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.
Bump. Will make the changes on the 9th per Three-Day Rule unless I hear anything.
1. Three day rule is for crowners. 2. Lack of discussion does not equal consensus. 3. If you're not cleaning up a rule violating, reverting would still be editwarring.
For the sake of starting the discussion:
- This wouldn't be an example of Audience-Alienating Ending with a wording like that. Either the ending has to be removed or the example to be split into two and go with separate tropes.
- If true, then yeah the new edit effectively changed the example into the opposite, which makes it a problem.
- I'm not quite sure where's the issue, it sounds just as, if not more, objective than before.
Thanks for clarifying that about Three Day Rule. As for the entries in question:
- It already lists Audience-Alienating Ending separately. So should it be removed from the Overshadowed entry?
- Is that permission to remove the Continuity Lock-Out entry if it's misused as the opposite?
- How is Paul's UU entry more objective? My impression was it removing that his actions were oft as bad as the works villains and how his redemption came out of nowhere made it less objective by removing objective reasons? Should I take this to UU cleanup?

There are several entries I made that were modified in ways that I think have issues. Want to check if it's edit warring or not to modify as opposed to reverting entries, and to run them by here first.
Was changed to:
Uncertain Audience:
Was changed to:
Pokémon:
Was changed to:
Permission to make my proposed modifications?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught