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:
Berserk Button: misusing Berserk Button
openZettai Ryouiki's widespread ZCEs and back-and-fourth
For a long while now, Zettai Ryouiki has presented problem after problem to the wiki. Thread
after thread
after thread
has been made about it. Most recently, this thread
has mostly agreed it is a ZCE magnet that may need to be massively changed, if not cut. And yet, every time, nothing is done, or only superficial solutions like restricting it to A or S subtypes are implemented. But the problem of the ZCEs still remains. So, I made a post
at the end of said thread to revive it, but basically I want something to be done. I will probably do a wick check and take it to TRS myself, but I still want to hear your thoughts.
openTheyChangedItNowItSucks misuse?
- They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: Adam Malkovich behaves nothing like the AI from Fusion, Samus's recollection of him from Fusion, or even the manga version of himself. Instead of being a reasonable authority figure with a warm bond with Samus as the only CO she ever respected, he comes off as a Jerk with a Heart of Jerk at best and a sociopath at worst.
I think this is misuse as: 1. The work does attempt to portray him as "reasonable authority figure" who's becoming cold to Samus has an in-work explanation, it just does a very bad job at portraying it. 2. His characterization would likely have been just as unpopular even if it didn't replace his prior depiction.
The They Changed It, Now It Sucks! page sounds like it's only supposed to apply to changes in adaptations. But is seems like it's used for any complaints, the sort of thing that got restrictions placed on other tropes. Does it has such restrictions?
Berserk Button: misusing Berserk Button
openCan a Mental Monster be the Big Bad?
I am disputing with a Troper who removed my Big Bad entry for Confess My Love because they said that the demonic!Liza does not mastermind anything and Willie’s torment is self-inflicted. I argue that since Demon!Liza embodies Willie’s inability to move on and must be overcome for him to pass on, therefore the entity does qualify as the Big Bad. The Troper also said that Pyramid Head is not the Big Bad of Silent Hill 2 (because they are just a mindless beast), when they are basically the only Troper I have seen argue that- just about the entire rest of the wiki seems to agree that Pyramid Head is the Big Bad because he is the monster most frequently getting in James’ way, despite being his guilt over killing his wife. So can a Mental Monster qualify as the Big Bad?
Edited by MasterNopenComplaining?
Alinho Alisson has been editing The Lion King (1994), but his entries tend to demonize the protagonist while excusing the antagonist's actions. These include arguing that Simba wouldn't fare much better as a king than Scar did
; claiming that the lions uphold a totalitarian system that damages the environment
; and saying that the hyenas are only motivated by hunger, despite the film blatantly showcasing how cruel and sadistic they really are
.
The first two examples have already been deleted (the former by Alinho himself, with no explanation; the other one by me, with a rather long edit reason), while the third one has been added today. They all read like Complaining About Shows You Don't Like to me, but I would like to read other people's opinions before I took further action.
openPM from a banned user
Today I received a PM from a forum-banned user in response to a forum post I made. Apparently they were still reading the thread and thought it appropriate to chime in via PM since they can't post on the forum itself.
The PM itself is also of a nature that probably would have gotten thumped had it been a forum post (calling for the death of a real-life person over a bad video game). It is not, however, an appeal for me to help them circumvent their ban by posting for them, for what it's worth.
Do I just tell them to buzz off and block them, or is this something that should be handled by moderation? I'm not entirely clear on the rules regarding the intersection of PMs and forum bans.
open ROCEJ Potholes?
Something I've noticed time and time again on this wiki is people punctuating entries on dicey topics with condescending remarks like "and that's all that will be said about that" potholed to the ROCEJ page.
I feel like it's kind of awkard and in violation of ROCEJ in and of itself because of the slightly arrogant tone that adds to the text and because it comes off almost like it's daring some idiot to start an edit war over the entry in question
It's a habit I almost think should be banned and an effort started to clean it off the wiki.
openIs there a page cleanup in general thread?
See title. I recently stumbled upon With Pearl and Ruby Glowing, which despite the page being created in 2019, has hallmarks of early-day page creation, with loads of misindentation, natter/word cruft, use of Trivia and YMMV tropes in Main (including Complete Monster!), general examples, and even some trope slashing (very little ZCEs, though, surprisingly). However, the page and the work itself are long as shit, and considering the main subject matter, I don't really feel comfortable messing with anything on the page...
Edited by Crossover-EnthusiastopenCut for general examples?
From Original Position Fallacy, It seem nearly all of the examples violate Examples Are Not General. And seem accusative/contentious.
- This is what's behind the "cut and choose" method of sharing treats. Typically, when two children are sharing a cookie or cupcake or something like that, one child divides the treat into two portions, but the other child gets to pick which portion he/she wants, making it wise for the first child to cut it as evenly as possible.
- The kinds of people who think living in a post-apocalyptic world would be "cool" tend to use this fallacy. They assume that, in a world with no law, order, or government, they could do whatever they want and would thrive. But they fail to realize that the whole "do whatever you want" thing wouldn't just apply to themselves, it would apply to everyone else. Many think that "raiding a store" would be sufficient enough to let them live comfortably, ignoring that pretty much everyone else would be trying to raid the stores too — and without farms or other agricultural infrastructure, sooner or later the stores will just run out. If you want to survive at all, you're pretty much forced to go back to subsistence farming and premodern standards of living. Have fun!
- This also presumes that they will survive to be part of the post-apocalypse in the first place. Every doomsday-prepper presumes they won't get killed during a nuclear war, a Zombie Apocalypse, a meteor shower, an alien or demonic invasion... etc. Those who yearn for the Rapture also assume that they will be one of those taken to Heaven (especially if their confession mentions having limited seats). Many disaster movies don't clearly portray what you can comfortably presume are >90% human casualties.
- Eugenics proponents generally assume that the populations which have favorable genes are theirs and the populations which need to die off are not their own (nor anyone they know). Similarly, those who prophesy a Malthusian catastrophe unless the human population level drops (through war, pandemic, or the like) tend to assume that "those other people" will be the ones to kick off and leave room for everyone else.
- For a variant, conspiracy theorists tend to think like this, but in the present tense. They assume that whatever chemical has been fed into the water supply, or whatever radio waves are dumbing down the populace, that they are somehow immune and therefore able to perceive the truth, and are not one of the "sheeple" that they so deride.
- Kevin Drum once wrote on his belief that hardcore libertarianism is built on this trope.
Drum: It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.
- This is considered to be one of the main reasons that many libertarian communes/free cities have failed: in theory it sounds nice to live in a place where you don't pay any taxes or have any regulations telling you how to live your life, but it quickly becomes a burden when there isn't a central authority that maintains the roads, makes sure the power and water grids are maintained, keeps a force of professional firefighters and EM Ts around for emergencies, or take care of any of the other things that often get taken for granted in an ordinary city. There's an idea that businesses will flock to the place thanks to its lack of regulation or taxes, but the truth is that most companies don't want to locate a factory in a place where the phone lines, power, water, or roads are unreliable. And residents have a bad habit of assuming that unpleasant jobs like garbage collection are "someone else's" job, leading to it never getting done.
- For that matter, any political leaning that requires either people being inherently better than others or will presumably reward those who are legitimately better will be championed by people who assume they will be the ones on top, regardless of whether or not they would actually be.
- When people ask one another, for fun, "If you could live in any historical time period, what would it be," the question contains the assumption that the answer does not include being a humble peasant, who would usually live the extremely mundane life of some Joe Schmoe (even if it was not without its joys).
- This is one of the arguments made against the existence of reincarnation: it's remarkable how a vastly disproportionate number of people who claim to be able to remember their "past lives" seem to have lived exciting, colorful, and varied lives among the gentry, rather than the more mundane ones among the peasantry. (Though one could argue that, with past lives being as hard to remember as they already are, a past life of a nameless ordinary person would be downright impossible to recall, and out of hundreds or even thousands of past lives, the odds are that at least a handful of them were interesting.)
