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:
openTrivia in trope examples
There's a recurring issue in Characters.Minecraft that I'd like to address:
There's this boss, the Ender Dragon, which is often referred to in the fandom as being canonically named "Jean". The issue is that this is not actually referenced to in canon anywhere, and from what I can tell is based on only two sources: the first is this Reddit comment by Notch from 2011
("And I, for one, am so glad she stays there. What's her name?" "Jean?"), and the second is this Twitter comment by Nathan Addams/Dinnerbone from 2015
("Officially I think it's "Jean?" ;D") Notch is Minecraft's original coder, but parted ways with it years ago and is no longer credited on the game; Dinnerbone is an active code developer.
(Incidentally, there is also this article from 2019
, which claims that "uttering [the dragon's] true name would unleash a destructive force that would obliterate not only the End, but the Nether and the Overworld at the same time", which is... not hugely authoritative either, but I'd still rank it a touch higher than "this one Twitter comment from ten years ago".)
Now, commentary from a work's creator outside of the work itself is Word of God. My understanding is that, since Word of God is Trivia, it cannot be used as a source for trope examples — and, presumably, this would go double for when God is no longer involved with a work in any way, or when the Word is just a single social media comment from a decade or more ago. So I just cut those examples, left a note about Trivia entries, and moved on.
Issue is that people keep adding this material, and I really would rather not go on a one-man rampage here because that'd probably just turn into an edit war, so I'd like some feedback. At the absolute least, I think that making broad statements like "this thing is canonically so" or "this thing is confirmed to be so" when the actual sources are, well, what they are is misleading and, if you want to add this information, you should at least qualify where it actually comes from.
Edited by TheriocephalusopenEdit Reason: "Removing the excessive content"? Anime
I know Word Cruft is a reason for editing down an entry, but is it actually applicable in this case?
On November 4th
, I/Rebel Falcon, edited the entry for the trope "Because You Were Nice to Me" for the character Kyoka Jiro on My Hero Academia - Class 1-A (11-20) to provide further context, and I didn't think the entry was that long or required any Word Cruft.
- Because You Were Nice to Me: Jiro initially didn't have much of a connection with Midoriya throughout the school year. During the preparation for the Culture Festival however, she approached him for aid in neatening up her notes on music, initially embarrassed at needing to ask but finding herself pleasantly surprised the more they worked together, slowly transitioning into the two becoming genuine friends. She brings up this moment specifically when all of Class 1-A come to bring him back to U.A. High after he had left due to becoming a target for Shigaraki due to his possession of One For All, telling him how happy she was to find they shared a hobby in note taking and, that while he has gotten stronger, she doesn't want her friend having to suffer for their sake.
- Because You Were Nice to Me: During Class 1-A's fight against Midoriya, when they try to bring him to back U.A. High, Jiro brings up to him how they bonded over their shared habit of making notes to improve their works (for Izuku, it's his combat skills, for Jiro, it's her musical skills) and how he helped her prepare for the School Festival as a way to convince him to return, even if she know it's only a minor moment.
EDIT: I am not trying to get anyone in trouble, this is just me trying to clear up some genuine confusion on my end. Edited by RebelFalcon
openFemale protagonist from P3P Videogame
So I was on the Persona 3 YMMV section and came across this entry, edited by Key Will Jay:
- The female main character herself is rather divisive. Some love her inclusion for providing an interesting "what if" scenario (and with the main theme of Portable being the butterfly effect, this also fits) and for her personality contrasting with the male main character while still keeping the "masking feelings" theme. They may also like how some of the less interesting Social Links get replaced with S.E.E.S. members. Others see her as unnecessary and believe she ruins the game's themes of overcoming despair and accepting death with said alternate scenario and personality, and dislike how SEES is made obviously friendlier in her route (a criticism fans of older titles sometimes level at newer titles in general). The memes and exposure surrounding her also induce Hype Backlash for non-fans and those that have played the console version but do not try Portable, calling her overrated. It was bad enough that when an alleged lead regarding a theoretical remake mentioned cutting out Portable content (which turned to be reality per the reveal of Reload), the fanbase split between those calling it a worst-case scenario and those celebrating the removal.
