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:
openConflicting Examples Videogame
Hellboy: The Science of Evil has examples for both No Problem With Licensed Games and The Problem with Licensed Games and I wouldn't think they can both be true.
- No Problem with Licensed Games: While it isn't a great example, it is definitely better than the other Hellboy licensed games, with Ron Perlman, Selma Blair and Doug Jones voicing the characters as they did in the films.
- The Problem with Licensed Games: While it was made from the makers and cast of the film duology, it wasn't programmed very well.
I've no played the game myself but I'd would seem better to combine them into something like:
- The Problem with Licensed Games: While it is definitely better than previous Hellboy games and it benefits from being made by the makers and cast of the film duology, with Ron Perlman, Selma Blair and Doug Jones reprising their role, it still wasn't programmed very well.
Or vice versa, since that example seems to come across slanted towards it being good. As I say I haven't play the game so I don't know what the issues with it were.
openFanDisservice Misuse Live Action TV
I noticed on the Recap pages for Breaking Bad that Fan Disservice is listed any time we see Walt naked.
If I'm correct, Fan Disservice is for sexual situations deliberately played up to be disturbing or uncomfortable (like the show's infamous "Happy Birthday, Ted" scene, which ironically wasn't listed anywhere until I added it myself), not "character gets naked in this scene and they're unattractive". The examples don't list why the trope counts, it just says "Walt was naked in this scene." It even lists it for a serious moment where Walt undresses to get in the shower only to pass out on the floor while Skyler tries to talk to him.
Examples:
- "Pilot": Bryan Cranston makes the first of many appearances in his tighty whitey briefs, and it is not pleasant...
- "The Cat's In the Bag": In the opening scene, we see Walt's bottom as he walks naked to the bathroom after sex with Skyler.
- "Bit By a Dead Bee": Once again, Bryan Cranston shows some skin, this time going fully naked (albeit from the back).
- "I See You": Fanservice: Opening scene. For once, it’s Jesse that’s topless, not Walt.
- "Buried": Walt stripping in silence to take a shower, before collapsing on the bathroom floor.
- Walt's character page: Walt sometimes strips down to his tighty whities in order to cook (usually in the first season) or for other reasons, but neither for comedy nor to look pretty. I don't know about that, the scene with Walt naked in the supermarket was pretty funny...
The page for the episode "Peekaboo" lists the trope because of Spooge and his girlfriend (two ugly meth-heads) even though neither are seen naked or in an otherwise sexual situation.
I ran a wick check and couldn't find enough misuse otherwise to justify a TRS thread or a clean-up thread so that's why I'm presenting it here. Cut these examples?
Edited by supernintendo128open How to create a constant link in character page? Videogame
I created a separate character page for Claire Redfield in Resident Evil (because it's an abomination that Ada Wong would have one but not her), but I'm wondering whether I need to go through each individual character page in the series and manually generate the link to the page itself or if there's a way to easily index it somewhere?
openSuspected Ban Evader
I'm pretty sure Resident Blade Oreboros, who just made this
query, is actually a sockpuppet of Ninten Fire Swag 20, who got bounced over their obsession with making a scene from RWBY count as a "Ray of Hope" Ending... the same thing that Oreboros is talking about in their query.
Also they edit similar pages (a lot of creator pages, Fire Emblem, Supermarioglitchy, etc).
Hate to call someone out while they're literally a thread below me, but... well, it beat accusing them directly on their thread and something just smells fishy.
Edit: Quick fact check, they were actually trying to make it count as a Downer Ending in addition to "Ray of Hope" Ending. Just wanted to correct myself.
