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:
openSelf Review
On Shinobi: The RPG, somebody calming to be the author of the fanfic has posted a review
saying that it was an Old Shame and warns others to not repeat the same mistake. Are self reviews allowed?
openNeed assistance with troublesome situation on Characters. Street Fighter V
Yesterday, Tropers.Darth Walrus added Glass Cannon to Characters.Street Fighter V in relation to the character Abigail
. The problem is, this was his SECOND time adding said trope to the page; the first time was almost 3 years ago in August 2017
, which was then removed less than a month later
by Tropers.Red Rover Red Rover.
Red Rover's reason for removing it at the time was "This trope is about not being able to take many hits. Abigail can take plenty". When Darth Walrus readded it recently, his edit reason was "You can check up any guide that talks about Abigail's weaknesses, and all of them put his vulnerability to pressure and poor defensive options on the top of the list."
Based on Darth Walrus's edit reason, it seemed probable to me that he re-added the example deliberately, and thus ignited an Edit War albeit with a 3 year gap. I attempted to bring the matter to the Discussion page
in order to explain that this was Edit Warring and to argue why I agreed with Red Rover's position that the character did not count as a Glass Cannon (more on this later).
Darth Walrus's reaction, however, seemed to imply that he didn't remember the older edit (which conflicts with his reaction in the edit reason). In addition, he immediately became hostile and stated that pointing out that this was an Edit War was "accusing" him. Over the next several replies, I attempt to once again affirm that what he did was an Edit War (even if it wasn't intentional), and as I told him there, I am 90% certain that he knew he was Edit Warring based on his edit reason but decided to at least talk things out before I brought things here. Walrus, however, continued to attack me for calling what he did an Edit War and also accused me of not arguing in "good faith", despite my attempts to do just that before resorting to this very query.
P.S.: On top of that, Walrus also added a very questionable "Long-Range Fighter" example to the same page, and also added this
nattery and incorrectly-bulleted example to Informed Ability. Even in the example itself he admits that it's pedantic and sinkholes Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.
Anyway, that leaves the site editing policy issues out of the way. Now to get down to the Glass Cannon debate itself.
In Street Fighter V, Abigail is the largest (over 8 feet tall) and most resilient character (1100 health, more the 1000 HP average) in the entire game. He also hits like a mac truck, destroying up to 80% of an opponent's health with one combo if he has the resources. His main weakness (as Walrus pointed out) is that if he's knocked down or cornered, Abigail has no Counter-Attack or reversal abilities. His only option is to sit back and block and hope that his opponent eventually makes a mistake. Walrus argues that this makes him a Glass Cannon. He has no Dragon Punch or invincible Spinning Piledriver to fight back if he's cornered.
As I pointed out, hoever, Abigail not having other options besides blocking only makes his defense bad relative to characters that have those abilities (and not everyone does). Sure, he might end up taking a lot of damage as he waits for the opponent to mess up, but that doesn't change the fact that he has more health than the other characters and that if they took the exact same hits, they would be even more damaged than he is.
I also pointed out that tanking damage to wait for his chance is specifically how Abigail's gameplay work. Abigail has Super Armor attacks that are intended to let him take damage while either getting closer or starting one of those INSANELY damaging combos I mentioned before. As Walrus says Abigail may not "want" to get hit, and he may not "want" to be on the defensive, but his entire gameplay rests upon waiting out an opponent while they damage him so that when he gets his hands on them, he can absolutely demolish them.
My apologies for the length of this query, but I wanted to bring everything to attention before anyone responded. I'm about to go to bed in a few moments, so if anyone needs me to chime in, I'll be back in a few hours.
Also, both Darth Walrus and Red Rover Red Rover have been invited to participate.
Thank you.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenLost Aesop questions
I looked over Lost Aesop and found many examples that make me question the trope.
- "One Bad Apple" is so clumsy with its intended messages of "standing up to a bully makes you a bully as well" and "telling an adult is the solution to being bullied" that it makes one wonder if some of the cast or crew secretly disagreed with them. In the climax of the episode, almost immediately after the Crusader's epiphany that they should have told an adult, Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon pop up and begin bullying them right in front of Applejack who does nothing other than frown, effectively negating aesop number one. Then Babs Seed gets in their faces and intimidates them into leaping back in fear and landing in the mud, effectively solving the current bullying issue by standing up to them and negating aesop number two.
This is redundant with Broken Aesop, which applies to many other examples (also redundant with Clueless Aesop).
- "Lesson Zero": While the other ponies learn that they should take their friends' worries seriously even if they think the concern is trivial, Twilight Sparkle doesn't seem to have learned (or at least doesn't say she has learned) not to let trivial concerns get the better of her. On the other hand, the Aesop is mentioned alongside the former in their letter to Celestia, while not by Twilight herself, she is among those making it at the time, implying she agrees with it. It would explain however why the Aesop was repeated in Twilight's next spotlight episode, which she definitely gets the jist of that time.
Besides arguing with itself, the episode never intended that to be the episodes Aesop. "Indecisive Deconstruction" was cut in part for the same issue as it assumed a work was trying for X which isn't valid for non-YMMV.
My impression is that Lost Aesop is for when the Aesop is ignored or contradicted in later installments, but the Lost Aesop page is unclear and convoluted noting the trope is about the Aesop being unclear and convoluted which is not the case for this and many other examples. I was planning a cleanup because it looks like a catch all for complaining about mishandling of Aesops such the intended definition is unclear. Thoughts?
I also asked Aesop Cleanup
but was ignored.
openMisused: Villain Has a Point Example Videogame
So, the idea behind the "X has a point" tropes is when a character with negative connotations is mentioned to have a point In-Universe. So in this entry in the Visual Novel folder, we have:
- Fate/stay night: An All There in the Manual example. Gilgamesh plans to use the corrupted Grail to unleash all of humanity's sins upon the world, which will kill off ninety percent of the population, and then rule over what remains. The heroes never discuss this plan; he obviously needs to be stopped, there is no need to talk about it. But due to the way magic works, there's nothing inherently wrong with his plan. The people of Uruk were practically a Precursor race, part of the reason for humanity's decline is because magic has been spread out among too many people, and as humanity's first king Gilgamesh does have the divine right to make this sort of decision. But it never gets brought up in text because obviously he can't be allowed to kill billions of people.
Given that in the visual novel itself this never gets brought up as a good point and all characters react with disgust towards this idea, is this really a case of Villain Has a Point? From what i've observed this seems to be more of an out of universe interpretation from the user. (Specially since, again, all characters dismiss his Divine Right of Kings as a cheap excuse towards his actions)
openmercutiyo2003
Here are two of mercutiyo2003's edits.
A poorly done yamato nadeshiko, however, will turn out like an Extreme Doormat. They are silent and submissive without the inner strength of a true yamato nadeshiko. This is a common stereotype of East Asian women in Western fiction and is often referred to derisively as the China Doll
stereotype.
With some notable exceptions, yamato nadeshiko will be of medium height, willowy, modestly endowed, and good-looking without being too beautiful or too cute; they will have pale skin and long dark hair with full, straight bangs and sidelocks. They'll dress in feminine fashions: skirts, blouses, low-heeled shoes, lace, ribbons and simple hair ornaments. The other option is the impeccable ladylike style for adults. A kimono is likely to be worn by a nadeshiko brought up in the good old Kyoto style. Some may wear jewelry and make-up, but not too much. Their voices will often be as gentle, calm, and warm as melted butter. Large, rounded eyes are always a good bet. It is not unusual for geisha to be a yamato nadeshiko.
Sometimes, these ladies will also know self-defense, even if they would rather not fight if it can be avoided. This makes sense as many nadeshiko came from samurai clans and thus were trained in fighting, so they could defend their homes whenever the males were absent. If that's the case, they'll be very graceful and effective in the battlefield, and they're likely to be White Magician Girls or Barrier Warriors. If they're neither, they'll likely use polearms, lances (specifically naginata which daughters of samurai families were traditionally trained in and included in their dowry) or bow/arrows, and maybe even small tantou daggers that may be hidden in their clothes.
These characters pop up a lot in Magical Girlfriend series (usually as the one who will win the male lead's heart) and as the "Betty" in Betty and Veronica Love Triangles. They tend to be very sympathetic, but their passive, reactionary nature puts them in danger of becoming Satellite Characters for more "interesting" people, as well as a target of bashing from fans who prefer more active love interests such as Tsundere. Obviously, this trope is most popular in Japan.
to:
Sometimes a Nadeshiko would drop all subtlety and nuance and would be an Extreme Doormat. They are silent and submissive without the inner strength of a true yamato nadeshiko. This is a common stereotype of East Asian women in Western fiction and is often referred to derisively as the China Doll
stereotype, possibly because of the East’s restrictive standards.
