Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,897
edits
All The Tropes:Word Cruft: Difference between revisions
Replaced a link to a redirect with a link to the actual page
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (updated link) |
(Replaced a link to a redirect with a link to the actual page) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Mechanics of Writing}}
Many new Tropers are unpracticed at [[Hedge Trimmer|economical writing]]. With that in mind, the following guidelines may be helpful:
* '''But enough about that, let's talk about me!:''' "[[This Troper]] is shocked that we have gone so long without mentioning..." "As far as this troper can remember..." This self-insertion can inevitably be removed without changing the content of the example. Although after you do so, you might find it ''has'' no content.
Line 13:
* '''Someone should totally look into that:''' "Does anyone remember a show called...?" "Wasn't there an episode where...?" An excellent question! Someone should totally look into that. Deleted!
* '''Played straight and subverted:''' A mysterious piece of fluff stuck on the front of random examples. The cool thing is that if you take the time to decode it, it means: "something happens, unless it doesn't". Sometimes, it means "Played straight [here], then subverted [there] in the same work." In other words—there are two (or more) examples from the same work. Sort out which one it is and make the appropriate correction; if it's cruft, cut it. If it's two different examples from the same work, separate them into two sub-bullets.
* '''How did we miss ...:''' Some individuals are addicted to sticking [[How Did We Miss This One?]] or [[So, Yeah]] onto their examples like ugly verbal warts.
* '''Mind-boggling [[Verbal Tic|verbal tics]]:''' Science cannot explain it, but certain tropers reflexively prepend "of course", "bear in mind" or "do note" (or in one terminal case: "of course, do bear in mind") to ''every single example they write''. "Not to mention..." is another, as are "Heck..." and "Of all things". Just mention it or don't mention it. The preamble doesn't help. Until a cure can be found, the best that can be hoped is that these people are tracked down and sent to the Troper Institution For Re-Education Using [[Noodle Implements|Raspberry Jam And Live Marmosets]].
* ''' 'Subverted' as verbal chaff:''' Sticking "subverted by" (or worse yet, "semi-subverted" or "partially subverted") at the start of a paragraph is not a license to spend the rest of said paragraph noodling around on whatever topic randomly crosses your lobes. Nor is "subverted" a magical word that takes on whatever meaning you like, including "[[Not a Subversion|not actually subverted at all]]". See above re. "marmosets".
* '''Unnecessary "clarification":''' "To clarify", "to expand", and "to elaborate" all look really clumsy in an article, especially when the troper who puts it in feels the need to create a new bullet for it. And even when merged into one paragraph, it makes it look like the wiki is arguing with itself. This falls under the [[Repair, Don't Respond]] umbrella.
* '''[[All The Tropes:About Rhetorical Questions|About Rhetorical Questions]]:''' This isn't the author's fault. Rhetorical questions are a very useful device! Unfortunately, an explosion in a lead paint chips factory in Montana has left a fair chunk of the internet with the approximate IQ of a retarded gibbon. If you pose a rhetorical question, or anything that could by the remotest stretch be interpreted as a rhetorical question, someone will [[Misaimed Fandom|respond to it seriously]] and then pat himself on the back (with his long, gibbon-like arms) for his amazing internet wit. The probability of this happening is 1. Do not write rhetorical questions.
* '''[[Examples Are Not Arguable|Justifying A Not-Quite-An-Example]]''': "Arguably", "quite possibly", "many believe", and the rest of their ilk are a sign that either the example may not be an example at all, and that the editor who added it knows that, deep in his/her/their heart of hearts; or that the editor is trying to slide a YMMV in on the main page instead of the YMMV
* '''Hyperbolic comparatives:''' "X is built on this trope," "X is the quintessential example," "X is the [[Most Triumphant Example]]," "If you thought that was great," etc. Examples operate on their own merits, not in comparison with other examples. Calling something the "greatest X ever" is highly subjective, not to mention irrelevant. If you find yourself doing this, strip out all the fluff and just tell us what's going on.
* '''Positional comparatives:''' "Like the example above," "Unlike the previous example," etc. Tropes may be renamed. Articles may be
{{reflist}}
| |||