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:
openGrammar Issues
Kindaguy 201 could use a bit of a tap on the shoulder - they haven't edited much yet, but their edits have several grammar issues. I sent them a notifier after this edit
which featured indentation issues, a sentence beginning in the middle of a thought, and the wrong form of "it's". As shown by this edit
, for which I've sent another notifier, they have not visited the GHWE thread, as it contains improper capitalization, a missing space, lacking a possessive apostrophe, and the wrong form of "to".
openEnding Aversion misuse?
- Ending Aversion:Some fans will be turned off by the ending of the film which involves the very memory of Peter Parker being erased from everyone's memories, including his loved ones, with him refusing to remind them in order to protect them and leaving him living on his own and having to support himself while acting as Spider-Man.
I removed it as it requires backlash against the ending to be so widespread even non-fans hear about it and thus avoid the work. "For some" suggests it's not widespread enough an it still seems too soon to tell. It was added back without explanation.
Should I re-cut? Move? Or what?
openThe Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild headscratchers page Videogame
I found this absolute wall of text on Headscratchers.The Legend Of Zelda Breath Of The Wild. Placed in a folder because it's long:
- I haven't found what's supposed to claim this but I see talk of how Zelda's father, who is explicitly mentioned to have the title of "King", isn't of Hylia's bloodline. As Hylia's incarnation is always Princess Zelda that would indicate that her kin should be the side of the family with the literal divine right of kings. So unless there's something important here I'm missing how in the world did Zelda's mother, who was of Hylia's blood which was why losing her was so crippling to this incarnation of Zelda and assumedly the naturally born crown princess/Queen of Hyrule, get outranked by some schmuck she married and who does this glorified Prince Consort think he is to declare himself King while acting as Zelda's regent until she comes of age to rule on her own? "King" as a title can't belong to anyone not of the direct ruling bloodline after all, as in a Kingdom it outranks its sister title of "Queen", since consorts/spouses aren't permitted to have titles higher than the actual ruler's. On a similar note if being protected by a religiously powered matriarch is so fundamental to Hyrule in the first place (And as the local deities of worship that can be confirmed to exist are almost all female) why is it a Kingdom instead of a Queendom in the first place?
- You're looking way too far into this. The simplified way that the royalty in this game works is the same one that has been portrayed not just in other Zelda games, but across most realms of media and fiction in general - the idea of Prince-consorts as opposed to true kingship seems almost strictly limited to the real world. And that's even if the thing about Rhoam being from outside the line is true.
- Original poster here: This is the headscratchers page, no need to be so rudely dismissive about answering since this is where fridge logic is meant to be put and nothing is considered "too far" as long as you can see how the question came up. Why comment if you aren't actually addressing the question being posed in the first place for that matter and instead just attacking someone for asking it? Most other Zelda games just plain don't talk about the royal family beyond Zelda herself so there's no need to question if her father has the right to be called king, as their competence isn't in question and neither is her own (Unlike here where her father outright tells her that her people think she's the "Heir to Nothing" like an abusive asshole and encourages the only heir to the throne to act more like a priestess than a studious princess) so the fact this game did want to go into royal politics for a change doesn't make me out of line. And just because mainstream media doesn't like to do it's research most works that do want to make royal politics a major plot point, like Zelda tried here, do go into this sort of thing plenty often. Only part I'd grant would be "too deep" is the notion of a patriarchy existing in a world where the major religious and cultural foundations are primarily presented as female-focused with confirmable magical existences, and that contradiction has always been a part of the game's setting. And as I said in the first line I don't know if it's true so the least you could have done was find what could confirm or deny it, as obviously that's my main concern here.
- First of all, let me apologize for coming off as rude, since that wasn't my intention. It just seemed like you were getting a bit too...upset, if I may, about something that's been a common part of royalty's portrayal throughout most of popular culture. Having nearly completed the main story and collected all of the memories, I've yet to come across anything indicating that King Rhoam was from outside the line, but even if he was, what I meant with my earlier response was that, in the game's universe, he would probably still be considered a genuine "king", as opposed to prince-consort, because that's how it typically works in fiction. So his line to Zelda about her inheritance probably wouldn't be seen as that level of disrespectful, in-universe - I didn't want you to get that worked up about it, and I'm sorry if it came out wrong.
- OP again: Alright, it just rubbed me wrong that it didn't seem like any other questions got that sort of treatment without any meaningful expansion/explanation on anything added to it even though this one isn't the only one with parts that can be difficult to check by the nature of the game, like the timeline debates, or one based on honest confusion. But with monarchies hardly being a fictional concept as Great Britian's royal family is easily one of the most well known existing monarchies to date (regardless of how vital it is for their current system of government) and seeing it used as an excuse for sexism's a Pet Peeve trope of mine as well... you'd figure people should know or at least infer by now as despite easily being the world's best known monarchy it openly has no King at present and hasn't in ages (with the Queen's husband indeed only ever having the title of "Prince") that not all Kingdoms need a King to function you know? Though his telling his daughter to her face that the people she knows should be looking to her for future guidance have no faith in her like that in such brutal phrasing was still an awful parenting move on his part considering it couldn't help her with anything and just further hurt her self esteem all because she tried to act like princess in her situation should.
- For all we know, both of Zelda's parents might be descended from Hylia's line. An awful lot of time has passed since the Skyward Sword era, and unless the line of Hyrule enforces a strictly one-child-per-generation rule, it's bound to have branched out countless times. Rhoam may be the de-facto king, and married to a member of a cadet branch. Apparently being a woman is a requirement for the powers of the blood of Hylia to fully manifest, so only his wife was taught the procedures.
- I can find no mention that he isn't a descendant. I think we can assume, as with European nobility, a lot of inbreeding was happening. The King probably married a distant cousin who happened to be a priestess. This sort of thing happened all the time to keep blood-lines "pure", and that's before we add in descended from Gods into the mix to have some sort of actual reason to do it. Of course this then raises further questions; if there is a large body of nobility all tangentially related to each other then losing Zelda's mother shouldn't have been the death blow to her teachings the King and Zelda believe it to be.
- Because she's smart enough to know that ruling the kingdom is nothing like sitting on the throne and ordering minions around while gloating in their ego on their high title; The Good King or Queen takes care of their people and make their place safe. After all, she holds the Triforce of Wisdom. So she brushed all her responsibilities as a ruler to her husband even though it means he'll get the glory and status in the process.
- Issue with that would be that the title of "King" couldn't be given to him under any circumstances barring him overthrowing his wife if she was the by blood rights ruling party because that's not how royal titles work period and it is factually wrong to depict them as such and was the core point of my initial complaint/confusion. In order to be King, Rhoam would have to have more royal blood than the Queen does in the first place, so you missed the point about how having the title "King" over "Prince" or "Regent" isn't possible if she was the primary and acknowledged descendant of Hylia instead of him, which is why the focus of most attempts to make sense of this are instead focusing on looking into where his blood right is called into question. Also with the implications that holding the Triforce of Wisdom wouldn't obviously make her best qualified for and the one who would be actually preforming the duties you are at the same time suggesting she delegates away to the man who would still be required to have a lower title than her own by basic law and common sense sounds incredibly confusing at best and overtly sexist at worst as why wouldn't she want her subjects to know who exactly in HER country deserved their respect exactly and by whos authority they lived under?
- One thing I'd like to note is that Rhoam very closely resembles Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule from The Wind Waker (who, by the way, also seemed to possess mystical, divine powers - did anything every say that Hylia's powers only went to the females?), as well as various other Hyrulean kings across the series, just with a longer beard and hair and a pointier nose. The resemblance suggests that they're related through more than just marriage.
- As a common thread seems to be that whatever helped make the idea that Rhoam wasn't Hylia's descendant seems to have been a rumor more than an actual in game claim or a particularly hard to find diary entry so thanks everybody for helping clear that up! Being a Daphnes Expy does make him being at least one of Wind Waker Zelda's descendants does seem very likely (or something similar if this can't connect with that timeline at all) instead of Nintendo just dropping the ball where their research or world building was concerned and falling into harmful/sexist traps regarding royal politics just when they decided to try and go that extra mile for this series. At the very least Zelda's lack of spiritual connection could easily be attributed to just taking after him too much as, even though him being a guy made it a less important issue, he certainly seems less attuned with his bloodline's magic or their piece of the Triforce than Daphnes was and provide a reason for how if her mother was less "pure"/directly connected to Hylia she was supposed to have been in charge of this area of Zelda's teachings.
- As I understand your remarks, you've basically made three distinct arguments: (1) A man cannot become a king by marrying a queen; (2) A king always outranks a queen; and (3) All monarchies operate according to uniform rules of heredity. All three are historically false. Argument (1) is false because there exist two different ways of becoming king by marrying a queen: the king jure uxoris ("by right of [his] wife"), who becomes king in fact as well as name by marrying an heiress or a queen regnant; although these men did not wholly displace their wives, they did acquire the right to rule on their wives' behalves by what English law would later call coverture, the woman's property being automatically administered by her husband. There are a number of examples of kings jure uxoris in the Medieval period: Fulk, Count of Anjou, as king of Jerusalem via Melisende, daughter and heiress of King Baldwin II; Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat, and Aimery, King of Cyprus, as kings of Jerusalem via Queen Isabella I; John of Brienne (later emperor of Constantinople) as king of Jerusalem via Queen Mary (Isabella I's daughter by Conrad); Emperor Frederick II as king of Jerusalem via Queen Isabella II (Mary I's daughter by John); Philip IV, King of France, as King Philip I of Navarre via Queen Joan I; Emperor Sigismund as king of Hungary via Queen Mary; and Albert V, Duke of Austria, as king of Hungary via Elizabeth of Luxemburg, daughter and heiress of Emperor Sigismund. Kingship jure uxoris more or less died out by the time of the Renaissance and the Early Modern Period. Around this time we see the rise of the king consort, as women were accepted as queens regnant suo jure; their husbands might be granted the title of king. The existence of the king consort simultaneously demonstrates that both arguments (1) and (2) are false. Examples of kings consort include Philip IV of Burgundy as King Philip I of Castile via Queen Juana I; Philip of Spain, King of Naples (later Philip II of Spain), as king of England via Queen Mary I (Philip's father, Emperor Charles V, had donated his kingship of Naples to Philip in 1554 as a wedding gift, so that the Spanish prince would be equal in rank to his fiancée, Queen Mary, at the time of their wedding); Francis II of France as king of Scots via Queen Mary; Henry Stuart, Lord Dudley, as king of Scots via the same Queen Mary; Infante Pedro of Portugal as King Peter III of Portugal via Queen Mary I; Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry as King Ferdinand II of Portugal via Queen Mary II; and Francisco, Duque de Cádiz, as king of Spain via Queen Isabella II. There are also a handful of cases in which a queen regnant shared her authority with her husband as co-ruler without being legally displaced by him, such as Prince Louis of Taranto as king of Naples via Queen Joanna I; Philip, Count of Évreaux, as King Philip III of Navarre via Queen Joan II; Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania, as King Władysław II of Poland via Queen Jadwiga; Ferdinand II of Aragon as King Ferdinand V of Castile via Queen Isabella I; and William III, Prince of Orange, as King William III of England via Queen Mary II. Władysław and William continued to reign after their wives died. Argument (3) is false because each monarchy operates on its own individual rules. In England (and by extension, the modern UK), male-preference primogeniture meant that a female could inherit the crown if there was no male with a superior claim (e.g., Mary I, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II), and also that the line of succession can pass through a female dynast (e.g., the current Prince of Wales and his sons). In France, however, the legal fiction of Salic law forbade a woman from inheriting the crown and also forbade the line of succession from passing through female dynasts (i.e., if a king's daughter had a son, he would have no rights of succession through his mother). In the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary, the crown became elective (although in many cases, election was merely a formality). In Wallachia, any male with royal blood was eligible to succeed, even if he were illegitimate. In the Ottoman Empire, any male of the dynasty could become sultan through a rather vague process of dynastic consensus, resulting in uncles succeeding their nephews on occasion. Furthermore, all of these rules operated only so long as it was advantageous to the most influential and most powerful that they operate. When these rules were inconvenient, people could and did flout them. The Norman Invasion (1066), the Anarchy (1135-1154), the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453), the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), the War of the Castilian Succession (1475-1479), the War of the Burgundian Succession (1477-1482), the War of the Portuguese Succession (1580-1583), the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1715), the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), the '45 Rebellion (1745), the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778-1779), and the Carlist Wars (1833-1840, 1846-1849, 1872-1876) — to name only a few prominent examples — were all results of disputes over succession.This is to say nothing of civil wars or usurpations of monarchs already ruling. Of course, all of this is moot because (A) there is no evidence whatsoever that King Rhoam Bosphoramus Hyrule is not king suo jure, and (B) we know very little about how the House of Hyrule determines succession. As far as point (A) is concerned, Rhoam bears a physical resemblance to the King of Hyrule (AL), the King of Hyrule (LP), King Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule (WW), King Daltus and King Gustaf (MC), and the deuterocanonical King Harkinian (LZ animated series and comic series, but less so his appearances in FE and WG), and, like Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, appears to use Hyrule as a cognomen or surname. All of this circumstantially suggests that he should be interpreted as exactly what he appears to be. With respect to point (B), we know only that the royal family apparently practices male-preference primogeniture during the Golden Age in the Downfall timeline (the Prince of Hyrule and the Princess Zelda in AL), and that it is possible for a princess to be "queen-in-waiting" (TP trading cards and Prima guides). Presumably this means she is the legal ruler in reginam promovenda, pending some the completion of some ceremony or other condition before coronation as queen, and we further assume that this is the case of other princesses whom we might otherwise expect to have acceded as queens (the Princess Zelda in the Adult era of OT, Tetra in WW and PH, the Princess Zelda in ST, and the Princess Zelda in BW, although it is also possible that some of these princesses could be regents pending the arrival of another dynast with a superior claim to succession). We simply don't know how the crown is passed, and there's certainly no reason to assume that the English rules of succession apply.
- The short version of the above is: "Yes, a man can become a king by marrying a queen. No, this does not automatically mean he rules instead of her. No, there's no reason to assume that King Rhoam shouldn't be king."
- The issues with the above come from saying we have no reason to assume Rhoam isn't the by-blood king when we really do, which is what lead to the king debate. If he married into the royal family taking his wife's surname in a case like this would most likely be the expected practice, so his name doesn't seem to prove much of anything here. Looking like kings of the past could also be just as indicative of him coming from one of the supposed side families as he is lacking in the royal family's ability to use Hylia's magic which seems a lot more important for this than appearances. Hylia's bloodline being central to why "Princess Zelda" is always a princess (As opposed to just having the prophecy say a descendant of Hylia is needed to seal Ganon) seems to indicate their connection to this Goddess is why they are the ruling family, a lot like the legends about the Japanese ruling family being descendant of the Goddess Amaterasu in a variation of the divine right of kings, so it seems like decent reasoning to assume he's more likely to have married into the family than his wife did. Had Hylia's power come from a "side family" it seems odd he wouldn't have had any other alternatives for Zelda's teacher after the Queen died, as mentioned above, when if the power was kept within the direct royal family this element of the story makes more sense. Also it's unclear if Hylia's power really is gender locked since no other goddesses power in this series seems to be restricted in this way, as two of the three holders of the Golden Goddesses' triforce are male, and since Wind Waker's king was adept at least at general magic, given how he animated the King of Red Lions and created the Pirate's Charm, Rhoam completely lacking in this area sticks out more as an oddity.
- In point of fact, no, we really don't have any reason to assume that Rhoam is not king suo jure. There is no evidence saying this. There is no reason to assume this. Your suggestion that he might have adopted his wife's name — which has no precedent in history that I am aware of (the closest being the examples of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, neither of which support your argument) — is both begging the question and a violation of Ockham's razor. There is no reason to assume that his surname "Hyrule" means anything other than his dynastic kingship of Hyrule, so you are positing complexity without need in order to explain why he has it. Your talk about his apparent lack of magic powers is irrelevant; of the eight kings of Hyrule we know of (Harkinian, AL, LP, OT, Daphnes, Daltus, Gustaf, and Rhoam), precisely one of them (Daphnes) has displayed magical abilities without use of the Triforce — and there is absolutely no indication that his magic has anything to do with Hylia, given that it is possible for Hyrulians to learn magic via study (AL) or to use it via talismans (LP, OT) — , so there is no reason to believe that magic has any strong correlation to Hylian kingship. If anything, the ability to use magic makes Daphnes the odd man out.
- I would also like to point out that Hyrule was both founded by a woman and named after a goddess. It's very likely that despite being called a 'kingdom', it is very likely that queens were the higher ranking royalty, especially considering that only women could inherit Hylia's power.
- You mean they used the wrong word and use of "kingdom" has become a case of The Artifact as the series has gone on? Since there is already a word for this concept in English, as pointed out in the question that led to this. A queendom would be a realm controlled by a queen first and foremost, much the same way kingdoms are for kings which is why ruling queens in a kingdom are technically considered "queen regent" when "regent" is a title for someone serving in the place of the "proper" ruling party.
- You're mistaken. A ruling queen in a kingdom is called a "queen regnant," to make clear that she is reigning in her own right and is not a queen consort, a woman who has the title of queen because she is married to a king; it is possible for one woman to be both a queen regnant and a queen consort (e.g., Isabella the Catholic, Mary of England, Maria Theresia). "Queen regent" refers either to a queen consort who exercises royal authority in a kingdom on behalf of her husband the king (who is absent or incapacitated) or to a queen dowager (wife of a previous king who is now dead) who exercises royal authority in a kingdom on behalf of her son the king or her daughter the queen regnant (who is absent, incapacitated, or has not reached his or her majority).
- Is it really that hard to believe that a fictional kingdom just has a different hierarchy/titles/rules for succession? There's never been much but practically everything we've ever heard about the Hylian royal court across all games doesn't jive with historical monarchies. At this point it's more ridiculous to try and shoehorn the Hyrule family into our understanding of real-world royalty than it is to just start theorizing how their monarchy works from scratch.
- That's what I was going to say, but I'm gonna rehash anyway. First of all it's not like this is the first time we've had a Hylian King; Daphnes from WW and OoT's King, for instance, and there's no evidence for or against them being of Hylia's blood. Secondly, as the above says, it's a fictional world and applying real world conventions to it without any proof of it is kind of silly. Hyrule could easily be a "a Prince/Princess has to get married and they become King and Queen" sort of Kingdom. TBH I didn't even read all of the real world examples and arguments because bottom line... this is not the real world. There are flying tree people, giant bird people, giant fish people, ROCK people, flying dragons, and that's not even getting into monsters and Gods and such. It's not the real world, bottom line.
- Hyrule is a fictional kingdom so it likely follows different rules. Since the power of the bloodline only appears to manifest in the women of the royal family it's possible that succession is matriarchal (and the powers might even been seen as the right to rule, remember Rhoam's line about "heir to nothing"). Also remember that Hyrule fell on the day Zelda went to the Spring of Wisdom, which was her 17th birthday and the day she was seen as an adult in Hyrule (No one under the age of 17 is allowed there) so Rhoam could have been Zelda's regent. Now Rhoam could easily also be a descendant of Hylia, see above about the Royal family branching out and intermarrying with other noble families (this might even be a requirement of the royal spouse to keep the bloodline and powers as strong as possible), but since he's not a female of the line he doesn't know how to access the special powers.
- Technically speaking, we also have no reason to assume that Hylia's power doesn't manifest in male members of the royal line; as previously noted, Daphnes displayed magical talent that was never implied to be not his own (when recounting how Ganondorf overtook Hyrule, he does say "My power alone could not stop the fiend"), and the king from Adventure of Link also knew enough to hide the Triforce of Courage so well. Neither of those contradict anything we're told in this game, either, because even if Rhoam can access the divine magic of his line, he's established as being such a stickler for tradition that he would still see the duty to harness it as falling to Zelda, if he even knows that he could do it just as well himself.
- Age of Calamity contains some details that shed a bit more light on things. Rhoam's main weapon in that game is a Royal Claymore, which is explicitly stated to be the type of weapon issued to the royal family's personal guards. This strongly implies that Rhoam served in the Royal Guard, and may have even been one of Zelda's mother's bodyguards prior to their marriage (in real-world history, it wasn't unusual for younger sons in noble families to enter the military, where their rank would put them on the fast track to promotion—Hyrule's nobility might do something similar). While not an outright confirmation, this suggests that Zelda's mother was the direct heir and Rhoam married into the throne. If the sealing power is a sign of the right to rule, as mentioned above, Rhoam may fall victim to the opposite side of the coin: he can't use it because he's King by marriage, not a direct member of the royal line. If it's accepted in-universe that Zelda is the only one who can wield it as long as she's alive and has no children, this would also explain why no one else with Hylian blood is trying to unlock the sealing power in her stead.
- There's still his resemblance to previous Hylian kings, though, particularly Daphnes in The Wind Waker, who seemed to be a direct heir since he possessed the requisite powers. And Rhoam is already a king by the time of Age of Calamity when he's using the Royal Claymour. Being so adept with it doesn't mean he must have had a past as a royal guard; he could've been born a royal who chose to use it as a weapon.
