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:
openProblems on Music/FallingInReverse Music
A number of examples on the page appear to be troping the frontman himself rather than either his work or performances or describing the real life history of the band using narrative tropes. Can I just remove them and rewrite the salvageable ones or is this big enough to take to a cleanup thread?
- The Atoner: Ronnie after making up with Craig in 2013 and becoming a father, seems to really want to ditch the past "Radical Ronnie" bravado he put on. He also seems incredibly regretful about the time he cheated on his girlfriend, especially as it caused him to see his daughter less. (this one's also a morality trope)
- Even the Guys Want Him: Ronnie.
(fanservice trope applied to a real person, Weblinks Are Not Examples and it's a matter of opinion)
- Jerkass: Ronnie Radke, if this video
is anything to go by. Several other people, including fans themselves, have even called him out on this. The incident where he threw a mic stand into the crowd at a show at Six Flags Great Adventure and managed to both send several people to the hospital and get heavier acts permanently banned from being booked at the park did not help matters.
- His choice of lyrical content is all you need to know Ronnie is a bit of a jerk, with lines like "They'll call me king of the music scene" (morality trope being applied to a real person and the second is both subjective and possibly complainy)
- Large Ham: Ronnie. (also zero context; could be rewritten to describe actual performances by someone who knows more about such things than I do)
- Long-Haired Pretty Boy: All of them, but especially Ronnie for most fangirls.
- Mr. Fanservice: Especially Ronnie and Jacky. (these two have the same problems as Even the Guys Want Him and are also zero context)
- Parental Abandonment: Ronnie's mom left him and his brother when they were young.
- He finally met her again in November 2013. (this is just straight up real life; it could be rewritten to describe songs that talk about his mother rather than the literal events)
- Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll: The focus of many of their songs, since they were apparently written by Ronnie while he was in jail and going through rehab. However, he is currently very much sober, and as much can be assumed for the other band members.
- Actually a requirement on tour. Ronnie is Straight Edge now, and doesn't trust himself around substances to the point of declaring them off limits on the bus. I See Stars were thrown off tour in 2012 when their keyboard player was arrested for weed possession. (everything past it being the subject of songs is real life)
- Start My Own: How the band was formed. Ronnie was mad at his former bandmates and swore to become bigger than they were. (For the record, they're about equal ever since.)
- Also why Max left. He'd been attempting to make a band of his own since being thrown out of ETF, and finally they debuted in 2016 as Violent New Breed.
- Jacky started a solo shred/instrumental rock project and eventually left to focus on it.
openEditing quibble - HOTD Live Action TV
Hello everyone, I hope this is the correct place to ask this?
For this page https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Heartwarming/HouseOfTheDragon
(sorry I am not sure if there is a better way to link it) there has been some disagreement about it's contents.
I recently edited it to cut down some length; for example some of it went into too much paragraphs detail as opposed to a one paragraph summarization, I feel some personalised bits like "Fuck the Seven Strictures! And the Faith!" as a viewer's reaction don't fit and others are outright wrong in interpretation (while saying theirs confirms all other interpretations are wrong) as confirmed by a showrunner himself/ Word of God (Miguel Sapochnik). I didn't add anything, just removed some pieces.
I explained the reasons in the edit box as it would be improper to do such a shift without a given reason - however it has since been edited back with the following comments from the original editor;
"No-one who can't speak English properly is removing another's examples" / "Miguel Sapochnik told viewers their T Vs were at fault and not his lighting direction in 'The Long Night'. He has no right to give a carte blanche interpretation of a scene."
Can I ask what to do here? The first comment especially did feel hurtful and mean-spirited.
I would like to edit it since as I said I feel it goes off the format and it's confirmed some of it is incorrect, but I don't want to get into that with those sorts of comments to me or spark an editing scuffle which would be unfair for everyone.
openStFan and Unilateral Page Changes / Enforcing Preferred Policy
This came out of a recent ATT thread
I made asking to clarify a site policy. I'm pasting and expanding on a comment I made in that thread.
