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:
openPossible Edit War Western Animation
On Dec 31st, user K added this to YMMV.Coco:
- While the movie has been in production for six years, and thus wasn't created with the intent of dropping this particular anvil, the heavy subtext of "Mexico is a beautiful country full of beautiful people" is sorely needed in the United States in 2017.
That was removed on Jan 5th after the Trump and ROCEJ thread
stated that edit may have violated the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement. I personally felt it was shoehorning an opinion in.
On Jan 8th, K replaced it with this:
- Co-Director Adrian Molina, from an interview with NPR, in response to a question about if the meaning of making a film set in Mexico over the course of six years changed at all since the 2016 election: "Well, it's a long time coming for Latinos to see themselves on screen represented in a way that they can be proud of and in a way that reflects the things that they value about their culture and they value about their families. [...] And for a family to go and see themselves reflected on screen the way they experience their lives and see that shown to the world means a lot. It means a lot for your self-esteem, and it means a lot for how you see yourself in the world."
Is this Edit War, and should I message K and tell him to go to the Trump and ROCEJ thread and Coco's discussion pages?
Edited by jameygameropenpaskalordi is a troll "editor"
paskalordi seems to be a troll who keeps changing What An Idiot to What a Fucking N-word. Not to mention his other edits. His edit history
. He even self-admitted to that on a 3 year old edit
.
openDon Bluth quotes
Anyone know why all of the quotes on Quotes.Don Bluth that aren't from Bluth himself are so negative?
Is Bluth more hated in the animation community than I thought, or does someone on this site have a negative vendetta against him?
Edited by MrMediaGuy2resolved Interesting edits on Gender-Equal Ensemble
On November 1st, 2024, I added an example of this trope from Bad Times at the Battle Royale, a movie that I had put together a couple of years ago, and in December 25th, 2024, I did the same thing for Lights, Camera, Action! Moviemaking Mania. Both examples were also crosswicked to their respective film pages. So far, so good.
Fast-forward to January 14th, 2025 where user Diask changed almost every single instance of "male and female" on the article to something different. Some examples have "males and females" changed to "guys and girls", while it was far more common for instances of "males and females" to be changed to "men and women". All of this without an edit reason. And yes, both of my film examples were caught in the crossfire.
What reason would this user have to change almost every example of "males and females" without specifying exactly why? I'm concerned undoing these changes (especially in regards to both of my film examples) might lead to an edit war and possibly another suspension, hence why I'm bringing this up here first and foremost to see what others think. I myself find it weird to make these sorts of massive changes without prior discussion, especially for an article specifically talking about how the gender ratio between male and female is exactly 50/50 for certain works of art. If it's already correct to use "male and female" to refer to both genders, then why bother changing it?
Before anyone asks, I did check the Discussion tab for Gender-Equal Ensemble to see if I could find anything, but there was nothing. If there was a discussion regarding this elsewhere on the site (particularly a forum thread or two), then please let me know about any such areas so I can take a closer look.
Initial Battle Royale edit on Gender-Equal Ensemble by myself: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.GenderEqualEnsemble&page=23#edit42324893
Initial Lights, Camera, Action! edit on Gender-Equal Ensemble by myself: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.GenderEqualEnsemble&page=23#edit42887001
Edit to Gender-Equal Ensemble by Diask changing almost every instance of "male and female" without prior discussion: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.GenderEqualEnsemble&page=23#edit43089160
resolved How to Handle a Specific TLP Draft Sponsor
I have a question regarding the TLP draft Alternating Scream Cut
. The trope itself seems valid, but my main issues stem from the sponsor themselves, Willow Jackson.
Most of the examples Willow added to the draft (which are not pulled from the replies) have a lot of issues. This mainly involves writing examples as Nightmare Fuel or Played for Horror regardless of context, using an excessive amount of web links for examples, and focusing on wittiness instead of being clear and concise.
I have tried to explain to Willow about these issues multiple
times
now
, but none of my replies resulted in Willow fixing their draft. What's even weirder is that Willow has been on this site since 2022, and their edit history is three pages long, so I can't tell if this is a case of an inexperienced troper trying to do a TLP draft or not.
