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:
open Chico The Parakeet
DISCLAIMER: I do not have a vendetta/grudge against this user. I am simply concerned for him and the Hollers weren't enough for him to change his behavior even by a little bit, so I decided to make this ATT Report.
First off, they were the user I was talking about in this query
as I merely wanted to Holler him for his concerning behavior, mainly about his wonk about a South Park scene and showing it to other people even if it's determental.
He then brought it up again a couple of days later here
. Another user impiled that his obession might not be healthy. Prior to that post, I already sent him two Hollers. Assuming the mods read them and sent him a message about it in his PMs, he hasn't listened.
In general, as someone else puts its, he seems too erratic and cynical for his own good. For example, he has some sort of wonk towards Online Reviewers, particuraly those of the Caustic Critic kind, and holds their opinion as gospel even if he disagrees with them at the cost of his well being. I also recall that he stated he wanted to hurt himself over the opinions of these critics and asked why people wanted him to stop worrying about their opinions after that.
Here are
some of
his posts that show that.
Next, one about his paranoia over a work that seems to be excessive
and one that mentions a past trauma that he seems troubled by
(TW for animal cruelty/death for that one). They also seem quite self-conscious about their writting and fear that he'll get hated over it, as seen in the first of these Writer's Block posts.
Overall, a quite worrying troper and I made this ATT report to get other users' and mods' attention since the Hollers apparently weren't enough for him.
Edited by Cutegirl920fireopen Designated Hero in Civil War II Print Comic
Ah, Civil War II, the comic book that reignited the old discussions about who is the hero and who is the villain in Marvel's Civil War. I really want to figure out, once and for all, who is the real Designated Hero of the story.
- "Carol Danvers. When shown proof of how Ulysses' powers actually work, she ignores it and continues her campaign of fighting the future by arresting a woman with the only proof being his vision of her and an empty suitcase. She recruits Kamala to aid her in her venture and essentially tells her to deal with it when the poor girl is having completely major second-thoughts over the entire thing. Later on as she ramped up, several characters call her out on her increasingly totalitarian behavior. Magneto outright compares her to the Nazis after a few mishaps between her and the X-Man, causing her to compare Magneto (who, keep in mind, is a Holocaust survivor) to an internet troll invoking Godwin's Law. Notably, Carol seems to be repeating the same pitfalls that Tony went through in the original Civil War (whose side had a point but invalidated it by acting in a villainous manner), but exaggerated ten-fold. As trying to save people from attacks and crisis that would cause a huge loss of life (which Carol and the Ultimates had been doing and was Carol's initial plan for Ulysses) would be unquestionably a good thing, it comes off as Marvel deliberately trying to make her more villainous to add more moral ambiguity to avoid Tony being the clear-cut bad guy."
- "Tony Stark. After finding out about Ulysses' power, he instantly distrusts it for little to no reason, starting an argument with his friends over essentially nothing. He follows this by, when Ulysses's vision gets Rhodey killed, but successfully prevents the deaths that Thanos would have caused, attacking the Inhumans and kidnapping Ulysses, proceeding to begin experimenting on him to determine how his powers work in order to find any flaw to justify his irrational distrust of him. When he goes about recruiting people to his cause, he does so through bribery (such as trying to buy Sam Wilson's support by playing off of his financial troubles), among other issues. While Carol is Jumping Off the Slippery Slope, Tony seems to start the event being an unsympathetic asshole, even before Carol's extremism comes into play."
- "The Inhumans. At first, they are right to be angry that Tony kidnapped Ulysses. However, Medusa destroyed his company, took his money and ruined his reputation. Even worse, Triton and Maximus blew up his company tower because they felt that she didn't go far enough. When they were with the other heroes confronting Banner, Tony pointed out that Banner hasn't done anything, to which Medusa responded with "Yet." Add to the fact that they don't want to really help save the mutants from being killed off by their mists, and it's pretty hard to see them as heroic. Now it's debatable whether some of the writers themselves consider them heroes considering what Magneto asked Rachel Grey in Civil War II: X-Men #3: "Tell me... in the world you came from... your future... do you recall an Inhuman lifting a finger to help our people?" This instantly caused her to join Magneto. They had basically abandoned Carol when she turned to them for help after Miles went home to deal with the vision of himself killing Captain America."
