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.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

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

9th Apr, 2019 07:20:29 PM

These type of questions belong in the "Is this an example?" thread.

10th Apr, 2019 05:32:10 AM

Who set those requirements, anyway? The trope page does not seem to require them.

10th Apr, 2019 07:03:08 AM

To quote myself from the thread:

As I've said frequently, and have yet to be corrected on, the in Hindsight tropes require more than "this thing happened (guys were alive when this remark was made) then this other thing happened (guys are now dead)"

There needs to be some kind of direct connection between the two events.

19th Apr, 2019 01:21:26 PM

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?

19th Apr, 2019 03:43:58 PM

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
19th Apr, 2019 06:17:45 PM

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?

19th Apr, 2019 07:45:38 PM

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
19th Apr, 2019 08:39:07 PM

^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
20th Apr, 2019 09:01:51 AM

So, are we in agreement? Should I delete the Hilarious in Hindsight entry?

21st Apr, 2019 12:10:40 PM

Yes, the entry can be deleted since it is not valid.

It only remains to send a direct message to smasll_lordvoice.

22nd Apr, 2019 08:58:12 PM

There we go. I deleted it.


How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: