Discussion Main / YouHaveNoChanceToSurvive

As I said before, I have no problem with listing the various ways this can be invoked. That's fine. It's below there (after the "Say your last goodbyes!" line) where it gets problematic. So point by point:

Adding the bit about Million to One Chance is a change of the trope definition, and one I'm not keen to do. After all, how credible is a villain making statements about the hero dying if the hero's survival ends up guaranteed? If you want to mention it, okay, but it shouldn't be so absolute.

I would avoid listing the Trope Namer in the definition when it's indicated in the examples. That's redundant.

Overall though, the biggest problem is that all of the comparisons to other tropes need to go together, preferably within a 2-3 line space. This was both a problem with the pre-trope repair definition and the one you've just proposed. You've got them scattered all over the place, which is just confusing.

Take Your Time and Bond Villain Stupidity aren't particularly related to this anyway (in fact, Take Your Time has nothing to do with this, so I'm not sure why you added it).

Finally, Taking You with Me or Thanatos Gambit are not the inverses of this trope, as the inverse of the trope requires...well, something to be inverted. The actual inverse would probably either be the hero saying he'll kill the villain, or the villain saying You Will Be Spared. After all, this trope doesn't require the villain to survive. You get the idea.

Ok, so:

• No problems with the paragraph describing various ways the trope can be invoked. The additional first paragraph you added should remove any confusion on the description. I'll put that section back in from "The classic... to ...goodbyes" if you have no problem with that.

• we move the Prepare to Die explanation to the same spot as the other disambigs, or put all disambigs down near the bottom of the article, so that section mentioned above does not split them up.

• I'll add the laconic definition as you suggested.

Based on the way the article flows, it would make sense to leave the existing paragraphs where they are, and group things together like so:

<snip> (leave top part as-is)

Compare If My Calculations Are Correct and No One Could Survive That!. Contrast I Need You Stronger, No, Mr. Bond, I Expect You to Dine, You Will Be Spared. Not to be confused with Your Days Are Numbered, which is not a threat but a fact.

When the villain finally gets serious and utters a Pre-Mortem one liner, see Prepare to Die. (alt location)

Note that villains may often use the exact phrase, "Your days are numbered!" Perhaps literally accompanied by "This is how much time you have to live!" The hero's response might be "Never Tell Me the Odds!". If it's merely a threat, such examples belong here.

The classic telegraphed villain threat has several variations... <snip> (add back in this part)
(...) goodbyes!"

When the villain finally gets serious and utters a Pre-Mortem one liner, see Prepare to Die.

(end of article)

You seem to be operating on a extremely literal interpretation of trope names. This is not good for you in general, and is a big part of the problem as I see it. You really need to research the tropes before you link to them. (In fact, if you look at the edit history, you can see I made that mistake myself with one link, but I corrected it.)

For example, Take Your Time is a video game trope, primarily used in role playing games, where despite the apparent urgency of the main quest, the player can embark on any number of side quests while the main quest remains effectively in stasis until the player goes back to it. It has nothing to do with generically just letting someone take their time, which is how you seem to be using it.

Anyway, here is my suggestion for the trope description:

<top part, mostly unchanged except for removing my Stock Phrase line>

The classic villain gloating has several variations, some of which are:

"Your days are numbered!" (not to be confused with Your Days Are Numbered)

"I'm afraid we won't meet again."

"This is now the ultimate power in the (x). We will crush you under our feet like insects!"

"Soon you will all be dead, and I will be (lounging on a beach / on my throne / etc!)"

"Take time to collect your thoughts, for soon you will be dead!"

"Say your last goodbyes!"

<compare/contrast tropes go here>

<end description>

And I'd like to note that the villain was always serious (or roughly as serious as whoever that villain is gets), so the Pre-Mortem / Prepare To Die line is not really needed. Prepare to Die works well as a comparison though, and should be added there.

By "gets serious" I simply meant time-wise. As in buckle down and attempt to kill the hero, that's Prepare to Die. We don't have to use that exact language, however. I agree a sentence of that sort is needed as a comparison.

— > For now, I'm going to add in the text we both agree on and we can talk about the rest later. Sound OK? < —

Looks good. I altered the description format slightly to make it flow a little better (nothing major).

Oh, and one more thing. What do you specifically mean by the phrase "telegraphed in advance"?

The rewrite was because the trope definition wasn't very specific. A trope definition needs to have a few specific rules that absolutely have to occur in order for the trope to be listed. Your definition included all kinds of special cases, making it far too broad. Nail down exactly what the trope is, and you'll get better results. Also, see my above post.

Oh, and I like the second laconic definition. I would suggest changing the "insists" to "gloats".

Here's a link to the TV Tropes Forum Discussion that lasted all of six days, between the day of launch and today when I came back to catch up on edits.

What's distressing is, someone was claiming that the trope was faulty due to lack of wicks. This trope just got launched as of a week before this post.

Don't go trying to re-change the definition sort of back to the way it was before without discussing it with other tropers first, that's bad form. If you want to add a list of different ways this trope can be expressed, fine, but please keep to the current definition for now.

No offense, but if you can't be bothered or be available to debate this in the forums yourself, then you really can't complain when we change it without your input.

I kept what you wrote, thinking you were a cautious and fair editor who was attempting to add valuable content but you did not do the same. It seems there are a lot of folks ("we?" are we not all "we?") who don't interact during the YKTTW phase and discuss everything behind the scenes on Trope Repair Shop over such a minimal period.

If you can't respect someone's work, please don't delete it without comment. You are the person who deleted the text. If you can't be bothered to participate in the YKTTW but instead behind a 6-day long Trope Repair Shop discussion which I and the other people who actually participated in the YKTTW are unable to reply to (the trope repair shop was taken down after only 6 days, before I even came back) and it was posted by someone who tried to cutlist the trope for "lack of wicks" on the day after it was launched! then I do not expect some people to honestly discuss the issue here with us.

Especially when some of the people I have interacted with on the forums have never been remotely friendly, presumably because I'm not a forum regular, i.e. the "in crowd" you are apparently referring to of "us" folks 'from' the Trope Repair Shop.

You're the person who wholesale deleted what I wrote. In fact, you page-blanked the trope launch. There is no change in definition here between what you and I wrote.

Unless you feel your definition is restricted to use of the phrase in a Death Trap situation, or restricted to actual use of the phrase, neither of which amount to a trope without reference to the general phenomenon of a telegraphed death threat.

You patrolled your edits on this page but did not patrol the YKTTW when it was active, and (I guess) expected me to patrol Trope Repair shop every day immediately upon trope launch after this passed extensive YKTTW.

There can be no consensus in discussion page when no one is participating in YKTTW or discussion page and everyone is sticking to the forums, keeping a trope on Repair Shop for 6 days after it launched, and replying only to threads started by people they know.

The reason this trope got flagged for repair immediately was twofold: that you didn't follow one of the Three Rules Of Three guildlines (specifically the one regarding trope name consensus), and that the description, as I said before, was poorly written.

I'd also point out that adding stuff like "This is the opposite of Trope X" and "Expect Trope Y to be invoked when this happens" are, in fact, alterations to the definition. That's beside the point though: You added the stuff, a lot of which seems to be stuff I cut personally from the old definition, without consensus here first. This is why I cut it, for at least until you could explain why you think it is necessary to other tropers like myself (which you still haven't yet).

I'm sorry I was unable to participate in the YKTTW discussion, but I can't be everywhere on this wiki, or on all the time. As for 6 days...that's actually a fairly long time in TV Tropes land. This site runs 24/7, and discussions can move pretty fast.

It's a basic fact of anything internet-based: Stuff can happen fast, very fast. TV Tropes is no exception. I was not aware you were not able to be on, nor was I the one who called for or locked the Trope Repair thread. I know full well that real life circumstances may be keeping you from being on very often, but there's not a lot I can do about it. So getting offended changes nothing: this is the pace at which we work, and it probably is not going to change for your convenience, or mine. (And yes, the pace of things does frustrate me sometimes too. It's a real bear like that.)