Civil War II gives us Captain Marvel, following in the footsteps of Iron Man in the first Civil War and who went a little crazy with her methods while using a Inhuman precog, Ulysses, to combat crimes. She went around trying to arrest her allies and others for things that haven't happened yet, and ignored people when they tried to tell her that the precog wasn't really seeing the future, at least not with 100% accuracy. Having indirectly caused the deaths of War Machine and Bruce Banner, she grew more stubborn in her beliefs and went on to imprison an innocent woman, tried to arrest Miles for a crime he may not commit, and put Iron Man in coma when he opposed her. This was explained in Ultimates 2015 partly as having her Go Mad from the Revelation of the Marvel Universe's floating timeline thanks to Galactus showing her. While some fans still love the character, others are unsure that she should be the female face of Marvel.
- Several years on, thanks to a successful film and appearance in another, a number of negative consequences for Carol and a fair amount of self-hatred on her part, plus a general desire by Marvel to forget that Civil War II ever happened (unlike the first Civil War, which had extended consequences right up to and after Siege), which was helped by how it was a forgettable event to begin with, and Ulysses himself hasn't been seen since - means that it's simmered down to the occasional mention.
- Several years on, thanks to a successful film and appearance in another, a number of negative consequences for Carol and a fair amount of self-hatred on her part, plus a general desire by Marvel to forget that Civil War II ever happened (unlike the first Civil War, which had extended consequences right up to and after Siege), which was helped by how it was a forgettable event to begin with, and Ulysses himself hasn't been seen since - means that it's simmered down to the occasional mention."
The actions of either Tony or the Inhumans during Civil War II are not mentioned in the page, but they do have entires, albeit for different reasons.
"I guess we're ignoring the fact Tony kidnapped a man and tortured him, all to get those experiment results which are tainted as a result of said torture. And he assaulted a head of state to do it by tresspassing on their sovereign territory. But the Inhumans are jerks I guess, so they deserved it huh? Yeah, I have a bone to pick with the Inhumans vs X-Men entry too, as it ignores the fact the Inhumans are trying to find a cure for the X-Men, trying to keep them from being harmed by the cloud and the mutants do not explain that they're already out of time to find a cure and just attack them outright with no provocation. The entry even ignores how the crossover ends, with Medusa herself learning that the cloud is about to saturate the atmosphere and kill all mutants... and then she instantly kills the cloud herself because that's the only solution obviously, basically revealing this entire war could've been avoided if the X-Men just told the Inhumans the truth."
"But hey, better to find an easy person to blame in both cases, right? And both events do suck, a fact I won't argue, so who cares if we leave out other details that kinda show that this tropes more easily applies to the other side of the fighting. Frankly, I haven't heard one solid defense for what Carol should've done when Tony attacked her. And if we're using alt. Universes to justify the Mutants actions in Iv X, then fine! In another universe, as detailed in the lead up to Infinity Warps, Carol broke off her engagement with Tony to free Miles from his prison bubble thing... and took what appears to be a mortal blow from Tony's Carolbuster suit in the process."
"Tony. Was Trying. To Kill. Carol Danvers. Period. I find this continued attempt to blame Carol for putting the guy who ASSAULTED HER into a coma very "Victim Blaming" of its proponents. Like if a wife puts an abusive husband into a coma, suddenly she's a criminal too I guess? Next woman who knocks out her rapist and gives him brain damage, charge them with attempted murder, right? And sure, Tony didn't do anything nearly as bad as that... but he did commit Kidnapping, Torture and Terrorism in a short span of time. Yet he does not pay for a single one of his crimes and the comics community forgives him just as easily it seems."
"Tony deserves to be called what he is in the story, as the comic is clearly on his side and even ends with Carol throwing herself onto her sword in anguish over her mistakes while Tony's "death" is lamented as a tragedy. It's not, he attacked her, he got what was coming to him. He's the designated hero of CW 2, not Carol. Carol was presented as the misguided antagonist at best while Tony was allowed to run rough shod over her and scream on his soap box. She never got a chance to present her case! EVER! And we keep blaming her for things that other people did! It's ridiculous!"
"The entry should be switched around, the comic clearly sides with Tony Stark. By definition of trope, the author isn't trying to excuse Carol's actions, they are trying to excuse Tony. He suffers no real lasting consequences for his actions, while Carol has to repeatedly blame herself for things she didn't do! And the same goes for Iv X, as that comic is very clearly on the mutant's side. Neither entry fits the trope and is just someone complaining about characters not being perfect. And the implication that Carol should've let Tony punch her face into the pavement and not defend herself, while ignoring everything he did, SCREAMS sexist bias in my opinion."
