• 18 Feb 5th, 2018 at 6:06PM
    Lastest Reply: 22nd Feb, 2018 09:10:59 AM
    Have Statler and Waldorf been banned from pages? Because I've seen them deleted with "memes don't automatically make things wittier" as the cited reason. While I agree with that, Statler and Waldorf aren't generally a meme for the sake of a meme, but an actual joke that happens to be based on a meme form. Is there an official mod ruling? Reply

      Is this mainly one user doing this?

      Those below-the-examples witticisms are known as "stingers". They are not banned by policy, and I'm not aware of a consensus for their removal.

      Trivia: not all pages with a Stinger is a reference to Statler and Waldorf.

      Yes, I know that. The main argument against Statler and Waldorf stingers is that they are overused and therefore stale, but that's not a prima facie reason to cut them.

      I rather expected you to know that, and was adding a trivial bit of information so that other tropers who might not be as familiar with the site would be aware that The Stinger was not required to appear in that specific form.

      The page for S&W says that changes to stingers should be discussed. It doesn't seem like these deletions are respecting that rule, and whoever's removing them also is not removing the indexing from the JFF page. Incidentally, that should also be removed. Don't index from JFF's.

      TropesForever: Have you seen one person doing the deletions, or several?

      Discar removed them from Chick Magnet and Naked People Are Funny at least, possibly some other pages as well.

      Do I have a feeling that S&W is becoming a Discredited Meme, much like Candlejack?...

      Yannow, we did have such a discussion seven years ago in the forums. The status quo has not changed.

      If I may ask... what do you do if you want to add a new S&W stinger? The S&W page says you should ask on one of the discussion pages, but it seems like barely anyone uses those.

      I asked on the discussion page for Monster Clown if I could add a stinger there. That was years ago, and I never got a response. I decided to go ahead and add the stinger last year, and no one seems to have taken issue with it.

      So, can we restore the cut stingers, or what?

      Just done to Jewish Complaining.

      If they were unilateral changes I imagine you could add them back.

      Re-added the stinger to Jewish Complaining.

      [ETA] Sent them Discar message and directed them here.

      I've been cutting S/W stingers when I see ones that don't make sense in context... which usually means all of them. It's very, very rare for a Statler and Waldorf stinger to be appropriate in context. Hell, stingers in general are usually just random memes, but those are the most blatant. Anyway, I'm certainly not on a dedicated campaign to get rid of them. I vaguely remember a few I left alone, but this has been going on for years, so who knows if they're even still there.


      If the issue now is just cleaning up and discussing which entries to keep, remove, re-make, revise, or make, then I think a projects thread could be useful rather than using this ATT thread.

      The question seems to have been answered: "Is there official mod ruling on [thing]?" Answer: "They aren't banned by policy" and "The status quo [from the previous discussion] has not changed."
  • 1 Mar 10th, 2018 at 7:07AM
    Lastest Reply: 10th Mar, 2018 07:59:59 PM
    Suicidedogavi is the new handle of an old, banned user who earned their ban for Single-Issue Wonk and later tried to evade it. I knew who it was the minute I saw their edits. Someone care to deal with them? Like, based on their edits, it's 100% bornofself/janegotagun/any number of other ban-evading handles. Reply

      While checking IP, the IP addresses for the user in question are spread apart far, so it looks like proxies are in use. The matching behavior verifies evasion.

      Sending them packing. May revert as much as I can.
  • 11 Feb 8th, 2017 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 14th Feb, 2017 09:24:08 PM
    After an issue came up in Edit Banned, I did some research, and Spiritual Successor is wicked on a bunch of Creator articles, and not in reference to their works. For example, Bridget Hoffman lists her "counterparts" and states that "Erika Harlacher and Veronica Taylor are considered to be her Spiritual Successors in the non-union/anime dub side of things."

    This is gibberish. A person is not a spiritual successor of another person. The trope article says nothing about this, and as far as I can tell there's no "People" subpage of it. All of it needs to be removed.

    Edit: Ah, I knew I saw this earlier. Forum topic. And Projects thread. Reply

      Was this done by that troper that was JUST SUSPENDED. I guess he didnt learn his lesson.

      It doesn't seem to be specific to any given troper, no. There's a whole set of them who have been copying each others usages for a while.

      I am working on removing some of the stupid, but The Nohrian Dark Knight is re-adding "This creator is the counterpart of x". He did it to Laura Bailey

      Just to clarify, they can list counterparts if one actor consistently is the dub voice for a foreign actor, right? Like how Hiroya Ishimaru always plays Jackie Chan's characters in Japanese dubs.

      It's been suggested on the Forum thread that there's a missing trope for that. Someone should make that. I've yet to see a single "counterpart" entry where they actually say "X always dubs Y" even when the other creator is a different language.

      What about, say, Greg Baldwin who takes up pretty much every role originally played by Mako after the latter's death?

      "A Spiritual Successor is a type of sequel that is not part of the same world or story as its predecessor..."

      Unless you can convince me that some of these (voice) actors come from parallel universes, rather than our own, none of them are "in-spirit only" successors.

      Just so we're clear in case you're addressing me, i'm not trying to claim that Spiritual Successor applies to any of these.

      Rather, I'm trying to get feedback on other, more gray areas of things that show up on Creator pages.

      If we're going to be talking about parallel universes, let me get pannenkoek2012 on the line real quick.

