Ask The Tropers - TV Tropes

Unintentionally Unsympathetic can be The Scrappy but doesn't have to be. They don't necessarily have a hatedom attached to them like a Scrappy. Designated Hero is related, but this person generally isn't a Hero either in name or action.

I see Unintentionally Unsympathetic as more a failed attempt to create The Woobie. The character is meant to evoke sympathy in the audience but for whatever reason it just doesn't work and the audience doesn't care about them or may even be annoyed by them.

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic is when a character is written as a victim, but ends up looking like they got what was coming to them, or brought their problems on themselves (or the audience, for whatever reason, think their problems aren't that bad and they should just stop whining).
• Designated Hero is when a character is written as a hero and treated as one In-Universe, but comes across as un-heroic to the audience.
• The Scrappy is any character the audience end up disliking.

Basically, the difference is how the character was supposed to be portrayed (an UU character might be a villain who was supposed to have a Freudian Excuse, and a DH might have been intended as an unsympathetic-but-still-heroic Anti-Hero).

EDIT: Ninja'd

Unintentionally Unsympathetic is a sub trope to Misaimed Fandom- the fandom sees as unsympathetic a character that was supposed to be sympathetic. The Scrappy is not a sub trope to Misaimed Fandom- as the first paragraph says, this is only a character with a hatedom.

Unintentionally Unsympathetic doesn't have to be a hero. It could be the hero's mentor, or an anti-villain, or maybe even a straight villain who was meant to be seen as sympathetic and tragic. The point is, the character was supposed to be seen as sympathetic but... they're just not.

Maybe they tried to do Jerkass Woobie and went too heavy on the Jerkass and too light on The Woobie.

Or maybe the Freudian Excuse wasn't good enough to justify their crimes.

Or maybe a character who was meant to be seen as decent but down on his luck crossed the line when he threw an innocent man down a well and raped that man's blind daughter.

^Wow, that escalated quickly. :D

wait nvm

^^ I know. :p

The point is, there is overlap between Designated Hero and Unintentionally Unsympathetic, but they're not the same thing. To explain by example:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Griffin from Red Zone Cuba was never meant to be seen as The Hero. He was meant to be The Everyman with a little bit of Lovable Rogue thrown in - sympathetic, but not heroic. But his negative traits are played up TOO much with almost no humanizing scenes to balance it out. Hence, the audience just hates him.
• Designated Hero: Tony Farms from Puma Man. He's not really unsympathetic. He doesn't ever Kick the Dog, and he does help save the day, but he's not really good at being a Superhero either, especially compared to his Hyper Competent Sidekick Vadinho.

I also see it as the viewer/reader is supposed to go, "Awww, poor guy" and the actual reaction is "And? Why should I sympathize?"

OK thanks. I was just curious about the differences.

INB 4 an "take it to the Edit Banned" thread post

No, don't take it to Edit Banned. This person is a complete lunatic who's shilling a nonexistent work. They are gone forever.

A'ight, I'll tell her.

I gotta say... if the movie was coming out in August, that's only 7 months away... you'd think it would have been announced by now, or at least some info on it would be known, especially if this person claims to be in possession of a script.

... how does she keep getting people to effing post for her?

Also...

"If you give her the stuff she wants, she won't bother you anymore."

Worst blackmail ever. I don't think anyone here is really all that bothered by her bothering.

I've noticed she goes after the youngling tropers who are unaware of her history of having to be right in the face of all facts and logic.

There's a very simple way to have her not bother anyone with her constant bugging: The mods pull out the one-way catapult. As long as she doesn't have anyone's FB or email IDs, that's the end. If she somehow does, that's why you can block stuff.

^^^ She knows me from another forum and keeps asking me to speak on her behalf, again, because she's aware that I got my own recent suspension lifted, so she wants me to get hers lifted as well.

^^ That does sound a tad... immature, doesn't it?

Well, she wants me to add another statement to the discussion, so... "Hey guys, sorry to interrupt you again, but can you explain WHY hijhiysonikku is - in your eyes - a complete lunatic? She's not a princess. (you won't get that reference will you) Can you probably show me the entry that you didn't like the most, or the pages with footnotes saying why it's bad...Honestly, she told me it was nothing different from Disney's Anne Frank or something you'd see on the Darth Wiki or even Unproduced Scripts. She's also read the Adminstrivia, where you say 'we don't delete articles...even for nonexistence', so I don't know why you didn't like this. She told me that maybe it was because of the amount of Ferris Wheel Shipping. You shouldn't delete stuff because it's a shipping you don't like...Everyone has their own opinions on shipping. Or is it because of the script? She has the script at home on paper. Her original script was stolen like what happened to Foodfight (but that was a bad movie). Around the period of time that she was without the script and when she made another one, she made the page. And it isn't shilling or self-shilling. In her words, it was 'sorta like another Disney's Anne Frank. I added stuff, and everyone was welcome to play their part and contribute. However, this was the late night/early morning hours, so I put it on the Main page out of tiredness and added wicks!' She is perfectly fine if the movie does eventually never exist due to ORAS, as long as she has what she wrote. And if you give her what she wanted in the first place, she won't bug you. As for info on the movie, she told us on Muppet Central she was casting Venus Terzo as Mellodi (apparently her version of Hilda/Touko/White/Whitlea/Shiro) and that there's some big musical dance number named 'Takichuko' something or whatever in the middle of the movie. And that page contained the info on the script. The subpages worked. And she told me there was a teaser poster...that does exist on her computer and in front of her house from (in her words) 'Jan. 31 to Apr. 10'. You should also know that she is currently working on transferring the script to Plot Bot, although only the first few lines are there at this moment. So take my advice and explain. And if you give her what she wrote, you won't worry about her anymore."

^You might want to consider quitting while you are ahead. It seems to me that if you continue to bother the mods on her behalf you might be risking getting your own account suspended. Is it worth it for someone you describe as an "acquaintance"?

^^ Oh god, is it that Pokemon Black and White movie again? Just for Fun pages can only be made for fictional works in other works. Tell her that and if she continues to persist, she might be insane. If you two live in the same neighborhood, you might want to call the police depending on how she responds. Though I doubt that you will have to do that.

^^ True enough.

^ No, again, we only know each other through a forum we both frequent.

Internet Life Lesson #5: Never help someone ban evade or fill out an banned person's requests

Yeah, there is actually a rules post specifically banning this.

At this point it's common sense on just about every website that bans people...or at least it should be...

^^ Yeah, I had a feeling there was, I didn't know for sure.

She wouldn't (and still won't) let up, so I finally told her I did all I could, that you guys are not changing your minds no matter what, and that her suspension is permanent, and that I no longer wish to be involved in this conflict.

Now she's on the war path, painting herself as someone who is being victimized by the entire Wiki, but like I just said, I don't want to be involved in this anymore. I was suspended once before for a bad YKTTW, I explained my side, I was put in my place, I acknowledged and apologized for my wrongdoing, and had my suspension lifted... I didn't go about it in an immature fashion by continually screaming, "I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG, LET ME BACK AND I'LL QUIT BUGGING YOU!" and I don't want to further risk another suspension by playing messenger for two parties, so I'm done. I apologize for having to be a bother to you guys, and I also apologize for not looking further into the rules on bans and such.

You're handling it in a mature way. Considering the rules and such, I'd say you bent over backward trying to help her, even though her prior behavior didn't necessarily warrant such.

People get suspensions lifted, especially the first time, because they agree to behave and learn. She hasn't done that, and from the sound of it is throwing a tantrum.

I don't know about her sanity either way, but she does sound dangerously obsessed. Humans have an odd twist in their mind where they can rewire their memories, and some take it to the point of rewiring their personal reality. It's sad, really.

Well, I have empathy, for sure... who wants to be banned from any site, especially one as fun as TV Tropes? I don't know her too awfully well, and I hadn't heard the Tropers' side of the story, which sheds more light on the history of her behavior around here (which she didn't mention to me)... even though I suspected my actions were against the rules (and again, I know I really should have looked into it to be sure), I figured it wouldn't hurt to just copy and paste a statement she had written, since she said she couldn't speak to any of the mods or access the ban thread. I've relayed all that's been said in this thread to her, but she's not satisfied, she still wants back, saying she was wrongfully suspended over that work page she started. But as I said, I feel I've helped as much as I can - you guys have made up your mind she's not allowed back, I've told her, she still wants to fight, but I don't want to be involved anymore and further risk another suspension myself, so I'm done.

And, Candi, you're absolutely right: I learned my lesson, I apologized, I made a commitment to continue to do better, I got my suspension lifted, and I'm happy about it... I agree, these prepared statements she wants copied and pasted sound more and more like immature temper tantrums — I even told her the last time she contacted me that if she's wanting to get back on TV Tropes, she's not exactly going about it in a mature, civilized way.

There's three sides to every story: This side, that side, and the truth. :p Kudos to looking for that third side.

I've got a slightly different perspective then some because my first stepmother was nuts. Long story, but I learned that you can't reason with crazy and/or obsessed, and it's best just to stay away if at all possible.

I really don't see how this person is crazy, honestly. Obsessive, sure. And troublesome, trollish, and some other words, but not crazy. Honestly, the term "crazy" gets thrown around a lot more than it should be.

Er, folks, this is turning into a discussion for the forums, not here,

Wouldn't be the first time TV Tropes was attacked by an angry middle-easterner... though the other time was long before I showed up, so I wouldn't be the guy to give details.

Do we really need that page at all?

Done.

Wait... that's not supposed to even have a trope list, is it?

Anti-whatsit crap happens every so often. Mods revert, ban, but usually save the bounce after giving them a chance to explain in Edit banned. It's... educational. Yes, that's the word. :)

Why not? That page is flagged YMMV.

Troper Mag Bas removed the entry off YMMV.Frozen Disney because

"No examples, please. Everything can cause this to an extent, whether if it's on the Internet or not."

