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)

Tabs MOD Since: Jan, 2001
2022-03-30 12:27:27

And seemed to agree that Nelly doesn't belong there because Bennings deleted Nelly alongside.

iamconstantine Since: Aug, 2014
2022-03-30 12:29:58

Should Bennings be sent a rudeness notifier? I can't tell if this is an argument or WH fans ribbing each other.

EDIT: there's also "Mr. Earnshaw," added and deleted with no mention in either edit reasons.

Edited by iamconstantine
Tabs MOD Since: Jan, 2001
2022-03-30 12:33:45

Can't hurt to, so please do. They have not used PMs, and Bennings has not received any notifiers.

Octoya Since: Jul, 2014
2022-03-30 17:14:00

For the record, the entry isn't listing awful characters, it's listing characters who are essentially good, if flawed, people. Which, I think Hareton qualifies for (albeit my understanding of the character comes from a friend who read the book.) He's apparently a jerk at first because of his intentionally damaging upbringing, but manages to improve himself and enter a loving relationship later on. Whether or not the readers agree, it seemed like the point was supposed to be that he was an essentially good person, and that Heathcliffe's attempt to raise him to be a brute like himself eventually failed for this reason.

Also, it seems like Nelly was deleted from the list specifically because of the troper's desire not to include Hareton, since the reason Hareton was included was because of the reason "If Nelly qualifies". So you could call it a "compromise," albeit rudely carried out.

Edited by Octoya
Tremmor19 (Y2: Electric Boogaloo)
2022-03-30 21:30:29

Edit— sorry

Edited by Tremmor19
CrimsonZephyr Since: Aug, 2010
2022-03-31 07:19:01

Common knowledge entries should, in my view, be structured in a way where the "common knowledge" is stated, and then examples described wherein that common knowledge is refuted. Basically, "this is what is generally believed, but here's why that's not the case." The original entry kind of lists characters, without really saying why they're examples of this trope in action, so someone jumping in with a deletion, with a somewhat combative edit reason, looks impenetrable to a neutral onlooker. Are they just tilting at air, or does the deletion have merit and they just when about it badly? It's ambiguous enough that the entire entry could probably use a more extensive re-write.

Edited by CrimsonZephyr "For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Top