St Fan has a habit of editing pages to standardize the folders + categories which in of itself isn't bad. However, they often enforce a very particular idea of grammar and categorization that isn't necessarily based on any consensus/site policy and they will unilaterally edit the relevant pages where you would check to verify such a policy, later using that unilateral edit to justify making other edits elsewhere. See:
- This query [1]
and this one [2]
where St Fan states a "site policy" that has never existed as a fact to justify their edits
- Or this query
I made after messaging them about another page reordering they did for Mysterious Purple. In our messages, after I questioned the re-ordering, St Fan essentially told me that's how it's done on the index page, ergo that's the default policy and you can see him making the same argument in that thread here [3]
. And I find this suss b/c one glance at the page history for the Manga and anime indices would show St Fan reorganizing it going back to 2014 so of course it would reflect their personal organizing preferences. and in the end, the agreed upon ordering was what was originally there before St. Fan edited the page.
- this query
about St Fan making a unilateral edit to Media Categories. This is relevant because St Fan is "correcting" other pages based on this change they themself made, despite there being no consensus in favor of (or outright against) this change
- And this query
where they ignore the consensus built in the ATT thread to continue unilaterally editing out AC formatting for folders
I'm not sure how much if any of this is actually against site policy, but I wanted to consolidate all of this in one post because I've noticed this particular troper pop up quite a bit recently with similar issues
Edited by amathieu13openFound a 4chan forum story, is Literature the right place for it? Literature
Luke: The Plague Son of Nurgle
While doing some cleanup work, came across the above which appears to be an unstructured forum story told by multiple people in 2009 and interspersed with comments from anonymous posters. It's not referenced anywhere else on google besides tvtropes and the forum links themselves.
What is the criteria for a web original forum work being listed? Does it need to have an attributable author? Does it need to have evidence of a reader base? Is there some other criteria we use? Does it need to be something someone can actually pinpoint and consume with a clear line between the work itself and people commenting on it? Is there any kind of minimum length requirement?
When I came across this one, it didn't really seem to fit the "Literature" media space to me though I know WebSerialNovels do get classified under literature.
However, I'm not sure this forum story can even be classified as a novel so that's adding to my confusion.
The work page has 1 wick under "The Pig-Pen", 171 total inbounds, and looks to have been created on November 20, 2021 though the original 4chan threads look like they were all from November 2009.
openSelf-reporting an edit war
I just realized that I had accidentally edit warred, and wanted to self-report just to be safe.
I was on Monochrome Casting yesterday, and made an addition
; it's one that I knew I had thought about making before, but as it wasn't there I assumed that I hadn't. But then I realized today that I had made that addition before
and just forgotten, and it had since been deleted
. I've now gone back and at least addressed the issue that got it deleted
.
openHow to add self-linking table of contents?
Is it possible to create a Wikipedia/Fandom-style "table of contents" box on a page, which would let a reader jump to specific sections on the same page using anchor links, or is that not possible?
Edited by techno156openDrama Importation?
On YMMV.Genshin Impact, GRD added this questionable Fandom Rivalry entry (see here
).
- A weird one, but this also applies within subsections of the Genshin fanbase itself. As there is a strong distaste between Reddit Genshin and Twitter Genshin; forming distinct blocs due to how large the fanbase is. With the reddit base of Genshin accusing the twitter base of being the source of the majority of the toxicity and controversies as well as ruining the fandom's reputation. Expect plenty of Genshin redditors chastising twitter users for any controversy that gets brought up, whilst twitter Genshin accusing their reddit counterparts as just being as equally toxic in its own ways. To a lesser extent, the Youtube fanbase of Genshin sometimes gets flack from both sides due to clickbait issues. Whereas the fanbase powerbloc in Facebook and Hoyolab are considered to be far more chill in contrast. The fanbase is not considered 'broken' like that of Star Wars since there is still a unified passion across the board on the game and there isn't any severe breach of conduct to ignite a civil war. But there is a distinct cultural rivalry between the websites formulating into something akin to a fandom Cold War.
Reading this, it sounds to me like importation of fandom drama onto TV Tropes, and even though my experience with the Genshin fandom is short-lived, they are prone to drama spats every now and again. What do you think?