- Ditto for anyone who asks about living in some fictional universe. Some of them seem very interesting... as long as you're a member of that universe's elite or The Chosen One and/or a member of his band of True Companions. The person responding tends to forget that the chances of actually being this lucky are slim.
- Additionally, the outcome depends if you get the skills to survive in an analogy to your trade in that time period. Most of the folks reading this page are completely inept in the needed skills for living in other time periods. Even if you are highly skilled in today's occupations, bordering on Omnidisciplinary Scientist, very little of that would get you anywhere even a few hundred years ago. Computer coding? Useless. Knowledge of modern sciences? Useless if you can't communicate them, and without the intellectual work needed to get to those conclusions, you would never be believed. Law? Highly time-dependent. Modern trades like welding or electrician? Don't exist. Modern medicine is not possible without a whole array of periphery industries and tools. Even ancient trades like farming or carpentry have changed so much that the learning curve would be nearly vertical. Even writing is a maybe; who knows how to use a quill? It's highly unlikely a modern human knows any of the needed skills to keep a home or engage in useful work in most other time periods, and then there's the language problem.
- Indian and Chinese parents who decide in favor of the abortion of female fetuses, and try for a boy, believing that they will, in twenty years or so, be the ones who get to be paid money for their son's hand in marriage, and obtain a daughter-in-law who will work for them. What they often fail to consider is that everyone else has the same idea, leading to a scarcity of women, that might lead to their son not being able to marry at all — the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China estimated that by 2020 there will be 30 million more men than women in the country. The governments can see where this is going and try to counteract it, but the individual people not so much. In China's case the one-child policy that had been in effect for 35 years exacerbated the problem as parents wanted the only child they were allowed to have to be a boy.
- People who like to use the phrase "You Can't Make an Omelette... without breaking a few eggs" rarely volunteer themselves to be the "eggs" to be "broken", or even consider the possibility.
- Ayn Rand would reassure her followers who feared they were the "parasites" she railed against by telling them that because they had superior taste in reading material, they were among the "perfect producers" who would inherit the world.
- Every politician — especially those of "family values" — who support a discriminatory policy based on 'morality', and are then caught by the public being immoral. Such policies are great... for the people they don't discriminate against, or discriminate in favor of.
- This theory is behind the quote attributed to John Steinbeck, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires". That is, though they are currently poor, they think they'll be among the tiny number of poor people to become extremely rich somehow, and so are against things intended to help the poor that could be bad for the rich.
- Communists will often cite how much better society would be if they were allowed to destroy the privileged of the world and spread their assets among the lower class. Few ever consider if they or people they know would be among those brought down or eliminated. A great example would be the many middle-class or even upper-class people who supported the Bolsheviks, only to find that they were now considered part of the elite and executed.
- Many Stalinists argue that the purges were necessary and even claim the fact that innocent people were falsely accused and murdered is entirely acceptable because the Soviet Union couldn't afford to find the truth. When asked if they would support a regime that intends to kill them, they nearly uniformly say no.
- There are lots of rich people who identify with left parties and genuinely support higher income taxes. However, almost none of them support so called "hoard taxes" that tax people for accumulating and not spending obscene amounts of money. In other words, people who have already made it big are willing to take a hit on future income, but will flip out the second someone talks about taxing their past income the same way they plan to tax others in the future.
- Similar arguments are made against proponents of socialism - sure, getting "free" stuff from the government sounds great until you realize that someone still has to pay for it, and that someone just might be you.
- Although "you can't use and enjoy products of a capitalist economy and still be a communist" is generally fallaciousnote An individual has next to no choice as to what economic system they live under, with virtually all countries in the world (even nominally "communist" ones) now using some form of capitalist economic model; it's also not incongruent or somehow dishonest to live under such a model and wish it was a different one entirely, a kernel of truth is that a lot of mundane pleasures in life are motivated by and organised under the capitalist for-profit model and are not necessarily going to keep existing in the same form or at all if that profit motive disappears or the existing producers of the products no longer exist.
- Some communists believe that a communist society would provide for artists to contribute towards the arts rather than having to work normal jobs to support themselves, rather ignoring that there would still productive work that needs to be done outside of the arts and that the number of self-described "artists" who like this idea vastly outstrips the capacity of any economy to support otherwise non-productive individuals.
- People arguing Not in My Backyard! usually fall into a similar trap to the original position fallacy. For example when someone wants to put up an unsightly wind farm near a residential community, not one arguing NIMBY will say wind power is bad, just that it somehow becomes bad when it inconveniences them and not someone else.
- Many people support expelling immigrants in their home countries, assuming that they will get the leftover jobs. Unfortunately, not all companies are under pressure to hire natives, and many can quite easily outsource work to other countries or replace their lost workers with machinery. Not to mention that a lot of immigrants a) do jobs few people would want to do or b) are business owners and employ others, arguably increasing the total number of jobs.
- In much of the Americas and especially the United States, the population consists of a very small minority of pure-blooded natives and the entire rest of the population are descended from immigrants. But everyone assumes nobody will expel their ancestral group and just remove whatever flavor of immigrants are hated at the moment.
- Many anonymous Trolls defend their offensive behavior online (not to be confused with voicing unpopular but valid opinions) by claiming they're entitled to free speech. They're quick to react in horror when other people find out who they really are and exercise their right to free speech to expose them to the public.
- On the flip side, people who support mass doxxing and reduction of online privacy in general never consider that their online activities might be exposed and used against them or at least not that they will be viewed as objectionable.
- Conversely, those who support ill-defined "reasonable" restrictions on free speech to curb unpopular viewpoints rarely take into account that popular opinion is constantly shifting and changing. They may find it acceptable to restrict offensive humor, but what if the definition of "offensive" grows broad enough to cover their own brand of humor? Once the precedent has been set that speech can be controlled or punished, nothing is to protect such people should their own ideas or beliefs eventually run afoul of the law.
- This is one of the reasons of religious individuals who oppose establishing a state religion in their country. Once the precedent is set that the government can favor a specific religion, it could end up not being yours.
- One of the reasons to advocate for tolerance in general is that one day your religion (or lack thereof), viewpoint, race, or way of life might be either the majority or at least look like it's on the up and up. Then demographics change a little and a few people do some unpleasant things in the name of your side. Suddenly public opinion is against you, and if you weren't advocating tolerance of others, chances are nobody will show any mercy toward you.
- Or you become part of the group you hate. For example, there are plenty of people who have been prejudiced against the disabled, only to later become one them.
- Or often-mocked professions. Sure, you can insult, say, lawyers or the police, going as far to have them abolished. Until you need them.
- General audiences love the idea of a brutally honest Jerkass with a point taking down people's arguments and worldview with biting wit and ruthless rhetoric...as long as the people they are taking down don't represent them. As soon as said Jerkass brings up uncomfortable truths about them rather than their enemies or another party, they begin demanding civility and understanding, regardless of whether or not they did so for other targets of said Jerkass.
- A version of this can be seen in the audiences of stand-up comedians who have racially-charged schticks. Members of the audience will laugh and applaud offensive jokes, and then suddenly stop laughing when the jokes are aimed at their race/gender/whatever. This can vary from culture to culture, however. African-American comedians, for example, have been telling self-deprecating jokes about their own for decades. This would've counted as a subversion, until Chappelle's Show hit it big, and Chappelle found out that many racists were taking his jokes at face value and using them to justify their beliefs. See Modern Minstrelsy for more examples.
- TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) are a subset of a subset of feminists, who oppose transgender rights and claim that trans women are really men trying to infiltrate women's safe spaces. They tend to ignore the existence of trans men, but when they do acknowledge them, they claim that trans men are actually "poor, helpless women who are suffering from raging cases of internalized misogyny/lesbophobia due to patriarchal oppression." As such, they support politicians who oppose transgender rights, but ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of politicians who do so are ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christians who also oppose women's rights issues like access to abortion or anti-discrimination laws, on top of opposition to gay rights (which is doubly ironic since a notable portion of TERFs are also lesbian women).
- Women who've joined groups characterized by heavy misogyny, like the Islamic State or the Alt-Right, have been surprised to find that they're suddenly expected to Stay in the Kitchen and churn out the babies, if not outright being treated (and sold as) sex slaves.
- Most people who advocate using violence to solve problems (especially the lethal kind) think they're the ones in a position of strength. They often aren't. In general, a Social Darwinist who believes in Might Makes Right will quickly change his mind if a) Someone stronger than him is challenging him, b) The 'strongest side' is one that he can't be a part of, or c) The side that 'wins' is one he disagrees with or uses tactics that the Darwinist doesn't associate with "strength", such as subterfuge or treachery (or even is just perceived as using subterfuge or treachery).
- By a similar token to the above, but from the opposite perspective people who call those that used violence against their oppressors "terrorists" are almost never willing to be the oppressed side. For instance, those that call Nelson Mandela a terrorist wouldn't really want to be on the business end of Apartheid.
- This is a common point made by both sides in the debate over how society in general, or specific institutions, should handle accusations of various crimes, especially hard-to-prove things like sexual assault. Proponents of swift punishment for accused wrongdoers often overlook that they too might be accused, while those who favor a more gradual and deliberate process often fail to picture themselves as a victim waiting for slow justice.
- Freidrich Spee was an early opponent of the use of torture, but only after running into this trope. During an encounter with a Duke of Brunswick, Germany, Spee confidently claimed that torture was effective in getting confessions from witches and that only those implicated by tortured witches had anything to worry about. The Duke led Spee to a dungeon, where he had a tortured woman indict him as a witch. Spee was so shaken by this encounter that he spent much of life writing against torture. (This story is just an urban legend though
.)
- As noted in the page quote, slavery apologists who argue that slavery really isn't that bad or is actually a good thing will almost never be willing to switch places with a slave. Many such slavery advocates in the Americas (where slavery had been explicitly race-based) would try to justify this by (rather conveniently) arguing that slavery was only meant for black people, ignoring the fact that many cultures had existed (and some still did at the time) where it was considered perfectly acceptable to enslave white people. Indeed, the concept of "white slavery" was generally considered the most horrifying prospect in the world to the same white men who themselves owned black slaves.
- In the COVID-19 outbreak lockdown, some American commentators suggested allowing a portion of the country to die off so as to "open" the economy from quarantine. Such commentators stopped short of volunteering themselves for such a culling. Conversely, commentators who support an indefinite lockdown while ignoring the economic consequences have been accused of this thinking, since many of them still have work-from-home jobs and government aid; if they were among those who lost their jobs
, are unable to get cancer treatments
, and such, the claim goes, they would change their tune.
- Many people were in favor of weakening government aid for low income and/or making it as difficult as possible to get or keep such benefits. This was ostensibly to motivate people to find a job and only the really needy would jump through so many hoops to get those benefits. Thanks to COVID-19 shutting down economies, millions are out of work with little to no job options and seeking government aid to survive. Those that supported a weak and difficult to use government aid system are finding that the paltry amount they get, if they can even get it, won't cover much more than their most basic needs (rent, utilities, food). The problem is even further exacerbated by these systems being overloaded with numbers they weren't designed to handle.
- People who are in favor of the addition of extra hoops to jump through to be able to vote, or are against anything that would make voting easier, to make sure as little voting fraud as possible happens tend to assume two things: that all fraudulent votes (or at least a large majority of them) are supporting the candidates they don't want to see elected and that anti-fraud measures won't (at least not significantly) hurt turnout for voters who support the candidates they do want to see elected.
Thoughts? Any worth keeping?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenBashing Troper
I just want to go ahead and say I don't watch Supergirl so I have no two cents in this one way or the other.
