Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
resolved "See the subpage" vs. crosswicking Live Action TV
~Mariofan 99 removed
two Franchise Original Sin examples from YMMV.Obi Wan Kenobi and replaced it with something to the effect of "See FranchiseOriginalSin.Star Wars". I feel like this practice violates Crosswicking policy (i.e. I'm okay with having a franchise hub subpage but I think examples should still be crosswicked on individual work pages), but since I wrote one of the examples myself, I want a second opinion to avoid edit-warring.
They also failed to actually add the removed example to the subpage.
Edited by StarSwordresolved Does this part of a Pop-Culture Isolation example really qualify? Live Action TV
On YMMV.Squid Game, 8BrickMario
recently added
the following bolded sentence to the page's Pop-Culture Isolation example:
- Pop-Culture Isolation: The reason the reveal in "Front Man" that the Front Man is Jun-ho's missing brother In-ho was more shocking to Korean audiences but kind of got lost in translation internationally is because the Front Man's actor – Lee Byung-hun – is one of the top A-list megastars of all of South Korean cinema, and whose film Inside Men was explicitly referenced earlier in the series by Ji-yeong in the past episode "Gganbu", even mentioning Lee by name. While Lee has also played roles in Western cinema before Squid Game, most notably Storm Shadow in the G.I. Joe film series, neither Lee himself nor the use of Celebrity Paradox via passing dialogue are anywhere near as popular in Western media. From a Western perspective, imagine if a player sarcastically referred to the games as "our mission, should we choose to accept it", only for it to turn out that the mysterious leader of the masked guards is portrayed by Tom Cruise. Perhaps recognizing that Lee Byung-hun's reveal didn't hit as much outside of Korea, the show does pull off a similar casting effect for Western audiences by Season 3, where we see an American games recruiter played by Cate Blanchett!
The issue is that this added sentence was apparently to mention how the series "corrected" the pop culture issue with another big-name actor, but I don't really get how it can parallel to the issue of Western audiences not regarding Lee Byung-hun as much as Cate Blanchett, since the latter's character is someone who appears only once (unlike the former's major role) and didn't first appear masked before then having their face visible to amaze audiences at the actor, nor is there any mention or reference to said actor and/or their other roles beforehand.
I'm wondering, could this added sentence feel too redundant for what the example is referring to? What are your thoughts?
Sent a PM to 8BrickMario so they can be aware of this query, by the way.
Edited by Inky100resolved Reporting EditWar (NVM, taking directly to MODS)
- On November 23rd, 2024
, Tropers/BK-notburgerking edited the Adaptation Relationship Overhaul entry for Momo Yaoyorozu on The Best Case Scenario, if you're being "realistic", adding the detail "as they have far more respect for her (and less for Bakugo or Todoroki) than they ever did in canon."
- On June 11th, 2025
, Rebel Falcon (Myself) edited the entry to remove that detail, leaving the edit reason "They had plenty of respect for her in canon".
- The same day, not even 4 hours later
, BK-notburgerking readded the trope, with the edit reason "Not nearly to the same extent as here, especially considering how often others take the spotlight in canon", enacting an Edit War.
This reached the point I had brought it up in ATT once before
resulting in their being suspended, had to open up another ATT just to get permission to revert the edits like I was originally aiming for
, and then get a notification half a year later because they responded to the ATT long after the decision had been made requiring I mark the topic as resolved since it already had been long resolved.
Requesting assistance in this matter, possibly moderator intervention as well. I would send them a PM notifier, but I blocked them from my PM's last year after the original ATT issue, so someone else will have to.
Edited by RebelFalconopenQuestion regarding AI upscaling
Awhile back I saved a reminder to my first sandbox about page image uploading (I'm not sure if I should link it directly to the forums just to be safe?) as a reminder to myself and it got me thinking...
"What are the rules for AI upscaling images? Is there a ban on doing such? Should we only upscale images if the page really needs it? If there is an image I think is super relevant but it's super low quality (and can't find a higher quality version), should it be AI upscaled or not posted onto the site at all?"