Berserk Button: misusing Berserk Button
open A possible issue with some picture captions
In Characters.Spookys Jump Scare Mansion, each of the character pictures have a caption with a quote that doesn’t actually reference the work itself, but serves as a Shout-Out to another work maybe tangentially related to the picture (for example, the caption for Specimen 2, a slime monster, references Ghostbusters (1984)). Is this acceptable, or should they be removed on account of having nothing to do with the actual work?
openConcerning Edit History
I first noticed Caesar 44 commenting on a review for the new LOTR show, complaining that it's inaccurate to the original work and the like which while technically true is also somewhat of a dogwhistle, so I dug further... And found some bizarre things. Some of them pointing at an agenda... Others just showing sloppy and problematic behaviors in general. Note that I have not sent a notifier... I wouldn't even know where to begin.
- Deleting an entry from CommonKnowledge.MythsAndReligion without reason
, made worse by it being about the belief that the bible bans homosexuality when it doesn't actually.
- Adding natter as a note tag?
- Doing it again, but ~politically~?
- And again
- Doing that again but then removing it?
- More natter... but as a parabomb this time
, to shake it up, I guess.
- She-Hulk Whining, because obviously
- As it might be obvious by now they have some sloppy behaviors like not putting a space in between the trope and the bullet, and not always starting with capitalization.
- They also got into a weird dispute on WesternAnimation.The Incredibles over the Artistic License – Law entry? Getting all the receipts is hard because of the link glitch and the fact that it's like 6 AM here and I want to end this report preferably before the sun comes up? Anyway what happened was that they added an entry about the early-movie lawsuit which was deemed to not count by consensus, and the entry was eventually hidden with a large tag saying "don't add", and then they removed the comment markup but not the note itself????
And this has been my deep-dive into a concerning troper. Thoughts? Should I try sending a notifier? I mean the editing issues are all bad, sure, but what concerns me most is the clear political wonkery they're engaging in, and that can't be solved with a PM, nor do I want to see them flame out.
openContentious issue, but: Columbus Whitewashing
So, uh. UsefulNotes.Christopher Columbus. I'm gonna try not to dive into the deep end of the modern discourse about him but skimming the page it does feel like it engages in some degree of objective misrepresentation/falsehoods about his activities.
The one that stands out to me is it claiming that the mistreatment of natives in his colony occurred without his knowledge after he left his brother in charge to continue his exploration, and the subsequent implication that he was rightly exonerated for it - AFAIK while there's arguments to be made about the degree of mistreatment he's responsible for it's accepted as historical fact that he was personally responsible for much of it (particularly the slavery); his brother simply escalated it to the point of outright brutality.
I'd just correct it myself but this is a highly contentious issue and it's entirely possible that I myself am wrong or misinformed in some way on some of this. I suspect that a deeper reading of the article to account for omitted details, bias, etc may be warranted. Not to mention an on-the-record discussion to show that the matter was handled with consideration rather than being knee-jerk Righting Great Wrongs.
For what it's worth, I checked the discussion page and there seems to have been a very brief discussion of the matter in 2012... where it was seemingly decided to stick with the "he was innocent and simply couldn't control his men" portrayal, which like I said is AFAIK considered factually incorrect regardless of one's opinions on him personally.
Edited by Dirtyblue929openWriter Conflicts With Canon Misuse? (repost)
Asked prior ATT
and Is this an example?
about these but got no feedback.
- The Rise of Skywalker establishes that Supreme Leader Snoke was actually a failed clone created by Palpatine, with several other Snokes visible in vats on Exegol. This directly contradicts previous declarations that Snoke had been around for many decades, and that Palpatine only learned about his existence shortly before his death at the end of Return of the Jedi.
WCWC is when Word of God conflicts with canon. I believe this was All There in the Manual material that was contradicted as opposed to out of work creator statements. What to do?
