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:
openPreventing an edit war on Characters.NickelodeonAllStarBrawl Videogame
This is rather belated, but it's something I wanted some feedback on to prevent an edit war.
About three weeks ago, I saw an example on Characters.Nickelodeon All Star Brawl without a citation:
The game in question still hasn't been released yet, so I commented it out
since it lacked a citation, along with a small tag explaining this (in addition to the edit reason). At the time, I did not remember the source.
Twelve days later
, ravioliluigi uncommented it out and slightly altered it with the following edit reason:
- Citation? What citation, the proof is right there in the trailer lol its a legit reference, that said I'm pretty sure that's his taunt
In spite of this, they did not add a citation in the example itself, going against the guidelines explained in Administrivia.Creating A Work Page For An Upcoming Work:
- When writing an example, make sure you are noting the source. Because the finished work is not available yet, it is not your source of information. Your source is [Trailer A], [Poster B], the open beta, the E3 demo, etc., so your example should cite that: "In [Trailer A]..."
I sent them a notifier explaining the policy not long after their edit. However, in the interim, I remembered where the animation in question can be seen: this short teaser for a Gamescom character reveal
. I could add the necessary citation to the example, but I wanted to make sure that this would not constitute an edit war.
openStyle Savvy title confusion Videogame
About a month ago, VampireBuddha did a major overhaul of the Style Savvy series and split the individual games into their own pages. Which wouldn't be an issue in itself, except the new pages are under their European names of Style Boutique. I'm fairly certain that American titles take precedence here, but even if they don't, there's a mismatch between the franchise name and the individual games. This is potentially a bigger project than I want to take on right now; does anyone else want to take a look?
openManchild or Psychopathic Manchild Videogame
Over the past year, there's been a minor edit war over whether Bowser is a Manchild or a Psychopathic Manchild.
This is his entry:
Bowser is a rich and powerful king, but still shows obvious signs of immaturity on a regular basis; he has nasty mood swings that scare even his most loyal servants, he never feels responsible for his failures, always looking for someone else to blame, and is never satisfied with what he already has, always wanting more. The best showcase of this is when he meets his younger self in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time: barely anything differentiates them in personality, showing that Bowser has barely evolved mentally since infancy.
Which trope is more appropriate?
openCan Trivia be played with? Videogame
Exactly What It Says on the Tin: I'm wondering if Trivia can be played with. Specifically, I'm asking in regards to Trivia.Super Smash Bros, as the Unintentional Period Piece has two bullet points; one which explains how the first three games are this (due to them being Museum Games that released before games could be regularly updated, and as such are limited to what existed at the time of development), and one which explains how the fourth and fifth games avert this by adding in new content from games which were concurrent to and/or released after Smash itself.
I looked at What Goes Where on the Wiki and Trivia and they don't mention it at all; compare to YMMV.Home Page, which does.
openOutside opinions on disagreement Videogame
Cutting off a brewing edit war at Fallout 3. I'd previously removed the Idiot Plot entry and a user added it back. Here is the entry:
- Idiot Plot: While Fallout 3 is high on the lists of many people for a myriad of reasons, the main plot generally is not one of them.
- The call to action is your dad leaving to jump start his water purifier in order to give the wasteland a source of water. The problem is that this is a non-issue for virtually everyone else living in the wasteland. Aside from everyone having been able to not die of thirst in the 200 years Dad’s device was inactive, the only people you meet in the entire game who are affected by the lack of water are two homeless people that live outside major settlements. This makes his decision seem brash and shortsighted, especially because it resulted in the deaths of many.
- Imagine if you never meet or fight any dragons in Skyrim and the only way you know they exist is because a single npc asks for health potions because of dragon attacks.
- Dad is accosted by the Enclave, who want the purifier for themselves. He decides that a device with unquestionably altruistic functions should be destroyed just so that bad people couldn’t have it. It’s the equivalent of destroying all blood transfusion research so that the Central Powers wouldn’t be able to use it.
- Granted, Eden wanted to use it to kill everyone, but Dad couldn’t have possibly known that at the time.
