• 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

      Bump.

      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.
  • 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.

      Suggestions:

      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?
  • 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
  • 12 Sep 15th, 2017 at 12:12PM
    Anime
    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?

      All right, I just fixed Trustworthy's bad editing in the Falling into His Arms, First Kiss, and Kiss of Life tropes, and I used this ATT discussion as part of my Edit Reason.

      However, @Berrenta or any other moderator, my question still stands about Trustworthy's bad edits for Wouldn't Hit a Girl, Bridal Carry and Clingy Jealous Girl: May I be granted permission to fix his edits in those three tropes, along with any other bad editing that he and his former troper-alter-ego RandomX did?

      Go ahead. Reversion of (most of) a ban evader's edits, especially bad ones, is fine.

      Just fixed those entries. Hopefully this guy won't try to come back and ban-evade again.
  • 4 Oct 7th, 2017 at 3:03AM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Oct, 2017 11:16:01 PM
    Over on JustForFun.Television Is Trying To Kill Us, the user Bacon Cat Bug deleted an entry pointing out the risks Unsettling Gender Reveal poses to trans individuals IRL with the edit reason "Removed unnecessary bigotry".

    Seems like editing with an anti-trans agenda, to me?

    EDIT: It would appear they've also edited another page to change "counter protester" to "domestic terrorist" and "alt-right demonstrators" to "free speech demonstrators" (although that example probably shouldn't be there in the first place under ROCEJ) link. I'm calling that fishy enough to restore the example. Reply

      Bumping.

      I've sent them a message on the subject.

      Suspension issued.

      That last example was also removed altogether by Bisected 8. I'm fine with that.
  • 2 Nov 1st, 2017 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 2nd Nov, 2017 07:26:13 AM
    Courtesy link: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=mariskep

    The troper has made some very rude, incendiary edits here (reverted), here, here, here (not rude, but still deliberate natter), and here. Reply

      Whoo. Definitely rude. Did you send notifiers?

      Hes gonna need to have a chat with us.
  • 1 Feb 11th, 2016 at 2:02AM
    Lastest Reply: 11th Feb, 2016 05:00:40 AM
    It's weird and not exactly welcoming for those who are looking for a lost trope; Reply

      Been kinda wondering about that myself.
  • 0 May 21st, 2016 at 9:09PM
    It has just come to my attention that Komodin, longtime troper and fantastic P5 member, passed away in March of cancer.

    It has been posted about in the Absent People thread.

    Rest well, swift one. Reply
  • 2 Dec 30th, 2016 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 31st Dec, 2016 03:25:30 AM
    Troper Sushi just consecutively launched 7 yk drafts. None of which were in a launch state, really. (one is about half a stub, another still has sponsor notes, one was a draft discarded years ago and revived by a random troper a few days ago, the rest are old yk's that should really reach consensus before launch and/or in the middle of discussion.) Reply

      Can they be unlaunched?

      Unlaunched all of them and banned Sushi from TLP.
  • 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.

      Agreed.

      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.
  • 4 Feb 27th, 2017 at 12:12AM
    Lastest Reply: 27th Feb, 2017 02:00:27 PM
    I was actually reading the Zootopia pages and I know it's going to have some political slants with the subject matter, but I still wonder i the YMMV page isn't turning into a bit of a political soapbox for people that don't like the way it handled it's moral. There's even some anti-cop stuff using Police Brutality issues as an excuse to bring it up under Broken Base.

    Nothing nasty or no flamerwars, but it still feels like there's some slant against the movie (especially an Unfortunate Implications entry that cites some questionable sources, IMO) Reply

      That Broken Base entry should definitely go, since it's not really saying anything about the movie, it's just describing different political opinions people have in general. Using that page to describe that seems super weird, it'd be like me adding Broken Base to an abortion movie about people disagreeing about abortion.

      Also that Harsher in Hindsight entry is just incoherent.

      Yeah, i think Broken Base should definitely be cleaned up as a start because a lot of it vague claims of "it handling racism bad" that I feel come directly from the editor and some other fringe sources.

      The fact it's been an overwhelming critical success with only FIVE bad reviews on RT (and none of which I can remember mentioning that) seem to indicate this is a fringe opinion and no-where near a Broken Base.

      Also, yeah: that Harsher In Hin Dsight entry is just bad, especially when the dark joke mentioned was about people hating traffic cops for giving them tickets and nothing to do with racism or actually killing anyone.

      I changed some examples that used the word "racism" as a blanket term for "prejudice". Anyway, is it cool if the Harsher in Hindsight entry is cut and the Broken Base text wall if brought before the thread for Broken Base?

      I'd say so.