PS. I know how to use Photoshop but I don't know how to upscale images manually without using AI tech. I have never upscaled an image before and I do my own trope writing by myself without AI.
openAbby Cadabby Live Action TV
From PeripheryHatedom.Live Action TV:
- Showing that history can indeed repeat itself, Abby is currently getting the same treatment as Elmo, mainly from the generation of young adults and teens that grew up watching and fell in love with Elmo. Abby's popularity with the older fanbase is a Broken Base—some find her a refreshing change from the two decades of Elmo (although how long this will last before they start getting annoyed by her remains a question), while others still don't care and still want the focus to be back on Big Bird and the Muppets (and human characters) of their time. The root cause of the hatedom here is The Generation Gap combined with a Nostalgia Filter, combined with a heaping dose of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.
resolved Misinformed trope question?
Found and discovered this one year earlier from John Wick franchise's trope example and something that I want to point out from my experience:
- Men Are the Expendable Gender: Prevalent in the first three movies. In contrast to the 250+ men that John killed throughout the series, the number of female Mooks he has encountered could be literally counted on one hand: Ms. Perkins in the first film, Ares and the Violinist in the second, and the young assassin at Grand Central Station in the third. Of these characters, only the Grand Central assassin was a completely throwaway extra. John Wick: Chapter 4 tipped the balance and added many more female Mooks to go after John (and be gunned down in turn).
I think the Men Are the Expendable Gender trope itself being added as an example is fine but still as mentioned above I believe the balance isn't exactly been "tipped" within Chapter 4. I would like to rewrite it in someway or form, unfortunately I'm just simply not good with writing. I know there is a place called "Is This An Example" thread and should have visited that said thread myself but I'm not exactly sure when was the right time to ask this topic, so I honestly thought it would be better to ask here instead. I don't meant anything "bad" by it, I simply found this writing of "John Wick: Chapter 4 tipped the balance and added many more female Mooks to go after John (and be gunned down in turn)" part specifically questionable as well as pointing out the facts straight. Anyhow I want to hear another person's thoughts or opinion on this matter in regards to the Men Are the Expendable Gender trope?
Side note: I apologize in advance if I am wrong, or rather if this trope question being too trivial as this for a topic?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpairesolved Original RayFox gone and a reboot present. Webcomic
So...I've noticed something, and I am treating this is a sensitive matter since this could be a case of Bury Your Art, so I want to handle this as carefully as possible and discuss with you guys.
Around early October of this year, the 9th I think, I noticed that the entirety of the original comic pages for RayFox are now gone and are not accessible except through archives on the author's website (which itself does not let you access the old comic), and even then, it is missing the 6th chapter. As far as I know the original pages are, for all intents-and-purposes, lost to the ages and don't seem to be anywhere else.
While I have read the original pages enough to be able to add more trope entries to the page if I wanted to, there's still one factor that needs to be acknowledged; The work has been made inaccessible to the public and may remain so for the foreseeable future. It might be accessible through a paywall and there are physical copies of the comics (particularly chapters 1 & 2) that have been sold as far as I know, but again, I'm not sure that entirely counts as publicly accessible.
I've not been keeping a close eye on this nor is developing a page for the reboot an interest of mine at the moment, as I'm busy on working on a TLP (and eyeing on adopting another after I finish my current one), but I am curious as to what happens next...What does that mean for the page itself? Does the page for the old comic still stay up until further notice?
And hypothetically speaking, if I were to cover the reboot, would a separate tab for the reboot being on the same page be more appropriate? Or would a separate page be better? (If the latter, I'll toy around in my sandbox with the idea someday)
Edited by Stardust5099openMagazines
I want to write pages for a few comic magazines (think EC's stuff, Out of the Night, and Dark Mysteries), but the main thing I keep tripping over is that I don't know whether to put them under Magazine or Comic Book.
- Administrivia.Namespace gives no specifics on what does or does not fall under Magazine and Comic Book.
- Looking through the list at Anthology Comic, most entries are Comic Book, but a few are Magazine and some that use Comic Book as namespace are described as magazines. I can't figure out what the (general; I do know about Creepy specifically) deciding factor is, if there is one to begin with. The list at Magazines does not make things any clearer either.
