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:
openThe Lobo problem Print Comic
The page SelfDemonstrating.Lobo exists.
The page ComicBook.Lobo doesn't. Once upon a time, it was a redirect to the self-demonstrating page, but it was cutlisted with the following reason "Redirect to SelfDemonstrating.Lobo, causing people to treat the page as a legitimate work page rather than a Just For Fun page. [Anddrix]"
Beyond the fact that ComicBook.Lobo should exist as it is a genuine work, trope examples shouldn't be linking to a self-demonstrating page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that it was clearly stated by mods that any such link (like SelfDemonstrating.Deadpool or SelfDemonstrating.The Joker to only name common ones) should be corrected to the ComicBook/ namespace.
However, in the case of Lobo, the result would be a red link. (There is currently 259 wicks.) What shall we do? Re-creating the redirect would seem to me the absolute minimum, until someone knowledgeable and/or courageous enough create an actual work page...
Edited by StFanopenIs Barry Allen a Designated Hero? Print Comic
Barry Allen has earned himself quite the lengthy entry at the comic book section of Designated Hero. It reads:
"The Flash: Barry Allen, the Silver Age incarnation of the character, has largely became this upon being brought back and pushed as the main Flash.
- Upon returning, he created the Flashpoint incident while trying to undo the meddling of his arch-enemy, Eobard Thawne/Reverse-Flash, who had altered Barry's past to give him an angstier backstory involving his mother getting murdered. However, rather than work with other heroes who are experts on this kind of thing, like Booster Gold or even his own former protege and Superior Successor Wally West (who unlike Barry, could run through time-and-space unaided and understood their powers on a much greater level), he did this by himself, resulting in a distorted Darker and Edgier timeline. While his motivations were sympathetic, the sheer idiocy of his blunder and how easily it could have been avoided, especially as he was warned prior during the Prelude to Flashpoint about what was going to happen and did it anyway.
- When he realised what he did and undid it, the result still didn't fix his mistake, resulting in a new timeline that was still Darker and Edgier, only everyone was also Younger and Hipper on top; while Barry's life in this new timeline wasn't bad, his friends were made miserable with both marriages and people erased, including Wally West, Wally's kids, and also Jay Garrick, Jesse Chambers, and the rest of the Flash Family. Though all of this was because Executive Meddling was in play (co-publisher Dan DiDio wanted the rest of the Flash family erased due to his personal dislike of Wally West and his belief that the franchise should be simpler, as well as his preference for Darker and Edgier stories and belief that True Art Is Angsty), it essentially meant that in-universe, Barry was personally responsible for erasing his nephew and family from existence, essentially killing them, while making everyone else he knew miserable and lonely. Meanwhile, Barry in this new timeline? He was a young, happy single with a cute Adorkable girlfriend, largely beloved by his city, with nobody knowing or remembering what he did.
- The Rebirth era didn't help with this matter, even after Wally West returns. During a team-up with Batman, he discovered Wally wasn't the only forgotten speedster when he meets Jay Garrick in the Speed Force. Rather than working tirelessly to save Jay, as you would expect a hero like Barry to do, he seemingly forgets about it to instead focus on other stuff. Then, Wally has his memory of his kids restored to him, and he calls Barry out on not even informing him about other trapped speedsters; he claims he was working with Batman to investigate it off-panel, but they were clearly not sparing much time looking into this, which could have been resolved by informing Wally, who not only wasn't busy with anything thanks to having his life erased, and also understands the Speed Force to a much greater extent than Barry and would be better suited into looking into it. Then, after the two are manipulated by Hunter Zolomon, Wally has a breakdown over the memory of his kids, so Barry sends him to a mental health facility where he never visits him, trusting instead that the facility can help him. It doesn't. Meanwhile, after sending Wally away, Barry could take this as an indication he should put more focus into finding the lost speedsters, but instead, he starts a different investigation into the "Other Forces", something he could have left up to his new ally, Commander Cold while he continued searching for Jay, Jesse, and Max. While his lack of focus on this could be chalked up to not remembering the other speedsters, it still looks callous of him to know people are suffering and to do nothing, even when told these people are his family."
Okay, I gotta ask: is this valid? I know that some people still have grievances towards Barry even after the end of Comic Book/Flashpoint and I do admit that I don't have the best knowledge on Barry's history, but this entry is so long and descriptive that it comes off as opinionated writing. What do we do with this?