It's one of the tropes listed in Example Sectionectomy that prohibit examples, but the mods never reached a consensus on whether tropes listed there only apply that rule to the trope pages themselves or all pages. I personally think it's kinda flame-baity.

It seems a bit unnecessary to remove it.

Obvious troll is banned troll?

Apparently not. He left a review on Fate/stay night [Unlimited Blade Works] that was similar in both quality and content, and as of a few days ago is still commenting on the Fate/Zero one.

Give it an few more hours

Which user, specifically? I see several people being unbelievably stupid over a work.

Rule of Two dictates that the culprit is dmasterxd

Yup.

Intervened.

I thought that name sounded familiar so I did a search here on ATT. Scarlett White was reported by Hodor back on November 25th 2014 for natter and bad indentation, particularly regarding Adaptational Badass and Adaptational Wimp examples for Sherlock, and they got a suspension for it from Septimus.

Sounds like they're causing the same problems again.

EDIT: Also, a link to their edit history: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=ScarlettWhite

Bump.

Was anything done about it? I feel like she's (I suppose the troper's a girl/woman) edit warring on LiveActionTV.Adorkable. I have the page on watchlist becaus of ZCE and general tendency to attact misuse. She keeps adding Sarcasm Mode pothole and No Social Skills pothole whih I feel adds nothing of value. But I won't participate in an Edit War (don't want to get suspended, obviously), so I leave it be as she edited it. I understnd that she's a newbie, but I've tried to talk to her through PM but she only wrote several laconic answers.

EDIT: And her edit about Sherlock on Only Friend is a mess. Example Indentation is all over the place, it's almost All-Blue Entry and it has a pothole to Heartwarming Moments.

It seems like the mods overlooked this one.

Not overlooked, just asked for support and got no response. I'll take a deeper look shortly. Edit: I see lots of pothole abuse but I can't see these Example Indentation problems.

Ok, this is from Only Friend:

• Sherlock, being an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, has this in spades between Sherlock and John, providing plenty of Lampshading and the page quote. Also, as expected, John's the one with the social skills, and smooth's things out between his Bunny Ears Detective friend who's a Jerk with a Heart of Gold Insufferable Genius with No Social Skills.
  Mycroft: I am the closest thing to a friend that Sherlock Holmes is capable of haviing.
  John: And what's that?
  Mycroft: An enemy.
• Cue John wanting to look out for Sherlock for Sherlock's sake since he likes the guy.
  • Sherlock himself confesses this in a rare moment of emotional honesty that provides the page quote.
  • Even as Sherlock realizes that he has more than one important friends in his life, it's obvious that John is the most important.

Example Indentation issues, iffy. Badly written and laid-out example, definitely. That example could probably be rearranged to work better and still have the quote.

"In spades" is word cruft. "Also, as expected," is unnecessary. "Smooth's" is improper use of an apostrophe. (It's not and can't be possessive, don't use an apostrophe. It's not a contraction, don't use an apostrophe.)

To start with, just for the first two sentences:

• Sherlock, being an adaption of Sherlock Holmes, has John Watson as the one with the social skills, and smoothing things out between Holmes and those who don't get his [insert relevant tropes] style.

I would clean after her, but I won't for now because she always changes it back to her idea of fun write-up: cornucopia of potholes, to ymmv pages included.

So she puts it up, you fix it, and she puts hers back. That's known as 'edit warring'.

And you don't pothole to YMMV on the main page.

never mind, fixed it

For future reference, this is the place where you would ask about/report such things.

%% comments out entries and moderator comments, so they are not visible to the casual reader. Entries are usually commented out because the example is not properly explained. This could because they're a Zero-Context Example, use Word Cruft, or otherwise do not explain why the trope fits in that particular context. Clear, Concise, Witty is what we aim for here; examples with only word cruft or no text are not clear.

It's okay to list those tropes on other pages. As far as I can tell, the only tropes that you do not list at all are the Flame Bait tropes. Anything else is fair game.

Actually, it is unclear what the rule is regarding this kind of trope.

I guess you can add it for now since there's no rule explicitly forbidding it, but if such a rule is added later it will be removed.

The general consensus is that listing a non-Flame Bait trope example on a work's main/YMMV/whatever is fine. It's listing the example on the trope's page that isn't to happen.

Voldemort's birthday? Regardless, kill it with fire.

Removed it, not so much because of Gamergate but rather because it was unrelated to the trope.

See the top thread in the Wiki Tech Wish List.

Without seeing the P Ms I can't speak for whether or not he was rude to you.

What I can say is that he is absolutely right in his edit reason. Game difficulty is largely a subjective thing - it's opinion, and as they say "opinions are never wrong".^note Except when they are, but I digress. The only time when you're allowed to unilaterally remove such an example is if it is factually wrong.

For example, if he said "Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze is harder because you have to play it with a DDR dance pad." you could remove that because it's factually incorrect.

But if it's simply your opinion that the game isn't that hard then no, you're not allowed to delete it without taking it up in discussion first.

Keep in mind mods can see the text of P Ms. You're not the first to complain about My Final Edits -but complaining he was 'rude' has yet to be proven in public. Apparently he has a very firm tone when P Ming erring tropers, particularly several times, but nothing has been proven to be 'rude'.

I've checked the PM. I've messaged My Final Edits since it was an unnecessary dig. That deletion reason is sub-par - it's too much reliant on personal opinion to be convincing. Game difficulty tropes tend be fairly subjective even when not flagged as such.

You guess that it is a good idea put Sequel Difficulty Spike in YMMV?

I have sent an apology to Septimus over my attitude. I should simply have done the edit. Also, as Candi said, I tend to be firm when talking to tropers, but it's never for the sake of looking like a miserable loner. Best regards to MTIO.

^ Seppy really isn't the person you should apologize too, bud. :p

Despoiler them. I've already messaged them over this.

It's a reported bug which is already being worked on.

Specific example?

Here's an example, from Film.Final Justice:

• Reality Ensues: Some dialogue near the start of the film explains that Geronimo was involved in a shootout in Dallas, during which he killed a lot of people ("I bagged my limit that day, that's for sure!") including a senator's brother who was "doing dirty." Sounds like the climax of a typical cop movie, except that instead of riding off into the sunset as the big hero, Geronimo ended up Reassigned to Antarctica, and with an Achey Scar inside him that forces him to drink Maalox or milk after every meal to prevent it from hurting too much.

I'm sure the page will survive without a Mama Troper to watch over it. ^^;;

The page has quite literally been around for years—it'll live.

I'm aware; I launched the damn thing. And given that it's already been through TRS once and that I have to cut probably about a third of what gets added to it for misuse... well, let's just say I'm touchy.

Wait.. why isn't Gut Punch YMMV? The entire description is written as an Audience Reaction.

Certainly seems to be a YMMV trope.

I'm not so sure; it skirts the line. To me, it seems more like a highly compressed Wham Episode that induces a sudden case of Cerberus Syndrome. A Cerberus Scene, if you will. The name implies YMMV, but I could see it going either way based on the description.

If anything, the problem is the title: it's so broad that it could mean whatever the reader wants. Good trope titles are specific, not colloquial.

Well, so much for discipline...

As I said, Gut Punch has already been through TRS once. The consensus there was that it's not a YMMV trope, since it's supposed to describe the moment a work suddenly gets much darker. I suggested Cerebus Wake Up Call as a possible rename if people felt there was a problem, but nobody took me up on it at the time. I'd be happy to start up a new TRS thread for the description, especially since I wrote it well before I knew that Example As Thesis was bad practice.

Not to be rude, but...

1. What does discipline have to do with anything?
2. Being through TRS once doesn't exempt a trope from ever going through it again. There is no "trope double-jeopardy". I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that it needs a trip through TRS, though.
3. The definition you just summarized is pretty much exactly what I got out of it, so it seems pretty clear to me. Like I mentioned above, the name kind of suggests YMMV, but the description doesn't, to me at least. But since Fighteer seems to share that opinion, maybe a rename would do it some good. That's just an off-the-cuff suggestion, though.

1. Discipline has to do with me attempting to stay away from this site for a while.

2. I am suggesting the exact opposite of that - since people think it reads like an audience reaction when it's not supposed to, I thought maybe a quick stop in TRS for a rewrite might do some good.

3. I'm supportjng a rename less for the above reason and more for the fact that it would help reduce misuse. I clean it up when I see it, but there's a lot of use for it when people are trying to descibe shocking events.

Ooooh. Oops. Sorry to drag you back. It can wait, anyway. :p

...On a related note, would you mind popping over to the Is This an Example thread? I posted an example to ask if it was a Gut Punch and you seem highly qualified to answer that question, since no one has responded.

But back on-topic, if the name both encourages misuse and YMMV, then it should probably change. But no one will blame you for taking a TVT break before doing that, and (while I'm not volunteering) someone else could just as easily do it if so inclined.

Posted there, but on further reflection, the trope you're looking for is Bait the Dog.

Errr. Yeah. That's just "savvy."

Removed again. Next stop's an edit ban.

It's also kind of a disingenuous edit reason. There was no "accidental" about the deletion, it was made for a legitimate reason. I don't know if the reason was correct, though it sounds like you know what you're talking about, but either way, responding to a reasonable edit reason by saying it was "accidental" is pretty dismissive. That would warrant at least a PM. I wouldn't re-remove it, though, until a mod weighs in on that troper's action.

Just to clarify, it sounds like you're in the right and the example should be re-removed, and that troper should probably get a tap on the shoulder.

Edit: Ninja'd.

Edit: Oops, I misspoke very badly. What I meant was the example should be re-removed. Edited my post to make that clear, even though the action has already been taken.

Genre Savvy has some misuse from people who seem to think it just means "the character is really smart." Genre Savvy means the character knows about stories like theirs and is taking specific measures to do things the right way.

Genre Savvy would be a character like Elan (surprisingly) from The Order of the Stick. He's always discussing this that or the other in relation to stories and tropes. That doesn't apply to the Frozen example.

And "accidental deletion"? The only "accidental deletions" I've seen since I've started were due to Data Vampires!

