TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

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:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

laserviking42 Since: Oct, 2015
2021-09-30 15:10:49

It's still an edit war, I've seen years between reverts, so they are still edit warring.

Also from that discussion page, Tdwalls states:

Further, I will be deleting your attempt to overwrite my interpretation of her deceits with your own, less critical interpretation.

Sounds like they will continue to edit war over this.

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
NubianSatyress Since: Mar, 2016
2021-09-30 15:37:09

Yeah Tdwalls is editing with a clear anti-Rhea bias. Nothing in the actual game suggests that Rhea ever intended Byleth to be stillborn, and combined with the rest of the entry describing Rhea in the least-flattering language possible, I think it's safe to say that there's a personal agenda there. And the rest of their argument is mostly Speculative Troping based on insufficient information.

The deletion, IMO, was justified.

gjjones Since: Jul, 2016
2021-09-30 15:46:10

I agree that the deletion was justified.

He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.
dragonfire5000 Since: Jan, 2001
2021-09-30 16:45:25

We have someone on the Three Houses forum asking if it's alright to delete the entry again since the original deletion seems to be justified and approved of.

While I agree with the others here that the deletion was justified, I'm concerned that Tdwalls will likely continue to edit war, as laserviking42 has pointed out.

"I squirm, I struggle, ergo I am. Faced with death, I am finally, truly alive."
gjjones Since: Jul, 2016
2021-09-30 16:51:15

Maybe we can summon Tdwalls to this ATT query?

Edited by gjjones He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.
laserviking42 Since: Oct, 2015
2021-09-30 17:04:06

^ You can try certainly, but judging by the confrontational edit reasons and discussion posts, it doesn't seem like they are willing to calmly discuss the edit. They claim that "no reason was given" for the deletion when the actual discussion was linked in the edit reason. That's not good faith editing IMO.

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-09-30 22:50:24

I've gone and removed the entry since it was initially removed as part of a large consensus, leaving a link in the edit reason pointing here. If tdwalls wants to talk maybe we can resolve this without needing to ask the mods to get involved.

EDIT: Out of interest I checked their edit history and they made a big edit to Rhea's character tropes on Aug 20th 2021 at 9:04:53 AM, including Anti-Villain, Hypocrite, Self-Serving Memory, and Unreliable Expositor, and no edit reason. Those entries had been previously deleted. Looks like we do have someone with bias. There is a discussion page on the matter and this instance they weren't edit warring, but they did respond to Vampire Buddha offering up an explanation as to why certain tropes with "you're wrong I'm putting them back", rather than engaging in a discussion, building consensus and then putting them back.

Edited by Shaoken
BoltDMC Since: May, 2020
2021-10-03 12:37:06

Bump. Not sure if this has been resolved.

dragonfire5000 Since: Jan, 2001
2021-10-03 19:53:15

The original query I brought up seems to be resolved for the moment, assuming Tdwalls doesn't resume edit-warring. The concerning deletions brought up by Shaoken, on the other hand, I'm not sure has been resolved.

It's also another example of Tdwalls not understanding that the wiki operates by consensus.

"I squirm, I struggle, ergo I am. Faced with death, I am finally, truly alive."
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-10-05 01:36:12

It might be worth sending him a message to ensure he gets the message.

BoltDMC Since: May, 2020
2021-10-06 05:15:46

Bump. Not sure if this has been resolved.

Tdwalls Since: Sep, 2012
2021-11-20 16:38:54

I take severe exception to the contents of this thread.

Vampire Buddha's edits on the main Church page had nothing resembling consensus. They simply made a large scale edit to the page and posted their reasons why to the discussion thread. That is exactly what I did and you'll note the very next post in said thread agrees with my changes. If one is an objectionable unilateral edit, then so is the other and both entries should be reversed.