Edited by MasterHeroopenWhat Do I Call This? Print Comic
I want to make a page for the current Iron Man comic. The problem is, with current naming convention (I was recently told we're moving away from using the writer's name in the work name), the only thing to really name it is Iron Man 2020 because it started last year and isn't part of some publishing initiative or anything.
Except... there already is an Iron Man 2020. Two, in fact. The Iron Man 2020 page is used by a series that is legitimately called Iron Man 2020, which is itself reusing a name from a graphic novel also called Iron Man 2020.
What should I call the page for Iron Man Comic That Started In 2020? And should we make Iron Man 2020 a disambiguation page for both Iron Man Comic That Started in 2020 and Comic Called Iron Man 2020 From the Year 2020?
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopenBatman controversy 2.0 Print Comic
Our favorite Dark Knight never seems to stay away from controversy for too long, and this time, it's two-fold.
First, Batman's folder in the DCAMU: Justice League character page has Adaptational Wimp, which says: "Downplayed. This incarnation of Batman is still a good fighter and he has his moments like getting the upper hand over Green Lanterns in the Justice League movies. But in his own films, aside from being able to defeat Deathstroke, himself an even worse Adaptational Wimp, in Son of Batman, he tends to get the short end of the stick in his titular films. In Batman Vs Robin he spent most of his fights taking a beating from various Talons, Robin, and the main Talon, while his comics counterpart was able to defeat Talon even after being famished and dehydrated for days. He also spends much of Bad Blood being captured and playing the role of Badass in Distress so he can be saved by the Bat-family. And in Hush, while he did much better in fights, he still wasn't able to defeat the eponymous villain on his own in the end and required the help of Catwoman to do so, whereas his comic books counterpart was able to beat The Riddler when he had been similarly physically enhanced by Venom during the Knightfall story. Justified with Damian. In Apokolips War, a brainwashed Batman reveals that the only reason Damian won is because he let him, and during their last fight he proves to his son that the latter is no match for him."
Adaptational Wimp has been frequently misused over these past few years, but the trope's definition is: "when their usefulness, agency, and contribution to the plot is significantly reduced. It is not this trope when the character "only" easily defeated twenty Mooks instead of a hundred; it's when the character struggled to take down even one. Realize too, that this may be intentional and in a long-running series may have the character take a level in badass to provide Character Development and align them better with the original version."
Then, the Dork Age entry in the YMMV page of Batman (Rebirth) was deleted and added yet again, because apparently, a consensus hasn't been reached about whether or not Tom King's run can be considered a Dork Age. Dork Age, much like Adaptational Wimp, has seen its fair share of misuses, but an entry in a long-running franchise can be a Dork Age if it qualities for any of the following criteria: 1. It has to be a critical and financial disappointment
2. Any changes it brought to the series must be undone by later installments
3. Whenever it's referenced by other entries, it has to be done in a negative manner.
So, what do you say?
Edited by MasterHeroopenWork page titles for arcs - should they include the series/franchise name? Print Comic
As I understand it, works pages should reflect the (or at least an) official title of the work in question.
In the ComicBook namespace, we have quite a few pages for arcs within a single series (or Bat Family Crossover events officially badged under a single series/character title) that only use the subtitle and not the series/character title.
So, for example -
- The Celestial Madonna Saga is an Avengers arc and the collected edition is titled Avengers: The Celestial Madonna Saga. There are no crossovers and no other titles involved in that arc.
- Days of Future Past is an X-Men story that's collected and sold as X-Men: Days of Future Past. Again, it's entirely from one series, Uncanny X-Men, not a crossover event.
- The Demon Bear Saga is a New Mutants arc and collected/sold as New Mutants: The Demon Bear Saga.
- God Loves, Man Kills... well, as you can see on the works page, the cover has X-Men as a prominent part of the title.
- Mutant Massacre is a Bat Family Crossover that covers three different X-books (plus odd issues of Thor and Daredevil, but is packaged and sold as X-Men: Mutant Massacre.
...you get the idea. I don't think there are many disambiguation concerns with the current names, if any. But we're inconsistent on this and many, many ComicBook pages have included the series title or character name as a prefix to the arc/event name.
It seems odd that we're editing down the names to remove the character/comic/franchise element when there are no character-limit issues, and when that's not the version that the publisher's officially using.