I've deleted things by accident before, when I was trying to remove a bad example and accidentally selected one or two lines too many. To my best knowledge I've caught and fixed the few times I've done it.

There's a thread in the forums to consult this.

The Real Life section Maintenance thread in the Projects Long Term/perpetual forum. It can be discussed there, and NRLEP'd or cleaned out as needed.

According to the history, SonofRojBlake changed the folder name back in the beginning of December. They didn't leave a reason as to why. I guess they were trying to do something where all the folders would have N-Word randomly thrown in (kinda like the Cluster F-Bomb page), but got bored halfway through. I say revert the folder name, otherwise it'd just stick out like a sore thumb.

Probably an attempt to force a pun or joke. Seeing as the other folders are titles normally, please feel free to edit out that part.

Can of worms.

It's kind of complicated, because Mary Sues CAN have certain types of flaws, and often do. (For example, count the number of Mary Sue characters who are described as "clumsy.") Basically, the question to ask is, does this flaw ever come across as a significant, REAL problem that the character NEEDS to fix? Or does it only serve to make the character more endearing?

• If you see the flaw and it makes you think "this person needs to fix this" then it might be a legitimate flaw. (Might, because this IS Your Mileage May Vary.)
• If you see the flaw and it makes you think "awww, that's cute" then it's not a real flaw, and the character is still in the running for Mary Sue status.
• If you see the flaw and it makes you think "how is this a flaw?" (for example "she's too pretty and it makes the other girls jealous") then it's TOTALLY not a real flaw, and the character is almost certainly a Mary Sue unless they have something else.

Thanks, I was just curious. And I know it's a can of worms, I have no intention of starting an argument.

And for the record, the example I deleted was for Harry himself. It contained Natter underneath arguing that he didn't count as one.

If the natter is actually making a valid point against the entry then the best thing to do is remove the entry.

As for Harry Potter... I haven't read the books so I might be wrong, but he never came across as a Sue to me. He's in the Destined Hero archetype, same as Luke Skywalker or King Arthur, but that's NOT the same thing as being a Mary Sue.

Also keep in mind, even if it's a "he needs to fix this flaw," is it presented as such? Because a Canon Sue can be totally flawed... but the writer doesn't intend for it to be a serious flaw. Like, say, Bella having severe character flaws that are not considered real flaws In-Universe, but readers find make her Unintentionally Unsympathetic.

But to the example at hand... I actually think he'd qualify. Prophecy of him from birth, magical scar, center of attention, the only one who can defeat the Dark Lord, improbable Quidditch skills (as the Seeker, no less), winds up an Auror, always manages to stumble through situations that, by all rights, should've killed him ten times over... He does tick a lot of items off on the Common Mary Sue Traits list. Most of the faults that come to mind are more the result of Fridge Logic than In-Universe flaws, honestly.

I do think this is more a result of the definition of Mary Sue really... being pretty vague.

I cannot see that Harry Potter counts as a Sue of any sort, so that entry should be purged. The various Sue tropes are supposed to be Flame Bait, anyway.

None of them are listed as such.

ignore

I wonder why they aren't listed as Flame Bait?

Tendency to fly off the handle? Chronic Hero Syndrome which gets people killed? Stubborn and sometimes petty? Lashes out at his friends when he's hurt? Harry Potter, as much as I love him, could in no way be considered a Mary Sue. A hero, yes - but not a Sue.

Harry Potter is a Wish Fulfillment story at its heart, so Potter could count. But like I said, I never read the books and didn't see all of the movies either, so I'll stay out of the debate beyond what I've already said.

Ninety-nine percent of fiction is wish-fulfillment in some way. Don't get your wires crossed. To be a Mary Sue of any flavor requires that the character be egregiously unrealistic and idealized.

It's been noted before that Flame Bait banners have a tendency to disappear, on the old version site at least. I don't know if fixing that has been included in the list of stuff to be fixed in TVT: The Sequel.

If you run Harry through one or more of those Mary Sue tests they have at various sites online, he comes in under the requirement for being one -but sometimes only by five or so points. He's tending in that direction, but doesn't make it.

...I'm not suggesting we have an on-site test of ours, mostly because that would be WAY too explosive in every way I can think of.

I'm just saying, the fact that it's unapologetic Wish Fulfillment means I could see the possibility. But yeah, that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

"[Mary Sue] doesn't necessarily mean anything."

^ Fixed.

Discussions of this concept generally go nowhere, because of how useless and meaningless the term really is. It's only real purpose is to serve as a vague, poorly-defined criticism for people who can't come up with actual coherent complaints.

It does exist, it's just incredibly complicated. If it didn't exist the trope wouldn't still be here.

I never said it didn't exist, just that it's meaningless. It has so many different confusing, highly subjective definitions attached to it, so what's stopping people from using it to mean whatever the flying fuck they please?

This is why I've completely discredited the term and look down on its use.

Also, let's not pretend that there's any reason we keep it around other than "inbounds," especially given how easy it is to shoehorn and complain with.

^ Needlessly confrontational post ahoy. Your post added exactly nothing of value to the conversation, so I feel no obligation to respond to it beyond these two sentences.

EDIT: I think I might need a vacation. I'm not angry at you. I won't go into details with people I don't know, but suffice to say an argument I had with a family member which I thought was dealt with a decade ago has recently popped back up and made me question my entire history with this person. Needless to say, this has put me a little on edge, and that's why I've been so angry lately. So just ignore this.

Sorry guys, I had no intention of raising tempers. But the reasons listed above — making stupid decisions, losing his temper, being stubborn — were exactly why I removed the entry.

From my experience, being a Mary Sue is more than how many points they raise on a checklist. A Mary Sue is at its heart, just a poorly written character. I can name a lot of characters who could break the Mary Sue test, but if you know the work you wouldn't call them a Mary Sue because of the way the author wrote them. That is part of the reason why Superman can become a Mary Sue when a bad writer gets a hold of him versus a very flesh-out and interesting character.

As someone who read Harry Potter, he is no Sue. Even if he scores as one on a test, he still wouldn't be one since Rowling did a brilliance job writing him. Showing that despite his gifts and background, he is still flawed and do things that makes things more difficult.

Personally, I find the term Mary Sue thrown around way too much.

Again, can of worms.

Courtesy link: YMMV.Teen Wolf. Hmm. Taking a look at it.

Thank you. <3 My bad...

Based on that user's edit history from before the page was locked, they were largely responsible for it in the first place. So yeah, let's have a chat in Edit Banned.

Edit: Or am I thinking of a different locked page from that work?

Okay. Thank you very much.

Fighteer: Could have been Character Pages, that was locked several times due to vandalism. We're just in the process of rebuilding it.

One should PM first in such circumstances. I'll suspend them, though.

"poopsocker"?

<snerk>

I think this is my favorite malapropism ever and I'm going to call them all that from now on...

Oh that's right here it's called sockpuppet isn't it? Sorry getting my lingo mixed up between sites; edited.

"I'm going to sock you right in the pooper."

That handle has been banned, but there's not any obvious IP overlap. We're keeping an eye on it, though.

Edit: Poopsocking is something completely different.

No clear evidence of sockpuppeting, but the behaviour (edit warring and unexplained deletions) merit an edit ban regardless.

You can take it to the Real Life Section Maintenance thread in the Projects Long Term/Perpetual Forum. That sounds like something that would easily get a NRLEP vote, putting Hive Mind consensus behind the fact that RL examples on that trope aren't wanted. Reasons for NRLEPing could include Natter magnet, potential flame/edit wars, gossiping about real life people, and possibly, in cases where the defendant got off, discussing a RL person's 'villainy' when they have been legally declared innocent.

Probably a good idea. Not only does it hold the potential for defamation and real life examples could easily overtake the page, we also don't want to potentially give real criminals ideas for how to hide their actions. You should prolly add a note to the top saying something like...

It should go without saying with how resourceful criminals can be that this trope is often Truth in Television, and let's leave it at that.

Needs commas, wrm. :P

"It should go without saying, with how resourceful criminals can be, that this trope is Truth in Television; let's leave it at that."

(I like the semicolon; that's no criticism on you.) :)

I've made the page No Real Life Examples Please as an interim measure while it's discussed over on Real Life section maintenance, but I've only commented out the RL example rather than delete it completely, at this stage.

Frankly I agree with making it NRLEP. This seems it'd be a prime component of Conspiracy Theories that can veer into Flame Bait

Yeah, this is what I see happening if we allow Real Life examples:

Guy 1 posts some big conspiracy theory about some recent, high-profile case.

Guy 2 takes it down for being speculation.

Guy 1 calls Guy 2 stupid for "not seeing the obvious facts" or some such.

Everyone rushes in, starts taking sides, and the whole thing turns into a huge flame war.

The poll for Hide the Evidence is up here. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13350380440A15238800&page=155

[never mind, that changed]

The previous site had a number at the bottom of the page that gave a character count (every letter, numeral, punctuation mark, etc. in case you were wondering). If it got over 400K it was time to split the page.

Not sure if there's something like that anymore (other than copy-pasting the source text into a program that counts it), although there might still be a page that lists the largest pages here.

Yeah, that tool needs to come back. You will have to report it in the stickied Wiki Tech Wish List thread.

To follow up, that tool has come back, as per a post by drewski in the "BUGS BUGS BUGS" thread in the Tech Support forum.

Whoever wrote the deleted entry sounds like an elitist gamer.

IMO, she shouldn't be suspended, just warned to keep it cool.

Yes, the deleted entry was rather snotty, but that doesn't excuse the edit reason. By the way, it's "Don't be a dick", not "Don't be an a*hole" :)

Ah, no. Definitely not with that title.

What's wrong with the title?

Bump.

^^^For what it's worth, Youtube Poop is an actual thing. The page above is a So Bad Its Horrible list of Youtube Poop videos (at least, that's what the name suggests). I don't know if it's a valid page, though. I'm just pointing out that Youtube Poop is not a blanket statement for what someone considers terrible Youtube videos, since it sounds like that's what you interpreted it as.

