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:
resolved Fire Emblem edit war
- Dimitri from Fire Emblem: Three Houses. He is meant to be the closest to a traditional Fire Emblem lord. But even without his Sanity Slippage over the timeskip, some fans think that his heroic traits have setbacks that make him the very opposite of what those traits should make him. Even though his Ax-Crazy mindset for the first half of Part II is supposed to be wrong, many think that it is sloppily done because the cataclyst for it is him believing Edelgard caused the Tragedy of Duscur through small steps that come across as illogical, and that it happened when she was only 13 years old which is something he never thinks twice about until Cornelia drops some hints that leads him off from suspecting Edelgard. And even though he does eventually make attempts to better himself and atone for what he has done, it's seen as him being Easily Forgiven despite how mean he had been to his friends up until that point and that someone close to him such as Rodrigue had to die for it to happen. His overall goals is probably the biggest point against him, which is to keep Fódlan as it was before the war started and make changes in a slow but steady pace to prevent unnecessary sacrifices or upsetting the people, since he thinks the nobility and crests still have values. Many find this to be in incredibly poor taste when so much about the game's story is about showing how the current system has made Fódlan into the Crapsack World it is that brings harm to both nobles and commoners and is the exact thing Edelgard started the war against. And even if Dimitri were to install changes, who's to say they won't just as easily be undone by a future ruler, setting the world back to what it was before the game started? Even if that might happen somewhere down the line in every lords' ending, it is the easiest for Dimitri's reforms to be undone since it was so easy for him to install them, as opposed to the other endings where radical reforms are introduced and therefore is gonna be harder.
Ruderruby added this, Jamesjamm deleted citing "As another troper explained when removing this from the YMMV page, this is misuse as the only truly villainous acts are the Sanity Slippage the entry acknowledges is portrayed as wrong, and since Three Houses runs on Grey And Gray Morality, none of the lords can be said to be designated heroes since they’re antagonists on routes that aren’t theirs", Ruderruby added it back without explanation.
Thoughts on the matter?
openPossible violation of YMMV page policies
So I was checking out the Fanfic.Passing Days page, which as per its Archive of Our Own page is written by WriterandArtist27. The same Fanfic page on this very wiki features numerous edits from Tropers.Writer-and-Artist 27, who obviously has the same username as the fic's author... and also has done numerous edits on Heartwarming.Passing Days and TearJerker.Passing Days. Administrivia.How To Create A Work Page states "You are also not allowed to create or add items to a YMMV subpage or related subpages". While the fic's actual YMMV page is untouched by this Troper, if said Troper really is the author judging by the shared username, then the edits to the Heartwarming and Tear Jerker pages are in violation of the policies forbidding a Troper from editing the YMMV subpages of a work they themself created.
resolved Dramatic Irony requiring knowledge from supplemental materials?
I found a Dramatic Irony entry on one of the Cyberpunk 2077 characters' subpages, related to Adam Smasher, the final boss. Explaining the entry would be complex and full of spoilers, but in summary the entry explains the character says a line which implies he doesn't know something about himself which is explained in Cyberpunk: Edgerunners Mission Kit. Cyberpunk: Edgerunners Mission Kit is an add-on for the Cyberpunk RED tabletop RPG which serves to connect Cyberpunk RED, the Cyberpunk: Edgerunners anime (itself a Cyberpunk 2077 prequel), and Cyberpunk 2077.
Dramatic Irony is about situations where the audience knows something an in-univers character doesn't. My issue is: since this is technically another work, does it qualify? Not to mention the players of the videogame need to also have played a prequel tabletop RPG, which itself is another prequel's sequel, and I'm not sure most 2077 players would also have played the RPG (videogames and tabletop RPGs don't exactly have the same player base). And last, said RPG add-on was released months after the last major Cyberpunk 2077 patch. For all those reasons, a non-negligible part of Cyberpunk 2077 audience probably didn't get the information needed to notice the Dramatic Irony.
In general, does it count as Dramatic Irony if the audience must know other parts of the extended universe (especially since they are another medium) to notice it? Is it really Dramatic Irony if you must know about the whole extended universe to get it is supposed to be Dramatic Irony?
Edited by Psychopompos007openDeleted examples with weird edit reason. Literature
So I have been wondering if one of the examples that was deleted in 13 Reasons Why 5 years ago was reasonable or not despite the weird edit reason. Here are two examples before it was deleted (trigger warning: SA):
- Must Not Die a Virgin: A very disturbing example. Not long before killing herself, Hannah, now severely depressed, gets in a hot tub with a known rapist. She is fully aware how this will play out.
- Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil: Fuck you, Bryce. FUCK YOU!
openAbby Cadabby Live Action TV
From PeripheryHatedom.Live Action TV:
- Showing that history can indeed repeat itself, Abby is currently getting the same treatment as Elmo, mainly from the generation of young adults and teens that grew up watching and fell in love with Elmo. Abby's popularity with the older fanbase is a Broken Base—some find her a refreshing change from the two decades of Elmo (although how long this will last before they start getting annoyed by her remains a question), while others still don't care and still want the focus to be back on Big Bird and the Muppets (and human characters) of their time. The root cause of the hatedom here is The Generation Gap combined with a Nostalgia Filter, combined with a heaping dose of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.
resolved Mebrouk is writing ROCEJ violations... again
I found this
on Scenery Gorn's Real Life page, calling the Gaza strip scenery gorn and calling Nehtanyahu a genocidal monster. I recognized that this was Mebrouk, the same guy from the Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters image debacle in May that ended with that trope getting NRLEP'd. Looks like he's back to his old tricks - he added Aaron Bushnell's suicide note
to the Self-Immolation quotes page, and, while not Hamas related, an iffy example
on No-Holds-Barred Beatdown Real Life.
openPandering to the Base misuse(?)
YMMV.RWBY had Pandering to the Base cut citing
"Actual pandering would be doubling down on the aspects that most fans obsess over, not responding to critics."
If reversing direction in response is the opposite kind of pandering to PTTB, I believe these might also be misuse.
- Since Wish (2023) was the Disney Animated Canon film earmarked to serve as the centennial Milestone Celebration for the Walt Disney Company as a whole, there was a lot of this going on, which many critics argued was to the film's detriment.
- Even before the closing credits featured images of characters from most of the previous Canon films there were tons of other Easter Egg references, often obvious ones, to them, such as Asha's friends The Teens being visual and personality analogues to The Seven Dwarfs, one woman with a strong resemblance to Wendy Darling whose wish is to fly, Asha herself wearing a cloak and bow near-identical to The Fairy Godmother, and Valentino the goat describing an imagined Zootopia - all in service of a purported backstory for the Wishing Star that appeared in Pinocchio and The Princess and the Frog, and perhaps more recognizably the company's Vanity Plate. This ended up confusing some audience members since it isn't clear if it actually takes place in the same universe as any or all of these other films (keeping in mind there are many reasons they cannot all share a universe), and even engendered controversy regarding the ending in which Asha does become her world's Fairy Godmother, as some interpreted it to mean she is the same one as Cinderella's...despite Asha not being white. Other viewers (particularly professional critics) said the references were just distracting and served to point up how uninteresting the story and characters of this film were by comparison, because...
- They are deliberately a Cliché Storm of "typical" Disney animated feature tropes: A Plucky Girl heroine with a Disappeared Dad and an Award Bait "I Want" Song in a European Fairy Tale-inspired kingdom who goes on The Hero's Journey, Talking Animals (one of whom serves as her Sidekick), a nonhuman Cute Mute sidekick, an Evil Is Hammy villain wielding Sickly Green Glow magic and a Villain Song, a Setting Introduction Song, Crowd Songs, a big emphasis on wishes/dreams coming true, etc. Between this and all the Easter eggs, for many viewers it played more like a parody of Disney films but without any deconstruction or spoofing of said tropes, or a Mockbuster. A few tropes worked against the story: If the people of Rosas are missing a vital part of themselves by giving up their wishes, why is their Setting Introduction Song so happy? Why do they need a Fairy Godmother when they're going to actualize their own desires? And then there were Disney fans who were upset at the tropes not included, such as a romance for the leading lady because what's a "classic" Disney fairy tale (re: pre-Frozen) without a romance?
- King Magnifico was explicitly promoted as a "classic" villain in the vein of Maleficent or Scar - charismatic, completely irredeemable, complete with a Villain Song - after a decade or so of Disney antagonists either being initially benign characters revealed as Evil All Along in the third act, or not actually wicked but misguided and easily redeemed. Unfortunately, the filmmakers fumbled the character by still giving him a sympathetic backstory, a wife he loves, and an understandable if questionable motivation for not granting or at least returning the captured wishes...and not even having him do anything truly wicked until after Asha somehow calls Star down to Earth, whereupon he's a case of Jumping Off the Slippery Slope. A lot of viewers ended up feeling sorry for him and his fate when they were not supposed to, or at least feeling that the filmmakers wasted a potentially fascinating antagonist just so there could be a "classic" villain again.