I want to know what I can do about this sponsor. Should we inform Willow, wait a bit longer for them to fix their draft, or Take a Third Option?
openEdit war and possesiveness of Nikke articles Videogame
Troper True Shadow 97 has has engaged in edit war over people changing edits they have made on entries about the player character of video game Goddess of Victory: NIKKE.
They have left comments in the articles that clearly show they feel possesive over the way the player character is presented.
The first time I noticed this was with this edit:
I removed a note thar tried to argue the canonicty of the entry.
They sent me several pm arguing about whether the side events are canon or not, they finally rewrote the entry here.
Did not contend because my main problem was with the note added and I can see the argument from Rapi's POV.
The second problem came when they added yet another note to downplay /argue against one of the entries on the Really Gets Around entry on the protagonist (Nikke is a harem gacha, so the protagonist gets physically intimate with SOME of the girls in the side stories).
I removed this comment because I felt it was not only unnecessary, but wrong as the developers don't really make a distinction between main story and side stories, everything is considered canon.
They reverted the entry and added a new comment justifying itself here.
At this poit I felt the troper clearly has a wonk over the harem aspect of the game and is possesive of entries that downplay Rapi's position as the canon love interest (it is a sentiment I've seen expressed elsewhere on reddit and twitter, where people take issue with the Commander having intimate relationships with other characters, so they argue that these instances are not really valid because they never happen in the main story).
I made a previous ask the tropers entry that goes into more detail here. Never took any action because I got no feedback on it.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=145452&type=att
Their last edit remained unchanged for months until some weeks ago when user dinur7.
This came along with a change in the description of the protagonist that to note them as a player avatar.
True Shadow 97 then reverts both changes to how they were before, including the Really Gets Around entry that waa already edited by them, and adds yet another comment justifying their reversion besdies the one they added when they reverted my change.
The hidden comments in question.
"Commander is mentioned as being popular with many Nikkes in the main story using various phrasings, but the Downplayed part of the entry remains factually accurate: none of the events that are relevant to the Campaign Story as of Chapter 42, such as Dirty Backyard or D.ARK HERO involve him getting hot and heavy with anyone."
"The clarification in the following entry was previously removed as "unnecessary" on the grounds of an increasing amount of events getting interconnected and some of them being canonized by the main story, such as Helm's bond story. Clarification rephrased for improved relevance and restored on the grounds of many players believing that any of Commander's romantic or sexual escapades are canon to said main story (which is possible, but hasn't been established yet, while Mihara and Yuni's bond stories are explicitly non-canon due to directly contradicting the events of Chapter 4) and none of the events that have been explicitly canonized (such as Dirty Backyard) feature Commander entering relationships with anyone."
His argument that Dirty Backyard doesn't support the Commander being in other relationships is factually wrong, its part of a chain of side stories that have the commander involved directly with three of the nikke involved in the ongoing plot.
Edited by MrSeykeropen"Semi-avoidance" on CrossDressingVoices
On a few pages (ex. Trivia.Unicorn Overlord and Trivia.Ranma One Half), troper Chef Cranky Roger has a weird wonk towards "semi-avoided" examples of Cross-Dressing Voices. As in, writing entry about whether a non-binary/agender actor in more masculine/feminine leaning.
As an example:
- Cross-Dressing Voices:
- In a semi-avoidance, Akane Tendō's English voice actress, Valeria Rodriguez, is genderfluid, using any pronouns, including her "assigned female at birth" pronouns of she/her.
- Another semi-avoidance is Azusa Shiratori's dub VA, Kayli Mills, who identfies herself as she/they feminine non-binary.
Aside from the fact that trivia tropes can't be played with and the grammar just kinda sucks, this hyperfixation on the actors AGAB kinda rubs me the wrong way.
What should we do about it?
resolved About Katriel Videogame
Today a troper named Katriel posted a theory on Choices: Stories You Play the problem is it's completely written badly to the point no one can understand it, here it is.