Is there anything we should do about this? I've briefly touched upon this in the Headscratchers cleanup thread
but even with a possible conclusion I still have no idea what to do.
openLiterature/TheGenesisOfJennyEverywhere
More wick cleaning shenanigans. Discovered the The Genesis of Jenny Everywhere — description states it is unfinished, the page itself is filled with ZCEs, and the work itself is scattered through a wordpress blog
. Should it just be cut?
open Designated Hero Edit War
DesignatedHero.Anime And Manga
- The protagonists of Dragon Ball are treated as great, lovable people, but they often veer into this. Vegeta in his earlier days put the entire planet on the line for the sake of one-upping Goku, who isn't really a saint himself, more often than not prioritizing fights over just about anything else, even when it endangers entire worlds just for the sake of a fair fight. He also has a habit of taking Honor Before Reason to its infuriating extreme, not only letting the villains get stronger just for a fair fight, but even giving said enemies Senzu Beans to heal their injuries. Unfortunately, this gets heavy Flanderization in Super when he causes other people grief, his reactions range from ignorant to pushing aside their concerns. The biggest example is when he's called out for making the Tournament of Power a thing, something that caused distress and anger of many, many people. He's called out on this, and he simply tells them to bring their strongest fighters. The Secret Test of Character twist doesn't alleviate how appalling he acts about this tournament he started. He then pushes his stupidity further by reviving Frieza, a dreaded who is known for decimating entire planets just for his own gain, for this tournament, then the protagonists let him run free, even though he'll just kill more innocent people and force countless more under his boot, something neither Goku, nor the other fighters, have any intention to stop. He wasn't meant to be a good person, but it's difficult for some to want him or the others to succeed when they act like this.
- Additionally, the Z-Fighters sometimes revive all the people on their world who get killed in their scuffles. That being said, there are plenty of men, women, children, and alien civilizations that got destroyed by Vegeta or someone else, and they were never brought back. Yet no one really punishes Vegeta for his actions beyond dying once for unrelated reasons and getting his shit kicked in.
- The other fighters aren't any better. 17 and 18 are pretty much told their universe is at stake, and the only way to save it is to win a tournament. 17 takes quite a long while to change his mind, initially deciding to just stay in his animal preserve, despite having a wife and child, and 18 wants to ditch the tournament when she discovers there's no cash prize. This is the team you're supposed to root for by the way.
- This really goes even beyond the main fighters. Bulma has spent a good chunk of her screentime over the years flirting with men in front of her boyfriend, but gets pissed when a woman shows interest in him. Master Roshi also spent years being appallingly perverted, even groping and feeling up multiple women, and once asked a teenage Bulma to flash him. Oolong acts like a perverted freak. Beerus is a lazy god who enabled (and is known for carrying out) mass decimation of life. The list goes on.
Troper ToonFreak added the first version of Themis entry in January and it seems like they're the only ones editing/adding it to its current state since.
This 9th this month AMassiveOvereditor deleted it citing "Designated Hero is about the narrative and all the characters in a story treating the "heroes" as unambiguously good for their actions even if they are several horrendous crimes. Goku, Vegeta, and everyone else in the cast are called out on their flaws, sometimes multiple times, other times just a couple. You're thinking of base breaking characters and even then, some of the examples don't have nearly as much of a divide to qualify, others you are just describing one flaw and saying it automatically qualifies them for this, which again, it does not." ToonFreak added it back yesterday without alterations citing "Clarified because they belong on this list." which I believe fails to address the arguments for it's removal.
Thoughts?
resolved Memetic Mutation misuse? Music
Found this on YMMV/Deftones:
- Memetic Mutation: Stephen revealing himself to be a believer in several conspiracies
, including the flat Earth theory, anti-vax and COVID-19 denial, was immediately met with widespread scorn from the fandom along with several memes referencing songs such as "Hole in the Earth".
This is already in need of a tweak of some kind since that Vimeo link is dead, but I'm not even sure it's an example of Memetic Mutation - it's more focused on memes made in response to a scenario rather than the scenario itself becoming a meme.
Edited by Akriloth2160openPossible Fandom Agenda-Based Edits? Live Action TV
I've been monitoring the Supernatural page for a while now to cut down on agenda-based editing in wake of the show's controversial ending. I know enough about it from osmosis to understand what the different fandom camps are, which generally fall into three camps: Destiel fans (Dean/Castiel shippers, the largest group), Wincest fans (Sam/Dean shippers, second most common group), and Bibros (platonic Sam+Dean, the audience to whom the show has officially markets itself, though the show's LGBT Fanbase and Yaoi Fangirls have famously disputed this), and how acrimonious things are that keeping an eye on that page is necessary.
Destiel and Wincest fans notoriously do not get along, and I've had to clean up vandalism related to that war in the past. Bibros, though they officially prefer the brothers' relationship platonic, often take the side of Wincest fans against Destiel fans because they share more in common. Bibros are characterized as not liking non-Sam or Dean characters in general, but their dislike for Castiel is less because of Die for Our Ship and more because they consider him a Spotlight-Stealing Squad who took attention away from Sam and made the show more about an expanded cast. Many saw this as a good thing (Castiel was meant to appear in only a few episodes, but the very positive reception from audiences and critics led to him becoming an Ascended Extra and eventually a Breakout Character, especially since the earlier seasons developed a Broken Base where one half of fans believed that the show's exclusive focus on the brothers resulted in a great deal of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character or Plot), but Bibros see him as the harbinger of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.