With some notable exceptions, yamato nadeshiko will be of medium height, willowy, modestly endowed, and good-looking without being too beautiful or too cute (whatever that means); they will have pale skin and long dark hair with full, straight bangs and sidelocks. They're restricted to feminine fashions: skirts, blouses, low-heeled shoes, lace, ribbons and simple hair ornaments. The other option is the impeccable ladylike style for adults. A kimono is likely to be worn by a nadeshiko brought up in the good old Kyoto style. Some may wear jewelry and make-up, but not “too much” (again, whatever that means). Their voices will often be as gentle, calm, and saccharinely high. Large, rounded eyes are always a good bet. It is not unusual for geisha to be a yamato nadeshiko.
Sometimes, these ladies will also know self-defense, even if they would rather not fight if it can be avoided. This makes sense as many nadeshiko came from samurai clans and thus were trained in fighting, so they could defend their homes whenever the males were absent, because in Feudal Japan they were never expected to fight in other situations. If that's the case, they'll be very graceful and effective in the battlefield, and they're likely to be White Magician Girls or Barrier Warriors. If they're neither, they'll likely use polearms, lances (specifically naginata which daughters of samurai families were traditionally trained in and included in their dowry) or bow/arrows, and maybe even small tantou daggers that may be hidden in their clothes.
These characters pop up a lot in Magical Girlfriend series (usually as the one who will win the male lead's heart) and as the "Betty" in Betty and Veronica Love Triangles. They tend to be very sympathetic, but their passive, reactionary nature puts them in danger of becoming Satellite Characters for more interesting people, as well as a target of bashing from fans who prefer more active love interests such as Tsundere. Obviously, this trope is most popular in the East, where restrictive gender roles are the norm.
Speaking of that, these character types are usually more unpopular in Europe, Australia, and even America. In those countries this kind of gender role-where women might have a certain amount of power, but only in a domestic sphere-are considered passé. Though sometimes they get a pass since these characters are East Asian. It used to be because of racial stereotypes/the fact that all women were treated this way.
to this:
Thoughts? I'm a Japanese troper, and I sense something in their edits, though I don't know what is.
Edited by IukaSylvieopenA repository of spam
On a glance at the largely abandoned liveblogs section, specifically the last page, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/lbs.php?target_title=&target_group=&p=16
, It seems apparent that a good chunk of that particular page, at least half, seem to be comprised entirely of spambots posting and replying to one another. This is apparent just looking at the titles of some of these liveblogs, or looking briefly at their content. Notable among them include one apparently advertising some herbal scam labled "Vietnam medical material", as well as several from 2018 which are fairly self evident on looking at them.
openPlaying With Page
So I was reading the playing with page for Good Old Fisticuffs and most of it was about a Boxing Battler or a person who incorporates boxing in their fighting against a karateka to illustrate the trope and how it can be played with. The problem is that the Good Old Fisticuffs trope is specifically about a brawler with no established fighting style being better than those who trained in a fighting style or martial art, and boxing is technically a fighting style if not a martial art itself. Normally I'd just edit it myself but it makes up so much of the page that I'm at a loss at what to do.
openInconsistencies on two different Useful Notes pages
I noticed that two Useful Notes pages contradict each other. UsefulNotes.Fascism claims that The Klan might have the distinction of being the first fascist movement:
Ku Klux Klan might have the distinction of being the first fascist movement. Born out of a reaction against the Reconstruction after The American Civil War, it aimed at recreating the old order of the South by putting the freed slaves and the carpetbaggers in their place (which should be understood as lynching and intimidation).
The importance of religion in shaping the American view of self also meant that Christianity (understood as Protestantism) played a much larger role within the Ku Klux Klan; they combine the religious views of falangism (but pro-Protestant instead of pro-Catholic) with the racial views of national socialism.
But UsefulNotes.Ku Klux Klan specifically denies this idea and argues against it:
What should we do about this discrepancy? Considering Wikipedia takes the position that the Klan was not fascist (the white-robed bastards are conspicuously absent from their fascism template), I think we should replace the bit about them with a discussion of the Silver Legion of America
.
openPossible Character-centric Entry Pimping? Videogame
This has been a thing that bugged me for a while, but does anyone else feel that a lot of the entries under Lunafreya's folder on the Final Fantasy XV - Other Allies page come off as shoehorning? Especially considering that while she's a divisive Base-Breaking Character rather than The Scrappy, the part where she's considered to be a Flat Character with minimal screentime is largely unanimous and the divide comes down to whether she was always a shallow and uninteresting character or whether she was originally a rounder character whose depth was all cut out of the game. Hence most of the entries (which were made before the novel that finally fleshes her out was released) come on the back of what appears to be Fan Wank extrapolations rather than supported by the primary text of the game, considering she has so little dialogue, even less interacting with others.
A few of them come from the Kingsglaive movie, which is where the bulk of her screentime and character depth come from, but is also known for being basically a different character from her in-game portrayal. But others seem to be attempting to spin something meaningful out of offhand comments from the flatter in-game depiction that don't actually manifest meaningfully into tropes. I personally don't remember a lot of these entries from when I played it, and at best some of these even appear to be the result of the rather chaotic and inconsistent promotion for the game that often contradicted itself.
Edited by AlleyOopopenBase Breaking Character, Persona 5 Royal. Videogame
The following contains Royal spoilers. You have been warned.
I just noticed this Paragraph from Persona 5 that seriously bugs me:
- Kasumi Yoshizawa was inevitably going to rouse a divide. While some appreciate the steps that were taken to prevent a repeat of the backlash garnered for Marie and see her as a decent character in her own right. Others find that she’s a largely irrelevant character to both the main plot and the third semester where she takes center stage. To some, she's worse than Marie since Marie still enriched the story, and she still managed to come across as friends with the other members of the Investigation Team outside of the protagonist. Sumire, on the other hand, has little to no interaction with the Phantom Thieves who aren't called Joker or Akechi note She does have one scene where Futaba is included, but some would argue that even then it's still about Joker than actually introducing Sumire to a teammate making her feel isolated amongst the Phantom Thieves. Even those who love Sumire tend to agree with her detractors that she was made playable way too late in the game and suffers for it as she exists within a bubble that only floats down whenever Joker's involved. Some see her as being forced into a preexisting story and adds nothing new to the story or to the Phantom Thieves. note Her backstory has been compared to Futaba's. Only this time around really she was responsible for someone's death. Her unhealthy way of coping isn't unlike Yusuke turning a blind eye to Maderame's abuse of his pupils. Her getting angry at the expectations bestowed upon her was Makoto's breaking point. Even her teaching Joker some gymnastics comes across as odd to some since Joker was already performing gymnastic feats without her assistance in the base game and before their Confidant even started. There's also some debate on her Character Development. She either ends the game as a completed person living as Sumire, or she's still living in the shadow of the real Kasumi and Joker at the same time note Those who go for the latter feel that she doesn’t behave any different as Sumire than she does as Kasumi and Sumire goes right back to emulating Kasumi's look at the end of her Confidant (which itself causes some minor debate; Is she just honoring her sister? Is there a better way to do that without making it seem like she's regressing?). Meanwhile, living in Joker's shadow ties right back into the fact that she barely has a life outside of him. And that her preexisting self-esteem issues are just gone when she gets confirmation that Kasumi saw her as an equal and rival the whole time. What can make matters worse is how one feels about Maruki's inclusion, whether or not it's better or worse than how Sumire was handled. Even her entire relationship with Joker is debated upon. It's either one of the more natural Confidants, or Joker is forced into caring about her and is completely out of character around her. note Some have noticed that the player is rarely given the chance to snark at her or criticize her like they can to virtually every other person he comes in contact with. And that her status as the Implied Love Interest is constantly being shoved down players throats note She basically admits to loving Joker at Rank 8, a lot of her designs are meant to mirror Joker, and she's the only character Joker has a Showtime with besides Akechi and arguably hurts her Character development.
I have also been issued a request on Base Breaker Cleanup
to review this.
Basically:
- Many of the arguments in this entry are heavily biased and flawed, for a person who was well-versed with Royal's storyline, at the least
- Guessing and Alternative Character Interpretation that can simply be rebuked within in-game dialogue
- The flaws of this character, as far as where it was left largely unambiguous, is that she barely has any interaction with other PT members and no involvement other than the last month of game, something which has been unambiguously agreed upon. It belongs exactly in They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character.
- Character is largely well received in the fandom unlike most entries there.
I've been removed the paragraph for now, if anyone else adds it the next time, I leave it alone until further notice, because someone added it back earlier on and I don't want this to degenerate into an edit war.
Edited by Mr-ex777openNot an example of Idiot Plot? Western Animation
From Idiot Plot - Animated Films:
- The entire Final Battle of Incredibles 2 could have been shortened considerably if not outright avoided, allowing the capture the Big Bad before they fled the ship and preventing the entire crash, had anyone actually targeted the mind-controlling goggles during the fights. It's at least a bit understandable with the kids given their age and lack of experience, but the adults really should have tried just plucking them off instead of running or fighting until the goggles happened to fall off. Ironically the only character who does do this is Jack-Jack, entirely by accident, when reaching for his mom, showing how swift and effortless it really would have been.