- Taking a step back and going purely with my own thought process, if something like Weird Tales is a "magazine" that contains "literature", then something like Strange Tales is a "magazine" that contains "comic( book)s" and should not itself be under Comic Book. Furthering that sentiment on my end is that there's a few of these magazines that have a feature comic under the same name, such as Supernaturals, and they could have separate pages. If they were both under Comic Book, you'd have something like "ComicBook/SupernaturalsMagazine" and "ComicBook/SupernaturalsComic" and that looks infuriating.
My guess is that TVT does not have any guidelines/rules yet on this matter and that the use of "Comic Book" for what seem to me magazines flowed over from the (super)hero side of it, where magazine and comic book are roughly the same thing. If that's correct, then I take it this is not the right place to ask. I'm not opposed to seeing if I can get a discussion started; which forum would be best for that?
Relatedly, I can't find anything about whether magazines (and similar anthology works) are exempt from needing tropes. A number of magazine pages have no tropes, while for instance four out of five of Weird Tales tropes seem ZCE and not really applicable to the magazine to me. I would guess magazines are exempt because they are a variation of creator pages and come with the same difficulties in trope gathering, but creator pages explicitly don't need tropes and I can't find anything like that for magazines.
Edited by Pfff133openExample with unnecessary mention of Rule 34? Videogame
So, regarding this example from the Unnecessary Makeover page:
- Midna in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess thinks little of the form in which she's trapped for most of the game; she refers to herself as a "hideous little imp" and jokes with Link that her true form is so beautiful that it leaves him speechless when he first sees it. However, many players find her initial implike design cuter, more unique, and conveying more of her sassy appeal. It's not uncommon for people to joke that Midna's imp form essentially proved the codifier for "shortstack" designs (i.e. a short, busty female character with curves), and artwork of Midna's imp form far outweighs her true form, even—hell, especially on porn sites.
That last part really seems to me like a case of Too Much Information, especially with the way it's worded. I was going to remove it, but I thought I should ask first, because maybe I'm just being too prudish.
Edited by BluethornopenEdit War on YMMV.Wednesday. Could this use a rewrite?
So, here on YMMV.Wednesday, the following happened:
- Damian Wayne added
an Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry for Tyler.
- Endurable Narwhal 313 removed it
citing "A character can very much be a Tragic Villain even if they cross the Moral Event Horizon. Additionally, a vast majority of fans sympathize with Tyler and want o see him redeemed."
- Damian Wayne re-added
it, without discussing it anywhere, citing "1. A quick look on reddit, X, tumblr and bluesky shows this is a very comon criticism. 2. I may vhange the introduction. However "tragic villains" usally also have redeeming qualities".
Normally, I would stay out of it, but I actually think Damian Wayne is right to an extent. While a lot of fans sympathize Tyler, a good number don't and it's quite common to see that people just don't feel sympathy for him. But my thing is that the entry is weird to me:
- The second season was criticised, among other things, for trying to turn Tyler in a Tragic Monster, even after he crossed the Moral Event Horizon:
- While he does have a genuine tragic backstory, with many comparing Thornhill's manipulation of him to outright grooming, this doesn't change the fact he never once displayed regret for his actions. During his breakout from the asylum, Tyler still goes out of his way to hurt innocent people, including throwing Wednesday out of a window for no real reason.
- Before being found by his mother, he also wastes days obsessing over Wednesday and attacks Enid and the rest of Wednesday's friends for trying to protect her from him. Similarly to what had happened in the hospital, he was also acting of his own free will rather than being forced by his Master.
- While Francoise is an Abusive Parent, who outright chains him to a bed, Tyler's self-admitted main focus is trying to kill Wednesday again and he voices opposition to her plans only because he priorities killing the girl in question over everything else. He likewise has zero compunction murdering innocent people, at one point feeding an innocent veterinarian to Isaac and being fully willing to let Isaac eat Agnes's brain. Agnes being only thirteen years old.
- In the end, Tyler does turn against his mom and uncle and indirectly assists Wednesday and her family. However this happened only because he didn't want to lose his powers rather than any moral qualms. Indeed, his critics have pointed out he went happily along with Isaac's plan in the previous episodes even if it meant kidnapping Pugsley and burying Wednesday alive.