      This is a touchy enough issue I think it needs to be brought for discussion instead of one of us going all vigilante justice on the YMMV page.
  • 4 Apr 23rd, 2017 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 24th Apr, 2017 11:23:54 AM
    Courtesy Link: here

    There was a conversation / debate on the draft about the term "queer" and before Shimaspawn stepped in saying that it's a pre-existing term, King Zeal started to step over the line with the rhetorical / snide question "If the people self-identifying themselves as queer are wrong, and the people who lovingly accept them as queer are wrong, and the original dictionary term is vague, what authority are you deferring to define the term?" as though gay men (such as myself) cannot comprehend this term that describes gay people or that I contrast with the "people who lovingly accept them." In our history over on this ATT thread, we were told to stop sniping each other, and I would rather not get in trouble for responding to his comment. I didn't say anything until now because I hadn't seen the comment. I knew the discussion was getting heated and I stepped away and just had no motivation to look at the draft until now.

    His most recent comment, which posted today (well after Shimaspawn's stepping in), King Zeal continued the topic of what "queer" means, and I don't think he's letting it go.

    At the risk of being repetitive: I don't want to directly engage with this definition "debate" and I think a mod coming in to the draft to calm the waters could possibly help keep the discussion on track for the trope, rather than the definition of "queer." Reply

      To add, there's a lot of, um misunderstanding in that discussion from tropers who may not be so familiar with both the idea of queerbaiting and how to keep things subjective. King Zeal is one of the more offensive of posters.

      Just to put it out there, I myself identify as "queer" (without being willing to elaborate further) .

      My last comment was referring to the very problem the thread has of people saying "this isn't how I've seen 'queerbaiting' used/defined". It wasn't an argument. My point is that, no matter how WE define the term, if the definition differs from how various people define "queer" and "queerbaiting", the page will have constant struggles with people misusing it or Sink Holing it. The fact that so many people are commenting in the YKTTW thread to express that confusion is evidence of this.

      Mods have stepped in, as I read the comment thread. There's a very real risk of any article about queerbaiting, whether it's a trope or a Useful Notes page, doing more to attract people arguing about whether it applies to any given work than to help people understand the concept.

      A Useful Notes page is not intended to "define terms used in fandom", but is instead supposed to provide a reference for authors seeking to write accurately about a particular topic. We aren't always very good at keeping them to this rule, but it's not an excuse to create more bad ones.

      What useful information would this article provide to writers? How not to queerbait? I'm not really seeing it. We should already have UN articles about LGBTQ issues in general, so do we need a more specific one for this particular term? It just feels like a bad idea.

      Not a mod, but...the ROCEJ exists for a reason, eh?
  • 9 Apr 30th, 2017 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 1st May, 2017 08:11:17 PM
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.SuicideSquad2016

    Doctor Sleep keeps commenting out entries he disagrees with and leaving commented out notes why he thinks they don't fit. My issue is that's unorthodox and, well, his reasoning is really weak.

    I'm going to restore the examples and leave an edit reason saying "take it to discussion if you want to contest an example." Reply

      Are Dr Sleep and Doctor Sleep the same troper? Asking because Dr Sleep already brought various examples to the discussion page (in January-ish) for that YMMV article. If they are the same person, then ignorance isn't exactly an excuse... They've both been active within April, so it's probably two different people, but that'd be a funny coincidence, no?

      They both have edits going back as far as 2016, and both have edited pages common to DCEU, Marvel, and various animes.

      Going by the issues presented here, is it possible both are socks of a previously-banned user?

      [ETA] DoctorSleep's history, and DrSleep's history.

      I have been informed earlier that they're not the same guy.

      It is a... Really weird coincidence, given how often the two do collide.

      The fact that the usernames are very similar is suspicious. I'll do some IP tracing to make sure they aren't the same.

      Edit: Okay, both have IPs in entirely different areas, so odds are slim that they're the same. Has anyone messaged Doctor Sleep about this issue?

      I just did. In fact, I messaged both Dr. Sleeps to come here.

      Normally I prefer to edit everything in bulk, so it just seemed appropriate to add a comment at the end of every entry. If it's a conflict of interest, I'll stop.

      One method of adding an edit reason is to point to the discussion page (in the edit reason box) and then add your edit reason on the discussion page. If you think your edit reason is really long, you could try that. I've done that a few times, and it's led to an interesting discussion or two about the cut entries.

      Using the comment-out markup like that isn't kosher (as already said above), but it could also potentially lead to newer tropers following suit, which can become a much bigger problem in itself, I think.

      If you don't think an example fits, pull it to discussion with an edit reason pointing there. On the discussion page, explain why you don't think it fits.