In reality, adults did try to remove mind-controlling goggles from other supers as soon as they're freed (of course, with the difficulty of taking away a mind-controlling device from an enhanced human who fights back), and they manage to remove them, they don't just "happen to fall off". It's true that in the previous scenes kids didn't try to remove the goggles, but the entry itself suggests that their age and lack of experience can be a forgiving factor.
Since it's not A story driven entirely by all the characters being idiots that would otherwise take less than five minutes to resolve, but a specific scene, wouldn't that count at best as a Downplayed Idiot Ball, and perhaps not even that?
Bumping because the entry was readded. Edited by gc10
open Long list of ways to spot a FakeCharity
Fake Charity has a long series of bullets about Real Life fake charities, added by a mix of tropers rather than a single person. It reads to me like beyond the scope of the site, plus it's not about examples of the trope but instead in general. Checking to see if that's the read other people have before bringing out the ax and fire.
- Ways you can spot a fake (or potentially fake) charity:
- It is not registered with your local/state/provincial/federal government.
- Charity watchdog sites either do not list it, or have listed it as suspicious.
- A representative who is collecting for the charity either cannot or will not answer any questions you have.
- They ask for donations using wire transfers, cash, money orders, prepaid cards and the like.
- They don't provide either a mailing address or a physical address, or they do, but it's fake.
- They don't provide a phone number, or they do, but it's fake, or no one ever answers.
- You're made to feel guilty, or like you're selfish/a bad person/etc. if you don't want to donate, or don't want to donate now.
- A collector either cannot or will not supply identification, or their identification is bogus.
- They keep hounding you for donations, even after you've told them to stop calling or sending you mail.
- Their website looks almost exactly like that of a legitimate website, but the details concerning where to donate and whom to donate to are different.
- It purports to help a local fire or police department or hospital, but the actual fire department/police department/hospital has no knowledge of this charity or fundraiser.
- They solicit donations from you via email campaigns. Generally speaking, real charities don't solicit donations through email. (This could be a variation of the classic 419 Scam.)
- They ask for donations via store or online gift cards or online currencies such as iTunes. Once again real charities don't solicit donations in this way.
- They ask for wiring of money through a wiring service like Western Union. Once again this is also not typically a way that a real charity would solicit money.
- You get an email asking for financial help for a sick child (or occasionally adult), often sent as a Chain Letter, and (more importantly) with no information (such as an address, whether the child in question is being tended to at a hospital or at home, a diagnosis, a prognosis, perhaps the name of a doctor or hospital, etc.), but what is included is information on where to donate money to, usually via wire transfer.
- They don't accept material donations like food, razor blades, or clothing even when they say they intend to use the money on such items. note While many real charities also don't accept material donations, the legit ones will usually provide helpful information to other charities that do.
- Of course, what can muddy the waters here is that even legitimate charities have been officially censured for the "hard sell" tactics used by paid agents; one of the most respectable names in the business, Oxfam, and several other big names, were publicly exposed by the UK's Charity Commission (the overseeing body) for their use of "chuggers" note the disparaging term "charity mugger", used for paid agents soliciting donations and for their use of third-party call centres and agents who were paid by commission and were not too scrupulous over making sales. The results were horrendous
. the chuggers used both the inculcating-guilt scam and the persistent nuisance calling of people who had already told them not to.
- Various "watchdog" sites such as Charity Navigator
, CharityWatch
, and BBB Wise Giving Alliance
rate real-life nonprofits on their transparency, accountability, and efficient use of funds.
- One common complaint about crowdfunding websites such as GoFundMe
is that it's very easy for any scammer to post a sob story and receive donations. The sites do have fraud reporting tools, but they also can be lax about following up on how people use the donations they receive.
- Of course, this is every bit as illegal as conning people out of their money by any other means, and people have gotten jail time for it
when they've been caught.
- Of course, this is every bit as illegal as conning people out of their money by any other means, and people have gotten jail time for it
- Be wary of charities or fundraisers you've never heard of that pop up all of a sudden in the wake of a natural disaster or some other type of humanitarian crisis. While some of them are legitimate, at least an equal number of them are the result of Con Artists looking to take advantage of the chaos, and take advantage of the generosity of people who want to help. And you might not be able to tell which is which until it's too late. If you want to make donations towards disaster relief organizations, your best bet is to find a reputable charity through one of the aforementioned "watchdog" sites.
openUndermined By Reality misuse?