- The second season was criticised, among other things, for trying to turn Tyler in a Tragic Monster, even after he crossed the Moral Event Horizon:
I feel like it could be rewritten to be more concise and one entry. Is it cool if I rewrite it?
openWhy this human posture (Butt in the Air/ Knee-Chested Posture) is not in tvtropes.org? Anime
Full Question: Why this human posture (Butt in the Air/ Knee-Chested Posture) is not in tvtropes.org? Please make it have a page in it.
The posture sample:
another sample:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F263ht8nqple51.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D3a8dfb23855ec68ee082c87887fa0a78076e7434
This posture is almost present in Cartoons, video-games.... heck alot in anime nowadays for laughs. sometimes for *ahem arousement...
resolved Was there a consensus for this edit? Western Animation
This was added in The Owl House - Emperor Belos:
- Seven Deadly Sins: Fittingly for a Satanic Archetype and ironically for a heavily implied devout Puritan, Belos is actually guilty of all seven of them.
- Wrath: He's not loud about it, but his murder of Caleb and of his grimwalker clones all stem from his anger towards Caleb for "leaving" him for a witch and refusing to repent and, for the girmwalkers, betraying him as he believes Caleb did.
- Lust: Despite showing no interest in anyone, Belos does have a lust for fame and glory as a great Witch Hunter General. This on top of his implied lust for attention given that he in part murdered Caleb for "abandoning" him for Evelyn.
- Pride: Perhaps the most fitting, he truly believes himself to be the great Witch Hunter General he's dreamed of being since childhood and it was Caleb spending time with his witch lover instead of him that would eventually motivate Philip to murder him. Tying into the above lust for glory, being the Witch Hunter General would also offer him no shortage of adulation and attention, per the Sin of Pride's meaning.
- Sloth: Insofar as Belos is morally apathetic as he certainly not slothful in pursuing his goals. He does not care in the least that what he's doing is wrong, even though on some level he's realized it is. All he cares about at this point is succeeding because otherwise all his other sins and atrocities will have been for nothing.
- Greed: Not so much for material wealth, not that he lacks that as Emperor, but Belos is an innately selfish person who intends to enjoy whatever spoils of his victory may come by himself seeing as he plans on killing off all of his Witch and Demon allies as part of his plan. The only possible exception being Luz if she would take his offer to join her.
- Gluttony: This one is more induced, but he needs to consume more and more Palismen to stay alive long enough to complete his plans and he has no qualms with over indulging if it means he lives just a little longer.
- Envy: In a more platonic sense than usual, but envy is the disire for something someone else possesses. In this case, Philip was a Green-Eyed Monster towards Evelyn for taking Caleb away from him and projected that envy and hatred towards the Boiling Isles as a whole. And as is so often the case, his sin of Envy lead to him commiting all the others.
- And on a certain level, Belos has even commited the lesser known eighth sin from Orthodox Christianity: Despair. Despite having realized, on some level, after centuries of atrocities and sin that he's in the wrong Belos refuses any and all offers to change or even simply give up and instead convinces himself that no matter how wrong it is, he has to destory the Boiling Isles and everyone on it if for no other reason that to make all his sins worth it.
Even though the hidden comment stated this.
- Seven Deadly Sins Do not add back without consensus.
That comment was deleted in a later edit, but there doesn't seemed to be a link showcasing the consensus and feels like the comment was deliberately ignored.
openCut subpage for a cutlisted page that was never cut to begin with
Today, I discovered that Meg and Dia have a page here, albeit not in the best state when I initially came across it. I also noticed that there was no YMMV page, even if the popularity of "Monster" should signify otherwise. I soon found out that the YMMV page was cut because the page itself was to be cutlisted... and it hasn't been cut?
On the actual Cut List, or at least the extent that I saw, the Meg and Dia page is nowhere to be seen. I checked the Wayback Machine to see if this event was relatively recent, but it actually happened sometime in 2024, based on the YMMV page being present in March of that year but gone in December. I'm guessing the page was still allowed to remain up as it technically met the minimum three tropes requirement in spite of its quality. I contextualized a few entries on the main pages and added more tropes (mainly via crosswicking from other pages) to further prevent the page from being a stub - it's better than almost nothing, at least.
