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:
openKirby GodNeverSaidThat Trivia
i want to bring this to here just so it doesn't escalate into an edit war and because i've had conflicting thoughts about this situation. basically, on the Trivia.Kirby page, there was a God Never Said That entry that read like this:
- After current director Shinya Kumazaki responded to general questions about plot elements in Meta Knightmare Returns and The True Arena on the Miiverse Kirby: Planet Robobot Ask-a-thon, much of the fanbase instantly took his vague comments to their logical extreme across almost every sub-game, which resulted in a Broken Base. A common misinterpretation in the aftermath is "Galacta Knight's existence is non-canon," despite the fact that Kumazaki went out of his way to say quite the opposite.note It doesn't help that the Ask-a-thon itself seems to have a loose English translation; for example, the phrase "like a "what if" scenario" was actually "parallel story" in the original Japanese text.
this rubbed me the wrong way because the edit feels very opinionated and biased toward one interpretation of the statement that likely isn't the intent:
in other words, what's being said here is that Meta Knightmare Returns and The True Arena are non-canon For Want Of A Nail / What If? scenarios (they can't be canon, because they would require hitting the Reset Button on the canon ending of the game to bring back characters who are dead). even with the "loose translation" this is clear in the japanese version as well, and most of the japanese fanbase agrees with this. the "parallel stories / two sides of the same story" isn't supposed to be Another Side, Another Story, since the locations and fates of the characters are all accounted for, but rather two different takes on the same scenario where things play out uniquely in each
the intended "main" point here is supposed to be "God Never Said That galacta knight is non-canon" but the entry goes on a complete tangent to talk about how people who think all the other extra games are non-canon have the "wrong" opinion even though it's never been denied and is a pretty logical conclusion to come to. the mention of Broken Base outside of YMMV in particular strikes me as overly-hostile. with that in mind i tried to rewrite the entry to be more neutral while retaining the same basic information:
- Though the Kirby: Planet Robobot Miiverse Ask-a-thon
confirmed that — at least for that game — extra games like Meta Knightmare Returns and The True Arena are "what-if" scenarios, they don't necessarily say elements within them are non-canon (i.e. Galacta Knight's existence), which some fans initially thought to be the case.
a little while later, an interview came out where it's revealed that Kirby has a Loose Canon, and that though basic plot elements are carried over between games, the exact events of the games can be loosely interpreted if the story calls for it
when this interview came out, Tropers.Miss Conception reverted my edit back to the original with an added note about the loose canon and the comment "Too soon, aged poorly," even though nothing about that statement contradicts my edit. it's consistent, in fact; these extra modes are alternate scenarios that are not fully canon because the overall plot of the kirby series is as flexible as the creators need it to be, and these events don't necessarily need to canonically happen to exist within the universe. their comment really rubbed me the wrong way, too, as it felt very snarky to me.
with that in mind i reverted that entry again, not intending to start an edit war but just because i figured it was the same information in a more neutral manner. i added the information from the new interview as well, since it helps support the point that's being made:
- Though the Kirby: Planet Robobot Miiverse Ask-a-thon
confirmed that — at least for that game — extra games like Meta Knightmare Returns and The True Arena are "what-if" scenarios, it doesn't necessarily mean elements within them are non-canon (i.e. Galacta Knight's existence), which some fans initially thought to be the case. Shinya Kumazaki later clarified in a Kirby and the Forgotten Land interview
that the Kirby series itself essentially operates on a Loose Canon; the games are generally canon to each other in terms of basic plot points and character development, but the specifics are negligible to avoid restraining future plot ideas too much.
i guess my basic thought is, is my edit okay in terms of conveying the same information and agreeing with the other editor while being more neutral in tone? or was the old edit really better and i simply read it wrong? i don't want to cause a conflict or anything, so i wanted to get some further opinions
Edited by NoUsernameopenWhere do I discuss YMMVs? Videogame
So Self-Imposed Challenge is a YMMV trope, but what I want to add in can't be run through Get Help with English for proofreading.
My point… There's a Naked Run challenge in Stranger of Paradise: Final Fantasy Origin where you strip Jack down to his skivvies and fight bosses on Hard.
Considering I just came from Code Vein, that's like someone running the game with the Pipe of Thralldom.
Edited by kawaiineko333openNew troper on a weird editing spree
Let's get two things out of the way: I know I might be jumping the gun a bit, and yes, I do feel weird about posting two editing-reports back to back in a short period of time, thank you for asking.
Rubyfangirl only started editing today. Normally I'd hold off on reporting them until a few notifiers were sent, however this isn't something we have a notifier for. While some of their edits are perfectly harmless (like adding page images), their weirdest ones are on Playing With pages. Specifically, their weirdly arbitrary deletions, additions and rewrites.
For example, starting here
they have a weird chain of edits that includes potholing The Lancer for a character described as The Sixth Ranger immediately before it, adding a very specific song reference and removing the generic "a pop song" part, and somewhat arbitrarily changing character names, as well.
Pretty much all of these edits are like this. Here
they replaced an Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking gag with a Sanity Slippage pothole (not to mention some weird rewrites on the actual trope page
), here
they altered some grammar and made it wrong (turning "an accompanying" to "a accompanying"), and here
, among other edits, their deletion of several things makes No Kill like Overkill no longer a sensical pothole... And I'm just not really sure what's happening here
.
Oh, and this edit
just seems painfully redundant.
In isolation, none of these issues would be reportable. But added up, and with how much they've been editing today, it just paints a very weird picture, and I'm not really sure what, if anything, there is to do about it.
ETA: Okay, some of their non-Playing With edits are also kind of bizarre, like these
edits that start out correctly potholing something, altering that pothole several times until it's no longer correct, and adding subjectivity to it as well. Without checking the link itself, IDK if it's in the game or is a fan thing, which could also be a problem. They just edit so fast and aren't slowing down to think their edits through at all.
openSinkholes on Character Page Western Animation
M3S
keeps adding Sinkholes in Characters.The Owl House Amity Blight. (Granted, I've made at least a couple Sinkholes myself lol, in case that needs to be mentioned.)
I tried to prevent this via pointing out that we're not supposed to leave them
. I even later tried leaving a commented-out warning saying not to add those and recently I sent them a DM about this. However, they clearly didn't pay attention to it by the time of writing this; they left a couple more Chained Sinkholes
.
openIs this plagiarism?
The first paragrapgh of DEATH BATTLE! S08E12 - DIO VS Alucard is identical to the intro part of the show (see transcript
from Death Battle Wiki). The rest of the article doesn't match perfectly, but still too close IMO. For example, this is on our Recap page.
"Imagine, if you can, someone so wicked, so vile, so monstrous that the sheer magnitude of their villainy literally destroys the universe. You would think it would be the big D himself, but it was him, Dio. Born a penniless street rat in the slums of the mean streets of Victorian London, Dio Brando was weighed down by poverty and his abusive alcoholic father."
And here's on Death Battle Wiki.
"Wiz: Imagine, if you can, someone so wicked that the sheer magnitude of their unholy dickishness literally destroyed the universe.
Boomstick: You might think they'd have to be no less than the devil himself. But it was him, Dio.
Wiz: Born a penniless street rat with a cunning mind in the slums of Victorian London, Dio was humiliated by his poverty and abused by his alcoholic father."
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
openThe Smite WMG page
Smite is known for featuring gods and mythological heroes as its playable characters, so naturally, its WMG page features lists of characters that Tropers would like to see added.
However, there are Loads And Loads Of Characters throughout all of mythology, so the folders consist almost entirely of lengthy, lengthy lists of names and nothing else. This is not only hard to read, it's also very uninteresting, as it doesn't contain any self-expression or creativity on the part of the writer, just plop down the name of whatever gods or mythological figures you think of.
On the discussion page, as well as the Wild Mass Cleanup thread
, I proposed a solution: for every god suggestion on the page, there should be some kind of explanation of why or how they should be implemented in the game, such as mentioning feats or abilities that could be translated to gameplay. For example, I added that Echidna, mother of monsters, would likely be a Minion Master if she were made into a playable character.
However, I have not gotten any replies regarding this idea in over a month. I don't know if it's too extreme, as it would result in most of the content on the page being removed. But I think it would make the page much lighter and more interesting to read.
Edited by ZuxtronopenMinor edit war and fact-checking issue Live Action TV
The live-action Halo series has released to mixed reviews from fans and critics, so naturally the YMMV page has some entries about the quality of the production. One entry under Special Effects Failure, though, stood out to me as potentially inaccurate, added by Commissar Cain:
- Also in the first episode, Kai shoots an Elite at point-blank range with a plasma pistol. In the following shot, she tosses down what is clearly an unpainted foam or plastic prop, complete with visible mold line.
Now I won't question that it is an example of special effects failure since the prop is visibly different between shots (there's a similar scene where they use a really bad 3D model of a rifle instead of actually throwing the relevant prop on the ground, so it's something of a trend). However looking at the scene in question I wasn't certain that the prop was actually unpainted, and removed that particular part of the entry with the following edit reason:
Now that said, I will correct myself slightly by noting that this is still an inconsistency since the pistol visibly does not get blood splashed on it in the scene before, and I'll admit that it's kind of hard to tell at all even in slow-motion whether it's properly painted or not. Regardless, Commissar Cain has now edit-warred on the matter by restoring the "unpainted" comment without an edit reason.
EDIT: Here's the scene in question
, if anyone wants to take a look and give their opinion. My stance (which I fully admit may just be me seeing things) is that it's supposed to be alien blood (maybe they planned for the gun to get splashed with CGI blood while filming but it changed in post-production?); you can see her index finger and fingertips seem to be stained the same color as the second prop. You can also see that in the first shot the pistol on her hip is covered in dirt while in the second it's clean, which could suggest that this was an issue of stitching together multiple takes, during one of which the prop was covered in dirt.
openSneakers & Getting Crap Past The Radar Film
So in the Sneakers, there is an %-ed entry for GCPTR, citing the works on the trope itself. I dig out the original entry and it says the following:
Dr. Rhyzkov calls Janek "what a dick" in a truly vulgar manner. But does so in Czech, so no sweat. It also leads to a dissonance with the overall Avoid the Dreaded G Rating strategy undertook in late stages of production.
Not an expert on Czech, but traced the line and the swear works in other Slav languages, too. This is really damn vulgar.
So my question is: can the original entry be re-instated, given it clearly has:
- Radar in form of MPA and their rating system
- Crap in form of severe swearing
- Getting past in form of Hiding Behind the Language Barrier
And on top of that, the last sentence is correct - this is so severe, the film wouldn't have to go through all the additional hurdles mentioned under Avoid the Dreaded G Rating if that line was simply in English (and to be frank, I'm not sure you could augment the vulgar manner of calling someone a dick in English to properly portray the severity of it).
tl;dr can the original entry go back?
Edited by StaniszopenEdit war
I think there's a minor edit war on the YMMV page
for Wuthering Heights.
Bennings
added a Common Knowledge entry about how it's "known" that all the characters are awful but only about half of them really are. (Never read the book myself, don't know anything about this.)
Bennings listed a few of these "awful" characters. caringguy
added a character named Hareton to the list, arguing he should be listed as awful if the character Nelly is, but Bennings deleted the addition with "No way in hell I'm giving you Hareton."
openTroper keeps adding length and negativity reduarding a character they seem not to like.
Hi, I don't know if this is the place to bring this. But this troper Nyame keeps adding length to entry and negativity about Felicity Smoak from Arrow. For example they took this entry on YMMV.Arrow's Creator's Pet:
- Felicity Smoak since the start of the third season. In Seasons 1 and 2, she was an Adorkable IT Girl with an unrequited crush on the main character, and the source of a lot of the show's humor. As of the third season, she has supplanted Laurel Lance (Green Arrow's iconic love interest from the source material) as the female lead and love interest, has taken on several of the traits that once led to Laurel and Thea being considered The Scrappy, receives more screen time than any other character on the show aside from Oliver, is consistently depicted as being in the right even when she is being unreasonable, receives Character Shilling from seemingly every other character on the show — including the antagonists, and has become a Spotlight-Stealing Squad with a good chunk of Seasons 3 and 4 being dedicated to her subplots. In comparison, the characters of Roy, Laurel and Thea are pushed Out of Focus despite becoming the show's incarnations of Arsenal, Black Canary and Speedy; and Diggle (the show's true fan-favourite character) only received a proper subplot in Season 4 because it was tied so closely to the main plot and, outside of that, he didn't receive that much attention either. Season 4 then opens with The Reveal that a major character would killed off by the end of the season, and Felicity was one of two characters deemed untouchable by the writers — the other being the main character. Oh, and the creators (specifically the showrunners and most of the writers) openly acknowledge that she's their favorite character.
