Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- • General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- • Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- • Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- • Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- • Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- • Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- • Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- • Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- • Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- • Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- • Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- • Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
resolved Does Mystique counts as DracoInLeatherPants Print Comic
Hey guys, a while ago I added X-Men’s Mystique to the Draco in Leather Pants Marvel page of villains who are beloved and forgiven by fans despite their heinous crimes.
Troper Cylon took issue with this as they don’t consider Mystique an abusive mother or sadistic villain even though she has had decades of written to be just that. They removed the example, I put it back, they removed it again. Que the ensuing arguments where even where I provided evidence Cylon would either ignore it or tried justify it or claim it’s bad writing that Mystique was written that way.
I believe same as Magneto, Mystique definitely counts for the trope. What do you guys think?
Edited by Yellow20openTearJerker.Mutts query Print Comic
TearJerker.Mutts has had some odd edits, with WandaBaby1990 adding an example for the Guard Dog story, then deleting it with a 'see below' edit in a later post which leads to nothing. I thought it had been deleted by accident, so I restored the deleted entry and also added context for the conclusion of the story, which is both heartbreaking and sweet, but they recently deleted the conclusion entry.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=TearJerker.Mutts&page=1
open Edit war in Characters.TeenTitans and subpages Print Comic
Elio Herondale has been adding red links to Characters.Teen Titans and its subpages for character-specific pages — Characters.Teen Titans Lilith Clay, Characters.Teen Titans Mal Duncan, et cetera — since Jan 9th 2024 (as far as I know). On Feb 1st 2024 I deleted those red links, since all the characters for whom those red links were created have profiles in other pages — for example, Characters.Teen Titans Original Teen Titans for those two red links. ElioHerondale re-added those links that same day.
I left the matter alone until today, when I messaged them about their reasoning for creating character-specific pages for very short profiles, but they seem hostile and uninterested in discussing the matter. I can accept being in the wrong in this case, but since Elio Herondale added and then re-added those links, I think I should have reported this as an edit war much sooner.
(As an aside, is there a specific forum for reporting edit wars?)
resolved Edit War: Characters/Deathstroke Print Comic
First a brief background on the characters involved to give a better understanding of the situation:
Rose Wilson joined the Titans alongside Bart Allen in New Titans. However, she did not stay long on the team, instead becoming the nanny of Roy Harper's daughter in Titans (1999).
A bunch of things happened, she was drugged into serving Deathstroke who forced her to betray the Titans, got freed from his control and then rejoined the Titans during One Year Later, where she didn't have a good relationship with most of her teammates (Bart was not among them) except Kid Devil and later on Blue Beetle. She later quite the team, after some time rejoined for a few days before quitting again (Kid Devil died some time later and has not reappeared in comics since then) until the last incarnation of the team before Flashpoint where she was on good terms with almost everyone, including Bart.
Now the situation:
On July 18th 2023, I restructured the example "The Friend Nobody Likes" in the folder "Rose Wilson (Ravager)" to make it easier to read. Of course, I did not delete the content, just restructured the text and added to it. Among the text that was already there and which I merely restructured was the line "The only friend she had on the team was Kid Devil / Red Devil (Eddie Bloomberg)" which I restructured into the following sub point: "Defied with Kid Devil / Red Devil (Eddie Bloomberg) who, for a long time, was the only friend she had on the team." (again, the content remained the same).
On Februar, 9th 2024, the User Elio Herondale replaced "Kid Devil / Red Devil (Eddie Bloomberg)" with "Bart Allen" (without adding an additional point for Kid Devil, I might add) without giving a reason for the change.
On February 20th, I added some examples to the page. While doing so, I discovered the edit and reverted it citing Roses and Kid Devils explicit friendship compared to the lack of interactions Rose and Bart had until the last incarnation of the Teen Titans as reason. Afterwards, I messaged Elio Herondale (which, in hindsight, I definitely should have done to clear things up before reverting their edit, a mistake I now acknowledge and won't do again) asking why they replaced Kid Devil with Bart. Admittedly, at that moment, I had forgotten that Rose and Bart had met before the last incarnation of the Teen Titans. As such, in their reply the following day, they reminded me of that and then proceeded to replace Kid Devil with Bart again, further adding the line "since she first joined the Post-Zero Hour incarnation of New Titans." but again without citing a reason why they excluded Kid Devil.
