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:
openEdit War Over Chained Sinkholes
In Characters.A Nightmare On Elm Street Freddy Krueger, Night Games made an edit
in which they used a couple Chained Sinkholes. I therefore sent them a notifier about this and fixed them
while noting this in my edit reason.
However, they clearly ignored my notifier and my edit reason as they just re-added
the Chained Sinkholes. Can I please revert these changes? (Of course, I would myself. However, I don't want to be a participant in said Edit War.)
openExample needs expansion
From the Real Life section of Shocking Defeat Legacy:
"The Mongols have done this a lot to others: they conquered China, decimated Persia, ravaged Russia, and nearly conquered Europe. For Russians especially, the Mongol attack on Kievan Rus' is cited as one of the major reasons for why Russians are backward compared to Europe."
This needs expanding, because (opinions of Russia right now to one side) it sounds like cultural posturing. This should be expanded to explain how they are "backward" from a purely objective viewpoint. Technology? Culture? Economy? What is it?
I am not an expert on this, so I can't flesh this out myself. Should it be commented out until someone with more knowledge can fix it?
open Edit war report (including self-report).
First of all, sorry for accidentally contributing to edit war. I'll try not to repeat it again. Second, there was an edit war on Trivia.Freedom Planet 2, regarding a user adding complainy natter.
- A user called jerkwad152 added this
complainy natter edit as a sub-bullet to Development Hell at November 25th of 2021, the statement being a response to the comment's finalized date being "So far, anyway. There have been a number of "final" dates.", obviously insulting the developers for not meeting their deadlines in the past.
- It was removed by Mister Tambourine Man on February 3rd of this year with an edit reason "This isn't a message board".
- jerkwad152 re-added the edit with a rude edit reason of "Rent-a-modding not needed".
- Mister Tambourine Man re-removed it again, given edit reason being "This is a wiki page, not a message board."
- jerkwad152 re-re-adds the nattery edit with "No one is using the wiki as a message board. It's an objectively true statement. Continued misuse of the edit function simply because you disagree will result in the involvement of site staff." as an edit reason.
- And then I removed it again (sorry about contributing to edit war, by the way. It won't happen again).
Anyways, we have an issue with a user being defensive of their complainy and nattery edit. I'd ask we keep an eye on the page just in case.
openStaving off edit war
In February 2022, negatwenty
edited AwesomeMusic.Super Smash Bros (courtesy link to page history
) to put a redundant pothole around the spoiler warning at the top of the page, changing Administrivia/YouHaveBeenWarned. to [[Administrivia/{{YouHaveBeenWarned}} You have been warned.]] I removed it on the grounds of its redundancy; the double curly braces alone are unnecessary, but so is potholing the title to itself purely for the sake of only having the initial Y capitalised.
And a few days ago, they put it back again without an edit reason. This is a pointless hill to die on, so I'm reporting it here instead. Permission to re-remove it?
Edited by mlsmithcaopenEditing quibble - HOTD Live Action TV
Hello everyone, I hope this is the correct place to ask this?
For this page https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Heartwarming/HouseOfTheDragon
(sorry I am not sure if there is a better way to link it) there has been some disagreement about it's contents.
I recently edited it to cut down some length; for example some of it went into too much paragraphs detail as opposed to a one paragraph summarization, I feel some personalised bits like "Fuck the Seven Strictures! And the Faith!" as a viewer's reaction don't fit and others are outright wrong in interpretation (while saying theirs confirms all other interpretations are wrong) as confirmed by a showrunner himself/ Word of God (Miguel Sapochnik). I didn't add anything, just removed some pieces.
I explained the reasons in the edit box as it would be improper to do such a shift without a given reason - however it has since been edited back with the following comments from the original editor;
"No-one who can't speak English properly is removing another's examples" / "Miguel Sapochnik told viewers their T Vs were at fault and not his lighting direction in 'The Long Night'. He has no right to give a carte blanche interpretation of a scene."
Can I ask what to do here? The first comment especially did feel hurtful and mean-spirited.
I would like to edit it since as I said I feel it goes off the format and it's confirmed some of it is incorrect, but I don't want to get into that with those sorts of comments to me or spark an editing scuffle which would be unfair for everyone.
open Know Your Meme misuse/not fit to trope?
- Americans Hate Tingle: Both entries are about fans of other sites hating KYM, not other nations hating it which is what it's about. Cut?
