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:
openToo soon to call?
Digimon Adventure: Last Evolution Kizuna:
- Retcon: There was never any indication in any of the previous installments in the Adventure continuity that suggests only kids can be DigiDestined and have to part ways with their partners as they grow up. While this is somewhat justified in that the only ones ever seen were kids themselves, it still goes against how Maki Himekawa was considered one despite being a young adult, and that the 02 Epilogue depicted all of the DigiDestined as adults and still with their partners.
- What Happened to the Mouse?: The promotional material has so far made little mention of anything directly related to tri. outside of taking place after a five-year timeskip. As such its still unknown where Meiko is in all this, and what happened to Maki Himekawa, Alphamon, the Mysterious Man, and Jesmon after the former two just vanished in Coexistence, the Mysterious Man went to claim Diablomon and Demon's data, and Jesmon vanished in Our Future.
- Author's Saving Throw: After the infamous treatment of the Digimon Adventure 02 cast in tri., this movie puts them in a far more active and helpful role. The very first trailer even focuses on them specifically.
- Family-Unfriendly Aesop: The reasoning behind why the Digimon partners have to leave upon the humans growing up, which is the loss of idealism and potential to shape the future is seen to imply this for some.
- It enforces a message of Growing Up Sucks, which is more likely to make people be more fearful of their incoming adulthood despite it taking majority of their lives therefore ensuring that they will have a crappy adult life.
- It also means that as adults, you will be nothing more than cogs in a machine and be unable to bring change to the world. Despite the fact unless you are one of the exceptions, you need to be an adult to actually realize your childhood dreams. Leaving them stuck in your head isn't exactly better. That's how progress as a whole is made in the first place.
- It's essentially saying that Digimon and what you liked in your youth as a whole can only be best enjoyed by their corresponding age group. Just the act of liking it makes you a Manchild.
The first two should wait as it might be explained in work. Author's Saving Throw I'd be inclined to cut as they Might be Advertised Extras (thought on formalizing a AST ban on pre-release?). Family-Unfriendly Aesop sounds way to soon to judge and like the complaint there's a cleanup thread on the trope over. Cut?
open Edit War on VideoGame.Borderlands3
Troper Discar has taken it upon himself to revert extensive cleanup on the VideoGame.Borderlands 3 page. That cleanup included, in the edit history, a link to explicit instructions from a moderator that Speculative Troping should be deleted.
Discar has shown a persistent pattern of obstructionist behavior toward cleanup of Speculative Troping. He apparently has no interest in helping with cleanup efforts by adding citations or context, which is fine, but he is quick to revert or otherwise obstruct others' cleanup efforts, which is not.
Edited by HighCrateopenBorderline Edit War on Andrzej Sapkowski Literature
The trope section of Creator.Andrzej Sapkowski is in large parts dedicated to bashing the author for various grievances that seem mostly to revolve around the author's negative commentary resp. legal battles regarding various adaptations of his works, and the author supposedly generally being an avaricious hypocrite (source: TV Tropes).
While the entire page could certainly need a big clean-up, an almost-Edit War has lately ignited over the following example of Disowned Adaptation:
- The Hexer movie. Sapkowski euphemistically expressed his negative opinion about the film: "I can answer only with a single word, an obscene, albeit a short one". What he carefully "forgets" to mention nowadays is the big pile of money he so eagerly took for selling the rights for adaptation and then started slandering the production the moment he realized there will be no second tranche of money. While the film is a disaster, Sapkowski is doing his best over the years to pretend he didn't help make it in such form in the first place.
Recently troper Revolutionary_Jack removed the last sentence of the entry, with the, in my opinion very reasonable, edit reason that
The deletion was restored (with a slight expansion regarding the author's "messy and utterly pointless copyright battle") by Dratewka. I myself got then involved by cutting everything after Sapkowski's statement on the movie, on the grounds of it not actually belonging there in the first place.
Dratewka has again reverted the example, the only change being a further expansion in form of a lengthy note, the point of which seems to be the argument that the author is to be blamed for the movie being bad. Edit reason:
Courtesy link to the edit history
.
I'd be glad for other tropers or a mod to weigh in.
Edited by LordGroopenSuspicious Example on Quotes / Insult Backfire
Troper nm3youtube added a very suspicious example on the Quotes.Insult Backfire page. The following example reads...