(It also increases the number of oddities in alphabetical indexes - e.g. tropers put One More Day and Go Down Swinging under S, because they know they're Spider-Man stories, but unless you're looking at the index page itself the structure and ** / *** bullets aren't visible)
So, subject to discussion on the relevant pages and elsewhere, is it worth a tidy up that attempts to move them?
(One note on this: due to the film of the same name, we'd probably need to add a year to X-Men: Days of Future Past to disambig if we do move it - but that's the exception)
Edited by Mrph1openBad Example of Base-Breaking Character? Print Comic
I was looking at Batgirl (2011), and came across this:
- Base-Breaking Character: Alysia Yeoh. Less about the character herself, and more about whether her being transgender is handled well or is being shoved into the reader's face to make the comic look progressive. Her getting Demoted to Extra when Cameron Stewart, Brenden Fletcher and Babs Tarr took over made this worse. It doesn't help that when she was brought back, many felt that the writers are treating her less like a full character, and more like a PR stunt.
- Wouldn't this be a case of Broken Base, rather than Base-Breaking Character, if the divide is "less about the character herself"?
- Is she even a base-breaking character? I'm not in the Batgirl fandom, so I have no idea what the general mood is, but in my experience, when someone uses the "shoved in the reader's face", it suggests someone's been analyzing things in bad faith.
openUltimate Nick Fury Print Comic
I have made some edits in The Ultimates at the entry on Nick Fury (for those unfamiliar, the Nick Fury of the MCU is a direct adaptation of this character). I removed some examples and shortened others. First, Nick Fury is not a villain, so "Adaptational Villainy" is completely out of place. Other tropes are filled with complaining, Alternative Character Interpretation and even actual lies (for example, a trope says "he's a self-serving asshole", but his actions, right or wrong, have always been motivated by national or worldwide security, not personal gain). tvtropersuser1 simply restored everything, without even an edit summary, and ignored my request to take things to the discussion page.
openDC Infinite Frontier 2.0 Print Comic
DC Infinite Frontier is in full swing and its YMMV page is up and running, but some of its entries come off as opinionated writing. In the main page, Continuity Snarl has the following context: "Minor case, but the whole concept of Barry Passing the Torch back to Wally, as it's presented as if Barry was giving Wally a promotion. While meta-wise, Barry had been treated as the "real" Flash by DC's editorial, and Wally had been Demoted to Extra with his return (and had suffered a major Heroic BSoD in the last few years thanks to being a Cosmic Plaything), in-universe the two were meant to be about equal, in the same manner as Hal Jordan and John Stewart, so this shouldn't be a case of Wally 'taking Barry's role' so much as Barry leaving Wally to handle their shared duties on his own, something they both know he's more than capable of doing. It is a minor case however, as this somewhat makes sense with their respective flaws; Wally has cripplingly low self-esteem despite his greater power levelnote even putting aside his recent Mobius Chair powers which elevated him to Godhood, Wally is a cosmic powerhouse, while Barry has had It's All About Me tendencies in recent years."
The YMMV page lists Barry Allen as Unintentionally Unsympathetic with this context: "Barry Allen once again falls victim to this when his whole sequence with Wally West features Barry stating he is leaving to help President Superman deal with something Multiverse-related. In regards to his departure, Barry tells Wally that he's now the Flash and is leaving Earth-0 under Wally's care. While this is meant to be seen as if Barry's passing the torch to Wally, aside from the glaringly obvious issue that Wally was already the Flash for years, the whole thing comes across as if Barry's patronizing Wally. The idea that Barry thinks he needs to give Wally his blessing after everything Barry did that ended up practically destroying Wally's life is incredibly galling on Barry's part."
I admit I haven't read The Flash comics in years, but this comes off as an attempt to demonize Barry for, yet again, the Flashpoint event. Last year, Barry was given an entry in Designated Hero but this was later disproven
, which is why I'm bringing this topic up again.
Pandering to the Base has this context: "Given that the event is intended to be about realigning DC to fix their recent mistakes, it's gotten some heat from New 52 fans, particularly over benching Barbara Gordon to return her being to Oracle, and to having Barry Allen be Put on a Bus to give Wally West the Flash title again, as well as being lighter and more idealistic instead of Darker and Edgier. For most fans, long-term and new, this is fixing some severe mistakes, but for the Vocal Minority who joined the fandom during the New 52, it feels like fans of the pre-New 52 DC are Running the Asylum." —- Also, Win The Crowd is becoming a bit bloated, with examples like:
- The creative team of Mariko Tamaki and Dan Mora on Detective Comics is considered by many to be an improvement over the last one, which many derided as So Okay, It's Average.