and changed
it to this:
- Felicity Smoak since the start of the third season. In Seasons 1 and 2, she was an Adorkable IT Girl with an unrequited crush on the main character, and the source of a lot of the show's humor. As of the third season, she has supplanted Laurel Lance (Green Arrow's iconic love interest from the source material) as the female lead and love interest, has taken on several of the traits that once led to Laurel and Thea being considered The Scrappy, receives more screen time than any other character on the show aside from Oliver, is consistently depicted as being in the right even when she is being unreasonable, receives Character Shilling from seemingly every other character on the show — including the antagonists, and has become a Spotlight-Stealing Squad with a good chunk of Seasons 3 and 4 being dedicated to her subplots. In comparison, the characters of Roy, Laurel and Thea are pushed Out of Focus despite becoming the show's incarnations of Arsenal, Black Canary and Speedy; and Diggle (the show's true fan-favourite character) only received a proper subplot in Season 4 because it was tied so closely to the main plot and, outside of that, he didn't receive that much attention either. Season 4 then opens with The Reveal that a major character would killed off by the end of the season, and Felicity was one of two characters deemed untouchable by the writers — the other being the main character. Oh, and the creators (specifically the showrunners and most of the writers) openly acknowledge that she's their favorite character. This treatment continued all the way up to Season Six, which eventually culminated in Felicity becoming the most hated character in the entire Arrowverse thanks to the infamous double wedding. It took until Season Seven, after Mericle was fired and Guggenheim Kicked Upstairs, for the writers to finally get the message, stop treating her like this, and re-rail her character into someone tolerable, let alone likable.
or this
Abandon Shipping one:
- Supporters of Oliver/Felicity have been steadily jumping ship across Seasons 3 and 4 as their relationship became more and more toxic — more than any other relationship on the show (including Oliver/Laurel, which saw pre-series Oliver cheat on Laurel with her sister). For some, this is not only because of the increasing drama and angst in a formerly subdued, drama-free relationship but also because they feel Olicity takes up screen time better spent on other plots and characters. Their unnecessary conflict concerning Oliver's secret son William has also turned off a lot of fans, with the audience divided over blaming Oliver for lying to his fiancee when he specifically promised he'd stop or blaming Felicity for breaking up with him when she's kept secrets herself, which caused her to lose supporters. Season 5 did not help fan-perception of the ship, as the temporary relationships Oliver and Felicity had that season were far less toxic than their own and made people question why they even got back together at the end of the season considering how badly the initial relationship ended. What absolutely killed the pairing's popularity, however, was the ending to the 2017 crossover Crisis on Earth-X: the infamous double wedding, which was hated by everyone except the most diehard of Olicity shippers. After that, only Olicity's most hardcore supporters bother to defend the pairing these days — everyone else, including regular Olicity shippers and fans who didn't give a damn about Arrow or Olicity, came to outright despise it.
- Supporters of Oliver/Felicity have been steadily jumping ship across Seasons 3 and 4 as their relationship became more and more toxic — more than any other relationship on the show (including Oliver/Laurel, which saw pre-series Oliver cheat on Laurel with her sister). For some, this is not only because of the increasing drama and angst in a formerly subdued, drama-free relationship but also because they feel Olicity takes up screen time better spent on other plots and characters. Their unnecessary conflict concerning Oliver's secret son William has also turned off a lot of fans, with the audience divided over blaming Oliver for lying to his fiancee when he specifically promised he'd stop or blaming Felicity for breaking up with him when she's kept secrets herself, which caused her to lose supporters. Season 5 did not help fan-perception of the ship, as the temporary relationships Oliver and Felicity had that season were far less toxic than their own and made people question why they even got back together at the end of the season considering how badly the initial relationship ended. What absolutely killed the pairing's popularity, however, was the ending to the 2017 crossover Crisis on Earth-X: the infamous double wedding, which was hated by everyone except the most diehard of Olicity shippers. After that, only Olicity's most hardcore supporters bother to defend the pairing these days — everyone else, including regular Olicity shippers and fans who didn't give a damn about Arrow or Olicity, came to outright despise it. Even after Felicity got Rescued from the Scrappy Heap in later seasons and became more of a Base-Breaking Character, many fans admit that they still believe that Oliver and Felicity aren't a good fit for each other and that they still don't support the pairing.
And their edit history seems to be full of things like this
though also a lot of legit examples without complaining also to be fair. Some examples:
- They add negativity to a Base Breaking Character entry
and length to a rewrite done on the cleanup thread
.
