• 2 May 6th, 2016 at 11:11AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 11:49:57 AM
    What's the policy on listing works without articles on indexes? I generally thought it was OK, since it just makes it easier for people who want to create an article in the future. However, aye_amber has been going around and deleting examples with the edit reason being "Zero context example without an article" (and being very selective about it). I didn't think lists for indexing purposes even needed context. Should I PM the user about it, or are the removals fine? Reply

      You might as well start with the PM, since even if you're right, the mods will tell you to PM first.

      If you're wrong, then aye_amber might be able to link us to where that policy is located.

      I'm probably being stupid here, but it seems I can only use the templates as a PM message, and this doesn't really fit any of those.
  • 0 May 6th, 2016 at 11:11AM
    Basic Trope: An abnormal physical trait a character is ashamed of is admired by another character.

    Straight: Bob has a pair of wings which causes him to be an outcast. His Love Interest Alice however, thinks that they are beautiful.

    Does Freakiness Shame really describe this? The trope is about shame, yes, but as followed by acceptance. Neither Freakiness or Shame are words that imply another character accepts/admires the ashamed character's abnormality.

    This trope was originally titled But Your Wings Are Beautiful. It was retitled after No New Stock Phrases was implemented. I'm not sure why it had to be retitled when we got to keep Screw the Rules, I Have Money!. The original title does describe the trope better, covering both aspects: one character's shame and another's acceptance.

    But I don't mean to mess with the sanctity of No New Stock Phrases. I just don't find the current title functional. If the original can't be reinstated, I think we should have a new title that captures both sides of this trope. Even Freakiness Acceptance, while just a quick fix example, would be more appropriate, as it describes acceptance for something abnormal.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts.

    P.S. I wonder if the trope was retitled Freakiness Shame to make it more of a character trait, independent of acceptance? However, the trope description is still what I posted above. And all the listed examples are instances of acceptance. Reply
  • 17 May 5th, 2016 at 10:10AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 11:25:27 AM
    We're having a disagreement in Discussion on whether Goku from Dragon Ball Z should be considered a Combat Pragmatist and it's coming down to a conflict of how the trope is defined.

    Throughout the series, the character bites, uses deceptive tactics to gain an advantage, and demonstrates a willingness to abuse an enemy's Achilles' Heel. But he also gives his opponents advice on how to improve their style while he's fighting them, he allows enemies time to power up to full before engaging, and at one point even offers a Healing Potion to an enemy before setting him up to fight his son.

    As I understand it, the Combat Pragmatist is characterized not by a particular cheap shot or dirty trick, but by the willingness to do anything to win. This is where we're having our disagreement: different interpretations of how the trope applies.

    For instance: at one point, Goku sucker-punches another character, Recoome, as he's in the middle of performing a prolonged attack setup for a special move. After doing so, Goku apologizes to Recoome for the cheap shot and explains to him that the setup leaves him too open. "I saw an opening that screamed attack, so I took it." Some in the discussion are arguing that Goku's statement acknowledges his blow as dishonorable and demonstrates his Combat Pragmatism, while others are arguing the opposite: that him apologizing for it and using it as an opportunity to mentor his foe is evidence that he's not a Combat Pragmatist, because he's demonstrating a clear understanding of what is and is not acceptable behavior in a fight. Reply

      I would say no. Goku lets opponents power up, among other obvious failings. He would never do this if he were a combat pragmatist. He does exploit openings, but this is something any good fighter does.

      And as I argued, the fact that Goku called his actions an "opening" invokes a Rule of Perception issue. I take this to mean that most fights use a Take Our Word for It approach to how vulnerable a character is during certain actions. Taking an entire episode to transform? Somehow, they didn't leave themselves "open" during the whole sequence.

      DBZ is, above all, a martial arts show. The way I think Goku sees it, if your technique leaves you wide open, that's your fault and you should train around it.

      Dude, no. Goku is NOT a Combat Pragmatist.

