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:
openHow to add self-linking table of contents?
Is it possible to create a Wikipedia/Fandom-style "table of contents" box on a page, which would let a reader jump to specific sections on the same page using anchor links, or is that not possible?
Edited by techno156openDrama Importation?
On YMMV.Genshin Impact, GRD added this questionable Fandom Rivalry entry (see here
).
- A weird one, but this also applies within subsections of the Genshin fanbase itself. As there is a strong distaste between Reddit Genshin and Twitter Genshin; forming distinct blocs due to how large the fanbase is. With the reddit base of Genshin accusing the twitter base of being the source of the majority of the toxicity and controversies as well as ruining the fandom's reputation. Expect plenty of Genshin redditors chastising twitter users for any controversy that gets brought up, whilst twitter Genshin accusing their reddit counterparts as just being as equally toxic in its own ways. To a lesser extent, the Youtube fanbase of Genshin sometimes gets flack from both sides due to clickbait issues. Whereas the fanbase powerbloc in Facebook and Hoyolab are considered to be far more chill in contrast. The fanbase is not considered 'broken' like that of Star Wars since there is still a unified passion across the board on the game and there isn't any severe breach of conduct to ignite a civil war. But there is a distinct cultural rivalry between the websites formulating into something akin to a fandom Cold War.
Reading this, it sounds to me like importation of fandom drama onto TV Tropes, and even though my experience with the Genshin fandom is short-lived, they are prone to drama spats every now and again. What do you think?
Berserk Button: misusing Berserk Button
open A possible issue with some picture captions
In Characters.Spookys Jump Scare Mansion, each of the character pictures have a caption with a quote that doesn’t actually reference the work itself, but serves as a Shout-Out to another work maybe tangentially related to the picture (for example, the caption for Specimen 2, a slime monster, references Ghostbusters (1984)). Is this acceptable, or should they be removed on account of having nothing to do with the actual work?
openConcerning Edit History
I first noticed Caesar 44 commenting on a review for the new LOTR show, complaining that it's inaccurate to the original work and the like which while technically true is also somewhat of a dogwhistle, so I dug further... And found some bizarre things. Some of them pointing at an agenda... Others just showing sloppy and problematic behaviors in general. Note that I have not sent a notifier... I wouldn't even know where to begin.
- Deleting an entry from CommonKnowledge.MythsAndReligion without reason
, made worse by it being about the belief that the bible bans homosexuality when it doesn't actually.
- Adding natter as a note tag?
- Doing it again, but ~politically~?
- And again
- Doing that again but then removing it?
- More natter... but as a parabomb this time
, to shake it up, I guess.
- She-Hulk Whining, because obviously
- As it might be obvious by now they have some sloppy behaviors like not putting a space in between the trope and the bullet, and not always starting with capitalization.
- They also got into a weird dispute on WesternAnimation.The Incredibles over the Artistic License – Law entry? Getting all the receipts is hard because of the link glitch and the fact that it's like 6 AM here and I want to end this report preferably before the sun comes up? Anyway what happened was that they added an entry about the early-movie lawsuit which was deemed to not count by consensus, and the entry was eventually hidden with a large tag saying "don't add", and then they removed the comment markup but not the note itself????
And this has been my deep-dive into a concerning troper. Thoughts? Should I try sending a notifier? I mean the editing issues are all bad, sure, but what concerns me most is the clear political wonkery they're engaging in, and that can't be solved with a PM, nor do I want to see them flame out.
openContentious issue, but: Columbus Whitewashing
So, uh. UsefulNotes.Christopher Columbus. I'm gonna try not to dive into the deep end of the modern discourse about him but skimming the page it does feel like it engages in some degree of objective misrepresentation/falsehoods about his activities.
The one that stands out to me is it claiming that the mistreatment of natives in his colony occurred without his knowledge after he left his brother in charge to continue his exploration, and the subsequent implication that he was rightly exonerated for it - AFAIK while there's arguments to be made about the degree of mistreatment he's responsible for it's accepted as historical fact that he was personally responsible for much of it (particularly the slavery); his brother simply escalated it to the point of outright brutality.
I'd just correct it myself but this is a highly contentious issue and it's entirely possible that I myself am wrong or misinformed in some way on some of this. I suspect that a deeper reading of the article to account for omitted details, bias, etc may be warranted. Not to mention an on-the-record discussion to show that the matter was handled with consideration rather than being knee-jerk Righting Great Wrongs.