Edited for clarity because I realized my phrasing was super ambiguous everywhere.

Ah, okay. Did not know that.

Some would say that all YTP is So Bad Its Horrible by definition, rendering that page redundant :P.

The reason why I brought it up is that Youtube Poop is technically Web Video, and the Web Video section of So Bad Its Horrible was deleted due to flame wars.

That was years ago, for the record.

Can something that is going for intentionally bad crossed with What Do You Mean, It Wasn't Made on Drugs? be So Bad Its Horrible? they usually aim for being bad/offensive etc. so if they are listed on that page some would wear it as a badge of honour.

So Bad Its Horrible is about both audience reception and quality, fundamentally. There is plenty of genuine audience for YTP so much of it fails the first qualifier.

Yeah, I don't know if this is part of the definition, but generally, if they were going for terrible, and people like it because of how terrible it is, it probably can't really be considered So Bad Its Horrible, in the same way that we discussed a few days ago that South Park probably can't ever really have Unfortunate Implications.

I think if the videos are bad even by YTP standards, then they can have a place on SBIH. Most "poopers" aren't deliberately going for making horrible videos. There is a difference between Mind Screw, which is what the creators are going for, and bad.

As for the "Web Videos should not have a SBIH subpage" issue, I think that the scope of the page being limited to one particular genre of video reduces the risk of flame wars enough to be worth keeping.

SBIH's description says this:

Important Note: Merely being offensive in its subject matter isn't enough to justify a work as Horrible. Hard as it is to imagine at times, there's a market for all types of deviancy (no matter how small a niche it is). It has to fail to appeal even to that niche to qualify here.

I feel like YTP is far too subjective of a genre for there to be a Horrible page for it.

Do a "find on page" for Popcor, there's already some discussion here in Ask The Tropers.

The lefthand column under Tools still has the Recent Edits search box -it just doesn't show up on ATT or in the forums.

Agree. That's like saying "In this work, they have lettuce." Maybe make it Just for Fun

Actually? I'll open a TRS thread.

I could've sworn there was a TRS on it a few years back.

I think it was in response to the trope called The Power of Cheese (which I really regret calling that on ykttw due to the rampant misuse).

DQZ's repair shop topic.

Hrm, the only way I see this staying is "Cheese is an Inherently Funny Food." Given the wicks, it doesn't look like a cut's likely.

What about the odd character like Monterey Jack from Rescue Rangers? His love of cheese is a running gag, so he would likely love that people make it.

I'd think so.

Take it to TRS.

@bwburke94: If I wanted to rename it, I would have. I was just thinking of putting Cross Cultural Reference as a redirect, but wanted to make sure that I don't create a grammatically-incorrect one.

You can have a redirect in a better namespace.

It has no inbounds and Google would probably auto-correct it, so technically it has no reason to exist.

^ Well, I can't use Google Search on the new site probably due to the javascript nonsense, so when looking for a trope or work page I have to either (A) try to remember the page's name and type it in, or go to an existing page that know has a Pot Hole to the page I want and navigate to it that way. Which I know is not a problem most would face, but I think you're right that if it has no inbounds, then any hypothetical reason for the redirect is rendered irrelevant.

^^ I don't understand what you're saying. I thought Main-to-Work namespace redirects were verboten.

Namespace-to-namespace redirects are allowed if a work has adaptations in multiple formats and nobody has created the article for one or more of those versions. It's also allowable to use creator-to-work redirects if an individual is the primary author for a particular work and is likely to be wicked in place of the title of their work; this happens frequently for YouTube artists and musicians.

As an example, Creator.Jon Cozart can be a redirect to WebVideo.Paint because people may search for him instead of his channel.

^ All true, but not the case here. This is a case of:

1. Redirect from Main namespace to a works namespace (In this case, Main to Anime).
   • Per Administrivia.Creating New Redirects: "Do not create redirects for ... inboundless main pages for works, creators, Useful Notes or anything else that needs a different Namespace."
2. Redirect from an incorrect rendering of the title (Legend of the Galactic Heroes) to the correct title (Legend of Galactic Heroes).
   • I feel like the misspelling rule might be relevant here—"Do not create redirects for ... misspellings." "Legend of the Galactic Heroes" is basically a misspelling of the title, since it is incorrect but might be typed by mistake (such as what I did, which is how I found the redirect).

To be clear, this is not a case of a redirect from one works namespace to another works namespace for the sake of redirecting a Troper looking for, say, a Light Novel to the Anime page since there is no LN page. This is just a redirect from a subtly incorrect rendering of the work title from the Main namespace to the actual works namespace in Anime/.

Incidentally, Main.Legend Of Galactic Heroes (the correct title) redirects to the Anime page as well. It has 157 wicks but no inbounds. That would only take an hour or two to fix if I got the go-ahead to do that, since that definitely is a problem (albeit not a huge, wiki-breaking problem).

Yes, please fix that. I'm not sure why you feel the need for permission for Standard Operating Procedure.

^ Because it's an ambiguous situation and the redirect looks like it was created for two separate purposes, and because I'm not positive that qualifies as a misspelling, that's just my opinion.

I'm not sure why you (and, make no mistake, many others) feel the need to be snarky at someone who would prefer to double-check before cutting pages. I'm doing my best.

I will put the wick fix on my to-do list. I'll probably not have a good opportunity to get to it until next weekend (31 Jan - 1 Feb) since I have drill this weekend, but it will get done.

I was referring to the second Main redirect. (The one at the correct title) The wrong name Main redirect is a good question to bring up here. The right name Main to Namespace is a standard rules of the wiki.

Fair enough. I wasn't sure about the number of wicks, but that's more a matter of Who Will Bell the Cat? I'll do the latter one. Would still like to get an answer from moderation on the former though.

I checked the edit history for Ominous Visual Glitch, and I notice that after you fixed some improper indentation they reverted your edit.

So... this is not just a casual misunderstanding of the rules. They're actively edit-warring over this, that means it's time for them to get a tap on the shoulder from a mod.

Thanks fr backing me up. :-)

Well, I'm not familiar with the game. Perhaps the examples had better be lumped together as a recurring thing in the game, but their indentation definitely has a wrong format.

Wrong format is wrong format, even if an entry's the first time a troper ever heard of that work.

And reversion of format repair is a huge don't-do.

Bump.

Suspension was issued.

If it started as a comic strip it belongs in ComicStrip/.

I considered that, but it'd make things even more confusing, since Nodwick the print/web comic is a completely different beast from the magazine strips...complex storylines with an overall arc vs. gag-a-day stuff, to begin with. Most of the tropes listed on its page are from the print version, for example.

Bump, since the current situation is anything but satisfying.

That seems like a case for having more than one page, I would say.

People who have never known this factoid and read the page almost certainly exist, so that doesn't count as a good reason.

That said, spoiler tagging a whole sentence seems questionable. And is the identity of an actor really spoilerworthy?

And is the identity of an actor really spoilerworthy?

The identity of the actor gives away the identity of the character. Sebastian Stan played Bucky Barnes in Captain America: The First Avenger, which was released before The Winter Soldier.

Since he's listed in the description text for the movie as "[[soiler:Sebastian Stan as the Winter Soldier]]" there is no point getting coy below the line. Anyone that was going to get spoiled by it, we've already done so. Frankly though, if you are coming to a tropes website and so spoiler-phobic that even mentioning an actor's name is a spoiler then you are in for a really bad time.

That, too. I mean, maybe a better example would be this— do we have to spoiler-tag the fact that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker? That seems really silly. I've seen NONE of the movies, have no interest in them whatsoever, and even I know this.

People do sometimes go a bit crazy with spoiler tags. I've seen people tag things that are revealed in the first 5 minutes of a work, or within the trailer. I'd kinda like to know what our policy is for things like that as well.

^^ That's called It Was His Sled.

I realize this isn't Lost and Found, but perhaps a link to the ykttw Spoiled by Casting is relevant.

To be fair, I think spoilering the fact that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker and also is Luke's father falls under the "spoilered for humor" category, which is a thing, and is okay as long as it's not taken overboard. (Blah Blah Fan Myopia whatever; even if you haven't seen Star Wars, if you don't know those spoilers, please come out from under your rock.)

What you have to remember is that comics fans are a minority. While it's true that comics fans and people who watch some of the cartoons already know that Bucky is the Winter soldier most of the people watching the movie do NOT know that.

^ I follow, and I agree. I don't think the example under discussion is It Was His Sled for that reason. But something like Spoiled By Casting would definitely apply.

I'd say not to bother with using a spoiler tag, and anyone that sensitive to "spoilers" should have the intelligence and self control to not read the page for Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

Exactly. Why would they be reading the page in the first place without having seen the film? This isn't a site where casual fans of a work flock to get information/insight.

"If you haven't seen the film then you shouldn't look at the work page for it" is not grounds for de-spoilering stuff. If it were, then we wouldn't even have spoiler tags.

Nothing on Administrivia.Spoilers Off tells me that this particular factoid should be de-spoilered. If it's so spoileriffic that it can't be mentioned without spoilering the whole sentence or example, then the page should be marked with a spoiler warning and all spoilers should be off. But if all you need to do is spoiler-tag the actor's name when it comes up (which really should not be that often), then why isn't that an option?

^Are we really in the business of spoiling public information? I just googled "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", and guess who is listed third on the info box on the right? Sebastian Stan, playing Bucky. Maybe that's another good rule of thumb. If the "spoiler" in question is on the front page of the google search result, then maybe it shouldn't be spoilered.

Matters of fact, public information, these things should not be hidden by the wiki. And if someone is so very sensitive that their ability to enjoy Captain America: The Winter Soldier—a film that was released nearly a year ago—is impacted by the knowledge that someone named Sebastian Stan plays Bucky, then yes, that person should take it upon themselves to not read the work page.

Might as well use spoiler tags to hide the fact that Scarlett Johannson is in the movie. I guess it's OK to say that Chris Evans is in the movie, since "Captain America" is in the title.

if all you need to do is spoiler-tag the actor's name when it comes up (which really should not be that often)

The creators of the film didn't even bother hiding the actor's name. Why should we?

^^ As a slightly-outside-the-scope-of-this-conversation observation, you seem really heated about this. You might want to take a breather before continuing, because it just seems like you're taking it personally.

Literally everything about this movie is "public information" that can be uncovered by a bit of Googling. What's more, spoilering something is not "hiding it", not really. It takes a click of a toggle switch, or a double-click or click-and-drag on the text, to reveal it. People who want to see spoilers can click and see all the spoilers they want—people who don't shouldn't have to tread lightly on a site that has a built-in spoiler feature that exists precisely to help avoid spoiling things.

Note, the above is a general statement; it's not an opinion on whether the fact in question is actually a spoiler. Coming from someone who saw the first Captain America movie and the Avengers but not Winter Soldier, and who isn't familiar with the comic books, and who doesn't really pay much attention to actor names except for big name stars and personal favorites, it does seem like a mild spoiler along the lines of Spoiled by the Format or (more appropriate) something like Spoiled By Casting.

I guess Ray does kinda have a point, though. I haven't seen the movie (I know, I know) but if the work itself doesn't treat it as a big reveal...

If the people who made the film thought it was so obvious that they were willing to give it away through spoilers by casting, why should we care?

It's right there on the film page. Sebastian Stan as The Winter Soldier. Not tagged as a spoiler.

Casual fan: Hey, I wonder who Sebastian Stan is? [goes to his Creator page] Hey, he looks like... and if he's... then that means that... AW, DAMNIT!

And the fact that you're someone who saw the first movie and not the second, and didn't know the spoiler at the same time, AND you're also a member of this site doesn't mean that those people exist in droves. And were it not for this entry, I bet you'd have never visited the page for Winter Soldier. Because you haven't seen it yet.

What would be the point of reading the tropes of a work that you haven't seen unless you're willing to come across spoilers that almost everyone else already knows? If you're that interested in a work to come to a site like this, you probably already know it, or you don't care if it's revealed to you before you see the film.

Good example: Back to the Star Wars scenario. I always knew that Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father, but I always thought (obviously wrongly) that he and Anakin Skywalker were two different people. I had that fact spoiled for me by reading Darth Vader's trope page, spoiler tags off. And I wasn't upset.

Now if I would have actually wanted to see the films and was, for whatever reason, perusing the Star Wars page and came across a significant spoiler like Darth Vader sacrificing his life to save Luke, I'd have been pissed. But that would have been my fault for exposing myself to those spoilers with plans to see the film.

Who can you imagine browsing the page for The Winter Soldier with their spoilers marked as visible, and going "What?! The Winter Soldier is Bucky?!" A casual Captain America fan? Who probably wouldn't be on this site in the first place, or wouldn't care about relatively minor spoilers that occur less than halfway through the movie? Hell, a casual fan might not even know who Bucky IS.

"Oh... Cap's friend from the first movie that fell of the train. Isn't that somethin'."

Could be Spoiled by the Format, or a rare non-video game example of Interface Spoiler, though.

EDIT: I should mention, I posted this before Ray made his previous comment into a wall of text.

'What's more, spoilering something is not "hiding it", not really.'

Well, that's not true. Spoilering something is hiding it. Hiding it where it can easily be found, but hiding it.

Anyway, I'll go with my Google rule of thumb. If the putative spoiler is revealed on the first page of a Google search—not from following any of the links, but from the search page itself—it is not a spoiler.

^^^ Again, taking this conversation personally and getting rude or mocking is not helpful.

Google doesn't have a "spoiler policy", at least as far as I know. Thus, it's nonsensical to use "is it visible on the first page of a hypothetical Google search" as our criteria for judging whether something is "spoiler-worthy". There is no "Google rule of thumb".

I did not say anything about people like me "existing in droves". All I did was state my opinion, and explain my situation so that you'd have some context for weighing that opinion. That's not an "Obviously I'm right" statement. That's a "Here's what I think and here's what I know about the films to give you some context for that opinion" statement. If you think my opinion is worthless or irrelevant because of the fact that I haven't seen CA:WS or read the comics or what-have-you, well, you're wrong, but I guess that's your opinion.

I hardly think "X is on the cast list for Movie Y" means "The creators don't think it's a spoiler." I'm not aware of whether IMDB has a spoiler policy insofar as their cast lists, but I doubt it. They're a fact-based site that provides the facts as they know them. It's silly to say "This information is provided on IMDB and thus it's not a spoiler."

Most of the reasons provided so far in this thread for arguing that Fact X is not a spoiler are along the lines of "X other site provides this information, thus it's not a spoiler." I don't see what any other site's mission or spoiler policy (or lack there of) has to do with how we at TV Tropes handle spoilers.

Nobody's been rude to you yet. Maybe a little sarcasm here or there on my part, but definitely no rudeness.

If you think my opinion is worthless or irrelevant because of the fact that I haven't seen CA:WS or read the comics or what-have-you, well, you're wrong, but I guess that's your opinion.

The point was that people who haven't seen the movie, but plan to, and would be upset with the reveal that Bucky is the Winter Soldier are a significantly small minority. In my opinion, it's not worth it to spoiler-tag a fact that was revealed YEARS before the film came out, in a different medium (with said medium being the one that the character was born in and is most well-known in), AND during the build-up to the film BY THE PRODUCERS through spoilers-by-casting. Now, if The Winter Soldier was someone OTHER than Bucky, this would make sense to spoiler-tag. But he's Bucky in the comics. He shares Bucky's actor. You'd have to actually work hard or just get lucky to be enough of a Captain America fan to visit the trope page for a movie of his you haven't seen yet, not know this spoiler, and not somehow have it revealed to you before seeing the film.

Two of the biggest moments in the movie are each of Captain America's fights against Bucky, but the fact that it's Bucky doesn't make either of those scenes spoilers. They just feature a character whose identity is a spoiler.

But it's hard to write entries about those scenes since you have to omit Bucky's name every time you mention him. I'm getting tired of it already in this entry. That's why I say it's not worth tagging. It makes things too difficult for the majority and would only serve to benefit the minority.

'There is no "Google rule of thumb".'

There is for me! Woot!

What's-his-name is in this movie and everybody knows it. Can't see how this can possibly rise to the level of a spoiler.

Answer this (but don't forget what I said in my previous posts):

If an animated movie came out called Doomsday, which was a narrative of Superman's battles with the title character and the ensuing aftermath of their eventual clash, and one of the voice actors was featured as "Cyborg Superman," and another as "Steel," would it REALLY be a spoiler that Superman dies?

Yes, because there are other explanations for the existence of a cyborg version of Superman.

AND for the existence of Steel? AND the fact that Superman dies in the comic-book storyline? AND the fact that Doomsday's only real selling point is the fact that he killed Superman, so he probably wouldn't have a film named after him otherwise?

That'd be one hell of a swerve for no good reason. Just like it would be if Bucky is The Winter Soldier in the comics, The Winter Soldier and Bucky Barnes share the same actor, but then The Winter Soldier is someone OTHER than Bucky in the film.

Ray, you need to take a look at Fan Myopia. RIGHT NOW.

Just because you know who Doomsday is, and what Steel has to do with Superman, does NOT mean the rest of planet Earth also does.

Funny thing is, I'm not a Superman fan. I haven't seen the movies, I never read the comics. I just know stuff like that because it's such a huge deal that it's relatively common knowledge. The fact that the comic-book storyline is called The Death of Superman doesn't hurt, either.

Just because you know who Doomsday is, and what Steel has to do with Superman, does NOT mean the rest of planet Earth also does.

The fact that the whole "It was his sled" ordeal from Family Guy turned memetic doesn't mean that everyone knows that it refers to Citizen Kane. There could theoretically be someone who plans to watch Citizen Kane, but then runs across the "It was his sled" page on here and has the whole thing ruined for them.

BUT THE ODDS OF THAT ARE INCREDIBLY SMALL.

Doomsday also appeared in Justice League Unlimited where he got curb-stomped repeatedly and notably never killed Superman. And Steel had his own movie which Superman does not appear in. And The Death Of Superman came out over twenty years ago.

Again, just because you know these things doesn't mean everyone does.

Also, to paraphrase Einstein: "common knowledge" is nothing but the accumulated prejudices we've acquired by age 18.

Why would anyone make a movie based on one episode/story arc of a cartoon? And Cyborg Superman/Steel probably didn't appear in that episode/episodic mini-series.

And the Steel movie did not feature Doomsday, nor Cyborg Superman.

Lastly, the fact that it was 20 years ago makes it that much more obvious. Why are we allowed to have a page whose TITLE spoils one of the greatest movies of all time, but this would be a big deal?

And it's not about EVERYONE knowing. Per the It Was His Sled page:

thanks to Popcultural Osmosis, everyone within the target demographic knows the ending already, even those who haven't even seen the show. It's probably never going to surprise anyone again. In many cases, the twist becomes the central fact known even to those only noddingly familiar with the work, and other adaptations take it as read from the beginning.

That's a good question, why IS this a big deal? Why are you stalking this page, double-posting gigantic walls of text with bold and caps-lock... all because of a spoiler on a Captain America page?

I'm not gonna respond to stupid, trolling posts like that.

...okay, no, seriously. What is your deal? You've been arguing for over a day now, posting insulting and condescending walls of text (yes, they ARE insulting and condescending, even if you don't think so) blasting anyone you perceive as disagreeing with you, and now you're actually calling people stupid.

Not everyone knows everything about every work, and those of us who don't appreciate spoiler tags. As long as they're used properly I'm not sure why they make you so angry.

I didn't call anyone stupid, and I'm not gonna respond to anything that doesn't pertain to the topic at hand.

This is all I'll say, and if you don't like it and want to continue with the ad hominems, go ahead. Just don't expect a response from me. I've already said this once, so I don't know why I have to repeat myself.

