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:
openBatman controversy 2.0 Print Comic
Our favorite Dark Knight never seems to stay away from controversy for too long, and this time, it's two-fold.
First, Batman's folder in the DCAMU: Justice League character page has Adaptational Wimp, which says: "Downplayed. This incarnation of Batman is still a good fighter and he has his moments like getting the upper hand over Green Lanterns in the Justice League movies. But in his own films, aside from being able to defeat Deathstroke, himself an even worse Adaptational Wimp, in Son of Batman, he tends to get the short end of the stick in his titular films. In Batman Vs Robin he spent most of his fights taking a beating from various Talons, Robin, and the main Talon, while his comics counterpart was able to defeat Talon even after being famished and dehydrated for days. He also spends much of Bad Blood being captured and playing the role of Badass in Distress so he can be saved by the Bat-family. And in Hush, while he did much better in fights, he still wasn't able to defeat the eponymous villain on his own in the end and required the help of Catwoman to do so, whereas his comic books counterpart was able to beat The Riddler when he had been similarly physically enhanced by Venom during the Knightfall story. Justified with Damian. In Apokolips War, a brainwashed Batman reveals that the only reason Damian won is because he let him, and during their last fight he proves to his son that the latter is no match for him."
Adaptational Wimp has been frequently misused over these past few years, but the trope's definition is: "when their usefulness, agency, and contribution to the plot is significantly reduced. It is not this trope when the character "only" easily defeated twenty Mooks instead of a hundred; it's when the character struggled to take down even one. Realize too, that this may be intentional and in a long-running series may have the character take a level in badass to provide Character Development and align them better with the original version."
Then, the Dork Age entry in the YMMV page of Batman (Rebirth) was deleted and added yet again, because apparently, a consensus hasn't been reached about whether or not Tom King's run can be considered a Dork Age. Dork Age, much like Adaptational Wimp, has seen its fair share of misuses, but an entry in a long-running franchise can be a Dork Age if it qualities for any of the following criteria: 1. It has to be a critical and financial disappointment
2. Any changes it brought to the series must be undone by later installments
3. Whenever it's referenced by other entries, it has to be done in a negative manner.
So, what do you say?
Edited by MasterHeroopenMisnamed and empty work pages Print Comic
So it seems that some people are jumping the gun on some comics coming out as part of DC Infinite Frontier, with one page being misnamed and another being trope-less.
Justice League 2021 isn't the correct name, because the year indicates what year the series starts, not a run. This comic is just another writer's run on Justice League (2018), not a new series onto itself. It should be renamed something like Brian Michael Bendis' Justice League or Justice League (Infinite Frontier) to keep with convention. Also, one of the examples is just kinda weird, so maybe the person was jumping the gun in making it? The Mythology Gag is just... a thing that happened before. It isn't so much a gag as a thing they're doing again.
I just created The Flash (Infinite Frontier), since it is just a new creative team's run on the previous series, but is large enough a change in status quo that it deserves its own page. I think that the page I mentioned above should be moved to Justice League (Infinite Frontier).
The other thing is Green Lantern (2021). It's properly named, since the series is starting in 2021 and not a continuation of another series' numbering or anything. However, that page has no tropes at all and has been like that for a month now.
openDC Infinite Frontier 2.0 Print Comic
DC Infinite Frontier is in full swing and its YMMV page is up and running, but some of its entries come off as opinionated writing. In the main page, Continuity Snarl has the following context: "Minor case, but the whole concept of Barry Passing the Torch back to Wally, as it's presented as if Barry was giving Wally a promotion. While meta-wise, Barry had been treated as the "real" Flash by DC's editorial, and Wally had been Demoted to Extra with his return (and had suffered a major Heroic BSoD in the last few years thanks to being a Cosmic Plaything), in-universe the two were meant to be about equal, in the same manner as Hal Jordan and John Stewart, so this shouldn't be a case of Wally 'taking Barry's role' so much as Barry leaving Wally to handle their shared duties on his own, something they both know he's more than capable of doing. It is a minor case however, as this somewhat makes sense with their respective flaws; Wally has cripplingly low self-esteem despite his greater power levelnote even putting aside his recent Mobius Chair powers which elevated him to Godhood, Wally is a cosmic powerhouse, while Barry has had It's All About Me tendencies in recent years."
The YMMV page lists Barry Allen as Unintentionally Unsympathetic with this context: "Barry Allen once again falls victim to this when his whole sequence with Wally West features Barry stating he is leaving to help President Superman deal with something Multiverse-related. In regards to his departure, Barry tells Wally that he's now the Flash and is leaving Earth-0 under Wally's care. While this is meant to be seen as if Barry's passing the torch to Wally, aside from the glaringly obvious issue that Wally was already the Flash for years, the whole thing comes across as if Barry's patronizing Wally. The idea that Barry thinks he needs to give Wally his blessing after everything Barry did that ended up practically destroying Wally's life is incredibly galling on Barry's part."
I admit I haven't read The Flash comics in years, but this comes off as an attempt to demonize Barry for, yet again, the Flashpoint event. Last year, Barry was given an entry in Designated Hero but this was later disproven
, which is why I'm bringing this topic up again.
Pandering to the Base has this context: "Given that the event is intended to be about realigning DC to fix their recent mistakes, it's gotten some heat from New 52 fans, particularly over benching Barbara Gordon to return her being to Oracle, and to having Barry Allen be Put on a Bus to give Wally West the Flash title again, as well as being lighter and more idealistic instead of Darker and Edgier. For most fans, long-term and new, this is fixing some severe mistakes, but for the Vocal Minority who joined the fandom during the New 52, it feels like fans of the pre-New 52 DC are Running the Asylum." —- Also, Win The Crowd is becoming a bit bloated, with examples like:
- The creative team of Mariko Tamaki and Dan Mora on Detective Comics is considered by many to be an improvement over the last one, which many derided as So Okay, It's Average.
- To say nothing of actually keeping to what they inferred with Speed Metal and having Wally West once again the lead character of The Flash. Some Barry fans are mad, but general Flash fans consider this franchise rerailment and Wally West's fanbase are ecstatic. Helping matters is the initial arc is solicited to feature the Flash Family, something that was deeply missed by the fans during the last decade.
- Mitigating the issue with Barry was the announcement of an Infinite Frontier event that will chronicle what he's doing with the Justice Incarnate team, along with plans for a Justice Incarnate ongoing to launch after helps avoid the feeling he's being tossed away.
- Also, while not officially announced and confirmed, the statement that there are plans for a Batgirls book co-staring Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain, with Barbara Gordon as their mentor, has fans of the Batgirl legacy hyped, especially as this was a commonly suggested fan-idea.
- Fan reception to Brian Michael Bendis on Justice League is naturally mixed thanks to his equally-vocal Fandom and Hatedom, but people are responding well to the line-up, which has avoided the Big Seven focusnote which had been the case for the last decade and people were growing bored of, primarily because it was considered creatively uninspired and quite limiting to what the Justice League can be, to instead a mixed team featuring new characters like Naomi, old classics like Green Arrow and Black Canary, and unexpected ones like Hippolyta and Black Adam.
This entries come off as knee-jerk reactions instead of, well, entries that could have a long-term position in this page.
So, what do you say?
openWhat Do I Call This? Print Comic
I want to make a page for the current Iron Man comic. The problem is, with current naming convention (I was recently told we're moving away from using the writer's name in the work name), the only thing to really name it is Iron Man 2020 because it started last year and isn't part of some publishing initiative or anything.
Except... there already is an Iron Man 2020. Two, in fact. The Iron Man 2020 page is used by a series that is legitimately called Iron Man 2020, which is itself reusing a name from a graphic novel also called Iron Man 2020.
What should I call the page for Iron Man Comic That Started In 2020? And should we make Iron Man 2020 a disambiguation page for both Iron Man Comic That Started in 2020 and Comic Called Iron Man 2020 From the Year 2020?
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopenLobo Self-Demonstrating Page Print Comic
Lobo is a thing, but Lobo isn't. Should the latter also be a thing, like we did for Deadpool?
openIs it okay to make a self demonstrating page for Superman? Print Comic
I've been thinking about creating a self-demonstrating page for Superman but it's been said that it's been cut because it's "redundant". I mean, Most of Superman's supporting cast has a couple, so why not him? Is it okay to re-create one?
resolved Do self-demonstrating pages get Laconics? Print Comic
Laconic.The Joker is a laconic for SelfDemonstrating.The Joker. Is this allowed?
openJohn 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?
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?
open 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.
resolved AuthorAppeal - reusing characters? Print Comic
I'm seeing a few examples where tropers have added the Author Appeal trope because writers have reused familiar / favourite characters in shared-universe comics. For example, from the new ComicBook.Defenders Beyond works page:
- Author Appeal: The new Defenders roster is comprised almost entirely of characters Ewing's either created (Taaia) or written before, from Mighty Avengers and The Ultimates to Loki: Agent of Asgard.
As per the trope page, Author Appeal is "a particular gimmick or kink is so widespread and prominent that it is interpreted as a specific reason the creator actually produced the work".
I can see how that might be applied to an attribute of the characters - although that seems to veer closer to Creator Thumbprint unless it goes into kink territory.
But simply reusing existing characters, whether or not the writer created them, doesn't feel like it fits.
I'd originally asked the same question on the discussion page for the trope itself, but didn't get an answer - flagging it here just to ensure I'm not misunderstanding before I delete someone's work (I don't see a more appropriate trope to move it to?).
Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1openvalid deletion? Print Comic
Paul A removed this example from Sexually Transmitted Superpowers (plus a similar example from an adaptation):
- Played very darkly in The Sandman (1989): in "Dream Country," wealthy author Erasmus Fry reveals that he owes his superhuman inspiration to the fact that he was able to bind the muse Calliope to him. Though he knew that it was possible to gain inspiration by simply wooing Calliope, he found that simply locking her in a room and repeatedly raping her was effective enough to get ideas. Ultimately, Fry sells Calliope to Richard Madoc, an up-and-coming author in desperate need of inspiration; Madoc continues the use of the Muse as a Sex Slave, allowing him to become a Renaissance Man author capable of working in multiple genres and assuming perspectives that would normally be outside his abilities. Unfortunately for both Fry and Madoc, it's indicated that the inspiration gained from raping Calliope will not grant long-term success, leaving them wealthy but forgotten while authors who sought legitimate inspiration are cherished and remembered. However, before he can learn this, Madoc finds himself becoming a target of Calliope's ex-boyfriend, Dream.
Their argument in the edit reason is "Being inspired to write a novel is not a superpower".
Thing is, as I understand it that's kind of the whole point of the Muses: they're goddesses who literally represent the concept of artistic inspiration.
So, what do y'all think?
Edited by StarSwordresolved Character pages - navbox 'index' links and crossreferencing? Print Comic
Are there any guidelines for start of page navbox 'indexing' (the cross-referencing wikilink kind, rather than [[index]] tagging) on Character pages, for the cases where a work or franchise has a huge number of characters across a large number of sub-pages?
Looking at Characters.X Men Arakko (and the other X-Men Characters pages), I count 19 lines of links in the navbox before the page itself starts, mapping out approximately 50 different X-Men character pages. Presumably that also needs to be updated on all 50(ish) of the character pages any time it changes.
That's not an exhaustive list either, as it doesn't directly link to some of the single-character pages or the works-specific pages for particular comic books.
Most of these characters range across the wider franchise, appearing in multiple Marvel Universe comics and webcomics, so are not specific to any one comic series and their Characters page names don't mirror a particular works page.
(It's also using WMG tagging, which I’m not used to seeing outside of WMG pages, but I’m assuming that's not a problem?)
Looking at other sprawling franchises -
- Characters.Star Wars takes a different approach, with a single link back to the top-level page - e.g. as seen on Characters.Star Wars High Republic Era Jedi.
- Characters.Star Trek uses a much shorter list of links on subpages, mapping back to the relevant series (e.g. on Characters.Star Trek Deep Space Nine Federation And Bajor)- but its characters tend to be series-specific so it doesn't have quite the same structural challenge.
Is this approach fine 'as is', should it be condensed/removed in a similar way to Star Trek & Star Wars, or can it be streamlined in a different way (e.g. hide it in a folder to save space)?
Thanks!
EDIT: Edited to fix terminology and make navbox references clearer.