Does this fall under Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment? The very content the example says looks very controversial.
Courtesy link here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Quotes.InsultBackfire
openRegarding the main ''Endgame'' quote Film
There seems to be an Edit War regarding the main quote for Avengers: Endgame but it primarily has to do with satisek repeatedly changing the main quote to "Part of the journey is the end." This happened four times already even after the tropers tried expanding Iron Man's initial quote.
The previous quote before the change is: "We lost. All of us. We lost friends. We lost family. We lost a part of ourselves. Today, we have a chance to take it all back. You know your teams, you know your missions. Get the stones. Get them back. One round trip each. No mistakes. No do-overs. Most of us are going somewhere we know. That doesn't mean we should know what to expect. Be careful. Look out for each other. This is the fight of our lives... and we're gonna win. Whatever it takes."
Which quote do you guys do you think best describe the movie itself? Personally, I like Captain America's quote much better.
Edited by Loekman3openPerformances of a work on the work page
Can performances of a work be troped on the work page itself? For examples, "Death by Adaptation: In production XYZ, this character dies" or "the female lead is usually played by a male actor in modern productions, adding Homoerotic Subtext to this relationship". (Or if we have any trope pages for compositions, future recordings thereof.) They are objectively present in those performances but not in the text.
openCommon Knowledge in Man of Steel Film
Five years after its release and Man of Steel still causes controversy in this very website. Troper Tuvok deleted the Common Knowledge entry in the movies YMMV page.
The entry said: "The final fight scene with Zod has garnered this reputation. People generally describe it as the fight destroying the entire city with Clark being responsible for most of the destruction and being completely indifferent to the rest. In reality, most of Metropolis is left completely untouched and the destruction seems worse than it is because of the focus given to it and the fact that the film doesn't hold back from showing how terrifying it is from a civilian perspective. Similarly, Clark is personally responsible for almost none of it as much of it was done by Zod's world engine or Zod himself and Clark did make an effort to lead him into space and even made a point of avoiding buildings when he punched him at one point. As for claims of indifference, he was busy trying to stop Zod to begin with who wasn't exactly an easy opponent."
Tuvok justified the deletion with: "The damage was calculated as quite large and city wide as shown in B v S , as well as the Director addressing it [1]
. Snyder wanted there be consequences for hero interactions. ‘’’I wanted a big consequence to Superman’s arrival on earth. Certainly, Batman v. Superman sort of cashes in all its chips on the ‘why’ of that destruction.’’’ Which would signify the damage was large. It was also calculated by various outlets [2]
Done by the Watson Technical Consulting to assess the cost. So confirmation the destruction was city wide, the main critisim during the fight was Clarke punching through flying through various building with no indication of making an effort to check damage caused. Making out with his girlfriend with the city in waste in the background did not help."
I must protest the deletion because Common Knowledge is about correcting and clarifying details about a story that average viewers might not be aware of and Tuvok's reasoning is about reaffirming something the viewers already know. Yes, there is an estimation to the city's damage but there were parts of the city that were largely untouched during the climax. Yes, Superman's fight with Zod caused damage but Superman attempted to limit the damage by fighting Zod in the sky. As for claims of indifference, Superman was busy fighting Zod, so it's not like he was shown not caring about civillian casualties.
What do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroopenAudience sympathy on Granbelm
Troper Hikaru Hyouishi wrote some lengthy arguments for Unintentionally Sympathetic and Unintentionally Sympathetic about Anna and Shingetsu in the YMMV of Granbelm.
Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't watched the show.
- Unintentionally Sympathetic: ANNA, dear lord. While she is one of the major antagonists of the series, thanks to her backstory during episode 6, many fans ended up siding with her due to Shingetsu (one of the protagonists) and her own mother keeping the truth about her lack of power from her for years. While The Stinger at the end of the episode showed that not only did she attempt to murder her own mother, but that she stole her family's crystal to do nothing more than to torture Shingetsu until she saw fit, her sympathy shot through the roof in the very next episode thanks to Shingetsu's utter lack of understanding that not only was her complaining about how she didn't like being a mage and wanting to get rid of the magic to save Anna from the burden of expectations basically crushing the latter's dreams of being The Witch because she personally didn't like it (while being ignorant of the fact that Anna actually wanted to be that powerful for her family's sake), but her "help" in getting Anna to stop fighting in the GRANBELM and remind her that her family still loves her was basically throwing the great difference between their strengths in Anna's face (which was one of the major reasons for Anna's hatred towards Shingetsu in the first place), as shown by the fact that during their final battle, she deliberately stalled the final blow twice before finishing Anna off with the third one. Because of these reasons, Shingetsu ended up coming off as not only hypocritical of why she wanted to help Anna but also ignorant of how her selfish actions ended up tearing Anna's once loving family apart. That ended up leading her to be...