- According to the Sonic 4 web site, Sonic and Knuckles' levels and stories take place at the exact same time in Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Fans noted that there was tons of evidence within the game itself that Knuckles' story is after Sonic's story. Examples include Angel Island Zone Act 1 showing only the sky in the background instead of the ocean, Eggman's Death Egg is missing in the background for Launch Base Zone and Lava Reef Zone Act 2, the ghosts in Sandopolis Zone Act 2 are already wandering around at the start (you later find the container that held them was already broken by Sonic), and Mecha Sonic appears to fight Knuckles at the end of the game since he didn't explode when Sonic defeated him previously. This was rectified by later material stating that it indeed took place after Sonic's campaign.
Would a official website be All There in the Manual as opposed to Word of God?
Anyplace else to ask?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenAccidental edit war instigated by me
I was checking the history of Jekyll & Hyde and noticed that an entry on Pure Is Not Good where Hyde declares himself pure and Jekyll the true "Hyde" had been deleted 9 months ago: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit31680077
"He says "I am you", not "I am pure""
This is true of the Broadway recording, but in the 1994 version
◊ he does say
◊ "I am pure", which you can also hear
in the audio itself. Obviously this isn't true of every version (there's a lot) so I adjusted the deleted entry to clarify which recording it was while also adding more context to said entry, then re-added it when I was done. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit34301267
Unfortunately I forgot that I had added the original entry back in 2017, which I'm pretty sure means that I did an edit war: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit17931303
I apologize for the accidental edit war on my part and accept full responsibility for anything that may occur as a result.
Edited by lalalei2001openEdit warring in YMMV Dragon Ball Super Anime
I removed a bunch of entries from the YMMV page of the Granolah's arc from Dragon Ball Super, since they were violations of policy (adding a Broken Base entry just days after the arc had ended, for example, alongside a It Was His Sled entry, and an Audience-Alienating Ending entry when the entire arc is days old). I also removed some entries that read as too much complaining instead of actually showing an audience reaction, particularly concerning Narm, Ass Pull, Franchise Original Sin and Fan-Disliked Explanation.
troper AMassiveOvereditor
(Which originally added most of these entries) added a bunch of entries back, with the exception of the entries that negated policy. What should be done in this case? I feel that rather than reflecting the views of the audience itself, the page just merely centers on the views of this specific troper. Not to say that there isn't examples of Narm and Ass Pull (I left some of those and after some days I thought that maybe I should have added back the Black Frieza entry in Ass Pull), but I feel that the page as a whole is too negative, which is a common problem in the Dragon Ball Super manga pages.
open Re-adding missuse with an incredibly rude Edit Reason and a potentially biased troper
So on YMMV.She Hulk Attorney At Law there was this entry
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The scene where Jennifer calls out Bruce about controlling her anger did not endear her to some. Fans are well aware of Bruce's troubled and traumatic past note undergoing a botched super soldier experiment that resulted in the deaths of some of his coworkers, being hunted by the US government for years, having to give up his relationships with Betty Ross and Black Widow due to his deep-seated fears of accidentally harming them, coming to terms with Black Widow's death, and attempting suicide at one point, while Jennifer is not, due to how (in her own words) Bruce has isolated himself from her and she's only heard the barest details until recently. Yet even if she is ignorant of the depth of his issues, and/or people understand where Jennifer is coming from, Bruce is the wrong person to be calling out over such (relatively) petty issues as catcalling and mansplaining.
It was decided by the Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup
. That is was a bad faith argument that misinterpreted the scene as she wasn't actually comparing tramas with Bruce like it said and bias attempting to Jen as petty when she wasn't. So I removed
it. Well General Horseradish re-added
with this incredibly rude Edit Reason, "what the hell do you mean "bad faith argument", it's literally how the scene plays out lmao" I also feel that they might be bias. As they also removed
a Nightmare Fuel entry that mentions the speech in a positive light. However, I could be very wrong there.
Now I don't care one way or another about the entry, but would like some opinions.
Edited by Bullmanresolved Bad Sequelitis Entry on YMMV Total War Warhammer III Videogame
A while back, there was an Edit War ATT concerning the Sequelitis entry on Total War: Warhammer III. See here
. I don't disagree that it was Edit Warring, but what got lost in that discussion is that the offending entry is genuinely bad, violates a number of rules and is very outdated compared to the current state of the game. For context here is the current entry as it stands on that page.