- You’re railroaded into helping out the residents of Little Lamplight because there is a huge door in your way and children are pointing guns at you. Your only recourse is to take a sidequest or have a perk that is literally useless anywhere else.
- What makes this an example of the trope is that the quest they send you on involves assaulting a fortified base. Forcing your way into Little Lamplight is a much less daunting task but it seems the only reason you can’t do that is because the writer said so.
- You can convince Eden to kill himself in what appears to be a Call-Back to Fallout 1. However, the first Fallout requires a damning amount of evidence to prove to the Master that everything he did has been to the detriment to humanity. Here, you resort to meaningless platitudes that make the President go “Oh well, may as well kill myself.”
- Prior to the DLC, you have to commit radiation-induced suicide to get the heroic ending. Nevermind that you have a handful of companions immune to radiation, even one who retrieved a Macguffin from insurmountable radiation. The DLC mitigates this but still calls you a coward for being intelligent.
- The call to action is your dad leaving to jump start his water purifier in order to give the wasteland a source of water. The problem is that this is a non-issue for virtually everyone else living in the wasteland. Aside from everyone having been able to not die of thirst in the 200 years Dad’s device was inactive, the only people you meet in the entire game who are affected by the lack of water are two homeless people that live outside major settlements. This makes his decision seem brash and shortsighted, especially because it resulted in the deaths of many.
A lot of these points are nitpicking ("no one needs water but the beggars", "the game pulls But Thou Must! at Little Lamplight") and full of natter (most of the secondary subbullets). The only thing approaching a legitimate complaint is Dad and Eden's decisions, but Dad doesn't destroy the purifier he floods its control room with radiation to keep the Enclave away from it, and the speech check with Eden is very difficult to make and the entire idea of the Speech skill is talking people into agreeing with you, so this is less a case of idiocy on Eden's part and more the developers didn't write good dialogue. And the Heroic Sacrifice ending has been retconned away so that point is moot.
Overall this is just a misuse of Idiot Plot and not applicable.
openKings Quest 2015 Videogame
There are huuuuuuuuge, nattery, too-detailed lists on King's Quest (2015) pages to the point that deleting them frees up a ton of room, and every reference to the old games is added to the page as they happen. Plus there's losing sight of the original trope or not fitting the trope.
Examples include under Chaos Architecture, Broad Strokes, Continuity Nod, Deconstruction, and Unreliable Narrator. and a mistaken trivia entry for Alternate Continuity used to have a terrifyingly long list until I deleted it when putting it back on the main page. I can add it back if you guys want.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=VideoGame.KingsQuest2015
Should I delete the lengthy entries entirely while giving a generalized example, IE "* Continuity Nod: There's lots of name drops and nods to material from the classic games, and even The King's Quest Companions, thrown in as fun references for old time fans who might be keeping track. Some of these nods include 'alternate' visual adaptations of the box art from the original series, while others include specific creatures and events that are non-canon in this series." or move them to a new page?
EDIT: These entries on the YMMV page are suspect too.
" Protagonist-Centered Morality: The game falls into this with the way Graham treats his two grandchildren. Graham is the hero, so anything he does is more or less indicated to be okay - including the fact that he clearly favors his granddaughter Gwen over his grandson Gart, to the point that he names her his heir, making her Queen of Daventry when he dies. This is despite Gart being the older grandchild, and the one who actually lives in Daventry with his grandfather. Gart himself is given a few minor character flaws, while Gwen isn't shown to have any; she becomes the player character in the epilogue of the game, meaning that she has apparently also inherited Graham's Protagonist Centered Morality. "
"Vocal Minority: When the first chapter was released, the reaction was positive for the most part, but those who didn't like it were much louder than those who did.
- There are/were people who believe it was made with money stolen from the Hiveswap Kickstarter and were very displeased with this. There's no proof as far as we know; Andrew Hussie himself has said he can't take legal action and has tried to keep angry Homestuck fans from doing anything. "
openVideoGame/SIMULACRA Videogame
VideoGame.SIMULACRA has several all white examples. I'd go through them myself, but I haven't played through the game and don't know what actually constitutes as a spoiler.
