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:
openDistrict 9 Complete Monster entry
The YMMV.District 9 page lists under Complete Monster:
- Obesandjo, The Evil Cripple wheelchair bound leader of the Nigerian gangsters, sets up his racket in District 9 and distributes cat food to the aliens, which is like a drug that keeps them hooked. He also operates "interspecies prostitution" rings, offering the prawns human women. The worst, however, is when he has innocent aliens butchered, so he can eat their flesh and gain their power. When he captures Wikus, he fully plans to cut off his Prawn parts and eat them himself.
As far as I can tell, the character being disabled is not relevant to the story. Can that part be removed?
openThe Launch Pad Incident
Hey, so this is Kryppuk‘s older sister speaking.
I will be the one responding to this whole disaster on the Launch Pad page because I don’t want them to get even more upset over this than they already did. I don’t know much about how this page works and I don‘t know where a post like this would go nor do I know if the formatting will be functional, and I apologize if it‘s not.
But I feel like this is something that needs to be explained, so I‘m asking you to hear me out.
My sibling(who is not comfortable with their gender being revealed online, so I‘ll try to keep it neutral) loves analyzing fictional stories and characters and wants to become a writer themselves one day. They are shy and don’t share this passion with a lot of people. And they loved the articles on this page since they were a young teen because of how much of an in-depth look they provided. They looked up to you guys, they really didn‘t mean to mess things up or offend people.
It took them a lot of time and courage to finally write down one of their ideas and actually post it in here. Finally having something that’s ready to post meant a lot to them, they wanted to make sure it was done right, they even had me spellcheck it twice because they didn’t want there to be any errors.
And the text looked fine to me. I‘m not too familiar with this page aside from what they showed me, but I have played some of the games mentioned in the article, so I was able to understand what it was about. And get this: I told them to just post it and not be so nervous about it because surely, your first post ever doesn’t have to be perfect and people would understand that it’s the thought that counts because everything else can still be improved afterwards.
Needless to say, I regret giving them this sort of encouragement.
Cut to about an hour later and they’re a nervous wreck, panicking and trying to „fix“ their article, which just seemed to mess it up more. I know for a fact that the apostrophes did read properly on the original post, so they must have gotten corrupted in one of the following edits. There also seemed to be some interface issues (It may have had something to do with us using a tablet rather than a real computer.) where the text field was partially covered by parts of the page that just added to the stress. I barely managed to get them to let it go for the night.
I don‘t think anyone is really to blame on this one as there were several aspects factoring into it, but it was not pretty and it took such a toll on my sibling‘s mental well-being, they are now considering quitting the page altogether.
It’s true that the formatting of their post didn’t look very good on this page. It was fine in the original document they wrote it in, but evidently, it just didn’t translate well. The numbers for one were underneath each other, not besides each other. This didn’t look like it was going to be a problem in the initial posting interface, (which was incredibly narrow by the way, the scrolling for the final spellcheck was a pain) but well, turns out that it is.
But honestly, that’s an innocent mistake, isn’t it? They didn’t know what their text would look like on the actual page because they had never written an article for it. In fact, they knew this would likely be an issue and asked for help.
It’s not even like they just typed random stuff directly into the text field without double checking it, their only crime was that they weren’t sure how to use coding, which I‘m sure all of you were perfectly versed in the first time you posted anything on this page, but they weren’t.
They knew it wasn’t going to be perfect right away and wanted to improve in this regard, but that wasn’t their main point. They wanted to talk to people about this idea they had. They didn’t think the formatting would mean more to people than the actual content of the article and frankly, neither did I.
Turns out it apparently does. I wish I‘d be able to tell them that they just misinterpreted the situation, but no, it really looks like people legitimately weren’t even reading what they actually wrote, with one person telling them to „just tell them what the trope is about“ only to edit their comment admitting they hadn’t even read the part right towards the beginning of the post that literally consists of a numerical list of exactly that. I‘m sorry, poor formatting or not, that’s just plain rude. This kind of criticism is not helping anyone. Both I and my sibling know that not everybody acts like that and that these comments aren‘t personal attacks in any way nor were they the only factor in their panic attack yesterday, but that doesn‘t change what happened.