- To say nothing of actually keeping to what they inferred with Speed Metal and having Wally West once again the lead character of The Flash. Some Barry fans are mad, but general Flash fans consider this franchise rerailment and Wally West's fanbase are ecstatic. Helping matters is the initial arc is solicited to feature the Flash Family, something that was deeply missed by the fans during the last decade.
- Mitigating the issue with Barry was the announcement of an Infinite Frontier event that will chronicle what he's doing with the Justice Incarnate team, along with plans for a Justice Incarnate ongoing to launch after helps avoid the feeling he's being tossed away.
- Also, while not officially announced and confirmed, the statement that there are plans for a Batgirls book co-staring Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain, with Barbara Gordon as their mentor, has fans of the Batgirl legacy hyped, especially as this was a commonly suggested fan-idea.
- Fan reception to Brian Michael Bendis on Justice League is naturally mixed thanks to his equally-vocal Fandom and Hatedom, but people are responding well to the line-up, which has avoided the Big Seven focusnote which had been the case for the last decade and people were growing bored of, primarily because it was considered creatively uninspired and quite limiting to what the Justice League can be, to instead a mixed team featuring new characters like Naomi, old classics like Green Arrow and Black Canary, and unexpected ones like Hippolyta and Black Adam.
This entries come off as knee-jerk reactions instead of, well, entries that could have a long-term position in this page.
So, what do you say?
openDeath's Head: seeking consensus to revert changes after fact check Print Comic
Two Marvel Comics pages, ComicBook.Deaths Head and Trivia.Deaths Head, have some 'detective work' statements/examples added by DaPolicia regarding the character's creation and copyright status. The same claims were added to The Other Wiki's page for the character.
These are largely updates to examples and text I previously edited or added, so I don't want to revert them myself (and start an edit war) without a consensus.
This is the core claim they've added:
- Pop-Culture Urban Legends: Multiple sources, including Simon Furman himself, allege that Marvel maintained Death's Head's rights by rushing out a one-page comic (commonly referred to as "High Noon Tex" after a line spoken by Death's Head in the strip) that was featured in various other Marvel UK comics before his Transformers debut, circumventing the company's agreement with Hasbro. However, artist Bryan Hitch's signature in the final panel reads "Hitch '88", indicating that it wasn't drawn until the year after Death's Head debuted in Transformers, and there's no actual indication that the strip was published until May of 1988, meaning that Marvel likely engaged in some other chicanery to keep Hasbro away from Death's Head.
The collected edition introduction directly states that "High Noon Tex" was created to secure copyright. There's a photo of the relevant statements here
◊ for anyone who want to read it.
IANAL, but as I understand it UK copyright law is based on evidence of creation, not just widespread publication. Ashcan Copy logic allows the creation of a quick, sketchy version of the work or character to confirm ownership. The intro says it was "subsequently" published and I don't think a 1988 signature on the final/published work is a "Gotcha!" to show the creators are lying.
With that in mind I'd like to:
- Cut Pop-Culture Urban Legends entirely
- Cut the "if Marvel hadn't done whatever they did" element from What Could Have Been, which also casts doubt on Marvel's claims.
- Cut the whole "A commonly-circulated story, corroborated by both Furman and artist Bryan Hitch and perpetuated by sources like This Very Wiki" section that was added to the ComicBook.Deaths Head intro, which casts doubt on the intro's original brief factual statement about the character's creation.
Even if there's more to the story than the official sources suggest, and Marvel isn't telling the complete and accurate history, I don't think it's our place to speculate in this way.
(If we get an official on-the-record statement from the company or creators that contradicts the original printed statements, that would be different)
Does that sound fair?
Edited by Mrph1openJohn Byrne's Superman = Audience-Alienating Era Print Comic
Ok, I gotta ask, can John Byrne's Superman, especially The Man of Steel be considered an Audience-Alienating Era?