"What more deconstructive/ subversive/ satirical takes on standard choices archetypes and genres could look like A work story with all of the elements of typical choices work stories : a competition in place , a jealous rival willing to resort to any means to dethrone us from the top , an unusually physically attractive boss ... except the job in question is sewage treatment and any [[romance sleeping with the boss ]] is off the table for whatever reason , [[constantly lampshade how dubiously legal the affair is better than a bare bulb ]] , or [[mercilessly deconstruct the trope deconstructed trope]] by underscoring how [[horrifying played for horror]] it would actually be to work under a charismatic , experienced , and halo effect inducingly beautiful person who is attracted to you ... but the feeling is not mutual. Worse yet , all your friends and coworkers dismiss, downplay, and even [[ship you shipper on deck]] with your predator, to the point where they cannot stop [[gushing about how amazing and great they are Creators pet]]. All in all, the [[ultimate message of the story is central theme]] that while not all jobs can or should be necessarily glamorized, they are still important to keep society running and, as a matter of fact might be far more important than many of those "glamorous" careers. A romance from [[ the perspective of perspective flip]] the "other woman" rival seen in more recent romances. In a manner akin to [[ Crazy ex-Girlfriend]] we could delve into the forces that [[psychologically Freudian excuse]] made her into the person she is. Perhaps the plot could focus on her attempts to actually keep a romantic partner after a long history of being dumped by (and in one case [[left at the alter]] by) so many former flames. [[This time never be hurt again]], our heroine chooses to model herself after the sweet [[ childhood friends]] and the [[ maniac pixie dream girls]] that she was dumped for; as well as [[Rom - Com Protagonists in general genre savvy]]. An [[ inversion]] of the "Hollywood" stories that are the bread and butter of so many VN apps like this one. In other words [[ the player character would begin the story with a mansion , a steady partner , and immense fame to an obscure star living out in middle America ; eeking out a living riches to rags]] . It could be a capital "T" [[ Tragedy]] following a once reknowned Writer,Director , and performer from the [[ pre- Hays code]] era as they struggle against greater powers to include radical themes within their projects. [[ Ultimately , though foregone conclusion]] they [[downer ending lose all they once had]] including their [[ mansion]] , respect amung filmmaking elites , and their partner to the fears inflamed by the [[ red scare]] , the [[extreme censorship that smothered their ability to tell the stories they needed to tell bowdlerized]] , and the [[passage of time that obscured their name look upon my works ye mighty and despair]]. The [[frame story]] could center around some [[ greek chorus podcasters]] helping a curator collect interviews and personal objects from the protagonists life , therefore justifying a "collection minigame ", in order to exhibit for a new section on <span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> [[ pre- Hays code]] era" ^ (what Katriel typed not me)
Should we send Katriel a notifer to type their sentences better so we can understand them?
Edited by RyckmanhopenPotentially iffy entry on Dated History
This entry on The Holodomor was recently added to the Dated History page:
- During the Cold War, it was not uncommon for western intellectuals to assume that the infamous Holodomor famine of 1932 and 1933 was an intentional genocide against Ukraine done by Stalin's government, or that the Soviet government in some way manufactured the famine for whatever reason more generally. Various books on the topic, most famously Robert Conquest's 1986 book The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, from before the fall of the USSR promote this narrative, often pointing to official Soviet documents which to help support this case. Even ignoring that many found Conquest—who was a self-described "Cold Warrior" and open about his bias against the USSR and in favor of the west—the lack of anything to back up this notion after the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of various previously classified documents shows this to be little more than baseless speculation, with Conquest himself later making it clear he didn't view the famine to be anything more than the result of bad policy by the Soviets in his later years, although he also added that he believes it could have been prevented if Stalin had not put Soviet interests above that of feeding his people.
Now, it's definitely true that the famine may have been "merely" the result of bad agricultural policy rather than deliberately engineered by Stalin's regime. However, the Soviet government's response (selling food that could have been used to help victims to foreign countries and actively attempting to cover up what was happening) means that even if the famine wasn't intentional, it can't be called a tragic but innocent mistake. Moreover, the fact that it coincided with attempts to target Ukrainian cultural identity and the fact that Ukrainian-majority areas even outside Ukraine suffered disproportionately during the famine both heavily suggest that Stalin took advantage of it even if he didn't deliberately set out to cause it.