      Don't comment out full examples and add notes as to why that don't fit. We don't do that here, and people are far more likely to see the discussion page. Plus it's easier to point to the discussion page from ATT or a work's dedicated thread.

      Just to reiterate, Doctor Sleep and I are not the same user, as our I Ps hopefully indicate. I understand that this is the mother of all coincidences, and it's boggling to me as well, but that's the plain and simple truth.
  • 0 May 14th, 2017 at 5:05PM
    Live Action TV
    I know that book/show's incredibly divisive already, but BronyoftheOctaves keeps adding justifying edits to any criticism of it on the YMMV page. The rest of their edits seem okay aside from hyperbole.

    Examples: "* No Such Thing as Bad Publicity: The myriad of attacks the show has gotten from in-depth critiques to the occasional troll have only made the show more popular! Special points when its actors/actresses claim the show could "trigger" some viewers despite the obvious subject matter being a big Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped, which makes it more glaring considering Episode 9 onwards puts trigger warnings.

    "* Unfortunate Implications: Listing all the articles describing how the show/book can be construed as "romanticizing suicide" (among other things) would take long. Many experts that parents of young people watching should at least have a conversation about the events in the show. Again, considering the show's themes of suicide and rape, it's bound to upset some." Reply
  • 4 Jul 6th, 2017 at 5:05AM
    Lastest Reply: 7th Jul, 2017 06:03:06 AM
    Sorry in advance for the wall of text.

    So DC Rebirth is a line of comics, many of which have their own pages, such as Batman (Rebirth), Detective Comics (Rebirth), Supergirl (Rebirth), etc. The series are actually just called Batman, Detective Comics and Supergirl, but the Rebirth identifies it as that specific series, since there have been a few series called Batman and Supergirl. Usually (here and on comic sites), the year the series began is used to tell them apart, e.g. Batgirl (2000), Batgirl (2011), Supergirl (2011), but whatever.

    But the problem is there actually are one-off comics called Batman: Rebirth and Supergirl: Rebirth — they actually started those series I mentioned. So it's not clear when Batman: Rebirth #1 refers to the one-shot or issue 1 of Batman (Rebirth). And since the Rebirth pages began, there have been numerous cases of people referring to Batman: Rebirth #4 and the like, which don't exist (hell, even keeping this naming scheme, it'd be Batman (Rebirth) #4). I even saw an entry about "Superwoman: Rebirth #1", when Superwoman didn't even get a Rebirth one-shot and is the first series to ever be called Superwoman. I can only assume the naming scheme between the various works is to blame. The only series seemingly exempt from these mistakes are Action Comics and Detective Comics which kept the numbering of the original series, since they're Long Runner|s.

    Further, I want to create a page for The Flash's Rebirth series (started in 2016)... but it already had a series called The Flash: Rebirth (from 2009) that I also want to make a page for. So it'd have to be called The Flash (Rebirth) (2016) or something, unless there's a way to make The Flash: Rebirth and The Flash (Rebirth) two separate pages without it leading to more confusion. I guess you could separate them via folders on the same page, but that's a bit of a wonky solution and doesn't allow for very good Cross Wicking. Plus, unlike Old Man Logan, the 'The Flash: Rebirth and The Flash (2016)'' are not that similar.

    The only justification I've seen for calling the series Supergirl (Rebirth) and the like is that they're unofficial nicknames. As someone who frequents a few comic sites, I have NEVER seen them used (I just searched Googled "Supergirl: Rebirth #2" with quotation marks and only got two pages of results). People generally just say Supergirl #4 and the context makes it clear that they're talking about he current series (the Rebirth one). As someone who created one of those pages (Justice League of America (Rebirth)), I was just following the lead of the other pages. Just quickly checking the first wave of series on DC Rebirth, it seems troper duranaparthur started the trend and everyone just followed suit.

    So basically I'd just like to get some thoughts on changing the different Rebirth Comic Book pages to Batman 2016, Detective Comics 2016, Supergirl 2016, etc.? It'd be more accurate, be in line with the naming scheme of previous series, be less confusing, and allow for some pages to exist without being confusing or inconsistent with the naming scheme of other pages.

    Sorry if this is possibly in the wrong place, but the discussion page for DC Rebirth is kinda dead. If there's a better place to put this where people will see it, please tell me and I'll put it there. Reply
  • 1 Aug 8th, 2017 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 10th Aug, 2017 06:05:02 AM
    Originally, Funimation was named FUNimation Productions and later FUNimation Entertainment before it went under its current name, but lately, the company's stylization of the name has been changed from "FUNimation" to simply "Funimation", which started around 2014 (the current spelling is even seen on their official website). With that said, I have a question: Should we keep the wikiword display name as "FUNimation" or should we change it to "Funimation"? Reply

      I'd advise "Funimation", if only to help with markup.
  • 3 Aug 10th, 2017 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 14th Aug, 2017 09:22:07 PM
    Courtesy links: tyrekecorrea, TLP draft titled "Queerbaiting", the crowner mentioned below

    Over on the Queerbaiting draft (link), tyrekecorrea has been arguing ad nauseam about Queerbaiting being a trope and a Useful Note, even though we already had this discussion in the TLP crash rescue thread. We tried having a crowner to agree on whether the draft should be a Useful Note or a Main/ page trope with the Useful Notes/ page being in the lead.