      In all seriousness, I don't think that troping someone as a spiritual successor to another person based on the fact that they played a character that the other played is legal. I've seen shoehorned tropes that are less flimsy than that.

      Wouldn't "this actor always dubs that actor's lines" be Trivia?

      @Larkman, I don't think there's an issue. If someone literally picks up all of someone else's character, sure, write it in the description and say it. I think that's different than the bajillion entries who declare someone to be someone else's counterpart and give NO context on what that even means.
  • 7 Aug 11th, 2017 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 12th Aug, 2017 05:16:55 PM
    I think Composer is Truly Deceptive ban evading again. He has similar typing patterns, at least. Reply


      Some technical data point in that direction, but I don't see what the "similar typing patterns" might be.

      I believe the only way to tell if they are the same person is to compare their forum posts since Composer stopped editing in 2014 and Truly Deceptive stopped in 2017.

      @Septimus He often uses bold text, and roleplays the same characters

      Maybe link to similar posts/roleplays they're in? That might help.

      Didn't the IP check come up a match? Geo-location?

      I think that it was inconclusive, if I'm interpreting what Septimus said correctly.
  • 10 Dec 30th, 2017 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 31st Dec, 2017 01:55:12 AM
    ~Bastard1 has an edit history full of rude edit reasons (specific examples include a long, vaguely transphobic rant in the nightmare fuel page of Ace Ventura and complaining on Funny.Cars 2).

    That aside, there's also this review, which ends with the words "Deus Vult", which is a little concerning (outside of a review of For Honor), since it's associated with certain people. Reply


      I'm not advocating for his point of view, but it does bear discussion that Ace was never really meant to be transphobic. It's more that the villain is crazy and depraved in her own right, and these things are Played for Laughs rather than being meant as an attack against the LGBT community. Also, Fair for Its Day.

      This at least goes as far back as April 2016 on the GoT pages; a few examples from there:

      "A beautiful and horrifying metaphor for what Dave & Dumb Dumb are doing to the source material, really."

      "Goldmember jacks it to the Greyscale scene. Suck on that shmoke and a pancake for a while!"

      "Dumb and Dumber: Dignity, always dignity"

      "Granted, most Daenerys fans ARE morons, but still."

      "Danny Stormborin' is walking, talking narm. Can't we just say all her scenes and call it a day?"

      Then there's this from YMMV.Heavy Rain:

      "Did David Cage himself contribute that to this page? It's still a clumsy, grammatical shambles but I can't be arsed to redo the entire thing."

      And this little number from YMMV.Robin Hood:

      "Hit the save button a bit early. And remember: life is brief, but when it's gone, furries die alone."

      Interestingly none of the edits themselves seem to be all that charged, though to be fair I only skimmed them.

      ^^ The issue is their comments, not that they were defending the work itself (although the way they were rubbishing the comment in question doesn't help their case).

      For the record, they also left a review on the original Life is Strange at the same time, but it doesn't seem to have anything suspect about it (aside from a rant on their own personal philosophies about the ending).

      Has anyone sent him rudeness notifiers?

      I can't say (I saw the review and looked into their edit history, then created this because they've been doing it for quite a while).

      Given how inflammatory hes always been in review comments, Im surprised that his behaviour is only brought to light just now.

      @Flashsteps: it may bear discussion, but this thread is about Bastard's bad editing, of which that rant is one example.

      Seriously, though, this guy needs at least notifiers and quite like a tap on the shoulder.

      Suspension issued.

      The username Bastard 1 does not exactly inspire confidence in me, BTW.
  • 7 Jan 23rd, 2018 at 6:06AM
    Lastest Reply: 3rd Feb, 2018 04:58:07 PM
    I was wondering why there was only one folder for examples on Ancient Artifact and it turns out that there have been vast unilateral changes to the page made by Existential_Tempest.

    The page used to have a large list of subtropes but this troper deleted that list completely with no edit reason on 4 January 2018. They then proceeded to make seemingly random edits to the description.

    They also edited some Laconic/ pages and created a duplicate Laconic.

    Page history, troper edit history. Reply

      Yeah, all that needs to be reverted. Large changes to pages and changes to the description need to be discussed.

      Existential needs a tap.

      Bumping this report for a revert on Ancient Artifact and for a tap on the shoulder of Existiential_Tempest.

      I notice that too. Can only mods revert this to an earlier version?

      By a single click? Yes, I've done so now. Perhaps this should be discussed before going for a banhammer application, though.

      ^^Anyone can revert, but doing it manually can be a pain. The mods have a one-click tool that does it.

      He also edited Laconic.Ancient Artifact, changing it from:

      Extremely old, man-made Phlebotinum.


      An extremely old Artifact of Power.

      Revert? 'Cause he's got other edits that haven't been reverted...

      Considering that's a distinction without a difference, I say revert.

      It's not uncommon for reverts to be slow when tropers are doing them manually. Especially since everyone has a life they must live. (Which includes work, school, hobbies, not strangling jerks... oh, um.) :P
  • 22 Jan 27th, 2018 at 11:11PM
    Lastest Reply: 29th Jan, 2018 06:49:48 PM
    Skid Troper unilaterally created a page about The Red Pill documentary, a highly contentious work about the Men's Rights Movement. Skid Troper has, on multiple occasions, been questioned for his edits adding an overly-conservative and pro-Christian bias to the site. Particularly on the Mass Effect: Andromeda and Acceptable Religious Targets pages, so his decision to do this makes me a little nervous.

    Particularly because of a few edits he's made on the Red Pill pages as well as others.

    On UsefulNotes.Feminism, he added:

    • Further events, such as several feminists scathingly one-sided criticisms of the documentary "The Red Pill", have only added fuel to the fire.

    On Film.The Red Pill:

    • Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: Cassie discusses how domestic abuse statistics are often applied in ways that lead to the persecution of men, mainly in men being singled out for persecution in domestic abuse cases. In addition, the omission of homosexual couples domestic violence statistics from the legal system's enforcement of laws is also lampshaded. The misreading of statistics to support the Wage Gap is also explored.

    • Men Are the Expendable Gender: One of the prominent female privileges discussed in the film is women's exemption from the draft. Even as a feminist, this was something Jaye herself conceded and was a prominent talking point with Paul Elam. This is also discussed as a possible reason why society at large sidelines or suppresses men's issues.

    From YMMV.The Red Pill:

    • Strawman Has a Point: Cassie originally planned to criticize the Men's Rights Movement as a hate group. She then learned about their actual causes and their history, making her believe that they are largely correct.
    • Values Resonance: The message remains relevant in The New '10s, with further feminist movements and social media campaigns by feminist celebrities (many of which are controversial, some even straying into misandry), such as the movements #MeToo and Time's Up. There is also the continuing trouble passing laws that are fair to both genders, particularly in divorce court, sexually-based offences and the handling of domestic abuse.
    • Writer on Board: Cassie Jaye went to great lengths to avert this, also because she started making the film as a feminist and the research she did throughout convinced her to stop being a feminist, which altered the final product.

      There Is No Such Thing as Notability does still apply, even if the film were a misogynist rag. Skid Troper has already been in the soup for questionable edits on the Acceptable Religious Targets page, though.

      Works Pages Are a Free Launch. He didn't need to get persmission to make a page that wasn't on the Permanent Red Link Club. That would create a weird and contradictory precedent to policy.

      After reading the description on the page, I don't see what the issue is. Yes, I am familiar with the film, and yes, I am aware of some of the issues people have brought up about it. But the page he created is tame.

      The examples you quoted are also pretty tame, and if those tropes are discussed in the work — and since this is a documentary we're talking about — then they should be on the page, imo. Moreoever, some of those YMMV articles ought to be moved to the main work page, at least if they were discussed in the work itself or if Word of God is in play.

      The thing that makes this concerning from where I'm standing (besides the guy being a previous problem) is that it's a documentary. Yes, they can technically be tropable, but it reminds me a lot of all those pages people make for controversial internet personalities - the page would never exist were it not for someone wanting to argue, because it's not really a work in our usual sense.

      This isn't the same or similar to Internet personalities, though. Also, the argument of "the page would never exist were it not for someone wanting to argue" is speculative at best, and going after the person rather than the content at worst.

      Other controversial documentaries that we have pages for include Super Size Me and An Inconvenient Truth, so there's precedent for us having a page for a "controversial documentary."

      The problem I have with the examples above is that each of them are making value judgments ABOUT the content of the documentary itself. For example, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics states that "misreading of statistics to support the wage gap is also explored".

      That sentence needs an "alleged", at the very least.

      There's also Strawman Has a Point, which doesn't really seem to apply here. A strawman is a person deliberately set up to be wrong, and the trope is about when the audience feels that the character set up this way is right. Paul Elam and other MR As aren't strawmen; the statements and opinions they've held (such as Elam's infamous "women are begging for it" quote) are their own. Naturally, like ANY political opinion, people will agree and disagree.

      Also, if we look at how other documentaries like Super Size Me have been handled, the trope page of the aforementioned movie is extremely critical. And even when it is neutral about what the documentary states, the language is distances its views from Spurlock's. For example:

      • Fast Food Nation: Morgan Spurlock's documentary paints America as obsessed with Mc Donald's and the titular super-size option, to the point of health risk without care by the corporation.

      Compare how that's written to the Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics example shown above.

      Taken alone, his edits don't seem like much, but taken together (along with the one made on the Feminism page) and it reads like a narrative.

      Oh wow. Creating an MRA page was also something he apparently tried in the past:


      I'm not sure I responded to your concerns, then. I thought you were talking about having the page in the first place.

      For the examples, yes, they do need revision. There were a few tropes I found on the Trivia/ and YMMV/ pages that I removed (since they were objective tropes). However, for the Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, I'm not seeing what the revision should be. There are statistics supporting the wage gap and there are people who misread those statistics to support it also. Stating that the film explores the misreading is not problematic.

      Moreover, the Strawman Has a Point entry could possibly go on the main work page or in Trivia/ under Word of God. It's about the creator's take on strawmen arguments she's heard in the past. Though I wonder if there's a more accurate trope (preferably an objective trope) to describe that sort of shift in opinion. Moreover, it isn't just about her agreeing with MRA's but with her going through some sort of realization. My understanding is that it was a paradigm shift for her, as opposed to just agreeing with people.

      The comparison doesn't seem to help you in the case you're making. The main difference is the use of passive voice, but it's clear whose opinion it is since it starts in the active voice. The entry on the page is...
      Cassie discusses how domestic abuse statistics are often applied in ways that lead to the persecution of men, mainly in men being singled out for persecution in domestic abuse cases. In addition, the omission of homosexual couples domestic violence statistics from the legal system's enforcement of laws is also lampshaded. The misreading of statistics to support the Wage Gap is also explored.