Trivia.Star Wars The Clone Wars
- Undermined By Reality: The slogan Clone Wars Saved, shown at the end of the 2018 SDCC trailer and used frequently afterwards, is undermined by the fact that the show only needed 'saving' because Disney itself unceremoniously canceled the series mid-production shortly after acquiring Star Wars.
Undermined By Reality Is when the Aesop/messages of the work is contradicted by the real life happenings of the creators. I don’t think an advertising campaign is an Aesop/message of the work and it looks like complaining when Disney is reversing what the entry is criticizing them for. Thoughts?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenScreamer Trailer description issue?
I read through the trope description, and...it's not the best in my opinion. It's self-demonstrating, of course, but it keeps giving me that early website trope description vibe which I'm not a big fan of. What do y'all think about it?
openFar too much detail
Last year, we decided to remove the creepy, overly detailed examples about Krystal.
Well, when I noticed that they are still at VaporWear.Video Games and Chainmail Bikini, I checked the histories for these pages and for Super Smash Bros. - Assist Trophies and it turns out that no one ever did. And now Eagle70 has taken upon himself to make sure that they stay there. Note that Eagle
and the person who originally added these entries
have very different edit patterns, so they are very unlikely to be the same person.
In short, should those examples be deleted, be rewritten, or stay as they are?
Edited by ChytusopenHow many wicks does a page need before it gets removed from PagesNeedingWicks?
So, I have been crosswicking under-used tropes so they can be remved from Pages Needing Wicks and I have wondered how many wicks does page need to not end up on the list. In the past, 16 wicks was what the page said was the cutoff point but that part has since been removed. I personally like remove tropes when they reach the 20-30 wick mark.
EDIT: Wait, According to the page itself, anything that is within the standard ranking (24-56 for tropes older than 3 years old and 12-14 for new tropes) on wick needs to be removed. So I guess that is the answer..
Edited by MacronNotesopen MainstreamObscurity Western Animation
YMMV.Sonic The Hedgehog Sat AM had this added by Eagle70:
"Mainstream Obscurity: [[invoked]] This is a Sonic The Hedgehog cartoon, the first one to ever enter production, and arguably the most ambitious. It was also put under strict mandates and heavily preempted in most markets, and cancelled in a network buyout, only to have the franchise completely change gears in 1996, leaving this cartoon looking like an In Name Only adaptation. Despite the popularity of it's long running comic book spinoff and the show itself getting significant
critical
acclaim
from most reviews, the cartoon itself is hardly watched by most of the fandom. Additionally, the notriously broken Sonic fandom has elements that tend to hate the show and it's characters for not resembling more modern titles, despite not really knowing anything about the show beyond the premise."
I feel like this could be shorted significantly and with less potholes and bashing at the end, but am not entirely sure what to do. What do you guys think?
EDIT: Also it kinda is an In Name Only adaptation; per InNameOnly.Western Animation, AoSTH was the closest to the games until Sonic X.
" Besides the overall theme of nature vs. machinery, the only things Sonic the Hedgehog (Sat AM) has in common with the games are Sonic, Tails (who was Demoted to Extra), the rings (which here act as a Deus ex Machina device), Buzzbombers (which only appeared in the pilot), and Robotnik (who looked quite different from his appearance in the games and was substantially more fearsome than any other interpretation of the character). This does not stop it from being one of the more highly regarded Sonic adaptations. "
Edited by lalalei2001openBatman Beyond videos Western Animation
A lot of the video examples for Batman Beyond specifically come from Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. However, the trope page for Return of the Joker does not itself have video examples. Shouldn't the videos be attributed to Return of the Joker instead of/in addition to the main series?
openEntry Butchering on Shadowrun Storytime Web Original
I remember Shadowrun Storytime having a full on character list and funny/nightmare fuel list, as well as a few others, but now they're all gone and the page itself is unindexed. Is this data loss or has someone gone and butchered it?

SPOTLIGHTSTEALINGSQUAD: Originally intended as a deconstruction of a [This example contains a Flame Bait entry. It should be moved to the Flame Bait tab.Mary Sue], Sarah became this to Kain and Raziel before Timestreamer Archimedes stole the spotlight from her.
I really don't want to call the character a self-insert. I'm willing to take other suggestions.