I’m not as active in the fandom but do people really fight over the female protagonist? Because I’ve never seen much divide over her. In fact, I’ve only seen people express their disappointment of her being excluded from Reload.
Edited by Superdude96openWhat do you do with a page mostly plagiarized? Live Action TV
I’m doing a plagiarism clean-up of Doctor Who’s trivia pages. I got tipped off a while ago that almost every page of the first Three doctors’ pages has examples (mostly under What Could Have Been) that have been plagiarized from either the show’s wiki or this comprehensive website
(which the wiki itself has cribbed from).
For example, several trivia examples from the episode “An Unearthly Child” (the very 1st episode of the series) had been plagiarized from it’s wiki article’s story notes.
- The first school scene was re-written to reduce the tension between Barbara and Ian. In the original script, Ian says, "When I've had a bad day, I come in here [the staff room], and I want to smash all the windows". Barbara retorts, "It hasn't been a bad day", and Ian remarks, "You're just naturally like that?" Barbara replies, "I hope not. I've had another kind of day. A very puzzling kind of day".
- Ian and Barbara's relationship was much more romantic in the original script.
- In the original script, the "PRIVATE" notice at the junkyard was originally supposed to appear significantly newer than the lettering on the gates. The junkyard was also supposed to contain "a broken-down old shed".
And while doing cleanup the trivia page for the episode “The Romans”
and it is seeping with plagiarism, up to and including Wikipedia.
So how should I go forward with this? I’ve been editing previous pages to remove plagiarism, but this particular page is compromised with it.
Edited by CanuckMcDuck1open TLP Editor editing other's drafts past basic tweaks
Aqua Eclipse has been editing other people's TLP proposals without regularly saying or stating what they are doing, and in some cases has made major changes to the proposal, when they are not the creator.
- here
on Gratuitous Chinese
- here
on Fighting Your Future Self
- here
on my own, Rough Overalls (it was formatting, but I'd have appreciated some notation in the replies)
- here
on Kiddy Coveralls, another I'm working on, though they stated what they did
- ETA: here
on Homeowners' Autocracy, where they added an example directly instead of putting it in the comments and said so
.
They were asked by War Jay 77 to stop editing in this fashion
. Twice.
At this point a reminder needs to be sent to abide by the TLP Guidelines of not editing other people's drafts without asking or explaining themselves—and even if it's a small typo or formatting, to still say something. TLP isn't the general wiki at large and the proposals aren't up for open edits until they're launched.
Edited by NethiliaopenPosting a link to content you've created
Hi. I just recently published a video on YouTube
that provides comprehensive coverage of all the known Dub Name Changes, Sudden Name Changes, and Inconsistent Spellings of the LEGO Adventurers toyline. I had hoped for this to be a useful resource for LEGO fans and I was considering linking to it on the toyline's article and/or the characters subpage, i.e. "For more in-depth coverage of all alternate names and their original sources, see this video."
However, I get the impression that this might not be proper etiquette and could be perceived as shameless self-promotion, which is definitely frowned upon. On one hand: yes, I am promoting something I've made... but on the other hand, I'm only doing so because I want it to be a helpful resource for others, and what good is a resource if no one knows it exists? So, before I add any links to this video, I wanted to check with Ask The Tropers and see what's the right thing to do in this situation.
Edited by PeabodySamopenA troper who posted extremely biased and outright fabricated edits due to shipping bias Videogame
I saw troper Sayacha change several YMMV entries on Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth and even wrote on Ship Sinking (videogames) that had very biased takes and even blatant lies. I felt compelled to delete and undo their edits, especially the claim on the Ship Sinking page. As I've said there, the claim that protagonist Cloud Strife "friend zones" Aerith Gainsborough in the final chapter of Rebirth is complete fabrication. There are two ways their conversation can go, based on Relationship Values. He either enthusiastically looks forward to going on a date with her again, or responds with less enthusiasm, but he never outright rejects her. Writing that Aerith "probably realized she doesn't like him romantically" is another very biased reading. All she said was that she really likes Cloud but is unsure yet what kind of "like" she feels. It's a deliberately vague response. Anyone with common sense and an objective mind can see that what I say is true by looking at Youtube videos of that scene on Chapter 14.
Sayacha also claimed on both Ship Sinking and the YMMV page that developer's commentary on a book (Ultimania) allegedly said that Aerith was "certainly killed off again" and that developers "confirmed" it themselves. Another blatant fabrication. I checked the claim and the only thing that came up from every non-biased fan translator who translated that Japanese book was that the developers deliberately designed the outcome of Aerith's fate as of Rebirth to be vague and mysterious. Did she die? Is the Aerith shown "alive" afterwards a mere illusion by Cloud? Or is there something more going on? The game's story introduces the concept of Alternate Self and what appears to be Alternate worlds. There are no details yet revealed as to how this phenomena occurs within the lore of FF 7 but it's there. And the developers made a deliberate narrative choice to keep the ending of the game ambiguous and leaving the story full of questions in order to entice players to look forward to the next entry for answers. Ask yourselves. What kind of writer/developer would be incompetent enough to spend YEARS of development time to deliberately create an ambiguous situation to create speculation for the next few years, only to go a couple of months later and say "Actually, nothing changed. LOL"?
I'm also reporting this because I regretfully ended up engaging in an edit war on the YMMV page by deleting/reverting Sayacha's biased edits back to the more neutral posts. However, the main reason I'm reporting this is because I'm seeing another bad sign that the FF 7 pages are about to be swarmed with another wave of edit warring by extremely biased shippers intent on spreading their agenda with bad faith justifications. We've seen this nightmare before in the original 1997 version of FF 7. It may be best to take preventive measures by locking down the pages of FF 7 Remake and Rebirth too until the third and final game finally clarifies everything.
openI think I am part of an edit war by accident.
So, on SeasonalRot.Doctor Who, I was editing an entry but then I looked at the history and I feel like I am part of an edit war by forgetting I already edited the same entry in a similar way. Basically, the fallowing happened:
- Lilybelle added
emphasis (two ('')) around the word "still".
- I removed
it because I felt the emphasis was not needed but I for got to put an edit reason.
- Lilybelle added
emphasis (three (''')) again without an edit reason or discussing it anywhere.
- I removed
the new form of emphasis, this time with an edit reason.
Did I edit war? If so, I would like to report myself for punishment.
openSpeculatory Entry on Hazbin Hotel page.
The character page for Hazbin Hotel: Heaven had a folder on it specifically referring to the "Elders of Heaven" and treats them like a legitimate group of characters... except they aren't. Aside from a single line from Charlie in the very first episode, there's no indication they as a group exist at all and wasn't just a catchall term used to refer to Heaven's authority, especially since one of the so-called "elders" is Sera the High Seraphim, and its all but said she is the leader of Heaven, aided by the aforementioned first episode depicting Sera alone when Charlie mentions "Heaven" making the "heartless decision" to conduct the Exterminations, and the only beings said to outrank her being God himself and the "Speaker of God". So I deleted
the folder on the basis that the group was a fanon concept.
Despite this, Kronger 3124 readded it
while claiming they do exist because of that first scene and an unrelated scene from the song "More Than Anything" where Lucifer shields Charlie from a generic group of angels, Kronger claiming they are the same angels from when Charlie mentioned the "Elders", despite the designs not being the same nor even being consistent in the alleged depiction from the first episode. Evidence: Scene of the "Elders" including Sera and "biblically accurate angels"
◊, Scene of the "Elders" scolding Lucifer with six generic humanoid silhouettes
◊, and Scene from "More Than Anything" depicting the angels allegedly the same as the "Elders"
◊. The only thing suggesting the ones from the second and third pictures are the same characters is the shape of the halos, which alone is not evidence enough to suggest they are the so called "Elders", especially since several characters have been shown to have similar looking Halos and when it contradicts the one that depicts Sera among them.
My point being is that, as of now, it is still fanon that these so called "elders" are a legitimate group and not just a term used to refer to the older angels to contrast Lucifer being the young "dreamer", and attempting to trope them as if they were is pure speculation.
As such, requesting permission to remove it without instigating an Edit War.