Now I don’t see myself in any position to judge the article the same way people on this page can, but I did notice that a lot of the examples my sibling gave are not found in the examples section on the „Hijacked by Ganon“ page, which people claimed it was too similar to despite my sibling‘s best efforts to differentiate the two. If their suggestion was redundant, then I would have expected the other page to have at least more than half of the same examples.
Now I don’t see myself in any position to judge the article the same way people on this page can, but I did notice that a lot of the examples my sibling gave are not found in the examples section on the „Hijacked by Ganon“ page, which people claimed it was too similar to despite my sibling‘s best efforts to differentiate the two. If their suggestion was redundant, then I would have expected the other page to have at least most of the same examples.
There are also some things that I just don’t understand, like how is Ganon being used in a page name fine while referencing Bowser is problematic and needs to be replaced with „Big Bad“? I personally don’t have much involvement with this page and don’t know the definition of a „Big Bad“, but I do know who Bowser is, as well as that he is a common culprit of the phenomenon my sibling was describing. If the goal is to make the title more understandable for outsiders, surely it would be more helpful to reference franchises most people are familiar with rather than the internal terminology of articles that people who aren’t active on this page haven’t read?
I would be interested in hearing the explanations behind those since my sibling can’t explain them to me, but that’s just my two cents on the situation.
And before anyone thinks I‘m just some entitled Karen wanting to speak to the manager, this is not about my sibling’s suggestion being rejected and I’m not looking to change the fact that it was. In fact, I don’t think they ever actually expected it to be accepted. They just wanted to write something into the forum to get in touch with people who seemingly shared their passion for fiction. Having people complain about their foreign quotation marks and having the names of bad writing tropes hurled at them on their very first post was not exactly what they planned.
I know some of you will say that they shouldn’t have written a page suggestion for that, and you may be right, but some people, like my sibling, have trouble making connections just for the sake of making connections. They do much better bonding with people over activities, like, let’s say, writing an article on a topic they’re passionate about, getting feedback on how to improve it and talking to people about the contents of the article.
I don‘t think they would have written a page suggestion if they knew of another place on the page to do this kind of stuff. Maybe that one suggestion in the comments about having a „beginner score“ that goes up when making approved additions to pages and allows them to legitimately suggest new pages (completely independent from just bouncing off ideas) only after they‘ve collected the experience to make them formally acceptable to the general public really would be worth looking into for the future.
„Just do it.“ is not a piece of advice my sibling is going to take from me again any time soon, even if the situation seems as harmless as making your first post on a page you really like. Which is a shame because in my opinion, that is something they should follow. They have many good ideas yet never make anything of them because they keep backing out. And now the one time they didn’t, it became an absolutely miserable experience for them.
I‘m sure they’ll get over it, they‘re just very anxious right now. They usually know better than to let stuff on the internet get to them, but this time, it was in a community they really looked up to and that they thought they might fit in with. They met their heroes and it was not in the way they had hoped for. This just went out of hand for them and they panicked, emotionally jumping to the conclusion that everyone hated them and their ideas.
This might be the last post written with this account, which is sad because it’s also one of the first, but in the end, it might be better this way. I know they said they wanted to fix their post, but I think it‘s best for them to not deal with anything right now. They‘re not fixing it not because they don‘t care or don‘t want to, but because they need to calm down and get their mind off of things. Don‘t worry, I don‘t think they‘ll actually quit the page entirely, they just need to take a break for a while.
I do apologize for ending on such a somber note. I‘m not exactly the linguistic talent in this family, I just think it’s important to communicate clearly. You‘re looked up to so much more than you know and I know how awkward this can be. Just keep up the good work.
Thank you for reading.
openPage split: Characters.SentinelsOfTheMultiverseVillains feedback
- Link: Characters.Sentinels Of The Multiverse Villains
- Discussion: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Characters.SentinelsOfTheMultiverseVillains#comment-121611
So there's a bit of dispute over how this page split should be done, you can see the debate between Spectral Time and myself on the Discussion page. It's currently listed alphabetically, and I just feel like there should be subcategorization, because there's 30+ folders, and depending on how the franchise develops beyond the original card game, there could potentially be more to come.
