Isn't there a difference in a justifing edit and mentioning a justified trope? In other words, is the problem the apparence of conversation in the page or every justified trope ever is going to get cut?
For instance, I sort of get why you guys hate:
Trope A
- Used in Show B.
- Justified by reason C.
But I don't see a problem with:
Trope A:
- Justified in Show B because of C.
That is; following the same formula as:
- Subverted in...
- Averted in...
- Inverted in...
A lot of the time, it's Word Cruft. If there are additional circumstances around the example, you don't need to say that they Justify it, you can just...say them. And don't forget that Your Mileage May Vary whether an explanation is a Justification or a Hand Wave. Additionally, Tropes Are Not Bad—the usage of a trope doesn't need to be "Justified." Giving additional information about the circumstances surrounding the trope's usage can inflate Example Explanation Density too thickly.
In general, it's poor style. It isn't as egregious when it's formatted properly as part of the same bullet point (as opposed to messing up the Example Indentation), but it's still very Word Cruft-y.
Edited by troacctid Rhymes with "Protracted."
Don't take this as anything more than the opinion of me as an individual, but as far as I know, there's nothing inherently with the form you suggest there, as long as it really is a Justified Trope rather than just an example that has some kind of in-story rationalization.
Actually, "averted" and "subverted" are grossly overused on the wiki. Most instances are just a way to say "my favourite show doesn't use this trope, but I want to Entry Pimp it further so this trope was averted/subverted by my favourite show."
As for your use of the word "justified", it's hardly never needed as such. Just formulate the example as such: "In Show A, Bob follows this trope because reason C"
The fact that you use the word "because" already implies that the remainder of the phrase is a justification. Adding a "Justified" intro adds no additional value to the example and is pure Word Cruft.
Everything can be found on the Internet... except common sense.
@troacctid, I know VERY WELL that Tropes Are Not Bad, and I happen to think the same about Trope Tropes :) and that's why I feel Justified Trope entries have merit.
@Alex The Pretty Good, I think aversions and subversions are great, it gives a pretty well detailed idea of what's out there.
@requiem18th Are there shows that don't justify their use of a trope? Every use of a trope has a reason It's used. Every example on a page that's more than just a title could start with Justified in. If something wasn't justified then that IS worth noting as that's quite bizarre. do we have a metatrope for tropes pulled out of left field?
LOLWUT
I think that tropes should only be described as Justified if it is a normally Doylist trope (due to genre conventions, limitations, etc.) that is given an explicit in-universe Watsonian reason. An (admittedly bad) example might be to justify Money Spiders in a classic-style RPG by saying that the player isn't taking coins directly from the wolf carcass in front of him, but that he is harvesting valuable resources from it (hides, bones, potion ingredients) and is somehow able to magically transport them to a broker or something who teleports money in return.
"Negative" tropes and such don't play into it since Tropes Are Tools.
Edited by 216.99.32.43
I fully understand that we don't want Conversation On The Main Page, that Tropes Are Not Bad, Tropes Are Tools, etc...but sometimes a trope's entry page will cast the trope in a negative light, citing how it's a heaving mass of Double Standard, Unfortunate Implications, racist, sexist, homophobic, or just plain bad in some other way. For instance, I can see someone being tempted to make a Justifying Edit when they see their favorite work listed in Faux Action Girl (which is generally thought to be an inherently negative trope). It's a little hard to interpret an entry as saying "this tired Cliché gets overused by cheap idiots" or "this trope is bad, and characters/works who embody this trope are major Wall Bangers for us!" I'm not calling hypocrisy here, just...making a point.
Edited by Stoogebie Hide / Show Replies
They should resist that temptation. Even if objective tropes could be inherantly negative, no work is perfect. There isn't ever a legitamate reason for a "To be fair", "On the other hand", or "Well, if you look at it this way".
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
What about edit wars? I've fixed one mistaken entry twice but it keeps being corrected to give inaccurate information. I didn't want to make a justifying edit and say "no, it's actually actor X that has this physical characteristic, not actor Y", but whoever wrote the original entry keeps reverting it. It feels like the only way to fix it would be to strike out Y and then write a justifying edit in afterwards.
Hide / Show Replies
Just post about it on Ask The Tropers, and a mod will step in if need be.
Edited by BritBllt "And for the first time in weeks, I felt the boredom go away!"
I'm a bit confused as to the difference between Justifying Edits and Explicating Edits. It seems to mostly come down to whether or not you disagree with the editor..?
Hide / Show Replies
Edits that are about responding to the poster above you are a bad idea in general.
I'd say it's better to incorporate what you have to add into the existing paragraph, except 9 times out of 10 what people have to add is rambling fancruft that doesn't help get the point across and bloats the example into a Wall of Text.
You might want to take a look at the Thread Mode article to see how this tends to come out when the edits are of the "Yes, but..." variety. But the "Yes, and furthermore..." brand aren't that much better. Brevity Is Wit. (Sure, there are exceptions to this such as a well-executed Overly Long Gag. But, well, Sturgeon's Law.)
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
After reading this entry, I'm more confused than ever about what a justifying edit is, and what the rules are concerning edits. It's certainly clear that if I see one of my favorite works listed as an example of, say, the Action Girl trope, it would be a bad idea for me to write a disclaimer below the entry that says, "This show doesn't belong on a trope page, because tropes are all bad, and this show is good!!!"
But while that much is clear, I'm still confused about all of the following: Are all edits that disagree with an entry considered justifying edits? Or is it just the ones that seek to defend a favorite work against someone who's perceived to dislike it? Are all justifying edits bad, as it says at the top of the page, or are they just to be used extremely sparingly, as later passages imply? Are all "To be fair..." comments against the rules? If so, what are we supposed to do if someone writes something that's grossly misleading, but not technically false? (I know that if something is outright factually incorrect, it should be deleted, but what if someone writes an entry in Growing the Beard claiming that fans of Frasier were relieved when the show finally peaked during the 7th to 10th seasons? That claim isn't technically false, because there very well may be some fans who felt that way, but it grossly misrepresents the reality that there's an overwhelming consensus that those were the worst seasons by far. Are we supposed to let a statement like that stand unchallenged? Delete it? Or write an edit that expresses disagreement?)
And finally, isn't there a way to get the point across that not all tropes are bad without implying that none are bad? I certainly hope that the people in charge of the site are not of the opinion that a trope like All Gays Are Pedophiles is "natural" because it "works."
Hide / Show Replies
If an example is misleading, edit it to make it more accurate. That's the 'wiki principle': repair, don't respond.
But what if there's no way to repair it without completely subverting the intention of the person who wrote it? Like the example with Frasier above...the only way I can think of to repair an entry like that (to stop it from being misleading) would be to reverse its meaning. And even if someone did that, then the entry wouldn't be an appropriate example for the Growing the Beard trope, because the show's first season is widely regarded as one of the best - there was no beard to grow. Would it be appropriate, then, to delete that particular entry altogether?
Subvert the fuck out of their intentions. Nobody owns the text they write on the wiki; it's all fair game.
If an example isn't salvageable, then yeah, remove it altogether.
Anyone else think it'd be nice if there was an adminstivia based on how the term "justified" actually works?
For instance, it would be fine to justify a Game-Breaking Bug if it actually was so well received it became a true mechanic and thus, an Ascended Glitch (with the off-topic but logical massive nerf to the now-canon glitch), and how justifying it because the game's great isn't fine?
I've always wanted that to exist. Sorry if that sample was confusing by the way...
Edited by 75.112.219.241 butts