So on Supergirl, there's a character named William who apparently is not liked at all by the fanbase. I suppose that in and of itself is fine to put on YMMV pages since it's a notable Audience Reaction, but there seems to be a problem with bashing rather than just stating. Specifically, Starbrand 1987 has made many, many edits just talking about how much fans hate William. (They also have several grammar problems like no punctuation and no capitalization, but that's beside the point.)
Here
Starbrand adds And The Fandom Rejoiced about William possibly dying. Here
they put in an entry saying that William flirting with Kara after she turned him down on an episode that aired on International Woman's Day...is Narm.
Most of it is here
on the YMMV page. Starbrand puts a large edition to an entry talking about how poorly-received William is, an entry about how his actor and Kara's actress have no chemistry, adding William and Kara's romance under Audience-Alienating Premise ("Not one regular supergirl media reviewer approves of the relationship."), basically accusing the writers under Trolling Creators, and several subbullets under The Scrappy that got deleted.
Forenperser has deleted some entries, but with the reasons "Stop this silly obsession already." and "Natter, poorly written and just plain obsession," I'm afraid this is going to get hostile soon. They were reported to ATT before
, but it seems they're still at it.
open Unintentionally Unsympathetic proposal
There has been discussion in Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup about adding this example to UnintentionallyUnsympathetic.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic:
- In "The Ending of the End", Discord was revealed to have impersonated Grogar and brought together the villains for Twilight Sparkle to defeat thus teaching her confidence, only for them to become a genuine threat. After being called out for endangering Equestria and redeeming himself by risking his life, Discord's turning the villains to stone, as they have proven so evil and irredeemable their prior punishments were insufficient, was met with approval from all the heroes. But "Grogar" had used implied death threats and their powers to force the villains into adding his plan that was possibly little different than what the villains did independently, the villains actions weren't worse then their previous evildoings, and were never given a chance to redeem themselves as Discord was. This caused many fans to consider Discord's punishing them as unfair given he forced them into a position where they would have been punished just as harshly even if they hadn't proven themself so irredeemable.
I asked
about putting a similarly written entry under Unintentionally Sympathetic, but a mod said there was too much Broken Base to say. Someone from cleanup argued even if US was deemed not to apply UU might. I'm skeptical but want to hear it out so this long standing debate can be resolved.
From YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 9 E 25 The Ending Of The End Part 2:
- Broken Base: Discord being the one to decide the villains' fate (and to perform it himself). Some feel this was a fitting way to make up for his actions seeing it as him using his powers for good to put a stop to evil, fixing the mistake he made by getting rid of the threat, while others feel that he had no right to punish them when he was responsible for all their crimes. There's also the fact that Tirek and Cozy Glow were already serving their sentences, and wouldn't have been in this position at all if he hadn't broken them out.
Is there any reason to give UU it's own entry as opposed to putting it under the BB? Is it fine if they are such separate pages? If BB potentiality disqualifies UU/US there is a lot of cleanup to do.
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenExcessive spoilering. Film
The page for Self/Less is very heavily spoilered, covering entire examples.
This movie does have twists, sure, but it looks excessive. Is there a standard procedure for such a case?
openTroper with Indentation issues, continue to do so despite being messaged multiple time Web Original
A troper by the name of AmuroNT1 regularly breaks the rule written in Example Indentation in Trope Lists.
For example, some past examples of their violations include:
Characters/HololiveEnglish - Oct 5th
- Fun with Acronyms: During her debut stream she lists one of her likes as PWWIE (pronounced "pwee-ay"): People Watching Without Intent to Eat.
- During a Fall Guys stream she attempted to turn her own name into an acronym. After several false starts, she settled on "Giant Underwater Rubber Animal".
Characters/HololiveJapanGenerationThreeFantasy - Oct 14th
- Jerk with a Heart of Gold: Downplayed, but Pekora does enjoy in messing around with anyone in just about every way possible, being quite the mix of a prankster and a troll at any given point. However, she's very very kind, and she keeps all the gifts she's been given from her fans.
