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:
openHow to fix miscapitalized namespaces Videogame
So I noticed that Need for Speed has a Tear Jerker page, but the namespace is written Tearjerker.Need For Speed, and according to Administrivia.Namespace, it should be written TearJerker/. I remembered that we used to have a system of storing the content of a page on a Sandbox and then ask for the page to be cut so that it could be recreated with the properly capitalized namespace, but going over to the Sandbox I found out that the sandbox itself was cut, with the reason being "method seems to have been discontinued". I was wondering if I could be directed to what the current method is.
Edited by JamesAustinopenMisuse on LethalJokeCharacter page Videogame
I saw a recent query about an edit on Lethal Joke Character, so I checked out the page to see what it was about.
I found that
- The trope description clearly says that this is a video game trope, and lists a number of related tropes that would apply to non-game contexts.
- Despite this, the example list has a entire section for "non-gaming examples", which is apparently large enough to be sub-divided into folders.
- One of the non-gaming folders is "real life". How can there be joke characters in real life?
This is of course rampant, systematized misuse, but what should we do about it? Does this warrant taking the trope to TRS (with the possibility of broadening the trope), or would a cleanup suffice? Unfortunately, I'm very pressed for time myself right now or I would already have started cleaning up, but I thought I'd at least report it.
Edited by GnomeTitanopenAssistance in resolving/preventing an edit war on Creator/QuintonFlynn Videogame
Bringing this here since the page's discussion forum doesn't get a lot of traffic.
To provide a bit of context, back in November 2020 images and audio of Voice Actor Quinton Flynn sexually harassing female fans surfaced on social media followed up by multiple accusations from many other women. This led to Flynn losing upcoming roles as documented on the Role Ending Misdemeanor Video Games page. Six months Flynn had sued one of his accusing for stalking him and got a court victory over her, then claimed on Twitter that a judge had found him not guilty of the accusations. This is pretty blatantly a lie; as the plaintiff his guilt or innocence was never under any consideration, he was only suing one woman for stalking him, she defended herself which is a good sign she didn't receive the best legal council, and her being guilty of stalking him does not mean he can't be guilty of harassing her. However some of his fans have taken this as proof that all accusations against him are false and he is 100% innocent since she had to delete her tweets on the matter. So Flynn portraying the decision as him being found not guilty is dishonest and a bit suspect.
Now onto the actual matter; over on his creator page when the judge's decision was brought down Captain Tedium deleted the section on the accusations on April 22 2021 with the following edit reason:
"The sexual allegations have recently been debunked. https://mobile.twitter.com/JasmineDBZking/status/1384605216650059780
Reinstate the detail of what happened in November 2020 only if the proof of Quinton Flynn's innocence is itself debunked. Or if this incident has ended up affecting his career anyway."
On July 4th The Extractor added in a modified entry with the accusations, court victory and the loss of roles with the following edit reasons
"A statement that he alone released, that no one else corroborated, that still contradicts a shitload of visual and audio evidence doesn't remotely absolve him of anything. It also doesn't change the fact that he's effectively been fired from everything and is yet to be re-hired on anything. I'll amend this part so it's more objective and less "hostile", but it stays."
On the 20th I amended the entry to remove the reference to the court case as I felt the way it was written would lead someone to an incorrect assumption of what happened and that to properly explain and provide context would take up a lot of words that in my opinion was largely irrelevant to the point.
There were no further edits to the page until November 6th when Tropers/shaynaynaynot edited the page to add "In April 2021, Flynn tweeted that the accusations came from a stalker
, and he was found not guilty." They also added the same to the REM subpage.
Now what's been added is objectively false (as the plaintiff it is quite literally impossible for him to be found not guilty), but given as this could be described as either the first, second or fourth edit on the matter depending on your definition I'm concerned that reverting it would be considered an edit war, and given that only four of us have been involved in editing there is little hope of getting a consensus. So I'm seeking further input from people who haven't been involved so far.
openMedieval II: Total War Videogame
So, I have checked the Characters page for Medieval II: Total War, and much of the descriptions are copied from the game itself. Feels like plagiarism, though it needs thorough investigation.
openPreventing an edit war on MythologyGag.NickelodeonAllStarBrawl Videogame
I've edited MythologyGag.Nickelodeon All Star Brawl on various occasions in the past few months to add examples, some of which include external links to help back them up. (Here
are
some instances of this.) On the 12th of this month, Pgj1997 removed several of these links
, explaining in an edit reason after the fact
that Weblinks Are Not Examples.
While I understand the policy, I made an effort to write all of my examples such that the connection between something in the game and the original series it's based on was evident from the text alone, which means that their edits seem like they're overreaching. Put another way, I tried to abide by what the page itself says:
- It is always preferable to use outside links as additional tools to clarify, enhance, or provide reference to a detailed example's content, rather than using them in place of the detailed example itself. In short, weblinks are to supplement context, but never substitute for context.
I don't want to risk edit warring, so I wanted to bring up the matter here to get others' opinions on this before taking any action.
openEdit war on Kingdom Come Deliverance YMMV page Videogame
On December 22nd, Troper The Living Drawing removed these tropes
from Kingdom Come Deliverance's YMMV page with the edit reason of "Removed several examples that, while potentially valid, are very complainy. Have not played the game and have little knowledge on it so if you have, please feel free to rewrite the removed examples to me more neutral.":
- Archery is probably the fakest of all "difficult" things in the game. There is no aiming dot visible, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, the game simply turns off the aiming dot when bows are drawn with a crudely written script. There is absolutely nothing preventing players from simply marking or memorizing the dot on display and then have perfect aim, regardless of skill, bow type or distance. The absurd sway of bows for first five levels of the skill only adds to how fake it really is, because if the aiming dot is marked (or displayed with a console command), the aim remains perfect despite displaying sway all over the screen.
- The game never really informs how to train, so if natural progress is applied with the plot progression, Henry is going to be constantly and heavily under skilled. However, spending just 30 minutes with Captain Bernhard and whacking him with random Button Mashing is enough to train Henry into formidable fighter, raising half of his stats and generally turning the whole game into a cakewalk with most of enemies unable to even hit back.
- Each and every camp full of bandits can be cleared with ease during night-time, by carefully picking them one by one. Not only does it allow the player to skip otherwise tough (or outright impossible) encounters, it's considerably easier to do than just trying to face few brigands on your own in a sword fight. Of course the game never informs about how stealth or stealth kills work, so unless player figures it out by applying common sense, good luck with all those encounters when trying to face bandits in straight-out combat.
- The entire barter system relies on Henry's relationship with the vendor: he has to lower his bids for a long time to gain enough favour to get better prices (and better bids) in the future. Cue miller Peshek, who via finishing his quest line gains 100% favour. And since he's miller, he buys stolen goods. His merchant list is also scripted to pay premium for a lot of things regardless of favour. And if one particular vendor is constantly fed new items, their cash reserve increases during restocking. Eventually Peshek can easily carry 50 thousand groschen, buying whatever and offering decent prices at that. Just don't expect the game explaining any of this at any point.
- Fake Longevity: The game has few very blatant cases of intentionally making certain trival tasks take extra time. It is so widespread, numerous reviewers pointed this as an outright trick to claim "100 hours of gameplay", despite 20 or so is going to be filled with tedium.
- All the copious, lengthy and unskippable animations. They add absolutely nothing to the game, aside few extra seconds every time certain action is taken. Haggle and horse (dis)mounting is probably most guilty of this and also some of the most repeated actions.
- Fast travel on map can only be done over pre-planned paths and only toward handful of pre-made points of interest. In practice, this leads to Henry taking in-game hours to circle back and forth over particularly twisted path over a hillside or taking a detour over half of the map. And it doesn't matter if he's on foot or riding - the speed of fast travel is exactly the same, so once a mount is acquired, it's considerably faster to just ride manually rather than use the "fast" travel option.
- Additionally with horses, they move much slower on roads than off them. Most of the time, it's better to ride close to the road to keep track of where you're going, but not so close that the horse automatically attempts to get on it.
- Henry can't swim. Period. He can't ford rivers even when on horseback. Said rivers aren't deep and lack rapids of any sorts. Still, it takes to find what the game considers as a ford (where the water tends to be ankle-deep) or a bridge, which means a lot of back-and-forth travel toward nearest pass over river.
- Misaimed "Realism": The game was heavily marketed under "super-realism" flag, but this backfires badly at certain game mechanics, especially since how uneven the application of said "realism" is, breaking the immersion entirely rather than enhancing it.
- Probably the most glaring is just about anything related with inventory management. You can carry around few tonnes of equipment and the only downside will be being forced into the walking pace of movement. Get yourself on horseback and even that no longer applies. Oh, and saddle bags on your horse come with a teleport, since you can move in and out items regardless of where the horse is, unless ongoing quest intentionally disables that option (which only ever happens twice).
- Said saddle bags have a limited load they can carry, but there is nothing preventing Henry from overloading himself and then simply get on horseback.
- The weapons seem to be made out of foil and raw copper, that's how quickly they wear out. They also never really break down, just reach the state of "disrepair", meaning a simple debuff to damage. And you would grind any given blade into nothingness when using grindstone so often as Henry does.
- Probably the most glaring is just about anything related with inventory management. You can carry around few tonnes of equipment and the only downside will be being forced into the walking pace of movement. Get yourself on horseback and even that no longer applies. Oh, and saddle bags on your horse come with a teleport, since you can move in and out items regardless of where the horse is, unless ongoing quest intentionally disables that option (which only ever happens twice).
- That One Level: Needle in A Haystack. Working with the Neuhof bandits, Henry is tasked with infiltrating a monastery in order to track a straggler down, kill him and bring proof to the bandits that the target is dead. What follows is allegedly the most annoying quest in the whole game according to fans. First of all, it's a No-Gear Level, so you can't bring your weapons inside to kill the target. Second, since you're a novice, you're at the bottom of the monk hierarchy, meaning that you live under the authority of the hated Circators, monks who are supposed to keep order in the monastery and punish monks who break the rules. However, since you are being tasked with killing someone in the monastery, you WILL have to break many rules with your time in there, specially if you choose to do the sidequests that the monastery offer, which involves ludicrous amounts of lockpicking and pickpocketing, sneaking in and out of the monastery constantly, missing out on your schedule (and getting punished for that), getting lost and much more. Oh, and did we mention that all of this is done without a single Savior Schnapps in your inventory?
- Thankfully, the quest can be skipped, but it'll give you its "bad ending". There is an ornamental dagger hidden under a paving stone on the balcony next to the dormitory. If you don't mind a bit of collateral damage you can murder all the novices in their sleep, grab the spare set of keys from the pantry and escape within five minutes of the first night without needing any preplanning - apart from needing the Stealth Kill perk. Yes, it skips the whole quest and yes, it gives you a bad ending for it, but admit it, it's smart and it's understandable to do it.
- However, should Henry be a competent thief-type, the entire quest goes from That One Level to the best part of the entire game, as the main obstacle - lack of gear - is meaningless when all doors can be opened and circators avoided with stealth. It still requires overcoming various challenges, but in engaging and simply fun way.
No less than 30 minutes later, troper Stanisz added all of them back and commented them out
with the reason "If you expect people to correct the tone, how about leaving them content to correct, rather than just cutting it?" Around a week later, troper C Dan Red removed the commenting symbol and made the FakeDifficulty entry public with no edit reason.
Seeing Stanisz's reason, I decided to take a look at it myself and edited the entries
, with my own edit reason being "Grammar fixes, removed some entries (Miller seems more like Game-Breaker, Stealth is explained in the codex, and others are not that bad or seem to just be complaining), and tried to adjust the tone a tad to be more neutral." One of those removed entries was this, since most of it seemed to be unsalvageable complaining and one-sided:
- Fake Longevity: The game has few very blatant cases of intentionally making certain trival tasks take extra time. It is so widespread, numerous reviewers pointed this as an outright trick to claim "100 hours of gameplay", despite 20 or so is going to be filled with tedium.
- All the copious, lengthy and unskippable animations. They add absolutely nothing to the game, aside few extra seconds every time certain action is taken. Haggle and horse (dis)mounting is probably most guilty of this and also some of the most repeated actions.
- Fast travel on map can only be done over pre-planned paths and only toward handful of pre-made points of interest. In practice, this leads to Henry taking in-game hours to circle back and forth over particularly twisted path over a hillside or taking a detour over half of the map. And it doesn't matter if he's on foot or riding - the speed of fast travel is exactly the same, so once a mount is acquired, it's considerably faster to just ride manually rather than use the "fast" travel option.
- Additionally with horses, they move much slower on roads than off them. Most of the time, it's better to ride close to the road to keep track of where you're going, but not so close that the horse automatically attempts to get on it.
- Henry can't swim. Period. He can't ford rivers even when on horseback. Said rivers aren't deep and lack rapids of any sorts. Still, it takes to find what the game considers as a ford (where the water tends to be ankle-deep) or a bridge, which means a lot of back-and-forth travel toward nearest pass over river.
Hours later, Stanisz added the above entry back
with the reason of "Come on, mate..."
open Troper vandalizin’ character page. Videogame
Prest Otron has been tamperin’ Five Nights at Freddy's: First Generation, specifically the quotes. They changed them from in-game quotes to attacks on the FNAF fandom. Here is an example:
From:
To:
Dunno if they have been on other pages.
Edited by Delibirdaopen Fallout 4's Brotherhood of Steel page Videogame
Hello, fairly recently a mass edit was made to the F4's ECBOS character page, removing almost everything positive about the faction, nuance on the synths and stating that they target sane ghouls and that Tegan's farm mission is officially sanctioned by Arthur despite both being outright false and Tegan himself admitting its the opposite. (This behavior is also what got him locked up, something he also alludes to)
Evidence from Teagen,
Tegan:{very warm / Happy} Step forward, Knight... even though they've locked me in this blasted cage, I promise that I won't bite.
Player Default: "Caps on the side," eh? Doesn't sound like official military business to me.
Tegan:{Thinking} Well, it is and it isn't. It's... complicated.
-source https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/BoSProctorTeagan.txt
Relevant wiki pages for Tegan,
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Teagan
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Feeding_the_Troops
From what I understand reverting it could potentially lead to a edit war, so I decided ask about it here and will notify memetron with the link once the page is up.
Edited by TheSwordsmanopenTrying to Avoid an Edit War Videogame
Recently, I modified a couple of entries on Dragon Age – Anders, removing the The Extremist Was Right entry and reformatting the information and moving it to Well-Intentioned Extremist. Before I did this, I took it to the Is This An Example
thread, where I was mostly ignored despite posting several times. Now, I previously did the same thing for the same entry on the main page for TEWR after I got agreement from the same thread that it wasn't an example, so despite lack of replies, I thought I was okay.
Shortly after I did this, Asherinka reverted the entry back and edited it to have more neutral wording (or tried to at least). The topic for the Dragon Age fandom is major Flame Bait and Anders himself has a Broken Base, so I'm trying not to let this devolve into an argument over whether or not he was right.
My big hang up on TEWR vs WIE is that I believe they are mutually exclusive tropes. And, for Anders, I do not believe he meets the requirements for TEWR.
- The Extremist Was Right:
- Terrible as Anders' actions were, a lot of supplementary material suggests that escalating the mage/Templar conflict to open war was the right thing to do, since the status quo only weakened the mages' position. The events of Inquisition can further cement this idea; if Leliana is named Divine, one of her reforms to the Chantry is the dissolving of the Circle system, granting the mages their freedom and creating widespread mage acceptance, giving Anders (and the rebel mages who agreed with his points, if not his actions) everything he wanted. Even the endings that see the Circles rebuilt come with some major reformations.
- The flavor text of the Magehunter shield in Inquisition tells of a previous misuse of the Right of Annulment. In 3:09 Towers, twenty-five years after the Right was first granted, the Circle of Magi in Antiva City was annulled to cover up the fact that its Knight-Captain was a serial killer who murdered over a hundred mages out of pure bigotry. While the Seekers eventually hunted him down and punished him, they assisted the Templars in covering up the incident, leaving the rest of the Circles completely ignorant of the truth, and there is no mention of them punishing the Knight-Commander for Annulling a Circle under false pretenses. Given that background chatter in the second game reveals that Meredith had gone over Elthina's head and petitioned the Divine for the Right, it paints a very clear picture of what might have happened to the Gallows if Anders had not provoked Meredith into jumping the gun instead of waiting for the Divine's permission.
Hello83433: I'm a bit concerned about [this particular TEWR example] in general, because it relies a lot on player perception and it seems to be used as an Audience Reaction, because there's hardly anything in-universe that is justifying the actions taken. The trope itself says the people whom everyone thought were completely right and in-universe it's noted that many, including mages, denounce Anders' actions. The supporting material (i.e. comics and supplementary novels) also have that the character is dead, because some events that occur do not occur in a universe where he lives.
Overall, this seems more like someone trying to convince others that the actions were right, when they moreso fall under Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters (and he's already listed under). Thoughts?
Reply from Afterward: Sorry I haven't said this before, but I think there's enough negative reactions to Anders' actions in-universe that he doesn't qualify (and while the Mage situation in Dragon Age was already pretty bad before Anders blew up the Chantry, there's no real evidence that it got better, just that the conflict became open), although I'm not super familiar with the inner workings of the trope.
Hello83433: Reposting because I think it got lost in the page transition. After cutting Anders' example from The Extremist Was Right, it was added to his character page. The first bullet point text is exactly the same as TEWR, and the second point is diving deep into begging the question and slippery slope territory, but I wanted to bring the full example here again just in case.
[Example In Question]
Reply from nrjxll: Honestly, I think there's a seed of a valid example buried in there, in that Inquisition does pretty clearly show that Anders's broader goal of dragging these festering problems out in the open led to necessary reforms that probably weren't going to happen otherwise. What it doesn't validate is the method he did that by. (Just speaking personally, one of the few points I found myself majorly agreeing with Vivienne - who I rather disliked on the whole - on was that tying the cause of mage independence to a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people was a huge PR self-own.)
BTW, the definition of The Extremist Was Right is distinctly not helpful here. I don't see anything about other characters in a story needing to say as much to qualify an example the way you originally cited, but the description's not all that long in general.
Hello83433: I was going off of Laconic and the first sentence of the description, although I agree it could be written clearer. The heavy disagreement on his methods is what puts him out of TEWR territory for me. Although, now that I'm looking at it, would it be a better fit for Well-Intentioned Extremist? Anders seems to fit under the first and/or third types (the problem is the means and/or consequences) just based on in-universe reactions to his "solution".
I don't want this OP to be too long, so just to sum up I don't believe the example fits The Extremist Was Right primarily due to in-universe backlash against Anders and his actions. I suppose moving it to YMMV might be an option, but to avoid an edit war I'm asking here to get a consensus one way or the other.
Edited by Hello83433openThe 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.
openSonic's Dr. Eggman— a misuse of "Affably Evil" Videogame
(Very thorough post below, apologies for length)
Dear Ask the Tropers,
I want to discuss how Sonic the Hedgehog Big Bad Dr. Eggman might be better off as an example of Faux Affably Evil as opposed to Affably Evil, the latter of which is what most descriptions of him I've seen on this site describe him as (including some trope subpage-only cases, hence why I've come over to Ask the Tropers). Spoilers unmarked for ease of reading.
Here are the main entries regarding him:
- Dr. Eggman from Sonic The Hedgehog has his moments of this.
- In Sonic Adventure 2 he acted very pleasant and, though he came close to killing Sonic, he was shown almost regretting it, showing profound respect for him after all the years that they were rivals. He had also been seen getting along with Tails at the end of the game. It also showed that he had the deepest respect for his grandfather, Gerald Robotnik.
- The best example was probably Sonic the Hedgehog (2006), where he's shown acting politely and gently most of the time, especially in front of Elise (except for the whole kidnapping part, of course).
- In the ending of Sonic Generations: The classic version, having learned that he never defeats Sonic, ponders upon pursuing a career as a teacher instead.
- Affably Evil: Despite really wanting to Take Over the World — and occasionally going to some extreme lengths to achieve this goal — Eggman's a fairly pleasant fellow who usually treats his enemies with Villain Respect.
- In Sonic Adventure 2, he lowers his head in melancholy after seemingly killing Sonic, and later gets along with the heroes after teaming up with them.
- In Sonic Colors, he takes Sonic's advice regarding threatening him directly rather than going through a bunch of terrible amusement-park-related puns on the way — for which Sonic then thanks him.
- In Sonic Lost World, he saves Tails' life from the rogue Cubot, even though it isn't necessary for his master plan, and seems to genuinely respect Tails. He's a complicated guy.
Here's my counterargument.
He loves being what he thinks is the most civilized and enlightened guy in the room, plain and simple, and the trope subpages of quite a few different adaptations have already described their Robotniks/Eggmen as "Faux", despite how two of them (AoStH and the movie) were heavily comedy-focused.
Now, I'm sure there might be a couple cases out there of game-universe!Eggman being genuinely affable (maybe just during Olympic season or something, the Twitter Takeovers are more of a different kind of portrayal altogether), but these are too few and far between to be a defining trait.
Let's look at the alleged examples being most frequently cited:
- Sonic Adventure 2:
- The Misaimed Fandom entry I put on the game's YMMV page explains the "Gerald" bit in detail. Long story short, he looked up to his grandpa as a brilliant scientist rather than because of anything benevolent, and he's disappointed that Gerald went crazy trying to destroy the world since he takes pride in his own Pragmatic Villainy.
- The "admirable adversary" scene has him send Sonic to his death via explosive escape pod and then lowering his head out of respect… before immediately getting over it and pointing his gun back at Tails. His Dark Story recap also has him gleefully proclaim, "I finally did it! I've defeated Sonic! That annoying hedgehog is gone forever! He's nothing but floating chunks in space now!"
- He did get along with the heroes during the Last Story, but, y'know, no world means no empire so necessity and all that.
- The somber "you're right" response he gives to Tails' "we all did it together" was meant to fit with the equally somber tone of Shadow's death and Gerald's tainted legacy. As sincere as it sounds, it's just Eggman acknowledging the facts after being briefly lost in a moment of thought.
- Here's a Dummied Out exchange that was meant to happen after that, anyways:
Tails: "Where are you going?"
- Sonic the Hedgehog (2006): He's only gentlemanly to Elise because she has something he wants and he still tries to get rid of Sonic and friends in multiple ways. And he doesn't even give Elise a nice room or a meal.
- Sonic Unleashed: He keeps Professor Pickle fed with cucumber sandwiches on request. Yeah, a corpse is less useful than someone to interrogate, food makes a good bribe in case you don't have a lot of other time and options, and he got the recipe wrong anyways.
- Sonic Colors: The "Eggman changes his evil speech at Sonic's request" scene was most likely meant to be played for laughs given how the doctor does it begrudgingly. There's also this line he gives afterwards to Sonic: "I would say it's been nice knowing you, but it hasn't." Not even this game has a genuinely nice Eggman.
- Sonic Generations: The whole "teaching degree" joke was probably meant to be sarcasm from Classic Eggman, with Modern Eggman missing the point and only considering it because "I've always enjoyed telling people what to do!", causing his Classic self to Face Palm. Also Lost World and Mania happened because each Eggman went back to world conquest, so no.
- Sonic Lost World:
- It's stated in a Magnificent Bastard entry and supported by the game's ending that he only saved Tails to make sure his Enemy Mine with Sonic stayed on schedule. At best, I guess you can argue that he'd want to beat Sonic and Tails personally.
- A scene earlier into the game (the one where Sonic sets the Zeti loose) has him tell the Deadly Six that he's a "compassionate" man… with the rest of what he says being covered up by Sonic and Tails talking over him. Listening closely, this is what he says to the Zeti:
Eggman: "I'm a compassionate man, or else I would've dropped you into a bottomless pit by now!"
- The game in general seems to subtly emphasize how is Eggman a Jerk with a Heart of Jerk— he's back to stuffing animals in robots, he only sees the Zeti as useful lackeys for him, he doesn't care that the Cacophonic Conch's noises are "very painful" to the Zeti and only that the shell itself is "very rare", and he only saves Sonic's life so the hedgehog can get rid of the Zeti for him while he sneaks back to his Extractor device. And to top it all off, this line just oozes with Faux Affably Evil:
Eggman: "Finally, with the energy drained from the Extractor, I can rule the world! Pity about the damage done down there, but there's still enough left for me to conquer."
And considering how he's a very Opportunistic Bastard willing to pervert anything to get what he wants (e.g. Little Planet, Angel Island, an ancient pyramid, a planet, five planets, time and space, a guy's very reason to live, etc.), I think it's safe to say he'd even exploit a Draco in Leather Pants situation like this one if he existed in the real world.
Hence, why I think we should change this. My proposed plan here is to edit the main pages that matter and then edit those linked to it in some way. I'll deal with the latter once I've gotten the go-ahead for the former.
Thank you all for listening.
Many regards, Blurry
openExtremely small "Referenced By" page Videogame
So I recently discovered this 'Referenced By' subpage for the Halo franchise that appears on every single game's subpage bar as a redirect. It was created in February of this year by darkemyst and has only been edited three times since, with the last edit being in May of this year.
It also only has six examples and not all of them even seem to be valid, which has me thinking it should be cut. To list all the examples and my thoughts on them:
- Aldnoah.Zero: The Hypergate looks very similar to the African portal that leads to the Ark from Halo 3.
- This entry provides two image links on the page itself, one of which is broken and just redirects to the main page of Bungie's website (and they don't even own the Halo franchise anymore). I found a working image and frankly the similarities seem fairly superficial, though I suppose the argument could be made that it's a reference: Hypergate (Aldnoah)
◊, Gate at Voi (Halo)
◊
- This entry provides two image links on the page itself, one of which is broken and just redirects to the main page of Bungie's website (and they don't even own the Halo franchise anymore). I found a working image and frankly the similarities seem fairly superficial, though I suppose the argument could be made that it's a reference: Hypergate (Aldnoah)
- Guardians of the Galaxy: Peter's laser pistols bear more than a passing resemblance to the Covenant Plasma Rifle from Halo: Combat Evolved, or also the laser pistols from The Black Hole (1979).
- The Expanse: While at first glance the Ring's design is reminiscent of a lifeless Halo, Manéo Jung-Espinoza's attempt at flying through it reveals that it actually operates more like the Supergates built by the Ori.
- Both of these entries openly admit that the similarities are vague and limited enough that it could be a reference to something else entirely, which makes them invalid IMO.
- Marathon: The Eternal Level name "These Caves Can't Be a Natural Formation" is a line from Halo: Combat Evolved
- The Marathon series pre-dates the Halo franchise which made me seriously scratch my head at this. I had to dig through our page on the former to find out that this is apparently a reference to a fan-made total conversion mod called Marathon: Eternal that was released after Halo. Not sure if that's valid.
- Quake: The Blaster in Quake IV can fire either single, extremely weak shots or more powerful charged shots in a manner similar to the Plasma Pistol.
- This is an extremely basic and generic gameplay mechanic that many, many shooters have adopted for many, many weapons throughout gaming history. Edit history shows that it was also in the above category of "the entry outright admits it could be referencing something else" until the last edit on May 10th 2021 - specifically, pointing out that it's equally similar to the "Dispersion Pistol" from Unreal I.
- Minilife TV: In "Spirit in the Sky", Master Chief's helmet is one of the items in Chris's swag pile.
- This is possibly the only inarguably valid entry on the page and it's for a LEGO stop-motion web series sitcom I've never heard of.
resolved A troper who keeps posting dubious tropes on the Final Fantasy 7 Remake Main Character section. Videogame
Someone named Frankie 3 keeps re-posting the same ill-fitting tropes on Tifa Lockhart's character page despite me and other tropers already having pointed out why he needs to stop doing it. Like for example, trying to pin the "Token Good Teammate" label to Tifa when the rest of the party aren't even evil people, at worst having some anti-heroic traits that don't even scale into particularly dark levels. And then there's him posting links to some random wiki to try and add proof of claim when it directly violates troping rule that pages are only for what is found within the work itself. What should be done about him?
Edited by 9thOutworldsManopenIs there a way to request a trope rename? Videogame
I feel like the trope "Self-Sacrifice Scheme" is a bit of a mouthful and sounds more underwhelming than it often is.
At the same time, the name "Hangman's Gambit" sounds mysterious and interesting, but is used for a very mundane purpose: literally just a game of Hangman in Danganronpa.
Hangman's Gambit always sounded like a phrase perfectly suitable for those times when a character sacrifices their life, or pretends to do so in the case of faking their death, in order to increase the chances of a desired outcome in a different endeavor. For example, dying to rile up a crowd of people, or faking their death to make a targeted individual/group focus on something else. This is, by my understanding, exactly what a "Self-Sacrifice Scheme" seems to be.
With this in mind, would it be possible to request that we rename "Self-Sacrifice Scheme" to "Hangman's Gambit"?
If not, could it be made as a subtrope specifically referring to situations where the goal is uncertain and the death is meant as a means of manipulation rather than a direct path to that goal?
Edited by illeatyourselfopenOnce again, a non-existant work wonk Videogame
I initially brought this up in the Complaining thread, but upon further investigation of the culprit's edit history, it was deemed mod attention may be warrented.
Galdodon 99 made some weird edits to YMMV.Paper Mario The Origami King earlier today.
- “Paper Mario: The Origami Nazi”. Explanation King Olly’s plan for getting rid of all the Paper Toads involves him wishing via the 1,000 Crane Technique that all the Paper Toads go away forever since they share the same face and are poisoning his “perfect world” similar to Adolf Hitler.
And
- Pandering to the Base: While many critics and fans alike praise the game for being a Surprisingly Improved Sequel to its predecessors, a few such as the Villain Army and its Supreme Leader, accuse it of pandering to the people who hated Paper Bowser and his Koopa Troop by having King Olly be the main villain throughout the entire game, while Paper Bowser doesn’t steal back the spotlight from him, though it could just be shock over the eradication of the Paper Toads via the 1,000 Crane Technique. Hell, a review of the game
even said this while bashing the game for holding back Nintendo's development of Mario And Luigi Paper Jam 2, despite its 8.5 review rating.
I expanded the spoiler in the second part myself, but aside from their carelessness or lack of respect for spoiling, other red flags include the memetic mutation being a triple bullet point, and frankly I've never seen that meme around as a meme at least in the relatively decent portions of the internet, and the pothole to a Darth Wiki work and reference to a game that has at no point even been hinted to being planned in the Pandering to the Base.
They also added a justifying edit to another entry, I'll just remove that myself when I'm not on mobile.
After making that initial post, it was observed that they had made edits pertaining to the Villain Army, an unpublished work on Darth Wiki, and Paper Jam 2, which as of yet has not even been teased by any development staff, on other pages as well. This whole thing feels like another episode of the Tropers Obsessed with Works that Don't Exist show.
openPreventing an edit war on Characters.NickelodeonAllStarBrawl Videogame
This is rather belated, but it's something I wanted some feedback on to prevent an edit war.
About three weeks ago, I saw an example on Characters.Nickelodeon All Star Brawl without a citation:
The game in question still hasn't been released yet, so I commented it out
since it lacked a citation, along with a small tag explaining this (in addition to the edit reason). At the time, I did not remember the source.
Twelve days later
, ravioliluigi uncommented it out and slightly altered it with the following edit reason:
- Citation? What citation, the proof is right there in the trailer lol its a legit reference, that said I'm pretty sure that's his taunt
In spite of this, they did not add a citation in the example itself, going against the guidelines explained in Administrivia.Creating A Work Page For An Upcoming Work:
- When writing an example, make sure you are noting the source. Because the finished work is not available yet, it is not your source of information. Your source is [Trailer A], [Poster B], the open beta, the E3 demo, etc., so your example should cite that: "In [Trailer A]..."
I sent them a notifier explaining the policy not long after their edit. However, in the interim, I remembered where the animation in question can be seen: this short teaser for a Gamescom character reveal
. I could add the necessary citation to the example, but I wanted to make sure that this would not constitute an edit war.
openAkiba's Trip H&D trope page editing please Videogame
Hey Y'all,
So Akiba's Trip H&D has been released after a few weeks now and I think its about time someone a bit more capable than me(I am but a measly and lazy troper who is both a little shitty at describing and getting myself to actually do something) can actually try to take a look and update the page a little more if possible. That being said, kindly also take a look at my edits(especially in the character page) and edit them as required because I'm pretty sure I didn't get them entirely right.
Let me know when any one of you who have actually played the game and take a look at it!
I'm also currently collecting Akiba's Trip extra materials to add in extra information that's All in the Manual stuff that elaborates more on the characters themselves and designer stuff(along with a few bits of Word of Saint Paul). When I get that stuff translated(...eventually, I'm having a hard time looking for someone to translate them), I'll prolly let those who help out with editing know.
resolved Not related stinger on main DMC page, keep or delete? Videogame
User TimeLordVictorious added this edit
to Devil May Cry, which on the one hand, I can understand some of the humor behind it. However, on the other hand, it's completely unrelated to the page itself, so was wondering if it should be removed or not.

I played an FMV adventure videogame in the late 90s or early 21st century. You played a cop of some sort, I think, and there were werewolves. The cop might have been a werewolf himself, I don't know.
Does anyone recognise this?
Edit: Sorry, I thought I **was** asking this on You know that show. Cheers.
Edited by BreehcNicdoll