Needs Help: Our Mermaids Are Different

Decided to launch the thread early cuz I started the wick check for this trope almost half a year ago and I've been told the TRS Queue is only a suggestion.

Courtesy link to the oldest version of the page on the Internet Archive as well as the original TLP

Much like with Cloning Blues (or Clone Angst, as it is now called) I noticed Our Mermaids Are Different, which is supposed to be used to describe what makes mermaids in fiction different from other mermaids, is frequently misused for "This character is a mermaid." For that reason, I conducted a wick check that can be found here. The results are as follows:

• 19/50 are correct usage due to describing what makes the mermaid different
• 15/50 are misuse for "This character is a mermaid"
• 13/50 are misuse for "This character is NOT a mermaid, they simply pretended to be one."
• 3/50 are other/unclear

This trope is a mess. It's pretty clear to me that there's confusion over what this trope applies to, much like what happened to Cloning Blues / Clone Angst. I therefore suggest that this trope's definition is made clearer, with the addition of a requirement that the character HAS to be a mermaid, as well as a rename on top of that. I also recommend that the other tropes in the Our Monsters Are Different index (most of which I believe are snowclones) are examined for potentially similar issues.

(Pinging ~Theriocephalus, ~ACW, and ~GracieLizzy as requested.)

Edited by JHD0919 on Jan 27th 2024 at 7:05:01 AM

Opening.

I’ve noticed the other Our Monsters Are tropes have this problem too, especially Our Vampires Are Different.

I don't think it's a problem. It's not chairs that a work uses a common fictional character. It's like a Shout-Out but broader.

I agree with Malady with this argument, and for making the description more clear. And yes, we should look the other Our Monsters Are Different subpages.

Until Our Monsters Are Different itself gets a thread, I'd rather Our Mermaids Are Different just be cleaned up and left alone, because the same issue can be said about all of them.

I feel like it's already pretty clear about only applying to actual mermaids. I don't see the point in clarifying since the people who misuse it probably just haven't read the page to begin with.

Yeah, I think OP misunderstood the point of this trope. As the description states:

Perhaps some of the examples could use some more context regarding their depictions, but this trope applies to virtually all mermaids, not just ones who deviate from the traditional fairy tale mermaid archetype. The mermaids from Harry Potter are certainly different from those in The Little Mermaid (1989), but such a comparison applies vice-versa. I will say that I think we’re a bit overdosed Our Monsters Are Different tropes, but I see no significant problems with this one.

Plenty of the examples in the wick check’s “Misuse” folders seem clearly misplaced as well, even judging by the wick check’s standards. Here’s a couple from the “Misuse - Simply mentions this is a mermaid” folder:

• WesternAnimation.Bubble Guppies: The guppies themselves are typical mermaids, but we also have mer-dogs, mer-cows, mer-horses... basically all land animals are mer-creatures in this show.
• WesternAnimation.My Little Pony The Movie 2017: Mythology Gag: While they've appeared previously in G4 storybooks and comics, the movie officially carries G1's seaponies into the G4 animation. The song that happens in their kingdom, "One Small Thing", evokes a Busby Berkeley Number, which the G1 seaponies' song also did. The group also call upon the seaponies when they're in distress.

I don’t see how mermaid versions of creatures other than humans fail to be sufficiently “different”. And a few from “Misuse - Ties mermaid theme to character who isn't a mermaid”:

• BreadEggsBreadedEggs.Western Animation: Robot Chicken: One sketch has a fisherman catch a mermaid who angrily corrects him when he mistakes her for a genie. A few moments later, she reveals herself to be a genie who only looks like a mermaid.
• Characters.Ganbare Goemon: In some games she gains the ability to turn into a mermaid, allowing you to swim underwater in deep bodies of water like rivers and oceans. ^note This is in reference to Yae.
• Characters.Hyrule Warriors DLC Characters: Marin wields a bell as her main weapon, itself a magical instrument created by mermaids. She uses the bell's chimes to create water-based attacks or summon the Wind Fish. She can also sing sweet melodies to attack enemies.
• Characters.Kingdom Hearts Sora: While in Atlantica, Sora will appear as a merman with a blue dolphin tail, thanks to Donald's magic.