    Instead of letting the crowner decide, they appear to be insisting that (to paraphrase) "Because Bowdlerise is a trope page and an index, this page should also be a trope page and an index, regardless of what the crowner says." Not that all of the items in the crowner are particularly kosher (and outside opinion on that could also be helpful), but to keep insisting the same thing even with so many people disagreeing — especially when it's clearly a problem that people are trying to resolve and the insisted-upon option isn't helping — is unnecessary at best.

    As I said, it's gotten to the point of exhaustion (hence "ad nauseam"), and I think outside opinions are needed. I don't think there's anything more I could say to this troper that hasn't already been said. Reply
  • 12 Aug 19th, 2017 at 6:06PM
    Western Animation
    Lastest Reply: 21st Aug, 2017 07:13:23 PM
    pgj1997, Realshow, and Sugarp1e1 are edit warring over whether to have emojis in the text to describe the characters or not. The characters page also has this issue.

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=WesternAnimation.TheEmojiMovie Reply

      A) They don't belong anywhere on the wiki unless it's a page where you should be posting the images, and B) This is ridiculous. Pgj 1997 seems to really pouring on the "cause I want to" reasoning over and over. He doesn't care about proper context, is effectively doing a "use image to create context" now, refusing to use proper words. This is also the second Edit War he started. It's not just the other users, who shouldn't be doing this, but this user is causing trouble more and more.

      I can't remember where it is at the moment, but somewhere there's something saying emojis and emoticons are Not Allowed on wiki pages. Forums are a different matter.

      That was Tips Worksheet and the edit tips. I've backed out the latest emoji restoring edit.

      For the work page of a movie focused on emojis, I think we should be willing to make an exception to the rule.... But that should take a dedicated discussion thread to decide. Said discussion is too long for an ATT thread.

      If someone wants to make a Self Demonstrating subpage, they can use all the in-line emojis they want. But the main article shall follow our style rules.

      Are you for real crazysamaritan? That's terrible!

      Self-Demonstrating seems a reasonable compromise.

      It's terrible to want visual context for a movie that relies on visual references? "Meh", "eggplant", and "hand" don't provide enough context for someone who isn't familiar with emoji use.

      • Female Angel, Male Demon: The 👼 (angel emoji) is presented with feminine hair, while the 😈 (devil emoji) is presented in a more masculine shape.

      (Note: haven't seen the movie, no clue if the above context is correct. Current page presents a ZCE after removing the visual references.)

      Mind if we set up a thread in TRS concerning this?

      ^^ Your example doesn't provide any visual context either—the "emojis" show up as gibberish text...which pretty aptly sums up what I think is the biggest reason not to use emoji on a non-SD page: non-ASCII characters are too easy to break, and even if they're used correctly, they don't show up on all devices, and when they do show up, they have different appearances depending on your device and the OS it uses. The benefit would be minimal at best, especially considering that the movie's designs don't necessarily resemble any RL emoji designs.

      I don't see any reason why that example couldn't be rendered as:

      • Female Angel, Male Demon: The angel emoji is presented with feminine hair, while the devil emoji is presented in a more masculine shape.


      The original question has been answered.
  • 14 Oct 8th, 2017 at 11:11AM
    Lastest Reply: 10th Oct, 2017 04:06:32 PM
    The troper Grigor II as this edit history shows has made several edits and changes about Ultimate Marvel. Lately he's been trying to shoehorn Ultimate Marvel into discussions that don't have anything to do with it, as well as try and remove any points of comparison and criticism about Ultimate Marvel in-relation-to 616.

    A good example is his recent attempt at trying to insert edits in the Ymmv page for Marvel Cinematic Universe:

    He first made this non-YMMV addition into the YMMV page:
    • Lighter and Softer: Phase 1 adapts a lot of stuff from the Ultimate Marvel line (specially Nick Fury and the Avengers being a military operation), but leaves outside all the dark and heavy stuff from the line, as the films are aimed to all publics.

    Which I removed by citing the following reason:"Reason: 1) Not YMMV, 2) The MCU takes elements from all Marvel continuities, especially 616, so it was never billed, promoted, marketed as an adaptation of Ultimate Marvel..."