      Case in point: during the battle with Freeza, he explicitly allows Freeza to reach his maximum power. There wasn't simply "not an opening." He let him power up. He says so, point-blank. Depending on which version you're watching, it's either because he wanted the challenge, or because he thought beating him at max power would demoralize him.

      Either way, no, Goku made the choice, knowing that he could have stopped Freeza from powering up (or at least tried to stop him).

      And it's not like that's the only time he's ever done that. He's more than willing to put the entire world in jeopardy in the name of having a good fight.

      Goku is NOT a Combat Pragmatist, by ANY definition.

      So, I would be correct then in asserting that specific instances of the character hitting below the belt or using a cheap shot do not suffice, it has to be the character's usual approach?

      Combat Pragmatist is about a philosophy. Specifically, it's the philosophy that, in a fight, winning is the only thing that matters, no matter what. Honor, challenge, all that stuff? It's for suckers and losers.

      That does not apply to Goku. Yes, he takes openings from time to time, like sucker punching Recoome in the middle of his speech... but that wasn't really pragmatism. That was more that Goku doesn't have patience for meaningless theatrics, especially not from inferior opponents and ESPECIALLY not when said opponents just hurt his friends.

      Goku will let an enemy power up because he knows at the end of it he'll get a better challenge, but if you're clearly just shouting nonsense or stalling for time he's going to bust your nose.

      It should be pointed out that in the Raditz fight Goku pulled out all the stops. He attacks Raditz's weakness, was willing to mug him with as many people as possible, and even considered using the Dragon Balls to stop Raditz and the only reason why he didn't do it is because there was no time to collect the Dragon Balls.

      In that particular fight, Goku did everything he could to win.

      Raditz was stronger than him, and was planning to steal his son. One instance doesn't make it a character trait, only something done in desperation.

      Raditz wouldn't be the first person stronger than him who threatened his loved one.

      But if the spirit of the trope is a mindset and not case by case, then the person who is the page image for Combat Pragmatist, Indiana Jones, doesn't fit here either. I have seen all the Indiana Jones movies, and he rarely does anything to win. He fights people in hand-to-hand combat even when he's out-numbered, the person is bigger than him, or they're using machine guns. He rarely uses his gun except for those one off jokes. He actually lost his gun in Temple of Doom and didn't even noticed until near the end of the movie.

      Also, the most mainstream interpretation of Batman wouldn't fail under Combat Pragmatist since he's one of the most honor bound heroes with his no-kill code and no guns rule.

      False equivalence. Batman is definitely a Combat Pragmatist. Just because he doesn't kill doesn't mean he isn't a cheap fighter. Same with Indy. He fights fair when he has to and cheats when he has the opportunity, even if it is a gag. Goku explicitly fights fair except when he has no other choice.

      How is it a false equivalence? The mindset is anything to win. Batman not willing to used a gun means he's not willing to do anything to win. Indy doesn't 'cheat' all that often. He has a gun that he rarely uses and fights scores of people in hand-to-hand combat even when he's out-numbered and the people are shooting at him. If he truly had anything to win mentality, would he be shooting people more often instead of fighting them up close. The reason why the joke in Raider of the Lost Ark works is because Indy just finished fighting all these people barehanded except for his whip. Then this one Elite Mook comes and Indy mentally says 'screw it' and shoots him. The joke being, 'why didn't you do that before'.

      It's false equivalence because you're trying to claim that avoiding one option (murder, incidentally) automatically disqualifies Batman, yet at the same time trying to keep Goku as one when he only plays dirty when no other option is available.

      The character doesn't have to resort to murder or maiming for them to qualify, they only have to consistently be willing to play dirty to win. Batman uses gas bombs, batarangs, and so forth on a consistent basis. Indy dropping his gun doesn't mean he wasn't willing to shoot those guys; he just couldn't. Goku fights fair almost all the time, and rarely resorts to underhanded tactics, so he is not an example.

      I think what makes the difference with Goku is that while he will occasionally employ dirty tactics, especially when he was a kid, he still believes in a fair and honorable fight.

      What the penguin said. Goku is not a combat pragmatist by any shoehorned stretch of the definition.

