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.
These type of questions belong in the "Is this an example?" thread
.
Who set those requirements, anyway? The trope page does not seem to require them.
Ultimate Secret Wars
To quote myself from the thread:
There needs to be some kind of direct connection between the two events.
Troper smasll_lordvoice added the Hilarious in Hindsight entry back to the YMMV page of Superman: Grounded, even though it had been previously agreed that this entry didn't meet the trope's requirements. This edit has no justification whatsoever, it's merely blank. What should we do?
I'm pretty sure that many comic book storylines now widely considered Dork Ages, such as Spider-Man's clone saga, were not in fact particularly financially unsuccessful at the time. (Wasn't a lot of the problem with the clone saga was it getting artificially dragged out because it was a money-maker?)
Edited by nrjxll
Many entries in the Dork Age article seem to be written just to express annoyance for annoyance's sake. Seriously, someone once wrote Brian Michael Bendis' Superman before that story had just started publication. Some tropers told me to remove the Dork Age entry because it lacked context.
By the way, what should we do about the Hilarious in Hindsight problem?
The Hilarious in Hindsight example should be cut.
the Hilarious in Hindsight entry is invalid because the random death of a person is not enough to make it worthwhile as an example, besides that the case of Fidel Castro and Gaddafi would enter in Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment territory
Edited by RicardoRenegado
^I agree that applying the In Hindsight Audience Reactions to real life politics is probably a bad idea even when there isn't coincidence-related shoehorning involved.
I'm not sure if WhirlRX's post in the "Is this an example?" thread was referring to deaths or politics being called hilarious when saying calling the subject hilarious is bad, but I do think that calling the deaths of real people hilarious probably also falls under the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.
Edited by GastonRabbit Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
It should be noted that ~smasll_lordvoice is Edit Warring, given they added the original Hilarious in Hindsight entry in the first place.
So we have add by smasll_lordvoice, delete by MasterHero, re-add by smasll_lordvoice
So, are we in agreement? Should I delete the Hilarious in Hindsight entry?
Yes, the entry can be deleted since it is not valid.
It only remains to send a direct message to smasll_lordvoice.
There we go. I deleted it.
I want to verify if these tropes on the YMMV page of Superman: Grounded are being used properly.
Dork Age requires that a) the story arc is a critical and financial failure, b) any changes it brings to the Superman saga are undone by later installments and c) whenever it's referenced by other entries, it's done in a negative manner.
Hilarious in Hindsight is more than just the comic book predicting a future event. Superman #701, the issue that features that conversation, was released on July 2010, so I don't know if it really qualifies.
What do you think?