So how do we reach consensus? I suppose you and I could discuss it here.

I'll post what got removed below (which is in fact a smoothed out rewritten version of the page launch description, subordinated to your text).

"The reason this trope got flagged for repair immediately was twofold: that you didn't follow one of the Three Rules Of Three guildlines (specifically the one regarding trope name consensus)"

Objections to the trope name did not come up in YKTTW. It was recommended that there be a redirect since the name itself is long but iconic (thereby meeting the rule of trope namers). The major consensus of the Repair Shop discussion, now that I've read it, was that the short version be used, and the long for the redirect. That isn't a major objection and it isn't an objection to the definition.

I can't be everywhere on this wiki either (ninja'd = I agree with the post you just wrote after what I replied).

"You added the stuff, a lot of which seems to be stuff I cut personally from the old definition, without consensus here first."

Ok, but you personally cut stuff from the old definition. I didn't cut anything you wrote, just added back in what was cut without discussion on the trope page. What you wrote is the same definition as what I wrote, so no disagreement there unless you see it as a much narrower trope. You're indicating you object to the original trope somehow, but I don't see where the disagreement lies. and therefore cut out the whole page and rewrite it. I don't think anyone wants to actually narrow the trope definition: Exact-phrase is not separately tropable and was never the intention because, as you note, it's one of several familiar variants of this trope. It's a trope, not just a stock phrase...

The reason I originally YKTTW'ed is not because of any attempt to "shoehorn" Zero Wing phrases. It's because we didn't have this one. I went to potlink a telegraphed threat to the relevant trope and couldn't find one because there was no trope for it... I knew that Zero Wing was an example so I figured surely it would be listed there. No dice. How Did We Miss This One?

I've seen some pretty prominent YKTTWs with pretty good consensus for renames, etc. be allowed to marinate for quite some time so as to give people a chance to comment. I know that's not your fault. I hope someone didn't fail to "assume good faith" because it was launched by someone they don't know or don't like.

I personally cut stuff from the old definition...because there was a consensus that the trope needed cleanup, both in terms of the name and the definition. Thus the new definition, which according to you is what you intended all along.

However, this isn't exactly subjective. There are specific guidelines for clarity in tropes and descriptions, and your original approach was agreed on to fall outside those guidelines. Thus the repair.

And just so you know, not disagreeing with a name =/= agreeing on a name. Silent consent doesn't count for our purposes, we need people to actually say "The name is good." This is the other reason you came under fire. This one needed more time in YKTTW before you launched it.

It's good that we're in rough agreement on what the trope is, we're only really arguing about how to best phrase the definition.

Anyway, it's time for me to go the magic happy place called slumberland. Let's continue this later (if you're available).

Totemic Hero, I'm also going to bed... Thanks for being polite. This sort of thing distressed me because of the lack of transparency with which "silent consent" sometimes operates. Folks in the YKTTW did say they thought the reference was good (for the simple reason that it fits the trope definition precisely, it's a well known work, and every other line is already a trope, so Rule of Cool), the inspiration for the trope was larger than that as initial examples show (it was the fact that there was no trope centered on this particular sort of villain phrase — I think the original objection on Trope Repair Shop was assuming this was a content-free trope, that was merely pimping the Trope Namer) and a number of replies came in over several weeks. My personal thing with launching stuff is to not launch at all if there is an objection, unless a consensus has been made to solve it...

On Edit: Ok, now I really am going to bed... let's discuss this at the bottom of the thread where I posted the previous version of the page so you and I can discuss what, if anything, is specifically at issue. Perhaps we can reach some common ground.

Not an example under the current definition, where the villain is making it clear there's a way for the heroes to avoid death (by sacrificing Andromeda). There's can't be any ways out.

Well, that makes sense. I didn't add the example.