Edited by Mrph1openSelf-reporting - image replacement Print Comic
So...
As a new(ish) troper, when I started actively editing works pages, I swapped out a fair few images for 'better' versions on both ComicBook and Characters pages. By which I mean different images that looked better, not just permitted quality upgrades.
At that point I hadn't fully understood the Image Pickin' rules and how they also applied to non-trope pages with existing images that weren't Image Pickin' approved.
Now, after much more troping, I have a much better understanding of the tools and customs for making that sort of change.
I've never had notifiers on this, and other tropers working on the same pages seemed to be comfortable with the changes. But. This is one of those things where I have seen other tropers get notified and suspended months or years after a change. And I'd prefer not to get caught up In that months or years further down the line, especially if that comes up multiple times on different occasions for the different images.
So what's the best way to make it right? Is it a case of leave it and deal with it if a particular image is challenged, or should I try to look back through history and take the cases to Image Pickin' (or elsewhere) to get them reviewed and confirmed or overturned?
Edited by MacronNotesopenWork page titles for arcs - should they include the series/franchise name? Print Comic
As I understand it, works pages should reflect the (or at least an) official title of the work in question.
In the ComicBook namespace, we have quite a few pages for arcs within a single series (or Bat Family Crossover events officially badged under a single series/character title) that only use the subtitle and not the series/character title.
So, for example -
- The Celestial Madonna Saga is an Avengers arc and the collected edition is titled Avengers: The Celestial Madonna Saga. There are no crossovers and no other titles involved in that arc.
- Days of Future Past is an X-Men story that's collected and sold as X-Men: Days of Future Past. Again, it's entirely from one series, Uncanny X-Men, not a crossover event.
- The Demon Bear Saga is a New Mutants arc and collected/sold as New Mutants: The Demon Bear Saga.
- God Loves, Man Kills... well, as you can see on the works page, the cover has X-Men as a prominent part of the title.
- Mutant Massacre is a Bat Family Crossover that covers three different X-books (plus odd issues of Thor and Daredevil, but is packaged and sold as X-Men: Mutant Massacre.
...you get the idea. I don't think there are many disambiguation concerns with the current names, if any. But we're inconsistent on this and many, many ComicBook pages have included the series title or character name as a prefix to the arc/event name.
It seems odd that we're editing down the names to remove the character/comic/franchise element when there are no character-limit issues, and when that's not the version that the publisher's officially using.
(It also increases the number of oddities in alphabetical indexes - e.g. tropers put One More Day and Go Down Swinging under S, because they know they're Spider-Man stories, but unless you're looking at the index page itself the structure and ** / *** bullets aren't visible)
So, subject to discussion on the relevant pages and elsewhere, is it worth a tidy up that attempts to move them?
(One note on this: due to the film of the same name, we'd probably need to add a year to X-Men: Days of Future Past to disambig if we do move it - but that's the exception)
Edited by Mrph1openDeath's Head: seeking consensus to revert changes after fact check Print Comic
Two Marvel Comics pages, ComicBook.Deaths Head and Trivia.Deaths Head, have some 'detective work' statements/examples added by DaPolicia regarding the character's creation and copyright status. The same claims were added to The Other Wiki's page for the character.
These are largely updates to examples and text I previously edited or added, so I don't want to revert them myself (and start an edit war) without a consensus.
This is the core claim they've added:
- Pop-Culture Urban Legends: Multiple sources, including Simon Furman himself, allege that Marvel maintained Death's Head's rights by rushing out a one-page comic (commonly referred to as "High Noon Tex" after a line spoken by Death's Head in the strip) that was featured in various other Marvel UK comics before his Transformers debut, circumventing the company's agreement with Hasbro. However, artist Bryan Hitch's signature in the final panel reads "Hitch '88", indicating that it wasn't drawn until the year after Death's Head debuted in Transformers, and there's no actual indication that the strip was published until May of 1988, meaning that Marvel likely engaged in some other chicanery to keep Hasbro away from Death's Head.
The collected edition introduction directly states that "High Noon Tex" was created to secure copyright. There's a photo of the relevant statements here
◊ for anyone who want to read it.