      Incidentally, to the person who brought up Raditz...

      Yes, Goku attacked Raditz' weakness. It should also be noted, however, that even though he had Raditz at his mercy he released him when Raditz asked him to, knowing full well it was probably a trick. A Combat Pragmatist wouldn't have done that. At the very least a Combat Pragmatist would have made sure Raditz was bound or unconscious first, so it didn't matter if it was a trick.

      As noted, it's a mindset. It's not about one specific tactic or another, it's about how the character approaches the fight. How often Indy uses the gun versus how often he uses his fists isn't the point; the point is that he's never shown to knowingly handicap himself in the interest of a fair fight. Never talks about fairness or accuses another combatant of cheating.

      Although the audience might find some Fridge Logic in, "Well, what I would have done is THIS," Indy consistently behaves in a fashion that, to the best of his knowledge, will end the fight in his favor as quickly and efficiently as possible. That his tactics are suboptimal is not the same as knowingly holding himself back in the interest of fairness.

      Contrast Captain America in Winter Soldier, who shows us that he's not a Combat Pragmatist when Batroc insinuates that he couldn't take him if he didn't have his shield and Cap rises to the challenge by putting away the shield and fighting mano-a-mano. Indy has fought several people mano-a-mano, but never taken the bait to throw down his gun and "fight like a man"; he doesn't care about a fair fight.

      If the mindset is anything to win then him having a gun and not using it, or losing it without him even noticing, isn't combat pragmatic. He may not put himself at a disadvantage, but he doesn't use all the tools available to him to win. Actually, he has allowed himself to fight at a disadvantage several times. He fought people barehanded when they has swords and knives, and he never took his gun out except when it's a gag.

      As I said on the discussion page: having restraint and being unpragmatic are not the same thing.
  • 4 May 6th, 2016 at 12:12AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 09:28:10 AM
    What's going on with For All the Marbles? It's not complete page blanking, but the whole trope list was removed by an editor (the author?) Reply

      Hmm, looking at the changes, it appears that the author pulled a Continuity Reboot, and deleted the trope list since it isn't applicable to the new incarnation of the work.

      I'll defer to the mods on what to do in this situation.

      Was the work not finished, and the author is revising it prior to publication, or is there an existing body of published material that the author is now contradicting with new material? In the former case, it's fine to reset the trope list. In the latter, it's not. However, if it's not published, it belongs in Darth Wiki, not Literature. If it's a serial work that was just erased from existence, then it gets a bit fuzzy.

      it's a story on Alternate History.com, someone with an account will have to check if it exists.

      I'm not familiar with that site; does its presence there make it a fic? Or is it one of these places where people can post their work but take it down or change it whenever they feel like it, making its publication status somewhat fuzzy?
  • 2 May 6th, 2016 at 6:06AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 08:37:27 AM
    What category do single-panel cartoons like those in The New Yorker belong to? They're not Newspaper Comics, but they're not Comic Books either. Reply
  • 2 May 6th, 2016 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 08:31:13 AM
    Why was my Hey IT's That Guy entry removed "due to TRS?" Reply
  • 5 May 5th, 2016 at 9:09PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 07:43:25 AM
    I seem to be stuck in a disagreement with another troper concerning Blazblue Chrono Phantasma character page about why a certain person is not a implied love interest. Originally the disagreement was between another troper and me but I belive it was do to them not understanding certain tropes because after explaining my reasons in editing they started to see the reason. However this new troper has appeared today redone the page added what was deleted and won't let me touch until a mod comes, and I'd rather not start a edit war. I think they may be biased on the trope so is there anything I can do, or can someone take a look.(ps sorry for the way message came out on phone) Reply

      Well, frankly, both of you already Edit Warred.

      The problem is that you deleted it without a reason, and normally it would be nice to leave an Edit Reason when deleting something like that, especially the second time. Also, from what I can see in the discussion, you haven't really explained why the trope doesn't fit yet. I would start off with that and see if the two of you can come to some sort of agreement.