Edited by RebelFalconopenLockout or Alienating Premise?
YMMV.Captain America Brave New World.
- Continuity Lock-Out: Unlike some recent MCU films where the continuity lockout came from the sheer volume of stuff audiences were expected to know going in, a common critique of Brave New World is that it relies on its audience remembering specific events from three "lesser" MCU entries, namely a Disney+ exclusive mini-series from four years prior, a film from four years prior released during the pandemic, and another film from seventeen years prior, the latter two being not well received by MCU fans. Brave New World rapidly recaps all of the necessary information from those installments to get everyone up to speed, but it also clearly expects them to be fresh on the audience's mind.
I intend to delete as cleanup
of
YMMV.The Marvels 2023 said CL doesn't apply if it sufficiently explains past events to newcomers to follow, audiences merely assuming lockout is something else. I'm asking if Audience-Alienating Premise might apply as it contributed to work being a Box-Office Bomb.
Relating this was removed from YMMV.The Marvels 2023:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: One the biggest factors that led to the movie's colossal Box-Office Bomb is the fact that the premise of the story involves Carol teaming up with Monica and Kamala, two characters that have previously appeared in the Disney+ streams. The problem with this is the fact that the general audience have no idea who they are, the former only appearing in a supporting role in the previous movie & WandaVision and the latter only appearing in her own series which itself isn't well-received by the viewers. While the movie did give a summary regarding who they are, the perceived Continuity Lock-Out ended up leading to non-comic book fans being turned away from the cinemas' premiere.
Removal reason was "I highly doubt this was that big of a problem, given that a general moviegoer would either just see a bunch of new characters or would have likely seen both Wandavision and Ms. Marvel beforehand if they were hyped for this movie. This is like arguing that audiences would be confused on seeing Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in Age of Ultron, or Black Panther in Civil War, or for that matter The Falcon in The Winter Soldier." Valid or not?
But there's this under AudienceAlienatingPremise.Film:
- This was a major reason why Thunderbolts* (2025) became an Acclaimed Flop. It sold itself on a unification of various villains from prior Marvel Cinematic Universe projects—which, due to the MCU's propensity towards killing off its villains, left it with a collection of second-string characters from divisive or less-acclaimed projects, with Black Widow (2021) and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier providing the lion's share. This put it in a weird position of simultaneously dealing with Continuity Lock-Out and not really benefiting from star power, and it bearing little resemblance to the most popular runs of the comic Thunderbolts didn't give it much of a draw with the core fanbase, either. The result was a lukewarm-at-best runup to release, and while the film tended to pleasantly surprise those who did see it, it nonetheless lost quite a bit of money, with even Kevin Feige admitting that the film was probably doomed from the get-go.
Since asking about other possible AAP examples, asking about this as well. And if valid, would disinterest/unfamiliarity with prior works be grounds for applying AAP to the others?
openWhy people are so mean ?
Like I just asked that more tropes were dedicated to Buffy. Thank you, I'm aware of how the site got created but that doesn't mean it's doing it justice. What I mean is that no expy is done on Buffy characters when they (Buffy herself in particular) influenced a whole lot of characters. Kim Possible and Veronica Mars were confirmed to be inspired by Buffy, however none of them has Buffy written on their Expy. It bothers and I have a right to speak. What is wrong with you people ? At what point did I express a love (or even mentions) the name of Joss Whedon ? Never so why people are bringing that up. At what point did I speak badly or insult anybody ? None, so thank you to be polite. Like, what is this ? Twitter ?
openIs this work too NSFW to add?
I've been thinking about creating a page for The Penisman but I'm not entirely sure if it would be allowed or not.
The Penisman is a webcomic created in 2009 by Sui Ishida, who would later go on to create Tokyo Ghoul among other works, before he started drawing manga professionally. The Penisman follows a superhero with a penis for a head who fights enemies by ejaculating on them. Unsurprisingly, this was originally intended to be nothing more than a shitpost webcomic. However as time went on, it started taking itself surprisingly seriously with way more effort being put into the art and writing than a glorified shitpost had any right to. Despite still being about a guy with a penis for a head, you can really see the DNA of some of Ishida's future works.