For what it's worth, I checked the discussion page and there seems to have been a very brief discussion of the matter in 2012... where it was seemingly decided to stick with the "he was innocent and simply couldn't control his men" portrayal, which like I said is AFAIK considered factually incorrect regardless of one's opinions on him personally.
Edited by Dirtyblue929openWriter Conflicts With Canon Misuse? (repost)
Asked prior ATT
and Is this an example?
about these but got no feedback.
- The Rise of Skywalker establishes that Supreme Leader Snoke was actually a failed clone created by Palpatine, with several other Snokes visible in vats on Exegol. This directly contradicts previous declarations that Snoke had been around for many decades, and that Palpatine only learned about his existence shortly before his death at the end of Return of the Jedi.
WCWC is when Word of God conflicts with canon. I believe this was All There in the Manual material that was contradicted as opposed to out of work creator statements. What to do?
- According to the Sonic 4 web site, Sonic and Knuckles' levels and stories take place at the exact same time in Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Fans noted that there was tons of evidence within the game itself that Knuckles' story is after Sonic's story. Examples include Angel Island Zone Act 1 showing only the sky in the background instead of the ocean, Eggman's Death Egg is missing in the background for Launch Base Zone and Lava Reef Zone Act 2, the ghosts in Sandopolis Zone Act 2 are already wandering around at the start (you later find the container that held them was already broken by Sonic), and Mecha Sonic appears to fight Knuckles at the end of the game since he didn't explode when Sonic defeated him previously. This was rectified by later material stating that it indeed took place after Sonic's campaign.
Would a official website be All There in the Manual as opposed to Word of God?
Anyplace else to ask?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenAccidental edit war instigated by me
I was checking the history of Jekyll & Hyde and noticed that an entry on Pure Is Not Good where Hyde declares himself pure and Jekyll the true "Hyde" had been deleted 9 months ago: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit31680077
"He says "I am you", not "I am pure""
This is true of the Broadway recording, but in the 1994 version
◊ he does say
◊ "I am pure", which you can also hear
in the audio itself. Obviously this isn't true of every version (there's a lot) so I adjusted the deleted entry to clarify which recording it was while also adding more context to said entry, then re-added it when I was done. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit34301267
Unfortunately I forgot that I had added the original entry back in 2017, which I'm pretty sure means that I did an edit war: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit17931303
I apologize for the accidental edit war on my part and accept full responsibility for anything that may occur as a result.
Edited by lalalei2001openEdit warring in YMMV Dragon Ball Super Anime
I removed a bunch of entries from the YMMV page of the Granolah's arc from Dragon Ball Super, since they were violations of policy (adding a Broken Base entry just days after the arc had ended, for example, alongside a It Was His Sled entry, and an Audience-Alienating Ending entry when the entire arc is days old). I also removed some entries that read as too much complaining instead of actually showing an audience reaction, particularly concerning Narm, Ass Pull, Franchise Original Sin and Fan-Disliked Explanation.
troper AMassiveOvereditor
(Which originally added most of these entries) added a bunch of entries back, with the exception of the entries that negated policy. What should be done in this case? I feel that rather than reflecting the views of the audience itself, the page just merely centers on the views of this specific troper. Not to say that there isn't examples of Narm and Ass Pull (I left some of those and after some days I thought that maybe I should have added back the Black Frieza entry in Ass Pull), but I feel that the page as a whole is too negative, which is a common problem in the Dragon Ball Super manga pages.
openToo Bleak misuse
- The Joker is often criticized for being too bleak a villain. Many writers treat him as less a person and more of an unpredictable, seemingly unstoppable force of chaos who commits acts of gruesome torture (of both the physical and psychological formats) and mass murder, with an ever increasing body count that's often in the four to five digits, often forgetting the comedic angle that made him such a Love to Hate character in the first place. This renders Batman's no-kill policy absolutely pointless and a little Secretly Selfish, as it becomes less about him keeping Gotham safe and more about him staying true to his personal code no matter the consequences.
TBSC is about stories that cause such, so it seems misuse to apply to a specific character, especially one who's remained iconic and popular despite. I say cut as while this might apply to some specific stories it doesn't apply in general/overall as it's too successful to count. Any objections?
Asking here as TBSC cleanup hasn't had any activity in over a month.
resolved Questionable cut reason for CowboyBebopAtHisComputer/ZeroPunctuation
A while back, I restored the cut Critical Research Failure page for Zero Punctuation under Cowboy BeBop at His Computer, since the former ended up being disambiguated.