- Creator's Pet: Donald Trump. It's certainly Not Hyperbole to say that a new page is created literally every time the man does something noteworthy, to the point where numerous Trump-related articles can pop up in a single day. Everyone, even the site's right-wing users, have grown exasperated about it. Only entry that might count as a character, others are disliked meme template. Even if non-characters count (doubt it) this and the others fail the Pet criteria of being "Put into big scenes for no reason" as KYM has no scenes or narrative.
- Ensemble Dark Horse:
- The Bad Luck Brian image macro has become the community's poster child for a legitimate meme that's been ignored by the mods in favor of fads or Forced Memes. The profile image of BLB itself lampshades it! Impressive, considering BLB was initially utterly hated by the community.
- Super Robo Jesus is considered to be the Memetic Badass of Deadpooled Memes because of how the article is So Bad, It's Good.
- Deadpool is treated by the community as the site's unofficial mascot.
- DON, so much so he himself became a meme. I believe Darkhorse only applies to characters and these straddle the line between them and templates. Suspect misuse as they're not minor getting disproportionate fan love as there's no narrative to be minor in. Brian might fit Unpopular Popular Character better.
- The Scrappy: In 2019, the Belle Delphine image gallery got this treatment, for refusing to disappear, even weeks after she herself has fallen out of relevance. Even those who initially found her attractive quickly got annoyed at seeing that aheago face wherever they go. Many users blame the popularity of the gallery on the poor taste of immature users, leading to the gallery staying relevant even though no-one is posting anything anymore. Only characters count so not sure if valid as it's less the character than their use, but I've seen other Scrappies hated for such.
Thoughts? Is KYM even a tropeable work given it's not a story/narrative but a creator/content channel which doesn't warrant a YMMV or other such pages?
open Edit War on Fast-Killing Radiation + self-report
Er... I accidentally triggered an Edit War on Fast-Killing Radiation without realizing it so I deeply apologize, but figured I should get this out of the way. Courtesy link here
- August 24: I launched the trope with most of the content.
- August 25: St Fan added a dash
to "Video Game Examples" and changed it to "Video-Game Examples".
- Shortly after, I removed the dash
with this edit reason: "Improper use of the dash.", but to give more clarity, it's because I found St. Fan's use of the dash in this case odd since "Video Game" is two separate words and doesn't need to be connected with the dash. It was then I realized I triggered an Edit War by accident since I forgot I was the one who launched the trope.
I'll await further judgment from the mods, but do know that it wasn't my intention to start an Edit War in the first place. I simply had a brain fart and reverted St. Fan's edit without realizing it would trigger an Edit War.
openSingle Issue Wonk
Rift Witch appears to have a Single-Issue Wonk with a YMMV.RWBY entry (Values Dissonance for Blake's Declaration of Protection to Yang), and historically has not been willing to engage in discussion about building consensus to address their concerns, thereby edit warring in the process. The timeline is as follows (I hope my links work):
- 4th February 2021: Rift Witch deleted
several entries, including the Values Dissonance entry, complaining that they're misogynistic.
- A few hours later, Psyga315 restores
all the entries back, stating they're not misogynistic, and it's about them acting "American" not "ladylike".
- A few hours later, Psyga315 restores
- 13th September 2021: Rift Witch again deleted
the Values Dissonance entry (but none of the others), this time stating that the entry is sexism and that they think it's unreasonable to expect Yang to stop being angry.
- 14th September 2021: I restored
the entry, stating that disliking an entry isn't a valid reason for deleting YMMV items, sent them a notification about deleting YMMV on the basis of disliking someone's opinion, and spotted that Nubian Satyress had also started
a discussion on the discussion page, arguing that Rift Witch's deletion does not address the audience reaction itself. I therefore also joined in the discussion page thread.
- A few hours later, Rift Witch deleted
it again, stating that it's not an example of values dissonance. They also responded to my notifier, accusing me of not reading their edit reason and declaring that the entry isn't Values Dissonance. Although I tried to get them to engage in a discussion they weren't interested (I have no problem with the mods reading the PM exchange between us). They also never joined in the discussion Nubian Satyress started either.
- A few hours further on, Zaptech restored
the entry telling Rift Witch that if they want to discuss removing it, they need to take it to the discussion page.
- A few hours later, Rift Witch deleted
- 20th August 2022: Rift Witch rewrote
the entry, stating that the entry doesn't belong there at all, but since people insist on it being there, they're going to rewrite it to remove the implication that Japanese men don't understand women.
For full disclosure, I have edited the entry on two occasions that were unrelated to these events (removing a parabomb note in September 2020 and a natter note in July 2022, different tropers involved each time). I don't know if that means I've also Edit Warred because the reasons were Administrivia-related rather than the entry itself, but I will accept the consequences if that is the case.