      I would also like to point out that you are going after the person rather than the content. There's little reason to persecute somebody because of speculation. And "reads like" is speculation.

      Also the MRA useful note page shows that he is making suggestions and contributions the way people are supposed to. We can't try to shame people for doing what they're supposed to, even if the suggestions made were bad or poorly executed.

      I disagree with the vast majority of your points. Personally, I think the page (as written) needs one heck of a neutral tone revision, and as I said, Skid's prior attempts at agenda-editing here, his attempt to make an MRA page (which failed specifically because he failed to keep his points neutral, as lakingsif put it):

      "OK, this isn't really something we need a Useful Note for (it's not specifically media-based nor does the movement as a whole get outright presentations in media) — we have tropes like Double Standard Rape Female On Male, Henpecked Husband and what not for the uses for/against and discussions in shows — and it's got 17 bombs and is clearly divisive in here, let alone free on the wiki. I'm going to discard it, and if someone else wants to later recreate it with a better description then they can. ^ Skid Troper, we've reiterated for you that the draft as it stands is not good quality and, as Stillalive explained, it is not written to neutrally convey facts of the subject at hand. Additionally, your last comment "just keep in mind any attempts at page blanking or vandalism will be undone" comes across as petulant and rude. There are many other ways to phrase 'please don't blank the page' that aren't so self-righteous."

      Whatever the admins decide, I'll abide by. But, I can't agree with your position on this one, Water Blap.

      EDIT: Since it's apparently okay, I went and made a few minor edits already.

      • The administration already responded.
      Water Blap's points are...
      • The Red Pill fits our criteria for page creation. It is part of our mission to catalog the tropes used in that work.
      • The examples need revision to provide a more neutral tone (and ~Water Blap removed several tropes that were misused).
      • Strawman Has a Point example is misuse, and should go in the description or in Word of God. There might be a different trope that demonstrates a character/creator changing their opinions.
      • Your issues seem based on the content of the message rather than the tropes the message uses.
      • Efforts to contribute positively to the wiki should be praised, even if some attempts are bad or poorly executed.

      The points, as I understand him, are all perfectly valid. You use an "I disagree with you" tone when describing what Water Blap already stated. This leads me to think you're conflating the message with the tropes. For example, saying "bananas are yellow, therefore 2 and 3 equals 5" is Insane Troll Logic (analogy to Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics). Even if it ends up at the right answer (5 or Wage Gap), the logic behind it was still faulty.

      I havent read the page but it is a work, it can exist. Maybe it is not neutral: edit it.

      The reason I took a "I disagree with you" stance with Water Blap is because Blap and I have had disagreements in the past which have become pretty bitter and I'm attempting to avoid that.

      That said, your Insane Troll Logic point doesn't really seem analogous here. This isn't a case of "the message is correct, but the logic is wrong". The message is at question, too.

      EDIT: And now, an Edit War seems to have started: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.TheRedPill along with something about "triggering".

      Yeah, the subject of this page makes it look like one to lock, and use the locked page changes forum for any alterations.

      The potential of a certain troper having views not sponsored by the wiki is a different problem. Only when it significantly shows in their edits as a whole is it cause for concern. Including this page and the old TLP draft, are there also any other edits that would suggest a pro-chauvinist slant? Are they trying to spread active misogyny on the wiki?

      Edit: Septimus's mention of the Acceptable Religious Targets page does make it 3. Perhaps we could refer this to a mod, there is a precedent for considering tropers' unsavory tastes and if the community should welcome them.

      [awesome] to crazysamaritan. Those are my points, yes (at least the edited version of Samaritan's comment). For the record, I appreciate Satyress's stance-given-past-experience.

      I'm not sure where the Insane Troll Logic is coming from, possibly Samaritan's unedited comment? I know I'm not saying "the message is correct but the logic is wrong," I'm saying your logic is wrong, principally because you're going after the troper rather than what they're saying (in the vein of "attacking the person and not the argument" though not exactly the same thing).

      On YMMV.The Red Pill, you shouldn't have deleted the whole entry. As someone who participates in the ROCEJ-breaking clean-up thread, I can admit that I've also made that mistake in the past, but the point is that it is not appropriate to throw the baby out with the bath water. (Also, I think the "triggering" comment is regarding the emotional tone of your edit reason, but I wouldn't say that's an apt description of your edit reason.) Regardless, it does look like an edit war and I for one would appreciate what others have to say about it (especially because I don't mean to act as a champion of these pages).

      I think a lock on the page and sub-pages could be beneficial. However, I don't think the locked pages thread would be the appropriate place to discuss edit suggestions, so does anyone have an idea of what thread to use?

      [double post]

      My goal isn't specifically to attack the troper, only point out that their edit history doesn't exist in a vacuum. No one's does.

      Also, the main reason I removed the entry in question is because it's pretty blatantly attacking critics of the work. AFAIK, It misuses Critical Research Failure, Epic Fail, and a number of tropes that deliberately paint the critics in question in an excessively negative light. Even if we assume that what he's saying is true about them (he HAS been wrong before, as I noted on the Discussion page).

      The segment looked to me like its sole purpose was to insult the parties involved, so I cut it. If that was wrong, I apologize.