      I do not know enough of Blazblue to accurately take part in the discussion, but let's see if some other people show up.

      I didn't edit without reason I explained it in the past and explained it to him it the discussion.

      Ahh, looks like I did not go back far enough in the history. My mistake. My Edit War point still stands, however.

      The only thing that I'll contribute is that Implied Love Interest doesn't technically say there can only be one per person, but that might just be me misunderstanding the trope.

      I had to look at that my self but Seeing as it says "someone" and I couldn't find any examples of multiple people I'd assume so.

  • 1 May 6th, 2016 at 7:07AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 07:07:03 AM
    What trope would best apply to this exchange?
    Alice: Are you Bob Smith? Bob: That depends on who's asking.
  • 4 May 6th, 2016 at 3:03AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 06:00:19 AM
    A troper called MAI742 has just dumped a huge political tract into the description of ''A Matter of Life and Death" is it okay to go ahead and remove it as violation of Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement? Reply

      Delete it. It really is polarised political garbage that we don't want on the page.

      Deleted it and commented out a trope addition because it seems to have the same sort of stuff, but I'm not familiar enough with the material mentioned to judge whether it can be re-worded into a valid trope entry.

      Here is the Troper's history in case there is anything objectionable in that. Again, I'm just not familiar enough with the other material to know. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=MAI742

      That editor tends to edit Useful Notes pages, so they may be less familiar with the rules of actual work and trope pages, which are different to Useful Notes (i.e. things which would be cut due to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement elsewhere are allowed as long as they are factual.)

      Jesus. I've seen that movie, and I can't imagine where that poster got those ideas from the film.
  • 2 May 6th, 2016 at 5:05AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 05:58:31 AM
    Hello fellow tropers. I've seen some of your profiles and am wondering how I can make a sort of "about me" page. You know, like where I can write down my favourite tropes, pages I've created and things like that. Thanks :) Reply
  • 13 May 5th, 2016 at 6:06PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 05:55:34 AM
    An edit I made to Cap's "Blood Knight" entry on the characters page:

    He also mentions to Tony that "If [he sees] a situation headed south, [he] can't ignore it." In other words, "If there's any decent reason at all to fight, I'm going to do it." YMMV on whether this is because he genuinely cares about keeping people safe, loves to fight, or both.

    ... was deleted with the reason being "I'm criticial of Cap in this film and even I think that's a stretch." I respect the opposing point of view and appreciate him mentioning why he deleted my edit, but I feel like I have a case. It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me (but I could be wrong— I'm trying not to biased).

    Thoughts? Reply

      On the movie's page, that quote is listed as part of the example of Chronic Hero Syndrome, which I think is a much better fit.

      The trope description for Blood Knight says, "It's not so much about winning or losing, morality, the motives of his allies, or even the glory, that drives this guy so much as it is the opportunity for a good fight." and I don't think that describes Cap. When he fights, it's always because there's something he's fighting for, not because he just enjoys fighting.

      Without having seen the new film - if that's the film you're referring to - that frankly sounds like a bizarre interpretation of Captain America, both in general and with regards to how that specific sentence looks out of context. "If [he sees] a situation headed south, [he] can't ignore it" does not equate in any sense I can imagine to "If there's any decent reason at all to fight, I'm going to do it."

      On the movie's page, that quote is listed as part of the example of Chronic Hero Syndrome, which I think is a much better fit.

      The trope description for Blood Knight says, "It's not so much about winning or losing, morality, the motives of his allies, or even the glory, that drives this guy so much as it is the opportunity for a good fight." and I don't think that describes Cap. When he fights, it's always because there's something he's fighting for, not because he just enjoys fighting.

      The thing about Captain America, though, is that he arguably comes off as a hypocrite, preaching peace but seemingly needing war. One of his worst fears, as seen in Age of Ultron, is living in a world with no war for him to be a part of (even though other things were ideal— his friends are alive and healthy, as is he, in the vision we see). Ultron even brings up his hypocrisy in the same film.

      That's why I added the YMMV part. I feel like his Blood Knight and Chronic Hero Syndrome qualities overlap.

