Trope Description Improvement Drive

Is this note from Vitriolic Best Buds still necessary?

Empowered Badass Normal has an "Important Note" which seems redundant:

Empowered Badass Normal is a trope that specifically deals with a Badass Normal who gains superpowers. It does not mean "Badass with superpowers." There are plenty of other Badass-related tropes to deal with those. Please help us fight this Trope Decay.

Given how long it's been there, it's apparent that it's included to cover for the very unclear former name Badass Abnormal. But nowadays it's pointing out that the words in the trope name mean what they refer to, information that's already present in the rest of the description and front and center in the laconic. Is this really necessary?

I'd say it's no longer needed.

Would it be fine to add this to the description of The Inverse Law of Fandom Levity? I think this describes a certain type type of an example:

So, TRS decided to rename Incorruptible Pure Pureness and clarify that it's IUEO. But I can't find any way to change the description as it's already very IUEO-centric. I don't want to just push on with no consensus but bumping the thread has gotten me nothing. So I'm outsourcing here; does anyone have any input regarding whether or not changes are possible here?

By the way, I do find a lot of the entries iffy.

Daredevil would never lose his idealism? Half of the characters's runs are about Matt Murdock battling with himself to hold on to his ideals.

I also do have my doubts about She-Hulk, Spider-Man and almost all of the X-Men listed. Colossus is the only one I could see a strong case for, and even him had that rather famous period where he killed a villain that has hurt Kitty Pryde, and then he ended up reborn as an American artist that was moody and all (because unconsciously he wanted to stop being Colossus), and then he joined Magneto, and then and then and then...

As a rule of thumb, Marvel has few characters like this, since it's all about making the characters fallible. But perhaps I'm understanding the trope wrong? And is this the place to discuss it?

Over at DC, I'm even thinking considering Nightwing this is pushing it. He's much more stable than Batman, but I am not sure he's the sort that would never stoop to morally questionable actions ever. I see him more like She-Hulk at Marvel, characters that are the superpowered equivalent of the Nice Guy, but falling short of "pureness".

Thinking of it, even the archetypical The Cape, Superman, has slipped on occasion.

Edited by renenarciso2 on May 2nd 2024 at 6:39:28 AM

...cool, but that's not helpful right now. Cleanup hasn't started yet; of course there's bad examples. What I need is help with the description. Which is why I'm here.

What's wrong with the description? Other than the moral compass part that someone suggested axing? If I had encountered The Incorruptible looking like that, I'd think it's fine as is.

The issue is that we're supposed to make it "In-Universe", but I don't see any way to make such a trait more obvious. I asked here because bumping the thread (and posting at the meta thread) got me completely ignored, and I can't move forward unless there's some consensus on the description. I asked here because this was the only place left to go.

I see. That is a tough one.

The main problem I see is that the trope description is all about what this character is. And that would usually be cool, because true "goodness" is about the character's essence and actions, and not about how the character is perceived by others.

However, issues of IUEO vs fan reactions are ultimately about how the character is perceived.

I don't see any other way except to mention how viewers's judgment of a character is subjective then, and emphasize more IUEO perceptions of the character's goodness. To avoid making it about the character's in-universe popularity, it should emphasize stuff like empathic weapons that detect "good" characters, portals that only work for the "pure of heart" (or, the opposite, they only work for characters that aren't 100% good, etc.) and stuff like that.

I should note that the trope is now The Incorruptible; the focus is on the "so pure they can't be corrupted" aspect. Which I think was always technically the case...

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if we moved this to the TRS thread, where it technically belongs.

I noticed the bit about the trope being the opposite of Complete Monster, and I'm...not really sure that's accurate.

Is that an artifact from the former name? Cause it should probably be cut.

Edited by ArthurEld on May 2nd 2024 at 8:57:29 AM

Yeah, it is.

Again though this discussion should move to TRS; I asked here mainly to see if anyone was interested in helping, but the discussion belongs there.

The description of Be All My Sins Remembered seems very confused to me. It starts off as if it's a Stock Phrase trope (its name is, after all, a line of Shakespearean dialogue), but then says that it "refers to [a] state of mind." A few sentences later, it mysteriously refers to "the actions" and then "the action," and then potholes an entire sentence stating what "[t]he idea is" to a different trope.

Edited by Prfnoff on May 3rd 2024 at 6:26:31 AM

We need to emphasise that The Incorruptible is not necessarily good; Pure Is Not Good and all. It is someone who holds on to their ideals whatever temptation comes before them, but those ideals might themselves be corrupt. A Knight Templar is the trope played as a villain.

The Simple Life is Simple has this paragraph:

As we seek ways to solve global warming and the despoiling of natural resources, we may believe that small organic farms selling produce at farmers' markets, etc. are the answer. But most people can't afford to buy land and make the necessary investments. And most people, especially low-income workers who want but can't afford nutritious food, can't "just" quit their jobs and move out to the country. Community gardens and urban gardening/farming as Ron Finley teaches are more realistic, and closer to what was done in cities as recently as a century ago (which is why you'll see chickens and goats in some old movies set in big cities).

The description of Lady Macbeth contains the following paragraph:

I feel everything after the first sentence is a digression that doesn't belong in the trope description. The trope is merely named after the Shakespeare character; it's not a trope about the character. Any objections to cutting everything after the first full stop?

There might be a place for it, like an Analysis page or the Real Life section, but it definitely doesn't belong in the description.

Yes, please cut that.

Done.

The description for Exit, Pursued by a Bear ends with the following sentence:

"Invoked by the episode of the same name of Shakespeare & Hathaway - Private Investigators."

I don't see why this is at all necessary. The stage direction is so famous, it's been parodied countless times, probably in plenty of work titles.

Any objections to cutting?

The whole point of S&H is that it's packed full of references to the plays. This is no more notable for the show than any of the others and, as you say, the play and line get referenced everywhere.

Cut.

Have done, citing this thread.

Military Mashup Machine is an old article with a lot of holdovers from the early days (entries referring to each other, works placed in a sub-bullet to a different work, dropping a shortened name with no link) and I intend to fix some of them, but first the description. I don't like the snark linked to Creative Sterility in the first paragraph. My suggested rewrite:

Edited by Reymma on May 7th 2024 at 2:23:08 PM

This paragraph on Epunymous Title:

is a) vague, b) not really supported by the examples, which list many American shows, and c) confusing because Knight Rider is an Epunymous Title by itself! Would anyone mind if I just zapped it?