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: While Shingetsu's burden of having high expectations due to her potentially high magic is understandably rough and that getting rid of said magic because of the potentially dangerous misuse that anyone can do with it is also an understandable goal to have, what started to put fans against her was the fact that she basically kick-started Anna's spiral to the mess she is today by secretly helping her perform a technique that her mother and grandmother couldn't do out of good intentions...which led to Anna believing that she was more powerful than she was. That ended up making Anna's own mother and Shingetsu telling her that she could never beat the latter without telling her why out of their love for her, making Anna think that they valued Shingetsu more than her. This went on for about a decade before the truth was finally spoken...with nearly disastrous results During the battle between her and Anna in the next episode, we're shown that she does feel remorse for her actions and that she wants to make amends, but what rallied fans against her even more was that for all that she said about loving Anna and not wanting to put any burdens on her, it was her utter lack of understanding that for all her complaints about her magic, she never really understood that what she had was all that Anna had ever wanted, and to see that in the process of being thrown away forever because she personally didn't like it felt like a slap to Anna's entire reason for living. It really didn't help that her method of getting Anna to back out of the GRANBELM and realize that there was more to life than being a mage was to throw the huge differences between their strengths in her face.
While I admit Hikaru does make some arguments, these entries look a bit too long to be taken seriously and come across as a bit biased. I'd like to remind everyone here that TV Tropes is not an echo chamber people can use to say whatever you want and not expect any consequences. I do believe there is a time, a place and a way to express those feelings, but this is not one of them.
Edited by MasterHeroopenPossibly problematic RecursiveCrossdressing entry
From the Real Life section of Recursive Crossdressing:
- Trans people with non-accepting extended families often have to crossdress for family events, even after physically transitioning and legally changing their names. They effectively have to cross-dress and act as their birth gender just to be accepted in these situations.
To me, that entry looks like it was written by someone who undestands transness as the person becoming their preferred gender at some point in life rather than having been that gender all along. Being cis myself (with a perpetually-behind education on the subject), I want to let the people the entry is about weigh in before anything is done.
Edited by NazetrimeopenImage for Music/MeganTheeStallion Music
Andiman keeps changing the Image for the page without a given reason. Said image he changes it to is too big for the page and it’s a selfie. I tried making a thread but nothing has been done about it.
openNo Edit Reason Western Animation
The four most recent edits of https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=cristian1234
have just been deletions without any edit reasons which I would have just contented myself on sending them a message if two of those edits weren't big edits and all of them didn't seem to have a discernible reason behind it.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.DarkwingDuck
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.DuckTales2017
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Funny.DuckTales2017Season3#edit27064396
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Funny.Ducktales2017Season2#edit27064636
openI think Kizuna Ai's YMMV and Trivia pages need help
So I decided to take a look at Kizuna Ai's subpages after a long time of not having them updated personally. I had already edited the pages because in retrospect, a lot of the information regarding the 2019 upd8/activ8/"clones" debacle and the official confirmation of her voice actress became a Wall of Text and/or were placed in the wrong tropes.
However, some tropes and examples in those pages might still need second-hand confirmation from fellow tropers who are also into Vtubers, especially from other Kizuna Ai fans who know a lot of facts from the 2019 upd8/activ8/"clones" debacle. (Such questionable sentences and concerns are highlighted in bold-text).
- Germans Love David Hasselhoff: The channel has several notable fanbases outside of its origin country of Japan. Only time will tell if this repairs the damage done by the managing company.
(I feel like this statement can be rewritten, because it comes off as if the trope is now averted because of a controversy. Heck, is this last sentence even needed?)
- "Seinfeld" Is Unfunny: Kizuna Ai Codified the VTuber trend and gained rapid popularity as a result. Come the creation of multiple other standalone Vtubers and companies such as hololive and Nijisanji with their diverse cast of characters makes Kizuna suffer from standing out among other fans. The Ai clones debacle (including the loss of the original VA for Kizuna Ai) alienating pre-existing fans making matters worse.