Edited by WarJay77openJurisdiction Friction in Star Trek
In the Star Trek TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine", the conflict between Kirk, Spock and Decker is listed under Jurisdiction Friction, and this example is also cited on the Jurisdiction Friction page itself. My POV is that I really don't regard this example as Jurisdiction Friction. None of them are arguing or concerned about who has jurisdiction, they're arguing about who is in command. Two different things. They're all Star Fleet officers. If anything, it would be Artistic License – Military. Spock did have to give up command of the Enterprise when Decker pulled rank. However, as soon as Decker announced that he was going to try and attack the Doomsday Machine when everyone knew the Enterprise's weapons couldn't scratch it Spock should have simply said "that's insane, you're relieved. Security, get him out of here." It also heads into Surprisingly Realistic Outcome when Kirk orders Spock to assume command. Decker tries to say Kirk doesn't have the authority to do that but Kirk actually does, he's Captain of the Enterprise and Decker's plan is clearly insane. Anyway, that's my perspective but I wanted to get feedback from tropers before I started editing.
Edited by Traveler123openHelp in cross-wicking.
I just launched Rescue Equipment Attack and it has lots of examples that I may not be able to cross-wick them all by myself. Any help with cross-wicking the examples would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
(Do not reply to this).
Edited by selkiesopenDark Universe
So I am not totally sure if this has been asked before but this has kept bothering me so I feel like I should bring it up.
So we currently have a page for the Dark Universe and I am honestly wondering if it is really worth actually keeping around. Technically the universe was planned to be a thing but it got scrapped after only a single movie the page itself barely has any info and is mostly just covering stuff that might have happened or stuff that happens in The Mummy, the only film that got released. The Invisible Man (2020) isn't actually part of this universe.
The page itself has a very small amount of entries for the index, only covering The Mummy, 4 tie-ins to that film and mentioning some cancelled films, most of the important stuff being already covered on The Mummy franchise page. Like it is really weird to consider this a universe worth a page when there is basically only one installment. I will admit I have made a page like this before but it did at least have more than one installment.
open Not sure or not Web Original
Would Helluva Boss count as a Cosmic Horror Story, or at least Lovecraft Lite, because even in death someone who hates someone else can pay to have them killed in life and it's implied that Heaven may be just as bad as hell itself so any hopes of peace after death may not even exist.
Edited by coldcascaderesolved Deliberate rulebreaking with unjustified reason
Plasma Power added an image to a page that already had an image
, which isn't too bad by itself. What bothers me is that their edit reason
suggests that they knew it was against the rulesnote which it is, pages are only allowed one image, and new images must be contested in the Image Pickin' threads, yet they added it anyway "for fun".
resolved The Troper Page Creation Guide
How do I create my own troper page? I want to create something like this "Tropers / Yatasumuji Senpai" on my own page? I like to edit one by myself but I don’t really know how to? Is there anyway you could help me please, perhaps the instructions would be helpful?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpairesolved StatusEffects, StatusInflictionAttack, and NonDamagingStatusInflictionAttack
On Dawncaster, I had previously written three different examples for Status Effect, Status Infliction Attack, and Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack. They were as follows:
- Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack: Some cards allow you to apply one of the several Status Effects to the enemy without dealing any damage. These are useful because such cards typically apply more stacks (4-5) of the status effect because there's no damage. Most Status Infliction Attacks only apply 2-3 stacks or make the number of stacks applied equal to the amount of damage inflicted, meaning that Armored foes or foes with Impervious would not be affected.
- Status Effects: There are several in the game, both ailments and buffs. This trope however, will only focus on ailments and other non-standard status effects. To see what buffs are available, see Status Buff.
- Bleeding - Attacks do an additional +1 bleed damage per stack of bleed
- Brittle - the afflicted takes +1 damage from melee strikes per stack of Brittle
- Burn - per each stack of Burn deal 1 damage at the end of the afflicted's turn
- Charmed - if the afflicted's HP falls below the number of stacks of Charmed on them, they die automatically
- Dazed - Counts down for each card played. At zero, Stun takes effect, preventing all further actions that turn.
- Deep Wound - if the afflicted accumulates 5 Deep Wounds, they automatically die
- Frozen - Decrease the damage from all attack cards by 1 per stack of Frozen
- Jinx - Nullify the next card played
- Poison - the afflicted loses 1 HP per stack of Poison whenever they play a card
- Slow - Add 1 stack every time the afflicted plays a card. Increase the cost of the next cards drawn by 1 per stack of Slow
- Status Infliction Attack: Several cards allow you to both deal damage and afflict one of the many status ailments to the enemy. For example, one of the starting cards for the Arcanist, Frost Shard, does damage and afflicts the enemy with the Frozen status ailment for every point of damage that landed.
The logic was that the status effects listed can be applied both with an attack and without. So describing them generally under status effects and including a more specific example for Damaging/Non-Damaging Infliction Attacks made the most sense to me.
MaLady edited the page
by removing Status Effects and merging what was written under it into Status Infliction Attack, because in their eyes, since status effects can only be applied either with an attack or not, you wouldn't list Status Effects as it's the Super-Trope of Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack and Status Infliction Attack. While I understand the point in general on Super-Trope / Sub-Trope rules on examples list, placing the list of status effects under Status Infliction Attack makes it seem to me like these are the status effects that can only be applied via an attack, when really, these are all of the status effects that can be applied with or without a direct attack.
I was going to leave it more or less alone, and just edit the page to add a few effects that I missed, but some of the new ones would necessitate bringing back Status Effect since they are an effect you apply to yourself that doesn't directly buff your character (so they wouldn't fall under Status Buff either). But it also seems odd to me to bring back Status Effect and not list all of the statuses under it as it were before and describing them neutrally. So, I wanted to know what others' thoughts were on this before editing the page.
Edited by amathieu13resolved Questionable Edit removal from Recap for Rick and Morty Western Animation
On December 18th, 2022, I added a "The Reason You Suck" Speech entry for the Rick and Morty episode "Ricktional Mortpoons Rickmas Mortcation".
- "The Reason You Suck" Speech: When Rick tries to leave after making the driller once Morty makes clear he doesn't want Rick coming with him to get the Lightsaber, Morty gets pissed at the idea Rick is acting like Morty betrayed him and not the other way around. Rick, thoroughly done with listening to Morty and wanting to just go back to hunting down Rick Prime, delivers a quick but succinct tear down of Morty, both for the events of the last episode, and his general treatment of Rick overall the last few seasons, with Morty treating him like shit despite Rick bothering to open up to him. Morty himself can only wince and look upset while he's listening up until Curtis reassures him he won't kill his family.
Rick: You wanna know why I replaced myself in the beginning of that stupid Knights of the Sun thing? I said don't take the fucking sword and you were like "whatever" like I'm our neighbor Gene or David Arquette or something. You called me boring. I've become dog shit to you. That's what happens when you let people in and they stop respecting you, they touch your shit, they screw things up, they kill your fucking family. Go ahead. Trust [Curtis]. You're going to learn the same fucking thing.
- 1. It's not presented as the way the edit reason states, namely since Rick had been keeping Morty out of his hunt for Rick Prime rather than forcing him to help, and Morty was acting like Rick was entirely at fault for not being honest. While an argument can be made for Unintentionally Unsympathetic, the fact of the matter is that it's not presented in the manner the edit reason suggests.
- 2. "The Reason You Suck" Speech is not a YMMV trope, meaning even if Mantyf does not see it as a speech but more a rant from an abuser, the trope itself is what matters. So if the entry is an actual case of "The Reason You Suck" Speech as presented in the show itself, removing it based on an interpretation feels like a mistake.
open Reporting Edit Warring and Vandalism Live Action TV
Editor Rm74 has made repeated edits in the Euphoria pages (Character
and YMMV
as far as I know, but I haven’t checked the other Euphoria pages) that exaggerate a character’s negative traits and actions beyond reason— even outright making stuff up about them that they haven’t done or that they aren’t— and a lot of their edits are simply bizarre. I know that YMMV is opinion based, but even still their edits are beyond exaggeration, or even again just them making stuff up. Myself and some other editors have made attempts to fix these Ron The Death Eater style edits, but RM74 has repeatedly gone and added them back in or made new outlandish edits.
openEnsemble Darkhorse move undid
- Clodsire is adored by the fanbase. Quagsire was already an Ensemble Dark Horse due to its blank, derpy yet charming looks. Clodsire's more blob-ness with it being quadrupedal like a dog made it arguably more appealing and huggable to fans. Animations like this
only further highlighted how adorable it really is.
Per Darkhorse cleanup
I moved this to Quagsire's ED entry as Clodsire was likely made in response/to bank off Quagsire's popularity as opposed to Clodsire's being unintentional, so it's part of the Quag's Darkhorse status as opposed to counting as one itself.
It was moved back to it's own entry, by a separate troper from who first added it, citing "There is no evidence to suggest that Clodsire's creation is a result of Quagsire's popularity as there have been plenty of non-Ensemble Dark Horse pokemon with regional variants that have received new evolutions (such as Corsola, Farfetch'd, Mr Mime, Basculin and Qwilfish)." I don't disagree, it would fit that Clodsire not being revealed prerelease, but this gets into the issue of speculating creator knowledge/intent.
Before taking to ED cleanup, I'm asking if it should be re-moved as that's what the cleanup decided so undoing what they voted on without discussion violates rules.
openFandom rivalry discussion
Hello. I recently deleted the following examples of Fandom Rivalry and Friendly Fandoms from DC Animated Movie Universe.
- Fandom Rivalry: A minor example with the Tomorrowverse, considering that most fans of the DCAMU are fans of DC's animated films in general, but some DCAMU fans have expressed disappointment that the franchise ended not long after Growing the Beard as they feel there were more stories this franchise could tell. In contrast fans of Tomorrowverse feel that the DCAMU only had a few genuinely good films, with the rest either being mediocre at best or boring at worst, while the new Shared Universe is a breath of fresh air that doesn't limit itself to one specific era of DC's history as well as having a reduced focus on Batman (who appeared in the first eight DCAMU films while five films in the Tomorrowverse has only used him for his two-parter).
- Friendly Fandoms:
- After the release of Justice League Dark: Apokolips War fans of this franchise have bonded with fans of the early Darker and Edgier DC Extended Universe movies, particularly those directed by Zack Snyder. A number of these fans have praised Apokolips War as the closest thing they'll likely get to Snyder's original five-film arc (which was Cut Short due to the financial underperformance of Snyder's films relative to their massive budgets).
- Since most fans grew up watching the DCAU it's unsurprising that the two fandoms get along. Most of the DCAU fans see the DCAMU as a more mature alternative to their own fandom now that they are all adults.
- Despite the above mentioned Fandom Rivalry with the Tomorrowverse, there are DCAMU fans who either enjoy both for their differences, or hope that the Tomorrowverse is the post-Apokolips War timeline that could continue the story of the DCAMU.
My argument is that those are not separate fandoms. It's literally DC fans disagreeing over which films based on the same property are good or bad.
brightfan99, who added the examples, has contacted me via PM and argues that DC should be seen as a cluster of smaller fandoms. As an example, they mentioned how fans of the Christopher Reeve Superman don't like the Henry Cavill version and vice-versa.
Requesting other tropers' opinions to settle this discussion.
openIs this an Edit War
So on YMMV.Tomorrowverse brightfan99 added
this Fandom Rivalry entry.
- A minor example with the DC Animated Movie Universe, considering that most fans of the Tomorroverse are fans of DC's animated films in general, but some DCAMU fans have expressed disappointment that the franchise ended not long after Growing the Beard as they feel there were more stories to be told. In contrast fans of Tomorrowverse feel that the DCAMU only had a few genuinely good films, with the rest either being mediocre at best or boring at worst, while the new Shared Universe is a breath of fresh air that doesn't limit itself to one specific era of DC's history as well as having a reduced focus on Batman (who appeared in the first eight DCAMU films while five films in the Tomorrowverse has only used him for his two-parter).
I removed the "A minor example"
because it's not really a minor example in my experience and we aren't supposed to trope minor YMMV reactions from what I have been told.
brightfan99 without discussing it anywhere added "A small one"
. Which while not the exact same wording means the same thing.
I don't know what to do here.i ultimately do not care about the wording as ultimately I think I left it weirdly phrased by my original removal now that I think about it but this feels like it is now an Edit War considering the other troper added nearly the exact same wording without discussing it anywhere. But I want to get some more opinions.
Edited by Bullmanopen Real Life cleanup crowner
There is an active crowner on the Real Life cleanup thread to make the following tropes No Real Life Examples, Please!.