- The make an entry
for LovingAShadow.Fan Works which is more about their Alternate Character Interpretation of the show's version of Felicity. Though this was later cut by me
after it was decided by the Is this an example? thread
to be to general.
- They add negativity about Felicity and the ship to an originally neutral
Launcher of a Thousand Ships entry to about Oliver. Though again for transparency this was also edited
by me
.
Again, I don't know if this means anything or if this should be reported here or not. I just find it strange.
Edited by BullmanopenIndexing Pages for Authors
Let's say there was an Awesome Moments page for The Stand. Would it be alphabetized by itself, or under Stephen King works? Or both?
And if the latter, would it be under S or K?
Thanks.
Edited by ACWopen Unilateral Change to "StrawMisogynist"
In January of last year, a troper changed the definition of the "Straw Misogynist" trope to indicate it as a sub-trope of the trope "Politically Incorrect Villain". (And removed a previous indication that examples were "almost always" examples of that trope.) No edit reason was given.
Being, I think, unsure of whether the change was valid or not, I brought up the matter in the "Unilateral Changes Cleanup" thread. There the person who made the edit stated that they didn't know why they had done it (due to the interval of time since then), and to revert it if it was deemed incorrect.
No other comments were given on the matter in the thread, however, leaving me a little uncertain on how to proceed.
My inclination is to revert the change—but to do so myself, with no consensus, feels a little unilateral on my part.
So, I bring this here for consensus: should I revert this change?
Here's a link to the edit in question:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.StrawMisogynist#edit28310966
openIn-Universe Draco in Leather Pants Web Original
I was trying to expand the list of tropes on minor characters for a little known Web Series called Escape the Night and I was wondering, can I use the trope Draco in Leather Pants as an In-Universe trope? I saw people do it with other YMMV tropes, and it fits very much with the character. The character is Colin, a Jerkass and Mr. Fanservice who is rude, selfish and vain, but is idolised by several of the girls simply because of his looks. One of the girls goes through Character Development and realises just how cruel and selfish Colin is, but the other one doesn’t and keeps idolising him. Can I put the Draco in Leather Pants under his character tropes or not?
openQuestionable self-demonstrating entry
Richard Tropes did an edit to Characters.Kan Colle One for Yuudachi's entry where every sentence in the profile ends with her Verbal Tic of "poi". I ain't that well-versed in wiki policies, but this feels really excessive usage of the Verbal Tic, as the most I've seen of stuff like this is merely to demonstrate if a character has a particular way of talking in an example. So it might need a revert.
openOdd YMMV point removal Videogame
While browsing around, I found that this point was removed from YMMV.Super Mario Odyssey by The Living Drawing:
- Sacred Cow: Super Mario Odyssey quickly reached this status much like its sister game The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. The Mario franchise in general is a very strong Sacred Cow for Nintendo, and with Odyssey bringing the series back to artistic greatness and having few to no argued flaws, a vast majority of the Mario and Nintendo fandom holds the game in very high regard.
Now, that wouldn't bother me too much — the Broken Base point on the same page notes that it's gotten a fair amount of criticism and debate over the years regarding whether or not it has too many collectibles. What does grab my attention, however, is the edit summary, which reads "Game is very frequently bashed and seems to be seen as one of the weakest 3D Mario games nowadays." I haven't actually seen any of this myself, both in Nintendo-centric and more layperson-oriented spaces, and from what I could glean, it's still very well-regarded despite the content overabundance debate, which makes me wonder if this is someone mistaking a Vocal Minority for general consensus and/or editing solely based on their personal opinion of the game. Should the point be reinstated, given that, or is there a better way to go about it? Edited by bowserbros
openCommented out old folder, misuse(?)
Found this whole folder commented out under Slow Laser:
- Scientists have created a Terawatt laser (over 1,000 gigawatts!) that can fire a beam into space... for scientific purposes. The laser is so powerful that it can only be fired for brief periods, creating a visible pulse that seems to "travel" through the atmosphere like a sci-fi "blaster" due to the ionizing effect. The ionization of the atmosphere around the beam creates a temporary plasma vacuum that allows the laser to remain coherent over much longer distances, which is what propagates as a visible pulse, hence the glowy visible laser effect is actually the intended purpose.
- Military lasers are still research projects, for the most part, but as Technology Marches On, laser weapons are going to be increasingly prevalent.
