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:
openRecap pages
I've noticed that Khalil Goodman has made recap pages that don't list any tropes, or/and that only list the first part of the episode's plot, like this:
(Also, Khalil's descriptions are plagiarized from official plot summaries, but I've already sent a notifier about that just now.)
Edited by MichaelKatsuroopen YMMV misuse(?)
Dalahan added/re-added these to YMMV.Dumbledores Army And The Year Of Darkness.
- Fan-Preferred Couple: The author is not as subtle as he thinks about his preferrence for the "Neville/Ginny" pairing. It is very jarring the way Ginny reffers to Harry's suffering in chapter one, completely forgetting that Harry charged head in to save her. Meanwhile praising Neville's none-existent achivements up to that point. Misuse as if the fan is authoring the work in question it's Author Preferred. FPC is also about overall fandom not individual fans.
- Fake Ultimate Hero
- Harry, the fic loves to portray Harry's struggles as lesser than Neville and co's. But since the fic IS cannon compliant then Harry is the one shouldering the war against Voldemort and in the end he is the one that finds the Horcruxes and destroy them alongside Ron and Hermione. It is his sacrifice and the protection that he casts over Hogwarts with it which is what allows Neville to kill Nagini and survive. And in the end it is HARRY who defeats Voldemort.
- [[DesignatedHero Neville]] and the DA themselves fit this trope more, though. While their struggles are portrayed as more dire than the ones of the main Trio. The truth is that they achieve very little or nothing at all. While remaining alive in the Death Eater run Hogwarts is commendable, it should be remembered that there are only THREE Death Eaters in Hogwarts. And the DA changes plays a very minor role in the Battle of Hogwart, the most they do is die horribly. I cut this from the main page as unintentional with the first entry arguing the opposite of this. They moved it to YMMV which is misuse. Designated Hero covers the later entry.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Some reviewers on Tumblr have noted that the Darker and Edgier Elsewhere Fic nature of Dumbledore's Army has unintentionally made Harry, Ron, and Hermione this. If you read The Deathly Hallows while believing that the events of DAYD are happening in the background, every happy moment the Golden Trio has makes them look like callous jerks because so many people are dying horribly in the background. Most notable is the Ron/Hermione kiss. When you watch or read it without DAYD, it's a sweet and heartwarming moment that had been coming for a long time. But when it's viewed by someone who assumes DAYD is happening at the same time, Ron and Hermione look like heartless jerks for deciding to spit it out while people are being subjected to unholy amounts of gore, violence, and Body Horror just behind them. Then again, it's questionable how unintentional it was; there are several paragraphs in DAYD in which Neville notes that Harry, Ron and Hermione are healthier, less traumatized, and generally happier than everyone in Dumbledore's Army ever was. This led to some accusations of character-bashing, since the Golden Trio's struggles were always portrayed as less severe than those of Neville and his friends. And that is without taking into account the fact that most of the victory is owned to the Golden Trio’s actions—the D.A. was helpful during the battle, but most of its members ended up dying horribly without changing much, and the Trio were the ones who actually destroyed the Horcruxes. I deleted this as half the entry argued against itself, so if these are legit complaints they're not UU. They added it back citing "It is important part. Since the fic needs to make sure Harry and co. Look "less" than his "actual" hero, who genuinely speaking did nothing for the larger picture." which seems the opposite of this being unintentional.
The first one seems an honest misunderstanding of how it works. The other two are suspect such I'm bringing it here. Thoughts? Should I PM them about this?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenPolicy on dead links?
When it comes to examples that contain external links (Important note: I'm not talking about "examples" that are ENTIRELY links, I know those should just be cut), I'm finding that Link Rot is hitting this site more and more with time due to how long we've been around.
Now, normally I head to the Wayback Machine to necromance dead links. But that's not always possible; like, an example under Astonishingly Appropriate Interruption formerly had a link to a Smosh article that couldn't be restored. The example was still valid without the link, so I took out the link and kept the example, but the additional information it was there to give and cite was lost, which is something I still found unfortunate.
How often does this issue really come up? And how do we root around for where they lay, just manually clicking on each? Is there already a dedicated cleanup effort to finding dead links? (I can't access the forums to check for myself.)
open Split Award Bait Song?
I think we're getting a lot of scope drift here. Quickly going through the examples, I see the following major categories:
- Dreaming songs that are actually performed by the film cast within the film. Especially prevalent in Pre-Renaissance Disney films. A lot of these got award nominations, but they weren't "award bait" in the same sense as...
- Romantic ballad covers of songs within the film. Here's where Peabo Bryson and his ilk live. This is what I think the original intention of this trope was. The only pre-Disney Renaissance example I can think of off the top of my head is "Somewhere Out There" from An American Tail.
- Parodies of the Award-Bait Song formula.
- Real singers performing within the movie itself. Disney's Tarzan comes to mind. Not Award-baity in my opinion, just producers afraid of doing a real musical.
- Singles written specifically to win awards with no connection to a film soundtrack (i.e. the "Music" section). All of this is a different trope entirely.
- Songs for stage musicals should be a different page altogether.
- As should the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and other live performances that aren't traditional concerts.
TLDR; "Won an award" does not mean "award bait." "Main song in a musical" does not mean "award bait."
In my opinion we need a cleanup and split into two pages: "A pop cover of a song within the movie" and "singles written specifically to abuse a formula and win an award, usually for nonmusicals."
Award-Bait Song would probably be the latter, with "Romantic Ballad Cover" or similar for the former.
open YMMV The Batman (2022)
User Bio Yugi removed these entries from "They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot" justifying it as trying to "pare down too many entries" to "what could have actually happened instead of wishful fanfic".
- In the last 10 minutes of the movie, it's revealed that one of the guys behind the Riddler masks is the same guy that in the funeral scene ranted about the "rich, privileged assholes" that ran Gotham. While this is still a major "oh shit" moment for Batman and one that changes his outlook upon the way he's changing Gotham, it would have been far more impactful if he was instead the guy he saved at the start and actually listened to Batman uttering the phrase to the terrified thugs that were about to beat him up. This would not only enhance the already present feeling that Bruce is doing very little to combat a system corrupted to the core, but that he's also sending the wrong message to the people he's supposed to be inspiring and saving. Alternatively, the kid he spared at the beginning could have helped him in the finale, cementing Batman's turn from a figure of fear to one who inspires and helps Gotham's population.
- Related to the above, the Riddler mentions that he isn't much for physical action and mainly relies on his brain. This could easily have set up for the previous murders to have been carried out by some of his followers, with Riddler only orchestrating things. Hints could have been placed in the movie to this possibility, offering an alternate means for realizing the danger in the finale.
- A minor case but some feel Batman should have revealed his identity to Selina Kyle at least near the end. Since Selina mentions Bruce Wayne’s name as one of those "corrupt, white, privileged" people she clearly despises, Batman coming out and revealing himself to her after sometime could have added some extra tension to their growing romance, as well as making her realize that they are both orphans who similarly lost their loved ones to corruption. The set-up is there for it as she mentions Bruce's name in disgust at least twice, but nothing is done with this despite the potential.
- Similarly, Bruce Wayne is in-universe seen as a reclusive and apathetic billionaire, who many characters make assumptions about without knowing because he's seemingly got zero public profile. Mayor-elect Reál proposes he should take part in philanthropy or local politics because of his family legacy, Falconé sees him as someone he can easily exploit and has been for years, and Riddler targets him in-part out of petty jealously but also because the Renewal program has been misappropriated due to his apathy. As the film deals with Batman's evolution from Terror Hero to Hope Bringer, it would have made sense for the climax to see him establish his classic "Bruce Wayne, billionaire Philanthropist" persona, or at least to make efforts to use his wealth more responsibly for Gotham's sake. Instead, while Bruce talks about bringing hope, it appears this amounts to reframing his Batman persona and the film ends without "Bruce" making any public efforts to help the city.