IANAL, but as I understand it UK copyright law is based on evidence of creation, not just widespread publication. Ashcan Copy logic allows the creation of a quick, sketchy version of the work or character to confirm ownership. The intro says it was "subsequently" published and I don't think a 1988 signature on the final/published work is a "Gotcha!" to show the creators are lying.
With that in mind I'd like to:
- Cut Pop-Culture Urban Legends entirely
- Cut the "if Marvel hadn't done whatever they did" element from What Could Have Been, which also casts doubt on Marvel's claims.
- Cut the whole "A commonly-circulated story, corroborated by both Furman and artist Bryan Hitch and perpetuated by sources like This Very Wiki" section that was added to the ComicBook.Deaths Head intro, which casts doubt on the intro's original brief factual statement about the character's creation.
Even if there's more to the story than the official sources suggest, and Marvel isn't telling the complete and accurate history, I don't think it's our place to speculate in this way.
(If we get an official on-the-record statement from the company or creators that contradicts the original printed statements, that would be different)
Does that sound fair?
Edited by Mrph1openJay Garrick: The Flash Print Comic
For some reason, edits to Jay Garrick: The Flash aren't being reflected on my "Followed Pages" list, even though I'm following the page and even though I just made an edit to the page a few minutes ago. In theory, it should be at the top of my "Followed Pages" list, but it's on the second page, and according to the list, its most recent edit was November 23rd. I've checked the work page itself and the its edit history, and those are both up-to-date. Is this a known bug?
openIdentifying Few tropes that I need to write for two series Print Comic
Hey, I am asking if anyone know some few tropes, so I can write them for two series like Cleopatra in Space and Making Friends
- Which trope has a person who was cursed is killed by their loved one said their last words “Thank You” before reverting back to normal in death like Octavian (formerly Gozi) who is killed by Cleo with the Sword of Kebechet and his last words were “Thank you” before being reduced to dust?
For Making Friends
- Which is the prison trope for Madison when she is only trapped in a dressing room and only be filmed for the show My Magical Best Friend?
- Which tropes have Mortha a moon goblin who disguised herself as Linda, Dany’s mom as she is homesick for her home world the moon and would have an ambition to own a moon yacht with her sister Xanther?
- Which trope takes place in the final pages where Madison and Dany find a graphic novel in the dream world that chronicles their life called Magic Friends similar to Making Friends hinting that Dany might one day make a graphic novel based on her experience throughout the series ?
- Which is a trope Daphne st cloud had a crush on Prince Neptune ?
resolved Misuse of Deal With The Devil? Print Comic
I moved a Excellent Judge of Character entry from Recap.Sonic The Hedgehog IDW Phantom Riders Arc to Characters.Sonic The Hedgehog IDW The Restoration, re-writing and removed the pothole, as I thought it was misuse and believed the trope entry itself was better for the character page.
However, this recent edit
potholed Deal with the Devil for this entry under Excellent Judge of Character.
- Excellent Judge of Character: Zig-zagged. Due to none of the Restoration's members having talked with her about the danger that Clutch and his company possesses, she accepts a deal with him, seemingly unaware about how Clean Sweep plans on usurping the organization as the sole proprietor of cleaning up after Eggman. However, after Jewel makes it look like she was fooled by Mimic's excuse as to why Amy hasn't reached out to her, she gives a serious glare to Duo after talking with him in Issue #70, where she's starting to suspect the so-called "helpful" cat.
I believe it's misuse since the character himself isn't a devil, just a shady businessman, and the character, Clutch, has no analogues or parallels to a devil or satan.
The troper also put their edit reason as "Trope was cut/disambiguated due to cleanup" which isn't correct either.
At the risk of starting an edit war, is it reasonable to remove the pothole because it's misuse?
Edited by taotruths

I just found Avengers 1000000 BC, a page which was created almost a month ago.
And I'm not sure why the page itself exists, as Avengers 1000000BC isn't a work, it's a group of characters that have appeared in various works (8 major appearances
in 3 different works, and 6 minor appearances
in 3 different works if the Marvel wiki is to be believed).
So I don't get why they have their own page, and not just have their tropes listed on either a character page, or just the relevant tropes listed in the pages of the work's they've appeared in.