I think there are a few somewhat natural break points — the original game was divided into expansions, and in the mechanics of the card game some of the villains are fought on their own with their own minions while others are fought as part of a team of other villains. Some villains have decks for both, but the latter only appear in the second-to-last two expansions. Similarly, OblivAeon and his Scions are fought as a kind of massive Final Boss for the game as a whole, and have some very different rules as well. And then there are Nemeses, which are one-off cards which appear in other team villains' decks but don't have decks of their own so far (and aren't likely to get them, as the card game is officially complete at this time).
Spectral Time doesn't like the above ideas, as he thinks they require readers to possess additional information. I feel like it's just the opposite, though — it's information we're giving them, not information they need to have in advance. There were two other editors who had voted to split by expansion, but I felt like maybe it would be better to put this to ATT and get some more opinions/suggestions and then put it to a vote of sorts.
So the suggestions so far:
- Leave the page in alphabetical order
- Reorganize the page by expansion
- Move the team villains, nemeses, and OblivAeon to their own page, leaving the solo villains sorted alphabetically
- Some combination/variation of the above
Spectral is not necessarily in favour of alphabetical order but hasn't liked any of the other ideas so far. Any other suggestions or ideas based on how other Characters pages do it are welcome. Thanks for your help. Please feel free to ask for clarification.
Edited by UnsungopenEdit War on Far From Home page
The following example from has been edited, added and deleted numerous times:
- Protagonist-Centered Morality: When HYDRA deploys a flying superweapon with the ability to invade individual privacy on a global scale and execute anyone on Earth at any time with no appeal or oversight in Captain America The Winter Soldier, they must be stopped because they are fascist monsters. When Tony Stark does the exact same thing, he posthumously proclaims himself a hero for it, and no-one contradicts him.
It was even discussed on the forums
. Since it got deleted again, I took the liberty to create a discussion on the movie subpage and PMed all tropers involved. If anyone else is willing to join in, please reply there:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Film.SpiderManFarFromHome
openTroper with grammar issues
InsanePryomanic's
edits demonstrate questionable grammar, as seen in pages like Characters.YuGiOh VRAINS
.
Sent a notifier, but for the time being, can I please get a revert on the edit for that page? (EDIT: made the changes myself already)
Edited by Tenma-Yuukiopenpage needs cleanup
The description on Page Three Stunna needs a lot of cleanup, it's full of natter.
Yes, the description itself.
openInvoked YMMV Videogame
SasquatchX added this to Characters.Super Smash Bros Ultimate 70 To 75 in the Hero's folder:
- Germans Love David Hasselhoff: Invoked Trope, as the inclusion of Eight among the playables is this. Sakurai makes mention in his interview regarding the acquisition of the Heroes of Eight's status being the one that western audiences are most likely going to recognize.
This isn't proper use of Invoked Trope isn't it? Using it for YMMV items is for when said item occurs within the narrative itself, not when it is used as a reason from Word of God for including something within a work.
Edited by homogenizedopenjppiper Western Animation
jppiper added a non-capitalized, non-punctuated, speculative example to Steven Universe: The Movie, and then spent multiple more edits trying to Wiki Word Time Skip. After the example was rightfully removed, they posted on the discussion page
, still with the problems of their example, this time with an added self-censoring of the swear "fucking".
Page history
and Troper history
.
openDark Fic
The description to Dark Fic contains the lines "If the series was already dramatic and dark, it shouldn't really be here (e.g. it's impossible to make a dark fic of The Walking Dead unless you really take it to another level)." So, what's the criteria for this? For example, these examples from the Main page are from already dark series:
- Death Note:
- Death Note isn't exactly a cheerful story to begin with, but The Faceless explores the Fridge Horror of having a realm of Death Gods feeding off human lifespans all the time and what happens when humans learn this. They begin killing each other because of it, resulting in a Post Apocalyptic World of Nihilism.
- A Madman's Circus
is a Death Note Fusion Fic with Vocoloid's Dark Woods Circus where Beyond Birthday runs a Circus of Fear. Poor, poor Light Yagami...
