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 is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openNo Title
Wanted to ask before i removed a bunch of tropes at once: i was gonna clean up some of the character pages on survivor, and I'm wondering what is the official policy on tropes that can apply to reality tv contestants? They're technically real people, but they're edited to tell a story, so it makes sense to treat them as characters. Still, I'm pretty suspect about the use of tropes like Nice Character, Mean Actor and Expy
openShould it be mentioned that Mermaid Man is an Aquaman-design parody? Western Animation
This is something I've been wondering about the SpongeBob SquarePants: Recurring Characters page.
Someone erased the Expy wicks for Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy's entries, which list them as parodies of Aquaman and Aqualad. I understand why this edit was made as the person who erased it gave a solid reason why it doesn't belong in the Expy category (saying they're parodies of superhero tropes in general), but I still feel like Aquaman should be mentioned for design influence at least. Maybe as a Shout-Out instead?
I don't want to get into an edit war, so I think it would be best to discuss how it could be added back in, or even if it should be done in the first place.
openExpy misuse Western Animation
Over on Characters.Amphibia Main Characters, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Tropers/JoJoker
placed this entry:
- Expy: Of the Chaos Emeralds. While there are three gems instead of seven, they still have similar properties: They are capable of inter dimensional travel, can empower people with forms that cause hair to change color and stand upright, be used to power machines, their power can be depleted, but can be restored at temples, are sought out by the heroes and villains, and were abused by an ancient civilization.
openDrama importing/Edit warring Videogame
User Father Brown (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Tropers/FatherBrown
) is edit warring on the tropes page for a Fire Emblem Fanfic (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/TheEmperorAndTheGoddess
).
History page here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Fanfic.TheEmperorAndTheGoddess
Essentially, they're misusing the Expy example to slag the story. The aggressive wording displays their lack of good faith.
Much of the complaints listed are straight from a tumblr community dedicated to hating on the author of the fanfic (the fandom discourse is a MESS, but essentially Edelgard's a pretty divisive character and the person who wrote the fanfic is known for posting analysis pages on her character and catching extreme vitriol, including death threats, from the character's detactors for it), so this smacks of drama importing to me.
Edited by RaxisopenExpy/Suspiciously Similar Substitute keeps being re-added.
Ordeaux26 re-added this to Characters.My Little Pony A New Generation:
- Suspiciously Similar Substitute: They all share similarities to the Mane 6 of Friendship is Magic.
- Sunny Starscout - to Twilight Sparkle. Being the main characters, idealistic, seeking knowledge through books, and both became alicorns.
- Izzy Moonbow - to Pinkie Pie. Both are highly excitable and hyper. They also came from settings that are complete opposite of their personalities.
- Hitch Trailblazer - a Composite Character to Applejack and Fluttershy. Like Applejack, he is a strong hardworking earth pony who takes his job seriously. Like Fluttershy, he has an innate ability to attract cute critters to him for some reason.
- Pipp Petals - to Rarity. Both are focused on appearances and into the latest trends (Rarity for fashion trends and Pipp for social media trends).
- Zipp Storm - to Rainbow Dash. Both are Pegasus ponies and are tomboys.
ATT
determined Suspiciously Similar Substitute does not apply as while similar to the Mane 6 they are too different to be the 1-to-1 replacements this trope is about. (Hitch resembling two character disqualifies them as that means they're too different to substitute for one.) They added it back citing "This wasn't moved to the more fitting trope despite the ATT threat saying it was." The ATT tried to find more fitting trope but the closest was Contrasting Sequel Main Character which we've added to those applicable.
Should it be re-cut as misuse? Any ideas for something broadly similar character archetypes can go under? Should a note saying Expy (resembling those from different series/continuities) and SSS have been deemed not to apply be added as this is at least the fourth time they've been added?
openAre there enough examples for an Elon Musk(/Other tech bro billionaires) expy trope?
A specific trope for No Celebrities Were Hurt of Elon Musk. Of the top of my head I can think of Ted Faro from Horizon Zero Dawn and Eel Musk from Dimension 20: Mice & Murder, though I know there are more, I just have a poor memory.