      I'll stay out of the discussion from here on.

      (I was typing a response, but instead I think I'll respect your decision to leave the conversation.)
      Discussion pages for locked pages are still unlocked. I'd rather discussion on each example be done there, but I'd imagine the next best place is the Live Action Film forum.

      Did a bit of cleanup. The YMMV page is hilariously one-sided, tending to be "people dislike it, but they're wrong for doing so. Or feminists (which is weirdly taken as shorthand for "misogynist" based on the context)." Which also bleeds into the main page.

      ... I feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here since his edits on UsefulNotes.Feminism are blatantly spreading a blatant "The Red Pill is correct!" message.

      It's one thing if he's a fan of The Red Pill overzealously defending it against its critics, but this is starting to sound like agenda-based editing.

      OK, yes, that makes it five notable edits in an attempt to spread misogyny. Will make an ATT about the troper.

      Yeah, I reviewed his editing and it's clearly agenda-based. He's a goner, since he was warned before and refuses to stop.

      Since there is ongoing discussion on the page itself, and the troper has been dealt with, closing this one.
  • 5 Mar 12th, 2018 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 16th Mar, 2018 12:38:03 PM
    Can someone from the mod team take a look at user ChairDeskLamp's edits, please. They seem to be working their way through the Asian tropes adding material and "explaining" examples on tropes pages. I zapped one edit on Family Compo for being just Word Cruft and violation of example indentation. I'm not sure how valid the stuff they are adding is though, or whether it might be a sanctioned trope improvement drive. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=ChairDeskLamp Reply

      Zapped the Eskimos Aren't Real entry, it just seems silly to say that people don't believe that Asian or Black people exist

      The "white morons" comment is a little disconcerting, especially since makes assumptions about other editors without warrant

      Last edit was on Can't Hold His Liquor. It was removed too.

      Should I PM him?


      They'll need to explain themselves with the mods, since it's becoming a habit.
  • 16 Apr 1st, 2016 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 8th Apr, 2016 12:40:48 PM
    Is the current Trope Depiction (Garfield being eaten, with a bloody chest cavity and ribs visible) a weird April Fools joke? I think it's too gory (and mean-spirited, for that matter) to be put on the front page. Reply

      That series is called Twisted Tropes for a reason. The joke is that Garfield is being eaten by ALF, and one of ALF's defining character traits is that he eats cats. Gory, yes, but I don't see that it's particularly mean-spirited.

      This tends to further my discomfort with the whole "Community Showcase" sidebar, just saying.

      Still more than a little dark for the front page. I hate Garfield too, but seriously? Aren't we supposed to be a family friendly website?

      We have pages for Game of Thrones. "Family-friendly" and "G" aren't the same thing. The picture is gross, but well within some of the crap on movies rated PG-13, weirdly enough.

      It's more about the fact that it's on the front page. It's fine to have family-unfriendly images on the wiki, but you should encounter them on pages about family-unfriendly works and tropes, not the very first thing you see when you come to the site. It feels like it sends a bad message.

      I have to agree. The front of the website should be kept PG. And gore should be kept out of the site's pr areas (which includes the front page).

      PG or not, currently newcomers to the site are greeted by a rather drastic and tasteless comic. I think we should consider what kind of a first impression people will get.

      I gotta agree with this, it grossed me out.

      Since the community showcase got mentioned, I figured it'd be a small banner or something, so then I checked and... wow no. I spend 99% of my time reading and editing, so most of the time I forget the pr spaces even exist, but that cannot be okay to have as the first thing a visitor sees upon arriving at the wiki's front door as it were.

      Complaint has been reported, no reply so far.

      I gotta agree, I don't want any gory tasteless comic strip to be at the home page at all!

      The fact that it's still there makes me even more concerned about the whole community showcase thing. The complaint may have been reported, but doesn't TV Tropes itself have any power to get it off the front page?

      Tiny nitpick point: I don't think that the home page is the first thing every visitor sees. I originally came here through a link a friend posted in a chat, and didn't wander over to the home page until at least a month later.

      Is the TT thing a courtesy link or some kind of dedicated ad? That might affect bootability.

      I don't understand why it is still up. Administrators should have no trouble taking it down, and it is not like it is controversial. The admins took that trip to mars or something.

      ^It took me about a year to find the homepage.

      Well, it's been over a week and STILL no sign of the gory comic being taken off the homepage. I'm getting the feeling that I'm never visiting the TV Tropes home page again, as I'm now getting to the website via other links in bookmarks.

      Looks like we got rid of it. Closing.
  • 7 Sep 12th, 2017 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 13th Sep, 2017 08:21:26 PM
    Sim You Later has been doing... something on Punk Punk. I'm honestly just really confused. I'm pretty sure he's trying to help (Punk Punk in particular basically has no meaning anymore), but... not sure it's actually helping.

    EDIT: Okay, I looked at his edits and what he's doing is decidedly not kosher and will need some reverts.

    He seems to be taking unilateral action based on this thread. I notice people tend not to respond to him, possibly because his posts are huge and a bit rambling. Reply

      The Sugar Wiki Cool School page can definitely go. It's a stub, and it's something that, at the very least, needs to be in the forums. I'm sending the stubs to the cutlist. Should I revert the outgoing links on some of these?

      Edit: Sent both stub pages to the cutlist; we'll see what the mods do with them. Thinking of hailing Fighteer or someone to this thread.

      Edit 2: Stubs have been cut. The main Cool School page has already been reported in the crash rescue thread in the forums.

      Want me to PM him about this query as well?

      Yeah, I brought it up in the Crash Rescue Thread.

      I have not P Med him because honestly... it is so broad I don't know what to cover in the PM.


      1) Send more than one

      2) Write an original covering at least three of the known issues. (Why three? I dunno. It sounds right to me.)

      Edit: and maybe direct them to this thread

      I've suspended them, but cleanup is necessary.

      Sent a PM directing him to this thread.

      EDIT: And ninja'd.

      Reverting some of his pages. Got the ones up to September 3, but could we get a mod revert here back to its state on August 18?

      Did that one.

      What about the links on Transport Tycoon and the Cool School? Cut them?
  • 31 Dec 15th, 2017 at 2:02PM
    Live Action TV
    Lastest Reply: 11th Mar, 2018 05:29:06 PM
    'hiddenelastic' has been adding a lot of long entries to the Riverdale character pages, some of them being Wall of Text, and has been adding a ton of tropes to the pages in general (in particular the main characters; Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Jughead). While I do admire his/her commitment to the show, I'm concerned because I feel that, at this point, the Riverdale character pages are getting bloated with too much information. Reply

      Courtesy link to her edits.

      She's got a pretty big obsession with the Riverdale pages, barely editing anywhere else.

      If I'm not wrong, I already know this troper. She used to make a lot of edits in the The Vampire Diaries character pages (now all locked) and similar shows. She had a lot of different accounts over the years, incuding this but her edits are always similar

      That, and she's a ban evader from what I read among the history of one of the pages she edited. Not sure how easy it'd be to restore some of these pages though. ._.;

      Banned. Over 3000 edits...

      Holy moley!


      While being a ban evader makes it a moot point, I have to say that I'm not sure I understand why focusing on editing pages for one specific series in great detail is actually a bad thing. I mean, that's how wikis work.

      In itself it's not a bad thing at all. It's just that hiddenelastic's edits were *absurdly* long. I'm all for having a fleshed-out character page, but it was getting excessive. Just check out the "Birds of a Feather" entry on Jughead's page to see what I mean. It's so long that you can't even fit it into one browser screen.

      As well, I felt that s/he was trying a little too hard with some of his/her trope examples, to the point that some of the tropes were exaggerated and/or misused. Sometime when I'm feeling up to it, I'd like to go through with my hedge trimmers and clean those pages up.

      Here's more of what they've done. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=58206&type=att

      Chirst. I've never seen Riverdale and never visited its page, but even I can tell this person is obsessed. Is "concern for user's health" a valid reason for a ban?

      @lalalei2001: I decided to just go ahead and delete Creator's Pet, at least.

      If it's sugarbabe, that troper has serious mental health issues that manifest in her obsessive editing of certain articles. We had to lock some of them because of it. If she's back, well... that's going to be something we'll need our editors to keep a sharp eye on.

      Should we have a short-term projects thread for coordinating trimming these articles?

      Is it possible to block their IP address from the site?

      They can try, but if she's using dynamic I Ps, proxies, or library/school computer access, it's much harder. The last especially is a non-starter re: IP banning; you can't ban everyone using that access because of one person.

      However, the mods can, and on one occasion have, alert the owners of that network to the issue.

      That was a school district.

      Depending on the location, especially the rules some libraries are made to operate under regarding access, the location may not be able to ban her. Which leaves the mods playing whack-a-mole.

      Lock this, or leave this open for further reports?

      Looks like they're back as Silent Eyes. Same kind of edits and all.

      Did an IP check, and they aren't matching up locationwise. This will need a further investigation.

      I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same person. Seems too coincidental otherwise.

      Meatpuppeting is also a possibility. Which is just as bad, if not harder to catch.

      Really sad, though, when someone's been snowed by the banned. :(

      It's them. Their IPs are all proxies.

      I have edited down some of the tropes of Jughead's page but I don't know the show well enough to make more changes

      Probably here again, as middlerulez. Same Riverdale edits

      Yes, it's them. I cutlisted several of the pages they made, and will probably lock them if this keeps up.

      I notice that Archie, Veronica, and Jughead's pages were all cut. Should Betty's page be removed as well?

      Is there a chance that the character pages, if trimmed down a bit, will come back? Idc if they're locked or not.

      If someone wants to remake them properly, that's fine.

      Probably here again, as Shadow Base. Same Riverdale edits

  • 5 Jan 11th, 2018 at 11:11PM
    Western Animation
    Lastest Reply: 13th Jan, 2018 03:56:25 PM
    On Dec 31st, user K added this to YMMV.Coco:

    • While the movie has been in production for six years, and thus wasn't created with the intent of dropping this particular anvil, the heavy subtext of "Mexico is a beautiful country full of beautiful people" is sorely needed in the United States in 2017.

    That was removed on Jan 5th after the Trump and ROCEJ thread stated that edit may have violated the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement. I personally felt it was shoehorning an opinion in.

    On Jan 8th, K replaced it with this:

    • Co-Director Adrian Molina, from an interview with NPR, in response to a question about if the meaning of making a film set in Mexico over the course of six years changed at all since the 2016 election: "Well, it's a long time coming for Latinos to see themselves on screen represented in a way that they can be proud of and in a way that reflects the things that they value about their culture and they value about their families. [...] And for a family to go and see themselves reflected on screen the way they experience their lives and see that shown to the world means a lot. It means a lot for your self-esteem, and it means a lot for how you see yourself in the world."