Since I doubt the main Meg and Dia page is on the Cut List anymore, is it okay to restore the YMMV page, given that the page it was supposed to be removed alongside was never cut in the first place (a few entries would need context, but I'll probably contextualize them if the page is brought back)?
openUnilateral Quote Change
Under NightmareFuel.Warhammer 40000, Lightbearer77 changed the page quote from this:
Have we exhausted all possible ways to divine the future? How many scribes must toil to scratch their visions onto ancient parchments so that we might catch a glimpse of hope? Or are we to suffer only the pangs of despair as yet more horror is let loose on our dreams? Or does the seeking itself give birth to more insanity than man can cope?
The Dark Future Beckons!
Fear the unknown!
To this:
My impression is replacing page quotes requires approval, correct or not?
openDMOS entries Videogame
On the Video Games page, there is the following entries:
- Five Nights at Freddy's:
- Dr Y 9 K: Five Nights at Freddy's: Sister Location and its stupid twist in the end. Before I go on, let me just say that for the most part, I found Sister Location rather disappointing. I was disappointed with the gameplay, the lack of cameras save for the Private Room, Ennard's canon design, and I was especially disappointed with the non-canon Custom Night. The only redeeming quality for the game was the animatronics themselves. But even that didn't last long. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you what may be the series' worst twist possible: the identity of Springtrap. For almost two years, we were led to believe he was actually William Afton, the series Big Bad, dead and revived. But then the creator released a cutscene, that pretty much confirmed he was actually Michael Afton, William Afton's son. What? You mean to tell me that Springtrap is not the Creepy Awesome Robotic Psychopath I thought he was, but yet another innocent(?) soul? That was terrible! That was the worst, most character-derailing Ass Pull I had ever seen! It made me permanently disown the series and stop liking it! For so long, Springtrap had been one of my favorite animatronics, since I always saw him as the only legitimately "evil" animatronic. Now I can't look at him or enjoy him the same way anymore. The creator said he wanted Springtrap to return, and so did I, for a while. But now? I want nothing to do with him, or this age-old series.
- batmany: I was really looking forward to the release of Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator (AKA FNAF 6) in the hopes it would finally wrap up some of the numerous plot twists and mysteries of the franchise. Well, the game was released earlier this week and....well, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason why is because it utterly contradicts everything established in previous games. The ghostly children being freed in FNAF 3? Nope, they're now possessing Molten Freddy! How? When? At no point (apart from Baby) were any of the Funtime Animatronics ever haunted by ghosts. Remember in Sister Location how Baby didn't like being created for murder and wanted to be free? Remember how Elizabeth (William's Daughter) was an innocent victim of a tragic accident? Now she's daddy's little killer! Why? There was absolutely no indication that either had any interest in murder. And, speaking of Sister Location, now William Afton is Springtrap instead of his son Michael. Nevermind the fact that the Custom Night in SL strongly hinted that Michael was Springtrap and that the Freddy Files guide book even stated that this idea was entirely plausable. Speaking of Michael, he dies in this game by sacrificing himself in a fire with the other Animatronics. Apparently Scott forgot or is completely ignoring that Michael is cursed with immortality. Also, Springtrap survived a fire before so why would this one be any different? William Afton has gone from a evil genius serial killer who lurks behind the scenes to what can best be described as a poor man's version of The Joker. Fazbear Corporate went from being an incompetent if well-meaning company with some questionable business practices to a blatantly over-the-top corrupt one with no regards to safety whatsoever. I could go on and on about how this game did a piss-poor way of explaining things. I feel Scott was more concerned with trying to appease fans who were not happy with Sister Location's plot twists and haphazardly trying to wrap everything up in a neat little bow. Scott, please, if you ever make another FNAF game, give me "Miketrap" and "Freakshow Baby" and retcon this mess of a game out of existence.
- DukeNukem4ever: Mine would be the fact that the mystery of the Bite of '87 and existence of Shadow animatronics went completely unexplained. Since this is (currently) the Grand Finale, I was expecting these things to become finally clear. But no, once again we have to draw suggestions what exactly happened back then. The creator pulled this trick back in Five Nights at Freddy's 4, and now he did it again. As much as I respect Scott Cawthon, I sometimes can't understand his logic. And apparently I am not the only one to think so.