If you want to join the conversation, do so here
. Please do not reply to this query directly.
open (RESOLVED) nattery wall-o'-text on Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Energy Literature
Half the Literature folder on SciFiWritersHave.No Sense Of Energy is currently comprised of a nattery, Example Indentation-noncompliant Wall of Text about the Incredible Cross-Sections firepower numbers controversy in Star Wars Legends (which admittedly I contributed to over a decade ago when I was young and stupid).
Fixing it would be a major change that I think probably could use some extra sets of eyes, but couldn't find a good cleanup thread for this to go in, so I figured I'd come here.
- In one of the Star Wars Legends technical manuals (now non-canon along with the rest of Star Wars Legends), a starfighter's main guns are about 1/200,000,000th the power of a capital ship's heavy guns, and yet starfighters still try to shoot at enemy capital ships like they can do more than annoy the enemy captain by obstructing his view out the bridge. The series that book belongs to throws out words like kilotons for starfighter weaponry, megatons for Slave-1's weaponry, hundreds of gigatons each shot for capital scale weaponry, and the latter being powered by reactors with the energy output of a star. All this for weapons which, for the films that they're detailing, display yields that rarely stack up to the more extreme episodes of MythBusters and are outdone by modern heavy cruise missiles. The light ion cannons the size of mortars on the Invisible Hand are supposedly throwing out as much heat as a 4.8 megaton thermonuclear bomb, which is strange when compared to the Hoth Ion cannon, a weapon that disabled an Imperial Star Destroyer in a handful of shots and yet didn't produce enough heat to melt the surrounding snow. In general, you could probably knock off about six orders of magnitude on anything written in those books and you'd still get way too much. Supposedly, these represent the maximum yields, but because nothing like these figures occur in the movies and there are multiple times when using even a percentage of these maximum yields would prevent ship-wide destruction, where do these numbers come from?
- In general, all of the Star Wars films basically depict combat as being World War II IN SPACE!. This extends to firepower. Fighter cannons can hit the ground a few meters from foot soldiers without harming them, while main gun batteries on capital ships seldom display effects beyond a few tons of TNT- which is roughly in line with World War II era battleship guns, albeit with a higher rate of fire and effective range. There's even a famous scene in Return of the Jedi where the kinetic energy (plus whatever explosives were still on-board) of a crashing kamikaze fighter was able to cripple a Star Destroyer by destroying its bridge, something that would be completely impossible if these things were routinely trading shots with ships capable of depopulating a planet with a single salvo. These numbers have been made even more ridiculous in hindsight by material that came out after the Disney buyout. For example, the Last Jedi art book depicts a strategic-scale (i.e. orders of magnitude more powerful than regular guns) plasma bomb carried by the Free Virgillia-class corvettes as being the size of a building... yet "only" having a 100 megaton yield (which makes these bombs, per area, less efficient than the Tsar Bomba). For reference, by Saxton's old numbers, any single Acclamator-class ship (which are the size of heavy cruisers) had 12 turbolaser cannons each capable of dishing out 200 gigatons per shot. So basically, a ship not much bigger than the Virigillia-class could dish out 2,400 gigatons or the equivalent of 24,000 strategic-scale plasma bombs, every second, continuously. Imagine that every ship in the U.S. Navy had an autocannon that shoots the equivalent of 24,000 nuclear missiles a second and you start to see how ridiculous this idea is.
- However, the author of these works, Dr. Curtis Saxton, is an astrophysicist and so by any right should have a very good understanding of the yields being described. Unfortunately, there is controversy surrounding the author's relationship with those in the online "versus debate" community, which, if true, would mean that the author didn't so much screw up the math as deliberately misrepresent it. Another scientist and Star Wars fan/contributor, Gary Sarli, analyzed Saxton's work and came to very different conclusions. Particularly one of Saxton's most influential calculations, which not only vastly overestimated how much damage needed to be done to fulfill a certain operation ("Base Delta Zero", glassing a planet, in other wordsnote A big part of Sarli's argument pointed out that the original description in the Imperial Sourcebook limited itself, relatively speaking, to wiping out the planet's assets of production, like factories, arable lands, mines, fisheries, and all sentient beings and droids, which, while on a planetary scale is definitely impressive, wouldn't necessarily mandate slagging literally everything on the surface or vaporizing the oceans unless the commander was in a particularly vindictive mood, nor would it have to do so by itself, in under an hour. For context, the entire world nuclear arsenal (more than enough to wipe out all major cities and industry) totals 1.5 gigatons. Ten times that number should easily be able to kill nearly every human on Earth. Melting off all the Earth's crust and vaporizing all its oceans, on the other hand?