I'm going to give Ephrom The Josine the benefit of the doubt since I have no reason to automatically assume they wrote this to push some kind of agenda, but this entry nevertheless comes off as lacking in nuance and (especially in regard to current events) potentially insensitive. Still, if they're willing to talk things over, I'm willing to hear them out.
resolved Poorly explained removal of Anti-Climax Boss from YMMV.Luigi's Mansion 3 Videogame
On Jan 18, 2020
, CookingCat added an example of King Boo to Luigi's Mansion 3 as an Anti-Climax Boss. They described the final boss as lackluster, having an unimpressive stage and moveset, and suffering from Fake Difficulty:
- Anti-Climax Boss: King Boo. The fight itself feels very lackluster compared to his fights in the original Luigi's Mansion and Dark Moon, and especially compared to the Boss Ghosts guarding the other character portraits, simply taking place on the roof of the hotel and having a very mediocre moveset, which especially hurts considering his presence in the early game. It doesn't help that the fight is known for it's clunkiness, Fake Difficulty and lack of polish compared to many of the others before it, especially the difficulty of launching the bombs in his mouth due to the targeting being off, the strange perspective and short period of vulnerability before he begins attacking again, and the final phase of the fight is timed, which, combined with the long length of his attacks and aforementioned short period of vulnerability, makes it easy to lose via the time running out before you even get a chance to attack him.
On Apr 1, 2020
, it was removed without any edit reason by Cman053. I was unaware of this prior edit history or CookingCat's original example.
A little more than a year later on Apr 20, 2021
, after having just finished the game myself, I re-added King Boo as an Anti-Climax Boss. While I never saw CookingCat's writeup, my own writeup incidentally echoed several of their criticisms, such as King Boo feeling lackluster in comparison to his previous fights in the series as well as earlier bosses within the same game; the fight's main "challenge" coming from trying to awkwardly aim a projectile; and spending much of the battle waiting for the boss to cycle through long attack patterns until he finally becomes vulnerable again. I also added the fact that it's a "Feed It a Bomb Three Times" boss battle that is an incredibly generic Nintendo boss formula not fitting a final boss, and the lack of a unique Game Over should the time limit run out (unlike, say, Metroid Dread) making it feel all the more anticlimactic in presentation:
- Anti-Climax Boss: After the challenging and puzzling but fairly enjoyable Hellen Gravely penultimate boss fight immediately beforehand, King Boo makes for a somewhat disappointing Final Boss. It's a fairly straightforward "Feed It a Bomb Three Times" boss battle that is more frustrating than challenging, stemming from the difficulty in aiming the bomb in King Boo's mouth. Even with King Boo spawning decoys and introducing harder attack patterns in each stage, it still ends up feeling repetitive as you're just waiting for King Boo to perform the same attacks until bombs spawn; unlike Dark Moon, there are no chase sequences to break up the battle and spice things up. Not even the time limit is enough to make it feel climactic, since there's no Non-Standard Game Over for letting time run out.
Additionally, King Boo was previously listed as an example of That One Boss by Drope. Since final bosses are exempt from That One Boss status and the example focused more on King Boo being frustrating and annoying instead of difficult, I moved that example to Goddamned Boss instead. It's still listed there as of now.
On Nov 17, 2023
, Fireball246 removed King Boo's Anti-Climax Boss example with the following edit reason: "Ignoring the fact that I’ve seen plenty of people who really liked the fight against King Boo in this game, a lot of these point feel like petty criticisms of being bad at the game rather than the boss itself being “poorly designed” or anything. This all comes across as extremely subjective and definitely doesn’t deserve to be officially labeled as an Anti-Climax Boss." But this edit reason doesn't make sense?
- "Ignoring the fact that I’ve seen plenty of people who really liked the fight against King Boo in this game..." With a quick Google search, I've also seen plenty of people who really disliked the fight. The fact that King Boo was previously listed as an Anti-Climax Boss by another editor, is currently listed as a Goddamned Boss (previously That One Boss), and isn't listed among the Best Boss Ever entries on the same YMMV page shows that other TV Tropes editors feel the same about this boss.
- "...a lot of these point feel like petty criticisms of being bad at the game..." I'm definitely not a "pro gamer", but I beat King Boo on my first try with plenty of health and time left. My criticisms of the boss have nothing to do with supposedly "being bad at the game". If anything, I thought the boss was too easy if you strip away the janky aiming and the long waiting periods (both of which are criticized by other players), which adds to the boss being anticlimactic.
- "...rather than the boss itself being “poorly designed” or anything..." Again, the example focuses on King Boo being generic, repetitive, and full of waiting instead of being unique, exciting, and challenging. These are criticisms of the boss design itself, not the player's skill level.
- "This all comes across as extremely subjective..." This is YMMV, of course it's subjective. As long as it isn't a minority opinion or just flat-out factually incorrect, it's fair game.
I sent Fireball246 a "deleting YMMV" notifier on Friday, but although they've clearly been active on TV Tropes this weekend, they haven't responded or acknowledged the PM. Since I was the last one to add the Anti-Climax Boss example, I can't undo their removal (or re-add the example with greater emphasis on "anticlimax" rather than "frustrating") without edit warring. Please advise.
resolved Unsure about possible sockpuppet (RESOLVED)
This troper's issues haven't gone totally unnoticed, given they've repeatedly
had to have
contentious edits fixed
, but long story short is this: SGC487336 has a history of making misplaced unilateral edits like these
ones
, tends to misuse/misapply Hate Sink as an excuse to wonk
, has wildly inconsistent grammar (compare this edit
to this one
) and in general just has a lot of customs violations. I sent them a notifier about the Eddsworld change on October 23rd that they never responded to.
The reason I'm considering that this might be Kissinger 113 is due to the account being created less than two days after the interim of their second
suspension
, with their (SGC's) first edit being:
- Arch-Enemy: Chandler becomes Lincoln's Arch-Nemesis since "The Waiting Game", "Schooled!", and for the rest of the episodes.
- Big Bad: Becomes the main antagonist of The Loud House series.
- Faux Affably Evil: Be careful, Chandler pretends to be nice and polite to Lincoln and his friends until he becomes aggressive and hateful character.
This was back when they had a more consistent writing style, with one of Kissinger's final edits being rather similar to both this and the second Helluva Boss entry linked above:
- Red Herring: Lori initially paints Carol out to be an insufferable Alpha Bitch who strives to steal her thunder, though it's subverted when it's revealed that Carol isn't that different from Lori and in fact possesses similarly leveled insecurities about Lori's accomplishments.
Admittedly, this isn't enough proof in and of itself, but given how active they both were on The Loud House pages, that one Eddsworld change where they merely made a cut-and-paste copy of the then-current What Could Have Been list without getting rid of the latter (which seems like on-site plagiarism, as opposed to Kissinger's being off-site) and the fact that Kissinger seems to have written this entry on TLH's now-deleted
Surprisingly Realistic Outcome page according to their edit history, something that was laden with stretches, ZCE's and some wonks (all of SGC's biggest problems with writing entries in a nutshell) I'm still suspicious about all this.
E: Resolved now; thanks Gaston.
Edited by CoachpillopenWeirdly defensive addition to Character Perception Evolution
Sailor Punk Rock added the following to Mabel Pines' entry on Character Perception Evolution:
And here's the edit reason:
I can kind of see where Sailor's coming from, but I think that this bit should, at a bare minimum, be rewritten to read less like it's complaining about people not liking the character.
What do you guys think?
Edited by ImperialMajestyXOopenWeird additions.
So on YMMV.Arrow Nyame changed
this entry from this:
- Felicity gets a lot of hate in the later seasons from those who ship Oliver with anyone else. A lot of shippers want Felicity to be Killed Off for Real, writing fanfics where she dies unloved as Oliver moves on with Laurel or Sara. These shippers like to take any slightly selfish action that Felicity performs, even if it comes as a result of Oliver being selfish as well, and treat it like her turning pure evil. A lot of these fans write fanfics where Felicity is a supervillain who is only pretending to be nice and manipulating or brainwashing Oliver, who needs to be saved from by one of his far better love interests. These shippers also like to portray her as a Clingy Jealous Girl who attacks anyone who gets close to Oliver, despite this rarely actually happening on the show.