Edited by WyldchyldopenContentious 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 Dirtyblue929open Sweetness Aversion misuse (widespread)?
Sweetness Aversion is when audiences have a negative reaction to overly saccharine works. It was formerly Tastes Like Diabetes but was changed to separate the negative audience reaction examples from others. But the Sweetness Aversion sub-pages look like they were moved without cleaning up misuse as almost all fail to explain the negative reaction to it or play with it which YMMV can't be.
Some examples from SweetnessAversion.Western Animation:
- Lady Rainicorn from Adventure Time looks like a toy
◊ but is really a Badass Adorable. Not this if positively received as described.
- Animaniacs:
- Mindy. Between "Wakko's Wish" and the Buttons and Mindy episode "Mindy in Wonderland," one could vomit from the sugar overdose. Especially with the line "Fuzzy Bunny," and, "'kay I love you bye bye." Might count, might be a parody.
- "Baloney And Kids" parodies this with the namesake Barney clone. Deliberate parody. Does that fit something else?
- "Valuable Lesson" features Moral Guardians making the Warners watch an expy of The Smurfs with a lesson on being angry as an example of the kind of program Animaniacs needs to be. Same as above.
- Arthur becomes this during Kate and Pal's episodes. The series could be seen as becoming something of it as a whole thanks to the new animation. '''ZCE as to how it's such and the negative reaction to it.
- Batman: The Animated Series Baby
◊ Doll
◊ seems this, but is really a 30-year-old insane woman who merely acts like a little girl thanks to her massive issues stemming from being a Former Child Star whose body never matured past childhood. Double misuse it it was one of the saddest, best received work from the show.'
- ChalkZone is considered by many to be the sweetest and cutest of all the Nicktoons. This initially hurt its reception amongst viewers though as many it was too saccharine, but the show has earned itself a decent-sized fanbase over the years. Largely valid. But is the last part Natter?
- Hasbro's My Little Pony cartoons are famous and notorious for this, but reality is a bit murkier... Valid the franchise was considered this, but this seems wishy-washy on it. Does it count if it was wasn't actually that saccharine but still perceived as such?
- The original 1980's cartoons had this to an extent (lord knows the theme songs did), at least until the villains showed up. The Movie was probably the most diabetes-laden part of G1, even with the villains. (Y'know, the one with the ever-spreading, all-consuming, Hate Plague-inducing, eye- and mouth-spawning living ooze that is frequently compared to the Shoggoths from the Cthulhu Mythos.)
- It's mostly in the Direct-to-Video Generation 3 (early 2000's) that the My Little Pony cartoons acquired the reputation for tasting like diabetes. This generation contained, arguably, some of the cutest ponies in the show, and had a very feminine look towards it, as well as heart-warming friendship moments being used to their fullest. This got taken Up To Eleven when the already-cute characters were retooled into the "Animesque" style fans dubbed "G3.5". But even these two eras have their share of adventuring (in particular, the hot air balloon they take to the place they need to go always seems to end up with ponies needing to be saved from plummeting to their deaths, and never get into water in G3: the Inevitable Waterfall is a certainty!) Valid if it was big part of audiences feeling the franchise was such.
- Unintentionally subverted with one specific part of G3.5, Newborn Cuties, and not in a good way. They obviously try to go for this, but instead, the peculiar art style and poor animation leaves the "cuties" looking very unsettling. Behold.
Can't be played with so this seems like a unrelated complaint.
- Unintentionally subverted with one specific part of G3.5, Newborn Cuties, and not in a good way. They obviously try to go for this, but instead, the peculiar art style and poor animation leaves the "cuties" looking very unsettling. Behold.
- My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic from mere subject matter alone is a very adorable and sweet show, so there is no shortage of diabetes and Narm Charm is in abundance. But that hasn't stopped it from playing around and lampooning itself to lessen the diabetes. While the show has diven into the sugar sweetness with no hint of irony whatsoever, it will sometimes throw lampshades on this as a source of comedy. Fluttershy's cute shyness is sometimes played up for jokes. Pinkie Pie's singing and overly cheerful demeanor has irritated characters on many occasions, Spike mocks Twilight's excessively sentimental wrap-up in an episode, The Cutie Mark Crusaders react to Big Macintosh's and Cheerilee's sappy love talk with visible disgust, and Rainbow Dash is utterly terrified of extreme cuteness. Not an examples as this has broke the franchise stigma of being this such it achieved mainstream popularity/acceptance. Cut or worth noting it playes with this expectation as part of the series. If the latter should it just be added to the franchise wide examples saying it broke that?
