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)

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
2015-08-24 21:44:25

It's nattery in any case and also a case of a self demonstrating article referring to real world stuff which, while I'm not sure if it's kosher, doesn't sit right with me. Honestly, i think both versions of that note are unnecessary natter

Edited by sgamer82
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-08-24 23:45:32

Except that's NOT the "actual reason," unless this person is aware of some magical land far over the rainbow where they have blatant sexuality of any sort in their kids' shows.

Also, TV Tropes has no intention of making itself a battlefield for social justice warriors. That too.

MrL1193 Since: Apr, 2013
2015-08-24 23:47:37

I'm not familiar with the show, so I have to ask...Is this character supposed to have horrid grammar? I'm seeing all sorts of errors (such as "We used to in a relationship"), and it's enough to be distracting.

Oh, and the tone of the note doesn't sit well with me in either version, to be honest.

wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-08-24 23:50:18

^ No, she doesn't. I've only seen maybe half of the first season, but from what I've seen Princess Bubblegum is a Science Hero with impeccable grammar as would be expected of that trope. The bad grammar is all just bad tropers.

As for the note, I haven't seen enough of the show to know... is that thing about Bubblegum and Marceline being lesbians canon, or just something some fans made up? Because unless it's canon it proooooobably shouldn't be on the page at all....

EDIT: Apparently the Word of Gay for PB and Marceline is "somebody on the show said they overheard somebody else on the show possibly say this".... that sounds pretty dang tenuous to me, sort of "friend of a friend of a friend" type stuff, certainly not reliable enough that we should be plastering it all over the wiki like it's God's Own Truth.

Edited by wrm5
Rjinswand Since: Apr, 2015
2015-08-25 03:31:57

According to The Other Wiki, it went like this:

  1. An episode had some Ho Yay between the two.
  2. A third party made an episode recap, where they implied that it's canon.
  3. Later both the third party and the show's producer removed the recap, and said it's not canon: "we got wrapped up by both fan conjecture and spicy fanart and went a little too far."
  4. Even later the voice actress for one of the characters said that she heard the creator say it's canon. The reason she gave for why it wasn't explicitly stated in the show is actually the one provided in the last edit: "I don't know about the book, but in some countries where the show airs, it's sort of illegal."
So yeah, the reason provided in the edit is true, and the previous version was wrong. However, I think it's still not canon until the creator himself says it.

That said, I'd just move it into the example section since it's not exactly canon, and to avoid further natter and edit wars.

Edited by Rjinswand
emeriin Since: Jan, 2001
2015-08-25 05:06:07

Hi that was me. Like Rjinswand said, my edit reason was because of what the voice actress said (link here), and maybe it was slightly personally worded, but given other cartoons like Steven Universe showing female beings as a couples, I felt like the actual reason would be better.

Karxrida Since: May, 2012
2015-08-25 10:29:34

If Word of God Jossed it then no mention should be made, simple as that.

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2015-08-25 11:08:00

It sounds like St. Paul said that God said that they dated at some point.

Not sure where exactly that lands on the canon-scale... but it's SD anyway so I inherently don't give a rat's ass. Though is there any reason for that page to... exist? She doesn't seem to have any sort of tone or gimmick to necessitate an SD page.

Between that and the grammatical issues I really wish SD pages had to go through YKTTW.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
lexicon Since: May, 2012
2015-08-25 13:09:21

It would probably be good for self demonstrating pages to go through YKTTW. Self-Demonstrating/Marceline also talks about the lesbian relationship. Kids shows can have romantic relationships but I don't know if this is one of them.

Fighteer MOD (Time Abyss)
2015-08-25 13:52:41

This whole thing is a perfect example of why speculation about a character's sexual identity should be forbidden, or at the very least restrained to canon information.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
2015-08-25 13:52:52

Given the same guy made both Bubblegum and Marceline, and also has links to (not yet made) pages for the two main characters on the show, should we maybe... ask him to run it through YKTTW first? Because these pages are nothing more than their character sheet but in first person.

... also kinda worrisome that the Marceline page was, as originally made, nothing but shipping the two.

EDIT: Okay, he's made at least four SD pages in less than a month. None of which are particularly... notable.

Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Fighteer MOD (Time Abyss)
2015-08-25 14:00:10

Hmm. I wonder if we need a restraint on Loekman3... sent a PM in any event.

Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
wrm5 Since: Mar, 2014
2015-08-25 15:31:13

^^^ I would say it should be forbidden in most cases, but not all. YMMV is one thing, but when you have a Self-Demonstrating page that basically says "By the way, I'm totes gay (except Word of God says I'm not, but screw 'dem!)" ya know, that becomes a problem.

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010
2015-08-25 16:05:50

This whole thing sounds like yet another addition to my ever-growing list of why Self-Demonstrating pages are way more trouble than they're worth.

SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
2015-08-25 16:09:55

I am fine with having a "non-distinct styles cannot have Self Demo pages" standard for self demonstrating articles. Most of the recent ones are very lame.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Top