"Those are my criticisms, feel free to discuss."
So, what do we do here? I'm perfectly aware that Designated Hero had a TRS clean-up thread
, but it was closed because people were using the trope simply to criticize heroes didn't like.
By the way, I already asked this question at Is this an example?
to get a proper consensus.
openIs Gundam IBO too dark and gritty? Anime
Ok, I gotta ask: does Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans truly qualify for Too Bleak, Stopped Caring? TBSC is normally defined as either "both sides are either equally unlikeable (pedophiliac serial killer vs genocidal slave trader" or "the heroes' efforts ultimately amount to nothing and the universe still sucks." A story only averts the trope when it features clearly defined heroes and villains and the ending delivers a positive outcome.
TBSC was orignally listed
in the show's YMMV page by its original name, "Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy", under the following argument: "By far the worst offender in the entire Gundam franchise, which was already fairly dark to begin with. Detractors point out that it's hard to sympathize with the protagonists, especially Mikazuki, as their actions push them further off the slipper slope. This isn't helped in season 2 where you're required to be ruthless in this society to get ahead. In the final episodes, major characters get killed left and right to the point it stops being dramatic and starts becoming tedious. Not helping matters is that people are comparing it to Zeta and the director's insistence that the entire show is basically a mafia story, NOT a war story.". It was deleted
because the trope required proof of audience apathy.
The YMMV page previously included:
- Eight Deadly Words: Detractors of the series frequently point this out as a problem. With a bleak setting, extremely morally shady characters (especially the main character), even worse villains, and an underdeveloped Big Bad who not only manages to succeed but ends on a high note, it's pretty easy to stop caring about what happens to the characters., but it was deleted
because Eight Deadly Words became a DefinitionOnlyPage.
- Ending Aversion: The outcome of the final episode is extremely divisive, with a pretty vocal segment of the fandom decrying it for feeling that Tekkadan didn't get the payoff they deserved while Rustal, Julietta, Nobliss, and Gjallarhorn in general successfully destroyed Tekkadan and ended on a high note, with only Iok and Nobliss receiving any form of comeuppance that ultimately rings hollow because of the other villains still winning- the way they won also gets accused of being a complete Shoot the Shaggy Dog for the sake of a Gray-and-Grey Morality message. Many who want a sequel for the series tend to request for Rustal and Julieta to get killed and for Gjallarhorn to be destroyed, assuming they don't write a Fix Fic to fulfill the same purpose by having Tekkadan win the Final Battle. The trope was deleted because, supposedly, "the trope is for people avoiding a work because they hear the ending is disappointing, not about people not liking the ending."
It still includes Esoteric Happy Ending with: "While the series portrays the finale as a bittersweet but overall happy ending with Rustal reforming Gjallarhorn and recognizing Martian independence, while Iok and Nobliss Gordon are killed, detractors of the series finale point out that as a member of the previous Gjallarhorn regime, Rustal is at best complicit in or at worst actively responsible for much of the corruption that plagued the organization. Onscreen, he doesn't bat an eye at starting proxy wars, formenting violent rebellions as false flags, and making use of outlawed weapons to achieve his ends. Even with the Seven Stars disbanded, he's managed to hold on to his power by making himself the best possible candidate to be elected to lead Gjallarhorn, and both he and Julietta were willing to side with Nobliss Gordon, of all people. As a result, the detractors see him as carrying on old Gjallarhorn's corrupt practices while propping up a public facade of being a reformer."
The show's anime page includes tropes like:
- The Bad Guy Wins: Although Gjallarhorn is heavily reformed by the end of the series, there is little doubt that throughout the series they are the villains, and were fighting to remain the authority in the world. Tekkaden was simply trying to find a place to belong in the world, which put them in direct opposition to Gjallarhorn by necessity rather than any actual enmity at first. It's made clear that there are still elements of resentment on both sides by the series end though, particularly in light of the look of anger and distrust that Eugene sends Julietta's way. This makes sense when you remember Julietta, a devoted, borderline fanatical follower of Rustal Elion, is the one who murdered Mikazuki on the battlefield. Julietta doesn't miss it, or its implications, either.
- Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism: Very cynical. For starters, the protagonist is a Sociopathic Hero who kills without remorse. The main characters are a group of Child Soldiers who see nothing wrong with their profession, fighting an all-powerful army that oppresses the masses through bureaucracy and military intervention. Both sides kill each other in the most brutal and painful ways, with no hope for peace or reconcilation. The ending implies things will be much better, but by that point, so much blood has been shed.
So, what do you think?
BTW, I also asked this question in Is this an example?
to get a proper consensus.
openRepeated Issues and Move?
Trivia.The Conversion Bureau The Chatoverse:
General Trivia
- Contrary to what "New Universe Three: The Friendship Virus" claims, men are not responsible for 98% of all violence and rape. This is a common misconception and an example of Common Knowledge.
- Also, the increase of oxytocin would increase nurturing... in anyone within your "group" according to nationalism. Enough of it increasing worldwide would cause such an up-spike in tribalism that about five wars would break out at once.
This was under Critical Research Failure until it was made a Disambiguation which was told to be cut as opposed to moved as too inflammatory
, Abbywabby moved it to Artistic License, which was cut
as AL is not supposed to be taken as real life fact which this story does, now Abbywabby moved it here citing "Since there is no consensus on which items exactly are appropriate, they should be listed here until a consensus on where else, if anywhere, is best. If it is agreed they do not fit anything in particular, they should probably be deleted or left here for lack of a better place."
I don't disagree that it should be mentioned if something it fits is found, but this seems inappropriate adding something that was twice deemed too contentious to keep and shoehorn if not outright inappropriate use of "General Trivia" (it make me question if it's worth having "General Trivia" if it's used to shoehorn in stuff that's not proper Tropes or Trivia entries). Thoughts?
Also from the page:
- Undermined By Reality: Chatoyance openly states that her version of Equestria, the Princesses, and the ponies is "more in line with Lauren Faust's original vision" than that of the show. However:
- This version of Celestia is basically the omnipotent god empress of Equestria despite Faust herself directly stating that Celestia is not actually a goddess.
- The show's pilot, written by Faust to set up their vision for the series, had Princess Luna become Nightmare Moon and bring about The Night That Never Ends, which Faust stated would have ultimately killed all life on the planet, out of jealousy. While Chatoyance handwaves other antagonistic ponies as descended from a ponified human, they portray Luna as an infallible Big Good without any acknowledgment of Nightmare Moon which would invalidate the point of their work to portray ponies as morally superior if one as great as Luna could fall and commit such evildoing.
Undermined By Reality was cut as now a disambiguation
. Would Informed Attribute (saying their work is in line with X but unsupported/contradicted in the actual work) be a valid replacement in this case?
openAdaptational tropes in Halo Live Action TV
Okay, we really need to do something about Adaptational Jerkass and Adaptational Villainy in the pages related to Halo (2022). Tropers have been adding these tropes to plot and character pages simply because the characters, especially the Master Chief himself, aren't as squeaky-clean and goody-two-shoes as their video game counterparts.
Yes, I get that the show is deliberately meant to be Darker and Edgier compared to the games, but those dark and edgy elements were always present in the games' background. They just didn't get enough screentime because the games focused less on the UNSC's unsavory actions and more on the heroic defense of humanity. Besides, despite his flaws, the UNSC's soldiers are still devoted to their duty and part of their character development is to form bonds with each other, just like the Chief and Cortana are doing throughout season 1.
But these are just one man's opinions. What do you think?
openDDLC Edit War
On the Doki Doki Literature Club! page, this Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry was added by Tropers/Justmenoworries in November 2020.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Monika, for some. You're meant to feel sorry for her because she knows her world is artificial and desires something, anything real in her life. But a lot of players had a hard time feeling sympathy for a girl who would drive two of her friends to suicide and outright kill the third in cold blood, just to get some alone time with someone she barely even knows. Monika tries to justify this at first, stating that Natsuki, Sayori and Yuri are just programs, not self-aware like she is. However, that argument holds less and less water the more you think about it. Note While the girls never come to the same realization as Monika, save for Sayori who becomes full self-aware in both endings, they do always notice something's wrong when Monika messes with their programming. And even then, the fact remains that Monika viewed her three best friends as disposible, if it would just get her the attention of someone she was (supposedly) in love with.