7 exatons or 7,000,000,000 gigatons.).
- And on the third hand, proponents of the ICS numbers point out that they are several orders of magnitude less than what you'd get simply by down-scaling from the Death Star, which has been calculated from screen evidencehow? Measure how long it took the planet to double in diameter after being shot (0.83 seconds), and do the math assuming Alderaan has the same properties as Earth. For the math, see these
links
. to produce a minimum of 1E38 joules, roughly the energy that the Sun produces in eight thousand years when firing a planet-busting shot. That puts the Empire well into Type II on the Kardashev scale. By the same token, there are those who think that Saxton did the above calculations and then gave their shipboard weapons numbers that he would have expected a Type II civilization to have. Of course, both the EU and the new Disney continuity specified that the Death Star's power came from Kyber crystals, making its showing completely irrelevant to anything that doesn't also use Kyber crystals.
- And critics will counter that there are a lot of weird effects for that to be purely a brute-force weapon, like the existence of a two-stage explosion and a Planar Shockwave. And since the Death Star novel came out, they've either retconned or clarified that the superlaser uses an exotic reaction that causes large parts of the planet to shift into hyperspace (presumably in a violent manner, since vessels with hyperdrives can do so without exploding), causing the planet to blow itself up.
- (separate unrelated example about Vulture droids I added yesterday)
- Star Wars Legends:
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to be wildly out of scale with the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith). Saxton was even accused at times of making up inflated numbers to help Star Wars "win" the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny with Star Trek (he was a participant in sci-fi debating groups on the Internet at the time the books came out). Other debaters argued that some of his calculations were rooted in faulty assumptions, for example that the Orbital Bombardment involved in a Base Delta Zero operation wasn't intended to be at the Earth-Shattering Kaboom level a la Exterminatus, but just to destroy population centers and military sites. The argument was ultimately rendered moot when the Legends continuity was ended.
- (unrelated Vulture droid example)
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to be wildly out of scale with the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith); the latter number is about 10% of the estimated yield of the Chicxulub meteorite impact. Saxton has shown where his calculations came from: primarily the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan, the concept of Base Delta Zero from West End Games' Imperial Sourcebook, and shots from The Empire Strikes Back of star destroyers blowing up asteroids said to be nickel-iron in Alan Dean Foster's novelization; however, other debaters such as Gary Sarli have questioned some of his underlying assumptions. The whole thing was ultimately rendered moot after Legends was decanonized, with the efficacy of Orbital Bombardment in particular dramatically scaled down in Disney canon reference books.
Third draft:
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to significantly inflated compared to the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith); for reference, the latter number is about 10% of the estimated yield of the Chicxulub meteorite impact
. Saxton has shown where his calculations came from;note primarily the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan, the concept of Base Delta Zero from West End Games' Imperial Sourcebook, and shots from The Empire Strikes Back of star destroyers blowing up asteroids said to be nickel-iron in Alan Dean Foster's novelization however, other debaters such as Gary Sarli have questioned some of his underlying assumptions.note e.g. whether "Base Delta Zero" involves glassing an entire planet For the Evulz or just destroying mission-critical population centers Due to his author's notes thanking various members of online "versus debating" communities, Saxton has also been accused of deliberately inflating his numbers to "win" arguments over whether Star Wars factions would beat Star Trek factions in a war.
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to significantly inflated compared to the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith); for reference, the latter number is about 10% of the estimated yield of the Chicxulub meteorite impact

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 -
...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 Mrph1