Talk:Trope (literature)

message: This is an abstruse and overblown claim.  We shouldn't be running around willy-nilly throwing quotes in Wikipedia just because an academic ejaculated them.  One also shouldn't have to read through an entire scholarly paper cited here just to see if some lofty-sounding claim is justified.  Please tone down the postmodern mumbo jumbo or at least attempt to provide some intelligible explanation.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csdavis1 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "constitutive of our experience"

message: I removed the grossly misleading redirect (there is a considerable difference between literature and linguistics) and wrote from scratch a new stub.  Contributions/expansions welcome.  Please do not be tempted to make this page an exhaustive list of tropes; if you must, start a new list page.  See also here for a list of some character-related tropes. Freederick 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Fresh Start

message: I corrected the historically unjustified relation of trope with τροπή inserted by The Cat and the Owl. It is falsified by OED, Merriam-Webster, and Larousse Dictionnaire, and of course it doesn't explain the Latin tropus; see also Talk:Trope (linguistics). Omnipedian (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Trope (linguistics) and Trope (Literature) should be merged into one article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.232.158 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Article 

message: I came here from 'TV Tropes' after visiting a dictionary. I could understand 'words used in a different sense' in an abstract way, but concrete examples would have let me confirm that I've 'grokked'... and make the article more educational for younger readers.  Common examples are used with article figure of speech to great effect. Maybe a common example could be included with each item in the list of types of tropes. E.g. for 'metonymy' the short example 'fishing for information'. Also it'd be helpful to distinguish 'trope' from 'figure of speech' (why are there separate articles?) - again, possibly including examples of common patterns, themes, motifs which are -not- figures of speech. No doubt these terms are quite familiar for very literate people (who'll probably not show up here), but need to be spelled out more so that more people can be literate.
Admittedly I have a problem with much of Wikipedia being technically correct but not very accessible when it comes to disciplinary jargon. Examples sometimes help cut the Gordian knots.Twang (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I learned about the literary device of a "trope" in my 8th grade English reading and comprehension class in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in public school. Please do not be self-deprecating, Twang (upon re-reading your comment, i don't think you were now). I agree with you, that this article could benefit from more short examples of usage.
In my opinion, it should be kept distinct from topos and linguistic trope. Yet it still may be appropriate to merge this article with Linguistic Tropes, in two different sections of the same article. Alternatively, this article could be combined with another literary device article that was similar, to provide more context and examples as you mentioned.--FeralOink (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmmm

message: How is a trope different from a meme? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Trope pre-dated meme by at least a century. I'm still not sure what a meme is! --FeralOink (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are multiple modern definitions of a meme, generally used in different ways by different communities. On Reddit, facebook, imageboards and forums, it usually connotes that whole "image with impact font text" thing, but the scientific definition was originated by Dawkins. The second is generally only used in academic discussion. 71.51.249.84 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: This definition is different from that given on the disambiguity page (Trope (literature) or Literary trope, a common theme used in storytelling.) and seems to be the same as that used in linguistics.  In my (limited) experience, the definition used on the disambiguity page more closely matches how trope is used in literature... to define a common uage not to play against it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.49.155 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Different from Definition on Disambiguous page

message: This article (trope (literature)) and trope (linguistics) were tagged for merging by Robertgreer on 21 May 2010.  Two existing sections on this Talk page already address the same issue: -Literature and Linguistics-, and -Duplicate Article-.  Also, at Talk:trope (linguistics), another section titled -Duplicate Article- exists, analogous to the one here.  The only concern voiced about merging seems to be in the -Literature and Linguistics- section here, with some posts emphasizing that there is a difference in the meaning of trope in a literary versus linguistic sense.  I would offer that such does not preclude inclusion in the same article; indeed, doing so may be more edifying.  Perhaps the conflict is more about what parenthetical modifier to use for the title of a merged article.  In any case, the information in the two articles is definitey overlapping, and neither is particularly long.  I add myself to the number supporting a merge. The matter of the title could be considered separately; perhaps something subsuming would be most appropriate, e.g. trope (figure of speech).  Regarding a merge, note also the list of tropes at figure of speech. ENeville (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://books.google.com/books?id=QiJRvuXA_VcC&pg=PA258&dq=tropes+definition+Metaphor+and+Thought&hl=en&ei=V-alTKyGMIzwngfoh-WQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Tropes%20do%20not%20merely%20provide%20a%20way%20for%20us&f=false. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  –xenotalk 13:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Where to begin!?  What a mess. I'll begin with the good parts: the first half of the first paragraph.  The rest does not meet wiki specs, not even close. Please see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). 
Clues? More specifically, especially the Lead should be understandable to the general public: "accessible."  Particularly in the Lead one should not rely on lazy-links (where zero attempt is made in-text to explain jargon). Inappropriate jargon is always poor writing. (If you do not see inappropriate jargon, or do not consider it to be sloppy/lazy/etc writing, you have no business in this venue.) 
WP:TONE   Argot  Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. [...Respected.]
"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects."      The Lead is NOT serving as EITHER an introduction NOR "a summary of the article's most important aspects," but rather seems to attempt being the main article, ...which contributes to the above problems...including trying to cover too much with too little.         "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." ... "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." 
But as I hint, my main complaint is that the article, —even the definition  is unintelligible, —seems to be substandard writing/communication. Good luck. --71.133.254.31 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section does not meet Wiki standards. 

message: Given that both meanings of Trope used on this page pertain to the repetition of narative elements or leitmotif throughout a work, shouldn't this article also point to the concept of discrete, self contained parts of narrative and their nature as separate from their native opus? Intertextuality is an indispensable component of literary analysis, indeed, sometimes the nature of parts of a work, as parts of a whole is not apparent-yet the continuance of themes makes both essential to the understanding of that whole.
For that sufficient reason, as well as many others, equally compelling, I propose that we include Meme in the links enumerated under, "See Also;" a modern discussion of Tropes is not complete without reference to the modern study of clichés, metaphors and literary devices. This page originally included a link to the much more complete, related, Memes article; it should again.71.235.31.212 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Meme was linked in prose, originally, and later also added to the See also section. Then, the article was redirected, then rewritten as a new stub. The See also section then mentioned memes in another entry which was later removed. I don't really see a problem with adding it, as they are often considered related. Adding it back to the prose may even be an option, especially if we find a source. —PC-XT+ 19:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jonpatterns (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for inclusion of "Meme" in the "See Also" section. 

message: Is there really a long-standing use of trope in the sense of "recurring stereotype, motif or device" in the academic study of literature and media? I wonder if the use of trope in this sense at TV Tropes has influenced or popularised this particular usage or meaning, or if it was common before, specifically in academia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of TV Tropes on the meaning of "trope"