- Neon Genesis Evangelion fandom might be collectively the crowning champion of this trope. The series was the poster boy for darkness to begin with, but amongst fans known for analysing everything down to the smallest detail the ability to tease out the smallest aspect and expand upon every twisted meaning or interpretation is phenomenal. A far from comprehensive list:
- Random1377
is another prolific NGE darkfic author, with entries such as The Lifespan of a Love Affair
(a deconstruction of the Misato/Shinji pairing), Let She Who is Without Sin
(about a Serial Killer), and Aoi
(includes Shinji being killed in the first chapter, and falls apart from there).
- Scar Tissue is also a good one: Asuka blames her scars and death in canon on Shinji and punishes him by subjecting him to constant emotional, physical and sexual torture, and Shinji takes it all because he thinks he deserves it after defiling her and leaving her die right before ending humanity. Meanwhile Shinji's low self-esteem and self-hatred has become a split personality tortures him in the form of hallucinations. And that's only the backstory; the fic itself begins after Asuka beating him so brutally that he has to be taken to the hospital and she finally realizes her actions have been horrible. On the other hand, the fic inverts the usual darkfic formula in that it starts off dark and gets progressively lighter.
- Random1377
openSparkle Sparkle Sparkle Western Animation
From YMMV.Moana:
- Moana may be secretly a fan of The Nostalgia Critic (or Thomas And The Magic Railroad), as revealed by her scene in Tamatoa's cave when she's trying to get the crab's attention.note The Critic himself had to quell rumors that this was a direct reference by pointing out that Rob and Doug Walker have been fairly consistent credits in Disney movies since the pair were children.
Moana: "Sparkle, sparkle, sparkle..."
- Moana may be secretly a fan of The Nostalgia Critic (or Thomas And The Magic Railroad), as revealed by her scene in Tamatoa's cave when she's trying to get the crab's attention.note The Critic himself had to quell rumors that this was a direct reference by pointing out that Rob and Doug Walker have been fairly consistent credits in Disney movies since the pair were children.
Since Doug Walker a)didn't invent this phrase, and b)lobbied at least one hypocritical complaint against Moana, would anyone mind if I removed any reference to him from this entry, if not the whole thing?
resolved YMMV/DarkPhoenix Issue Film
patriciovalencia117 recently instituted a change in the Audience-Alienating Premise section.
Before:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: The film ended driving away many fans owing to on-going production shenanigans and its questionable creative decisions. Right off the bat, Fox's decision to adapt Phoenix Saga story didn't inspire confidence given how the studio's previous stab at the story line, the much maligned X-Men: The Last Stand, was a low point for the franchise and its poor reception ended up tainting the image of the Dark Phoenix alter-ego and story. Further hampering enthusiasm was the controversial hiring of Simon Kinberg as director; while Kinberg produced the critically acclaimed X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past, his involvement in the much-contested X-Men: Apocalypse and his lack of directorial experience left fans cautious about the project. There was also the matter of fans perceiving either Days of Future Past or Logan as the Grand Finale of the setting, which caused lowered interest in this movie. And even if most of the audience could forgive all that, near the end of 2017 Disney had made a bid to acquire Fox's film assets, and it was considered a Foregone Conclusion by many ever since that not only would the acquisition go through (which it eventually did in 2019), but that Disney would pass responsibility for making future X-Men movies onto Marvel Studios (with the possible exception of movies that star Deadpool, who Disney themselves hinted and eventually confirmed would be staying at Fox to avoid tampering with his R-rated nature), and that a hard Continuity Reboot was inevitable as a result. Ultimately, all these factors coalesced into a movie that financially fell below already-modest expectations.
After:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: The film ended up driving away many fans owing to on-going production shenanigans and its questionable creative decisions. Right off the bat, Fox's decision to adapt the Phoenix Saga story didn't inspire confidence given how the studio's previous stab at the story line, the much maligned X-Men: The Last Stand, was a low point for the franchise and its poor reception ended up tainting the image of the Dark Phoenix alter-ego and story. Further hampering enthusiasm was the controversial hiring of Simon Kinberg as director; while Kinberg produced the critically acclaimed X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past, his involvement in the much-contested X-Men: Apocalypse and his lack of directorial experience left fans cautious about the project. There was also the matter of fans perceiving either Days of Future Past or Logan as the Grand Finale of the setting, which caused lowered interest in this movie. And even if most of the audience could forgive all that, Disney ended up buying out Fox and it film assets, meaning that barring the R-rated Deadpool, the X-Men will undergo a Continuity Reboot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ultimately, all these factors coalesced into a movie that financially fell below already-modest expectations. (Note: The "ended to ended up" change and "adapt Dark Phoenix story to adapt the Dark Pheonix story" edits were done by Stardust Soldier.)