- Microwave-based non-lethal "riot cannon" do exist, but given that they cause serious physical pain without much damage, their association with torture has left this project on the back-burner. Electroshock weapons using a laser pulse to create conductive trails (instead of wired tasers, for example) are also in the works, but are of dubious usefulness.
- Liquid chemical lasers exist and work. There's one mounted in a 747 intended to kill ICB Ms, though it isn't quite ready for prime-time yet. A similar device has been toted for an AC-130 mounted "super sniper weapon" to perform silent, long range pinpoint kills. Ground-based systems are also being tested to shoot down incoming artillery shells and missiles.
- Solid state combat lasers are on their way; these can be mounted anywhere with enough power available. And if/when they become widely available on the battlefield . . . it will never be the same again. Combat aircraft will be driven out of the lower atmosphere, artillery will become almost useless (without firing hundreds of shells at the batteries just to get a few through), and missiles will become much, much less effective.
- The US Navy is preparing to deploy a ship-mounted solid state laser into active service in 2014
(original plan called for the use of megawatt-range variable frequency free-electron laser
, but that has been pushed back to 2020s). Although it took a lot of money to develop, actually firing it is cheaper than missiles or bullets, and it has succeeded in destroying its targets in every test run. However, it does have some disadvantages: a direct line of sight is required (as it fires a straight beam, it can't arc over walls or reach beyond the horizon like conventional artillery), it needs to hold on the target for several seconds, and adverse weather conditions could lessen its effectiveness.
- The US Navy is preparing to deploy a ship-mounted solid state laser into active service in 2014
- Less destructive but highly effective microwave emitters in the form of modern complex radar and ECM units can be used to track, blind and hack enemy radar and communication mechanisms. This was apparently used by Israeli strike craft against Syria in the recent past. The F-22's radar, among several other AESA systems, has been rumored to be capable of such feats as well.
- One type actually based on lasers uses a piece of video software called a “glint detector” for targetting. Linked together with an appropriate laser, it allows any number of lensed devices (such as cameras… Or eyeballs) within view for hundreds of feet to be instantly detected and burned out.
- The largest laser ever created, consisting of focused beams from 192 individual lasers, will be used at the National Ignition Facility in California to attempt to finally achieve break-even nuclear fusion.Details.
- If completed, the Extreme Light Infrastructure can even outperform NIF, since it can have its peak power in exawatt range, and should be powerful enough to tear apart the vacuum of space-time itself
!
- If completed, the Extreme Light Infrastructure can even outperform NIF, since it can have its peak power in exawatt range, and should be powerful enough to tear apart the vacuum of space-time itself
- Lawrence Livermore laboratories used to have a Petawatt laser
, which could produce over 1015 Watts of power at the instant of its peak output. The pulse was so brief, however, it only produced about 600 Joules of total energy.
- Scientists have developed a mosquito-zapping laser
. It doesn't attack humans or butterflies, according to TV reports.
- The Spyder III Pro Arctic
. The world's first consumer hand-held laser weapon. Made from a cannibalised laser projector, it packs enough power to ignite flesh and cause permanent blindness instantly. The emitter also looks exactly like a lightsaber handle!
- Not yet effective as a weapon though, since it takes minutes to burn through your opponent, enough for him or her to kill you by more mainstream weapons. Unless they can in the near future multiply the power by a factor of 10 and keep the same size and battery.
- In 2010 the BBC posted a story linked to the first public video of a laser weapon
destroying a large target.
- There actually are laser weapon system being actively used today, such as the Thor
and ZEUS-HLONS
, but they are primarily for explosive disposal, not for shooting people.
- This guy
makes frickin' laser beams as a hobby! The demonstrations show two pistols and what can only be considered a Sonic Screwdriver burning through discs and sunglasses, popping balloons, and setting matches on fire from across the room. Granted, being Too Dumb to Live and looking into the beam emitter directly will blind you permanently even with a welder's shield. But still, laser pistols!
- Laser Glo is a company that builds handheld lasers powerful enough to ignite small fires in paper and sometimes unrefined wooden targets.
- There was one very, very real LASER (machine-)gun produced in the 1990s. The ZM-87
, a blinding neodymium LASER weapon, intended to blind by burning out eyeball corneas and digital camera CC Ds with a longer range (2+ km) than an actual bullet-firing machine-gun. Now, this type of weapon is precise and extremely effective at neutralizing hostiles, yet entirely non-lethal as the beam is not powerful enough to damage vital organs, and blinded soldiers would be forced to surrender because they cannot aim a gun nor run away. It is for that reason that this kind of weapon is actually banned by a 1995 international convention on the laws of war. Yes, all sides in an armed conflict would rather have their soldiers die from gunshots than be blinded but alive - it costs too much money to rehabilitate blinded personnel and POWs... which makes one realize how sinister war is.