    Is this Edit War, and should I message K and tell him to go to the Trump and ROCEJ thread and Coco's discussion pages? Reply

      You definitely should.

      K did a good job giving further justification for the entry, and I think they've demonstrated that the entry should exist. But it is still technically edit warring and should be taken to a discussion.

      Notifying them right now.

      For whatever reason, I can no longer click on a query in ATT without it being blank, so I'm bumping this.

      This is probably the "server optimisation" the admins had to do for the query engine. Well, I guess it was necessary... I blame people who keep asking for shows in ATT and spammers.

  • 8 Feb 18th, 2018 at 4:04AM
    Lastest Reply: 20th Feb, 2018 08:21:34 PM
    On Characters.Dragon Ball Android 21, Tropers.The Awesome Hyperon made a number of large unilateral changes, including adding a lot of All White Entries on a page that already warns the viewer of unmarked spoilers. The changes are WAY too big to sift through, so I wanted to know if a mod could revert please.


    EDIT: Also, the change reverted and ignores a discussion on the page about how to format the folders. Reply

      Any word on this?

      Did you notify them of the fact that Android 21's page is Spoilers Off?

      I invited them to the Discussion page to talk it out.

      Sorry to bring this up again, but people are making edits to the page, which would make a revert (if one occurs) that much harder to fix.

      Can we at least get a lock until then?

      You could use the spoiler-removing wiki tool. That'll remove the spoiler markup while keeping other people's edits. If you use that, just be sure to check that weird characters weren't accidentally added (some people said the tool added such characters when they used it but that's never happened with me afaik).

      That doesn't really address the issue of the troper making those edits, but it does address the issue of cleaning the page. You could even add a commented-out message at the top of the page saying something like "Spoiler mark-up has been removed from this page as it is Spoilers Off. Please don't add the spoiler mark-up without prior discussion."

      Thanks. I never even knew those tools existed.

      But yes, even then, I need to wait and see if a revert happens, since Hyperon also messed up the folder organization as had been agreed upon in Discussion.

      I invited the other two tropers who'd participated in said discussion, and one of them has only further agreed with the way I'd organized it beforehand.

      It's been reverted.

  • 1 Jan 25th, 2017 at 4:04AM
    Lastest Reply: 25th Jan, 2017 04:30:53 PM
    gyrusa randomly deleted a character profile on the Halo UNSC Marines And ODST page and replaced it with seemingly something of his own creation. I already corrected the edit, but it's something to keep an eye on, I think. Reply
  • 5 Feb 12th, 2017 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 14th Feb, 2017 02:17:09 PM
    At the risk of starting a shitstorm Politically Incorrect Hero seems to have some issues that merit discussing what qualifies as actually being politically incorrect.

    The page is frankly such a mess it calls Spock racist against humans and has a weird tract about how it's sexist for James Bond to be promiscuous.

    I'd almost be tempted to say it needs a TRS to draw some boundries on what constitutes being un-PC in the context of this trope. Reply

      I'd say it at least needs a scrubbing. Yow.


      It is just such a mess because it looks like someone with a "everything is offensive" mentality got a hold of it. The real examples like blatant racism/homophobia or old hands putting down women who join the force are buried under a mess of extreme reaching and shoe-horning.

      The Star Trek section in particular is a NIGHTMARE of what looks like blatant misuse of the trope.

      James Bond's promiscuity typically is seen as sexist, even In-Universe. The typical reaction by women to James Bond is either "ugh, what a neanderthal" or "ugh, what a neanderthal....that I'm strangely compelled to".

      Out of universe, we have the infamous ass-slap where he dismissed a woman so that he could do "man talk", which is almost universally seen as pretty sexist nowadays.

      If it were up to me, the first thing I'd work out is the part of the description which says the trope is caused by Writer on Board, Values Dissonance, and Deliberate Values Dissonance. One of those tropes is YMMV, which ultimately opens the door for the rest of the trope to be, also.

      Sometimes I wonder whether the Political Correctness redirect is the actual problem child. That needs to be its own page, not jammed into the more specific Political Correctness Gone Bad trope.

      I'd say the James Bond entry needs re-written then because it's vague and specify ANY of that. It's just a paragraph of complaining he sleeps around without explaining where the problematic elements arise. Agreed with the part that mentioning YMMV tropes as examples could be making the trope read to broad to some people.

      ^You mean Political Correctness Gone Mad, your pothole is one word off.
  • 12 Sep 15th, 2017 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 25th Oct, 2017 08:45:40 PM
    If you guys don't mind, this is a twofer post that actually goes hand-in-hand. Also, I apologize in advance because this is a long post, but I need to give a lot of information so that you'll understand where I'm going with this.

    So I already called for RandomX to be reported in my previous ATT post, for, among a lot of reasons, shipping bias. I saw shipping bias in their Naruto entry for First Kiss. On August 14th, matruz removed the shipping bias and provided an Edit Reason explaining why it was removed—to paraphrase, "because saving someone's life with CPR does not equate to a kiss, and as an experienced medical ninja Sakura had to have performed CPR on other subjects before Naruto in order to perfect the procedure, so Naruto is not her First Kiss." Also, it's long since been confirmed in the manga and from post-series interviews with creator Masashi Kishimoto himself that Sakura loves Sasuke and not Naruto, and Naruto rejected Sakura in Chapter 469 of the manga. When Sakura performed CPR on him during the War, about 200 chapters after Chapter 469, she was trying to save his life, not trying to kiss him, so it comes off as more of a friendship moment than a romantic one; plus, Naruto wasn't conscious when she performed CPR on him, so it wasn't mutual. Naruto is shown kissing only two people in canon: Sasuke in Chapter 3 (both he and Sasuke are visibly shown to not enjoy it, due it being an Accidental Kiss), and Hinata in The Last: Naruto the Movie (which is explicitly the first canon movie of the franchise—an advertisement that was published with the final two manga chapters officially called the movie "Chapter 699.5". Here's the proof). Regarding the kiss with Hinata, Naruto initiates it and is visibly shown enjoying giving her The Big Damn Kiss at the end of the movie, so that was his First Kiss with a girl and also his first mutual and romantic kiss. Based on these facts that I related directly from canon events (and I even provided the manga chapters and the advertisement picture as proof), I agreed with matruz's Edit Reason to remove the shipping bias. However, on September 5th, Trustworthy69 re-inserted the shipping bias that matruz removed, and gave no Edit Reason explaining why it was re-inserted. Edit Reason or not, that is an Edit War on Trustworthy69's part.

    Not only that, but I also see shipping bias in Falling into His Arms and Kiss of Life, from EarsplittingLepidopteran. For Falling into His Arms, the description states that it's a very romantic trope, but EarsplittingLepidopteran deleted the Minato/Kushina example (which was romantic) and inserted Naruto saving Sakura and being stabbed by her poisoned kunai (which was not romantic. This event also occurred in Chapter 484, 15 chapters after Naruto rejected Sakura, which makes it even less romantic), and then the way this person worded their completely blanked-out spoiler-tag entry (which is not allowed, according to Handling Spoilers) sounds like shipping bias, so it did not employ neutral wording. The Kiss of Life Naruto entry written by EarsplittingLepidopteran also claims the First Kiss issue, but as I explained in my previous paragraph, and as matruz's Edit Reason stated in the Ship Tease Anime and Manga page and in First Kiss, an experienced medical ninja would have performed and perfected the CPR procedure long before Naruto, so he was not her First Kiss, and she loves Sasuke and was trying to save Naruto's life, but he was unconscious and he already rejected her in Chapter 469, so it was not mutual. Also, Naruto finally woke up from unconsciousness not from Sakura's CPR, but rather from the Sage of Six Paths giving Naruto his powers; this was shown in Chapters 671 and 672. Therefore, the Kiss of Life Naruto entry is not a valid example.

    Getting to the point of my post, based on what I have said: 1) The Naruto entries for First Kiss, Falling into His Arms, and Kiss of Life should be reworded to be neutral and display no shipping bias, or even some entries should be removed because they do not follow the criteria from the trope's description(s). 2) If this has not been done already, EarsplittingLepidopteran should be called in/reported for shipping bias and lack of neutral wording, and Trustworthy69 should be called in/reported for shipping bias, lack of neutral wording, and Edit Warring.

    Here's the edit history for the aforementioned three tropes: Falling Into His Arms, First Kiss, and Kiss Of Life.

    Here's the edit history for EarsplittingLepidopteran, and here's the edit history for Trustworthy69.

    I will not do anything with those three aforementioned tropes until I get feedback from a more knowledgeable troper and/or a moderator. Reply

      Bump. It's been a week now and my post hasn't been responded to by anyone, neither from a more knowledgeable troper nor a moderator (moderators in particular for the two tropers I want to report).

      Sorry, but you're going to need to cut that post down. That's way too much to take in.

      Dang I completely forgot about this post. Welp, I'm coming back to it since Trustworthy 69 is STILL going at it with the shipping bias, lack of neutral wording, and Edit Warring.

      And @jameygamer, what do you mean by "cutting that post down"? I will listen to and follow any advice that you give me, I promise, but I want to know and understand what you're talking about first.

      Its Too.Freaking. Long. There I said it.

      Not many of us want to see a Wall of Text.

      I will issue a suspension to Trustworthy, since that user is still at it.

      Edit: Scratch that, there's a positive IP match with Random X. They're gone!

      Mousch, future reference? Paragraph breaks at the least. Please.

      Maybe follow the rule my English teacher had: 3-5 sentences a paragraph.

      Berrenta, Candi, AegisP, and jameygamer, I apologize for the Wall of Text. For one, I didn't know that Wall of Text was a problem on ATT (I know it's a problem for actual editing, but I didn't know that it's also a problem here on ATT) until you said it was. Two, I didn't know how else to explain why these examples were wrong and full of bias, so I ended up writing a long explanation.

      However, next time I report someone and give my reasons as to why they need to be reported, I'll make sure to remember this conversation and keep the details to a minimum, now that I know that Wall of Text is pretty much not allowed here on TV Tropes.

      @Berrenta, may I be given permission to fix Trustworthy's edits? The ones that I called him out for in this post, mainly?

      Go ahead.

      Actually @Berrenta, before I do that, I just looked at Trustworthy's edit history again, and I see that he showed grammar issues and inserted shipping bias in Wouldn't Hit a Girl, Bridal Carry and Clingy Jealous Girl as well. Can I fix his edits in those three tropes as well?