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:
openEditing issues and rudeness over PM
Chasekaya03 created a few awful stubpages, such as Ride.Disney Junior Live On Stage, WesternAnimation.Scribbles And Ink, and Series.Little Big Awesome.
However, that's not all.
When I sent them a notifier about Disney Junior Live On Stage, they responded that someone should fix it. When I asked if they could, they told me to "do it myself".
It's cutlisted now, and with their attitude I doubt they're planning on learning proper editing any time soon. They're just here to make bad pages and demand other people do the hard work for them, which I find unacceptable.
openCharacter bashing
Troper youngt806 has many edits around The Walking Dead's Negan and other characters, snipping out any examples that are even remotely sympathetic and adding edits that bash him more. Regardless on how anyone feels about Negan or not, their edits are getting really complainy. This extends to other pages.
This
page has most of them, including edit reasons snarking at other tropers ("how op conveniently left out [...]"), deleting Antagonist in Mourning due to the interpretation(?) that his grief for Carl is selfish, changed Evil Counterpart for comparing Negan to Rick, has "How weird that everyone forgets that" to their edit on A Father to His Men, and finally, their latest edit reason reads "This whole rape apologist bullshit is really gross."
Here
they call Rick's decision to spare Negan "hypocritical", another unnecessary complaint, with the edit reason "dont get mad at me and send me angry messages just because you're ignoring canon evidence and things that have been confirmed by TPTB. maybe you shoukd move your opinions to a forum. don't be mad at me bc you want to ingore facts". Another null edit reason on the page reads "Unless there's a scene that i dont know about where Daryl swung Lucille at Glenn or held a gun to Negan's head and threatened to kill him ulness he killed Glenn, Negan is responsible for Glenn's death regardless of Daryl's actions. Killing Glenn was a complete overreaction to being punched especially because a) negan deserved to be punched [if negan is such a rational person as everyone claims he is he wouldve juat shrugged if off carried on with his business like he should've done] and b) Glenn wasn't the one to punch Negan . Negan made the decision to kill Glenn. The victim blaming in this fandom is unreal."
Here
, they have an edit reason reading "Maggie couldn't have seen the children where out of bed and could see what was going on. Plus, she was way too busy with what she was doing to see them. Maggie didnt stop when Michonne said stop when Michonne saw the children most likely because Maggie assumed that Michonne was (again) trying to stop her from getting justice (which is believable because Michonne did stop her from getting justice for Glenn). I think that it is interesting that you blame Maggie instead of none of the 20+ other people present at the time who could've seen the children more easily than Maggie. If Maggie wanted to let the children see she wouldn't have waited until night to do it. With her discussion with Rick she said "its time to put the children to bed".
Here
they edit an entry with the very snarky edit reason "fixed it for you."
Here
they add in "Don't believe me? Watch the episode" into their edit. They also pull a This Troper complaining about people blaming Darryl.
openStFan and Unilateral Page Changes / Enforcing Preferred Policy
This came out of a recent ATT thread
I made asking to clarify a site policy. I'm pasting and expanding on a comment I made in that thread.
St Fan has a habit of editing pages to standardize the folders + categories which in of itself isn't bad. However, they often enforce a very particular idea of grammar and categorization that isn't necessarily based on any consensus/site policy and they will unilaterally edit the relevant pages where you would check to verify such a policy, later using that unilateral edit to justify making other edits elsewhere. See:
- This query [1]
and this one [2]
where St Fan states a "site policy" that has never existed as a fact to justify their edits
- Or this query
I made after messaging them about another page reordering they did for Mysterious Purple. In our messages, after I questioned the re-ordering, St Fan essentially told me that's how it's done on the index page, ergo that's the default policy and you can see him making the same argument in that thread here [3]
. And I find this suss b/c one glance at the page history for the Manga and anime indices would show St Fan reorganizing it going back to 2014 so of course it would reflect their personal organizing preferences. and in the end, the agreed upon ordering was what was originally there before St. Fan edited the page.