(What is "the loss of the original VA for Kizuna Ai" referring to here? AFAIK, her original voice actress didn't retire, and in fact, even returned to voice her again. We need some further confirmation on this, because as it currently stands, that statement reeks of fake news.)
- Follow the Leader: Going in the other direction, the success of large VTuber groups like hololive, Nijisanji, Game Club Project and many others prompted a change in format to the channel by introducing Kizuna Ai clones voiced by different voice actresses (and, in the Chinese channel's case, a different language entirely). However, the drastic changes have just pushed fans towards the two groups.
(The last sentence is potholed to Epic Fail. Isn't Epic Fail supposed to be In-Universe only? What do we do here, Remove the entire sentence or just the link?)
- Money, Dear Boy: GUMI, the majority investor of Activ8 (the company managing the Kizuna Ai IP), are collectively of the opinion
that it ultimately doesn't matter who plays Kizuna Ai as long as the franchise and merchandise keep the money rolling in. This is ultimately due to the fact that the management company and investors get a bigger cut of the profits than if Nozomi Kasuga (Ai's first voice actor) had made her debut as a real person rather than a Virtual YouTuber. Ironically, the reverse was true in the early days of the channel, which may have contributed to GUMI's views in the first place. Their mentality might have actually worked had they not subtly tried to spurn Nozomi from doing her usual Let's Play content — perhaps unsurprisingly, Activ8 ended up publicizing a loss of ¥675 million
a few months after this came to light. VTuber projects that sprung up afterwards, such as hololive and Nijisanji, learned not to be so hostile to their talent for success.
(If this talked about the time when the company lost millions of Yen, I think the "afterwards" part is misleading or false because hololive and Nijisanji existed before that time when activ8 suffered deficit. Also, can this be trimmed down?)
- Reclusive Artist: The whole gimmick is that Kizuna Ai is supposedly an artificial intelligence that makes vlogs, skits and Let's Play videos in order to connect with humans, so the existence and identities of the humans behind it are kept secret to maintain the illusion. However, some incidents play with this trope.
- Ai sounded like Luna and vice-versa in their respective April Fool's videos, and only those videos.
- This even carried into the Azur Lane collab where all the splash art of her playable versions only had "Kizuna Ai" under voice actor.
- Averted with the English dub of Ingress, where Ai-chan's brief cameo was played by Cristina Vee.
- She sometimes mentions that she has staff members. In her Let's Play for Resident Evil 2 (Remake), fans think that Ai's staff plays the game because her aim significantly improved, but she, explains that even if she has a staff, she herself plays the games. In Ai-chan's "I have an assistant now!!
" vlog, she even casually mentions having a staff team and some of them can be heard laughing offscreen.
- On 24 April 2020, it's officially confirmed that Nozomi Kasuga is the original voice for Ai-chan, and she's now on advisory role
for the new Kizuna AI Co., Ltd.
(I trimmed the Reclusive Artist examples already but I think Kizuna Ai is an odd example of this after all the incidents that happened. As stated in the first part, the whole gimmick of a Vtuber is that the streamer's real identity is a secret. However, as stated in the last bullet, Kizuna Ai herself revealed her real identity. Now, does she still count for the trope, or not?)
openNeed assistance with troublesome situation on Characters. Street Fighter V
Yesterday, Tropers.Darth Walrus added Glass Cannon to Characters.Street Fighter V in relation to the character Abigail
. The problem is, this was his SECOND time adding said trope to the page; the first time was almost 3 years ago in August 2017
, which was then removed less than a month later
by Tropers.Red Rover Red Rover.
Red Rover's reason for removing it at the time was "This trope is about not being able to take many hits. Abigail can take plenty". When Darth Walrus readded it recently, his edit reason was "You can check up any guide that talks about Abigail's weaknesses, and all of them put his vulnerability to pressure and poor defensive options on the top of the list."
Based on Darth Walrus's edit reason, it seemed probable to me that he re-added the example deliberately, and thus ignited an Edit War albeit with a 3 year gap. I attempted to bring the matter to the Discussion page
in order to explain that this was Edit Warring and to argue why I agreed with Red Rover's position that the character did not count as a Glass Cannon (more on this later).