Duke's entry is fine to stay, but there are problems with the other two:
- DrY9K's entry is based on the complete misunderstanding that Springtrap is Michael, when Scott Cawthon has gone on record to say this was never the intention and that the SL Custom Night cutscene was misunderstood by the fandom.
- The boldened part of Batmany's entry is also about Miketrap, which was already explained above. It also questions as to why fire could kill Mike and William, when the game itself explains that fire is the weakness that gets rid of their immortality (Remnant).
As "Correcting factually incorrect information about the work" is a justified reason to edit another user's DMOS entry, should Dr's entry and the boldened part of Batmany's entry both be deleted?
resolved Another troper with a wonk against a character.
Reddish Guy 1 seems to have a wonk against character Lizel from Kamen Rider Gavv:
- They first added an entry in the Tear Jerker section of the show claiming that "The vast majority of Rider fans seem to have a very easy time not feeling pity for Lizel."
When I reverted it back to what it was since YMMV is still subjective, they removed it again on the basis that it is "not objective"
.
- They replaced this more neutral entry with this
— and particularly the part "the episode is supposed to" makes it feel like a jab against the episode itself.
- Now they're trying to insert
a Karma Houdini entry for her despite it being previously deleted on the basis that the Laser-Guided Karma trope exists in her character page.
openPractically Joker - will it ever be a trope again?
So is Practically Joker ever going to be an actual trope again, or is it just going to be disambiguation? I know it was in the Trope Repair Shop (I forget if that's the actual name of the thing) for a while, but there are definitely enough examples of Joker-adjacent characters in multiple media types to have it be a trope.
I think the problem with the page as it was before it got pared down to a Disambiguation page was that examples weren't sorted by how close they skewed to the three main factors of what makes the Joker the Joker: the look (or something close to it), the personality (or one that's very similar) and the motivation (or a close approximation thereof). I think sorting examples by that method, or a combination thereof, would help to clarify that it's a trope in and of itself.
openSelfDemonstrating/SiivaGunner
SelfDemonstrating.Si Iva Gunner has been cut a few days ago, because it redirected to AwesomeMusic.Video Games, and that was misleading...
Well, SiIvaGunner makes misleading music videos, so obviously his self demonstrating page would be a Bait-and-Switch, and the troper who cutlisted it (VmKid) must have missed the joke. Should I restore it? That page was very funny. Thank you.
Edited by PiterpicheropenDoes This Violate No Real Life Examples? Web Original
I added an entry into Police Are Useless for The Last Podcast on the Left, but only afterward did I realize that the trope is in the No Real Life Examples, Please! index. I now have two questions: does the following violate NRLEP? If so, do I take it off the works page, too?
- The Last Podcast on the Left:
- The hosts often note times when police ineffectiveness is a major factor in how long a serial killer goes without getting caught. For example, in the Dean Coril series, they note the Huston police were underfunded and understaffed so much that, as a result, they actively avoided investigating things like homicides and shut down a victim's family when they provided a letter written by their missing son that they suspect was faked, but which Missing Persons took as evidence he was no longer missing.
- They also note occasions when a killer was caught by dumb luck or mistakes rather than anything police did. Leonard Lake and Charles Ng, for instance, were only found out when Lake was held for questioning for an act of compulsive shoplifting by Ng, and police never suspected anything serious until Lake killed himself while in custody.
The trope is discussed on the show, but on the context of real life events (which I included so they wouldn't be purely general examples).
If this does violate NRLEP, could I rewrite the example to state that the hosts hold this view and then describe a character they created, Detective Popcorn, as a way to mock them?
Edited by sgamer82

The issue I was having is that Dizzleboy added two ZCE examples, which I ratioed, and asked for context.
Instead, he added another example, for Evangelion, which is both inaccurate and seemingly fetishizes the character of Asuka. In her introductory episode, when she's wearing her sundress, she is introduced not as innocent, but as brash, arrogant, and egotistical, as well as self-important. And as I said, the language Dizzleboy uses seems...fetishist.