- Felicity gets a lot of hate in the later seasons from those who ship Oliver with anyone else. A lot of shippers want Felicity to be Killed Off for Real, writing fanfics where she dies unloved as Oliver moves on with Laurel or Sara. These shippers like to take any slightly selfish action that Felicity performs, even if it comes as a result of Oliver being selfish as well, and treat it like her turning pure evil. A lot of these fans write fanfics where Felicity is a supervillain who is only pretending to be nice and manipulating or brainwashing Oliver, who needs to be saved from by one of his far better love interests. These shippers also like to portray her as a Clingy Jealous Girl who attacks anyone who gets close to Oliver, despite this rarely actually happening on the show. On some level this is justified, as the later seasons are when Felicity's character Took a Level in Jerkass and became the biggest Base-Breaking Character in the fandom (to the point of becoming the most hated character in the entire franchise at one point), but the extent many fans go to rip her apart for her actions can be extreme.
Which is weird considering that: a) It is just adding more negativity. b) While her being a Base-Breaking Character could be relevant, I don't see how that makes it justified. c) YMMV can't be justified. This is not the first time they have add something like this noted here
and here
- Changed
an approved rewrite of the Fan-Preferred Couple entry for Oliver/Felicity from neutral to overly complainy.
- Kept adding negativity to example rewritten to be more neutral inculcluding
a Creator's Pet one.
- The make an entry
for LovingAShadow.Fan Works which is more about their Alternate Character Interpretation of the show's version of Felicity. Which was then removed
. Only to add a nearly identical one to LovingAShadow.Live Action TV here
- They add negativity about Felicity and the ship to an originally neutral
Launcher of a Thousand Ships entry to about Oliver.
They also recently they:
- Added
a Fan Nickname entry based on hatedom rather then fandom.
- Added
more additions
complaining about Felicity to an already very negative Alternative Character Interpretation entry.
Now to be fair a most of their other edits are fine from my look through their edit history. It just seems to be that this ship brings out their bias Something they have acknowledged as a possibility
. Either way I wanted opinions on if that should be kept in the Die for Our Ship entry or not more then anything else.
openThis entry feels wrong
- Arthur: In S9's "Arthur Makes Waves", Arthur and D.W. go to the MacDonald house during a heat wave to cool off in the pool in their yard, where D.W.'s classmate and Implied Love Interest James shows up shirtlessnote He's shirtless because he had been swimming in the pool himself, nervously asking D.W. if she needs him to kiss her again, to which D.W. responds "Uh-uh" (meaning "No") after a brief pause. The scene is reminiscent of two lovers being nervous about sexual intercourse.
The scene never came off to me like that, and it would be incredibly wrong considering both characters are of kindergarten age. As for the "you don't need me to kiss you again" line, Arthur has a lot of Continuity Nods and it's likely that James just didn't want to get in another awkward situation with D.W., since that only happened last season. Permission to cut?
resolved Self Pimping Vandal?
Samarth Ror's Only edits
are to add poorly formatted sinkholes to a Creator article to his own name (which doesn't exist not that it matters he seems to not understand how to wikiword).
Incidently there's an article on Wikipedia (EDIT: actually wikialpha, wikipedia's cousin with lower standards where they pride themselves on not deleting stuff) by the same name made by a guy with the same name 2 days ago so it seems to be a weird troll going around creating pages for himself?
Latest entry was trying to add himself as a lead actor for RRR (2022)
Edited by GhilzopenPersistent complaining on YMMV.CrashBandicoot4ItsAboutTime.
Psi001
has been constantly adding entries complaining about characterization in YMMV.Crash Bandicoot 4 Its About Time. Among their entries include a Cliché Storm entry ranting about flanderization of the characters, They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character and Badass Decay complaining about Crash being stupid compared to Coco despite it always been part of his character, and an Audience-Alienating Premise entry that reads more like a general rant about the game (while the game itself definitely has flaws, Psi spends more time ranting about Positive Discrimination like his other entries). Also, a Badass Decay entry on YMMV.Crash Bandicoot is a huge Wall of Text complaining about Coco suffering Positive Discrimination which misuses Drama-Preserving Handicap and outright states We Want Our Jerk Back!.
I'd send them a PM, but I've already had several arguments with them about their Single-Issue Wonk on other sites that inevitably go nowhere, so I don't want to talk with them again lest we have another argument.
openBrokenMasquerade - no examples list
The trope page Broken Masquerade is a bit... odd. To start, it's sort of written "in character", like the writer is part of the masquerade and is delivering The Reveal to the reader. From what I've seen, that sort of thing seems to be used more in Self-Demonstrating/ pages than Main/. Maybe this is actually okay; it just struck me as a bit unusual.