I also feel like this trope could be extremely controversial if we were to make it, considering how half the internet think Elon is the second coming of christ while the other half thinks he's... Well, Ted Faro.
openThe Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild headscratchers page Videogame
I found this absolute wall of text on Headscratchers.The Legend Of Zelda Breath Of The Wild. Placed in a folder because it's long:
- I haven't found what's supposed to claim this but I see talk of how Zelda's father, who is explicitly mentioned to have the title of "King", isn't of Hylia's bloodline. As Hylia's incarnation is always Princess Zelda that would indicate that her kin should be the side of the family with the literal divine right of kings. So unless there's something important here I'm missing how in the world did Zelda's mother, who was of Hylia's blood which was why losing her was so crippling to this incarnation of Zelda and assumedly the naturally born crown princess/Queen of Hyrule, get outranked by some schmuck she married and who does this glorified Prince Consort think he is to declare himself King while acting as Zelda's regent until she comes of age to rule on her own? "King" as a title can't belong to anyone not of the direct ruling bloodline after all, as in a Kingdom it outranks its sister title of "Queen", since consorts/spouses aren't permitted to have titles higher than the actual ruler's. On a similar note if being protected by a religiously powered matriarch is so fundamental to Hyrule in the first place (And as the local deities of worship that can be confirmed to exist are almost all female) why is it a Kingdom instead of a Queendom in the first place?
- You're looking way too far into this. The simplified way that the royalty in this game works is the same one that has been portrayed not just in other Zelda games, but across most realms of media and fiction in general - the idea of Prince-consorts as opposed to true kingship seems almost strictly limited to the real world. And that's even if the thing about Rhoam being from outside the line is true.
- Original poster here: This is the headscratchers page, no need to be so rudely dismissive about answering since this is where fridge logic is meant to be put and nothing is considered "too far" as long as you can see how the question came up. Why comment if you aren't actually addressing the question being posed in the first place for that matter and instead just attacking someone for asking it? Most other Zelda games just plain don't talk about the royal family beyond Zelda herself so there's no need to question if her father has the right to be called king, as their competence isn't in question and neither is her own (Unlike here where her father outright tells her that her people think she's the "Heir to Nothing" like an abusive asshole and encourages the only heir to the throne to act more like a priestess than a studious princess) so the fact this game did want to go into royal politics for a change doesn't make me out of line. And just because mainstream media doesn't like to do it's research most works that do want to make royal politics a major plot point, like Zelda tried here, do go into this sort of thing plenty often. Only part I'd grant would be "too deep" is the notion of a patriarchy existing in a world where the major religious and cultural foundations are primarily presented as female-focused with confirmable magical existences, and that contradiction has always been a part of the game's setting. And as I said in the first line I don't know if it's true so the least you could have done was find what could confirm or deny it, as obviously that's my main concern here.
- First of all, let me apologize for coming off as rude, since that wasn't my intention. It just seemed like you were getting a bit too...upset, if I may, about something that's been a common part of royalty's portrayal throughout most of popular culture. Having nearly completed the main story and collected all of the memories, I've yet to come across anything indicating that King Rhoam was from outside the line, but even if he was, what I meant with my earlier response was that, in the game's universe, he would probably still be considered a genuine "king", as opposed to prince-consort, because that's how it typically works in fiction. So his line to Zelda about her inheritance probably wouldn't be seen as that level of disrespectful, in-universe - I didn't want you to get that worked up about it, and I'm sorry if it came out wrong.
- OP again: Alright, it just rubbed me wrong that it didn't seem like any other questions got that sort of treatment without any meaningful expansion/explanation on anything added to it even though this one isn't the only one with parts that can be difficult to check by the nature of the game, like the timeline debates, or one based on honest confusion. But with monarchies hardly being a fictional concept as Great Britian's royal family is easily one of the most well known existing monarchies to date (regardless of how vital it is for their current system of government) and seeing it used as an excuse for sexism's a Pet Peeve trope of mine as well... you'd figure people should know or at least infer by now as despite easily being the world's best known monarchy it openly has no King at present and hasn't in ages (with the Queen's husband indeed only ever having the title of "Prince") that not all Kingdoms need a King to function you know? Though his telling his daughter to her face that the people she knows should be looking to her for future guidance have no faith in her like that in such brutal phrasing was still an awful parenting move on his part considering it couldn't help her with anything and just further hurt her self esteem all because she tried to act like princess in her situation should.