I don't want to engage on edit warring, so I came here to ask if it's ok to restore them or if Bio Yu Gi is right. By the trope standards, the possibility of the story following into the direction has to be stablished (which was done for all these examples, they don't come out of nowhere), but the work ends up doing nothing/little with them, so the "wishful fanfic" justification feels like the troper just disagreed with the examples here and wanted to remove them.
openComplainy entry in Vikings Valhalla
From YMMV.Vikings Valhalla:
- Fan Dumb: The reaction to casting African descended Caroline Henderson as jarl Haakon predictively stirred up disapproving reaction from history buffs and even more predictively from white supremacists. Several vloggers in both camps has created several videos about the real jarl Haakon. The issue being that most assumed the character to be a representation of Hákon Sigurðsson (more commonly known as Haakon jarl), while any one with access to wikipedia would quite quickly be able to tell that Hákon Sigurðsson was long dead and the character more likely represented his grandson Hákon Eiriksson. That confusion is pretty forgivable to a layman who would not know that there were 3 Hákon jarl (Hákon Sigurðsson's grandfather and grandson). But coming from people who claims to know everything about the viking age it comes off as very sloppy. Those who watched the show and knew of the figures would be able to tell that jarl Estrid Haakon barely resembles any historical or saga figure at all and it's very unclear if there was any serious intention from the writers to make her a representation of a historical figure.
Personally I'd rewrote the entry like this and put it either under Cowboy BeBop at His Computer or under Common Knowledge:
- The reaction to casting African descended Caroline Henderson as jarl Haakon predictively stirred up disapproving reaction from history buffs (and even more predictively, from white supremacists). Several vloggers created videos about the "real Jarl Haakon". The issue however is that most assumed the character to be a representation of Hákon Sigurðsson, who was dead before the events of the series, so the character could more likely represent his grandson Hákon Eiriksson. Either way, when the series was released, it was obvious that jarl Estrid Haakon barely resembles any historical or saga figure at all and it's very unclear if there was any serious intention from the writers to make her a representation of a historical figure.
openOn the subject of my migrating reviews that are not my own onto new review pages
In the past, I’ve noticed that when the page name changes, all reviews associated with a given work are left in a difficult to access limbo.
When this happens to me, I just copy and paste the subject and body of a given review into a new review on the new page . I am generally hesitant to do this to reviews I did not write myself. But I also don’t want them to be lost forever.
Would it be against policy, if I did it but then left a comment crediting the original author?
Edited by SpectralTimeopenSid entry on YMMV/ToyStory
On YMMV.Toy Story 1, Alternative Character Interpretation has multiple entries for Sid, and they look disorganized, with not all of them looking like individual interpretations. Can someone take a look?
- Many fans don't think that Sid is necessarily evil. He's just a kid who is wildly creative and inventive. Though he may have a destructive streak, he isn't just out to blow up toys. He wants to see what makes them tick, and how to make them cool and different; some have gone on to say that the Mutant Toys are, in fact, art pieces with very deep meanings. If you really think about it, Sid had no idea the toys were alive, and his parents don't seem to pay much attention to him and Hannah. He is probably acting out for attention.
- In fact, aside from the cruel but darkly hilarious prank he plays on his sister, Sid doesn't do anything wrong. His destruction of toys comes out of both creativity and Parental Neglect. He does seem to love his dog.
- When Woody reveals to him the true nature of toys, Sid is traumatized because of what he's been doing. He's rambunctious but not sadistic, as evidenced by his love for his dog, so when he realizes that everything he's done was happening to living things he understands his actions and completely freaks out (assuming he wasn't freaking out over the realisation that he was about to get his comeuppance).
- Sid also has multiple locks on his door and the one scene where a parent is shown, his dad could be seen as being drunk or hungover. Victims of abuse often lash out at others, and Sid's disturbed "play activities" with his toys could be his way of taking out his feelings of vulnerability and helplessness, especially since he is always the one "in control" of his imagined scenario.
- The creators were fully aware of this and like to joke that Sid is "the kind of kid who would grow up to be an animator." They give an adult Sid a brief cameo in Toy Story 3, where we see him working as a garbageman. Though he comes off as something of a metalhead, there's no indication that he grew up to be anything other than a normal, well-balanced adult.
- Many fans don't think that Sid is necessarily evil. He's just a kid who is wildly creative and inventive. Though he may have a destructive streak, he isn't just out to blow up toys. He wants to see what makes them tick, and how to make them cool and different; some have gone on to say that the Mutant Toys are, in fact, art pieces with very deep meanings. If you really think about it, Sid had no idea the toys were alive, and his parents don't seem to pay much attention to him and Hannah. He is probably acting out for attention.