- this query
about St Fan making a unilateral edit to Media Categories. This is relevant because St Fan is "correcting" other pages based on this change they themself made, despite there being no consensus in favor of (or outright against) this change
- And this query
where they ignore the consensus built in the ATT thread to continue unilaterally editing out AC formatting for folders
I'm not sure how much if any of this is actually against site policy, but I wanted to consolidate all of this in one post because I've noticed this particular troper pop up quite a bit recently with similar issues
Edited by amathieu13open Troper with a pretty blatant agenda
Tropers.generalerror has been making a long list of edits that make it blatantly obvious that he has a political agenda.
- First, there's his edit on Men Act, Women Are (which I edited) which uses the old "women are inherently valuable because they can give birth" nugget.
- His edit on Technical Pacifist, in which he touts libertarianism as fitting the trope, because he claims they don't harm anyone other than in "self-defense".
- His edits to One-Drop Rule and Pass Fail, which are both aimed at Democratic Congresswoman Elizabeth Warren and her recent scandal. (Note that the edit was made two days before the elections.)
- His edit on Just Like Robin Hood in which he changed the statement that Communism "destroys the rich" to "destroys the rich (by killing them)".
- Edit on Slippery Slope Fallacy stating that raising the minimum wage leads to hyperinflation.
- On Hollywood Pudgy, he added an example saying that it was Truth in Television since people with that body type are classified as "overweight". He also removed another example which linked an article stating that people classified as overweight often had lower mortality rate.
I stopped there, but I'm sure there's more. He's been here since at least November 2013, so a massive investigation of his edits might be needed.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenPage ownership issues and rudeness Webcomic
PrincessPandaTrope and I are the only two people who frequently edit the page for the Sonic the Hedgehog fan comic Ghosts of the Future. I'm starting to understand why nobody else wants to edit the page. She keeps sending me PMs after I edit, saying that she's "very disappointed with" me for not phrasing things exactly the way she wanted.
One example would be my latest edit, where I removed the word "very" from a lot of edits, since it's a word that usually doesn't do any good. Saying "the house is very big" doesn't actually give you any more exact info about how big the house is than if you just say "The house is big."
She PMed me and said that I should have replaced it with a more descriptive adjective instead, without explaining why she couldn't do that herself.
She also said that I was giving the middle finger to the comic's creator, Evan Stanley, by replacing "very [adjective]" with a plain "[adjective]". She said that I was misleading people about the content of the comic this way—as if I had changed an exact measurement to one less exact or accurate.
And then there's the time when she asked people to cut down the wall of text
in one entry, and then when I did that, she asked me to explain why I deleted things
. I tried to be polite, but I wondered why she even asked for help if she expected people to follow rules she never bothered mentioning.
(Then, in an act of Edit Warring, she put back things I'd taken away.)
It feels like she's decided that my only task is to fix the grammar and spelling mistakes she keeps making again and again. It also feels like she's got this idea of how the page must be written that she assumes everybody else knows and she therefore chooses never to tell people about.
To be frank, she's acting like she's Knuckles the Echidna and the GotF page is a Chaos Emerald. ('Cause she's acting like its guardian, geddit?)
Short version: This troper is rude, keeps edit warring and has page ownership issues, and it's getting very tiring.
Edited by MichaelKatsuroopen Edit war
A pretty angry edit war is happening on the YMMV page for Blue Valentine
This is the original Misaimed Fandom entry:
- Misaimed Fandom: Young, aimless men are more likely to overidentify with Dean and characterize him as a good husband and father who is unfairly treated, instead of a pushy, needy, manipulative an immature, needy drunk who rarely takes Cindy's feelings into consideration.
Aviator Fan added this:
- In much the same vein, young, flighty women are likely to overempathize with Cindy and lionize her struggling working woman traits, instead of clocking her poor model of spousal relations- the effects of which she clearly brings into, not only her relationship with Dean, but presumably her other dalliances, her promiscuity, and her general coldness towards Dean despite his genuine attempts to reach out to her.
With the reason "Elaboration, fullness of analysis, alternate perspective."
H Barnill deleted it without a reason.