Two of the biggest moments in the movie are each of Captain America's fights against Bucky, but the fact that it's Bucky doesn't make either of those scenes spoilers. They just feature a character whose identity is a spoiler.

But it's hard to write entries about those scenes since you have to omit Bucky's name every time you mention him. I'm getting tired of it already in this entry. That's why I say it's not worth tagging. It makes things too difficult for the majority and would only serve to benefit the minority.

Sounds like a reasonable question in the context of the conversation to ask.

I don't really follow Captain America -much prefer Wolverine, Rogue, and Phoenix- but even I learned years ago about Bucky and Winter Soldier, just from casual reading of books about Marvel Comic stuff.

If some fans don't know this in at least a general way, I'd be surprised unless they were new or very casual.

Steel isn't really a good example of spoilering, Doomsday, etc. In the DCAU, Steel appeared when Superman was weakened from kryptonite, to fight Metallo while Supes recovered. So he has more than one origin, depending on medium.

Doomsday -that damn storyline was advertised all over the damn bookstores and in comics and whatnot as "Superman Dies! What will become of [insert here]?!??!?!?" It counts for whatever trope is Spoiled by the Lead-up Advertising. Superman's death at Doomsday's hands also comes up in at least a third of both their entries as one of the spotlight moments of their careers.

Edit: Sigh. Two posts since I started typing this... Ninja'd?

You know how when you tell a calm person to calm down you make them not calm? But seriously, deeeeep breaths. The thread is getting really really long. It's difficult to realize that just because you know something that others might not. It's also hard for film makers to hide which actor is playing a part because actors are credited for their roles, and the people who make trailers are separate department and don't always understand what the film makers are going for. As time goes by, and the older something is, it is unreasonable to assume that you have to walk on eggshells around the events of a work, like what happens in Othello. That said: Winter example should be spoiler-tagged, Superman example (though hypothetical) should also be spoiler-tagged as it's a MAJOR event plot-wise.

Edit: Don't forget that the marketing for a work before and around the time of release might reveal things about the story that if you happened to miss (like if you live in a different country) might spoil things for you. So the assumption that everyone knows is does not take into account geography,

So the assumption that everyone knows is does not take into account geography

It does. It's the basis for It Was His Sled. The target demographic.

Super Mario Bros. 2 was apparently All Just a Dream. It's not even spoiler-tagged on the page. Apparently, everyone with a halfway passing familiarity with the series or Nintendo games in general knows this. I didn't. But that doesn't mean I'd have the right to be upset that it was spoiled, since it's such a well-known fact in the target demographic.

^^^ How are you determining which is the majority and which is the minority, though? I know you're considering your side to be in the majority, but are you really?

And frankly, this DOES pertain to the conversation at hand. I can tell you, when I first found out that Bucky was the Winter Soldier it was a big deal for me. I was astounded. I think other people deserve to experience that twist in the same way, and I don't think "I'm tired of typing [[spoiler:" is a valid reason to ruin someone else's enjoyment of a good twist.

Heck, even in blatant cases of It Was His Sled... I wish I could have watched Star Wars just once, not knowing that Vader was Luke's father. The biggest WHAM moment of one of the greatest movie series of all time was ruined for me when I was still just a little kid, and I hate that.

That's the reason why I say it.

Like I said, I haven't seen the movie so I don't know how it treats this twist. If the movie itself doesn't treat The Winter Soldier's identity as a spoiler, then no, we won't either. But if it DOES, then you have no right to spoil it and ruin the movie for everyone else just because you're tired of using spoiler tags.

^^ You're saying because I don't live in the states, where most movie marketing for Hollywood movies takes place, I am not the target demographic, and deserve to have things spoiled? Not everyone watches all the promotional accoutrements before watching a movie.

Also, Super Mario Bros. 2 being All Just a Dream was never really that much of a twist. Not like Winter Soldier or Doomsday. Knowing that that game took place in the dream world of Subcon doesn't really change your appreciation of it. Having one of the bigger WHAM moments in comic booksspoiled for you, on the other hand...

it was a big deal for me. I was astounded. I think other people deserve to experience that twist in the same way

And I bet you weren't on the trope page for The Winter Soldier prior to seeing the film.

I wish I could have watched Star Wars just once, not knowing that Vader was Luke's father. The biggest WHAM moment of one of the greatest movie series of all time was ruined for me when I was still just a little kid, and I hate that.

So why do we disagree? You just admitted that the way things work, some people are gonna be gypped out of a good twist. Those people are in the minority, though. You can't satisfy and/or cater to EVERYONE, and we, the majority, the people who build the pages for these works from NOTHING, shouldn't be hindered by a single-digit percentage of people who would be bothered by this.

The site's policy says that spoilers that are a sentence long or more, or spoilers that take over a sentence, are superfluous. But then things like this make it so we can't discuss Rogers' fight with Bucky without censoring Bucky's name every time The Winter Soldier is mentioned and you want to talk about the dynamic between Bucky and The Winter Soldier, and how Captain America fits into The Winter Soldier's backstory and their relationship in the film.

See? Superfluous.

They can't have it both ways. They need to pick one. The choice seems obvious to me.

^^ You're saying because I don't live in the states, where most movie marketing for Hollywood movies takes place, I am not the target demographic, and deserve to have things spoiled? Not everyone watches all the promotional accoutrements before watching a movie.

I'm saying that's what the page for It Was His Sled says. I'm not saying anything that TV Tropes doesn't appear to also endorse.

Why do we disagree? Did you even read what I wrote? I disagree with you because I don't like big twists being spoiled. I know that people will spoil twists, that doesn't mean I like it.

What I'm getting here, basically, is that your argument is based on It's All About Me. You know the twist already, so you don't care if it's spoiled for anyone else. You're tired of typing out spoiler tags and you think your annoyance is more important than other peoples' enjoyment of the film.

If this isn't the case, then give us a good reason why we should stop caring about spoilers.

Nobody said to stop caring about spoilers.

I'm watching Arrow right now, and I'm not even through Season 2. And guess what? I'm staying away from the Arrow page on this site because even though the spoiler tags are there, some spoilers will inevitably be revealed because they're obvious to the target demographic.

You agree that people will get cheated out of experiencing twists while watching a work. I'm saying you need to agree that it's just too bad for those people, and to also realize that it can happen to anyone, so no one really has a right to be upset over It Was His Sled-esque spoilers being revealed to them if they're on a site like this, or in general, really.

If it was all about me, I'd want all the spoilers I haven't seen to be hidden, no matter how obvious, but the spoilers I know of to be free for the world to see. No. I don't care if someone tells me that Snape kills Dumbledore, or Bruce Willis is a ghost. I haven't read/seen either work, but even if I planned to, Memetic Mutation has led to me being unable to legitimately experience those twists, through no fault of my own. It happens. Oh, well.

This back-and-forth needs to stop.

I do not see how that spoiler is It Was His Sled-worthy, at any rate.

just a side-note, since someone asked who reads the pages without having seen the show, i do. thats one of the main ways i find new stories to read, to see if they look interesting.

although its a moot point since i dont actualy care about spoilers. i alwyas leave spoilers visible anyway.

that said, I'd say hide his name in the main description and then put something like Spoiler Warning: From here on the identity of the Winter Soldier will not be hidden above the tropes.

~wrm5 — Yes, The Winter Soldier does treat the reveal that Bucky Barnes survived as a twist. The Winter Soldier is initially a semi-legend, with a couple of guesses made to who it could be.

Maybe we should reconsider having spoiler tags. I can understand their use for when we started as a small group of fans creating, essentially, a bunch of interlinked fan pages. They are important to a lot of fansite interactions, however tvtropes isn't that anymore. It's grown into being a web reference site for tropes that exist in all works, and it is well known for documenting exactly what tricks works use. Spoilers are now our stock-in-trade, and everyone knows it. With the new look, I think it is time to strip the spoiler code. It is an artefact of a previous phase of the wiki, and not really relevant to the vast chunk of new users. We're not that small cosy bunch of fans and fansites anymore, we're as mainstream now. That's not a complaint, btw, that is a compliment to all the tropers here. And in point of fact, many fan-wikis and fansites now eschew hiding spoilers these days, and just use generic warnings.

As for the specific example. I noticed we said starring Sebastian as The Winter Soldier, which is more spoilerific than actually calling him Bucky. For all the readers know, Bucky is showing up in flashbacks, a common plot device that might be expected in a man-out-of-time movie, mentioning he is the winter soldier is far more spoiler-esque.

"I'd say hide his name in the main description"

No spoiler tags above the example line, guys.

Now, not mentioning all that is perfectly kosher.

And I've read a bunch of stuff without seeing/reading/listening to it first. Most of my knowledge of Doctor Who that's not from my friends who are fans are from this site. The only time I've ever made myself sad by spoiling myself was by reading the ending to Mystery Case Files: Madame Fate, and that was on Wikipedia, and I really should have been more careful -but who could have expected that!

If folks want to discuss spoiler policy, please take it to Wiki Talk. Ask The Tropers is not made for extensive discussions as they crowd out all other issues.

Question: Is this being taken to the forums? Because the ongoing Snark-to-Snark Combat makes it seem like the conversation isn't over yet. If so, a link would be nice because I'm not finding a thread yet.

~randomsurfer made a good point about this YKTTW, so I think discussion should take place there. The core issue here isn't really over Bucky Barnes, but if mentioning actors is a spoiler.

And Ray took it to the forums anyway. We probably were doing this at the same time. :)

Thread is here.

No, that's another trope — As You Know — when the characters recap previous events for the audience's benefit, despite having all been a part of them.

You might want to ask in the You Know That Show forum.

Crushed.

X Meets Y doesn't go on work pages, yes. A character acknowledging they are a YMMV trope makes it In-Universe. Complete Monster is a special case and you'll have to ask the Complete Monster Long Term Projects thread.

1. I had this issue before. X Meets Y is not actually a trope, it's a Justfor Fun page. If it's invoked in-universe or by Word of God then you can list it on the trivia page, but that's it.