Almost all the other examples have these issues? Should we just cut examples that don't mention the negative audience reaction? Or is this something needing a proper cleanup?
openMaking a new Prehistoric Life page.
An idea for a small move that I thought it was worth asking for feedback: I noticed in the paleontology fact checking/discussion thread that, in the useful notes page Prehistoric Life - Non-Dinosaurian Reptiles, the group of mammal-like reptiles (the same group of the sail-backed Dimetrodon) was together with reptiles, despite the fact that they aren't considered to be so anymore in the cladistic sense, as the page itself notices. It also talks about the small mammals of the age of the dinosaurs, meaning it included non-reptiles anyway. But since taking it out would be extremely pedantic, as the term was widely used for a long time, I thought that it would be a good idea to move the section to its own page about the ancestors of the mammals and their relatives in general, since it seems to have enough content compared to other small Prehistoric Life pages like Prehistoric Life - Primitive Ornithischians and Prehistoric Life – Hadrosaur Predecessors.
I made the sandbox Prehistoric Life Mammal Predecessors and wrote a description, what did you think? Would this help to organize it or is it pedantically unnecessary? I plan to put a link directing to that in the "mammal-like reptiles" section of the non-dinosaurian reptiles page in case it is moved.
Edited by good-morningopenTechnical question
A while ago I decided to exhume an old TLP, Fantastic Display Jar
, that got nuked for unclear reasons. I brought this up in the Trope Idea Sounding Board and feedback was positive. The main question I have is that I'm not particularly clear on how to actually... un-nuke this. The TLP history doesn't go that far back and the draft itself doesn't have a "relaunch" button. Is there some way to revive this or should I just move the contents to a fresh draft?
openEdit warring/possible agenda by troper in "YMMV/ShaggyAndScoobyGetAClue" Western Animation
Troper Aldrine Joseph 25 added a Vindicated by History example to Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get A Clue!, which fell into the usual "new thing is bad, so this makes bad thing from before better" trapping, regarding Velma. I deleted it alongside a justifying edit in the Audience-Alienating Era entry, since I haven't seen many Scooby-Doo fans falling back onto this series when there's dozen of other far more beloved works in the franchise that people put over Velma, such as Zombie Island, Mystery Incorporated and What's New, Scooby-Doo?.
aldrinejoseph doubled down on adding back the justifying edit to Audience-Alienating Era, calling Velma a monstrosity. I know the series is bad, but that seems way too harsh and at this point the entries seems agenda-ish, since they keep mentioning Velma while saying nothing about the series itself.
Edited by Edgar81539openCreators Pest examples?
Back in Dec 2021, Dracoblade deleted these Creator's Pest examples (in folder due to sheer number/leangth) citing "The trope is creators not liking a character they wrote, not fan fic writers deliberately writing a character badly because they didn't like them. That's a different trope. Likewise, rewriting a scene or season like how it should have gone goes under Fix Fic, not here."
- Total Drama:
- Second Chance at Love
- Sierra, Duncan, and Alejandro are among the author's most despised TD characters; they're also the only three to not hook up with anyone or receive a happy ending. Cody's rant against Sierra in Chapter 2 and Leshawna's beatdown of both Alejandro and Duncan in Chapter 4 are more or less expressions of the author's hatred of them.
- Neither author is a fan of the Duncan/Courtney ship, due to both of them being in the camp that views their relationship as too toxic and abusive. Duncan more or less expresses the authors' views, saying that he has permanently lost interest in Courtney and will never return to her due to having become fed up with her behavior.
- Total Drama Legends: The author of the story has a deep hatred for Sierra, which likely explains how her continued obsession with Cody leads him to no longer view her as a friend, her early elimination, and her devolution into Feral Sierra.
- Total Shuffled Island Series: The author really hated Dave. His negative traits were accentuated, and all of his positive characteristics were removed. He is utterly useless in the challenges while being obnoxious to his teammates, with Mike the one he treats the worst. He is entitled to dating Sky and refuses to listen to her; ultimately, he was voted off with Sky telling him off. The author herself even admitted to hating Dave and admitted she made him worse here than he was in the show.
- Rufus T. Serenity has also stated that he hates the canonical version of Total Drama World Tour (and to a lesser extent, Total Drama Action), with his dislike for the seasons being a significant influence on the numerous major differences existing in the story's timeline.