Aviator Fan then deleted the original MF entry with "Coolness. Dishonesty in not reflecting the whole truth of the fact that both genders are likely to experience the film differently. Counter to the deletion of the entry of the inverse misaimed fandom"
kyeo re-added the original saying "yeah we don't actually need to both-sides this"
Aviator Fan deleted it again. "Well we actually kind of do need to both sides it. You see the film doesn't present either side as right or wrong. It presents it as two people, because of what they are individually bringing into it that's detrimental to the relationship, are not good together. Despite that they may love each other. I could see if this were a movie in which there was, say, a rape. Where totally. We don't need to really both sides it or even give the man's feelings beforehand because it can be seen as an attempt to justify his actions. It's however pretty strange and, in keeping with the site's general unofficial policy, pretty uncool to suggest that women can't be subject to getting hit with misaimed fandom in this case as well. Ignoring the problems of the Michelle William's character. To that end, if that's what we're going to suggest, it's eminently more appropriate for no one to be accused of being a victim of the misaimed fandom trope. As, again, to suggest that it's only men who are, is clearly a simplified partisan take that doesn't do the even-handed, nuanced film's presentation of itself accurate justice."
kyeo re-added it. "nope."
Aviator Fan deleted it. "Political opinion."
kyeo re-added it. "you're literally only deleting this because your mra screed got deleted."
Aviator Fan re-added his edit to the original. "You're a real piece of work, but considering how accurate, non argumentative, and in the spirit of the site my edit is, we can play these games til the cows come home lol"
kyeo deleted it. "Lol bye"
Re-add. "Taking this Very personally. It's weird. Love it lmao"
Deleted. "imagine hating women this much"
Re-add. "Imagine not knowing how YMM Vs work. Imagine thinking you have some authority. Imagine projecting so much. Amazing."
Deleted. "Lol incels"
openPossible Fandom Agenda-Based Edits? Live Action TV
I've been monitoring the Supernatural page for a while now to cut down on agenda-based editing in wake of the show's controversial ending. I know enough about it from osmosis to understand what the different fandom camps are, which generally fall into three camps: Destiel fans (Dean/Castiel shippers, the largest group), Wincest fans (Sam/Dean shippers, second most common group), and Bibros (platonic Sam+Dean, the audience to whom the show has officially markets itself, though the show's LGBT Fanbase and Yaoi Fangirls have famously disputed this), and how acrimonious things are that keeping an eye on that page is necessary.
Destiel and Wincest fans notoriously do not get along, and I've had to clean up vandalism related to that war in the past. Bibros, though they officially prefer the brothers' relationship platonic, often take the side of Wincest fans against Destiel fans because they share more in common. Bibros are characterized as not liking non-Sam or Dean characters in general, but their dislike for Castiel is less because of Die for Our Ship and more because they consider him a Spotlight-Stealing Squad who took attention away from Sam and made the show more about an expanded cast. Many saw this as a good thing (Castiel was meant to appear in only a few episodes, but the very positive reception from audiences and critics led to him becoming an Ascended Extra and eventually a Breakout Character, especially since the earlier seasons developed a Broken Base where one half of fans believed that the show's exclusive focus on the brothers resulted in a great deal of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character or Plot), but Bibros see him as the harbinger of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.
Many of Lapistier's
edits on the Supernatural YMMV page and others are fine enough and stay nonpartisan, but other times it comes off as a Bibro Righting Great Wrongs or stealth complaining about fans who feel differently. I am not the only one who feels this way, am I?
openUnsolicited DM regarding Complete Monster
So, I got a DM from someone(Finding Prosperity) I've never spoken to before regarding my activity in the Complete Monster thread.
They noted that I had upvoted Derek Danforth a few months ago, and used that as a segue to request I go out of my way to watch a musical to propose the villain from there on their behalf. They wouldn't even be forthcoming with the work's title or who the villain was, saying I'd need to figure it out for myself.
They have a whooping two edits in their account history and a single forum post from back in April. They provided no adequate reason they couldn't propose the villain themselves, which makes the whole thing even more suspicious. I know there's been past issues with ban evaders/suspendees D Ming users involved in the thread for various reasons, so I thought this merited reporting on the grounds of standing a good chance to be the same situation. At the very, they're trying to use me as a meat puppet
Edited by BozzyopenCybirddude
So, I've been mulling over whether or not I should make this report for... well, honestly a long time now. Because the thing is, most of Cybirddude's contributions to the TLP are fine. Most of their drafts launch without issue and at times they are very dedicated to keeping misuse away and fixing problems. Other times, though... Well, I decided to finally bite the bullet and say something because there has been a pattern, for years, of reported issues just... kinda going ignored, unless they're really pushed to listen? Here's a list I compiled, out of order because of the annoying TLP history "sorting" (for reference, the list
features active drafts from May at the top, then Jan, then August... it's a confusing mess).