2. Complete Monster had a lot of misuse, so to prevent that all cases of Complete Monster have to go through the LTP thread for validation. Apparently this even counts if they're invoked.

No, if it's invoked in-universe by a character, it can go on the main page. If it's invoked by Word of God, that's Trivia.

To answer the second question, Complete Monster is specifically tailored to disallow Playing with a Trope due to the rampant past misuse. If it were invoked (as in a character who identifies themselves as really heinous and without redeeming traits), you're probably looking for either Card-Carrying Villain or I Am a Monster.

Well, he has (some) redeeming traits that are very much outweighed by the others, a depressing backstory, and some Atoner traits... I'll just keep it in YMMV with "thinks of himself as one" once I'll make the page.

If he thinks of himself as a CM it's not YMMV. YMMV is for audience reactions, i.e. when the audience thinks something about the character or show.

^^ Every new example has to go through the clean-up thread first, so please bring it up there before adding. If he feels genuine remorse for his crimes, he wouldn't qualify however. It does sound like I Am a Monster is the applicable trope here.

Here's the abridged quote:

"I am not a good man. I know this. I make no pretension about what I am or what I have done.

I am a monster. I am evil. When you look for the face of death, gaze upon me."

For context, the guy's a particularly brutal warlord who torches cities rather than conquer them, deems himself a coward ever since childhood, and this is said before he really gets into Atoner territory.I Am a Monster seems to be for those who turn into literal monsters.

If a character tries to atone for their crimes (which is a redeeming trait) at some point, they cannot be a CM by definition. Being consistently and remorselessly evil is required to qualify that trope. As for I Am a Monster, that may require more discussion on what that trope is, since it seems unnecessarily narrow if the original idea was that only literal monsters who regret their transformation could count (which is already covered by Tortured Monster and Tragic Monster); the usage on the page is much broader.

Question: Could we cut Main.X Meets Y to turn it into a redlink so people will stop linking it in trope lists? If people have to put in the Just for Fun/ namespace, they're more likely to realize it doesn't go on work pages.

Here is why that's a tricky proposition. It would create 2,264 red links.

Is that so bad, though? Each of those is probably misuse, and would expedite the cleanup process by gathering attention for it and prevent future misuse.

A real page cut blanks the Related To tab and makes it impossible to clean the wicks. You'll need a fake redlink. One of the ideas in the page overhaul is to add a functionality to allow moderators to fake redlink an article.

Ah. I didn't realize that. Then... yes, I support a fake redlink.

^ and ^^: That would kill two birds with one stone, right? It would redlink the article to discourage any more links to it, but it would leave the Related To page intact so that a STP to clean the wicks would be feasible.

Where would we formally request a page become a false redlink?

Dump.

EDIT: Errr... bump.

Here. I'll relay the request.

They have made some grammatical errors in the edit. It also has a YMMV trope potholed into it, and I don't think it's okay to pothole YMMV tropes into something that isn't YMMV.

Not many edits yet, but every edit is complaining about something. 9Except creepypasta, but still misused there) Sending P Ms over natter and Example Indentation now, but that's a lot of semi-proficient edits for a supposedly new account.

Possible sock for a ban evader?

Without any proof, it's hard to stay. Unless a known ban evader has a similar edit history, I'd assume that it's a newbie.

There was a discussion months ago about the exact same topic, with DW and all, and someone insisting their interpretation was correct, even though no one agreed with them. The mods will have to run the necessary checks, though.

You don't pothole YMMV tropes on main pages. That's been up several times.

Edit: Sheesh, that convo was in July '13! Eventually taken to the forums because the thread was getting long.

Not an obvious ban evader. We'll have to see how they react to the messages.

And the example? Must be changed?

I sent another for Example Indentation, but their most recent edit (Lying Creator) is good.

Yes, fix mistakes. Why do you need permission?

What the f...?

There is a ton of misuse of tropes on the page, but a Useful Notes page should have information that's, well, useful for people figuring out how the character is portrayed in fiction. If he's shown in fiction as a Badass Baritone (or a subversion) in fiction, it belongs on the list. It's not troping his real life, it's troping how he's portrayed in fiction.

Seriously, not mentioning Nice Hat is... downright silly, since every portrayal of Lincoln in... anything includes that hat.

Those deletions are pretty much correct. We should not use tropes to describe Abe Lincoln the person. Only to describe his portrayal in fiction.

But... many of them do have to do with his portrayals in fiction. Including the Badass Baritone; I can think of three works that include that subversion, one of which actually discusses it.

And the "rocking the boat" tag is just... odd.

But a LOT of the examples are horrible shoehorning and non-examples, I admit. But... come on. Nice Hat? The Red Baron? Reality Is Unrealistic? Those at the very least show up in fiction very often.

So they belong in the section about Abe in fiction.

Edited to rephrase:

Note a section name alteration. Think of the edit as "Delete all tropes about the real-life person" then "Create a section devoted to tropes in that person's books/speeches (those are what politicians create)".

"Rocking the boat" is a succint sum up of how I see the situation. History provides indirect indicators of how a person lived their life, okay. Interpreting those has no criteria of acceptable bias established bias, therefore any trope that normally lends to characterization of motivation, impact, character traits and agenda, becomes either gushing or complaining. And can be rewritten into the opposite based on the same historical facts.

Nemuru Mae Ni is writing about a "section devoted to tropes in that person's books/speeches". There doesn't seem to be such a section (there's one on how tropes apply to his legacy, and one about tropes in fictional representations of Lincoln).

Should such a section be added to this page, or should there be a separate creator page Abraham Lincoln, where only works by Lincoln, and not those about him, are discussed?

My view is that having a separate creator page would be confusing, and would lead to misuse, but is there a site policy for this?

@GnomeTitan: See the history of the page for the change being discussed.

That "Legacy" is supposed to mean "books/speeches/conversational troping". The section was called "Tropes relating to President Lincoln" before the edit.

Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't quite obvious that the "Legacy" category meant "works by Lincoln".

Speeches and public appearances don't count as trope-worthy for our standards. Can you imagine what would happen if we ruled otherwise?

^ This isn't snark bait, is it? I don't recall any policies to support the argument that seems to be being made.

Could it be considered a special case of this wiki dealing with trope use in fiction? Political speeches may not always be entirely truthful, but they don't usually count as fiction.

'Fraid I know basically nothing about Kidz Bop, so I can't offer too much help. (Also, holy crap, they're on 28 already?!)

I see what you're saying about misuse of Bowdlerise, though. He's got a serious case of the shoehorns, and seems to be mentioning ANY case of lyrics being changed, even when it's as simple as changing "Le Bron" to "Kidz Bop."

And apparently he's been doing it since November. So, why are you only just now reporting it? I mean, out of curiosity?

Spinosegnosaurus77 edit history tells me he may have only come across it recently. You can't tell what you don't know. (Said every smart spymaster ever.)

Murtropia's edit history.

Also, why the heck do I have to go to an admin page to find the 'find edits by troper' box?

They are in for a talk now.

@wrm5: I merely fixed his mistakes manually until now. I didn't think they would be that serious.

Also, they're not on 28 yet (which is why I was concerned).

Speaking of Kidz Bop and bowdlerization, the entry for Bowdlerize takes up a ridiculously long part of the page. Can I move it to a subpage?

Read it over first to see if it can be condensed.

Probably — though a large number of the examples may need to be reworded to remove either negativity or inaccuracy.

@Candi - it should be in the "tools" dropdown menu on all normal wiki pages. It doesn't show up in the forums or on special pages, like this one and the Cut List.

What exactly is the negative component here? The fact that much of the soundtrack was thrown in, and not reviewed/reworked thoroughly after the change in movie's atmosphere?

By the way, the example should be kicked to Awesome/ tab, since it's present for the work page in question.

Yes, that's what I was worried about. And I'll get it taken care of as soon as I see the community has reached a consensus on my writeup.

The trophy descriptions don't specifically say that the males are mistaken for females, just that the males and females share their feminine appearance. So it's a Square Peg Round Trope regardless.

Looks like we have a rather uncreative troll on our hands.

Banned.

thanks.

I find it funny that he actually potholed the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment in his Genocide Dilemma edit, like he thought that actually made it better.

^Actually, that part concerned me a little. Someone calling themselves socialjusticetroper shows up out of nowhere, makes two racist edits, successfully potholes the somewhat obscure Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, and then stops.

The Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment comment sounds like something someone who has been around a while would say. Makes me feel like someone is testing the waters to see if vandalism on a sock account can be traced back to their primary account.

We pay attention to that stuff, Daefaroth, but for obvious reasons can't discuss it publicly.

Although if you read the edit banned/suspended thread, you can see that the mods can trace an account to the specific computer it's on. (The guy who fixed my laptop explained how. Basically, it's something a troll couldn't get around without a lot of programming knowledge.)

So, no, unless a wanna-be troll/vandal takes extra steps, they can't make a sock and get away with it.

I'd wait until the TRS discussion is done before making a decision.

There's pretty much no chance that any decision made in the TRS thread will make that quote legitimate. It does not fit the trope and the TRS discussion is not about changing the trope's description or definition, it's about a rename. (The discussion is ongoing and maybe the consensus will shift, but I seriously doubt it. Nobody has proposed changing the definition because the blatantly obvious problem is a nonindicative stock phrase name. The trope itself is fine, and everyone seems to agree on that.)

Nevermind, I did it anyway.

Like Frankie said, I did it myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

Why was this cut request denied?

The page is useless. It's the wrong namespace. It has no reason to exist except to clutter up the top of the page and confuse people.

Wrong namespace redirects are NEVER allowed. Main/ redirects get cut all the time, and we don't allow LightNovel/ pages as redirects to Manga/ pages, or WesternAnimation/ pages as redirects to animated Film/ pages. So why are we making an exception for this one?

I'll wait for a response before cutlisting the page again, but there is seriously no reason for this redirect to exist.

Because of the inbounds. 33 of them. I cut unnecessary cross-namespace redirects on principle but 33 is too many inbounds.