Last September, Mummy Ga Ga deleted it with the edit reason, "Monika has a Heel Realization at the end though." Two months later Justmenoworries added the entry back exactly the same saying, "The fact that Monika has a Heel Realization at the end doesn't change what she did to the other girls and MC. A lot of fans still found her unsympathetic after said realization." For the entry itself, I'll run it through the U.U. thread to see if it sticks.
open Should this be a page?
Should Creator.Embracer Group exist? They're not really a creator, they just own a bunch of creators. Also, the description is copied from a previous revision of Creator.THQ Nordic (some of the text is also in the current version), and the page itself mostly consists of red links.
openBrian Michael Bendis' Superman = Audience-Alienating Era Print Comic
Okay, I gotta ask: is Superman (Brian Michael Bendis) truly an Audience-Alienating Era? The entry reads
:
"While not universally hated, Superman (Brian Michael Bendis) is widely disliked by many Superman fans for a variety of reasons, with many seeing it as the biggest example of DC's poor creative direction around the end of The New '10s. The run was already met with immense scepticism before it debuted, owing to forcibly ending the beloved Peter J. Tomasi run on the book, and Bendis' extremely controversial reception, and this only compounded as the run progressed and Bendis' run became infamous for making widely divisive decisions which alienated long-time fans, most infamous among them being his decision to give Jon Kent a Plot-Relevant Age-Up (the backlash to Bendis would infamously mock fans for in both the book itself and on twitter) and have Clark publicly reveal himself as Superman, both of which were derided as spitting in the face of fans. Bendis' run also became known for its weak villains, with a large amount of time spent on Generic Doomsday Villain Rogal Zaar and the overlong, directionless "Leviathan" storyline which eventually petered out into an Aborted Arc despite continual promotion, as well as his well-known quirks such as meandering dialogue and scattershot approach to continuity and established mythology. All in all, despite the substantial push, Bendis' run would end unceremoniously after a little over two years and leaving Phillip Kennedy Johnson to pick up the pieces."
First of, the entry kinda shoots itself in the foot several times by stating that the Bendis era isn't as hated as much as it is divisive.
Secondly, websites and reviewers like Superman Homepage, Comic-Watch, Fortress of Solitude and DC Comics News have positive reviews for the issues directly written by Bendis so there's support for Bendis' comics.
Third, the general consensus for the Bendis era is that "good concepts with bad execution, Superman as a character has a pretty good portrayal but the villains are mediocre", so I sincerely don't know whether the people who hate this run are either a vocal minority or a very sizeable crowd.
Fourth, last time I checked, Audience-Alienating Era applies when
1. the run is a critical and financial disappointment
2. any changes caused by this run are reverted by later stories
3. any time this story is referenced to, it's done in a negative and mocking manner.
So, what do you say?
By the way, I already asked this at Is this an example?
to get a proper consensus?
openKaguya-sama Love Is War Franchise Original Sin. Just A Question? Anime
I like to know the reason why are the "fans" are so upset about something like this?
Franchise Original Sin: Kaguya and Shirogane having sex, played entirely for laughs was the last straw for many fans who were unhappy with the humor of the series gradually getting lewder, that the author had gone back on his word of the series not needing Fanservice to instead chase the lowest common denominator. Actually, the early series was hardly 100% clean and wholesome—for instance, a fan favorite gag from the first few chapters revolves around Kaguya struggling not to laugh whenever she hears a word she mistakes to mean "penis"—but in those early jokes the sexual content were framing devices for the actual jokes, based more on character personality: in that case, the actual punchline was seeing the normally stoic Kaguya degenerating into giggling fits about something that really shouldn't be so funny to anyone above elementary school-age. Later jokes dismiss with that and just have the sex itself be the joke—an early foreshadowing to the Kaguya/Shirogane joke that pissed the fanbase off can be found in the Running Gag concerning Tsubasa and Nagisa's relationshipnote specifically, that they're always barely able to avoid being caught having sex in public.
If anything, be feeling honest, there's absolutely nothing wrong about them having sex even if its played for humor. Please give me a proper explanation?
Edited by Droid098openNaruto Unintentionally Unsympathetic Anime
Copying this from the Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup thread to give more people a chance to look at this.
- I would like to bring up the following entries from the Anime & Manga subpage of Unintentionally Unsympathetic to see which of these examples are valid or not. I'm not exactly familiar with the material so anyone who knows about the entries can help, thanks.
- Naruto:
- Sasuke Uchiha rapidly becomes this as the series progresses, at first his Freudian Excuse is very strong i.e. his brother Itachi murdered his parents and his entire clan and he naturally wants Revenge. However that excuse for all Sasuke’s misdeeds stretches thin when he antagonises his allies and dismisses the tragedies of those who have also lost their loved ones compared to his own trauma, Kakashi in particular highlights how selfish Sasuke is as he reveals to him that his loved ones (Obito and Rin) are already dead when Sasuke threatens them. After Sasuke's Face–Heel Turn it becomes even harder to sympathise with him as he betrays the village, actively tries to murder his friends, attacks the Kages and generally acts like a terrorist. It comes to the point where the whole cast (except for Naruto, Sakura and Ino) being prepared to bring Sasuke to justice is entirely justified and Naruto’s determination to redeem Sasuke is almost nonsensical. Also Sasuke being as Easily Forgiven in the Distant Finale conflicts matters more as the worst punishment he gets is being “somewhat exiled” from Konoha which is barely a slap on the wrist in the weight of his crimes. If Kakashi calls him out on his actions, isn't that intentional? If it is, cut.
- The backstory of the legendary "Salamander" Hanzo, the ninja against whom the Sannin won their titles by surviving a battle with him sets Hanzo up as a Well-Intentioned Extremist who lost sight of his goals but is honored in defeat by his rival as a man who strove for peace. By starting a lot of wars and turning his homeland into an unlivable hellhole that produced the most psychologically broken, defeated human beings in the series, just because he was arrogant enough to think his strength could unite the world. Most fans still consider Hanzo an utterly unsympathetic character whose violent death at Pain's hands was richly deserved, as his claim of good intentions didn't make him any less of a paranoid warmongering dictator. How is he supposed to be sympathetic?
- Sakura Haruno's angst over her Single-Target Sexuality - the aforementioned Sasuke - really makes her unsympathetic in many viewer’s eyes. Kishimoto claimed in interviews he tried to make her feelings for Sasuke as “realistic” as possible but that falls flat as in the manga she hasn’t even had a proper conversation with him, and when she did talk to him he just called her annoying (even after she told him she loved him and was willingly to ditch her peaceful life just to be with him) and knocked her out. After the Time Skip she mellows out... until Sasuke comes back into the story and she Took a Level in Dumbass trying to take Sasuke down herself and of course fails, requiring Kakashi and Naruto to save her ass from the boy she loves. The Final Battle and Distant Finale makes it worse as Sakura easily forgives Sasuke for trying to kill her multiple times, and she settles down and marries him having learned no lesson whatsoever. Also Kishimoto’s insistence that Sakura would be a “terrible woman” if she moved on from Sasuke didn’t help matters. Unsure on this one, if it is a valid example, it could use a rewrite to cut on the complaining.
- Tobi AKA Obito Uchiha. He's supposed to be a world-weary counterpart to the protagonist who has given up hope on any chance of world peace, preferring to put everyone in a Lotus-Eater Machine where they can escape all the problems of reality. Instead, many saw him as a whiny Manchild who can't get over Rin's death. Seems valid, though maybe revise the second sentence
- The way Utakata's master Harusame tries to extract the Tailed Beast from his disciple in an anime-only Filler is supposed to be seen as good intentions to the point that upon realizing this, Utakata eventually rebuilt the pedestal with him after accidentally killing him. The problem is, extracting the Bijuu from a Jinchuuriki will also directly kill the host, and with no indication of Utakata having trouble with his Bijuu, nor even knowing why his master does it in the first place against his will, it comes off as Harusame crossing the Moral Event Horizon with Utakata having every right to defy his master and killing him sounds more like a Kick The Son Of A Bitch than what is supposed to be. Maybe?