Since then however, the page got cut with a reason that I really don't think adds up, nor do I think received much in the way of consensus from the discussion page linked in the cut reason. I grant you, I was initially not going to raise this, since unlike the time when the CRF variant was cut, it tried to explain why it was misuse. But the explanation doesn't add up to me:
"Page is all misuse as CBAHC is about/goes under the works errors are made of, not the works making the errors."
The wording on this explanation is rather poor in and of itself (as the one reply in the cut reason's cited discussion thread alludes to) but on top of that, I've no idea what it's trying to get at after reading it carefully. Fundamentally, Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is, as the laconic page says, "when a source gets basic facts wrong about a work", and nowhere on the page does it mention anything resembling what the cut reason mentions.
On close examination, maybe the cut reason is saying that the error example should go on the page for the work rather than the work talking about the work, but not only does nothing on the CBAHC page specify this, but that's honestly a rather poor way of doing things if we trope reviewers and if it's the only option. Another part of me thinks that the key phrase is "facts about works", but that puts into question the idea that "all" the examples were misuse, considering what was on that page.
Based on the above and the minimal feedback in the discussion thread cited in the cut reason, I believe the page's cutting was unjustified, but I'd like other thoughts on this just in case I'm reading into the wrong thing.
Edited by Akriloth2160openReporting a Misnamed Page?
If I see a page that's been moved to have the wrong name, with redirects now adding to the problem, where would I report that? For the case I'm seeing, it isn't obvious how I'd fix it myself.
openRestoring a Deleted Entry Western Animation
When I found out a character in The Dragon Prince was inspired by C-3PO, I added an Expy entry to their folder which was deleted soon after by another troper.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Characters.TheDragonPrinceXadia#edit33992672
I messaged them with a link to the interview
that states C-3PO was an influence but they haven't replied or reversed the edit themselves. What should be done? Do I just restore it myself, or should another, since I'm unsure if that might qualify as an edit war?
open Contradicting entires/Mis-blamed misuse?
YMMV.Pokemon S 21 E 6 Mission Total Recall
- Designated Hero: Gladion is the brave older brother who went out of his way to protect Lillie by becoming strong enough to stop Nihilego...while also disregarding that since he knew everything that happened that night, that he could've prevented a lot of Lillie's traumas if he just told his mother sooner.
- Mis-blamed: Gladion's actions or lack thereof appear to have caused a rift in his overall view in the fandom for the anime, but an obvious roadblock pretty much shoots down any of the normal methods Gladion could've done to get the message through about Lillie's abuse to Lusamine; unless he dealt with Faba first and foremost, nothing was stopping Faba from continuing to enforce a fake status quo he had kept preserved for four years straight with help of his Hypno and other Psychic Type Pokémon altering and manipulating their memories in-order to save his own skin. If anything, Gladion should consider himself lucky he even managed to escape at all in any capacity, as Faba would've more than likely erased his memories too if he had managed to catch him sooner. By all accounts, Faba is the biggest obstacle for this entire arc, and even with Ash's help, Faba wasn't easy to bring down, and he still tried to make a counterattack in the following episode to make up for the misstep of being ganged up on by two trainers did to him.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The fact that Gladion kept everything quiet and never went to tell Lusamine about what happened to Lillie sooner makes him less altruistic and more selfish, especially since he chews her out for not paying attention yet he knew yet ran away from his sister.
These argue with themselves over Gladion. I'm inclined to cut Mis-blamed as the narrative never presented that aspect and it's about real life creators, not in-work characters, being such. But there's this from Misblamed.Anime And Manga:
- Porygon being the Pokémon that caused the infamous seizure-inducing imagery present in the banned episode "Electric Soldier Porygon"
. It wasn't. While Porygon and its evolutions have certainly never appeared in any anime adaptation ever since outside brief blink-and-you'll-miss cameos, this is purely due to the unfortunate association its name has with the incident. The imagery was actually caused by Pikachu, who was attacking incoming missiles being shot at Porygon and the rest of the group.
This was previously removed citing "About creators being mis-blamed. This is Common Knowledge." But was added back without explanation. Thoughts?
open Tropers Policy Discussion
There's an ongoing discussion regarding contributors adding Fetish Fuel and other kink-related self-troping on their Tropers/ pages. Click here
if you want to join the discussion.
openWriter Conflicts With Canon misuse?