- Both writers of Total Drama All-Stars Rewrite rank Cody as their least favorite character, which likely explains his Adaptational Jerkass qualities and Butt-Monkey moments during the Aftermath. Courtney and Lightning are also strongly disliked by the authors, which has a bit to do with why the other characters give Courtney No Sympathy for being cheated on back in World Tour (although she does later get a redemption) while Lightning is more or less hated by the entire cast (Lindsay even outright tells him he was annoying).
- Second Chance at Love
- The Many Dates of Danny Fenton
- Two authors of the other The Many Dates of Danny Fenton stories have a negative view of Sam Manson and Tucker Foley.
- NeoMark has stated many times that he dislike Sam as a character and, to a lesser extent Tucker. And feel their role in the story should be downplayed in favor of other characters. At the beginning of After Many Dates: Danny and Kim numbered characters commented on how Kim Possible was more pretty than Sam and how they like Kim better than Sam. Downplayed as NeoMark realizes that he went too far and tried to show their positive traits, but also reduced their role in the story in favor of the other heroes. In NeoMark other stories, he has been shown trying to balance Sam and Tucker's positive and negative traits and when they suffer bad luck for their actions to when they get a lucky break as a reward for doing the right thing.
- Played Straight with Luiz4200. You can tell by his writing that he really hates Sam and Tucker. He put the two of them through a lot, having Sam and Tucker caught sneaking into Alex's house. Both were grounded, with Sam's parents cutting her off and forcing her to get a job. When she confessed her feelings for Danny, he rejected her outright. Luiz4200 went to go so far as to have Tucker not pursue a relationship with Velma Dinkley in TMDDF: Danny Chooses Alex After the Many Dates so that Tucker can still be humiliation in flirting with other girls. Later downplayed in Luiz4200 other stories were Sam and Tucker don't suffer as much as bad luck as in TMDDF: Danny Chooses Alex After the Many Dates, with Sam and Tucker even getting a few lucky breaks in that story like Danny forgiving Sam and Tucker meeting Velma Dinkley in college and getting together with her.
- Most of the authors do not have the fondest opinions of Family Guy and American Dad!, given how its characters are mocked, harmed, arrested, and even killed and brought back to life before getting a life sentence in them. Notably, unlike the other characters the other authors dislike, these characters were never shown with either redeeming traits or getting good fortune.
- Two authors of the other The Many Dates of Danny Fenton stories have a negative view of Sam Manson and Tucker Foley.
- Codex Equus
- Chrysalis from canon. BrutalityInc had admitted on multiple occasions to utterly loath her as a character, to the point he himself believes his hatred reaches irrational levels. These reasons stems seeing her as having completely failed to live up to her supposed cred as a master manipulator and The Chessmaster in canon by constantly making VERY idiotic mistakes, her lack of depth as a character beyond being a ruthless, sociopathic, power-hungry tyrant, yet despite all her failings she nevertheless always being able to somehow come close to winning on too many occasions even when she has no rights, which BrutalityInc believes is mostly due to sheer dumb luck, Plot Armour or the heroes opposing her, in his eyes, being EVEN MORE inept and idiotic than she is. He has gone on record saying that the utterly inept Chrysalis portrayed in "The Mean Six" episode more or less summarizes exactly what he think of her. Nevertheless, out of respect for other writers and readers who liked her, he has tone down his bashing of her and given her credit where it's really due (e.g. legitimately defeating Cadence, an Alicorn, off-screen), as well as leaving the question of her competence ambiguous and open for the readers to decide both in-universe and out.
- BrutalityInc has also hinted he wrote the Changeling Court entries, which massively expands the Changelings from canon into a civilization that is much, MUCH larger and deeper than Chrysalis and her hive partly because he doesn't want a legitimately interesting race/culture with much story potential to be tainted by association with her. That's right, the creation of a significant part of the Codexverse is most likely motivated, in part, out of BrutalityInc's dislike for Chrysalis. And given Codex Equus BEGAN with the Changeling Courts entries, it's not inconceivable to think the entire thing wouldn't had got off the ground if he didn't despise her, his enmity serving as the foundation that the monument of creativity which is the Codexverse would be built upon.
- BrutalityInc also apparently have a thing against Card Carrying Villains who do things For the Evulz in general, disliking their lack of depth and/or disturbed by their characterization. Whenever he creates one - and he RARELY does - they always come off as stupid, insane, or otherwise pitiful, and those that either came from canon or are inspired by Evil-reveling Card-Carrying Villains from other sources, such as Cosmos, Temnobog and Surtr are written or rewritten to flesh out their personalities and motivations, either to make them deeply sympathetic or just to make them better villains. Otherwise, the absolute best a Card-Carrying Villain For the Evulz character can expect in entries written by BrutalityInc himself is probably a snide in-universe comment on their antics. He has admitted in the comments section of their entries that his entries on Temnobog and Surtr are done partly to experiment in making Card-Carrying Villains that are actually interesting. Temnobog in particular is designed specifically to subvert conventional character archetypes by making him a 'good' guy despite still being completely, unapologetically evil.