And they have so many drafts, obviously I couldn't go back and check literally every single one. But of the ones I did check, I found:
- Preemptive Threat Elimination
— Never responding to whether or not heroes are allowed, but adding examples of them despite the villain-focused description
- Does Not Like Dogs
— No acknowledgement on the definition issues, despite multiple attempts to discuss them
- Magically Inflicted Disability
— No response to Malady's concerns and ignoring the formatting error they made in posting my examples. Also the first case I really noticed the lack of full crosswicking when the page was launched.
- Flashy Fraud vs. Subtle Substance
— Didn't respond to concerns right away despite definitely reading the posts the concerns were posted on. Even after removing some of the iffy examples, they still added one that had the exact same misuse issue.
- Belated Child Discipline
— Launched with the current name, ignoring my post of concern (which is also the last one on the entire draft).
- Share the Sickness
— Launched while ignoring an entire post suggesting writing tweaks, many of which were just fixing grammar mistakes.
- Love Interest vs Lust Interest
— The subject of a huge back and forth, because they added a bunch of misused examples and didn't fix the problem until multiple attempts later, even after telling them directly what the issue was. The draft had to be sent back to TLP as a result.
And the issue of them not fully crosswicking stuff remains. Ignoring their most recent launch (Flashy Fraud vs. Subtle Substance) which is still new enough to keep working on, we can examine Boast Backfire, the one before that, which has several examples that had launched with it yet haven't been crosswicked. I've been unsure if I should say anything on this point for a long while because they're bringing their drafts up to healthy levels and sponsors not doing full crosswicking is an issue that many are guilty of, not just cybird.
Once again I want to reiterate that a majority of their TLP contributions are positive, most of their drafts have launched without any real issues, and there are cases (like this current draft
) where they take misuse issues very seriously. But in too many cases over the past two years, getting them to even just acknowledge certain concerns has been very difficult. I don't want to seem like I'm jumping the gun to accuse them of being a bad sponsor, but I want to make sure these problems are addressed because it's been going on for a very long time with the same pattern continuing to present itself.
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
openConcerning edit on The White Lotus
I stumbled across this on YMMV.The White Lotus Season Three:
- Diagnosed by the Audience: Some viewers have claimed that Frank's desire to be a submissive Asian woman is rather reminiscent of autogynephilia, a sexual fetish where a male is aroused by the thought of himself with female anatomy.
To my knowledge, "autogynephilia" is a transphobic dogwhistle which basically means "trans women are just perverted men with a fetish for becoming a woman." I don't think the term is used by anyone who isn't a TERF.
Putting that aside, I don't think this is a valid example anyway, as Diagnosed By The Audience is about mental illnesses and disorders, not fetishes. Maybe Trans Audience Interpretation could work for this example, but I'm not really familiar with the show so I'm not sure. I've just heard a little bit about the scene in question through other sites.
Edited by Zuxtronopen Consistent problematic behavior from user Ordeaux26
So, the user Ordeaux 26 has consistently had a problem with mini-modding around the site. He has regularly tried to dictate how others behave and claim that feelings on certain topics aren't valid or "following site rules." He most recently
responded to folks disagreeing with him on a topic by falsely claiming that site rules were being broken and attributing feelings of disagreement by other users to "culture problems."
Here is a case of him bluntly trying to shut down discussion on a topic
, only later trying to cover himself by misrepresenting site rules
.
He has also regularly said needlessly aggressive or offensive things that he then edited out of his comments after being called out so as to avoid proof of his rude behavior.
This is far from the first time Ordeaux has done things like this, tried to mini-mod the feelings of others, and has turned what would be simple debates over a topic into a heated, pages-long argument about site policy while being, frankly, needlessly rude, combative and aggressive. It has gone on for a long, long time and I, for one, am really frustrated with this. I truly don't know what else I could do but bring it to others' attention.