- Sequelitis: It was very clear that the team developing this game and the team maintaining the previous game either disagreed heavily or just weren't coordinating as much of the fixes, patches, updates, and design evolutions that made the previous game so popular were not present at the launch of this one. The game shifted back in favor of things that were either patched out of or specifically avoided in the previous game resulting in a launch that many fans agree was a major step backwards.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
. It's widely theorized that the core of the game was forked off an older build of the previous game before the big Potion of Speed update and thus never received most of the multitude of fixes, patches, and updates present in that patch and subsequent ones.
- The skill and tech trees for many factions are poorly-executed, with many technologies or skills that range from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). Several skills and technologies also don't do what the description says they do, making it hard to know what bonus you're actually getting. On top of this, some factions have their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies (such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology), something that was specifically hated about the Greenskins in the first game and removed from them with a series of reworks in the second. Patch 1.2 focused heavily on beefing up factions' tech trees, mitigating this.
- While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords to level 50 they didn't necessarily give them any more skills, meaning some heroes can get more skill points than they can spend; Iridescent Horrors with the Lore of Tzeentch, for example, can only spend 47 due to having mutually-exclusive skills, and even if they didn't would only have 49. This was previously only a problem with mods and those modders had solved the problem early in the first game's lifecycle.
- Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI is both less appealing and harder to read due to the overemphasis on the color red compared to the previous game's more vibrant interface. A common source of frustration is that the colors for many different functions are effectively the same, making it impossible to quickly distinguish if a settlement is, for example, building a structure or demolishing it.
- The campaign that launched with the game, Realm of Chaos, doubled down on the elements players hated about the second game's Vortex campaign (particularly the time pressure and the random invasions) without making many improvements, ignoring well-received diversification of faction objectives and stories from the previous game's DLC packs. See Scrappy Mechanic for more details on why the Reign of Chaos campaign mechanics are especially loathed. The reception of this campaign was so bad Creative Assembly had to delay their first planned update and rush out Patch 1.1 specifically to address it.
- The series has long had a reputation for amazing mods that expand and improve on the game in a myriad of ways. This game did not launch with Steam Workshop support and went without for two months until the 1.1 update.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
And here is my critique of this entry and its sub-bullets, breaking it down by the elements.
1. For starters this entry really shouldn't be broken down into multiple sub-bullets. They give the appearance of a Wall of Text. A single bullet that's Clear, Concise, Witty is preferable.
2. ""Poorly Optimized" is an understatement" etc.: The video link can stay but the words inside it should be rewritten and the rest of the paragraph should be cut. One half is hyperbolic Word Cruft with unnecessary italics, the other is pure speculation.
3. "The skill and tech trees for many factions" etc.: The points can stand but the bracketed text should be moved into Notes to make the paragraph more concise. Also, the text may need to be put into past tense as the subbullet itself admits CA have been working on this, though I think it should go as I would rather keep that element for last.
4. "While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords" etc.: The point is valid, but IMO we can reduce this to a single sentence or even a fragment of one. e.g. CA raised the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50, but some characters don't have enough room for that many skill points.
5. "Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI" etc.: Can delete. The point is valid but they directly addressed it in a later patch which means it should go under Author's Saving Throw. At most a fragment of a sentence like "issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red".
6. "The campaign that launched with the game" etc.: Valid but needs compression and to remove the reference to Scrappy Mechanic which is considered bad form. A single sentence should do it.
7. "The series has long had a reputation" etc.: Delete. Yes it was frustrating but it's been addessed.
So with all these in mind, a revised version of the entry as I see it would go something like this:
- Sequelitis: At launch, the game was very divisively and even negatively received for feeling like a step backwards after the much-lauded final state of Total War: Warhammer II. Reasons for this include a large host of glitches, bugs and programming errors
that made it feel unpolished, complaints about poor choices for skillnote Ranging from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). and technology treesnote Some factions had their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies, such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology. for certain races, CA raising the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50 but not accounting for characters who didn't have enough skills to accommodate 49 skill points, issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red, not launching with built-in support for Game Mods like its predecessors did, which might have mitigated some people's complaints about it, and worst of all, a base game campaign that was almost universally derided for loathsome mechanics, an irritating amount of time pressure and homogenising the storylines and campaign goals of the factions featured, making people who hated the how the Vortex campaign in the second game started out before DLC packs brought diversification of faction objectives and stories cry, "Oh, No... Not Again!" Fortunately, CA have since worked hard to address all these issues throught game patches and their first DLC pack, which has led to the game getting a much more positive reception.
