it's not like it's hurting anything. I'd like the comment at least to stay if nothing else.

Feb 4th 2011 at 9:47:09 PM •••

Look, this is really simple.

If you remove the caption, to anyone not familiar with the original thing, this image would be just a face.

So, image - caption = face.

Now add caption to both sides and you get:

image = face + caption

QED. The whole point of JAFAAC is that the trope should be in the picture, illustrated by what's happening in it. Not alluded to in the caption, not the result of some convoluted chain of analogies- in the picture.

It's true that some images we normally wouldn't tolerate can be saved by the Rule of Funny, but the burden of proof lies on you guys to show this is the case. Show us a crowner in favor of keeping this because it's sooo clever, then we'll talk. You're welcome to start one and have it hooked at the image pickin' thread.

Edited by TripleElation
Feb 4th 2011 at 9:58:51 PM •••

Triple Elation, judging by how you're harping on the image and trying to justify its removal in a highly condescending tone, you didn't take the time to read my previous comment.

Nor did you read Unclouded TJ's comment.

Rather, it's clear that you assumed we were continuing to complain about just the removal of the image itself by taking one or two statements from our comments out of context and fixating on them like a laser.

You then used that assumption to condescendingly talk down to us in "really simple" terms, brandishing a faux mathematical proof and an attempt to pin the "burden of proof" on us for something we weren't even talking about.

I still strongly disagree with your opinion (especially when it's expressed with an attitude like that), but I've already said my peace on the subject in the Image Pickin' thread weeks ago. Not only that, but I have already come up with a solution to preserve the meta humor image regardless of what happens on the main page, long before you made your post.

In short, the image and its removal was not the main focus of my previous comment. Which means that you, Triple Elation, couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Take a look at my previous comment again, and read it more thoroughly than just a cursory glance before you deign to reply with condescending "really simple" statements.

Edited by TrevMUN
Feb 4th 2011 at 11:21:41 PM •••

You realize Triple Elation may have simply been addressing a point you'd previously stated, not what you were currently talking about? You seem to not believe Sacchin is JAFAAC. She is. That image means absolutely nothing without a caption. Look at the page image of JAFAAC, and you'll see it describe exactly what is wrong with the Sacchin image.

It's just a sad girl.

And then there's a caption explaining who she is and why should care. It does not work on its own.

Edited by helterskelter
Feb 4th 2011 at 11:30:48 PM •••

If so then he's addressing a point made weeks ago. We've since moved on to a new matter. I knew it was an example and I thought it worked well enough, but if we were going to be black and white about it then I suggested not having a picture at all.

Feb 4th 2011 at 11:39:32 PM •••

Exactly, Unclouded TJ. My participation in the Image Pickin' thread was long since over. That ship has sailed, and I've already done what I feel would be the best middle ground on the matter. Yet it seems like all these guys want to do is harp on my opposition to their removing the picture by citing Just A Face And A Caption as a pretense.

So in response to helterskelter and whoever else may be thinking of chiming in: No, you're not going to make me see it your way no matter how many times you yell "JAFAAC" at me. I'm staunchly of the opinion that the image worked as a valid example of meta humor, and I also feel that Just A Face And A Caption is being wrongly used at face value (pun not intended) to remove otherwise valid images. Which, I believe, is why it has/had been undergoing a Trope Rename discussion. Just A Face And A Caption was a measure to fight Fan Myopia in image examples, but from some of the topics I've seen people are taking it too literally.

But, as I said earlier, this is all moot. I've not involved myself in that Image Pickin' thread for at least a week now. The image was not the point of what I had been saying earlier, yet you guys are treating it like it is.

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told Triple Elation, helterskelter. Take a look at my previous comment again, and read it more thoroughly than just a cursory glance. My latest comment before Triple Elation's condescending reply was not focusing on the removal of the image, and neither was Unclouded TJ's response. As Unclouded TJ pointed out, we've since moved on to a new matter.

Edited by TrevMUN
Feb 5th 2011 at 12:18:43 AM •••

I might still be unknowing some rule but "Rename history is just cruft outside of Renamed Tropes" where is this said? Also I still think it's an example of the trope if nothing else.

Feb 5th 2011 at 12:26:05 AM •••

Same here, Unclouded TJ. After seeing your comment, I checked the history and saw that, sure enough, Camacan came back to insist it was "cruft" before deleting it again. This time, though, he didn't try to claim that it was a "meme outbreak" or that "memes are not tropes."

I've reverted his deletion with a notice that he check the discussion page next time. Maybe we'll get an answer out of him.

In the meantime, I've been looking through the Administrivia and so far I have seen nothing to suggest that meta examples of TV Tropes at work are invalid. Especially in a case like this—it's not just an example noting who was the former Trope Namer, it's pointing out that TV Tropes invoked the Trope Namer's very trope on the Trope Namer.

Edited by TrevMUN
Feb 5th 2011 at 2:32:06 PM •••

To the people who feel sorry about losing the meta-example of the page image (which is indeed nice if you know what it's actually showing). You are perfectly welcome to make an example of this "controversy" in the main page. It certanly wouldn't be the first TV Tropes example listed in the wiki under "New Media".

Feb 5th 2011 at 3:28:25 PM •••

Okay, Alex The Pretty Good makes Snarky Condescending Troper #3 to stop by and talk down to everyone while completely ignoring the actual subject matter at hand.

Are you guys getting a rush by posting here making sneering remarks about the former main image page and pretending that's all we're talking about?

EDIT: Oh, I see why this is happening. Spell Blade called attention to the discussion page over at the Image Pickin' thread, and people are elated because they think we're upset about the image example being removed.

Wonderful. I suspect we'll have to put up with dozens more people who can't be bothered to read what they're commenting on, because Spell Blade made it sound like the matter at hand involved the image itself.

EDIT #2: Okay, I've posted on the Image Pickin' thread and gave them a piece of my mind. Alex The Pretty Good said he was aware of the example, didn't mean to come off as sneering, and was honestly suggesting moving the example involving Satsuki and TV Tropes to a New Media category.

Regardless, hopefully what I've said will deter anyone else who wants to come and harp on the image page. Maybe now we can actually discuss the example and what to do with it.

Edited by TrevMUN
Madrugada MOD
Feb 5th 2011 at 7:23:24 PM •••

This is a moderator comment, just so we're clear on that.

The examples on the page should relate to how they demonstrate or exhibit the trope. The history of the page is irrelevant to the examples. The section that Camacan removed about how Satsuki used to be the page image is irrelevant to the example as an example of trope use in anime.

If you want to put it up as an example in New Media, do so, but keep in mind that wikis work by consensus and compromise. If folks other than you don't see it as a valid example in that section either, you need to consider that,however much you folks think it's valid, it may not be to non-fans.

Feb 5th 2011 at 7:29:05 PM •••

Point of order, Madrugada: I'm not a fan of Tsukihime. Never watched the show, never played the games. I just think what's happened here is a valid and ironic meta example.

That said, if the example would pass muster by moving it to a New Media category, then I would like to do that. I have absolutely no issue with moving it into such a category. I'll wait to see what Unclouded TJ thinks, and hopefully we'll hear from Camacan as well.

Edited by TrevMUN
Feb 6th 2011 at 7:12:25 AM •••

PM Camacan if you want to hear from him

Feb 6th 2011 at 2:25:31 PM •••

Agreed I'll move it to New Media. I was thinking about it last night but wasn't sure if it'd just be deleted again.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report