This sounds like a reversal of direction, the opposite of PTTB. Also if most of it is explaining why it failed to do so despite efforts, I'd say misuse as YMMV cannot be played with, unsuccessful attempts are just not examples.
- One criticism leveled at Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker: Not only does it bring back the original trilogy's Big Bad and declare that he's been behind everything all along, but it also makes him Rey's grandfather, undoing the previous movie's decision to make her The Unchosen One. Many critics have noted that it undoes/downplays several other elements of The Last Jedi that upset what they call a Vocal Minority of the fanbase, e.g. Rose Tico is Demoted to Extra and the core new characters are together for most of the story whereas they were split into groups in the previous film. Other critics (who, of course, call fans of the hotly Contested Sequel the Vocal Minority), claim that it doesn't go far enough in undoing the sweeping changes TLJ brought to the series in the name of "subverting expectations"note Which themselves may have been the result of criticisms that TFA hewed too close to A New Hope. TLJ also drew on the KOTOR games, which are possibly the most popular example of a non-traditional, deconstructive Legends work outside of the Thrawn trilogy.. What is interesting about this is that both sides of the Star Wars Broken Base see The Rise of Skywalker as an example of this, but which demographic they see it as pandering to varies depending on which side of the TLJ debate they're on. A rare few other reviewers, meeting in the middle, say that the film tries its hardest to pander to both groups, which predictably satisfied neither.
Again, reversal rather than double down, and widely seen as failed effort.
I know PTTB is due for TRS. Do we want to wait on dealing with these before that? Or is this misuse and OK to start cutting?
resolved Report Troper
Okay, I've kept this kinda on the backburner for a while now, but after finally having enough, I'd like to report Psyga 315 for his conduct in the RWBY Discussion Thread.
Basically, he's become infamous there for his flagrantly bad faith conduct. Just about all of his posts do one of a few things:
- Complain about the show's fans with vague accusations of things they "claim"
- Complain about the writing
- Complain about the decisions behind the writing
- Generally take the most cynical interpretation possible (to the point of disregarding the actual show's writing and taking "vindictation" - his terms - when some of his headcanons were suggested to be on the right track)
- Blatantly lying about things to make the characters and writing look worse
- Defending James Ironwood at all costs and making everyone who opposes him into the true villains of the show (again, often to the point of just straight up lying)
- Demanding evidence from other people whenever he gets into debates but then shifting the goalposts when it's provided
- Getting defensive about works that are generally unanimously considered to be Hate Fics
- Deflecting the blame onto other users when called out on his bad faith conduct
Multiple users have either called them out or downright begged him to just stop over the past year or so and he simply never has. Don't believe me? Here's proof:
- 1
- claims that fans like that we were "robbed" of certain moments between characters.
- 2
- complains that the show has too many characters and "fetishizes" the number 4 somehow
- 3
- lies that something was retconned as being magic when the first two paragraphs here
make it clear this isn't true
- 4
- reposts one of the show's creators talking about something in the show not landing and just leaves it at that
- 5
- complains about the way the show introduced other characters besides the four leads
- 6
- somehow thinks it's disturbing that the heroes want to kill the Big Bad (who is effectively the emodiment of destruction who wants to destroy the planet)
- 7
- has an entire rant about one of the fight scenes where he literally posts a video of someone screaming
- 8
- implies that a creator called Volume 9 of the show "filler" when that's not what the creator was saying at all. After several people have to explain what filler is
and all the ways it's not filler
, he moves the goalposts
to keep complaining about it.
- 9
- makes another lie about the writing (specifically how the concept of "Ascension" works) and gets corrected
.
- 10
- lies about the way that discussions on certain characters began, gets corrected
, then doubles down
.
- 11
- goes out of his way to complain about fans supposedly "misattributing" a Kingdom's destruction to a guy who was pretty damn responsible for it.
- 12
- Posts three "unbiased" videos that are just complaining about the way a character was handled.
- 13
- when someone posts a critique about said character, he reflects that critique onto a different character in a completely different situation and again complains about how it was handled
- 14
- he again deflects a point in a sarcastic manner rather than actually address it (as the post below it points out)
- 15
- he complains about a Deus ex Machina which isn't a Deus ex Machina (it was a plot device that had been set up years prior). I finally had enough and asked him to not post in such bad faith
and another user
also called out his bad faith conduct.
- 16
- again complaining about the thought process behind a writing decision
- 17
- taking the most negative possible interpretation of the ending of an arc to turn it completely negative when that's just not true (as the two posts underneath it point out)
- 18
- implying that things will get worse when a certain secret in the show gets out, even though everyone who knows the truth of the situation has no reason to reveal it
.
- 19
- continues to complain about a choice the main characters make when the alternative is letting a continent full of people die
.
- 20
- apparently he even wrote a fanfic that's particularly cynical about the show's circumstances.
- 21
- downplays a major reveal in the show to complain about it
- 22
- again blames the protagonists for opposing a character he likes and accuses them of self-righteousness
- 23
- again misframes a situation to make the protagonists look bad (as detailed two posts below)
- 24
- straight up lies about a character he doesn't like to make her look bad even when it makes no sense
- 25
- refers to a situation as said character trying to "murder" two people when that's simply not what happens
- 26
- when confronted on the lies, he just pivots to something he thinks someone else made up
- 27
- again completely misrepresentating a situation, to the point that he was outright called a troll below
- 28
- he doubles down when called out, leading to several callout posts below
- 29
- cynically stating a simple solution that transparently wouldn't work
- 30
- diminishes an entire volume of a show as "pointless exposition" and complains about a character disappearing from the show after that volume
. At this point people were outright begging him to just stop already
.
- 31
- again shilling a character he likes and complaining about the writing of him
- 32
- calls all of the season finales of the show "rushed"
- 33
- implicitly calls the entire show badly written. Even someone who agrees with him
thinks he "bends over backwards" to hate it all.
- 34
- was extremely vindicated when it was later revealed that the world is indeed worse off than we expected. He's again accused of purely bad takes
and only responds with another jab towards the show
that disregards the hopeful aspects of the revelations. A later post
from someone who tends to agree with Psyga also agreed that he was interpreting it incorrectly.
- 35
- I don't remember what was said here but I do remember that I got thumped for getting sick and tired of it and finally asking why he bothers to post there.
- 36
- claims that a video example of someone complaining about the show contains tropes that can have a video example attached when someone details
why that's not accurate
- 37
- out of complete nowhere, assuming that the ending's going to be bad
- 38
- this one's from me in response to several times that he engaged in bad faith discussion in a row, disregarding opposing opinions because they disagreed with his yet demanding that people supply more evidence for their point of view anyway.
- 39
- claims that a character acts like a "Saturday morning cartoon villain", which is complete nonsense
- 40
- generally accusing "people" (presumably fans) of throwing out accusations of misoginy for disagreeing with them.
- 41
- again makes vague accusations about people calling him a "fascist" for supporting a character and begins the post with an outright lie about what certain people have said in the past (as I point out here
)
- 42
- again accuses a protagonist of being an idiot by misreading the situation. He then proceeds to only focus on one part of the argument
when supposedly refuting it.
- 43
- again accuses "fans" of something vague like lumping in some random Fan Animation with the infamous Hate Fic Fixing RWBY.
- 44
- again accuses the protagonists of messing up the situation even more than the Big Bad
- 45
- again complaining about the writing and the "fans" who supposedly defend it
- 46
- again complaining about the writing
- 47
- again just accusing the show of character bloat.
Like, the people in the thread who like the show are open to criticism, but that's not what Psyga's doing. Even if you only believe half of the things i've linked are valid examples of what I'm trying to say, that's still around 23 times he's complained about damn near everything in the show over the past year. I genuinely don't know why he bothers to keep going back to a thread meant to be about discussing a show people like when he has a well-documented history of hating the show, the writers, the writing process, the protagonists, the setting, and the fans of it. It's all he posts and I and several other users are so beyond tired of it.
I'm damn near begging for mods to do something at this point, please.
openEdit war to remove/WGS misuse?
Characters.Duck Tales 2017 FOWL
- Wrong Genre Savvy: While [[GenreSavvy well-versed in adventure tropes]], [[spoiler:Bradford]] ultimately falls into this. He operates under the assumption he's the villain in a ConspiracyThriller, as opposed to a TwoFistedTales-style adventure series set in a FantasyKitchenSink. This makes him more of a NoNonsenseNemesis than the rest of the RoguesGallery since unlike them, he is ''not'' a showboating CardCarryingVillain, instead preferring to work behind the scenes and abide by PragmaticVillainy. It also causes him to shoot himself, most notably in the GrandFinale. [[spoiler:His grounded and coldly logical view of the world would have perhaps netted him a victory in the more cynical story he thinks he's in, but the fact he's in a show all about [[ThePowerOfLove the importance and power of family]] blinds him to the loophole that leads to his defeat.]]
The troper who added this previously added Genre Savvy as a separate entry which I removed as misuse (GE is savvy with/from in-universe fiction, Bradford is instead Taught by Experience as it comes from his real-life within the show experience). Is it edit waring to remove the pothole?
On the topic, I've seen some Wrong Genre Savvy removed due to lacking the in-universe fiction criteria, but not widely enough it seems like a hard and fast rule like with regular Genre Savvy. Can I get some clarification about that?
resolved Edit war on MyRealDaddy.WesternAnimation
There seems to be an
edit
war
over
the inclusion of the following paragraph on MyRealDaddy.Western Animation:
- Ever want to get a bunch of Gargoyles fans riled up? Just bring up the idea that Greg Weisman isn't really the show's creator — Michael Reaves is. They'll go utterly off-the-deep-end bananas (as they have on this site) — even though the show in fact has no official "created by" credit, and the topic is hotly debated within the screenwriting community. Of course, Weisman is undoubtedly the show's post-series biggest booster, and pitched an early goofy comic version of Gargoyles that's unrecognizable compared to the finished show. However, Reaves actually wrote the series' first five episodes that set everything up, and most of the series' subsequent high points. (Weisman himself did not receive a writing credit on any episode until the dire spin-off/continuation Gargoyles: The Goliath Chronicles.) In fact, virtually everything that people remember and enjoy about Gargoyles was Reaves' work. Wiseman, meanwhile, who genuinely did love Gargoyles and was involved on the production end from the get-go (and did give notes on Reaves' work and participate in story meetings), hyped himself as the show's creator at every opportunity. Reaves also labelled himself as a co-creator of the show, but in a much more low-key way. The reality is much more complex — and Weisman's role is unquestionably a crucial one — but under Writers Guild practices, Reaves would be credited as the creator of Gargoyles, and Wiseman (with no writing credits whatsoever on the original 65-episode run) would have no claim to a creator credit. (Non-prime-time animation, however, is not covered by the Guild.).
Note that I haven't seen the show myself, so I don't have any insight over whether the example is valid.
The involved parties are Demona Fan X and breadalbane.
Edited by costanton11openI think this removed example is valid
Saving Bikini Bottom: The Sandy Cheeks Movie
- Special Effect Failure: In Sue Nahmee's flashback of her as a child, they have the child's actresses' face covered by her adult actress and key frame it. It looks noticeably choppy and doesn't match the movement of the original actress. It doesn't help that The George Lopez Show did the same thing and made it look better despite a 20-year gap in editing technology.
I don't think this was an intentionally bad special effect. They do the exact same messy keyframing with her adult self's head over the robot body in the climax. I have heard a lot of debate over whether the flashback's effects were supposed to be a joke, but given the movie's low budget and Direct-to-Video nature, I think the effect was actually intended to look good.
openEdit war and grammar issues
On Command & Conquer: Red Alert Series — Soviet Units, after I removed the Heavily Armored Mook example for being misuse (the unit in question only has better armour than another faction's counterpart and is still rather lightly armoured by the whole game's standards), Darth Walrus (who originally added this example) added it back without any discussion. Some of their recent edits on Command & Conquer: Red Alert Series — Allied Units and Command & Conquer: Red Alert Series — Empire of the Rising Sun Units also have rather dodgy grammar (with sentences like 'The Harbinger is the third most air unit in the game by default; taking Advanced Aeronautics upgrades it to second place, with ever-so-slightly more hp than the Kirov.' and 'It that can win the third Imperial campaign mission by itself').
Edited by HTDresolved I'm not sure if Visions of Mana counts as an example of Screwed by the Network...
I saw someone added the trivia to the game
in light of the studio that developed it getting shut down upon release. From my understanding, SbtN is for works that have been negatively affected as a result of Executive Meddling and such. Thus, Visions can only work as an example if Studio Ouka's closing will have a direct negative impact on its sales, marketing, etc. which is too early to tell. Because as far as everyone knows at this point, the game itself has been completed and polished before the studio's closure. Is there a more appropriate trivia for this? I don't think Creator Killer works either, because from the information gathered, the reason NetEase closed Studio Ouka had no direct connection to the game, just another corporate cost cutting measure.
EDIT: Someone else deleted the entry shortly after I brought the subject here, citing no confirmation. That said, everything seems to point towards a forthcoming closure as noted by reports
.
openCan overriding other tropers' entries in favor of your own entries count as an Edit War? Film
About a couple years ago, I added this example of Numerological Motif to Saw VI:
- Numerological Motif: Being the sixth Saw film, there are several allusions to the number six throughout Saw VI.
- Overall, there are six traps in the film, including the opening trap and all the five traps in William's trial. This is further cemented by one of the film's taglines: "6 chances. 6 lessons. 6 choices."
- One of the traps in itself, the Carousel Trap, has six victims.
- Jill is seen holding an instruction envelope from the box with the number six written on it, likely implying that there were six of them inside the box.
- The film's "Hello Zepp" rendition, "Zepp Six", clocks at six minutes within the six-minute climax.
Later, on January of this year, Ze Trope Guy 999 added
the following example of Arc Number in the same page, the sub-bullets of which, while fewer and less elaborate, are similar to those of my example.
- Arc Number: Six, as befitting the sixth entry.
- There are six victims on the Shotgun Carousel.
- Jill Tuck’s box is revealed to have six envelopes in it - the sixth one containing a photograph of Hoffman.
I'm planning to combine the two entries, mostly using my descriptions but also including some minor facts mentioned in ZeTropesGuy's entry, into a single example of Arc Number, as I had noticed the latter entry today and realized that Arc Number fits better for the film's symbolism of the number six than Numerological Motif. The end result would look like this:
- Arc Number: Befitting its status as the sixth Saw film, there are several allusions to the number six throughout Saw VI.
- Overall (without counting the Reverse Bear Trap 2.0, an updated version of the first film's Reverse Bear Trap that has considerably less screentime than the other traps), there are six traps in the film, including the opening trap and all the five traps in William's trial. This is further cemented by one of the film's taglines: "6 chances. 6 lessons. 6 choices."
- One of the traps in itself, the Shotgun Carousel, has six victims.
- Aside from the five envelopes she gives to Hoffman, Jill is seen holding another instruction envelope from the box with the number six written on it (revealed in the climax to contain instructions on how she has to set up the Reverse Bear Trap 2.0 on Hoffman, likely implying that there were six of them inside the box.
- The film's "Hello Zepp" rendition, "Zepp Six", clocks at six minutes within the six-minute climax.
However, I'm worried that the fact that I'm overriding much of ZeTropeGuy's entry with mine could lead to an Edit War if I don't address my planned edit properly. Can this edit really be considered Edit Warring, or is it completely fine to do?
Edited by Inky100resolved TRS crowner
There is an open crowner for If You Call Before Midnight Tonight, It Works Itself, andForYourPeopleByYourPeople at the Trope Repair Shop. Click here
if you'd like to join the discussion.
resolved About Mickey Mouse's non-Disney works... Western Animation
Hey! It's me again with yet another Mickey question
!
So in the franchise page for Mickey Mouse, there's a section about non-Disney works, which are about derivative works made after (the 1928 versions of) the mouse became public domain. The page itself indexes the Disney-made works over the non-Disney ones (which I completely understand and I support for them to still being the only ones indexed there), but since there are now many non-Disney Mickey works that have pages (Mickey's Mouse Trap, The Vanishing of S.S. Willie, Captain Willie, Infestation: Origins, Inverse Ninjas VS. The Public Domain, Mousetrapped and the many pre-2024 works that feature Mickey's 1928 designs, such as Suicide Mouse and Mickey Mouse in Vietnam), should we make a separate page for them to be indexed so it would be easier to search for and find them in other pages instead of going to the "Related" tab in each of the works' pages and then go to Mickey's franchise page to search for one work? Maybe something like Non-Disney Works/Mickey Mouse, or something?
Edited by UzarNaimBer15openDoes this page need a cleanup? (HeartwarmingInHindsight) Anime
The bottom of the page has this note:
IMPORTANT: Do not include examples that are Foreshadowing, nor moments that came just a handful of episodes later. Those are clearly intended heartwarming moments later in the same work.
However, some users have bluntly disregarded this, the vast majority of the anime folder examples consist of stuff that is obviously foreshadowed.
Should it all be removed? I mean, disregarding the entries about voice actors, the blind photographer and the ones relating to Real Life people. I wanted to manually remove it myself but I fear it would start an edit war.

Marry Them All has an example from Big Love. I don't think it fits because Marry Them All is about Polyamory as a solution to a love rivalry. I had removed the example but it was reinstated. Polyamory in and of itself is already a trope.
Edited by randomtroper89