Edited by Crossover-EnthusiastopenSpoiler issue on VideoGame.KingdomHearts3 Videogame
Yesterday, I removed the spoiler markup from the All White Entries on VideoGame.Kingdom Hearts 3. Tropers.Ashlay whited-out a massive chunk of a sub-example with the following edit reason:
"most people haven't seen or played X, this needs context. and spoiler tags."
Here is the sub-entry in question:
- The epilogue has Xigbar revealed to be Luxu, the original owner of Master Xehanort's keyblade. He then summons four of his fellow seven Foretellers, ancient Keyblade wielders associated with The Seven Deadly Sins whose actions brought about the first Keyblade War that literally ripped the worlds apart into what they are today, minus Ava (Greed) and their master (Pride). And, as Maleficent and Pete watch from afar, Luxu begins filling his cohorts in on what's been going on in the ages they've been away and what the plan is from here on. Finally, the game pulls out to the Framing Device, as a Young Eraqus and Xehanort start a new chess game representing the future conflict of the Seven Foretellers vs Sora.
From what I can tell, it violates Administrivia.Self Fulfilling Spoiler since it hides so much of the text. Is this level of markup kosher?
I have sent them a notifier regarding spoilers, but they have yet to respond. I'm asking here, too, to avoid an Edit War.
openDMOS entries Videogame
On the Video Games page, there is the following entries:
- Five Nights at Freddy's:
- Dr Y 9 K: Five Nights at Freddy's: Sister Location and its stupid twist in the end. Before I go on, let me just say that for the most part, I found Sister Location rather disappointing. I was disappointed with the gameplay, the lack of cameras save for the Private Room, Ennard's canon design, and I was especially disappointed with the non-canon Custom Night. The only redeeming quality for the game was the animatronics themselves. But even that didn't last long. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you what may be the series' worst twist possible: the identity of Springtrap. For almost two years, we were led to believe he was actually William Afton, the series Big Bad, dead and revived. But then the creator released a cutscene, that pretty much confirmed he was actually Michael Afton, William Afton's son. What? You mean to tell me that Springtrap is not the Creepy Awesome Robotic Psychopath I thought he was, but yet another innocent(?) soul? That was terrible! That was the worst, most character-derailing Ass Pull I had ever seen! It made me permanently disown the series and stop liking it! For so long, Springtrap had been one of my favorite animatronics, since I always saw him as the only legitimately "evil" animatronic. Now I can't look at him or enjoy him the same way anymore. The creator said he wanted Springtrap to return, and so did I, for a while. But now? I want nothing to do with him, or this age-old series.
- batmany: I was really looking forward to the release of Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator (AKA FNAF 6) in the hopes it would finally wrap up some of the numerous plot twists and mysteries of the franchise. Well, the game was released earlier this week and....well, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason why is because it utterly contradicts everything established in previous games. The ghostly children being freed in FNAF 3? Nope, they're now possessing Molten Freddy! How? When? At no point (apart from Baby) were any of the Funtime Animatronics ever haunted by ghosts. Remember in Sister Location how Baby didn't like being created for murder and wanted to be free? Remember how Elizabeth (William's Daughter) was an innocent victim of a tragic accident? Now she's daddy's little killer! Why? There was absolutely no indication that either had any interest in murder. And, speaking of Sister Location, now William Afton is Springtrap instead of his son Michael. Nevermind the fact that the Custom Night in SL strongly hinted that Michael was Springtrap and that the Freddy Files guide book even stated that this idea was entirely plausable. Speaking of Michael, he dies in this game by sacrificing himself in a fire with the other Animatronics. Apparently Scott forgot or is completely ignoring that Michael is cursed with immortality. Also, Springtrap survived a fire before so why would this one be any different? William Afton has gone from a evil genius serial killer who lurks behind the scenes to what can best be described as a poor man's version of The Joker. Fazbear Corporate went from being an incompetent if well-meaning company with some questionable business practices to a blatantly over-the-top corrupt one with no regards to safety whatsoever. I could go on and on about how this game did a piss-poor way of explaining things. I feel Scott was more concerned with trying to appease fans who were not happy with Sister Location's plot twists and haphazardly trying to wrap everything up in a neat little bow. Scott, please, if you ever make another FNAF game, give me "Miketrap" and "Freakshow Baby" and retcon this mess of a game out of existence.