- Chrysalis from canon. BrutalityInc had admitted on multiple occasions to utterly loath her as a character, to the point he himself believes his hatred reaches irrational levels. These reasons stems seeing her as having completely failed to live up to her supposed cred as a master manipulator and The Chessmaster in canon by constantly making VERY idiotic mistakes, her lack of depth as a character beyond being a ruthless, sociopathic, power-hungry tyrant, yet despite all her failings she nevertheless always being able to somehow come close to winning on too many occasions even when she has no rights, which BrutalityInc believes is mostly due to sheer dumb luck, Plot Armour or the heroes opposing her, in his eyes, being EVEN MORE inept and idiotic than she is. He has gone on record saying that the utterly inept Chrysalis portrayed in "The Mean Six" episode more or less summarizes exactly what he think of her. Nevertheless, out of respect for other writers and readers who liked her, he has tone down his bashing of her and given her credit where it's really due (e.g. legitimately defeating Cadence, an Alicorn, off-screen), as well as leaving the question of her competence ambiguous and open for the readers to decide both in-universe and out.
- Infinity Train: Blossoming Trail
- Goh's an interesting case, since Goh himself isn't the problem: rather, it's the way the anime puts more focus on him than Chloe, treats his main traits as good things without seeing the flaws, and the bucket list of unintentional Double Standard regarding him and Chloe that's the issue. To give you an idea, Episode 29 was Chloe's second focus episode and neither she and Goh have a meaningful conversation until Episode 49.
- A more straightforward example would be Yeardley: his whole "my life's a work in progress" line brought the entire story into existence, as the author points out how much Double Standard he gets when he can give an open-ended answer while Chloe is harassed by everyone else about her career choices (more specifically, she follows her father's footsteps), and his counterpart here is turned into a mysoginistic bully that always gets what's coming to him by karma.
- Professor Cerise also gets the brunt of the author's anger because, at the time the story was written, it was easy to mistake the professor as being negligent on Chloe (and he doesn't start encouraging her until Episode 31). It gets to the point that the story tries to paint him treating Ash and Goh like they were his sons, despite them being his workers.
- Grace Monroe and Simon Laurent are also this to the author. On numerous occasions, the author has stated that while she likes how they are written, she hates both of them for the damage they caused and can't forgive them for their actions, which becomes much more apparent as the writing then goes to take any sympathetic traits they had and either changes them, gives them a darker twist, or outright remove them, all in the name of making them into arrogant sociopaths who only care about destruction. She states in Voyage of Wisteria that Grace got a slap on the wrist for everything she did and how the ending of Book 3 tried to sweep away most of the problems she made (particularly Grace doesn't bring up how they have been unintentionally hurting denizens for their amusement) and that Simon pretty much lost all chances of redemption after he murdered Tuba.
- Cross mentions in Cherry Prince and Princess a dislike of Parker shared with much of the readership. Orange Rose Gathering expands on this: Cross considers Parker the character he hates the most with a reason, the character he hates most for a petty reason is Hop, and while he doesn't hate her he does consider Mallow the verse's biggest idiot who made everything worse.
- The author of Ruby and Nora, BurningCinders, has stated that they don't have a high opinion of Atlas. As a result, various characters from that kingdom are given unflattering depictions.
- Jackie Chan Adventures: Olympian Journey: The authors make it perfectly clear in Chapter 15 that they don't like Drew at all, making a point of insulting him in the author's notes, having multiple other characters insult him within the story, and setting him up as an Arc Villain (via Aphrodite's essence), only to reveal that he's just a lackey.
- The author of The New Adventures of Invader Zim is very well known for his dislike of Gaz, due to viewing her as a one-dimensional and self-centered misanthrope, hence why she's made such a Hate Sink in this story. Though that said, he's also admitted that due to her canonical Character Development in the movie that came out since the story was first started, he's begun to have a more nuanced view of her and regrets writing her in such a way.
- The author of Code Prime said in an author’s note that the character he hated the most was Suzaku, due to his Black-and-White Insanity and his Never My Fault attitude, especially because of how he refused to take responsibility for the death of his father. For this, almost everyone in the cast from both Code Geass and Transformers: Prime, constantly call him out on it. Despite that, the author chose to fix Suzaku’s character arc rather than mercilessly thrash him around like a ragdoll.