    Then he decided to re-add it with Broken Base with the following entry:
    • Broken Base: Phase 1 adapted a lot of stuff from the Ultimate Marvel stuff alongside the classic and original material, albeit in a Lighter and Softer way. Fans were divided between those who were fine with it, and those who would have preferred Ultimate Marvel to be avoided completely.

    Which I removed by citing the following reason: "Reason: Empirically I have not come across one instance of that being an actual base broken anywhere in fans. I mean individually, people complained about the lack of Ant-Man and Wasp, and Tony Stark being creator of Ultron instead of Hank Pym...but nobody had any issues about the Adaptation Distillation, it was well received for the very well attested fact that Ultimate Marvel was distinctly unpopular at that point..."

    I want to bring this issue here to avoid Edit-war. Reply

      Well, first of all, he readded a section of the Lighter and Softer example, but reworded it and changed the trope to Broken Base. That could very well be an Edit War already.

      I'll need a mod to see whether or not this is a dodge.

      Edit: Yeah, the Broken Base example looks like a rewrite of the original entry, and that IS considered an Edit War.

      There is an ongoing discussion about that edit, and I have cited several pages that prove that Julian Lapostat's claims about Ultimate Marvel are wrong. Even a direct cite from Joss Whedon himself. As for the original edit, it is right that I placed it in YMMV by mistake, so I moved it to the franchise namespace.

      By the way, if you want to confirm if Lighter and Softer actually applies to the MCU, don't take the word from me or Julian about it: you can read about that here.

      "Even The Ultimates got defanged when it, in modified form, went to the box office. Joss Whedon has long been a megafan of Millar and Hitch’s epic, even going so far as to pen a glowing introduction to one of its collected editions in 2004. When he wrote and directed 2012’s The Avengers, he very obviously used The Ultimates as his visual and narrative template, and perfectly captured the aesthetic excitement and modernized characterization that made the comic work. He also deleted all the big questions. We have no doubt that the film’s titular team — an unaccountable government strike force assembled to fight barbaric outsiders — are all great people. As is true in its predecessors and successors in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, any mistakes the protagonists make are either the result of temporary deception or are absolvable moral stumbles on the path toward a better future."

      I can cite many other examples to prove that Avengers 2012 drew from 616, starting from the evidence on screen, well-attested production information all of which I shared in the Discussion page. Tom Hiddleston mentions in this interview for instance that Joss Whedon and Kevin Feige drew inspiration from the very first Avengers where Loki was the Big Bad that brought the team together. So fundamentally there isn't anything in common with Ultimate Marvel unless you squint and find selective promotional trivia in comic book media or poorly researched articles to cite.

      Loki is the main recurring and most popular villain in the MCU and he has nothing in comparison to the Ultimate version, nor does Thor, nor does Hulk, nor does Captain America. Their characterization and world is entirely different than the Ultimate Marvel where Thor is some kind of hippie and initially seen as a fool, Hulk is a cannibal and Ultimate Cap is this dated joke. As is clear in the ymmv page for Marvel Cinematic Universe, the aesthetic of MCU changed and altered Movie Superheroes Wear Black and Doing In the Wizard which is what Ultimate Marvel did...

      Ultimately all of this is dodging the fundamental point...you are shoehorning Ultimate Marvel into pages where it does not belong, where it contributes nothing, and said information is redundant...

      It was never said that the MCU was a complete and absolute "true to the text" adaptation of the material from Ultimate Marvel, as the Sin City films. They adapt a lot of stuff from the Ultimates, same as they adapt a lot of stuff from the mainstream Marvel titles, but without completely being a full adaptation of either one. For example, you mentioned the Hulk. Yes, he's not quite the monster of the Ultimates, but he isn't the mainstream Hulk either: his signature origin, dropping Rick Jones into a trench and failing to jump himself before being caught by the blash of a gamma bomb is nowhere to be seen either.

      The point is: it's not 100% related, right, but it isn't completely unrelated as you claim either. It is a source material for a lot of stuff from the Phase 1, and I cited several independent pages that confirm so. So far, you have not provided a single source that backs your rejection of the Ultimate marvel for comparison.

      I said repeatedly that some stuff came from Ultimate Marvel but it was entirely superficial borrowings. Yes Fury and SHIELD formed the Avengers but the dynamic of the first Avengers film is that the Avengers distrust Fury and are kind of Rebellious Rebel, whereas Ultimate Fury is the Boss of the Avengers and orders them around and bullies them when they disobey, and then in Winter Soldier, SHIELD gets Demoted to Extra and made into Adaptational Wimp...