      Without having seen the new film - if that's the film you're referring to - that frankly sounds like a bizarre interpretation of Captain America, both in general and with regards to how that specific sentence looks out of context. "If [he sees] a situation headed south, [he] can't ignore it" does not equate in any sense I can imagine to "If there's any decent reason at all to fight, I'm going to do it."

      The idea is that if he sees a fight, he can't bring himself to not be part of it. He can't stay out of it, even if it's the right thing to do, because he loves to fight. Wording the sentence the way he did is, arguably, his way of trying to justify being a Blood Knight by claiming it's actually Chronic Hero Syndrome.

      No, it's not a stretch. It is completely ridiculous for the Cap to be a blood night. I am not a fan of the marvel, and even I can tell this is ridiculous. (At least in terms of the movies.)

      I cannot really remember the visions from Age of Ultron and I can't remember who had what vision, so I guess I can't refute your evidence. I don't remember what you are describing as part of any of the visions.

      No, it's not a stretch. It is completely ridiculous for the Cap to be a blood night. I am not a fan of the marvel, and even I can tell this is ridiculous. (At least in terms of the movies.)

      Incidentally, I didn't actually create the Blood Knight entry. I just added to it. The rest of it goes as follows:

      Downplayed, but present. He doesn't like killing anyone, but feels without a purpose in life if he doesn't know who to fight against. Rogers fears being a supersoldier in a world that no longer needs soldiers and has lost most identity outside of being a soldier.
      • In The First Avenger, pre-serum Steve keeps taking on bullies even though he's no physical match for them. Bucky even asks if he likes getting smacked into the pavement over and over again.''
      • In The Winter Soldier, Steve admits to Sam that he doesn't know what makes him happy, but the parts when he's the happiest are when he's in the field leaping out of planes and beating up bad guys. Even Black Widow notes that he's unusually cheerful as usual despite finding out that HYDRA survived to the modern day.
      • In Age of Ultron, the titular robot accuses Steve of lying to himself that he still matters without a war. Tony also keeps from telling Steve about his plan to automate world peace with Ultron because he knows Steve will object to disbanding the Avengers. Sure enough, when Scarlet Witch shows Steve a vision of his worst fear... it's a swinging 40s dance hall, with the war over and everyone celebrating, except him. Not even dancing with Peggy cheers him up; he sees death and wounded soldiers everywhere. Towards the end of the film he admits to Tony that he probably once wanted a family, a home, and peace, but the man who wanted that was frozen more than 70 years ago and now he's Married to the Job.
      • In Captain America: Civil War, he's even asked by Natasha when she confronts him if he's "going to punch his way out" from the Accords, which more or less sums up his actions after that point.

      The troper who deleted my edit left the rest of the Blood Knight entry as is.

      I cannot really remember the visions from Age of Ultron and I can't remember who had what vision, so I guess I can't refute your evidence. I don't remember what you are describing as part of any of the visions.

      Different protagonists were forced to experience what they most fear— Tony being responsible for the deaths of the Avengers through inaction, Black Widow's "Red Room" training, Asgardian Hel for Thor, and no war for Rogers.

      This is very much sounding like a personal crusade.

      This is very much sounding like a personal crusade.

      I don't know if that's fair to say... I just want to know why I'm wrong if it turns out that I am. I like to learn from mistakes.

      I deleted it because "If I a situation headed south, I can't ignore it." is Chronic Hero Syndrome. Following it with "If there's any decent reason at all to fight, I'm going to do it." takes the quote out of context. I'd consider the rest of the examples valid, but using that quote to justify Blood Knight just doesn't fly.

      I deleted it because "If I a situation headed south, I can't ignore it." is Chronic Hero Syndrome. Following it with "If there's any decent reason at all to fight, I'm going to do it." takes the quote out of context. I'd consider the rest of the examples valid, but using that quote to justify Blood Knight just doesn't fly.

      Right, I get that. My feeling is that he's lying to himself, like I said. Trying to convince others and himself that his Blood Knight tendencies are actually a case Chronic Hero Syndrome.

      I only thought of this because of Ultron's monologue about how he's a hypocrite.

      No hard feelings BTW, bro

      I'm starting to feel like maybe this whole idea of "Is he a Blood Knight or does he have Chronic Hero Syndrome" could go under Alternative Character Interpretation on the YMMV page. That seems reasonable, right?

      Yes, that would be a good place for it. Beat me to that suggestion, in fact.

      I was entirely in the wrong. It is not completely ridiculous for Captain America to be a blood knight. Just because he is probably facing an identity crisis and has built his identity around being a warrior does not mean that the reason that he likes to fight is not for fighting itself. It just means that none of the evidence fits unambiguously.
  • 2 May 5th, 2016 at 2:02PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 05:22:01 AM
    A while back neopie blanked http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Roleplay.Colony13. While that's a violation of the fic may be yours but the page is ours... I... can't say we have any need for the page. Reply

      It was blanked, then cut for being blank. Anyone have an archive of what the page used to contain?

      No, but I found some captures of the non-blank subpages that were cut afterwards.
  • 2 May 6th, 2016 at 1:01AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 05:04:06 AM
    What is the policy on orphaned subpages — that is, subpages for a work page that doesn't exist? (Examples: WMG.The Save Ums or Fridge.The Backup Plan)

    Should they be cutlisted, or spared in case the actual work page is created? Reply

      Cutlist them. We don't allow subpages that aren't linked to a parent.

      I'd go with "spare them unless the work was a content policy cut" - don't cutlist anything unless you're sure it's supposed to be cut.
  • 10 May 5th, 2016 at 11:11AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th May, 2016 05:03:26 AM
    A couple of Halloweens ago, I was spooked by this song coming on Pandora. Twice. Gave me the creeps. Flash forward to today, where I was checking out the Music page on Nightmare Fuel. I couldn't find it. So, I'm thinking that I could add it, but I want some help. What genre is it, where should it go, and what should I include? Reply

      I think you want You Know That Show, though I'm not sure if there's a song version of that area.

      Oh, I know the song. It's the post title. I want some advice on how to edit a page to include it.

      I wouldn't know the genre, but I do know how to add weblinks.

      It's by Napoleon XIV. [1]

      Next time ask in You Know That Show, there is a Music option, Nerf.

      I don't think this is a you know that show inquiry. I think it is a where do I put trope examples for this song Inquiry.

      Which I don't know the answer to.

      Could do with having a thread about this in Trope Talk.

      Trope examples for songs generally get put on the artist's page. Albums may occasionally get their own article if they form a distinctive creative work (like a rock opera) that is not just a collection of tracks. The only time we'd have articles for specific songs (or music videos) is if they are enormously iconic.

      To recap: Napoleon XIV's They're Going To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa! scared me. I could not find it in Nightmare Fuel. I want to add it to Nightmare Fuel, but I don't know what to include, and where it should go.

      You would put it on NightmareFuel.Napoleon XIV
  • 14 May 1st, 2016 at 10:10PM
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 06:58:44 PM
    Came across this fanfic while looking at FanficRecs.Undertale. It had a few issues with how tropes were linked and spoiler tagged which I've largely fixed. The big issue is that when I look at the URL it reads as Fanfic/Undertale_, and the _ gets in the way of linking it in an index. it just shows up as Fanfic/{{Undertale_}}. The actual Fanfic.Undertale was cut by a troper RedCoral who is also the main editor on the fanfic page, with the cut reason being "error"

    I sent Coral a PM for indexing before noticing this issue so I was seeking advice on how to proceed. Should I move it to Fanfic.Undertale in full so it can be linked/crosswicked/indexed properly? Should I send a more specific PM to RedCoral before I do such a thing as a just-in-case to double check the reasoning? Reply

      Ask what the reasoning is, and tell them that special symbols don't belong in the URL. Then cutlist the bogus title page.

      While we're at it, we should probably figure out a way to block special symbols from page names in the first place.