- The author of Rainbow's Mental Scars
, greendogtheater
, has stated in the comment section that Fluttershy is his least favorite member of the Mane 6.
- The author of Another Side Sporting Hopefuls has admitted to not liking Byakuya Togami for his Smug Snake behavior, which "might" explain why not only his personality is made more blatant to the point of racism, but also why he becomes the first victim.
- My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic:
- The author of Danganronpa: In Harmony's Wake admits that she dislikes Timber Spruce. Unlike Flash Sentry, who she initially disliked for similar reasons but grew to enjoy, Timber Spruce just came off as skeevy for his interest in Sci-Twi, an under-aged client of his, believing he used his position of authority to bully her into being interested in him, and sees their relationship to be bad writing. So, that's why Timber became the first blackened of the story, and was shown to have made many stupid mistakes while carrying out his murder of Wallflower Blush, which eventually got him caught and brutally executed.
- The author of The Flash Sentry Chronicles has made it clear that when he adapts My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Legend of Everfree (his least-favorite Equestria Girls movie) for the series, he plans to fix the "mistake" the film caused with the Ship Tease between Sci-Twi and Timber Spruce, admitting that he absolutely cannot stand Timber Spruce for getting in the way of Twilight and Flash (his favorite ship). In the actual story, Timber is depicted as a Jerkass who acts like a cool guy in front of all the campers, but he is actually self-centered and purposely tries to steal Sci-Twi away from Flash. Sci-Twi loses all her interest in him when he insults Flash to her face.
- The author of Highschool Dragon named Svengallop, Spoiled Rich and Prince Blueblood as his top 3 least-favorite characters which explains the latter's Adaptational Jerkass and The Mole in the fic.
- The author of Spike's Gambit really loves to crap all over Twilight Sparkle throughout the story. He goes out of his way to both villainize and victimize the poor girl at every chance he gets. He made a blog (Which has been deleted sometime ago) of how much he despised the character.
- The author of the The Savior King, the Master Tactician and the Queen of Liberation has made it no secret that she despises Edelgard, due to her inability to see other people's perspectives, her prejudices against the Nebateans, and of her refusal to take responsibility for her and her "allies" actions both in story, and in the Crimson Flower route. She did admit to feeling sorry about her when Odesse beat the shit out of Edelgard, and admitted that the scene was hard to write though.
The issue is there are many non-fanwork examples of writers inheriting characters from the series they didn't care for and bashing them. I asked here
and here
but got no consensus or feedback on what to do. Several of the Creators Pest entries or similar are still under the fanworks Trivia pages.
I intend to add back the entries (save those just about not liking characters in the original as opposed to how it effect how the fics author writes them) as, while I agree this should be something more than authors bashing character they don't like, I see nothing suggesting it's misuse as it's currently defined and have heard nothing on it being misuse despite repeatedly asking. (If it should be changed is for a cleanup.) Any objections to adding back or should the Trivia page examples be cut as well?
openDo show creators read TV Tropes?
More of a general question, but I wonder if creators/filmmakers/artists/what-have-you read the TV Tropes pages about their works. I'm asking this because someone found out that copyrighted documents were on the Work It Out Wombats! page and they were deleted "(per request from show creator)" according to the edit reason. Also, the YMMV page for Molly of Denali mentions how the show's hatedom accused it of being a ripoff of Wild Kratts, then the two shows did a crossover episode. The WMG page has the theory that Oscar will grow up to be a lynx-themed superhero, then they made an episode where Oscar draws himself as 'Lynx Boy.'
I think this proves that at least some creators read TV Tropes, but we don't know for sure.
EDIT: I have more evidence. The YMMV page mentions that the character of Kenji is popular with the ladies. In season 3 of Molly, he got Demoted to Extra, probably because the show runners were weirded out by his fangirls.
Edited by sudrictoonopen Alternate Self question
Hello. So recently Known Unknown started deleting examples of Alternate Self from the Batman (1966) character pages, with that show having been established as being an alternate universe in DC's live-action multiverse created by Crisis on Infinite Earths (2019). The trope had been used in character folders to have links to different versions of characters shown to canonically exist in the multiverse (for example, 66 Batman had a link to the Burton Batman page). Using the trope in this way has also been used with characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Spider-Man Trilogy and The Amazing Spider-Man Series.