      The core of MCU is 616 and not Ultimate Marvel...that is irrefutable and plainly so for anyone who actually watches the films. The Avengers (2012) and Marvel as a whole were praised for being Lighter and Softer and being and feeling like comic-books...if you want Ultimate Universe, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy has more in common with Ultimate Marvel in its aesthetics (i.e. removing supernatural stuff like Lazarus Pits, less pulp science, more military-industrial complex), as does Zack Snyder's Superman films, than MCU does.


      Yes, you said it. And I say: "superficial borrowings" according to whom? You?

      ^Dude, tone. That comes across as very rude.

      Shoehorning isn't allowed here, period, and at least some of those edits are definitely shoe horning.

      If you have a Word of God direct source, please link it.

      See the discussion for the YMMV entry. I have added several sources there. Including references about Whedom admiring the Ultimate comics, and the main artists of such comics hired for the Iron Man film as story consultants. Julian mocks the influence of Ultimate Marvel in the MCU, but so far has not provided a single source to back it, just his own analysis. I have already asked for such sources, and no, nothing. That's why I said that: without such sources, how can I know if his explanation about the mere "superficial borrowings" and the "malign influence" are widely held opinions, opinions of a significant but not absolute portion of the fanbase, or just his own ones?

      The sources cited by Grigor II are highly misleading and don't actually prove his point.

      1) In one case they are testimonials or post-mortems of the Ultimate Marvel which obviously are going to be sympathetic and hagiographic, or appreciative of the things that it did. So Joss Whedon giving compliments to The Ultimates or writing an introduction to it, doesn't actually prove anything.

      2) The other source he cites is a Cinemablend article that is covering the end of Ultimate Marvel and seeing what it means from a brand perspective and it's not very well informed because it's a movie site looking from the outside.

      None of these are actual primary sources for film production: such as interviews during pre-production, actor's notes, production information and so on, don't really discuss any real influence or in-take from Ultimate Marvel. Like the Cinemablend article says that the movie's take on Iron Man resembles the Ultimate take, and how casting Robert Downey Jr. was part of that. Except anyone who knows the production history knows that Jon Favreau had to fight to get RDJ into the film, for the basic fact that he was at that time an insurance risk. Favreau had to fight to get him in, and much of Iron Man was shot without a complete script and improvised as Jeff Bridges pointed out. The producers cited Christopher Nolan's Batman films as inspiration i.e. for a more grounded and gradual take on Iron Man, and Iron Man's personality as this constant pop-culture quipping guy and narcissist was the film's invention as was his love for Pepper Potts, and his Character Development from womanizer to committed monogamist. The greater prominence of Pepper Potts was original to the film.

      The movies which actually borrowed from Ultimate Marvel and openly discussed as such are in-fact non-MCU movies The Amazing Spider-Man Series where Marc Webb only admitted to borrowing ideas from that run, including the greater focus on Richard Parker. The 2015 Fantastic Four film by Josh Trank was also inspired by Ultimate Fantastic Four (the whole Negative Zone as introduction, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm having Darker and Edgier childhoods, the Four being teenagers, and Doctor Doom being a kind of Eurotrash a—hole).

      Joss Whedon in interviews during production openly said that the main influence was the first The Avengers comic where Loki machinated and manipulated a bunch of heroes and ended up forming the Avengers. The greater focus on Loki in the MCU has nothing in parallel with Ultimate Marvel, which took a Doing In the Wizard approach and Movie Superheroes Wear Black both tropes the MCU averted. The superficial borrowings from the Ultimate Universe include Sam Jackson's Nick Fury but his character and level of prominence in the MCU is nothing compared to the God-like figure he is in Ultimate Marvel, SHIELD did form the Avengers but unlike Ultimate Marvel where SHIELD is under the US Government, and the Avengers are an arm of Uncle Sam...The movie version of SHIELD is under the World Security Council and the Avengers are not identified as arms of the US Government and agents of foreign policy which is what they are in Mark Millar.

      There are numerous examples I can go into. But suffice to say, Grigor II's points are highly selective, misleading and almost entirely incorrect and biased. And yes he is shoehorning, and his whole "cite sources otherwise" is a classic Shifting the Burden of Proof maneuver. He has not done his research, nor does he cite these competing and well attested production information to qualify his claims...I can go on.

      Go on then... but please cite a source that backs the things you say. How many times do I need to ask it?

      You are the one who is trying to argue for Ultimate Marvel having a super-relevance to the MCU when i have said that MCU borrowed a few elements from Ultimate Unvierse but largely stuck to 616 and/or its own inventions. I have never said that the MCU did not borrow from the Ultimate Marvel they did, but it's also clear that they didn't see the MCU as an adaptation of Ultimate Marvel nor did they agree entirely with the direction of Ultimate Marvel. The Burden of Proof is on you to demonstrate that, and you have to do it by looking at the actual production cycle of films, which if you are unfamiliar with involves "Pre-Production" (when the script is written, roles are cast and so on), "Production" (before editing), Post-Production (during editing, effects work, and in modern times, might include reshoots and additions such as the post-credits scenes). There isn't a lot of Ultimate Marvel there.