      PM sent. Barring nothing else being a problem, do I just migrate everything to Fanfic.Undertale? Should I do Undertale with the author's name?

      For the record, the fic is essentially a novelization of the game's Pacifist Route.

      This is an unusual case where the fanfic shares a name with the source material.

      Perhaps Fanfic.Undertale Novelization, custom titled as "Undertale (Novelization)", would work best?

      That makes it sound like an official novelization.

      Since the fanfic doesn't have any subpage content that could collision with the main work, and it is very closely linked to it, I don't see any problem with putting it under Fanfic/Undertale. Disambiguations are needed when completely unrelated works have the same name; here, the namespace is enough.

      What about in the future? Sooner or later the fanfic is likely to acquire subpages.

      How about Undertale Fan Novel or something like that? I'm not sure how many characters are supported in a title.

      It's like 60-odd. I ran into that when wanting to migrate an anime page to its official English only to discover the official English was too long.

      So Undertale fan novel could work

      ^^ Limit's 64. What about Fanfic.Undertale Fan Novelization?

      Just heard back from PM. The original Fanfic.Undertale page was cut out of concern that having it share linkspace with the VideoGame.Undertale page would cause unnecessary confusion. With that cleared up, we're good to work out how to move it. I think Fanfic.Undertale Fan Novelization, with mayb ea custom title of Undertale (Fan Novelization) or something, may be a good way to do it barring a better suggestion or other preference.

      ^ Alright. Who's going to recreate the page?

      I can get it a bit later today, once I'm home from work. Just wanted to reconfirm that "fan novelization" was our consensus and that there was no objection to that one

      I don't see any objections.

      All righty, Fanfic.Undertale Fan Novelization has been made. Running into an issue with indexing on Video Games, though. The stories right before and after it work fine, but the index bar isn't showing up on this fic in particular.
  • 1 May 5th, 2016 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 03:49:56 PM
    What's the deal with spoiler tags on these? By definition, something that qualifies for It Was His Sled should basically be impossible to spoil, as the point is "it's a plot twist that everyone, even people who don't know the work, already know."

    Just figured I'd check. Basically, I worry that any example that requires spoilering might be misuse because if it's truly an example, it wouldn't need them. Reply

      IIRC, it was his sled does not assume that everyone already knows how it will turn out. First, it can be subverted. Second, it can be from a show that Mr. Rock Hermit has never heard about before.
  • 1 May 5th, 2016 at 3:03PM
    Western Animation
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 03:49:49 PM
    Is It safe to recreate page? Reply

      Courtesy link: PJ Masks. Very helpful to put such a link in your post when asking this question.

      Anyway, it was cut for being a stub, meaning it didn't have at least three proper trope examples, and/or a complete enough description. Such work pages are always safe to recreate as long as, once finished, they are no longer stubs. See How to Create a Works Page for advice on avoiding this fate. You might want to draft the page at Sandbox.PJ Masks, then move it to the proper namespace (WesternAnimation.PJ Masks) once it's ready.
  • 3 May 4th, 2016 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 03:39:01 PM
    I wonder if the page is safe to recreate. Reply

      Uh, I'm not sure what page exactly you're referring to, but TV Tropes isn't a repository for fanon wikis of any sort.

      Oh, I see now, looking over here. Yeah, the page you made was inappropriate for the wiki. If you'd like to make a fanon wiki, you should start up your own completely seperate website.


      I did make one. On Wikia. Under the username "Curiousgorge 66". And I'm sorry if I caused any trouble here.
  • 3 May 3rd, 2016 at 12:12AM
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 03:23:48 PM
    Supposedly Rebellious Series is full of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. Reply

      there's a thread in the forum for removing complaining, in Long Term/Perpetual. I'll mention it there, if somebody hasn't already

      I'm going out now, but looking at it again, we might need a TRS thread. I haven't done the random wick check yet,

      Bumping for a mod ruling.

      No need. I'll make a Trope Repair Shop thread tomorrow.