Also, does the first one count? Most audiences understand that Sid didn't know toys were alive.
openOveruse of capitalized letters, bold and italics
Hello everyone,
Just to be sure, what is the actual policy regarding the use of capitalized letters, bold and italics? I encountered a troper who seems to have an habit of adding examples with a lot of those, which leads to entries where you suddenly HAVE SENTENCES THAT READ LIKE THAT. Which is fine in some instances (like Self-Demonstrating Article of characters), but feels like bad wiki writing everywhere else. As far as I know, the occasional italics or bolding is fine to highlight something, but I fear we may have an issue when it becomes an habit (and there is no specified Issue Helper reason dedicated to that as far as I know).
Edited by NonoRobotopenMove from CriticalResearchFailure?
Critical Research Failure Is now a redirect with examples being cut or moved. I asked cleanup about this example
but haven't gotten any response in weeks.
YMMV.The Conversion Bureau The Chatoverse
- Critical Research Failure:
- Contrary to what "New Universe Three: The Friendship Virus" claims, men are not responsible for 98% of all violence and rape.
- Also, the increase of oxytocin would increase nurturing... in anyone within your "group" according to nationalism. Enough of it increasing worldwide would cause such an up-spike in tribalism that about five wars would break out at once.
- She has stated that her interpretation of Celestia, who is basically the omnipotent god empress of Equestria, is more in line with Lauren Faust's original version of the show, despite Faust herself directly stating that Celestia is not actually a goddess.
The Clesetia entry can be moved to Undermined By Reality. The oxytocin thing might fit Artistic License – Biology. The 98% I don't know as they are such a controversial author I'm not sure if it's meant to be taken seriously or not, the oxytocin thing I have similar but lesser questions about. Thoughts about this?
openWonk/complaining?
WarriorsGate added this to WesternAnimation.My Little Pony Equestria Girls:
- Contrived Coincidence: The films and specials are an awkward mix of supernatural high school thriller and wacky sitcom, with plot conveniences (Pinkie Pie spontaneously guessing Twilight's backstory in the first movie; the fake-out with the White Void Room in Rollercoaster of Friendship) that work as jokes in a comedy but do not work as legitimate plot developments in a story that takes itself seriously, leaving the sub-franchise in some nebulous void between the two.
This is largely identical to an Uncertain Audience example they added but was cut per cleanup
(entry was just about attempt to appeal to one audience poorly, UA is attempts to appeal to multiple audiences that undercut each other). This one is definitely too complainy for a non-YMMV.
It's inaccurate in that the stated examples are Played for Laughs (EG has enough legit dramatic moments you can tell the difference) and EG does not take itself more seriously than it's parent series Friendship is Magic (EG's target audiences is just a bit older that FIM's prepubescent, EG's writers stated how it would be different if it was targeting more mature audiences). Further discussion involves debating semantics about how "serious" and "maturity" are used/apply.
This is looking enough like wonk I'm bringing here.
openCritical Role Unfortunate Implications edit
So, there was this edit on the main UI page regarding one of Critical Role's recent campaigns: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.UnfortunateImplications#edit32437068
The person making the edit claims that the poster is the only one who has this complaint, but there's a whole ass Kotaku article about it: https://kotaku.com/critical-role-marquet-third-campaign-asian-cultures-col-1848500055
I don't know if it still falls under UI since CR isn't actually racist or anything (I personally don't see any issue with their campaign), but there was a legitimate controversy. CR themselves actually had to issue a statement. Maybe rewording it to make it more neutral or simply transferring it to the work itself under Broken Base?
openRL troping and non-trope additions
I don't feel like waving mod fiat wrt Edit War today. The Useful Notes and Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot and maybe Stout Strength and Lightning Bruiser entries on Steven Seagal should go.
Clarifying edit- was this 🤏 close to removing those entries myself, but the UsefulNotes.Judo and UsefulNotes.Karate deletions would be very technically an edit war, and the "maybe" tropes are worth discussing.
Edited by TabsopenEdit war on Characters.TormentTidesOfNumenera
Self-report and checking in because I'm not sure who's correct. MaLady changed the redirect Smart Guy to The Smart Guy on Characters.Torment Tides Of Numenera 1/22 and I changed it back, citing that, to my understanding, redirects are still allowed to preserve the grammar of a sentence, and while the direct link is generally preferred where possible, it's only required when it's the title of an example. Malady changed it again today without discussion.
I also have a strange feeling of deja vu, but I'm not sure if it's from this specific example or just a similar issue on another page entirely. I mention it because I'm wondering if I've edit warred on this subject elsewhere without realizing it.
The example in question:
Changing it to "[the] First Castoff's The Smart Guy" seems like odd phrasing, so I'm just seeing if we can change it back or else rewrite the example in such a way that using the direct link in the text works better, while avoiding edit warring.
Edited by UnsungopenTrope deletions off music creator page
Lord Gro and I have had an amiable PM discussion on a particular topic, though we haven't reached an agreement, and I'd like to bring the matter up for broader discussion. There is a forum thread
here which may apply, but it hasn't be active for a couple weeks now. If the discussion should be moved to the moribund thread, let me know.
This involves the troper's deletions from Creator pages, specifically Johannes Brahms, in which almost all the tropes were cut. I can understand some of the removals, as they referenced Brahms's personal life with no mention of his music or career. Some however involved Brahms's musical career, which I'm not in favor of. Specific examples:
- Eccentric Mentor: Brahms had one in the form of Robert Schumann, although Schumann wasn't so much eccentric as mentally ill, eventually committing himself to a mental hospital after a series of suicide attempts and dying there at the age of 46.
- Flame War: The conflict between Brahms' supporters and Wagner's was a 19th Century version, including over-the-top magazine articles insulting and condemning the other side.
- Mentor Archetype: While on the jury of a composing competition, he saw great promise in a young man named Antonin Dvorak, and arranged a meeting between Dvorak and his own publisher.
- Sacrificed Basic Skill For Awesome Training: Brahms was a professional musician from early youth and it's fair to say that constant hours of playing the piano meant that he wasn't always the most charming and polite person in the room.
- Worthy Opponent: For Brahms it was Richard Wagner, although it's more that their respective fanbases considered each to be the Arch Enemy of the other. Brahms actually liked and admired a lot of Wagner's music, even though he disliked Wagner's cult of personality; Wagner did not exactly return the compliment, but he did send Brahms a copy of Das Rheingold.
Lord Gro's position is based on this page
and this passage was cited from there in the deletion note: "Please resist the urge to apply character tropes to Real Life people."
This is a more restrictive implementation of the approach than I'm comfortable with.
Thoughts:
- there's a possibility that one (or more) of the entries above may cross the line on this issue, but the deletion reason should be different. Okay by me if so. The Sacrificed Basic Skill for Awesome Training example may fall into this category. It's also possible one or more of these veers towards ZCE territory, which I'm happy to try and fix.
- the passage "Resist the urge" is not synonymous with "This is forbidden."
- this approach only leaves the narrow possibility of troping works and nothing else instead of (in this case) music-career-based non-subjective issues, which I would argue are fair game. Without going into detail, that concept was conveyed to me in our PM discussion as to what should be done.
- I'm not clear on what the policy is regarding including Trivia-oriented entries for Creators. Should they be put in at all, and if so, do these go on the main pages or somewhere else? This may involve other cut entries besides the five listed above.
- perhaps a minor point but worth mentioning. Having the approach applied this strictly can result in stripping the Creator pages clean, leading other tropers to delete the pages under the mistaken idea that all pages with few or no tropes should be cutlisted. I've seen examples of this kind of thinking before at the site.
My wish is to reinstate the entries in the first folder. It might not technically be an edit war if I do, but I don't want to do this ill-advisedly.
Thanks!
Edited by BoltDMCopenCharacter-specific page
I'm planning to create a character-specific page, largely because all other options were exhausted and second, it's so big that it exceeds 40k character bytes. Problem is, there also exists an Alternate Self of that character who is equally important as him. Do I include him as well since they share the same identify?
openCharacter sympathy in Superman and Lois Live Action TV
I deleted the Unintentionally Sympathetic entries, which included Jordan and Lois, from the YMMV page of Superman & Lois because I personally believe that they are meant to be sympathetic in their respective situations.