I have issues with this edit.
1. No edit reason to explain this. I'm guessing it was supposed to be a compression issue but that wasn't well-explained. This edit is not so self-explanatory as to require no edit reason.
2. Factual inaccuracy: Disney did not "buy out Fox". They acquired PARTS of Fox that were sold off because Rupert Murdoch wanted to get out of the film-making business and focus on expanding his news empire. Let's get that straight.
3. The edit makes it seem like that acquisition was the only part where enthusiasm started being dampened, even though Disney first made their bid back at the tail-end at 2017 and the possibility of the acquisition going through had ample time to fester in the public consciousness. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that was not a factor.
4. Errors in grammar and mark-up. "Fox and it film assets" indeed, and Marvel Cinematic Universe should be linked to.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisteropenNew page when another work has same name and media type
There are two wonderful webcomics both named White Noise. One
has been documented on here (and actually helpfully provides a link out to the other comic's site in it's description), but I'd like to know how to go about making a page for the other comic.
I've read a little bit about how it's best to make a disambiguation page (so that Webcomic/WhiteNoise
would then list both works), rename/move the older page to distinguish it (is author's last name the best identifier for webcomics?), and make a page for the other comic with the different identifier. What order should this be done in so I don't eff it up? How do you change all of the subpages as well? Can I somehow do this myself, or does a mod need to do the page move?
Also, there is already a disambiguation page for Main/WhiteNoise
- are there any concerns about works being present on more than one disambiguation page? (I assume not, but want to conform to conventions if possible.)
openWall-Of-Text
I just cleaned up Victoria, a show I've never actually watched. That's important to explain, because in doing so I came across two wall-of-text examples, and I've no idea if it's possible to trim them a bit.
(I also posted on the series discussion page, but given how rarely people check those pages...)
Anyway, here are the examples:
- While a relationship-bordering-on-romance between 18/19-year old Victoria and near 60-year-old Lord M is enhanced a bit for TV (having a much-younger actor playing Lord M helps, historians generally regarded the relationship as father-daughter (Weintraub, Longford, Hibbert, Hough, Woodham-Smith, Plowden, Macdonald) and Victoria herself frequently refers to him as such. Historians also generally note the political motivation behind Lord Melbourne, who instigated both the Lady Flora affair and Bedchamber Crisis, insisting to Victoria even after Flora's bodily invasion she was pregnant (this is contrary to the TV show, which shows Melbourne as cautioning Victoria about her claims.) Although such May-December Romances are often frowned upon in the modern era, especially when celebrities are involved, in Victoria's time it was not uncommon for people with such wide ranges in age to marry. Indeed, several histories chronicle a mad dash by 50-something relations of George III and William IV to marry and have male children by, in some cases, very young women in order to secure their place in the line of succession when it became clear that there would be no direct male heir to the current monarch (with the Duke of Kent, Victoria's father, the winner). However, marriage between the Queen and a non-royal would have never been allowed in those days, making Victoria's attempted marriage proposal on Lord M unlikely to have succeeded (although the series did establish that Victoria was considering maintaining a non-married relationship, with unambiguous comparisons made to the unmarried Elizabeth I's relationship to the Earl of Leicester; the series also touched on why taking the attitude "I'm the monarch, I make the rules" was not realistic). A dissenter of the idea it was not a romance is Daily Mail journalist A.N. Wilson, though Elizabeth Longford is often misquoted as calling the relationship as a romance when in fact she called it "one of the great platonic love stories of history.' Whatever the case, Victoria would later write after Melbourne was no longer her PM, "1st October, 1842. Wrote & looked over & corrected my old journals, which do not now awake very pleasant feelings. The life I led then was so artificial & superficial, & yet I thought I was happy. Thank God! I now know what real happiness means."
