Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Forum administrators, Interface administrators, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
116,996
edits
m (clean up) |
Looney Toons (talk | contribs) (fixed link) |
||
Line 8:
You might say that it doesn't, and yes, we should have every single conceivable trope. That's missing the forest for the trees. There's something to be gained from [[Lumper vs. Splitter|Lumping]] all the examples of a parasol connected with sexiness, or beauty, or what-have-you, in the same place and have them add up to something. This is the whole idea of what a "trope" is; otherwise, every single thing that ever happened in fiction might as well be its own trope.
And that problem just arises from considering the issue in theory; it becomes a whole lot messier in practice. Suppose we were to launch [[Sexy Parasol]]. We would have to note the subtle differences on both pages, people would still mix them up, it would end up
We don't have a hard rule about the minimum difference two tropes must have; as long as there is ''some'' difference, technically you are allowed to launch it. But if consensus has it that your trope is '''Ridiculously Similar''' to some other trope, it may be the time to take a step back and rework your suggestion to focus on the ''really'' essential parts so it becomes more distinct. If that still doesn't help, that's nothing to fret about- in fact, it's good news. It means that [[Yes, We DO Have This One]].
|