The bigger issue, though, is that there isn't an example list. There's a subbullet under each main "type" of masquerade (like Tomato in the Mirror, Hidden Realm, etc) with a list of "Signature Examples" provided, but it's just a list of works with no explanation of how they fit.
Is it okay to restructure it like a typical trope page, with examples in a separate section? Broken Masquerade currently has 752 wicks, so I could probably find at least a 5-10 good examples to start off the crosswicking.
Edited by Willowleaf24openRedirect policy and one-man cleanup projects
A while ago, I noticed that Vulkus (who I'm pinging here so they can respond) had started to systematically remove all redirects to The Legend of Zelda: Oracle Games (primarily The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons, the two games in the duology) and replacing them with the main page name. I was a little concerned, primarily because a) most of the examples affected were specific to one game or the other but not shared between them, so I wasn't too clear on the reasoning, b) relatedly, Vulkus did not leave any edit reasons nor links to any discussions to explain what they were doing, and c) this seemed like kind of a big project do out of one's own initiative. I contacted them through PMs to ask what was going on, and they stated that they were in the process of removing all redirects for certain pages that in their opinion had too many (they specifically identified the The Legend of Zelda and Golden Sun games here). Their stated reasoning was that these pages had been given too many redirects by a specific troper and that these redirects clutter up the pages for mobile users, and so they were intending to remove them all.
The primary reason I'm concerned here is that from what I'm understanding of this, this is far too big a project for a single troper to just decide they're going to across the entire site without consulting anyone else — especially if this is supposed to include actively cutting the redirects on all these pages right now instead of "just" editing examples to have a different active link. This was the primary thing I was trying to stress in my messages, but I'm not too certain I got my point across because after a while they simply stopped responding to me but continued right on with their one-troper cleanup project (they finished with the Oracle games, moved on to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and I think they're on The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess right now). Essentially, they decided to undertake a wide-scale wiki project on their own, apparently did not attempt to engage in any discussion over this before implementing it, did not leave justifications in their edit reasons, and simply cut off communication without altering their editing when contacted independently. I'm a little concerned about this.
Regarding the issue itself, I would actually tend to agree with their basic reasoning (a lot of the Zelda redirects are simply truncated or modified versions of the titles that don't seem to have ever actually been used officially, which does mean that they probably shouldn't actually exist) — but this should have been discussed and agreed on publicly, not decided by one person without oversight or input. This is especially so because a number of the redirects are the valid titles of secondary games and re-releases, and it seems to me that they would be the appropriate links to use for tropes and examples specific to them and not the broader and/or base work.
Basically, this should have been taken to the forums, and probably should be taken there still. A dedicated redirect cleanup thread is probably something we could make use of.
openThe "end" of handheld gaming?
In the real life section of End of an Age, there's this example:
- The discontinuation of the Nintendo 3 DS in 2020 marked the end of the dedicated handheld era of gaming, nearly 41 years after the release of the Microvision in 1979. The era had already been on its last legs since the advent of affordable smartphones and tablets as well as the debut of the 3DS' rough successor, the home console/handheld hybrid that is the Nintendo Switch, in 2017, and went on life support with the death of the Play Station Vita (with no plans from Sony for a successor) and the end of first-party support for the 3DS in 2019, but it managed to carry on for just a year longer before the 3DS itself was pulled out of official circulation. Given that Nintendo had a near-monopoly on the handheld market since 1989, it's unlikely that anyone will try to revive the trade in the future.
With the announcement of the Valve Steam Deck, is it safe to say that handheld gaming is far from dead and that this should be removed?
Edited by supernintendo128

So I've been looking at the edits of Ben267
, and they seem to be adding a lot of tropes regarding beauty (like Hartman Hips and Beauty Is Bad). They have a lot of edits that are questionable , but two seperate things jumped out at me: their edits to Trixie's profile on Fairly Odd Parents
, and this edit
on Grojband:
Now, they changed the edit to something a bit more tame, but I'm still concerned. Some of their edits have already been reverted by others for misuse (including myself), but I'm getting an uneasy feeling from them.