Many of Lapistier's
edits on the Supernatural YMMV page and others are fine enough and stay nonpartisan, but other times it comes off as a Bibro Righting Great Wrongs or stealth complaining about fans who feel differently. I am not the only one who feels this way, am I?
open Should JK Rowling's views on transgender people be mentioned on her Creator page?
As much as I hate to kick this hornet's nest, I'm honestly not sure where else to ask, since the discussion on the page itself seems to have died. On November 24th, Troper cerealking
deleted
a section of the article that mentions Rowling's views on transgender people with no edit reason given. I personally think it should be added to her biographical section (though not troped) as since 2019 she's been almost as (in)famous for her outspoken opposition to trans rights as for her other writing. Other creators such as Orson Scott Card who've become notorious for their reactionary views have it mentioned on their page, so why not Rowling?
openUnforgivably rude edit reason
Marco Polo 250 gave the following reason to an edit
: "Then why even bring it up you stupid motherfucker"
If the example argued with itself, they could have easily pointed out how the example contradicts itself without being so rude. And it's also not the first time they've made such a rude edit, calling one troper
a "fantard" and that "no one gives a fuck about [their] opinion" (for which they were sent a rudeness notifier).
openTroper with nattering issues
This troper
frequently goes into Thread Mode, adding their personal opinions to trope entries, arguing with examples, and calling out other tropers on adding things they find disagreeable (not in the edit reasons, in the examples themselves).
- Asking if
an Ass Pull entry really is an Ass Pull, because "The movie is hardly going to give away the twist".
- Griping about Karen haters and misogynists
.
- One case of them calling out a troper directly
on the work's main page.
- Another case of contesting an example
.
- Natter that causes the example to go against itself
.
Also, most of these insertions of natter aren't capitalized properly. They also added a rather red-flag-raising entry on this page
.
openMay have caught an edit war + possible agenda
So last night, I found an interesting Anvilicious entry on YMMV.Mr Robot, which, among other things, complained about the lack of a “sympathetic” right-leaning character in the series. I had already taken that entry to the ROCEJ cleanup thread
, where it was agreed to cut the entry.
However, after going back and looking over the history again, I found that the Anvilicious entry was added by Oransel (who added the “lack of a sympathetic right-leaning character” bit) and after doing a quick look through their edit history, found an edit they made on YMMV.Star Trek Picard which talks about the series being even more “preachy” than usual Star Trek. cluosborne deleted the entry with the edit reason being “speculation”, but Oransel added it back with the reason “ How is this a speculation? It is a YMMV opinion, expressed by many people”. (I have next to no knowledge on Star Trek, so I can’t confirm this myself).
Based on what I know of this site’s rules, I’m pretty sure Oransel is (was?) edit warring (and possibly with some kind of agenda). Problem is, the Star Trek entry was from March of last year, and Oransel hasn’t edited since. I’m not sure if possible edit wars are still reportable even if it’s been a year since they happened.
Edited by worldwidewoomyopenRecreating character page for Yumi's Cells Webcomic
Edit: I'm looking for feedback on character images now.
I want to make sure it's okay to recreate Yumi's Cells, which was apparently cut because it didn't have content.
While I'm at it, I also have a few questions about how I should handle spoilers between the characters page and the main Yumi's Cells page. Before I edited the work page, it seemed to mostly spoiler out things regarding the breakup of the second boyfriend and the existence of the third boyfriend.
- If the entry is about the main character's romance, should I put it exclusively in the relevant boyfriend's folder (e.g. a Rejected Marriage Proposal)?
- Should I keep the second boyfriend's breakup spoilered on the character page, or would that be too self-fulfilling? How about non-breakup-related things like the bait-and-switch of the proposal that turned out to be just a regular gift... which turned out to be a wedding ring?
- Should I put a spoilers-off warning on the third boyfriend? I think he has enough non-spoilery tropes about his personality to not be an all-white folder, but the spoilers on the romantic tropes might defeat the purpose.
- The work page has quite a few entries with bullet points for multiple people. If the entries have spoilers for a character that would have a folder, should I move the character's bullet point to their folder? If the entry would lose most of its bullet points that way, should I rewrite it to be more general? (e.g. rewrite the Shirtless Scene entry to say all the boyfriends have such a scene at the high point in their relationships and move the specifics to their respective folders)
- On a different note, should I put a three-trope threshold on the Cell characters before splitting them off from the humans they belong to?
openUnintentionally Unsympathetic misuse or rework?
- Author's Saving Throw: Part of the reason Cortana's Face–Heel Turn in Halo 5: Guardians was so disputed is that it undid the emotional impact of her death in Halo 4. In this game, Cortana is given another chance to perform a Heroic Sacrifice by destroying part of Installation 07 to prevent the Banished from using it to their own ends, earning her a Dying as Yourself moment with the Chief.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Despite Cortana having a reckoning with her actions and performing a Heroic Sacrifice, it ultimately all rings hollow as she's previously acted as a megalomaniacal A.I supremacist who killed an untold number of innocent people and sent whole planets back into the Stone Age in an imperialistic attempt to enforce peace on the galaxy while imprisoning Blue Team in a Cryptum for ten millennia after John refuses to toe the line with her agenda… all without batting an eye. The scene where Cortana spitefully uses the Guardians to commit genocide against the Jiralhanae on Doisac after Atroix refuses to submit to her (those Brutes having apparently done nothing to invoke her ire at all or even been planning against her) made many fans view her as undeserving of redemption after everything she's done and feel that her following Heel Realization was far too little, too late. In general, her apology seems like she is not upset about her actions themselves, but because of having no partners with her or about some of the consequences. The actual genocidal actions do not matter much to her as far as we are shown.