      I have cited many elements from the films themselves. The movies are primary sources so saying that SHIELD in the movies is under the World Security Council and not the US Government as in the Ultimates is already me citing sources so please don't get sniffy with me again on that again.

      As for me bringing the links. Since the burden of proof is on you and not me I am not going to do your job for you. I am not going to set out and go out of my way to prove that Ultimate Marvel had little or no influence on the MCU. Having said that let me cite some articles, that I did with a quickie google search on some MCU boilerplate. Do a Ctrl+F (if you have PC, if you have Mac, do whatever Mac-users do to find a word)...you will not find one mention of "Ultimate" anywhere in these articles:

      https://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/06/06/feige-couldnt-shine-ikes-shoes-talking-to-marvel-board-members-about-marvel-studios/

      (this one from your beloved cinemablend as it happens) https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Jon-Favreau-Details-His-Fight-With-Marvel-Studios-Cast-Robert-Downey-Jr-Iron-Man-43293.html

      And this one by the way from the Wikipedia page which only has one context-relevant note on Ultimate Marvel (i.e.Sam Jackson's Fury). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_(2008_film) And has nothing to mention whatsoever on its influence on the story and characterization....

      There's a difference here. I say that there is a Broken Base, and I cite a page that says precisely that. I say that Ultimate Marvel was very important for the MCU and provided a lot of things to it, and I cite a page that says precisely that. I say that those things were incorporated in a Lighter and Softer way, and I cite a page that says precisely that.

      On the other hand, you say that all those pages are wrong, that you know better than all of them, that Ultimate Marvel did not factor at all... and your only proof are pages that simply did not mention it. What about a source that supports your claim directly, and not by inference? What about bringing a source that actually says what you are saying? Because, if all those pages I cited have fallen into some great misunderstanding, there has to be someone around there who calls that misunderstanding a misunderstanding.

      @Grigoll and Julian Lapostat, please, both of you, stop.

      Well, I have provided plenty of references to justify that my edit is not based merely on my own perspectives, but for the sake of civility, I propose to drop this discussion and leave things the way they are (meaning, with the Broken Base entry out, and the Lighter and Softer as modified by Julian), and propose this again in two or three months. Surely, things will be more calmed by then, and perhaps Julian will be more receptive. Best regards.
  • 4 Oct 23rd, 2017 at 9:09PM
    Lastest Reply: 25th Oct, 2017 06:03:45 AM
    I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to bring this up but I didn't know where else to go. So a new wiki has been made for BlazBlue: Cross Tag Battle here and I noticed that the bios on the character pages are directly copied from our own Cross Tag Battle character sheet. The ones on the current page have been updated, but if you go back to the history you can see that, for example, the version of Ragna the Bloodedge's bio created by Santos 32 on August 4th is the same as the one on this page (which was created on August 15th). This is the same for all of the character pages. Is there something to be done about this blatant stealing of our work? Reply

      This site allows reuse for non-commercial purposes as long as credit is given and everything stays under the same license, so this could have been avoided if they had given proper credit (I'm assuming the non-commercial part is already being complied with if it's a wiki).

      If they're copying from us, they must give us credit, other licensing rules notwithstanding. If they've removed or changed the offending content, then we're good. If not, then someone should notify them that they may be violating our CC license. Past that, it's up to the admins to take any necessary action.

      As of now, the content is still up. Is it as simple as I personally should go and join the wiki to notify them of this or can I leave it to you mods to do that? Because I'm not sure if I'd feel great joining the wiki just to call them out.

      I've referred the issue to the admins.

  • 5 Oct 30th, 2017 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 30th Oct, 2017 02:42:09 PM
    The staff may wanna take a look at Tropers.tranquilium. He's been posting massive, opinionated Walls of Text regarding China's politics. His additions (when read with TV Tropes' neutral voice) makes several controversial statements sound like the site holds them as an absolute fact. Reply

      His edit history.

      Hoo, boy. Definitely needs the brakes put on him ASAP.

      Jesus. With very little exaggeration, every page he's edited this month needs a revert.

      Hell, if only for grammatical reasons.

      Suspension issued. I don't have time to revert now; most of those edits should be relatively easy to isolate.