Obviously there's a lot of graphic nudity and uncensored genitalia, and so several sites have it marked off as "pornographic," so I'm unsure if it would be allowed on this site or not.
Edited by ThereAintNoMountainopenWMG pages for creators
So WMG.Lady Gaga has two sections: one for her music videos and one seemingly about Lady Gaga herself. I just had to remove a section about Lady Gaga having an Oedipus Complex for her real life father and there's another example about Lady gaga being a Satan-worshipper, which is some Illuminati-level conspiracy theory crafting.
Now, I know the section about her videos is fine as it's making guesses about her work, but this section seems like it's violating all kinds of Real Life Troping and gossip policies.
Is this ok? Should it be removed? And while this is the only page I cam across, should WMG pages for creators that talk about the creator and not their work be blanket-banned?
openIs this work allowed?
So I ended up coming across a page for p#blm, and I'm wondering if this is a project that has been discussed or permitted in the past, because the content looks sus as hell. This webcomic is a load of wall-of-text soyjak memes from 4chan where the shtick is that person A is introduced spouting a huge Wall of Text of racism/sexism/antisemitism/anti-LGBT/whatever hateful rhetoric before person B enters to with an equally huge Wall of Text arguing against their bigotry. All edits on the page since its creation have been handled by one troper.
Putting aside the questionable taste in subject matter (especially when half of it is loads of unfiltered hateful rhetoric written by a 4chan user), and especially not to put the troper on blast (they've done plenty of exceptional work and I fully believe the page was made in good faith), but is this actually something that warrants a page? I know There Is No Such Thing as Notability, but this feels sort of like a weird grey area considering the "soyjak" memes this thing is basing all its characters on are not of its own creation — the content is otherwise an author(s) delivering a pretty blatant war on straw and long proselytizing in "meme" format. Compare it to something like Rage Comics, which itself kind of has problems of coverage but at least treats the "work" about the actual original characters and contexts they're made for.
Edited by number9roboticopenScrappy misuse(?)
- The Scrappy: This show's incarnation of Velma is not only the most hated incarnation of the character but also one of, if not the most hated character in the Scooby Doo franchise by being a self righteous, grating, hypocritical, petty, and cruel Designated Hero with no redeeming qualities.
While the characters is widely hated by Scooby-Doo fans, I believe this is misuse as Scrappy must be hated by fans of the specific work and is about consistently hated characters not hated versions of otherwise popular ones. (Hence the Titans of Teen Titans Go! not counting despite the show getting similar backlash.)
If this Velma was hated by those who otherwise liked the show, I'd say she counts. But while I've seen implications of such, the show is such a negativity sink I can't tell for sure and am leaning to "hated by non-fans of the work" misuse.
I asked Scrappy Cleanup
but got nothing. Prior discussion on the matter was unclear given the version of characters grey area. The Scooby Doo thread
was also unsure, not saying if her haters otherwise like the show and saying this was more a definitional question than popularity one.
Thoughts on the matter? Would Overshadowed by Controversy be a better fit as it's seemingly impossible to talk about anything other than the character as opposed to the shows other merits/flaws? Can anyone confirm or deny if she's hated by those who otherwise like the show?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenDid I misinterpret the rules for Useful Notes?
I noticed that UsefulNotes.The Studentenverbindung had a big list of tropes. To my knowledge (I am going off Useful Notes and things I have read about in the Useful Notes cleanup thread
), Useful Notes can have trope lists, but they have to describe media depictions, rather than trope the subject itself.
The Studentenverbindung's trope list seemed to be troping the subject directly, so, on June 11, I made an edit
where I renamed the header from "Tropes associated with Studentenverbindungen" to "Common tropes associated with Studentenverbindungen in fiction", rewrote one example to explicitly discuss media depictions, and removed the other tropes.
The next day, jeez added back the tropes I deleted
and sent me a notifier about misuse. Jeez mostly left the header and example I rewrote alone.
The main question I have is, was I in the wrong? Did I misinterpret something or apply a rule incorrectly? Or was this the right call?