Besides the entries seeming to conflict, I believe UU doesn't apply to too much which is too subjective (and given they sacrificed their lives they did everything possible to atone), but for objectively different reasons than acknowledged by the work. The last part of UU was recently added explain that. Is this a widespread enough to count (there is a lot of valid but unrelated salt over her Face–Heel Turn in the first place that could be influencing this)? Should it be reworked to emphasized she's UU due to seemingly only regretting the consequences as opposed to her evildoing?
Also asked UU cleanup
. But any other feedback would be appreciated.
openNew troper, new page, problems
The new article VideoGame.Gacha World was created by a new troper. Aside from the usual problems with a poorly drafted article, I'm wondering if the description is plagiarized from anywhere. I'm not really interested in doing the research myself so I will hand it over to the troper body.
open Possible edit war on AlternativeCharacterInterpretation/FireEmblemThreeHouses
I think this might be an edit war, but the time periods between edits are pretty long, so I'm looking for a second opinion.
On February 2020, Tdwalls added this entry to Fire Emblem: Three Houses:
The entry was removed on Vampire Buddha on July 2021 as part of a cleanup effort, and in their edit reason they mentioned that the changes were approved
.
Tdwalls then added the entry back on August 2021 with the following edit reason:
There was no attempt to bring the entry to discussion, and I'm also a little concerned that this particular troper seems quick to accuse people of being defensive over the subject of the entry, as can be seen in this discussion thread
.
openThe100 Moral Event Horizon Question Live Action TV
Copying this from the Moral Event Horizon cleanup thread to get more opinions on these entrys.
Found these entries on the Ymmv subpage for The 100. I’m putting this into a folder due to the length
- Moral Event Horizon:
- Clarke and Bellamy when they torture Lincoln which they did in order to find a cure for a poison that's killing Finn.
- Also Clarke killing that Grounder in Season 1 though justified by the fact she was trying to escape so that she can save Finn but it is the first time she straight up murders somebody as the first time she killed somebody it was a mercy kill and being emotionless when she gives him the "shh" gesture while he falls to the floor dying and later along with the others burning up 300 grounders to defend themselves.
- There is also when, along with Lexa, she doesn't inform everybody in the village that a missile is about to hit and of course when she irradiates Mount Weather by pulling a switch with Bellamy and kills everyone including the children and including the earlier mercy kill of Finn and the guilt of every thing she has done ends up leading to her decision to not return to Camp Jaha and live out into the woods.
- Finn caging up Grounder villagers and then slaughtering eighteen of them when they tried to escape. Subverted because it is implied that he was in a PTSD state when he started shooting and as noted he started shooting because one of them tried to escape but the second one was because he was attempting to attack Finn as a result of the first one's death and it causes mass panic that results in all them trying to escape or attack Finn and in his state he just kept shooting until Clarke arrives to snap him out of it and of course the reason he was on edge in the first place was because he was told that the village was holding Clarke captive by a grounder who wanted revenge on the village and to get Finn to stop torturing him. He ends up feeling guilty about this and it is part of the reason he turns himself into the Grounders who were ready to wipe out the Sky People because they wouldn't turn him in for what he did.
- Tsing was already straddling the line before, but she takes a flying leap over it when the President gets locked away. She stops playing nice and takes them one-by-one, killing them for bone marrow extraction.
- If Cage creating Reapers by injecting Grounders with a drug to make them murderous cannibals didn't push him over the line, then staging a coup so that he can forcibly remove the bone marrow from the teens definitely does.
- Tsing and Cage justify their actions as trying to find a cure for their people's illness and being on a deadline because of radiation leaks. But they are not really justified because they basically enslaved Grounders as Reapers. Killed their 100 captives brutally, just to speed up production of the cure. They had a method to cure the populace that would not kill the 100 but decided it would take too long. Deciding to kidnap more of them to literally butcher them for marrow for their own convenience. In fact another reason they where on a deadline was because their actions forced a Grounder/ 100 alliance and as noted by Kane, the Sky People would have volunteered if asked and they didn't ask just because of the possibility they would say no.
- Pike ordering (and helping carry out) the murder of 299 Trikru Grounders who were there to protect them in cold blood and in "Bitter Harvest", after being told that Lexa would not start a war over his massacre, he doesn't take the reprieve as the one-shot blessing he's been given, and moves right into deciding to take a Grounder village's land to use it for farm land. Then he sentences Kane to be executed because Kane attempted to kidnap him and turn him into the Grounders and he later executes Lincoln who stays behind after Kane and the others escape because Pike threatened to kill the other Grounders prisoners if one of them didn't surrender. Subverted when he later helps in the fight against A.L.I.E and his murder of the Grounders is partially justified by his bad experiences with the Ice Nation that made him distrustful of all Grounders and he believed that they were secretly planning to attack and as stated he sentenced Kane to be executed because he attempted to kidnap him and Lincoln was probably a show of force to show he means business though his killing of Lincoln is what leads to his death.
- Bellamy participating in the massacre of the 299 Trikru grounders sent to protect Arkadia and supporting Pike's anti grounder movement. It is eventually Inverted when he turns against Pike and eventually sees the errors in his choices even then his actions are some what justified by the fact that he wasn't in his right mind because of his grief over the deaths of many people and someone he cared about and his guilt for what he did with Clarke in Mount Weather when they killed the whole population and really not having too many positive experiences with the Grounders to begin with which includes the fact that they have killed several of his people and Lexa abandoning them at Mount Weather that lead to him and Clarke making that decision in the first place.