- The Rise of Skywalker establishes that Supreme Leader Snoke was actually a failed clone created by Palpatine, with several other Snokes visible in vats on Exegol. This directly contradicts previous declarations that Snoke had been around for many decades, and that Palpatine only learned about his existence shortly before his death at the end of Return of the Jedi.
WCWC is when Word of God conflicts with canon. I believe this was All There in the Manual material that was contradicted as opposed to out of work creator statements. (If WCWC allows prior material how's it different than Retcon?) Or if both statements and later material contradict does the latter supersede the former? What to do?
Relating:
- According to the Sonic 4 web site, Sonic and Knuckles' levels and stories take place at the exact same time in Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Fans noted that there was tons of evidence within the game itself that Knuckles' story is after Sonic's story. Examples include Angel Island Zone Act 1 showing only the sky in the background instead of the ocean, Eggman's Death Egg is missing in the background for Launch Base Zone and Lava Reef Zone Act 2, the ghosts in Sandopolis Zone Act 2 are already wandering around at the start (you later find the container that held them was already broken by Sonic), and Mecha Sonic appears to fight Knuckles at the end of the game since he didn't explode when Sonic defeated him previously. This was rectified by later material stating that it indeed took place after Sonic's campaign.
Would a official website be All There in the Manual as opposed to Word of God?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaughtopen Disagreement on Marx page.
First of all, I understand that this topic might be sensitive to some people here, but I hope that we can maintain a sense of objectivity and base our conclusions on the facts.
Marxist economics is not considered scientifically credible by the economics establishment. It has zero or near zero presence in economics textbooks, and it has zero or near zero presence in economics university courses. To my knowledge, there is nowhere in the world where Marxism is included as a component of economics education. Maybe Cuba or North Korea or somewhere like that. This is something that, in my experience, Marxists completely concede and acknowledge. They concede and acknowledge it to try and demonstrate that modern economics is hopelessly corrupt, but they concede and acknowledge it nonetheless.
The Karl Marx page had a line noting that "As an economist, Marx remains heterodox, and nearly all modern economic institutions reject his work as scientifically incorrect. Nevertheless, Marxist economics retains a significant following and continues to be used as the foundation of socialist economic ideology." I believe this is incredibly important and relevant information. I think one of the most pertinent questions a layman would have about a field of study is "Is this considered credible and effective by the experts?"
05tele changed the line to "As an economist, Marx remains heterodox, and many modern economic institutions reject his work as scientifically incorrect." I sent him a message explaining that this edit was inappropriate. I explained that Marxist economics is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific establishment, and the article needs to reflect that.
He replied with the rebuttal that different schools of economic thought exist. I replied and conceded that yes, different schools of thought exist, but that is insufficient. I told him that it's not enough for schools to exist and for some people to believe in them, but he needs to demonstrate that they are considered credible on a significant scale. I asked if he could demonstrate this.
Rather than providing me with any indication whatsoever that Marxism was indeed considered credible, he replied to me, rather rudely, "I am not responsible for your ignorance of economics. I suggest you remedy it."
I stress again, that the issue here should not be whether Marxism is right or wrong, but whether it's accepted as credible by current institutions. This is something 05tele himself seems to implicitly concede, given that he hasn't touched a later paragraph in the same article expanding on the point. I'd like to revert this edit.
I feel I might also note that 05tele failed to include an edit reason on his initial edit. So, essentially, he's made an edit with no justification, and when asked for some, responded by saying "I'm not responsible for you being ignorant."
Edited by HingabeSiebenresolved Bad Sequelitis Entry on YMMV Total War Warhammer III Videogame
A while back, there was an Edit War ATT concerning the Sequelitis entry on Total War: Warhammer III. See here
. I don't disagree that it was Edit Warring, but what got lost in that discussion is that the offending entry is genuinely bad, violates a number of rules and is very outdated compared to the current state of the game. For context here is the current entry as it stands on that page.
- Sequelitis: It was very clear that the team developing this game and the team maintaining the previous game either disagreed heavily or just weren't coordinating as much of the fixes, patches, updates, and design evolutions that made the previous game so popular were not present at the launch of this one. The game shifted back in favor of things that were either patched out of or specifically avoided in the previous game resulting in a launch that many fans agree was a major step backwards.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
. It's widely theorized that the core of the game was forked off an older build of the previous game before the big Potion of Speed update and thus never received most of the multitude of fixes, patches, and updates present in that patch and subsequent ones.