Edited by Ravokopen TinyLittleLetters Western Animation
Tiny Little Letters makes a lot of edits on Tangled: The Series pages. I deleted shoehorns here
, here
, here
, here
, and here
— darn, I cut a lot; have I grown trigger-happy? I wrote an edit reason for each deletion though. But what I want to talk about is that I suspect this troper does Draco in Leather Pants.
- Here
, meet Rapunzel the Death Eater who makes the poor Varian suffer.
- Laser-Guided Karma: Done en masse. Toward the end of Season 1, the people of Corona turned their backs on Varian and denied him when he begged them for help. Now, he's allied himself with the Saporians and has taken over the kingdom, with Corona's citizens being forced to mine crystals for Varian's chemicals so the Saporians can use them to their advantage.
A few days ago, the same troper added this on YMMV.Tangled The Series:
- Catharsis Factor:
- After seeing them display disturbing Lack of Empathy towards his problems in the second half of Season 1, with King Frederic hunting down Varian for the Demanitus Scroll and chasing him out of his own home, and Rapunzel never checking on Varian after Zhan Tiri's blizzard was over (thus abandoning him for months on end), as well as expressing little-to-no concern for his well-being even when seeing Quirin encased in amber, Varian gloating in their faces over abducting Queen Arianna is quite satisfying, especially when he taunts Frederic to his face and puts Rapunzel through physical pain while using her hair as a drill. This also goes true for Varian, in his giant automaton, grabbing Arianna away from them, after they'd shared a warm and long hug right in front of him as he breaks down over failing to free his father.
So, what to do about this? Maybe I should talk to this troper but I don't know how. "Even if you're grief-stricken, it's not nice to enslave and kill innocent people?"
openSingle troper's vandalism of animated series all from same creator Western Animation
A troper by the name of Bento Boxer Justin Roiland has had a history of vandalizing work pages involving cartoons created by Brazilian animator Pedro Eboli, often adding false information. This includes:
- Claiming his works from Birdo Studio (Oswaldo, Cupcake & Dino: General Services, and Ba Da Bean) were co-produced by Bento Box Entertainment on December 16, 2024
(edit removed January 13, 2025
).
- They added this information to Bento Box's page too on April 19, 2025
. (removed April 24, 2025
)
- They also said Ollie's Pack was animated by Atomic Cartoons, Toon City, and Snipple Animation on April 19, 2025
(removed April 24, 2025
).
- They added this information to Bento Box's page too on April 19, 2025
- Creating a Character Sheet for Cupcake & Dino: General Services full of outright false information on December 17 2024. (page was cut by yours truly)
- Creating a Crosses the Line Twice page for Ollie's Pack once again full of false information and using a page image not actually from the show on February 1, 2025 (has been added to the Cutlist by me again).
- Adding a frankly bizarre and nonsensical, as well as unnecessary, image and caption to the Ollie's Pack Character Sheet photoshopping the characters' heads onto the cast of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia on April 18, 2025
(removed May 8, 2025
).
- Also adding links to that image and new ones to the Image Links for Crosses the Line Twice on May 6, 2025
that appear to go to their Deviantart. (images cut May 8, 2025
).
- Also adding links to that image and new ones to the Image Links for Crosses the Line Twice on May 6, 2025
There are probably other examples, but I think we all get the point (I get the sense they are a ban evader as another troper named Morty 336 Steve 909 made similar vandalizing edits regarding the same shows). And while they do seem to have made a few positive contributions, this frequent vandalism and spreading of misinformation targeting a few specific shows (that all share the same creator, so I have my suspicions here) is very frustrating, especially for people who work on pages for obscure works, like myself. While I am personally of the belief that this user should be banned, I would like to know what other people's opinions on this matter is.
Edited by MagnusForceopenCharacter Page Vandalism Western Animation
axwi07 made deletions to Voltron: Legendary Defender - Team Voltron, likely motivated by shipping. Notably removing any entries referring to Shiro and Keith's relationship as platonic or to the fact that Shiro ended up with someone else (I have my own various thoughts about those two relationships but regardless, what's official is what's official; canon doesn't care about quality or subtext and trope pages are not the place to share your personal criticisms). The most generous one I can give them is the decision to leave off Heterosexual Life-Partners given that Shiro is not heterosexual, but the trope itself points out that it doesn't care about such things.