- Before this in Season 1, there is his attempt to kill Jaha and on the ground telling everyone they can do whatever they want and convincing them to take off their wristbands making the Ark think that they died from radiation and destroying Raven's radios which ends preventing them from stopping the killing of 300 people on the Ark to save life support and led to them shooting flares to try to contact the Ark and the flares end up destroying a village which ends up making the conflict with the grounders worse. Though these actions are justified by the fact he did these things for his sister Octavia to protect her from the Ark's harsh laws and protect himself from getting punished for what he did to Jaha. Also what he did to Jaha was part of a deal so he could get on the drop-ship with Octavia to either die with her so she won't die alone or to be their to protect her on the ground if it turned out to be survivable.
- Jaha not even hesitating to sacrifice one of his disciples to a hungry sea monster is viewed as such by Murphy and when you consider that awhile back he was willing to sacrifice himself so that his people could get to the earth and he also didn't enjoy enforcing the laws of the Ark and started going against them in the end.
- Then in Season 3 he becomes loyal to A.L.I.E and participates in torture and forcing and manipulating people into taking her chip and falling under her control but this is justified by the fact he is under her control too but he was the first one to take the chip and the one who found her in the first place and it is implied that he made some of the decisions on his own.
- A.L.I.E's was when she caused the nuclear strike that destroyed the Earth in the first place and in Season 3 when she mentally tortures Raven in submitting to her because before this she mostly got people to do what she wanted by talking to them through Jaha and getting them to voluntarily taking her chip, but after torturing Raven she generally just starts threatening and torturing people to get her way.
- Ontari was when she killed all the nightblood children in their sleep.
- Octavia in the Season 3 finale when she killed Pike because yes he did kill Lincoln but he did save her life and even then it was straight up cold blooded murder as he wasn't a threat anymore and Kane and the others probably could have still turned him over to the Grounders to make peace. Even then she just did it to make herself feel better and other people she has killed in the past have mostly been in self defense/defense of others and during war. It is also hinted that this may be a Start of Darkness for her in Season 4.
- Clarke in "Die All, Die Merrily," when she takes the bunker while the 12 clans are distracted by the conclave, moves Skaikru inside, and seals the door. In doing so, she leaves Octavia, Kane, Monty, Raven, Murphy, and a handful more of her own people to die. To top it all off, she had Bellamy drugged, abducted, and dragged inside the bunker without his knowledge before shutting it, because she wanted him to survive, despite knowing how he would react to Octavia being left behind.
- Octavia, in Season 5, for several reasons: first, she allows Cooper to experiment on Wonkru people to generate more mutated worms for biological warfare against Diyoza's criminal group in Eden. Then, as the strain of realizing she might never be truly free of the bunker wears on her, as well as the fact that fissures are forming within Wonkru threatening her command, in a last act of spite, and to regain control, she burns down the entire hydroponics section of the bunker even though Monty had proven it could be regenerated. Finally, the origin of the phrase "all of me for all of us" is shown in The Dark Year when she begins — albeit under great stress and after repeated attempts at verbal persuasion — to kill people to force the rest of Wonkru into cannibalism.
- Abby in Season 5 pushed Octavia into enforcing "full compliance", hinting that she needed to force Kane, in particular, to eat the "meat" that was being provided during the Dark Year. Her insistence on having Octavia shoulder that burden had lasting effects on her, pushing Octavia to become Blodreina over increasingly macabre death matches in the fighting pits.
- In Season 6, the leaders of Sanctum, Russell and Simone, jump well past the horizon when they take advantage of Clarke having been immobilized by one of the Children of Gabriel spies in order to implant a chip which completely overwrites her entire brain, in effect "killing" Clarke and replacing her with Josephine Lightbourne. It's especially hypocritical because even Russell objects to some of Josephine's ideas, primarly because she doesn't think consent needs to be obtained for her mad plans to breed more "royal bloods".
Considering that this show has Grey-and-Grey Morality and some of the entries here have fairly sympathetic reasons like being out of options, etc, should some of these entries be cut? Thanks.
Edited by spyland2openEdit war
On Trivia.Casino, H Mackall restored an entry
for Adaptational Name Change that had previously been removed for not being trivia, and they claimed in their edit reason that its removal hadn't been explained, although it actually had
. I reverted it, since it's not trivia, and it's located on the main page, but then I realized after checking the history that HMackall actually added it themself in 2019
, and has restored it repeatedly since then.
openSpoiler Marked Late Arrival Spoiler? Western Animation
Are Late-Arrival Spoiler entries allowed to be spoiler marked? Because I just found one on Characters.Ninjago Ninja, and it seems a little weird to me (the marking, not the entry itself).
openATT Inconsistent Suspension Glitch
If I try to make the first reply to an ATT thread, I get a pop up saying that my permissions for this area have been suspended. However, if my reply is the second or later, then it goes through fine. I have to admit it's spooked me a few times before I realized the pattern and made me wonder if I did something wrong.
This has been happening for a while, but I figured it wasn't worth reporting before due to how uncommon my particular situation is (and, with it, how unlikely to happen to anyone else it is), but the more it happens, the more annoying it gets.
And yes, it even happens on threads I create myself. I tested it just now.
Edited by BaffleBlend

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.
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 Hello83433