Darth Walrus's reaction, however, seemed to imply that he didn't remember the older edit (which conflicts with his reaction in the edit reason). In addition, he immediately became hostile and stated that pointing out that this was an Edit War was "accusing" him. Over the next several replies, I attempt to once again affirm that what he did was an Edit War (even if it wasn't intentional), and as I told him there, I am 90% certain that he knew he was Edit Warring based on his edit reason but decided to at least talk things out before I brought things here. Walrus, however, continued to attack me for calling what he did an Edit War and also accused me of not arguing in "good faith", despite my attempts to do just that before resorting to this very query.
P.S.: On top of that, Walrus also added a very questionable "Long-Range Fighter" example to the same page, and also added this
nattery and incorrectly-bulleted example to Informed Ability. Even in the example itself he admits that it's pedantic and sinkholes Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.
Anyway, that leaves the site editing policy issues out of the way. Now to get down to the Glass Cannon debate itself.
In Street Fighter V, Abigail is the largest (over 8 feet tall) and most resilient character (1100 health, more the 1000 HP average) in the entire game. He also hits like a mac truck, destroying up to 80% of an opponent's health with one combo if he has the resources. His main weakness (as Walrus pointed out) is that if he's knocked down or cornered, Abigail has no Counter-Attack or reversal abilities. His only option is to sit back and block and hope that his opponent eventually makes a mistake. Walrus argues that this makes him a Glass Cannon. He has no Dragon Punch or invincible Spinning Piledriver to fight back if he's cornered.
As I pointed out, hoever, Abigail not having other options besides blocking only makes his defense bad relative to characters that have those abilities (and not everyone does). Sure, he might end up taking a lot of damage as he waits for the opponent to mess up, but that doesn't change the fact that he has more health than the other characters and that if they took the exact same hits, they would be even more damaged than he is.
I also pointed out that tanking damage to wait for his chance is specifically how Abigail's gameplay work. Abigail has Super Armor attacks that are intended to let him take damage while either getting closer or starting one of those INSANELY damaging combos I mentioned before. As Walrus says Abigail may not "want" to get hit, and he may not "want" to be on the defensive, but his entire gameplay rests upon waiting out an opponent while they damage him so that when he gets his hands on them, he can absolutely demolish them.
My apologies for the length of this query, but I wanted to bring everything to attention before anyone responded. I'm about to go to bed in a few moments, so if anyone needs me to chime in, I'll be back in a few hours.
Also, both Darth Walrus and Red Rover Red Rover have been invited to participate.
Thank you.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenBad Example of Base-Breaking Character? Print Comic
I was looking at Batgirl (2011), and came across this:
- Base-Breaking Character: Alysia Yeoh. Less about the character herself, and more about whether her being transgender is handled well or is being shoved into the reader's face to make the comic look progressive. Her getting Demoted to Extra when Cameron Stewart, Brenden Fletcher and Babs Tarr took over made this worse. It doesn't help that when she was brought back, many felt that the writers are treating her less like a full character, and more like a PR stunt.
- Wouldn't this be a case of Broken Base, rather than Base-Breaking Character, if the divide is "less about the character herself"?
- Is she even a base-breaking character? I'm not in the Batgirl fandom, so I have no idea what the general mood is, but in my experience, when someone uses the "shoved in the reader's face", it suggests someone's been analyzing things in bad faith.
openStrange edits on Chased Off Into the Sunset
Not sure what's going on, but some Troper (ungabunga to be precise) seems to have gone a bit overboard on the Chased Off into the Sunset page? The folders for Western Animation etc have been deleted with no reason given, and the information about the page itself has also been removed. I'm not sure if they plan to rewrite anything, but at the moment the page looks very sorry for itself. Is anyone aware of this yet?
openFirst Person Character Profile
Slug39terra
unilaterally changed Deadpool's character section in Characters.Death Battle Season Six to be all first person. Can I request a revert here?
Also can we leave all first-person troping to Self-Demonstrating pages?
Edited by JRads47openNever My Fault edit war
On this
recap page for an episode of Bojack Horseman, there's an edit war for a Never My Fault entry. For context, one episode of the series has Bojack hanging out with some teenagers on their prom night. He gives them alcohol, but when one gets alcohol poisoning, he convinces her boyfriend not to tell where the alcohol came from and left them by themselves. In the latest season, the boyfriend, Pete, returns again and recounts the story to Bojack's sister, Hollyhock.