- Beyond the usual amount of fictionalization and rearranging of events that is inevitable in any biographical production, of particular debate among some fans is the veracity of the romanticizing of the Lord Melbourne-Victoria relationship. In the series, the much-older Lord M clearly falls for the young queen, and Victoria becomes so dependent upon Lord M that she prevents a new government from being formed in order to get him back as Prime Minister and, later, travels to visit him alone at his family home with the intent to propose marriage. Academic scholarship (Wientraub, Longford, Hibbert, Hough, Woodham-Smith, Plowden, Macdonald)generally regard Victoria's relationship with Lord Melbourne as fatherly-daughter, as Victoria calls him in her diaries frequently. The Daily Mail journalist A.N. Wilson in his biography of Victoria (which the show is partly based on) claims Victoria and Lord Melbourne were more than father-daughter, but this is not the consensus among actual academicians. The fact it was for a time an Intergenerational Friendship, with Victoria's diaries continually referring to the two discussing personal interests and things as mundane as hairstyles and looking at paintings together, is not denied by anyone. Victoria's diaries after 1840 are available in almost complete form, and Charles Greville - who called Victoria's relationship with Victoria sexual - actively hated Victoria, who was distressed when his gossipy and often inaccurate diaries about her was released. Whatever the case, it is interesting to note her feelings only a couple years after marrying Albert: "The next day she (Victoria) pulled down some of her old diaries, perhaps to recall Lezhen’s part of her life, and came to a passage in 1839 where she had written of her ‘happiness’ with Melbourne. Now, with both Melbourne and Lezhen gone she noted ‘1st October, 1842. Wrote & looked over & corrected my old journals, which do not now awake very pleasant feelings. The life I led then was so artificial & superficial, & yet I thought I was happy. Thank God! I now know what real happiness means." (Uncrowned King: The Life of Prince Albert By Stanley Weintraub)
If you'd rather discuss at the discussion, at least this query served as a plug...
open Weird Awesome entries Live Action TV
On Victorious there's this weird entries that seems to argue with over if an example counts self. Here they are:
- Tori and friends taking revenge on Manipulative Bastard Ryder in "Begging On Your Knees", along with his ex-girlfriends. Seeing such a Smug Snake of a villain given a well deserved Humiliation Conga, priceless!
- Tori does it again in "Prom Wrecker", By crowning Jade as the prom queen and Doug the Diaper Guy as prom king, as a "discreet" revenge for Jade almost ruining Tori's hard-worked Prom. And to top it all off, a song by Tori, Cat and Andre to close the deal!
- This one is a little less awesome when you consider that Tori ruined Jade's exhibition by taking over the space it would have occupied (which Jade had booked first), blatantly refused to cancel it, and never once apologized for screwing up the show that Jade had presumably been putting together for several weeks. Sure, Jade might have crossed a line with her retaliation, but Tori wasn't exactly in the right either.
- Some see that as an over-riding Humiliation Conga for Jade, especially for her slap-on-the-wrist punishment for nearly killing Tori and Robbie in Tori Gets Stuck, but overall that episode had an awkward feel as there seemed to be an easy compromise to the scheduling conflict that was ignored simply for Rule of Funny.
- A smaller one but when Beck puts Jade in a time out for being mean to Tori (which she actually does).
Is this allowed?
openEgregious Unintentionally Sympathetic example? Western Animation
- Applejack in "Hearthbreakers". The whole episode is supposed to be about her learning that she was being too closed minded about Pinkie's family and their Hearth Warming traditions, to the point where even her own family worn her that she shouldn't be interfering. However this glosses over the fact that the Pie family can easily be accused of the exact same thing, seeming to expect the Apples to follow their traditions without question and never allowing an alternative point of view. In fact, Applejack was the only one who did try and embrace the other's way, forcing herself to eat their rock soup when the rest of her family only complained.
This reads like a disguised Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry. It dosen't even tell us how Applejack ends up being sympathetic, just that everyone else around her isn't.
openHow many wicks does a page need before it gets removed from PagesNeedingWicks?
So, I have been crosswicking under-used tropes so they can be remved from Pages Needing Wicks and I have wondered how many wicks does page need to not end up on the list. In the past, 16 wicks was what the page said was the cutoff point but that part has since been removed. I personally like remove tropes when they reach the 20-30 wick mark.