- DukeNukem4ever: Mine would be the fact that the mystery of the Bite of '87 and existence of Shadow animatronics went completely unexplained. Since this is (currently) the Grand Finale, I was expecting these things to become finally clear. But no, once again we have to draw suggestions what exactly happened back then. The creator pulled this trick back in Five Nights at Freddy's 4, and now he did it again. As much as I respect Scott Cawthon, I sometimes can't understand his logic. And apparently I am not the only one to think so.
Duke's entry is fine to stay, but there are problems with the other two:
- DrY9K's entry is based on the complete misunderstanding that Springtrap is Michael, when Scott Cawthon has gone on record to say this was never the intention and that the SL Custom Night cutscene was misunderstood by the fandom.
- The boldened part of Batmany's entry is also about Miketrap, which was already explained above. It also questions as to why fire could kill Mike and William, when the game itself explains that fire is the weakness that gets rid of their immortality (Remnant).
As "Correcting factually incorrect information about the work" is a justified reason to edit another user's DMOS entry, should Dr's entry and the boldened part of Batmany's entry both be deleted?
openMultiple Violations of Quote Potholing Videogame
The page quote for The Roottrees are Dead has been potholed to Title Drop three times by three
different
editors
, despite the initial deletion
referencing What to Put at the Top of a Page. I sent the second editor the notifier and they removed their re-potholing attempt by themself, but the third editor added it back in. Does this warrant a reversion and a commented-out warning?
openExample with unnecessary mention of Rule 34? Videogame
So, regarding this example from the Unnecessary Makeover page:
- Midna in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess thinks little of the form in which she's trapped for most of the game; she refers to herself as a "hideous little imp" and jokes with Link that her true form is so beautiful that it leaves him speechless when he first sees it. However, many players find her initial implike design cuter, more unique, and conveying more of her sassy appeal. It's not uncommon for people to joke that Midna's imp form essentially proved the codifier for "shortstack" designs (i.e. a short, busty female character with curves), and artwork of Midna's imp form far outweighs her true form, even—hell, especially on porn sites.
That last part really seems to me like a case of Too Much Information, especially with the way it's worded. I was going to remove it, but I thought I should ask first, because maybe I'm just being too prudish.
Edited by BluethornopenRemoved entires in FranchiseOriginalSin/WorldOfWarcraft that i feel need to be restored Videogame
While a few of those probably warranted their removal, i feel that at least three of them should be restored/re-added:
- The Night Elves Badass Decay, which started as them going from a power equivalent, if not greater, than the Horde and Alliance to being just another of the four Alliance factions, and culminated into them beign the victims of a genocide with their "vengeance" being toothless at best..
- the Forsaken's straddling of the Token Evil Teammate/Nominal Hero line from their very inception.
- The developpers' self admitted Creator Favorite attitude toward writing Horde content, which started with the world revamp of Cata being Horde-focused (i think they event wrote a blog post apologizing about that one, even), and continued all the way to the genocide of an Alliance race beign used as fodder for Horde/Saurfang story developpment.
openCan't link videos to media source Videogame
I realized that the page for Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers didn't have video examples linked to it, but videos for Ret-Gone and Player Personality Quiz had examples from that same game anyway. On closer inspection I noticed that the name of the media source given by the videos on each of the trope pages is not completely the same as the title given by the media page. Is there anyway for me to fix this myself?
Edited by TheGrayShadowopen Paper Mario the Horror King Videogame
Can someone tell me why Paper Mario: the Origami King DOESN'T have its own Nightmare Fuel page? The game has a bunch of horrifying things that by all means SHOULD warrant its own Nightmare Fuel page, but for some reason it doesn't. (I think for some time it actually DID have it's own Nightmare fuel page, but now I can't find it.) Am I able to add it myself, or does someone else have to do it?
Edit: Wait, why can't I reply anymore?