I then replied in two messages:
In the first on February 21st, I conceded that the two did technically know each longer but counter-argued that they had barely interacted during that time while Eddie and Rose had a genuine, on-panel friendship during her time on the Teen Titans, the time frame the example referred to, asking once more why the replaced Kid Devil with Bart.
In the second message later that day, I proposed a compromise to end the Edit War: I would not touch their changes but merely add the following line "as well as Kid Devil / Red Devil (Eddie Bloomberg) who was her only friend during her time on the Teen Titans in Teen Titans Vol. 3 during and directly following the Time Skip of One Year Later.". This way, I hoped to settle the Edit War with a result both of us should theoretically be able to live with while also still having the entry be factually accurate.
They did not respond to either of my messages since then despite having been online multiple times, as shown by their numerous edits.
Recently, the mod revert reset the situation back to what it was before their edit.
Please note that my problem with their edit is not so much the addition of Bart Allen (since they've known each other for longer and never had any on-panel bad blood, I guess you could technically see it as somewhat of a friendship despite the lack of interactions reminiscent of a friendship between the two until the last incarnation of the Teen Titans) but rather the exclusion of Kid Devil, whose close friendship to Rose is backed up by both the source material (Teen Titans Vol. 3 #34 - #60, #70 - #71) as well as various sites on the internet, including DC's official wiki DCDatabase.
Since I've never been involved in an Edit War (and hope I'll never be again), I don't know how to proceed. Therefore, I am now asking you, the community at large, on what to do next:
Should I go through with the change I proposed or add another subpoint containing it on the risk they may just delete it without giving a reason? Or is there another option I do not know about?Or am I the one in the wrong in this Edit War and owe them an apology? I was hoping to handle this situation reasonably, though I do acknowledge that I made a mistake deleting their edit before messaging them. But if any of my other actions were also unreasonable, I welcome any and all constructive criticism.
If requested/required, I can, of course, provide screenshots of the messages.
Thank you for your input and have a great day.
Edited by McMagmaresolvedEdit War: VirtuousCharacterCopy Print Comic
Hey guys I don’t like to complain about certain examples I add being deleted or changed but The Mountain King deleted my example of V from V for Vendetta being a Virtuous Character Copy claiming their connection is weak. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.VirtuousCharacterCopy
I strongly disagree given there’s many similarities to Joker and V when it comes to anarchism and pantomime imagery. With the Alan Moore connection just being the icing on the cake.
What should I do? I already messaged them to argue otherwise but I’d liked to get other opinions. If other people agree with the deletion then I’ll accept defeat.
Edited by Yellow20openHow to format numbered bullets to not start over under a new header? Print Comic
Example: I have Sandbox.Bo Boi Boy Galaxy Season 2 in the (gradual) works, I'm considering listing the issues/episodes under either arcs or volumes, as listed at the bottom of the sandbox.
The issue is that when I place a header between two episode titles, the bullet numbers start over, when I'd like for them to still list from 1 to 27.
Is there a formatting trick to make this possible?
Edited by BlackFaithStaropenShould the IDW Transformers Character Pages be reorganized? Print Comic
The The Transformers (IDW) entry is one of the longest running comic entries in the franchise, and many of the titles under it have been given pages. Several of those works have also been given character pages, and those pages have been given sub-pages. Most of the main ones have been documented on the "Hasbro Comic Universe" character page, but their sub-pages haven't. The Transformers: More than Meets the Eye for instance has 11 subpages, while The Transformers: Robots in Disguise has 2 subpages. What's more though is that several pages are filled with either duplicate entries that are either identical to each other, or list a redirect but also list tropes for that specific work.
- The Transformers More Than Meets The Eye Other Characters for example lists Starscream, Rattrap, Overlord, and Soundwave as redirects.
- Or how half the characters on The Transformers: Till All Are One are already listed on The Transformers: Robots in Disguise, despite literally being the same iterations of the character.
Hasbro IDW Universe:
- The Transformers
- Autobots
- Luna 1
- The Wreckers
- Decepticons
- Decepticon Justice Division
- Cybertron / Colonies
- The Lost Light
- Team Rodimus
- Autobots
- Earth (Would include other properties without pages like the Micronauts and M.A.S.K.)
- Action Man
- G.I. Joe
- Gem and the Holograms
- Others
Edited by RebelFalcon
openEdit War - ComicBook.RedGoblin Print Comic
Possibly confusion on both sides for this one, but it's turned into an edit war.
- Nonentity Z added a second bullet to Mythology Gag on 16th July.
- I deleted it today, partly because I didn't fully understand the point they were trying to make
- NonentityZ added it back today, with an edit reason saying it was a valid example.
There may be a question to be answered about whether a reference to a Marvel Alternate Universe is really a Continuity Nod or a Mythology Gag (when it's acknowledged as part of continuity and characters can travel to/from it for Bat Family Crossovers, I personally think it's a Continuity Nod), but that shouldn't be an edit reason argument.
Edit: link fix
Edited by Mrph1openAdding tropes to a page for an earlier installment (X-Cellent) Print Comic
Bringing this one back to ATT as we've failed to reach an immediate consensus on forums - and we now have a disagreement on how to proceed until we do have a consensus.
Marvel's 2022 comic book miniseries X-Cellent was followed by / relaunched as 2023's miniseries The X-Cellent (Recycled Titles, especially character/team titles, are pretty standard for Marvel). That second series is still an ongoing work.
Over the last year or two the prevailing approach has been to create a new page (or, at the very least, a soft split) for comic relaunches of this nature, but StrixObscuro made the point that it may be close enough to the original to be handled as a single work, adding that "I see no reason why we should humor Marvel's cynical relaunches" note The 2023 series has the same creators and directly continues the same arc, and Marvel have directly referred to it as both a Sequel Series and "Season Two". It is treated as a different series on their own indexes (e.g. marvel.com and digital comic apps) and doesn't continue the first series' numbering.
As there was no consensus for an immediate merge, the agreement by default became to wait and see how this progresses, then revisit it when the work's complete, or at least less incomplete - e.g. is it going to get a third installment and how will it be handled for collected editions? We can then make a more informed decision to merge or not.
However, we still seem to have a difference of opinion on how we act in the interim - StrixObscuro has added examples for characters and events from the 2023 sequel to the 2022 series's page.
I moved them over to the 2023 page, not realising this had been a deliberate choice, on the basis that until/unless we merge, tropers wouldn't expect to hit spoilers (tagged or otherwise) or plot details for the new series on the previous installment's works page.
StrixObscuro then challenged that, saying that their view is that we should continue to update it with tropes from both series "until consensus finally and definitively decides that the two pages should remain split".
Can we get a steer on this aspect? I think we've dropped into entrenched positions on this one (and the Marvel cleanup thread's been pretty quiet), so I don't think we're going to resolve it ourselves.
For context, the original ATT is here, and the original cleanup thread discussion starts here.
Edited by Mrph1openDeath's Head: seeking consensus to revert changes after fact check Print Comic
Two Marvel Comics pages, ComicBook.Deaths Head and Trivia.Deaths Head, have some 'detective work' statements/examples added by DaPolicia regarding the character's creation and copyright status. The same claims were added to The Other Wiki's page for the character.
These are largely updates to examples and text I previously edited or added, so I don't want to revert them myself (and start an edit war) without a consensus.
This is the core claim they've added:
- Pop-Culture Urban Legends: Multiple sources, including Simon Furman himself, allege that Marvel maintained Death's Head's rights by rushing out a one-page comic (commonly referred to as "High Noon Tex" after a line spoken by Death's Head in the strip) that was featured in various other Marvel UK comics before his Transformers debut, circumventing the company's agreement with Hasbro. However, artist Bryan Hitch's signature in the final panel reads "Hitch '88", indicating that it wasn't drawn until the year after Death's Head debuted in Transformers, and there's no actual indication that the strip was published until May of 1988, meaning that Marvel likely engaged in some other chicanery to keep Hasbro away from Death's Head.
The collected edition introduction directly states that "High Noon Tex" was created to secure copyright. There's a photo of the relevant statements here◊ for anyone who want to read it.
IANAL, but as I understand it UK copyright law is based on evidence of creation, not just widespread publication. Ashcan Copy logic allows the creation of a quick, sketchy version of the work or character to confirm ownership. The intro says it was "subsequently" published and I don't think a 1988 signature on the final/published work is a "Gotcha!" to show the creators are lying.