- Madara Uchiha, the Big Bad of the story. He’s apparently meant to be seen as someone who was forced to grow up in a ninja world full of war, and is just trying to create a utopia so his dreams of peace can become reality. This is all well and good, if you forget that the story shows that he and his former friend, Hashirama, managed to accomplish peace with the creation of the Hidden Leaf Village. Hell, Hashirama even tries to make him leader of that new village, but Madara refuses. It’s even harder for viewers to see him as someone who wants peace at any cost due to his obvious glee before every battle. Add that to fact that a part of his Start of Darkness is caused by him wanting to remake the world in his image, even screwing over his best friend to do so, and this makes him come across not as a Well-Intentioned Extremist, but more of a hypocritical Jerkass. Unsure on this one
- Boruto Uzumaki, Naruto and Hinata's son. It's hard to sympathize with the boy who only wanted his father to come home when he is as bad (if not worse) than Naruto during his childhood. Unlike Naruto, Boruto doesn't have a crappy childhood but takes it all for granted and does the same antics his father used to do, all so his father can pay more attention to him. He keeps calling his father a bad parent, going as far as to wish he was dead and is unable to understand other people's feelings (such as complaining that his father is never around in front of Sarada, whose father was never with her for her whole life). And when Naruto finally spends some time with him, he ignores him and brushes away his affections. Maybe?
openIndexing Anthologies
Over on LGBT Representation in Media, I un-wikiworded Two Sentence Horror Stories as the series itself isn't an example of LGBT Representation (it's a horror anthology), but has several stories that do (and the recaps are indexed there correctly), and got a tap on the shoulder about that being a bad practice, so I just wanted to make sure!
openRed Zone Cuba entries Film
The YMMV page for Red Zone Cuba has the following entries for Designated Hero and Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
- Designated Hero: The main characters are entirely unsympathetic, particularly Griffin. He is supposed to be viewed as a put-upon everyman who just suffers from poor impulse control, but is instead portrayed as a selfish, violent, and hypocritical murderer and rapist. When the work page describes Griffin as "one of the most disturbingly realistic portrayals of a sociopath in film", something went wrong.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Griffin was meant to be seen as a mostly decent person who was down on his luck and held back by a Hair-Trigger Temper, and what happens to him at the end of the movie was supposed to be tragic and thought-provoking. However, he does nothing even remotely heroic or altruistic at all throughout the entire story; anything he does that seems so (asking for water for a sick man in a POW camp, or treating the wife of said sick man nicely) is merely calculated to advance his own agenda. Griffin was supposed to have fallen beyond sympathy when he rapes a blind girl and murders her father, but he failed to establish any sympathy to lose by that point.
The entries don't cite any evidence that Griffin was meant to be sympathetic, and having seen the uncut film, it doesn't come off that way at all. He comes off simply as a Villain Protagonist who's driven by greed and gets his comeuppance at the end. No one in the film expresses sympathy for his death, and aside from grim music briefly playing when he's shot down, there's no hint of it being meant to be tragic. Also, his line that he wants to "go legit" is followed by him saying, "I don't want any bulls chasing me," so in context it's clearly Pragmatic Villainy rather than him wanting to redeem himself.
It's worth noting that Coleman Francis's films in general are dark and gritty, and tend to focus on unsympathetic characters, so this may simply be his Signature Style, and Griffin being the Villain Protagonist may have been mistaken for the film portraying him as the hero. Can these be cut?
Edited by Javertshark13openJohn Byrne's Superman = Audience-Alienating Era Print Comic
Ok, I gotta ask, can John Byrne's Superman, especially The Man of Steel be considered an Audience-Alienating Era?
First of, The Man of Steel was initially listed in the YMMV section as Condemned by History by the following argument: "Back in 1986, Man of Steel sold extremely well and was hailed as the story which modernized and made Superman good and fresh again thanks to scraping off the Silver Age "silliness". Over time, though, Byrne's vision was gradually rejected and ultimately retconned out of continuity. Most of his contributions (the birthing matrix, the unfeeling Krypton...) and interpretations (Superman being the only son of Krypton who rejects his immigrant heritage and declares to be fully American...) were eventually deemed mistakes and expunged from the mythos, whereas most of Silver Age lore and characters (Supergirl, Krypto, the Phantom Zone and its inmates, the Fortress of Solitude...), which he attempted to write off because of their alleged childishness and irrelevance, have been brought back. Nowadays, Man of Steel is considered a dated origin which has aged badly (especially compared to the Batman and Wonder Woman's reboots), and not even Post-Crisis Superman fans seem to want it back., but was later removed
.