I could easily revert it myself but I think a proper warning is worth having given the fact that we've had other shipping-based vandalism for this work in the recent past. Let them report to their fellow shipper brethren that this kind of behavior is not to be tolerated.
Edited by AlleyOopopen Chico The Parakeet
DISCLAIMER: I do not have a vendetta/grudge against this user. I am simply concerned for him and the Hollers weren't enough for him to change his behavior even by a little bit, so I decided to make this ATT Report.
First off, they were the user I was talking about in this query
as I merely wanted to Holler him for his concerning behavior, mainly about his wonk about a South Park scene and showing it to other people even if it's determental.
He then brought it up again a couple of days later here
. Another user impiled that his obession might not be healthy. Prior to that post, I already sent him two Hollers. Assuming the mods read them and sent him a message about it in his PMs, he hasn't listened.
In general, as someone else puts its, he seems too erratic and cynical for his own good. For example, he has some sort of wonk towards Online Reviewers, particuraly those of the Caustic Critic kind, and holds their opinion as gospel even if he disagrees with them at the cost of his well being. I also recall that he stated he wanted to hurt himself over the opinions of these critics and asked why people wanted him to stop worrying about their opinions after that.
Here are
some of
his posts that show that.
Next, one about his paranoia over a work that seems to be excessive
and one that mentions a past trauma that he seems troubled by
(TW for animal cruelty/death for that one). They also seem quite self-conscious about their writting and fear that he'll get hated over it, as seen in the first of these Writer's Block posts.
Overall, a quite worrying troper and I made this ATT report to get other users' and mods' attention since the Hollers apparently weren't enough for him.
Edited by Cutegirl920fireopen Re-adding missuse with an incredibly rude Edit Reason and a potentially biased troper
So on YMMV.She Hulk Attorney At Law there was this entry
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The scene where Jennifer calls out Bruce about controlling her anger did not endear her to some. Fans are well aware of Bruce's troubled and traumatic past note undergoing a botched super soldier experiment that resulted in the deaths of some of his coworkers, being hunted by the US government for years, having to give up his relationships with Betty Ross and Black Widow due to his deep-seated fears of accidentally harming them, coming to terms with Black Widow's death, and attempting suicide at one point, while Jennifer is not, due to how (in her own words) Bruce has isolated himself from her and she's only heard the barest details until recently. Yet even if she is ignorant of the depth of his issues, and/or people understand where Jennifer is coming from, Bruce is the wrong person to be calling out over such (relatively) petty issues as catcalling and mansplaining.
It was decided by the Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup
. That is was a bad faith argument that misinterpreted the scene as she wasn't actually comparing tramas with Bruce like it said and bias attempting to Jen as petty when she wasn't. So I removed
it. Well General Horseradish re-added
with this incredibly rude Edit Reason, "what the hell do you mean "bad faith argument", it's literally how the scene plays out lmao" I also feel that they might be bias. As they also removed
a Nightmare Fuel entry that mentions the speech in a positive light. However, I could be very wrong there.
Now I don't care one way or another about the entry, but would like some opinions.
Edited by BullmanopenSpider-Man stuff
Revolutionary_Jack has been adding a lot of entries to Spider-Man YMMV pages that don't have a general fandom consensus to be on the YMMV page, such as Steve Ditko's Gwen Stacy being a Love to Hate character and modern readers preferring her to any other version of Gwen. Entries that are legit are very long-winded and nattery, and they also deleted a Spider-Man 3 Vindicated by History example due to the film "not being a classic" even though its reputation has improved post-ASM 2 and the Editor's Cut salvaging a lot of the movie. The following examples are just from the Spider-Man 3 YMMV page but similar examples can be found on other Spider-Man pages, including main, subpage, and trivia pages.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=Revolutionary_Jack
"* Misaimed Fandom:
- The symbiote influenced Peter is supposed to be Peter Slowly Sliding Into Evil and the narm and lameness of "Emo Peter" is definitely an Intended Audience Reaction. But given that many audiences had grown fatigued over Raimi's portrayal of Peter as a serious Extreme Doormat Hurting Hero in the previous films (even if Maguire himself was praised for his performance and screen presence), the fact that the one time we see Peter acting somewhat closer to his more rounded comics' portrayal such as him talking back to his landlord and giving Harry Osborn a piece of his mind, it's shown as a case of a Symbiote turning him evil, makes many fans express frustration about Raimi's misreading of the character as a suffering superhero monk.