- Jordan is treated as unreasonable for being upset that his girlfriend Sarah kissed someone else, but he has the right to be angry that he was cheated on.
- Lois is seen to be in the wrong for not reporting that Lucy had a vision in line with what Ally preaches, treating it like she only shared the parts of the story that would let her go after Ally. Considering that Lucy supposedly had said vision after a drug overdose that nearly killed her it makes perfect sense that Lois didn't say anything about it. Reporting that her sister had a genuine vision of another version of herself, which near anyone would think would be a result of the drugs or the near death experience, would have seen Lois laughed out of the room by any editor. Not helping are the other stunts Lucy pulls in the scene, like blaming Lois for their mom leaving and revealing she's pulled this at Ally's behest, which makes it look less that she's bothered by Lois' supposedly hypocritical journalistic integrity and more that she's interested in getting back at her sister out of resentment over completely imagined slights.
Lois' example is pretty self-explanatory, but I think Jordan's needs to be elaborated on a bit further. I've watched the show and I don't see Jordan being that angry over Sarah's cheating. Yes, he was upset and mildly betrayed, but he was later consumed by guilt that Sarah was honest with him, while he can't tell her that he has superpowers. In fact, he wants to tell her because he admires her for her bravery and honesty (I'm paraphrasing), but Clark tells him not to because the secret isn't actually Jordan's to share. Jordan's brother and Natalie Irons even compare Jordan and Sarah's secrets, which strikes me as a false equivalance for the reason I've stated above. One secret is simply infidelity, while the other could put an entire family, maybe 2, in danger. This could be Informed Wrongness or something.
But still, I want to know what you guys think.
openFilm/TheBatman concerning edits Film
Edit: Was tired when I wrote this this morning, edited to explain their edits.
Jeyeraj has some concerning edits on Film.The Batman 2022 and Characters.The Batman 2022. In the movie Selina decries that Rich Privileged White guys are the ones running Gotham. I'm not gonna say that black people can't be racist against white people (I don't like that prejudice plus power definition outside of academia), but this really doesn't feel like that. In the universe of the movie, that's an objective fact, most of the people in power are privileged white people. I'd need more to say she's racist towards white people. He insinuates in his edits that this makes her a bigot. Finally he insinuated that the Riddlers were occupy wall-streetesque, when I felt they were more QANON ajacent..
I just also found an edit where he posted about the Videogame.Ready Or Not and Kotaku's criticism of the games school shooting level. He talks more about the article than the game itself in the edit, which is trivia at best. His criticism of the article definitely seems to be political in nature.
There's also this edit on Film.Black Widow: %%"Their" or spoilering the pronouns would give away the reveal that Taskmaster isn't a man, as the film presents her until the reveal.%% (They are talking about taskmaster). And in that edit they changed the pronouns of the example from "their" back to "his". Taskmaster in the film is a women. I felt like it was perfectly valid to use "their" pronouns to disguise the gender.
I definitely feel like he's editing with an agenda.
Edited by jjjj2

I'm confused on several stuff regarding this "page".
I was just browsing Trivia.Bayonetta 3 and saw these examples:
Thing is, Bayonetta 3 is still an upcoming game, so how come is it "dueling" with games that are already released years ago?
Maybe it's a misuse since clicking Dueling Games leads us to DuelingWorks.Games, which says the examples "had just came out around the same time with the same theme", but it doesn't say how many years that "same time" is. The page lists an example between Onechanbara (2004) and Lollipop Chainsaw (2012), which are 8 years apart. Does this mean the Bayo 3 examples above can still be valid in the future if the game eventually gets released?
Lastly, why does Dueling Games redirect to DuelingWorks.Games? The former is listed as a Trivia trope in several video games' Trivia pages, but once you're in DuelingWorks.Games itself, the page also contains tabs for Main, Film, and Headscratchers... which seem to open up two other issues:
It looks like the redirect for Dueling Games is misplaced.
Edited by DanteVin