Known Unknown claims that the use of the trope was inaccurate since they don't fit the criteria of the trope, and that just because these pieces of media crossed over in Crisis that doesn't retroactively make this trope valid. They also said the trope should only be used for alternate versions of character that directly interacted with each other (so Smallville Superman interacting with Arrowverse Superman). They also claimed it shouldn't have been used for characters that didn't appear in the crossover at all, as it has been used for characters that have appeared in multiple pieces of media established to be canon with each other (for example, both Smallville and Arrowverse have used the same villains).
Given that the multiverse is clearly becoming a thing in live-action media and companies are retconning previous films/shows as part of the multiverse, I feel that it needs to be made clear whether Alternate Self is a trope that can be used in situations like this. If not, can another trope be used instead of Alternate Self. Personally I think Alternate Self makes sense in this context, but if I'm wrong I would like to know so I can undo the mistakes that I have made.
openInformedWrongness back/forth/MoralLuck?
This was added to YMMV.The Last Jedi.
- Informed Wrongness: Poe is also treated as being wrong, reckless and foolish for leading the unauthorised mission to destroy the Dreadnought at the beginning of the movie. Although we see that Resistance casualties were heavy, they were still significantly better than the likes of the attack on the first Death Star in A New Hope. What's more, Poe is shown to be right when the First Order fleet catches up to the Raddus: if Poe and his team hadn't destroyed it, the Dreadnought would have wiped out the Resistance then and there. And yet Vice Admiral Holdo still treats Poe as wrong, reckless and foolish for destroying the Dreadnought even after the First Order fleet catches up to them.
This has been heavily debated, more points for both sides raised than can be summed up here, and removed prior. My thoughts is it's misuse as that wasn't the reason Poe went through with the attack that might have had zero casualties if called off, and it was only due to hyperspace tracking that was unforeseeable and thought impossible that he was proven "right" through luck.
Maybe IW applies due to this being the same kind of poor planning/Hollywood Tactics that was normal and overlooked as bad for the series prior making Poe's condemnation for it seem unfair. It’s likely why this is so ongoingly contentious.
Might Moral Luck apply? My belief is that it only should apply in international/self-aware moments, but I've seen it used for unintentional examples as complaining redundant with Unintentionally Sympathetic/Unsympathetic. Cleanup argued against putting ML under the Writing Pitfall Index so use as a complaint/unintentional examples seem misuse.
open Russian translation
Hello, dear tropers, I'm kinda a noob on this website. In short, I have a school project, which is a big pain in the ass for me(and not only for me), and so as the theme for this project i choosed a translation of TV Tropes into russian language. If you care about that, I don't support russian invasion in Ukraine and, in fact, I myself am from Ukraine. The problem is that, if I properly understood forum pages, you can make an article in russian, but you can't use russian letters in links(UR Ls). What i suggest(albeit I'm not the first one who suggests this) is making links(UR Ls) in translit or of the form like /Ru/(page name in english)(rus).Aren't there any problems with that? Would be glad to see any explanations. I don't really have much choice. If it's not possible to post those translated articles on TV Tropes, i just could post them in the free share. It's just that it would be uglier cause many articles here also contain subpages like "YMMV", "Laconic", "Self-Demonstration" etc. I know it's not good to ask so, but it would be better if i get replies ASAP because first deadline is coming soon. See y'all later
openSelf-Reporting Edit War
I've been cleaning the Funny.RWBY page of Moments misuse (specifically: scene summaries, character reactions and using quotes as examples). Because I was cleaning up Moments misuse, and not removing audience reaction examples, I didn't check the History page first. I've received a PM pointing out that I've edit warred on the page.
After double-checking the page history, that's correct; I have.
The Volume 9 entries were originally added
by cybertoy0. I removed
them as part of a larger clean-up of the page for being summaries, character reactions and quotes instead of examples. He added some of them back
, and I removed them
for the same reason, also as part of the clean-up I was continuing to do today.
That was stupid of me, and I know better, but the damage is done.
Edited by Wyldchyld

A while back, in Characters.NU Carnival, I deleted a Beauty Mark entry as that's no longer a trope and I explained that in my edit reason. However, Shootthestar18 brought it back
. While I sent them a "not a trope" notifier a few days ago, I still haven't gotten a response. I also checked the history and I realized Shootthestar 18 engaged in an Edit War since they originally added the entry.
Would it be ok if I remove this Beauty Mark entry? I would do it myself, however, I want to avoid an Edit War. If somebody else wants to delete it, you're free to do so.
EDIT: Slightly trimmed this.
Edited by RandomTroper123