Edited by DieselopenTrope misuse Literature
Beastpower 87 has repeatedly added Moral Event Horizon entries to the Harry Potter page that aren't accurate, such as saying Snape crossed it in Book 5 by not teaching Occlumency properly despite the fact he's portrayed as redeeming himself, and claiming Hermione crossed it despite her being one of the heroes which means it wasn't intended by the author (and she's claimed to have crossed it by wiping her parents' memories despite this being to protect them).
Edited by Javertshark13openQuestion about an edit Anime
About seven years ago the troper Seguir made a sweeping edit
to the Tearjerker page
for Death Note, removing a number of entries with the edit reason saying "removing apologism for murderers and melodrama" with no further explanation given. I don't see how a lot of the removed entries (such as Hatori's death or Light's amnesiac self screaming when he regains his memories) fit this description so I'm wondering if anyone feels they should be restored.
openSentences comparing Work A and Work B, even if the comparisons are questionable
What to do if a work's description or intro paragraph claims that it's similar to one or more works that are more well-known in pop culture, but such claims are questionable or dubious?
For example, the intro paragraph of Bloody Spell begins with this, which was originally written by other troper(s):
- Dark Souls in ancient China. With ALL the extra fanservice.
Bloody Spell, a.k.a 嗜血印, is a wuxia-themed action game developed by Yilong Games, one based on Wide-Open Sandbox Action RPG games made popular in recent years, with Elden Ring, Dark Souls and Bayonetta as it's most distinct inspiration... except recycled in the Ming Dynasty.
This sounds like cases of X Meets Y and Recycled In Space examples, but some of the comparisons sound like they're stretching it. Specifically, it's rather odd for the description to say it's "Dark Souls", but then lists a game comparison (Bayonetta) that is not based on Dark Souls. There are several reasons why I'm questioning the game's intro having to compare itself to several other games:
- I've played the game itself (hence why I'm troping it), and comparisons on other online forums/websites such as Steam simply call it a traditional Hack and Slash or an action game with very few Soulslike elements. It's true that you can drink a potion to restore health, and Money Is Experience Points applies just like a Dark Souls game, but you can also relentlessly or aggressively attack enemies, and a dodging mechanic makes it closer to a Bayonetta game instead. There's no such thing as a Stamina meter in this game (it's a Mana Meter instead). It's also easy to overpower enemies, so it isn't known for being Nintendo Hard. The game is also extremely fast-paced, there's a bit of mid-air combat or combos, and you don't exactly have to wait for your enemies' attack patterns all the time, so it also takes cues from games like Devil May Cry than just Dark Souls.
- Bloody Spell is not a Wide-Open Sandbox, The main story mode is made out of linear stages; it's not an open world, while the other modes are in enclosed or limited spaces, so the Elden Ring comparison is questionable.
- The game does intentionally compare itself to another IP, as one difficulty mode's description outright mentions it would play like Ninja Gaiden. There's even an alternate gameplay mode that blatantly imitates a mode from Devil May Cry.
- The game likely changed a lot, as it took a while for it to be released in Version 1.0, so the Soulslike similarities may have been diluted, and the game became more similar to traditional hack-and-slash games instead. Worse, some planned features, modes and gameplay mechanics from previous versions might have been excised or cut, creating some left-over misinformation in its description from both its TV Tropes page and the index pages where it's listed.
I'm really thinking of either deleting the paragraphs or sentences that compare it to other games, or at best, trim or rewrite them instead and just leave fewer comparisons... But I also want to ask if there's an existing clean-up thread for these kinds of things, like a "Comparison Clean-Up Thread" or something.
Alternatively, is there an existing Administrivia guideline that says comparisons between works should be placed somewhere else (like Follow the Leader and Spiritual Successor on the Trivia or YMMV pages) instead of the main work page's intro paragraph?
Heck, I could've sworn there was a similar topic back then, as when Black Myth: Wukong was released, there was a huge online discourse/debate on whether it's a Soulsborne or just a traditional action game like God of War. The Discussion tab

Cat Coin 777 added these to Tamers 12345 Pony Animation and its YMMV page.
It seems like a particularly contentious work, not sure if it needs further attention beyond those recent edits. Thoughts?