Are you kidding? The real page was 697 inbounds. 33 is barely any. Especially since they're years old - leftovers from the time when WebOriginal.Epic Rap Battles Of History WAS the real page, before it got moved to the proper namespace, which was about 3 years ago.

And if they're NOT old, then that's still just another reason it needs to be cut. In that case it's proof that the page is just causing undue confusion and needs to be gotten rid of before it gets out of control.

33 is a lot compared to what is usually cutlisted.

Besides, links get broken all the time. Go to any message board on the internet, go back a year or two and count how many of the links in various posts still work. If it breaks someone's inbound link then oh well, if that person still cares then they can take 5 seconds of their time to figure out the right link and fix it.

And if it's advertising you're worried about, I REALLY doubt that a couple dozen links from 2 years ago are bringing in so much traffic to this site that it will matter at all. Worst case scenario you lose one millionth of a penny.

A couple dozen links from 2 years ago should not be considered a valid reason to keep a Wrong Namespace Redirect.

Please write your posts in a less histrionic way.

Inbounds are not only important for the traffic they channel (and we are not simply going to assume that these inbounds are disused, either), but also because offsite links bump up the Google ranking and of other search engines.

First, I'm going to assume that "histrionic" isn't the word you really meant to use, because if it is then that means you're basically accusing me of being a liar, which is needless to say quite a significant and slanderous accusation. So how about, I'll try to use a more relaxed tone in my comments, if you'll agree to not make baseless and insulting assumptions about who I am, okay?

Second, on-topic, do you really think that out of over 4 million total inbounds, that losing a mere 33 would damage your Google ranking so much that it's worth keeping a Cross-Namespace Redirect in this case? I mean, if it was 333 or even 133, then sure, I might agree with you. But just 33?

"Histrionic" has nothing to do with lying, I don't think. It means "emotional" or "dramatic". He meant "calm down". Calm down.

Histrionic means to fabricate or exaggerate the facts with the purpose of creating a dramatic event. Accusing me of being histrionic means he's accusing me of a) lying, and b) doing so with the sole purpose of creating drama. Neither of those is true.

I'm fine with him asking me to calm down. I admit I might have gotten a little... passionate. But "histrionic" is not a word that should be thrown around so casually, and I do not appreciate such an insulting word being used with regards to me.

Exaggeration is usually not considered the same thing as lying. I'm not sure how you intended it, but I do think your posts have been Played for Drama. Mountain and molehill compairsons pop to mind, and the subject (a redirect by namespace) seems an unusual sort to get excited about.

It annoys me every time I open the page and see both Web Original and Web Video at the top.

But mostly I don't understand why we're making an exception here. Cross-Namespace Redirects are always cut on principal, and I've seen us cut pages before with more inbounds - over 100 at times - so I'm not sure why this page is getting special privilege to continue existing.

So... am I to assume from the silence that the decision is the page won't be deleted and I should stop asking?

Showing an attitude about it can get you in trouble.

I'm not. I'm asking if that's the final decision or not.

I didn't see it as showing an attitude, at least.

I don't see a problem with today's question, either.

ManCalledTrue really doesn't seem to like El Goonish Shive, and he leaves rude edit reasons to boot.

I can't speak to the validity of either of the examples but it does seem as if there's a two way edit war brewing. And yes, MCT needs a rudeness reminder.

Not a first offense, either, at least as far as pushing his opinions on Webcomics goes. A while back, he kept editing the YMMV.Manly Guys Doing Manly Things page to complain that a particular arc was the author "whining," and said the author made bunches of angry rants about the subject of the arc, angry rants that don't seem to actually exist.

I don't think there really is a hard and fast rule. Generally if the adaptation is so faithful that the trope list is going to be exactly the same on both pages we don't consider it worth making a new page, but I don't think there's a rule against it.

Basically, if someone wants to make a page for an adaptation, they can, no matter how (dis)similar they are. There Is No Such Thing as Notability includes each adaptation, of course.

Now, these pages need to be of sufficient quality, of course, but it's just a question as to whether someone cares enough to make the page.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Sandbox/NamespaceMap

Original medium, please. It is permitted to split off adaptations, but the original medium should be the first namespace used. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13329719840A01140100&page=1#16

You don't alter the title of the trope to fit the work. If the trope doesn't fit, it doesn't fit, and changing the name won't make it fit, it will just be a Sink Hole. You never, ever, ever Pot Hole a trope name in an example list.

If the trope has legitimate redirects, you can use the redirect and alphabetize it based on that title. However, that's preferably only done when the redirect is gender-based. In other cases, you should use the actual trope title. Many redirects only exist because the trope name was changed and fixing thousands of wicks to an old title would be too time- and labor-intensive, but that does not mean the old title should still be used in new examples—it shouldn't.

But do not Pot Hole a trope title in an example list. It's explicitly against wiki policy and rules.

Incidentally, it sounds like you may actually want Icy Blue Eyes, Occult Blue Eyes, Creepy Blue Eyes, Glowing Eyes of Doom, or some other form of Uh-Oh Eyes.

you shouldnt alter the title, particularly for Blue Eyes Take Warning because that wouldnt be the same trope at all.

the only time you can use an alterenate title is if its already a redirect, which is mostly used for gendered tropes, such as Ho Yay vs Les Yay. in which case it goes under the title you are using. but dont just make up new names for them.

EDIT: Ninja'd

What if it needs to be changed for gender because there's no male/female equivalent of the same trope?

People can figure out what it means; they don't need you to pothole it to point out that there's a different gender involved, most especially if it changes the alphabetical sort order.

Or, even clarify it as part of the example. It should never just be a character's name, there's always some sort of context to clarify how the example fits the pattern.

What crazy said. As long as it's not a ZCE the example should explain. And if it IS a ZCE then it needs to be fixed anyway. :p

Don't pothole before the colon; explain the difference after the colon. (Although in this case, that's Not an Example.)

To make it as clear as possible:

Never pothole the trope name in a list.

Double check the trope actually fits.

Always explain how the trope fits.

If it's a twist on the trope (ie, "A Mother to Her Men" instead of "A Father to His Men"), use the name on the trope page. Explain the twist in the example.

^ Was going to say something like this. I wouldn't necessarily use A Father To His Men since "Mother" carries different connotations, unless Alice was actually fitting the FTHM trope, but many gender-specific tropes (note: biased gender role diatribe incoming) are really gender-specific for no reason at all and can easily apply to the other gender. Again, don't use alternate titles unless there is an already-existing redirect, and even then, don't use the redirect unless the main title is really, really, really inappropriate for the current use and can't simply be explained in context.

But you could say something like this example from Literature.Orthogonal:

• Conveniently Close Planet: Played relatively straight with a Conveniently Close Asteroid. [Blah blah blah, context explaining how it fits.]

The only time this is necessary, though, is when a trope title doesn't describe every instance completely—Conveniently Close Planet, for instance, is a Sub-Trope of No Sense Of Distance, and amounts to the fact that objects in space will often wind up conveniently close to the protagonists despite the astronomical odds against it. They don't have to be a planet.

Red Eyes, Take Warning, on the other hand, is not about uniquely-colored eyes indicating that a character is dangerous or evil—it's about red eyes being a common way to illustrate this. Thus, any other color wouldn't apply (unless it was a variant of red, like maybe pink, but even then you're straying into other tropes).

And, as usual, don't take the fact that this practice is quite common on work pages as precedent. I believe the policy may have been tightened over the years...

I used "A Father to His Men" as an example because one of the first times I ran across the sinkhole in a trope list issue when it wasn't a blatant misuse was with Janeway's entry potholed to "A Mother to Her Men". I asked here, and was told nope, we don't do that. Explain the "mother" twist in the example, but don't change the trope name text by potholing.

Because of that, it stands as one of the first examples of Don't Pothole Trope Names in Lists in my mind.

^ I see what you mean. And I'm not familiar with that example, but note that A Father to His Men means things that "Mother" wouldn't connote. If she actually fits A Father to His Men, regardless of gender, then to be perfectly honest, she should be A Father to Her Men more than anything else, as odd as that sounds. Not in the trope list, obviously. (And I realize how much that opinion leans on binary gender norms, but the fact remains that you don't use "father" archetypes in fiction the same as you do "mother" archetypes.)

This is a bit of a tangent, anyway. The point is correct: Never Pot Hole trope names in example lists.

Let me rephrase that: Never pothole trope names in example lists, except in rare cases with nonstandard plurals that don't just add -s or -es to the end. Always list it alphabetically according to the actual trope name.

^ I would actually disagree there. I find it hard to believe that a trope name would need to be altered to pluralize (or de-pluralize, if that's a word) it.

In every case I can imagine, Blue Linking the trope name exactly for a singular trope name that applies to an example that would be plural (maybe a character has two gay Disappeared Dads, idk) would still make perfect sense.

If the trope name is so particularly important that being in the singular would make it inappropriate to the example, and yet the example requires a plural, then it's probably inappropriate anyway. But I have a very hard time imagining that case.

In the case I hypothesized above,

• Disappeared Dad: Bob has two, and when the story starts he's being raised by his gay biological father's first wife. (Better context, probably, but it's a hypothetical anyway.)

would be preferable to:

• Disappeared Dads: Bob is being raised by his biological father's first wife, since his father has gone missing, along with his current partner.

As for nonstandard p[lurals, nothing comes to mind, but I don't see the point of potholing/altering a trope title to make it plural. It doesn't make it any clearer; that's what context is for. If you have to change the trope name to make it fit the example context, you're probably shoehorning it in to begin with.

Allow me to make it more clear.

Never pothole before the colon in the example list. NEVER. For any reason.

Not to make it fit the context.

Not to make it plural or singular.

Not to make it the right gender.

Not for X or Y other reason.

NEVER.

Is that clear enough?

^ This. Yes, that's clear enough, so long as it doesn't prompt more "But it's okay if X" comments.

Holy shit, triple-post. Disregard.

Holy shit, triple-post. Disregard.