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.
Hi.
Although your entry does not fall into Natter territory, falls into an error that in retrospect also made the other entry that deleted in the other article, a counter argument to one side of the divided fan base (in this case Wallflower Blush),
Common Knowledge is for displaying common errors in the fanbase in general, not for counterarguing in divisions, since these are fandom divisions, not fandom errors.
I don't understand who "they" is meant to be here. Is the writer using both "she" pronouns and "they" pronouns about one person?
The criticism is mistaken anyway; the story never implied Wallflower used the Stone since third grade, it's a misinterpretation. She's just always been a Forgettable Character.
And why would she have used it in her introduction? That's trying to flanderize the character beyond what the actual story is showing.
All in all, I seriously doubt it is a "common criticism" since it's so easily debunked, more of a dumb nitpick or headscratcher. Common Knowledge certainly doesn't fit here, removing it for "misuse" was the right move.
Edited by StFanMy impression was it being incorrect as to be "so easily debunked" was what made it this trope. I seem to be missunderstaning something.
Here’s the Common Knowledge example that led me to assume this trope was common but untrue knowledge.
- One fandom rumor surrounding the Ultra Beasts spread like wildfire just after the games were leaked online, namely that the Ultra Beasts had destroyed multiple universes (including alternate universes that Gens I-V were set in, as alluded by Zinnia during the Delta Episode). Many take this as fact in order to play up the horror factor of the Ultra Beasts, and even many tropers on this wiki took the information to be true (it did not help that this theory had the most followers during the post-leak period, when few people would even have the game due to risks associated with hacking, as well as during the early weeks of the games' release, when few people would have reached that point of the game). Within the games themselves, these rumours are only vaguely implied, and while the Ultra Beasts are said to be very dangerous they are not anywhere near the level the rumor stated. The closest thing to them attacking other universes is one of Anabel's (who is strongly suggested to be from the original games' universe) vague memories of defending Battle Tower against a threat before she fell through a Wormhole. Even if the Ultra Beasts were the threat in question, attacking the Battle Tower (and by extension, the Battle Frontier) is a far cry from being capable of destroying an entire universe.
Is this a valid example unlike Forgotten Freindship because:
- It explains how the misinformation became widespread.
- The objective wrongness transcends any Broken Base over the issue. (BB means it’s not widespread enough to be common.)
I see your point. In this case, I can't tell just how widespread this misinterpretation is. Personally, it's the first time I hear about it.
Some more Common Knowledge examples I question:
- Another wildly believed 'fact' is that Guzma failed his island challenge. The only thing that has ever been confirmed in-game is that he failed to become a trial captain. But the fact that he was apparently considered for the position at some point would imply that he did in fact clear them. After all, no one would expect someone to teach a class they failed.
- Contrary to what some players believe, Professor Kukui is not the champion. The player character is, and Kukui's battle is merely a formality to establish that fact.
- On the competitive side, it was rumored that the ability Unaware, which enables the wielder to ignore the opponent's stat boosts, was Nerfed, typically by also negating the user's own stat changes. This rumor most likely spawned after it was discovered that Talonflame and Gengar, two powerful OU threats, were nerfed through their abilitiesnote , and that Clefable, another threat who carried Unaware, was assumed to be getting the same treatment.
The last one seems more like Jossed if pre-release speculation. The other two I'm not sure how they are examples if my Forgotten Friendship one isn't.
- Prior to the premiere of episode 2 of season 4, "Princess Twilight Sparkle - Part 2," it was also common for fans to assume that the fight between Princess Celestia and Nightmare Moon was intended to be understood as this long, drawn out civil war between different factions respectively loyal to each alicorn, with some fans complaining about that the episode "ignored canon." However, the first episode of the series never once implies that there was any outright war (let alone that anyone took Nightmare Moon's side), merely that Celestia and Nightmare Moon fought each other.
A Fan-Disliked Explanation , but this is the first I heard complains of "ignoring canon" so is it really widespread? How do we define widespread? And how do we distinguish Fanon from Common Knowledge?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught
RicardoRenegado removed this which I added to My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Forgotten Friendship awhile back simply citing "misuse".
They deleted another Common Knowledge example for misuse here. I understood and agreed with that removal as it was about fans making unfair comparisons as opposed to objectively incorrect facts. But I think my "Forgotten Friendship" example was an example of incorrect facts as it's about how the criticism is an assumption that conflicts with the evidence.
Thought's about this? What is the line for objectively incorrect facts? I have some Common Knowledge and related examples I intended to add. Should I run them by this first?