As for the alternative character interpretation, no reason was or for that matter has been provided for why it's been deleted. Vampire Buddha simply posted what they wanted the final page to be, got two people to say yeah sure and proceed to delete a number of entries with no discussion of those actual entries. Or, for that matter, even a reason as to why the edit was made at all. And given the accusation I have some sort of Anti-Rhea agenda (whatever that is) I can't help but suspect that the reason for this deletion is that it said something bad about Rhea. That seems like a really petty reason, though seen through that context Vampire Buddha's edit to the Church page does delete a number of negative tropes from Rhea's folder with what I've explained were flawed reasons, so I can't dismiss the idea out of hand.

The fact that this is all taking place on a YMMV page makes this seem absurd. The page exists to be where we record interpretations of a character that differ from the norm. These are, as opinions, inherently subjective. Saying "I found one other person to agree with me therefore your opinion is wrong" strikes me as the opposite of operating by consensus. Why was there no discussion on whether these entries should be deleted? I must again stress that even now no reason as to why these entries (including all the other alternative interpretations Vampire Buddha deleted) should be removed has been provided in any way, shape, or form. The page was not excessively long, nor were the interpretations factually untrue so why the initial edit occurred at all eludes me.

As for the interpretation itself, Rhea has a well established character trait of lying to make herself look better and tells a story that, while fitting within the facts we know, paints herself in the best possible light while several characters in-universe express that they doubt she's being truthful. How the idea that she's not being truthful rates as Speculative Troping I'm not entirely sure.

Edited by Tdwalls
MichaelKatsuro Since: Apr, 2011
2021-11-20 17:43:46

Why was there no discussion on whether these entries should be deleted?
But there was one, on the linked page, though, right? HERE, right?

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-11-21 02:25:08

@tdwalls

Per the above link three additional tropers agree with Vampire Buddha's proposal, and after you re-added it without discussion three further tropers opposed your change.

I must again stress that even now no reason as to why these entries (including all the other alternative interpretations Vampire Buddha deleted) should be removed has been provided in any way, shape, or form.

There was a reason provided right there in the edit reason by Vampire Buddha:

Cutting out wordcruft, natter, giant blocks of spoiler text, and epileptic trees. Changes have approval

These discussions were even linked here in this thread several times.

Tdwalls Since: Sep, 2012
2021-12-08 12:55:51

We have very different definitions of discussion if you think going to a generic Three Houses thread, not the actual ACI discussion page and getting a couple people to agree to a proposed change with no comments on what is being deleted or why beyond a token reason of "these are bad entries" constitutes a discussion. Even now in the links you have provided there is still not anything resembling a reason as to why have have been deleted. And no, saying "but we decided to delete it" is not a reason by itself. If that decision was prefaced with "here's why the entries should be removed and that's why we decided to get rid of them" then fine, but that does not appear to have occurred at all.

As it stands, the closest we get to an actual discussion on why this entry should be deleted is one troper explaining their reasons for why they disagree with the interpretation. And that is in no way a reason to delete an entry for a trope that is, by definition, subjective.

BoltDMC Since: May, 2020
2021-12-08 15:25:11

Actually, forum threads such as the one cited by Michael Katsuro and elaborated on by Shaoken are indeed how things get decided on TV Tropes. And it looks like this was decided back then. If you don't agree, you don't just force the entry back in — that's edit warring and can draw a suspension. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

AegisP Since: Oct, 2014
2021-12-08 16:14:14

You know Tdwalls, you COULD always come to the thread and participate. Make your voice heard properly.

Edited by AegisP As long as this flower is in my heart. My Strength will flow without end.
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
2021-12-09 01:11:08

This wiki operates by consensus of it's members, which includes the threads. Every short and long term project is also run through threads rather than discussion pages. Trying to argue that discussions don't count if they're in the forums falls flat given the existence of the short and long term project forums as well as the trope talk forum, image picking forum, wiki talk forum etc.

GastonRabbit MOD (General of TV Troops)
2021-12-09 05:52:44

They've been suspended for edit warring. Sorry for the delay. A different mod already left a note on their account, but didn't issue any suspensions.

Edited by GastonRabbit I got a rock for Halloween.
Top