- The skill and tech trees for many factions are poorly-executed, with many technologies or skills that range from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). Several skills and technologies also don't do what the description says they do, making it hard to know what bonus you're actually getting. On top of this, some factions have their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies (such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology), something that was specifically hated about the Greenskins in the first game and removed from them with a series of reworks in the second. Patch 1.2 focused heavily on beefing up factions' tech trees, mitigating this.
- While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords to level 50 they didn't necessarily give them any more skills, meaning some heroes can get more skill points than they can spend; Iridescent Horrors with the Lore of Tzeentch, for example, can only spend 47 due to having mutually-exclusive skills, and even if they didn't would only have 49. This was previously only a problem with mods and those modders had solved the problem early in the first game's lifecycle.
- Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI is both less appealing and harder to read due to the overemphasis on the color red compared to the previous game's more vibrant interface. A common source of frustration is that the colors for many different functions are effectively the same, making it impossible to quickly distinguish if a settlement is, for example, building a structure or demolishing it.
- The campaign that launched with the game, Realm of Chaos, doubled down on the elements players hated about the second game's Vortex campaign (particularly the time pressure and the random invasions) without making many improvements, ignoring well-received diversification of faction objectives and stories from the previous game's DLC packs. See Scrappy Mechanic for more details on why the Reign of Chaos campaign mechanics are especially loathed. The reception of this campaign was so bad Creative Assembly had to delay their first planned update and rush out Patch 1.1 specifically to address it.
- The series has long had a reputation for amazing mods that expand and improve on the game in a myriad of ways. This game did not launch with Steam Workshop support and went without for two months until the 1.1 update.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
And here is my critique of this entry and its sub-bullets, breaking it down by the elements.
1. For starters this entry really shouldn't be broken down into multiple sub-bullets. They give the appearance of a Wall of Text. A single bullet that's Clear, Concise, Witty is preferable.
2. ""Poorly Optimized" is an understatement" etc.: The video link can stay but the words inside it should be rewritten and the rest of the paragraph should be cut. One half is hyperbolic Word Cruft with unnecessary italics, the other is pure speculation.
3. "The skill and tech trees for many factions" etc.: The points can stand but the bracketed text should be moved into Notes to make the paragraph more concise. Also, the text may need to be put into past tense as the subbullet itself admits CA have been working on this, though I think it should go as I would rather keep that element for last.
4. "While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords" etc.: The point is valid, but IMO we can reduce this to a single sentence or even a fragment of one. e.g. CA raised the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50, but some characters don't have enough room for that many skill points.
5. "Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI" etc.: Can delete. The point is valid but they directly addressed it in a later patch which means it should go under Author's Saving Throw. At most a fragment of a sentence like "issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red".
6. "The campaign that launched with the game" etc.: Valid but needs compression and to remove the reference to Scrappy Mechanic which is considered bad form. A single sentence should do it.
7. "The series has long had a reputation" etc.: Delete. Yes it was frustrating but it's been addessed.
So with all these in mind, a revised version of the entry as I see it would go something like this:
- Sequelitis: At launch, the game was very divisively and even negatively received for feeling like a step backwards after the much-lauded final state of Total War: Warhammer II. Reasons for this include a large host of glitches, bugs and programming errors
that made it feel unpolished, complaints about poor choices for skillnote Ranging from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). and technology treesnote Some factions had their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies, such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology. for certain races, CA raising the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50 but not accounting for characters who didn't have enough skills to accommodate 49 skill points, issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red, not launching with built-in support for Game Mods like its predecessors did, which might have mitigated some people's complaints about it, and worst of all, a base game campaign that was almost universally derided for loathsome mechanics, an irritating amount of time pressure and homogenising the storylines and campaign goals of the factions featured, making people who hated the how the Vortex campaign in the second game started out before DLC packs brought diversification of faction objectives and stories cry, "Oh, No... Not Again!" Fortunately, CA have since worked hard to address all these issues throught game patches and their first DLC pack, which has led to the game getting a much more positive reception.
Note this is not the final form I would put it in, I just needed to make something for this, but I also wanted to achieve consensus before I posted it. Thoughts?
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved 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 Mrph1

I just realized that I had accidentally edit warred, and wanted to self-report just to be safe.
I was on Monochrome Casting yesterday, and made an addition
; it's one that I knew I had thought about making before, but as it wasn't there I assumed that I hadn't. But then I realized today that I had made that addition before
and just forgotten, and it had since been deleted
. I've now gone back and at least addressed the issue that got it deleted
.