- It makes little sense in Real Life combat though, for multiple reasons: it can't fire indirectly like artillery or rocket artillery, cameras and eyeballs can be protected with welder-type goggles, which troops would deploy when they see their first-line comrades blinded and it does not harm troops under cover, inside APCs or inside buildings or bunkers. It works more like a torture device to be fired at lightly-armed men on open ground than like modern explosive weapons.
- A conventional LASER weapon can't be expected to fill every role on the battlefield, but no form of eye/camera protection short of a blindfold can filter out an adjustable color LASER. Otherwise, it's no worse than an anti-personnel machine-gun against vehicle armor or ferrocrete, or a MASER
against unprotected flesh.
- A conventional LASER weapon can't be expected to fill every role on the battlefield, but no form of eye/camera protection short of a blindfold can filter out an adjustable color LASER. Otherwise, it's no worse than an anti-personnel machine-gun against vehicle armor or ferrocrete, or a MASER
- It makes little sense in Real Life combat though, for multiple reasons: it can't fire indirectly like artillery or rocket artillery, cameras and eyeballs can be protected with welder-type goggles, which troops would deploy when they see their first-line comrades blinded and it does not harm troops under cover, inside APCs or inside buildings or bunkers. It works more like a torture device to be fired at lightly-armed men on open ground than like modern explosive weapons.
Checked the edit history and this seems leftover from when the page was Frickin Laser Beams, commented out for the same misuse that caused the rename of just being lasers but lacking the Hollywood properties this is about. Should everything but the first be cut as it covers the external visibility part, or all cut as having nothing to do with slowness?
Checked the edit history and this seems leftover from when the page was Frickin Laser Beams, commented out for the same misuse that caused the rename of just being lasers but lacking the Hollywood properties this is about. Should everything but the first be cut as it covers the external visibility part, or all cut as having nothing to do with slowness?
openBragging Rights Reward
I ppst here since I don't think it need TRS (yet). I'm on phone and the page's editor act wonky, else I'll fix it myself.
Anyway, despite the trope description make it crystal clear that "Note that the Bragging Rights Reward has an actual effect on gameplay and would be useful if you could get it earlier. If the reward exists only to serve as proof of accomplishment and has no other purpose (such as a medal in your inventory or a star next to your save file), it's a Cosmetic Award.", Non-Video Game Examples folder has multiple misused including the latest addition
.
openTySargent2001
I have some concerns about Ty Sargent 2001. Unfortunately for me, a lot of them are things that we don't make notifiers for.
Yesterday, Ty made this
blank draft, which would be bad enough, but it's also for a nonexistent work of their own creation that already has a Darth Wiki page here, and with said Darth Wiki page being seeming self-plagiarism from this wiki article
. They also gave that Darth Wiki page a trivia page, which is against the rules for Unpublished Works (and is also misleading considering the work does not and never will exist).
Then there are the issues outside of their Sesame Street fanfic. Their edits today on The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss are to add way too much information to Kick the Dog and make it a wall of text
. This addition
is redundant parabombing, and they added bad indentation here
and here
, which I think might be the one thing I've been able to send a notifier for so far (without having to script my own, which I'm not the best at).
openValues Dissonance entry Anime
The YMMV page for Monster has a Values Dissonance entry saying, "Asking women to smile has become very frowned upon since the series was made." The troper who added this is now suspended, and it doesn't elaborate at all. I've seen the whole series, but I can't remember what specific moment this is referencing, and the comment itself doesn't make sense without more of an explanation.
Edited by Javertshark13

This was unilaterally added as the page image to Protagonist-Centered Morality.
I believe this the image it misuse as PCM is not just heroes doing something morally objectionable, but doing the same thing the hero treated as morally objectionable in others. This image is only half of the requirements for this trope then.
I want to make sure my above understanding of PCM is accurate before taking to Image Pickin'. I also heard PCM is due for TRS so should it wait for that?
Also, my impression is Moral Myopia is PCM expect they are portrayed as wrong for the self serving double standard. That valid?