      Oh man, his grammar is atrocious. Normally I'd be revving to go to fix grammar and spelling, but I can't fix those edits right now :/

      On it. I'm just wholesale reverting.
  • 9 Sep 15th, 2016 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 19th Sep, 2016 02:25:55 PM
    Link

    So, over on the Facebook page, there's a post for Unsettling Gender Reveal accompanied by a Cyanide & Happiness featuring just that. Now, (along with a lot of the rest of the trans population) it happens to be one of my least favourite tropes (for obvious reasons), but the article itself tackles the trope quite respectfully; mentioning the real life consequences and how it's loaded with Values Dissonance.

    Unfortunately, it seems that whoever's running the Facebook account's decided to respond to people discussing the very same Unfortunate Implications in the comments with a "Triggered" meme (one featuring a caricature of a TERF, no less). That's...really not the sort of thing I want to see directed at myself as a transwoman, or being used to represent me as a troper. Reply

      This is definitely not the first complaint I've heard leveled at the page, and if I recall correctly, despite being "official" it's not really super affiliated with the site or mods.

      Seeing as how this page is representing TV Tropes as a whole, the FB page needs to have a proper Facebook moderator (or a moderating staff) and a means to combat stuff like this from happening. Stuff like this reflects incredibly poorly on the site and community, and to a much wider audience as well.

      Moderators have no control on what happens there. I'll ask the admins.

      Have the admins said anything yet?

      Pulled, apparently.

      Pulled?

      Removed, taken down. Think about tossing something out with a string attached, then pulling it back by that string.

      When I click the link, the page seems to still be there (note- my avatar is an unfortunate coincidence).

      I know what the verb means, I meant; what's been pulled? The page's curator? The page itself? The complaint? Has someone successfully been seduced?
  • 16 Dec 31st, 2016 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 2nd Jan, 2017 08:40:50 AM
    Edit war on Rogue one. Black Dude Dies First was first added by Ohio9 on Dec 22, deleted on the 23rd by StFan, added again on the same day by Ohio9, deleted again on the 25th by moviepyr0, re-added on the same day by DRCEQ, re-deleted on the 30th by ChaoticNovelist, and finally added again today by Ohio9. Reply

      Even if It's decided not to fit Saw, the first main character to die is K2-SO, he's a Droid, making him a member of a minority servant class in the galactic community, and he's painted black, so I'd say the trope at least applies for him. Saw is about as important as that nameless informant that Cassian shoots, so Saw didn't die first.[[/spoiler

      ((Repeating my reply here. A mod may want to lock the other one.))

      K2SO seems like a massive shoehorn to me. Droids may be servants, but are they really portrayed as an oppressed minority in Star Wars? Are they subject to racism or speciesism? To take another prominent example from the same universe, C3PO is portrayed as servile, but much more as an English butler than a stereotypical African-American servant. And does the colour of the paint job really serve as a placeholder for human race?


      Suspended Ohio 9 for edit warring.

      ^^Are droids an oppressed minority?

      "We don't serve droids here."

      "The droids will have to wait outside."

      And there's that whole sequence in the first movie where C3-P0 and R2-D2 are stolen by the Jaws, and Rey Rescuing BB-8 from the scavenger who wanted him for scrap.


      Fuck spoiler tagging, apparently.

      Saw is not part of the main group and K2-SO is a robot, so the trope doesn't apply.

      Does not apply JUST because he's a robot? Tropes Are Flexible.

      Could we get some spoiler tags here?

      It's not like these threads aren't by default open when everyone is browsing through here...

      Added some spoiler tags.

      Listing a robot with black paint as an example of Black Dude Dies First strikes me as a horrendous shoehorn. And the treatment of droids in Star Wars isn't really relevant, since the trope is more about tokenism than anything else.

      Yes, even if we accept that droids in the Star Wars universe are an oppressed minority, which is sometimes treated as African-Americans too-often are or were treated in our world, I don't think Black Dude Dies First applies, because that trope is about real-world racism - that is, the person who dies first has to belong to a minority in the real world, not in the fictional universe. That's my real reason for calling it shoehorning (I just hadn't thought it through completely when posting above). Also, do we really have any evidence that the black paintjob of the droid is to be interpreted as analogous to skin colour in our world? I'm not convinced of that - if nothing else, why aren't all droids black in that case?

      Mentioning K2's paint gob was simply a humorous anecdote to cap off the example, like icing on a cake.

      If your going to be so hung upon limiting Black Dude Dies First to purely be about only those of African decent, then I have to say that's far to narrow to trope. I repeat, Tropes Are Flexible. Droids are an established minority in the Star Wars universe. I wouldn't axe an entry where the character to die was Latino instead of black, why would a Droid not apply?

      ^ Because he's not the only Token Minority in the group I guess? He's not even the only non-human in the group during the time of his death.