- For all we know, both of Zelda's parents might be descended from Hylia's line. An awful lot of time has passed since the Skyward Sword era, and unless the line of Hyrule enforces a strictly one-child-per-generation rule, it's bound to have branched out countless times. Rhoam may be the de-facto king, and married to a member of a cadet branch. Apparently being a woman is a requirement for the powers of the blood of Hylia to fully manifest, so only his wife was taught the procedures.
- I can find no mention that he isn't a descendant. I think we can assume, as with European nobility, a lot of inbreeding was happening. The King probably married a distant cousin who happened to be a priestess. This sort of thing happened all the time to keep blood-lines "pure", and that's before we add in descended from Gods into the mix to have some sort of actual reason to do it. Of course this then raises further questions; if there is a large body of nobility all tangentially related to each other then losing Zelda's mother shouldn't have been the death blow to her teachings the King and Zelda believe it to be.
- Because she's smart enough to know that ruling the kingdom is nothing like sitting on the throne and ordering minions around while gloating in their ego on their high title; The Good King or Queen takes care of their people and make their place safe. After all, she holds the Triforce of Wisdom. So she brushed all her responsibilities as a ruler to her husband even though it means he'll get the glory and status in the process.
- Issue with that would be that the title of "King" couldn't be given to him under any circumstances barring him overthrowing his wife if she was the by blood rights ruling party because that's not how royal titles work period and it is factually wrong to depict them as such and was the core point of my initial complaint/confusion. In order to be King, Rhoam would have to have more royal blood than the Queen does in the first place, so you missed the point about how having the title "King" over "Prince" or "Regent" isn't possible if she was the primary and acknowledged descendant of Hylia instead of him, which is why the focus of most attempts to make sense of this are instead focusing on looking into where his blood right is called into question. Also with the implications that holding the Triforce of Wisdom wouldn't obviously make her best qualified for and the one who would be actually preforming the duties you are at the same time suggesting she delegates away to the man who would still be required to have a lower title than her own by basic law and common sense sounds incredibly confusing at best and overtly sexist at worst as why wouldn't she want her subjects to know who exactly in HER country deserved their respect exactly and by whos authority they lived under?
- One thing I'd like to note is that Rhoam very closely resembles Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule from The Wind Waker (who, by the way, also seemed to possess mystical, divine powers - did anything every say that Hylia's powers only went to the females?), as well as various other Hyrulean kings across the series, just with a longer beard and hair and a pointier nose. The resemblance suggests that they're related through more than just marriage.
- As a common thread seems to be that whatever helped make the idea that Rhoam wasn't Hylia's descendant seems to have been a rumor more than an actual in game claim or a particularly hard to find diary entry so thanks everybody for helping clear that up! Being a Daphnes Expy does make him being at least one of Wind Waker Zelda's descendants does seem very likely (or something similar if this can't connect with that timeline at all) instead of Nintendo just dropping the ball where their research or world building was concerned and falling into harmful/sexist traps regarding royal politics just when they decided to try and go that extra mile for this series. At the very least Zelda's lack of spiritual connection could easily be attributed to just taking after him too much as, even though him being a guy made it a less important issue, he certainly seems less attuned with his bloodline's magic or their piece of the Triforce than Daphnes was and provide a reason for how if her mother was less "pure"/directly connected to Hylia she was supposed to have been in charge of this area of Zelda's teachings.
- As I understand your remarks, you've basically made three distinct arguments: (1) A man cannot become a king by marrying a queen; (2) A king always outranks a queen; and (3) All monarchies operate according to uniform rules of heredity. All three are historically false. Argument (1) is false because there exist two different ways of becoming king by marrying a queen: the king jure uxoris ("by right of [his] wife"), who becomes king in fact as well as name by marrying an heiress or a queen regnant; although these men did not wholly displace their wives, they did acquire the right to rule on their wives' behalves by what English law would later call coverture, the woman's property being automatically administered by her husband. There are a number of examples of kings jure uxoris in the Medieval period: Fulk, Count of Anjou, as king of Jerusalem via Melisende, daughter and heiress of King Baldwin II; Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat, and Aimery, King of Cyprus, as kings of Jerusalem via Queen Isabella I; John of Brienne (later emperor of Constantinople) as king of Jerusalem via Queen Mary (Isabella I's daughter by Conrad); Emperor Frederick II as king of Jerusalem via Queen Isabella II (Mary I's daughter by John); Philip IV, King of France, as King Philip I of Navarre via Queen Joan I; Emperor Sigismund as king of Hungary via Queen Mary; and Albert V, Duke of Austria, as king of Hungary via Elizabeth of Luxemburg, daughter and heiress of Emperor Sigismund. Kingship jure uxoris more or less died out by the time of the Renaissance and the Early Modern Period. Around this time we see the rise of the king consort, as women were accepted as queens regnant suo jure; their husbands might be granted the title of king. The existence of the king consort simultaneously demonstrates that both arguments (1) and (2) are false. Examples of kings consort include Philip IV of Burgundy as King Philip I of Castile via Queen Juana I; Philip of Spain, King of Naples (later Philip II of Spain), as king of England via Queen Mary I (Philip's father, Emperor Charles V, had donated his kingship of Naples to Philip in 1554 as a wedding gift, so that the Spanish prince would be equal in rank to his fiancée, Queen Mary, at the time of their wedding); Francis II of France as king of Scots via Queen Mary; Henry Stuart, Lord Dudley, as king of Scots via the same Queen Mary; Infante Pedro of Portugal as King Peter III of Portugal via Queen Mary I; Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry as King Ferdinand II of Portugal via Queen Mary II; and Francisco, Duque de Cádiz, as king of Spain via Queen Isabella II. There are also a handful of cases in which a queen regnant shared her authority with her husband as co-ruler without being legally displaced by him, such as Prince Louis of Taranto as king of Naples via Queen Joanna I; Philip, Count of Évreaux, as King Philip III of Navarre via Queen Joan II; Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania, as King Władysław II of Poland via Queen Jadwiga; Ferdinand II of Aragon as King Ferdinand V of Castile via Queen Isabella I; and William III, Prince of Orange, as King William III of England via Queen Mary II. Władysław and William continued to reign after their wives died. Argument (3) is false because each monarchy operates on its own individual rules. In England (and by extension, the modern UK), male-preference primogeniture meant that a female could inherit the crown if there was no male with a superior claim (e.g., Mary I, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II), and also that the line of succession can pass through a female dynast (e.g., the current Prince of Wales and his sons). In France, however, the legal fiction of Salic law forbade a woman from inheriting the crown and also forbade the line of succession from passing through female dynasts (i.e., if a king's daughter had a son, he would have no rights of succession through his mother). In the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary, the crown became elective (although in many cases, election was merely a formality). In Wallachia, any male with royal blood was eligible to succeed, even if he were illegitimate. In the Ottoman Empire, any male of the dynasty could become sultan through a rather vague process of dynastic consensus, resulting in uncles succeeding their nephews on occasion. Furthermore, all of these rules operated only so long as it was advantageous to the most influential and most powerful that they operate. When these rules were inconvenient, people could and did flout them. The Norman Invasion (1066), the Anarchy (1135-1154), the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453), the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), the War of the Castilian Succession (1475-1479), the War of the Burgundian Succession (1477-1482), the War of the Portuguese Succession (1580-1583), the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1715), the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), the '45 Rebellion (1745), the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778-1779), and the Carlist Wars (1833-1840, 1846-1849, 1872-1876) — to name only a few prominent examples — were all results of disputes over succession.This is to say nothing of civil wars or usurpations of monarchs already ruling. Of course, all of this is moot because (A) there is no evidence whatsoever that King Rhoam Bosphoramus Hyrule is not king suo jure, and (B) we know very little about how the House of Hyrule determines succession. As far as point (A) is concerned, Rhoam bears a physical resemblance to the King of Hyrule (AL), the King of Hyrule (LP), King Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule (WW), King Daltus and King Gustaf (MC), and the deuterocanonical King Harkinian (LZ animated series and comic series, but less so his appearances in FE and WG), and, like Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, appears to use Hyrule as a cognomen or surname. All of this circumstantially suggests that he should be interpreted as exactly what he appears to be. With respect to point (B), we know only that the royal family apparently practices male-preference primogeniture during the Golden Age in the Downfall timeline (the Prince of Hyrule and the Princess Zelda in AL), and that it is possible for a princess to be "queen-in-waiting" (TP trading cards and Prima guides). Presumably this means she is the legal ruler in reginam promovenda, pending some the completion of some ceremony or other condition before coronation as queen, and we further assume that this is the case of other princesses whom we might otherwise expect to have acceded as queens (the Princess Zelda in the Adult era of OT, Tetra in WW and PH, the Princess Zelda in ST, and the Princess Zelda in BW, although it is also possible that some of these princesses could be regents pending the arrival of another dynast with a superior claim to succession). We simply don't know how the crown is passed, and there's certainly no reason to assume that the English rules of succession apply.
- The short version of the above is: "Yes, a man can become a king by marrying a queen. No, this does not automatically mean he rules instead of her. No, there's no reason to assume that King Rhoam shouldn't be king."
- The issues with the above come from saying we have no reason to assume Rhoam isn't the by-blood king when we really do, which is what lead to the king debate. If he married into the royal family taking his wife's surname in a case like this would most likely be the expected practice, so his name doesn't seem to prove much of anything here. Looking like kings of the past could also be just as indicative of him coming from one of the supposed side families as he is lacking in the royal family's ability to use Hylia's magic which seems a lot more important for this than appearances. Hylia's bloodline being central to why "Princess Zelda" is always a princess (As opposed to just having the prophecy say a descendant of Hylia is needed to seal Ganon) seems to indicate their connection to this Goddess is why they are the ruling family, a lot like the legends about the Japanese ruling family being descendant of the Goddess Amaterasu in a variation of the divine right of kings, so it seems like decent reasoning to assume he's more likely to have married into the family than his wife did. Had Hylia's power come from a "side family" it seems odd he wouldn't have had any other alternatives for Zelda's teacher after the Queen died, as mentioned above, when if the power was kept within the direct royal family this element of the story makes more sense. Also it's unclear if Hylia's power really is gender locked since no other goddesses power in this series seems to be restricted in this way, as two of the three holders of the Golden Goddesses' triforce are male, and since Wind Waker's king was adept at least at general magic, given how he animated the King of Red Lions and created the Pirate's Charm, Rhoam completely lacking in this area sticks out more as an oddity.
- In point of fact, no, we really don't have any reason to assume that Rhoam is not king suo jure. There is no evidence saying this. There is no reason to assume this. Your suggestion that he might have adopted his wife's name — which has no precedent in history that I am aware of (the closest being the examples of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, neither of which support your argument) — is both begging the question and a violation of Ockham's razor. There is no reason to assume that his surname "Hyrule" means anything other than his dynastic kingship of Hyrule, so you are positing complexity without need in order to explain why he has it. Your talk about his apparent lack of magic powers is irrelevant; of the eight kings of Hyrule we know of (Harkinian, AL, LP, OT, Daphnes, Daltus, Gustaf, and Rhoam), precisely one of them (Daphnes) has displayed magical abilities without use of the Triforce — and there is absolutely no indication that his magic has anything to do with Hylia, given that it is possible for Hyrulians to learn magic via study (AL) or to use it via talismans (LP, OT) — , so there is no reason to believe that magic has any strong correlation to Hylian kingship. If anything, the ability to use magic makes Daphnes the odd man out.
- I would also like to point out that Hyrule was both founded by a woman and named after a goddess. It's very likely that despite being called a 'kingdom', it is very likely that queens were the higher ranking royalty, especially considering that only women could inherit Hylia's power.
- You mean they used the wrong word and use of "kingdom" has become a case of The Artifact as the series has gone on? Since there is already a word for this concept in English, as pointed out in the question that led to this. A queendom would be a realm controlled by a queen first and foremost, much the same way kingdoms are for kings which is why ruling queens in a kingdom are technically considered "queen regent" when "regent" is a title for someone serving in the place of the "proper" ruling party.
- You're mistaken. A ruling queen in a kingdom is called a "queen regnant," to make clear that she is reigning in her own right and is not a queen consort, a woman who has the title of queen because she is married to a king; it is possible for one woman to be both a queen regnant and a queen consort (e.g., Isabella the Catholic, Mary of England, Maria Theresia). "Queen regent" refers either to a queen consort who exercises royal authority in a kingdom on behalf of her husband the king (who is absent or incapacitated) or to a queen dowager (wife of a previous king who is now dead) who exercises royal authority in a kingdom on behalf of her son the king or her daughter the queen regnant (who is absent, incapacitated, or has not reached his or her majority).
- Is it really that hard to believe that a fictional kingdom just has a different hierarchy/titles/rules for succession? There's never been much but practically everything we've ever heard about the Hylian royal court across all games doesn't jive with historical monarchies. At this point it's more ridiculous to try and shoehorn the Hyrule family into our understanding of real-world royalty than it is to just start theorizing how their monarchy works from scratch.
- That's what I was going to say, but I'm gonna rehash anyway. First of all it's not like this is the first time we've had a Hylian King; Daphnes from WW and OoT's King, for instance, and there's no evidence for or against them being of Hylia's blood. Secondly, as the above says, it's a fictional world and applying real world conventions to it without any proof of it is kind of silly. Hyrule could easily be a "a Prince/Princess has to get married and they become King and Queen" sort of Kingdom. TBH I didn't even read all of the real world examples and arguments because bottom line... this is not the real world. There are flying tree people, giant bird people, giant fish people, ROCK people, flying dragons, and that's not even getting into monsters and Gods and such. It's not the real world, bottom line.
- Hyrule is a fictional kingdom so it likely follows different rules. Since the power of the bloodline only appears to manifest in the women of the royal family it's possible that succession is matriarchal (and the powers might even been seen as the right to rule, remember Rhoam's line about "heir to nothing"). Also remember that Hyrule fell on the day Zelda went to the Spring of Wisdom, which was her 17th birthday and the day she was seen as an adult in Hyrule (No one under the age of 17 is allowed there) so Rhoam could have been Zelda's regent. Now Rhoam could easily also be a descendant of Hylia, see above about the Royal family branching out and intermarrying with other noble families (this might even be a requirement of the royal spouse to keep the bloodline and powers as strong as possible), but since he's not a female of the line he doesn't know how to access the special powers.
- Technically speaking, we also have no reason to assume that Hylia's power doesn't manifest in male members of the royal line; as previously noted, Daphnes displayed magical talent that was never implied to be not his own (when recounting how Ganondorf overtook Hyrule, he does say "My power alone could not stop the fiend"), and the king from Adventure of Link also knew enough to hide the Triforce of Courage so well. Neither of those contradict anything we're told in this game, either, because even if Rhoam can access the divine magic of his line, he's established as being such a stickler for tradition that he would still see the duty to harness it as falling to Zelda, if he even knows that he could do it just as well himself.
- Age of Calamity contains some details that shed a bit more light on things. Rhoam's main weapon in that game is a Royal Claymore, which is explicitly stated to be the type of weapon issued to the royal family's personal guards. This strongly implies that Rhoam served in the Royal Guard, and may have even been one of Zelda's mother's bodyguards prior to their marriage (in real-world history, it wasn't unusual for younger sons in noble families to enter the military, where their rank would put them on the fast track to promotion—Hyrule's nobility might do something similar). While not an outright confirmation, this suggests that Zelda's mother was the direct heir and Rhoam married into the throne. If the sealing power is a sign of the right to rule, as mentioned above, Rhoam may fall victim to the opposite side of the coin: he can't use it because he's King by marriage, not a direct member of the royal line. If it's accepted in-universe that Zelda is the only one who can wield it as long as she's alive and has no children, this would also explain why no one else with Hylian blood is trying to unlock the sealing power in her stead.
- There's still his resemblance to previous Hylian kings, though, particularly Daphnes in The Wind Waker, who seemed to be a direct heir since he possessed the requisite powers. And Rhoam is already a king by the time of Age of Calamity when he's using the Royal Claymour. Being so adept with it doesn't mean he must have had a past as a royal guard; he could've been born a royal who chose to use it as a weapon.
Is there anything we should do about this? I've briefly touched upon this in the Headscratchers cleanup thread
but even with a possible conclusion I still have no idea what to do.
openTroper with incredibly poor grammar
Justin Not Seen has some pretty bad grammar issues in their examples. For example, their latest entry on this
page:
- Expy: All new four main female characters seam to be base on orginal Mane six : Izzy clearly having a lot of similiar character trades as Pinkie Pie, while the rest seams to be light version of other characters (Sunny -Twilight, Zipp - Rainbow Dash and Pipp Rairty).
Edit history here
.
openTroper with odd edits
tiger20 was recently brought up in this thread
for some of their recent edits. Having looked through their edit history, I've noticed they continuously misuse/pothole tropes and write concerning edits.
- Potholing tropes; here
, using Badass Gay here
when it was disambiguated. And More Potholing
.
- They claim that Edward Elric
and Roy Mustang
from Fullmetal Alchemist have no belief in religion.
- Their use of Expy is completely misused as seen on
these
various
pages
.
- Their use of Everyone Has Standards on other
pages
as well
is fully wrong.
openMisuse in Deltarune
I feel that the entries of Composite Character, Expy and Suspicious Similar Substitute in the Deltarune character articles are shoehorns. Many are comparing Lancer, the Queen, and Spamton to characters from Undertale, despite the fact all of thse are original characters, and Deltarune isn't an adaptation of Undertale (a derivative work, a spin-off, whatev).
How should I proceed?
openExpy vs. Suspiciously Similar Substitute
Characters.My Little Pony A New Generation had Expy examples added I question If they would fit Suspiciously Similar Substitute better.
It is as Distant Sequel to Friendship is Magic such it's considered ancient history and the original cast are presumed long gone.
My impression is SSS was used over Expy if it was the same continuity which is the case here. But does SSS also require it be the same series and point in the timeline such they theoretically could interact at present?
openCleanup thread question
Although I'm not good at wick-checking for TRS, with regard to cleanup threads like the expy cleanup thread
, where should Captain Ersatz Cleanup thread go?
Short-Term or Long-Term Projects - what's the pros and cons for putting it in one or the other?
Someone suggested on the expy cleanup thread it needs a cleanup thread for Captain Ersatz but I'm not sure where it should go, and how often are threads moved anyway?
openShould no more Expy tropes be made?
This is an important question that got raised in this TLP draft
. Lately, there's been a lot of pushback against new Expy tropes, so should we no longer allow those to be created in the same vane as Stock Phrases?
openEdit War
On Characters.Resident Evil Chris Redfield, Troper FudgetMuppet
added an Expy entry here
. Troper ultrafan
then deleted it
with no edit reason, only for Fudget to add it back in
- and incorrectly formatted, at that.
resolved Expy subtrope character limit Question Western Animation
I know that Expy is limited to only be of one character. My question is does this limit also apply to expy subtropes, mainly the more specific subtropes like Superman Substitute and Spider-Man Send-Up.
A good example would be Western Animation/Invincible, where the titular character has a mixture of both tropes. Although hes more Superboy than Superman, he is still a Flying Brick with an origin as a human/alien hyrbid and The Paragon characteristics. But he also has similarities to Spidey, in having secret identity problems specifically romance problems, juggling hero life and normal teenage life, as well as the whole With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility.
So is there is a limit to the subtropes similar to the main Expy trope and if yes then which trope would take priority in an example like this?
Edited by Nejiiuyn
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
openExpy limit
I SWEAR I remember seeing somewhere that a character can only be an Expy of one other character, and if they're listed as being an expy of multiple other characters, the example is misuse. This led me to delete an example on Characters.My Hero Academia Izuku Midoriya which broke this rule.
This morning, I woke up to a PM from Nejiiuyn saying that I was wrong and that there's no such rule. Looking at the Expy page again, it is indeed never said that one character can't be an expy of two other characters.
Am I going crazy, or was the restriction removed recently?
Edit: I see this rule in the Expy cleanup thread
, but again, it's not on the trope page itself.
openDisputing recent deletion (Invincible 2021: Spoilers) Western Animation
I had recently added the following example to the YMMV page of Invincible (2021):
- What An Idiot: Despite being shown to be a very competent team of heroes, several members of the Guardians of the Globe grab the Idiot Ball hard during their fight with Omni-Man.
- [[spoiler: The first thing Red Rush does when the fight starts is shove Immortal out of the way of Omni-Man’s sneak attack, saving Immortal’s life. Then when Omni-Man continues to attack, Red Rush counters Omni-Man’s speed by moving his teammates out of the way at the last second, frustrating Omni-Man.
- [[spoiler: Darkwing functions as the team’s Batman Expy, using stealth, gadgets, skill and intelligence to take out his opponents. He’s also just seen Omni-Man murder Red Rush.
These additions were deleted with the following justification:
My Little Xero: Simply doesn't fit, as we barely know anything about the character before their deaths, claiming that they're holding the Idiot Ball is simply inaccurate as we need to know their typical behavior to call it as such, in addition as we see when the Guardians fight the Mauler Twins, the tactics used the by the characters to fight Omni-Man are pretty much the same so this
Naturally, I disagree. For one thing, the part of editing reason is inaccurate, as the tactics used by the mentioned characters in a previous fight are different from the ones they used vs Omni-Man. Against the Mauler Twins (who are much weaker than Omni-Man), Darkwing actually maintained distance, uses his weapons effectively and did not try to drop kick either of them. Likewise, Red Rush only engages the Mauler Twins (who are both much slower than Omni-Man) in melee when Green Ghost immobilizes them. So in both instances, the heroes tactics were different in their fight with Omni-Man than they were with the Mauler Twins.
Beyond them simply not being as effective as before, the tactics in both cases are suicidally stupid. Literally so since it gets them both killed (along with other members of their team), and I feel What an Idiot was made for moments of that kind of stupidity, regardless of how little we might know about the characters in general.
Furthermore, a lack of knowledge of a character does not invalidate the use of What An Idiot listings. Taken directly from the What An Idiot page:
"Because most viewers have basic common sense, one would usually expect the same from characters on TV shows. Any negative deviation from such usually prompts a Face Palm and the comment "What an idiot!" or similar, hence the entry name."
The page also mentions that some characters are supposed to be idiots, but goes on to say how that does not invalidate including them in What An Idiot entries. It merely asks that you summarize such moments rather than list them all.
If it's specifically the inclusion of the Idiot Ball trope that makes this inaccurate, I can remove it. I have ZERO intentions of getting into any kind of an editing war, so I'd like other opinions on the matter, to make sure I'm not in the wrong or anything before I take any additional steps.
Edited by Ares101openConfusing sentences + Wrong indentation + Expy misuse
Zero Sword 0 has been on this wiki for quite a while and, although they do not edit often, their entries have some problems. Here are a few from their latest editing spree across multiple Mega Man pages:
- Listing a trope that does not exist
("Bad Guys Win". Also, the character in question is not even "bad" to begin with).
- Sentences that don't seem to make any sense: See here
and [[here
.
- The above, plus Speculative Troping: Here
.
- Shoehorned Expy example that compares two characters simply because they are of similar heights. It's also incorrectly indented
.
- Wall of Text with Word Cruft, First-Person Writing, and bad grammar: Here
.
openVandalism of the main page of worm Literature
So, I just checked, but someone modified the main page of. Worm and removed an entry on either Shout-Out or Expy that compared Jack Slash to Joker on the grounds of it being offensive to Heath Ledger’s legacy.
Just to be sure, this is definitely vandalism, right?

I wanted to discuss an example on the Expy cleanup thread here
, but it's been a couple days and I'm still the last person to post there. Should I take it to Is This an Example or is it alright to just make a query about it here?