Note this is not the final form I would put it in, I just needed to make something for this, but I also wanted to achieve consensus before I posted it. Thoughts?
Edited by MinisterOfSinisteropenToo Bleak misuse
- The Joker is often criticized for being too bleak a villain. Many writers treat him as less a person and more of an unpredictable, seemingly unstoppable force of chaos who commits acts of gruesome torture (of both the physical and psychological formats) and mass murder, with an ever increasing body count that's often in the four to five digits, often forgetting the comedic angle that made him such a Love to Hate character in the first place. This renders Batman's no-kill policy absolutely pointless and a little Secretly Selfish, as it becomes less about him keeping Gotham safe and more about him staying true to his personal code no matter the consequences.
TBSC is about stories that cause such, so it seems misuse to apply to a specific character, especially one who's remained iconic and popular despite. I say cut as while this might apply to some specific stories it doesn't apply in general/overall as it's too successful to count. Any objections?
Asking here as TBSC cleanup hasn't had any activity in over a month.
resolved Questionable cut reason for CowboyBebopAtHisComputer/ZeroPunctuation
A while back, I restored the cut Critical Research Failure page for Zero Punctuation under Cowboy BeBop at His Computer, since the former ended up being disambiguated.
Since then however, the page got cut with a reason that I really don't think adds up, nor do I think received much in the way of consensus from the discussion page linked in the cut reason. I grant you, I was initially not going to raise this, since unlike the time when the CRF variant was cut, it tried to explain why it was misuse. But the explanation doesn't add up to me:
"Page is all misuse as CBAHC is about/goes under the works errors are made of, not the works making the errors."
The wording on this explanation is rather poor in and of itself (as the one reply in the cut reason's cited discussion thread alludes to) but on top of that, I've no idea what it's trying to get at after reading it carefully. Fundamentally, Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is, as the laconic page says, "when a source gets basic facts wrong about a work", and nowhere on the page does it mention anything resembling what the cut reason mentions.
On close examination, maybe the cut reason is saying that the error example should go on the page for the work rather than the work talking about the work, but not only does nothing on the CBAHC page specify this, but that's honestly a rather poor way of doing things if we trope reviewers and if it's the only option. Another part of me thinks that the key phrase is "facts about works", but that puts into question the idea that "all" the examples were misuse, considering what was on that page.
Based on the above and the minimal feedback in the discussion thread cited in the cut reason, I believe the page's cutting was unjustified, but I'd like other thoughts on this just in case I'm reading into the wrong thing.
Edited by Akriloth2160openReporting a Misnamed Page?
If I see a page that's been moved to have the wrong name, with redirects now adding to the problem, where would I report that? For the case I'm seeing, it isn't obvious how I'd fix it myself.

A couple of tropers, tsthysys09 and xxdster clearly have an editing agenda in the Final Fantasy XIII Main Party
and Lightning Returns Final Fantasy XIII
pages (links go to page histories), removing any and all examples that even tangentially refer to the Hope/Lightning ship and also the spoiler warning for Hope's folder (which I thought was extremely odd since that was added per the violation of spoiler policy thread and they didn't retag the spoilers).
Of note, tsthysys09 is a brand new account with only those two edits to the page and xxdster has been inactive since 2016, up until the 13th of this month, again with only edits to those pages. I think that's highly suspicious, either this is drama importation, or these two might possibly be the same person (possibly to avoid being suspended for an edit war) since xxdster would removed some tropes and then tsthysys09 would remove the exact same ones again after they were readded by another troper.
Some of these tropes were added by myself, and I don't want to stick myself in an edit war, so I'm bringing this here for attention.