First of, The Man of Steel was initially listed in the YMMV section as Condemned by History by the following argument: "Back in 1986, Man of Steel sold extremely well and was hailed as the story which modernized and made Superman good and fresh again thanks to scraping off the Silver Age "silliness". Over time, though, Byrne's vision was gradually rejected and ultimately retconned out of continuity. Most of his contributions (the birthing matrix, the unfeeling Krypton...) and interpretations (Superman being the only son of Krypton who rejects his immigrant heritage and declares to be fully American...) were eventually deemed mistakes and expunged from the mythos, whereas most of Silver Age lore and characters (Supergirl, Krypto, the Phantom Zone and its inmates, the Fortress of Solitude...), which he attempted to write off because of their alleged childishness and irrelevance, have been brought back. Nowadays, Man of Steel is considered a dated origin which has aged badly (especially compared to the Batman and Wonder Woman's reboots), and not even Post-Crisis Superman fans seem to want it back., but was later removed
.
Secondly, John Byrne's run itself is listed in the The DCU's section
for Audience-Alienating Era under the following argument: "Although John Byrne's 80's Superman's run got praise and good sales back in the day, it also gained many vocal detractors who decried the erasure of many classic characters and concepts, the loss of the whimsical tone and the colorful high sci-fi/fantasy concepts, the diminishing of Superman's complex dual identity, the messing-up of the Legion of Super-Heroes, the unfortunate message that "immigrants should forget their origins", the shoehorning and mishandling of the New Gods, the blatant misogyny of some stories (Big Barda being mind-controlled, raped and hypnotized into being a porno actress comes to mind), and the long-term damage done to the mythos caused by Byrne eliminating anything not protected by his Golden Age nostalgia. History -and DC, who would go to undo most of what Byrne did- ended up siding with them, and nowadays that period is disliked and disregarded by everybody but Byrne diehards."
An era can only be considered as Audience-Alienating if... 1. the era is a critical and financial disappointment even during the time of release 2. any changes the era brings to the franchise are removed by later stories 3. any time the era is referenced to by later stories, it's almost always in a negative manner.
I bring this up because a lot of examples in AAE come off as blatant editorializing. What do you think?
open Cleaning up and Updating of the Red Hood related YMMV pages Print Comic
Hey everyone, I wanted to ask for help/feedback about what it should be done about the YMMV pages of both Red Hood and the Outlaws and Red Hood YMMV pages. The pages have been ignored for a long while with only a few tropers showing interest in keeping the entries up to date. One of the tropers that have, unfortunately, shows an obvious negative bias against the series and its writer, Scott Lobdell. I find the current state of the pages to be not only unhelpful for anyone interested in checking the series and/or the character and the personal views expressed to be somewhat out of place. I tried to fix the pages a little a while back, trying to be as objective as possible with my edits but I only succeeded in getting myself tangled in an Edit War with the aforementioned troper. Since I don't want the situation to repeat itself, and I'm still not satisfied with the pages' current status, I ask you for some help in improving those pages.
openComicBook/ to Characters/ cleanup Print Comic
As has been discussed many times here and on the forums, there are several character pages for the DC and Marvel universes masquerading as work pages in the Comic Book/ (or occasionally Self-Demonstrating/) namespace. Before I take this into the forums (most likely Short Term Projects), I'd like to address a few points from the last discussion and see if anyone has any major objections.
The last discussion was here
.
My official proposal is:
Change the ComicBook/ pages for characters without a series into Characters/ pages or entries on a Characters/ folder. If the character has a series, the page can remain, but it has to be about the series, not the character.
To give a few examples:
- ComicBook.Booster Gold becomes a page for his series, with his character tropes moved to Characters.Justice League International (currently a redirect to a Justice League of America subpage at the stupidly-long name of Justice League of America: Justice League International)
- Cyclops has had only a handful of title appearances: Two one-shots, a miniseries, and a solo series that we already trope at Cyclops (2014). Nothing particularly important happens in the one-shots or miniseries and every trope present is about the character and not the series, so the page can be moved outright to Characters.X Men Cyclops (with the stuff that doesn't belong on a Characters page removed.)
- The several pages for Batman villains become part of the Batman character index under Characters.Batman Rogues Gallery.
- In the interest of concision and not appearing overly unwieldy, those that get entire pages to themselves would be named something like Characters.DCU The Joker or Characters.Batman The Joker instead of some long name such as Characters.Batman Rogues Gallery The Joker.
Characters can only have one "primary" character entry, to avoid splitting their tropes across multiple pages.
- Example: Cassie Lang is a member of the Young Avengers and The Avengers, was a major character in Astonishing Ant-Man, and made a few supporting appearances in other comics. Her character tropes would go on Characters.Young Avengers, with the character pages for Avengers: 2000s Members and Astonishing Ant-Man (should it ever exist) linking there.
For Characters/ pages for specific series, the main characters can have separate entries for their appearances in only that series, but established side characters and cameos from the existing universe shouldn't have their own entries unless they have significant focus or Character Development.
- Example: Robin Series's main character is Tim/Robin, so he can have a unique entry for his characterization in only that series, separate from his entry on Characters.Robin.
If there are related series starring the same character under multiple titles and we are unwilling/unable to use either title, the ComicBook/ page can be named after the character.
This is just making what we already do official. I'm only mentioning this because of the complaints about ComicBook.Carol Danvers, which is that page's name because ComicBook.Ms Marvel and ComicBook.Captain Marvel (redirects to Main/) are both disambiguation pages and disambiguating by year would cause confusion.
Character tropes still have to move, however.
Establish pages/indexes at Characters.Marvel Villains and Characters.DCU Villains. This is a solution for the Rogues' Gallery Transplant problem, as well as introducing a place to put "universe-wide" villains such as Superboy-Prime, M.O.D.O.K., or Thanos.
openCreator's Pet misuse/complaining? Print Comic
I was looking at the CreatorsPet.Marvel Universe page, and I noticed a lengthy entry regarding multiple characters from Avengers Arena and Avengers Undercover — namely the Braddock Academy kids (mostly Apex and Anachronism), Cammi, and Arcade. Judging by a previous example removal on the page, I'm not sure if the examples qualify for the trope, and indeed at least some of it seems like complaining; on the other hand, bias on my part (let's just say I loathed Arena and Undercover in part because of some of the reasons listed in the example) is making me second-guess removing it. So I figured it'd probably better if I got a more neutral party to clarify whether or not it qualifies as misuse/complaining, because I don't think I can trust myself to make that decision.
openAvengers 1000000 B.C. Print Comic
I just found Avengers 1000000 BC, a page which was created almost a month ago.
And I'm not sure why the page itself exists, as Avengers 1000000BC isn't a work, it's a group of characters that have appeared in various works (8 major appearances
in 3 different works, and 6 minor appearances
in 3 different works if the Marvel wiki is to be believed).
So I don't get why they have their own page, and not just have their tropes listed on either a character page, or just the relevant tropes listed in the pages of the work's they've appeared in.
openMisnamed and empty work pages Print Comic
So it seems that some people are jumping the gun on some comics coming out as part of DC Infinite Frontier, with one page being misnamed and another being trope-less.
Justice League 2021 isn't the correct name, because the year indicates what year the series starts, not a run. This comic is just another writer's run on Justice League (2018), not a new series onto itself. It should be renamed something like Brian Michael Bendis' Justice League or Justice League (Infinite Frontier) to keep with convention. Also, one of the examples is just kinda weird, so maybe the person was jumping the gun in making it? The Mythology Gag is just... a thing that happened before. It isn't so much a gag as a thing they're doing again.
I just created The Flash (Infinite Frontier), since it is just a new creative team's run on the previous series, but is large enough a change in status quo that it deserves its own page. I think that the page I mentioned above should be moved to Justice League (Infinite Frontier).
The other thing is Green Lantern (2021). It's properly named, since the series is starting in 2021 and not a continuation of another series' numbering or anything. However, that page has no tropes at all and has been like that for a month now.
openYMMV/TheJoker Print Comic
I was looking at the The Joker page and I noticed that the entire thing is writing in the Joker's voice like a Self-Demonstrating page. Is it because the main page for the Joker and his Self-Demonstrating page share the same YMMV page?
openLobo Self-Demonstrating Page Print Comic
Lobo is a thing, but Lobo isn't. Should the latter also be a thing, like we did for Deadpool?