“Mermaid who is actually a genie who looks like a mermaid” seems different enough to me. The Hyrule Warriors examples looks fine to me as well; the actual mermaids are mentioned only in passing, but the attacks imply a variety of distinct traits associated with the game’s depiction of mermaids. And just because a character isn’t a mermaid by default doesn’t mean them taking on the form of a mermaid is invalid. Sure, you could argue that those examples don’t explain how they’re different, but that means they should go in the first “Misuse” folder.

Edited by jandn2014 on Jan 27th 2024 at 12:43:38 PM

A slight note — the entry for Sora has been updated since the wick check was made, and now better fits the intended description of the trope in explaining how his merfolk form is different:

• Our Mermaids Are Different: While normally human, in Atlantica, Sora takes the form of a merman with a blue dolphin's tail rather than the local merfolk's standard fish-like tail, thanks to Donald's magic. The difference is purely cosmetic though, as his transformed body otherwise functions exactly the same as Ariel and Triton's.

Until next time...

Anon e Mouse Jr.

I’d still argue that “mermaids exist” is basically People Sit on Chairs due to how common they are in fiction, so each entry should state how the mermaid is portrayed differently.

So examples that just state “X is a mermaid” are sufficient context? That does not seem right to me.

Edited by MasterN on Jan 27th 2024 at 2:37:16 AM

I think this just needs a cleanup thread and not TRS. Also, the snowclone isn't a problem because the Everything's Worse with Snowclones page lists "Our X Are Different" as a snowclone that works.

Edit because I was ninja'd: It's been established in the past (before I was a mod, this came up in the appearance trope thread regarding Purple Eyes) something that exists solely in fiction can't be Chairs (the issue with Purple Eyes was being redundant with other tropes). It may be a broad concept mostly covered by subtropes, but not Chairs. That, and being common isn't an issue when No Trope Is Too Common. Chairs is about things being meaningless, regardless of how common they are.

Edit: It's not sufficient context for the current definition if the trope requires examples to say what makes them different from mermaids in other works. As far as I know, the broader concept is a Missing Supertrope.

Edit unrelated to the post before this one: Is there a cleanup thread for Our Monsters Are Different and its subtropes? If there isn't already one and that trope and its subtropes are having problems with misuse and/or ZCEs, one might be a good idea if cleanup is needed (though obviously TRS would be needed if cleanup isn't enough).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 27th 2024 at 5:16:35 AM

I don't think there's an Our Monsters Are Different cleanup thread, but I think one might be sorely needed at this point.

Out Cleanups? We gonna take cleanups out for a nice jog?

Edited by JHD0919 on Jan 27th 2024 at 6:42:45 AM

The thread name could be "Out Cleanups Are Different", while Our Monsters Are Different can have a designated Trope Talk to discuss if there's a more general issue and what can be done with it (Dunno, maybe splitting into Classical X and Atypical X monster appearances), though these being about fairytale creatures, they allow for loose interpretation already.

If a cleanup is necessary in this case, then let's do this.

Getting in one quick comment because there's an important trend in the examples that the OP does not mention. A significant majority of the correct examples listed in the wick check — all of the ones in the first folder, in fact — are ones formatted like so:

Whereas most of the ones listed as low- to no-context in the last two categories are formatted as potholes — that is, the link is "hidden" by some other phrase in order to insert it into the discussion of something else.

So if the name is displayed and visible, the example is usually correct; if it's incorrect, the name is usually hidden.

What this strongly suggests to me is that the name is actually clearly encouraging correct usage by prompting editors to describe how mermaids are, in fact, different. This makes me think that a rename would be unnecessary and in fact almost certainly not useful — the issue is that people tend to sneak potholes where they shouldn't and without much visible context, but that's a persistent site-wide issue that can't be solved by reworking a single trope or even a family thereof.

Edited by Theriocephalus on Jan 29th 2024 at 9:59:44 AM

Thanks for pointing out that pattern!

If there's nothing wrong with Mermaids beyond needing cleanup, is there any problem with Our Monsters Are Different in general either?

Probably not. If you can demonstrate an issue that is unique compared to what we describe here, you can bring that one (or some other subtrope) to TRS.

Locking since the clock expires in a few hours.