EDIT: Wait, According to the page itself, anything that is within the standard ranking (24-56 for tropes older than 3 years old and 12-14 for new tropes) on wick needs to be removed. So I guess that is the answer..
Edited by MacronNotesopenNot a Clueless Aesop? Western Animation
My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic S1 E10 "Swarm of the Century"
- Clueless Aesop: Probably not entirely clueless, but as more than one viewer has noted, the aesop of this episode, if taken as the face value "you should listen to what your friends have to say instead of dismissing them", almost falls flat when one remembers that Pinkie Pie hardly ever actually tried explaining that she knows what parasprites are and how to get rid of them, giving up after one attempted explanation. In particular, Twilight specifically asks Pinkie if she knows anything about the Parasprites, only for Pinkie to mutter that she needs a trombone and leave without explanation. Considering all things, of course, this could more or less lead to a Double Aesop, as Pinkie pointing out at the end how she tried to tell them when they wouldn't listen makes it evident that she did learn the importance of explaining herself properly.
This seems more like a Broken Aesop, since Clueless Aesop is when a show fumbles in teaching harsh subject matter. Pretty sure "listen to your friends" isn't controversial. It also just seems like it's arguing with itself with the Double Aesop paragraph.
Also posted this here
, but got no response.
openScreamer Trailer description issue?
I read through the trope description, and...it's not the best in my opinion. It's self-demonstrating, of course, but it keeps giving me that early website trope description vibe which I'm not a big fan of. What do y'all think about it?
open"Common Knowledge" issue?
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 5 E 26 The Cutie Remark Part 2
- Common Knowledge: Many of Starlight's detractors criticize her Freudian Excuse, and also compare her to Apple Bloom and Moondancer in terms of cutie marks and losing friends and how they didn't resort to villainy in their situation. What they forget when comparing Starlight to these two is that Starlight hated cutie marks and believed they created differences among ponies, thus driving them apart because they don't have connection, and she believed to have lost Sunburst as a friend as a result of differences created between them. Given that she was a filly at the time, was confirmed to have isolated herself from other ponies out of fear that cutie marks would break new friendships made, it was clear her villainy rose from wallowing in victim-hood and self-pity over her situation which resulted in her blaming cutie marks as the result of friendships that fail in general. Both Apple Bloom and Moondancer are quite different from Starlight, as Apple Bloom wanted her cutie mark badly and Moondancer thought that friendship wasn't for her, and they both didn't become evil because they didn't wallow like Starlight did.
This was deleted as "Misuse and another attempt to complain about Starlight's detractors". I assume the misuse is due to this trope applying to audiences missing things to the point of making factually incorrect factually incorrect beliefs/claims about the work, which this isn't. But there some issues with the comparisons I was thinking about for awhile:
- Moondancer was Twilight's age, young adult, so could be expect to handle it better than Starlight who was a child at the time.
- Apple Bloom was lucky enough to stumble across new friends before Starlight's issues could set in. "On Your Marks" shows AB begin to descend into such when she thinks she's loosing her friends due to their cutie marks ("Oh, hello girls."). Starlight outright says "Not everypony's lucky enough to get her cutie mark at the same time as her friends!" The reason Starlight was supposed to be deserving of forgiveness/redemtion is because the only difference between her and Twilight was Twilight was lucky enough to have a destiny that gave her friends.
I fault the episode for failing to portray or emphasize those points, and agree with cutting shoehorned/misused tropes for such. But I want to be sure we're not quashing legitimate points counterarguments (there's a reason Starlight's a Base-Breaking Character not The Scrappy, which was brought to cleanup) if there's an appropriate trope/place for them. And I was planning on adding some criticism of complaints (which fall under factually incorrect) under Common Knowledge, I want to double-check what the line is for this trope since it came up.
My questions are:
- Do the points brought up fit Common Knowledge and if not why are they objective misuse (only pertain to factual error?). Are the point's I raised objective enough?
- What other tropes or place might those things fall under?

On TierInducedScrappy.LowTiers I found this example:
Every character besides yourself in King Arthur & the Knights of Justice on SNES. They were the definition of dead weight and could barely kill a bottom level rat.
Does this violate the Examples Are Not General rule?
Edited by ATricksterArtist