openvalid deletion? Print Comic
Paul A removed this example from Sexually Transmitted Superpowers (plus a similar example from an adaptation):
- Played very darkly in The Sandman (1989): in "Dream Country," wealthy author Erasmus Fry reveals that he owes his superhuman inspiration to the fact that he was able to bind the muse Calliope to him. Though he knew that it was possible to gain inspiration by simply wooing Calliope, he found that simply locking her in a room and repeatedly raping her was effective enough to get ideas. Ultimately, Fry sells Calliope to Richard Madoc, an up-and-coming author in desperate need of inspiration; Madoc continues the use of the Muse as a Sex Slave, allowing him to become a Renaissance Man author capable of working in multiple genres and assuming perspectives that would normally be outside his abilities. Unfortunately for both Fry and Madoc, it's indicated that the inspiration gained from raping Calliope will not grant long-term success, leaving them wealthy but forgotten while authors who sought legitimate inspiration are cherished and remembered. However, before he can learn this, Madoc finds himself becoming a target of Calliope's ex-boyfriend, Dream.
Their argument in the edit reason is "Being inspired to write a novel is not a superpower".
Thing is, as I understand it that's kind of the whole point of the Muses: they're goddesses who literally represent the concept of artistic inspiration.
So, what do y'all think?
Edited by StarSwordopenBrian Michael Bendis' Superman = Audience-Alienating Era Print Comic
Okay, I gotta ask: is Superman (Brian Michael Bendis) truly an Audience-Alienating Era? The entry reads
:
"While not universally hated, Superman (Brian Michael Bendis) is widely disliked by many Superman fans for a variety of reasons, with many seeing it as the biggest example of DC's poor creative direction around the end of The New '10s. The run was already met with immense scepticism before it debuted, owing to forcibly ending the beloved Peter J. Tomasi run on the book, and Bendis' extremely controversial reception, and this only compounded as the run progressed and Bendis' run became infamous for making widely divisive decisions which alienated long-time fans, most infamous among them being his decision to give Jon Kent a Plot-Relevant Age-Up (the backlash to Bendis would infamously mock fans for in both the book itself and on twitter) and have Clark publicly reveal himself as Superman, both of which were derided as spitting in the face of fans. Bendis' run also became known for its weak villains, with a large amount of time spent on Generic Doomsday Villain Rogal Zaar and the overlong, directionless "Leviathan" storyline which eventually petered out into an Aborted Arc despite continual promotion, as well as his well-known quirks such as meandering dialogue and scattershot approach to continuity and established mythology. All in all, despite the substantial push, Bendis' run would end unceremoniously after a little over two years and leaving Phillip Kennedy Johnson to pick up the pieces."
First of, the entry kinda shoots itself in the foot several times by stating that the Bendis era isn't as hated as much as it is divisive.
Secondly, websites and reviewers like Superman Homepage, Comic-Watch, Fortress of Solitude and DC Comics News have positive reviews for the issues directly written by Bendis so there's support for Bendis' comics.
Third, the general consensus for the Bendis era is that "good concepts with bad execution, Superman as a character has a pretty good portrayal but the villains are mediocre", so I sincerely don't know whether the people who hate this run are either a vocal minority or a very sizeable crowd.
Fourth, last time I checked, Audience-Alienating Era applies when
1. the run is a critical and financial disappointment
2. any changes caused by this run are reverted by later stories
3. any time this story is referenced to, it's done in a negative and mocking manner.
So, what do you say?
By the way, I already asked this at Is this an example?
to get a proper consensus?

I get it, Deadpool is 4th Wall breaking, but does really need to be applied to Deadpool's T Vtropes and all associated pages, especially the tropes themselves? It's actually hard to understand some of it, especially when it's discussing specific events which A. Aren't clearly stated and B. assumes you already are well-versed with all of Deadpool's appearances. The one I have serious trouble reading in Deadpool/YMMV page for Seasonal Rot, not only is the entry needlessly long winded, but poorly explained on what events or comics it's even talking about and just isn't all the useful.
What's worse is that on the Characters / Marvel Comics aka: Marvel Universe page, next to link for the Deadpool page their's a note that says "(And if you're asking why there's no Comic Book sub-page for me, too bad! My page is always permanently on Self-Demonstrating mode, cuz I'm frickin' Deadpool.)"
Like really? Is this what T Vtropes has come to where we say screw making the site actually anyway useful or informative and just make entire sections useless for a cheap overdrawn joke that just simply isn't funny unless your a hardcore fan of the character and make fun of people for it?
I'm sorry but I really do feel the Deadpool really needs to heavily revised to at least make it understandable for people who aren't well-versed with the comics and the character and make it more clear what is even being discussed.