- As Pekora's fans are quick to point out, her main goal in her pranking is to make her friends laugh, rather than being outright malicious like most trolls. To wit, when Rushia accidentally fell into Pekora's slime trap and lost a number of items including an enchanted pickaxe, Pekora's response was to leave a chest full of items (including a new pickaxe) on Rushia's doorstep as an apology, even though it wasn't technically her faultnote The fall, and subsequent loss of items, happened mainly because Rushia didn't quite understand how Scaffolding works in Minecraft.
Trivia/Hololive - Oct 30th
- Referenced by…:
- [...]
- The Ancient Gods Part One DLC for Doom Eternal contained an Easter Egg that changes the title to "DOOG Eternal"
, in a reference to Korone's Doom playthroughs; although it has since been deleted, the dev team was impressed at how quickly it was discovered and shared.
- When the Easter Egg was reported online, the official Xbox Twitter account responded
, making it clear that whomever was running the account was an X-Potato themself.
- When the Easter Egg was reported online, the official Xbox Twitter account responded
I have fixed the above entries, but seeing that these are only within the hololive namespace, god knows how many other instances they have done this in other works.
Their most recent one in hololive is:
Characters/HololiveEnglish - Nov 13th
- Heroic Self-Deprecation: While she's usually upbeat, she tends to beat herself up when she doesn't do well at games, especially if it's something she knows the audience is going to be more knowledgeable in. In her first stream of Fire Emblem: Three Houses stream, she almost lost the Mock Battle (as in, the second fight in the game), and only won because of her last character being strong enough to secure the win. She apologized heavily for it, calling herself "bird for brains" even as the chat told her not to worry note Given how she had never played a Fire Emblem game before, it isn't too hard to imagine why she'd have trouble.
- As noted elsewhere, Kiara claimed early on that her "only" talent was for translation and that she felt inadequate compared to the other HoloMyth girls. Since then, she's proven herself to be a very talented singer and artist, and comparisons to professional-level talents like Calli and Ina are doing her a disservice.
I have already messaged them three times about this, directing them to & informing them about the points mentioned in Example Indentation in Trope Lists and even explaining to them the correct way to handle these specific cases, but I've gotten no response whatsoever.
This issue has gone on for long enough and it doesn't look like they will give even a slightest care about this anytime soon unless something is done.
Edited by AsoktencheaopenRemoving one page and returning another. Web Original
I think https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ProtonJon/
should return as it shows the personalities the co-coms use when commentating. They have been noted by Jon to act differently at cons. The personalities they show here are clearly in entertainer mode. Even his cat, Bagel, is usually not that desperate for attention as Jon usually doesn't talk to himself or ignore Bagel outside streams.
But I think https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/HoYay/TheRunawayGuys
should be removed. Jon finds it really creepy, and Chugga, while playing it up (because he thinks it's what the fan base wants), has admitted to finding it creepy too. They are real people with feelings, not some fictional characters you can play with the emotions of. Some people even got mad at Jon for dating Lucah because of this which is unacceptable.
openSeeking Permission to create new "Sliding Scale"
Hi Guys,
I recently put together a trope in the Launch Pad called Sliding Scale of Philanthropic Vs Selfish Extremism to try and help curtail how YMMV the use of Well-Intentioned Extremist and Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist has become.
The idea behind it was that by collating the two tropes into a single spectrum and adding a midpoint category "Esoteric Extremism", it would help circumvent the issue by removing the dichotomy altogether.
From what I understand there has been a general kibosh placed on any new "Sliding Scale" tropes, however I believe that this would be a worthwhile entry to the wiki as it would help prevent future edit wars and stealth complaining.
At present, the proposed trope has been placed under the title "Spectrum of Philanthropic Vs Selfish Extremism (WIP)"
Please let me know what you guys think.