- Many fans especially feel this way about Peter negotiating a higher salary from Jameson. In the comics this happened at the end of the Master Planner arc (considered among the all-time greatest stories in Spider-Man mythos), and it was portrayed as a Hell Yes moment. The movie makes it seem like this is his Start of Darkness even if what Peter is doing, calling out Eddie Brock for his unethical work and fighting against Jameson's exploitation, is entirely legitimate."
"* They Changed It, Now It Sucks!:
- A big sticking point for some fans, even if the character on the whole was praised, was the Retcon that made Sandman into Uncle Ben's killer. It's not the first time a superhero film did this (Tim Burton's Batman did the same to Joker, and it was criticized even then by many reviewersnote It was an element that DC Comics, normally receptive to introducing elements from adaptations, absolutely refused to incorporate into the character since it drastically undermined the appeal of the Batman-Joker rivalry) but many audiences felt it drastically undercut and ruined Peter's origin from Spider-Man 1 (since if the burglar Peter specifically didn't let escape kill Uncle Ben, and it was his getaway partner who did it in panic, then that means that Peter isn't actually responsible for his Uncle's death and his entire guilt was misplaced, which ruins the crucial theme from his story). Many also saw it as an inability for Raimi and Sony to create a nemesis who wasn't a free agent unconnected to Peter's story and life simply so that they could rehash simple beats. A tendency at Sony Pictures which continued in The Amazing Spider-Man Series and which the hacked Sony emails had one of Marvel's own executives call them out on.
- As a number of fans note, the Symbiote was never Spider-Man's Superpowered Evil Side nor did it turn him into evil, and definitely ''not'' emo. The original Symbiote was a sentient suit that liked Spider-Man and became a case of a Stalker with a Crush. It ended up taking Peter out as Spider-Man while in his sleep, and Peter worried about gaps and lack of control parted ways with it, which made the Symbiote a crazy jealous ex, who saw new host Eddie Brock as "sloppy seconds". The change in dynamics to a more simplistic Jekyll and Hyde story annoyed many for cheapening a great concept, as well as creating frustrating drama since Peter acts like a jerk to his loved ones but since it's not really his fault, all his actions can be blamed on Gollum Made Me Do It (which as many note was a beat that applied to the villain of Spider-Man 1 and something which Peter didn't entirely accept there)."
open Valid removal?
Steve From Canada removed an example
from TheReasonYouSuckSpeech.Real Life, with the edit reason "Removed Tommy Lee's entry because he invocked the "Fine Prople Hoax" while berating Donald Trump. If you want to give to someone reasons why he sucks, stick to non-fiction ones."
This seems like an invalid deletion to me; the trope still applies, this was still a TRYSS directed at Trump, even if the speech itself had inaccuracies. I think it should be re-added, but want to discuss it first.
Edit: Hold on, this is worse than I realized. Every edit this person has made has been to this page, and all they've ever done is delete Trump-related examples from it.
Edited by WarJay77openEdit War
Okay, so continuing from this thread
: Suave Augustine and Yoyospinner 17 are edit warring in Friends: Main Characters. The main point of contention is the Deadpan Snarker trope, with both of them repeatedly undoing each other's edits across multiple folders. This despite the fact that multiple notifiers have been sent and at least three tropers (War Jay 77, annette12 and myself) have made the argument that none of the characters in question fit the trope. They are also unhiding Zero-Context Examples without expanding on them.

So, while doing a Wiki Walk, I stumbled across Quotes.Goodbye Cruel World, and immediately noticed the fact that it has real-life suicide notes on it. And this isn’t just one or two quotes, either, it’s over half the page. While I do understand that other quote pages have real-life quotes, it just feels very uncomfortable reading the suicide note of a real person who killed themself. Should the real-life quotes be removed?
Edited by idonom