A Never My Fault entry was originally added, stating that Pete put the blame solely on Bojack despite the fact that Pete gladly encouraged them drinking. Ben Beasted removed it with the edit reason "Just because they were already drinking doesn't absolve Bo Jack of responsibility. He wen out of his way to get harder alcohol and left both of them behind at the hospital." Chubzac, the original poster, re-added it with the edit reason, "Just because Bojack holds some responsibility doesn't mean Pete and Maddie aren't also at fault. They were already drinking before Bojack met them and willingly chose to drink the alcohol Bojack bought them. Pete is twisting facts about Bojack forcing them to drink Bourbon against their will."
Personally I think this is more a YMMV response of Pete being portrayed as faultless, since the episode itself doesn't seem to point any blame on him. This reception happened before when Diane accused Bojack of taking advantage of Sarah Lynn. It's under Unintentionally Unsympathetic for the episode, for the record. In any case, should they be alerted for edit-warring?
openMLPFIM Season 9 Fridge Horror Western Animation
Didn't know if I should ask this on the forum or here. Spoiler warning as this involves a plot twist for season 9 of My Little Pony Friendship is Magic.
Given that "Grogar" turned out to be a fake, should the following Fridge Horror entries about him be cut:
- Grogar is powerful enough to make Tirek, Chrysalis, and Cozy Glow, all top tier season-ender villains themselves, AFRAID... and he's NOT at full power yet!
- Considering how powerful Grogar is without his bell, the villain trio deciding to betray him by stealing the bell for themselves might be the only reason why Equestria isn't flattened to the ground.
- Instead of giving Grogar his bell, Tirek, Chrysalis, and Cozy lie to him and claim they were unable to retrieve it. Grogar seems furious at this, but he has shown in the past to be able to view previous events. What if he finds out about their lie later, or already knows about it and has plans to deal with his traitors later?
- Grogar makes it very clear that, even in his weakened state, he has far more power than the three of them combined. With the bell still there as far as he knows, what's stopping him from trying to go get it himself now that the others have at least learned to cooperate, only to find it missing?
- With the amount of power Grogar would have gained upon getting his Bewitching Bell back, who's to say he wouldn't have decided he doesn't need the others anymore? Even if he had other plans for them initially, he's far more likely to decide that should he learn of their betrayal.
open Rules regarding fake links
What I'm referring to is the (ab)use of the [[url]] system (or an equivalent like Google's hyperlinks, or Steam's [url]HTML Tags[/url]) to make one link lead to another as a form of trolling. As an example, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/Rickroll
appears to link to JustForFun.Rickroll, but instead leads to the video itself.note Even though it's quite obvious that a sane troper would use the WikiWords on their own, which renders as Rickroll. Not to mention that the "preview" in the lower-left invariably shows the real link regardless. A more extreme example is where you're at work, on your work computer, when a coworker sends you an email saying that they need help with a contract they've put on Google Docs. The link appears legit, but when you click on it, it instead leads to a XXX dark-web porn-site that usually sets off the trackers in the wi-fi. Worst case scenario, you get fired, while the trollish coworker gets away scot free.
What I want to know are the policies regarding stuff like this, just out of curiosity.
Edited by Gofastmike

On the Pyramid Head section on Silent Hill
, The Anti-Villain section has a point of "He's still plenty hostile towards him, though, and if one is to follow the interpretation of him found here, he's certainly malicious as well." This reads like 'this theory is canon', which is generally looked down upon, and I still want to remove the intrerpretation bit since it feel like it doesn't belong. Should I remove? I'm not sure that he's totally malicious, since he's a manifestation of James' guilt and sense for justice and guides him along throughout the game, this is even furthered at how you can just ignore PH on his boss fights for a few minutes then he leaves or kill himself.
On the Humans are White section on Frost Punk
: "Not only is every human in the game white, but almost all of them are British. The only exceptions are the handful of Americans who survived the fall of Tesla City and the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen. Perhaps justified because all but one of the Generators was built by the British Empire, which in real life was quite racist and willing to sacrifice its non-white subjects when expedient. " The bolded section isn't about the game, like it's trying to bring up sensitive subjects just because. Should I remove?
Edited by Raddishes