Cheers, Vidkid
openDeleted recap pages
Should recap pages be deleted if they're empty or have few examples? Someone put a lot of recap pages I made for Fudêncio e Seus Amigos on the cut list because they're "stub" or "tropeless stub". The Cut List itself says: "By the way, folks, this is the cutlist, not the "Needs More Work" list. Listing an article here should mean "We give up. This one can't be saved."
That means recap pages should not be deleted since they just need more tropes about the episodes, the person who chose random pages is just evil and this is meaningless. I know I could just remake the pages but some of them already had tropes (even if just one or two), and ALL had the plots, so I shouldn't have to remake them. Plus, there are 163 episodes and I'm the only one working on the pages, so not all of them can be complete.
Edited by CeaselessPhoenicopterineopenExclamation Marks (Among Else) In Work Page Titles
Er, kind of a noob-question, but how do I get exclamation marks, question marks, etc. to show up in links to work pages and in the title of the work page itself? I'm in the middle of creating a page for a manga now and the title of said manga has a question mark and an exclamation mark in it that I can't get to show.
openSchmuck Bait on Nightmare Fuel Pages
No specific examples come to mind right now, but I’ve seen Nightmare Fuel pages with links to Schmuck Bait. They’ll basically say things to the affect of “If you want to know what the scary thing is, go find it and scare yourself.” This seems wildly problematic to me. Thoughts?
openCOPS (series) Nightmare Fuel Listing Live Action TV
On the COPS series page, under nightmare fuel is a description of a 'banned' episode that sounds absolutely horror-movieish....and I was wondering if anyone has ANY information behind it because I can find NONE. Anything about what city its based in or what episode number...anything.
The description of the 'banned' episode is as follows : A 15-year-old girl calls the cops after her grandma went to investigate a noise outside their house and never came back, leaving her alone in a pitch-black house. Once the cops get there, she finally comes outside and leads them to the abandoned horse pen where she last saw her grandmother go. Everything is completely, disturbingly silent for the entire time and almost completely dark, until a blonde woman throws herself against the bars, and hysterically begs them to help her. However, the real horror comes as she looks to her right and screams at the top of her lungs as a woman wearing all black runs towards them, screaming and brandishing a knife. She is quickly gunned down by a shotgun-wielding cop, which instantly turns the girl into a screaming wreck. She then points out another knife-wielding woman charging at them, who's quickly shot by the same cop. He tells the cameraman and the girl to run as more gunshots ring out. The cameraman ends up driving off with the girl, but it's unknown what happened to her grandmother, those cops, or the woman that begged them for help.
Thank ya'll taking the time to read this.
openPrejudice Tropes self-demonstrating examples
Most of the tropes listed on the index Prejudice Tropes currently have a short, self demonstrating description of the trope, generally written from the perspective of someone who shares that particular prejudice. For several reasons, I wonder if this is really the best way to describe tropes of this nature. For one, descriptions written in such a manner sacrifice clarity in a similar way to Example as a Thesis, giving an example of the trope being described in place of a proper description thereof. Furthermore, there are some that definitely cross the line — the f-slur and t-slur cropped up multiple times — and that I find very hard to justify in this context. While I understand the intent, I worry that those newer to the site and less familiar with our standards (in particular Tropes Are Not Good and Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Language) could easily get the wrong idea from this page. Would it be a good idea to rewrite these examples for the sake of clarity and neutrality?
Edited by Mahoxy

As this can be a sensitive topic, I'll try to approach this carefully, so apologies if I end up sounding offensive or insensitive, I'm not trying to be.
I can't recall if Tv Tropes has a policy (written or otherwise) about Creator names if the creator is transgender/non-binary. I know we respect the creator's self-identification. The question I have, though, is about mentioning/not mentioning the creator's former name(s) to avoid deadnaming.
For reference, The Other Wiki has pages on this
in their manual of style, including a part that says not to mention a transgender individual's former name if it is not well-known or widely-reported.
Now, obviously we're not Wikipedia, so what are TV Tropes' rules on transgender/non-binary creators who were well-known by or released works under their former name(s). Trying to avoid causing problems.