Edited by SpideyopenReligiousAndMythologicalThemeNaming and a Halo franchise example with possible spoilers Videogame
My main concern is how to write this so as to avert creating a Self-Fulfilling Spoiler. The Flood in Halo is very clearly named after the Genesis flood narrative, but how would I go about adding this in to the page without creating a Self-Fulfilling Spoiler since in the backstory, the Flood were effectively created as a means to purge the Forerunners, who retaliated by creating an Ark to preserve most species?
Edited by EclipseMTopenEdit War in YMMV/Super Smash Bros Ultimate Videogame
A while back I noticed this from YMMV.Super Smash Bros Ultimate:
- This would later be downplayed in Castlevania: Grimoire of Souls where Simon initially displays this attitude towards Alucard, commenting on the dark powers from within him are on-par with Dracula's, only for Alucard to remind Simon that he once fought alongside Trevor Belmont, and comments on both Maria, Shanoa, and Charlotte's impressive abilities in magic.
This was a lone third level bullet "reply" to another example under Memetic Psychopath, which was what first stood out as incorrect Example Indentation. Then looking at the text itself it was all about another game's characterization of Simon and nothing to with Simon in Smash Bros. Ultimate. So I removed
it citing both reasons in the Edit Reason.
Tailikku then put it back
showing misunderstanding of both reasons in their Edit Reason.
I PMed them telling them the reasons the entry is incorrect, but they did not respond. So I decided to bring it up here, and checking the Page History again I noticed Tailikku was the one that added the entry
in the first place, so they're also Edit Warring.
The Quiet One (he/him)
openMoving a page to Useful Notes Videogame
A while back (maybe around two or so years ago), in the TLP crash rescue thread, I brought up VideoGame.Game Genie since it lacks trope examples. I said I thought it should be moved to UsefulNotes.Game Genie, since it's a way to tinker with games' code, rather than being a game itself. Only one person responded; Fighteer said he agreed with that idea, but that post wasn't marked as a mod statement (i.e., the post wasn't highlighted in red/pink), so I wasn't sure if I had permission.
Would moving the page to Useful Notes require a TRS thread, or is posting this on ATT enough? VideoGame.Mii was moved to UsefulNotes.Mii earlier this year without TRS, but I don't know if the consensus was gathered on ATT or the forums, so I wasn't sure.
Edit: It looks like VideoGame.Game Shark is in the same boat as VideoGame.Game Genie.
Edited by GastonRabbitopenPaper Mario Origami King Development Speculation Videogame
So in Paper Mario The Origami King's Trivia page, I wrote this.
Troubled Production: Based on what can be inferred from interviews and clues from the game itself, there's a case to be made that during the game's development, there was quite a bit of friction between Intelligent Systems and Kensuke Tanabe.
- As mentioned above in Executive Meddling, the development staff was not allowed to create original characters based on mainline races in the Mario cast, as was possible in the first two games. Kensuke Tanabe enforced this based off of Shigeru Miyamoto's one time expression that he thought that the Paper Mario series was deviating too far from his vision of what Super Mario Bros games should be like. Tanabe took this to heart... by shutting down any and all elements that deviated from standard Mario fare that weren't completely different in the first place. This is in spite of Miyamoto having since expressed that he doesn't want the Super Mario Bros. franchise to become stagnant by only using tropes and characters that audiences are familiar with.
- Intelligent Systems were vehemently opposed to Tanabe's extremely strict meddling on how characters were allowed to be presented in the game, despite not being able to challenge the ruling. So instead they resorted to walking around the rule as much as possible. Olivia insisting on referring to Bob-Omb as Bobby, along with the Legion of Stationery all having wildly exaggerated personalities to make up for any lack of visual detail beyond each being an Animate Inanimate Object are just a few examples of the developers trying to skirt past this rule.
It was shot down as Speculative Troping, and while I want to bring attention to some of the details that I found regarding Origami King's development, I also don't want to break any wiki rules. So I asked the person who erased it if I should put this in the game's WMG page instead. He told me that he thought it was frowned upon, and that I should ask here before doing anything else.
Should this be placed on the game's WMG page as a "meta" (theory outside of the game's lore) tab, somewhere else entirely, or does this sort of stuff have no place on TV Tropes?
Edited by MetroidPeteropenContested Sequels for The Legend of Zelda? Videogame
The YMMV page for The Legend of Zelda has Contested Sequel with the following argument.