With that in mind I'd like to:
- Cut Pop-Culture Urban Legends entirely
- Cut the "if Marvel hadn't done whatever they did" element from What Could Have Been, which also casts doubt on Marvel's claims.
- Cut the whole "A commonly-circulated story, corroborated by both Furman and artist Bryan Hitch and perpetuated by sources like This Very Wiki" section that was added to the ComicBook.Deaths Head intro, which casts doubt on the intro's original brief factual statement about the character's creation.
Even if there's more to the story than the official sources suggest, and Marvel isn't telling the complete and accurate history, I don't think it's our place to speculate in this way.
(If we get an official on-the-record statement from the company or creators that contradicts the original printed statements, that would be different)
Does that sound fair?
Edited by Mrph1openPossible edit war - Trivia/TheAmazingSpiderMan2022 Print Comic
Does this count as an edit war? Over on The Amazing Spider-Man (2022) - note that links contain spoilers.
This was the example before the recent leaks:
- Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things: Zeb Wells has said that he'll be avoiding conventions due to the controversy expected to result from some the last issues of the run.
After the first of the recent Content Leaks was confirmed as genuine by Marvel, KingClark added an update to say that this must be because of a particular character death revealed by the leak.
(No source cited for that, and it's since been suggested that this isn't the end of the run, with Wells talking about his next year on the book)
I rephrased it a little with the edit reason "Still scope for more twists, and it hasn't happened yet" - as of today, the issue the leaks are from is still unpublished.
KingClark has now largely reverted that edit, returning it to a definite statement that it's because of the issue and this death.
Does that count as an edit war?
I'd like to revert it again, at least until the issue is published and/or we have a clear statement from Wells about what he meant by the original comment - but that would definitely be an edit war if done without consensus, so I'm holding fire.
Edited by Mrph1openAvoiding potential edit war - AssPull/ShockingSwerve example (Spider-Man 2022) Print Comic
Checking here before making any further edits, as I don't want to start an edit war:
As part of the wider cleanup on YMMV.Spider Man 2022 (complaining, Content Leak etc.), I cut two Ass Pull examples after seeking a second opinion about one on the AssPull cleanup thread. The thread's pretty quiet and there wasn't enough feedback there for a real consensus, but it seemed to confirm my doubts about the example.
I left an edit reason suggesting that if tropers did want to add the same examples back,"Please check with the cleanup thread before reinstating".
KaneChin89 (who's been active for years but only has a single page edit history for that time) has now added one of the examples back (with an exact copy/paste of the old wording) under Shocking Swerve, which is just a redirect to Ass Pull. There's no edit reason and no cleanup thread post.
(The example was originally added by PhyrexianAjani95, then heavily rewritten by nsommer659 - KaneChin89 hasn't edited it before)
Am I ok to delete it again? (I'll also link to this ATT on the cleanup thread, but - as before - not sure it'll get enough replies for a consensus there).
For context, this is the example:
- Shocking Swerve: The Reveal in #25 that Paul and MJ's kids are adoptive and just so happen to look like them. People immediately speculated that this was Marvel's attempt at an Author's Saving Throw because of the sheer amount of negative reception the plotline has been getting. The hint that her feelings for Paul are artificial as the result of a curse by Rabin also comes across as less something preplanned and more the writers trying to please the fans after all hate hoisted on the storyline.
openContent leak issue - Spider-Man Print Comic
As mentioned here, here and here, we've had some issues with today's Spider-Man content leak, revealing a "shocking twist" in a comic to be released later this month. As the comic is due to be followed by a special Fallen Friend (final title embargoed) issue, the assumption was that it involved a major character death.
As per mod guidance from Synchronicity, I added a comment to some of the relevant pages warning tropers not to add leaked content.
Later today, hours after the initial leaked pictures made it onto the internet, Entertainment Weekly published it as an 'exclusive' scoop with clearer images. They also revealed the cover and final title of the Fallen Friend one-shot.
At this point there is no such announcement on marvel.com and it's unclear how 'official' that EW exclusive is, as Marvel had previously said all details were embargoed until end of month. There are certainly no Marvel quotes/comments within the EW article, and there's nothing about it on Marvel's own site yet.
However, Magi Mecha has now:
- Deleted the content leak comment from YMMV.The Amazing Spider Man 2022 and troped it there (spoiler tagging used), edit reason "Cat's out of the bag"
- Deleted the content leak comment from ComicBook.The Amazing Spider Man 2022, edit reason "Cat's out of the bag"
- Deleted the content leak comment from Trivia.The Amazing Spider Man 2022 and updated the Content Leak example to add details and a link, saying " Ultimately, Marvel, via Entertainment Weekly, revealed the shocking death to be [spoiler tagged name]". Edit reason is the EW link, with the character death confirmed in the URL.
- Edited the character's own Characters page (spoiler:Marvel Comics: Kamala Khan) to add the full title of the Fallen Friend special comic, spoiler tagged in a "Notable Comics" list above the line (which I think is in breach of spoiler policy?).
Where do we stand on this? It was clearly an unwanted/unofficial leak earlier today (with Marvel warning fans to avoid spoilers just a couple of hours ago), and although EW's scoop looked a lot more professional, there was nothing to directly say it was with the creator's permission.
Do we accept that the cat really is out of the bag, and let some of these edits stand? (I'm assuming the spoiler tagged title on the Characters page needs to go, either way)
UPDATE: Marvel themselves have finally given in and announced it, with an article on their site. Spoilers, of course. So it looks like the EW story was with their backing.
I guess some of the same questions remain, though - and some of the usual Creating a Work Page for an Upcoming Work considerations will apply to how we cover an unreleased instalment?
Edited by Mrph1openPossible edit war - Characters/XMenSinister Print Comic
Earlier today Halogen added a Scam Religion example to the X-Men: Sinister page.
I amended it to add some spoiler tagging, as an event mentioned in the example is after the shared universe spoiler cut-off point listed for the page.
Halogen has now changed it back, deleting the spoiler tagging again, with no discussion or edit reason.
I don't know if that's because they don't view it as a spoiler, but I don't want to unilaterally change it back. Am I ok to revert it?
Edited by Mrph1openStar Trek: Debt of Honor reversions Print Comic
Need to ask permission to partially revert a couple of changes on Star Trek: Debt of Honor, both to avoid edit-warring (I made most of the page) and because mods did them.
𝕋𝕒𝕓𝕤 deleted this example:
- Mixed Ancestry:
- As T'Cel explains, her mother, a full-blooded Romulan, was rescued from an escape pod as a child and mistaken for a Vulcan, as nobody in the Federation knew they were the same species yet. T'Cel, like Saavik, is half-Vulcan, but chose to rejoin her mother's people and embrace her Romulan half (whereas Saavik is shunned by some of T'Cel's crew for hewing to her Vulcan half).
- T'Kir is as well. However while the book openly establishes that she's of mixed race, and T'Kir is keen to learn more about her father's people, the clues as to what the other half actually is are far more subtle. It's heavily implied that she's Kirk's daughter.
I think I can use Nonhuman Humanoid Hybrid for this.
Second, Septimus Heap changed "Part of Volume 2 of the Star Trek (DC Comics) series." to "The markup is: Part of..." while removing a wick to Needs Wiki Magic Love, which is just weird wording. I want to change that to "The comic is part of..."
openWork page titles for arcs - should they include the series/franchise name? Print Comic
As I understand it, works pages should reflect the (or at least an) official title of the work in question.
In the ComicBook namespace, we have quite a few pages for arcs within a single series (or Bat Family Crossover events officially badged under a single series/character title) that only use the subtitle and not the series/character title.
So, for example -
- The Celestial Madonna Saga is an Avengers arc and the collected edition is titled Avengers: The Celestial Madonna Saga. There are no crossovers and no other titles involved in that arc.
- Days of Future Past is an X-Men story that's collected and sold as X-Men: Days of Future Past. Again, it's entirely from one series, Uncanny X-Men, not a crossover event.
- The Demon Bear Saga is a New Mutants arc and collected/sold as New Mutants: The Demon Bear Saga.
- God Loves, Man Kills... well, as you can see on the works page, the cover has X-Men as a prominent part of the title.
- Mutant Massacre is a Bat Family Crossover that covers three different X-books (plus odd issues of Thor and Daredevil, but is packaged and sold as X-Men: Mutant Massacre.
...you get the idea. I don't think there are many disambiguation concerns with the current names, if any. But we're inconsistent on this and many, many ComicBook pages have included the series title or character name as a prefix to the arc/event name.