Secondly, John Byrne's run itself is listed in the The DCU's section
for Audience-Alienating Era under the following argument: "Although John Byrne's 80's Superman's run got praise and good sales back in the day, it also gained many vocal detractors who decried the erasure of many classic characters and concepts, the loss of the whimsical tone and the colorful high sci-fi/fantasy concepts, the diminishing of Superman's complex dual identity, the messing-up of the Legion of Super-Heroes, the unfortunate message that "immigrants should forget their origins", the shoehorning and mishandling of the New Gods, the blatant misogyny of some stories (Big Barda being mind-controlled, raped and hypnotized into being a porno actress comes to mind), and the long-term damage done to the mythos caused by Byrne eliminating anything not protected by his Golden Age nostalgia. History -and DC, who would go to undo most of what Byrne did- ended up siding with them, and nowadays that period is disliked and disregarded by everybody but Byrne diehards."
An era can only be considered as Audience-Alienating if... 1. the era is a critical and financial disappointment even during the time of release 2. any changes the era brings to the franchise are removed by later stories 3. any time the era is referenced to by later stories, it's almost always in a negative manner.
I bring this up because a lot of examples in AAE come off as blatant editorializing. What do you think?
openOdd edit war in Moral Myopia
Here's a weird situation: Back in March, stankykong added a Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness example (yeah, Strange again) to MoralMyopia.Live Action Films. Loekman3 rightfully deleted it, saying to wait for release in case of Trailers Always Lie. stanky did as asked, and waited until last weekend to restore it... except the trailer did lie, and stanky's entry is inaccurate (stanky and the marketing focused on Strange's actions in No Way Home, while the actual movie points to Infinity War instead).
Now obviously, the entry needs to be updated to accurately reflect the movie, and I can do that myself if nobody else gets to it first. But a blanket restore without bothering to correct bad information (did stanky even see the movie yet?) feels like something that needs to be addressed.
open Arthas456
Arthas456
has very poor grammar. Just pick any of their edits from their edit history to see for yourself (I would link some of their edits but most of their recent contributions are directed towards the Dr. Strange sequel, which I have yet to see). I sent them a grammar notifier but they haven't acknowledged it and are continuing with their current course of action.
openIf a bird fluffs itself up after being dried off, does that count as Fluffy Dry Cat? Web Original
In one Backyard Birds Of Australia video, Cheeky Boy, one of the Laughing Kookaburras, shook himself off to dry, and all his feathers puffed up. Due to having feathers rather than fur, does this count as Fluffy Dry Cat?
Edited by queenieAGopen 12-Episode Anime: still tropeworthy? Anime
I’ve been concerned about 12-Episode Anime for a while now. There are two major issues that caught my attention.
First, I’m wondering whether it’s still tropeworthy in the first place. I suspect this is a very old page, especially since the description mentions the Spring and Fall anime seasons being much more important than Summer and Winter, which was once true but hasn’t really been the case for ~15 years now. There was a time when most new TV anime that weren’t open-ended serials had a standard length of 24-26 episodes, and 12 episode anime in that era were something of a novelty. But things have changed especially over the last decade or so, to the point where almost all new TV anime are being made 12 episodes at a time now, even the ones that are renewed for multiple seasons. So a 12-episode anime in the 2020s is effectively PSOC, nothing notable at all because it’s evolved into the industry standard. If anyone cared enough to add every new 12 episode series that premiered every season we’d be adding over 100 new anime to the page every year.
Second, even if everyone decides the concept itself is still a valid trope, the vast majority of the examples on the page are ZCE, and most of the examples that do have a description are in the ”Given More Seasons” and “Unusual Cases” folders, which are essentially the aversions.
openA troper with trouble
There's this newbie who's making pages for their fanfics, which so far is fine, since they follow the rules about only troping objective stuff. They've got some issues, though.
- They use a bit
of Word Cruft even after I explained why that's bad, in typical "This example is an example" fashion.
- They capitalize random
words like "Sociopathy" and "Fanfic".
- There are some YMMV tropes on the main page, like Complete Monster (I removed them though).
- The tropes aren't alphabetized properly either. One page had some misplaced tropes, while the other page had them all in completely random order.
- Also, they don't do indexing even after I sent a notifier.
Usually I'd just fix things myself, but I'm afraid of spoilers for Jojo's Bizarre Adventure and Demon Slayer, two series that these fanfics are based on and that I enjoy.
Edited by MichaelKatsuro

I started an Image Pickin
thread but I accidently forgot to link the page at the top: It was for Pirates Of The Caribbean Actors. I don't know if this the place to point this out, but I would like to apologize for the trouble and ask that it be fixed or discarded. If I broke the rules, I would to report myself.
Edited by Bullman