"Between the near-universally agreed-upon golden age of A Link to the Past to Majora's Masknote Excluding the hiatus after Link's Awakening that brought the CD-i games and the renaissance in the eyes of previously disgruntled fans with A Link Between Worlds and Breath of the Wild, many of the games released in the time between those periods became this (at least in the eyes of fans; critics largely consider the series consistently good). By far the most divisive period among fans is the DS/Wii era (Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword), which has many fans decrying it as the low point of the series due to issues such as increased linearity, overly long intro sections and pre-dungeon quests that drag down the pacing, and decreased difficulty; however, just as many fans find the DS/Wii era on par with the rest of the series, if not the high point, thanks to their more focused gameplay, more substantial main quests, more accessible difficulty with potential for Self-Imposed Challenge. This era's greater focus on storytelling is also divisive, with many fans debating on whether the games' stories work with or make up for the increased linearity or were the cause of its problems with handholding and pacing and/or weren't good enough to make up for the linearity."
Is this entry even valid? Most of the games described in the entry were commercial and critical successes back when they were first released and even when people find flaws in those games in hindsight, they otherwise have positive opinions about this game. I already posted this question in the discussion page
and Is this an example
, just in case.
So, what do you say?
Edited by MasterHero

Felt like I have to ask this question hoping for those who are way more familiar with how this wiki works to give their thoughts as well. Wall of text warning though, as this does not involve only one video game. But a TL;DR is that some Gacha Games on this wiki have long character descriptions because they're also including gameplay information and other fluff, while there's a debate on whether one game should copy another similar game's way of handling descriptions. Who knows if the descriptions run the risk of going into Walkthrough Mode? Just how much "fluff" can really be added there?
For those who are not familiar with the above two games, the older and longer way of writing descriptions can still be seen on Characters.Genshin Impact Fischl, divided into paragraphs or parts:
Note that the character descriptions for Star Rail used to have simple descriptions, yet there are tropers who massively expanded them to focus on their gameplay. The discussion on the descriptions started a month ago
... Several tropers (including myself) have already weighed in our thoughts on why trimming was necessary, though the discussion was mostly between tropers zero5889 and Ner0014re N, with the latter being the one who mostly did the trimming after getting plenty of responses from those who agree.
Personally, I agreed trimming specifically the "fluff" part of the third paragraph
, stating fluff doesn't really make sense depending on the character... as if other tropers were trying to link gameplay upgrades/passives and lore when they can be misinterpreted in another way, or are not exactly Gameplay and Story Integration at all. Welt's old character description in Characters.Honkai Star Rail Astral Express used to have such kind of fluff that don't really make sense if you're into the lore of the character.
The newer and shorter way of writing descriptions can now be seen on Characters.Honkai Star Rail Astral Express. Generally, there's no longer a paragraph talking about "character progression systems".
For what it's worth though, games like Arknights and Honkai Impact 3rd were written with concise/very simple character descriptions for years now (and tropers who are/were very active on maintaining them kept it that way), and yet troper zero5889 insisted that Honkai Impact 3rd needs some structuring on character pages, and suggested
that "detailed descriptions" for gachas like Arknights are long overdue.
But should it be the case? Are detailed character descriptions for Gacha Games really necessary?
If it would seem like troper zero5889 is planning to restructure character pages or rewrite descriptions on Gacha Games, they did confirm
they are going to give the character pages of Honkai Impact 3rd a look in the future. zero5889 also went to the Arknights forum
to suggest a rearranging of Arknights character pages to group them by "subclass" instead of general class, but several tropers objected and say it would just be overcomplicating things.
Recently on the Discussion tab
for Star Rail, there's another troper who disagreed on the trimming effort of some ability descriptions in Star Rail (particularly the removal of the "character progression systems" paragraph), like a week or so after the actual trimming edits were being done... suggesting the character descriptions of Genshin and Star Rail should still have a similar way of writing.
The trimming effort went through because many tropers agreed with it (like a majority vote, or so), but there are still those few who disagree (likely unware that a month-long discussion already happened).
Edited by DanteVin