It seems odd that we're editing down the names to remove the character/comic/franchise element when there are no character-limit issues, and when that's not the version that the publisher's officially using.
(It also increases the number of oddities in alphabetical indexes - e.g. tropers put One More Day and Go Down Swinging under S, because they know they're Spider-Man stories, but unless you're looking at the index page itself the structure and ** / *** bullets aren't visible)
So, subject to discussion on the relevant pages and elsewhere, is it worth a tidy up that attempts to move them?
(One note on this: due to the film of the same name, we'd probably need to add a year to X-Men: Days of Future Past to disambig if we do move it - but that's the exception)
Edited by Mrph1openX-Men - "Soft Serve" and Bob's Background Mutants Print Comic
An odd one -
Characters.X Men Krakoans includes three joke characters created by artist Bob Quinn (Slamazon, Soft Serve and Glowbrie). They were invented and named on his Twitter and then, when he was drawing X-comics (work-for-hire, so not creator owned), he drew them into the background of big crowd scenes - Slamazon and Glowbrie have had one panel each, Soft Serve's had two. None get dialogue or are identified in any way.
Their names and powers aren't canon or directly acknowledged by Marvel. Soft Serve, who apparently has the power to “poop ice cream” prompted an indirect reference from a writer in another X-book, mentioning a mutant girl with the power to create great ice cream, but that's it.
(I believe all of the art used on the character page is from Bob's Twitter, not the published comics. In the comics Soft Serve is practically a stick figure holding an ice cream cone who's only visible if you zoom in, for example)
So they're basically somewhere between very short fanfic and an in-joke. There Is No Such Thing as Notability, but I'm also a little wary of a page about Marvel Universe characters starting to accumulate fanon along with canon.
My instinct is to delete their character entries until/unless they actually, officially join the Marvel Universe - and to put something on the relevant Trivia pages to acknowledge Bob hiding them in crowd scenes as a joke. Does that sound appropriate?
(I think we've got a vaguely similar issue on Characters.Marvel Comics Captain Britain Corps, where some of the Captain Airstrip One tropes seem to be taken from fanfic in a 1980s UK fanzine, not from anything Marvel ever published - but the trope list makes no distinction. Still researching this one, though)
Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1openUse of [[Invoked]] tags to suppress trivia icons Print Comic
Looking at Characters.Deadpool Wade Wilson, there have been some recent changes to stop Word of God triggering the usual Trivia warning when used to support an example.
Am I right in thinking it shouldn't really be used that way on Characters / Works / Tropes pages?
(There are also indentation issues, but before I start trying to fix them, I thought I'd get a steer on this first)
From one Ship Tease example:
*** [[invoked]] WordOfGod states that the two seem very lonely, and admits that while the majority were rooting for Rogue and ComicBook/{{Gambit}}, he wanted to try something new and unexpected. Chapter 23's recap classifies Rogue and Deadpool's evening previous chapter as their first date.
That doesn't look like the usual use of 'invoked' as it's not in-universe Word of God by characters discussing a Show Within a Show, for example - but is it also permitted for suppressing the Trivia tag when fleshing out an example that doesn't solely rely on it?
My assumption is no, but...?
Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1openWonder Woman having two lassoes? Print Comic
I was reading Adaptational Badass and found this entry for Wonder Woman.
"In the comic books Wonder Woman has two lariats, the lasso of compulsion and the lasso of truth, with two different sets of powers and can't effectively use them both at the same time unless one of the Wonder Girls is there to hold the other."
Now I've read Wonder Woman Volume 3 and Volume 4 and there is no mention of this restriction. On the DC wiki page, the lasso of persuasion (not compulsion) is mentioned as belonging to Donna, but doesn't mention the restriction either.
I'm inclined to delete this example, but I have to admit that I haven't read any Volume 2 comics nor Teen Titans comics. Is there anyone knowledgable enough to point to the comics where this is mentioned?
Edited by Benbeasted
As dictated by an earlier ATT entry, appearance bars have been culled from character pages that are known to have them. I'd like to propose that instead of culling them full-stop, they get changed into collapsible appearance folders since the original issue was that they cluttered up the page as well as the fact that most other character pages seem to already have appearance folders anyway. The following is an example that's already implemented on a few pages (not by me, they were already present before this proposal)
- XXX Vol 1 #Y-WZ
- XXX Vol 1 #Z-XZZ
Post-Crisis