      TRS Thread made.
  • 0 May 5th, 2016 at 1:01PM
    Hi, I'm the new head of the Dragon Rekindled project, which is the official continuation/reboot of the Dragon: The Embers project.

    I'd really like to get as much outside involvement going as possible, and was wondering if you guys have any policies on this sort of thing. Do you want the old page edited, or do you want a new page due to the fact that a chunk of the lore and mechanics have been changed to fit the post-God-Machine Chronicles of Darkness setting? Reply
  • 0 May 5th, 2016 at 11:11AM
    I was brought into an offsite discussion on the page quote of the Iran–Iraq War page, a page I myself namespaced from Iran-Iraq War in 2014. Anyone know who said it?

    Here's the original page's history, but it doesn't go back far enough. Reply
  • 2 May 5th, 2016 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 10:15:30 AM
    Hey, I noticed the page for Seventeen Again was cut for some reason. I think a lot of people are unaware that the first Seventeen Again (written as such) came out in 2000 and featured the Mowry siblings. It is often confused with 17 Again which came out 9 years later. I'm wondering if this is why the page was cut? If this is case, I'd like to create a separate page for this movie. Thanks! Reply

      Please provide links. Are you talking about 17 Again? That's not a valid namespace. Where works with the same title collide, proper procedure is to hard-split them by year of publication (example: Seventeen Again 2009). Note that both the original article and the new one should follow this format, so 17 Again would need to be moved.

      The namespace 17 Again would only be used if

      A. There was only one work with that title and

      B. The trope list was too long for one page.
  • 2 May 5th, 2016 at 9:09AM
    Live Action TV
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 09:54:14 AM

    gravious added an incorrect quote to the page, someone else corrected it, gravious un-corrected it. I was going to recorrect it with a link to the video in the edit reason, but I thought that might be considered furthering the war (even though I'm not the person who did the initial correction). Reply

      It's the definition of an edit war. You did the right thing by reporting it. I've suspended that user. Please re-correct the quote.

      In fairness, the quote was changed without an edit reason. I don't think any malice was intended, just less than perfect form on both sides.
  • 1 May 5th, 2016 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 09:31:51 AM
    I have read the book, and made this synopsis divided by chapters. This story is infamous for having lots of inconsistencies and plot holes. Can I list such plot holes in this page? Reply
  • 8 May 4th, 2016 at 7:07AM
    Lastest Reply: 5th May, 2016 08:05:37 AM
    In One Piece, each character page has a YMMV subpage. Is that allowed? I thought all YMMV items for a work belong on one page. Reply

      I'm pretty sure that's not allowed.

      Well, except for spinoff pages and pages for individual episodes. But yes. I didn't even know that there were any YMMV character tropes.


      That is allowed. The YMMV page isn't being split up, it's acting as an index to the multitude of One Piece pages that all have their own YMMV pages.

      First go to Characters.One Piece. You can see that the page is split up because it would otherwise be too long.

      Click on the first link, Characters.One Piece Straw Hat Pirates. That's a character page for a specific group.

      Then, click the "YMMV" button on that page. That leads to YMMV.One Piece Straw Hat Pirates, which is also the same page as the first link in YMMV.One Piece. It's a beautiful case of cross-referencing that prevents duplicate tropes from being added.

      Unknownlight, read what I posted again. I did notice that the the character pages have YMMV subpages. I have never seen any other work do this, so I am not sure if there is a rule being broken.

      Oh! My bad. You're not asking if including the index is allowed or not, you're asking if Character pages are allowed to have YMMV pages at all. Sorry, I didn't recognize that because I assumed it was a given. That might be my own mistake.

      If it's not allowed, it ought to be. It'd be crazy otherwise. =P

      It makes no sense not to allow it, because otherwise you'd have to hard-split a long YMMV page anyway.

      Keep in mind, don't go overboard. The YMMV.Naruto page was inexplicably soft split between Audience Reactions, Subjective Tropes, and individual folders for every character (with most of them having at most 1 entry with no context). It was a goddamn mess leading to duplicate examples, examples in the wrong spots, and a litany of problems.