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:
openDoubts on a page being relevant
So I stumbled upon UsefulNotes.Viscount Goderich being deleted, upon the argument that, basically, here at TV Tropes we are not out to have equivalents to Wikipedia, but rather to focus on how the subject appears in (or influences) fiction, and in this case, there were no media examples on the page, nor does Wikipedia itself have any reference to any portrayals in fiction (this actually started out a short-term thread
about similar pages about UK Prime Ministers). The point is, this discussion reminded me of a page that has basically the same issues: UsefulNotes.United Kingdom General Election 2015. The page is essentially a rather dry overview of that election... and that's it. No references to it being referenced in fiction, none. Nothing. If anything, in my view, the referendum that took place the following year that resulted in Brexit would be probably more worthy of a page like that since it has media about it that exists on This Very Wiki (like Brexit: The Uncivil War). Should we cut this page? I considered raising the question on a forum thread but I couldn't find one about a topic similar to this one (unless the aforementioned British Politicians threads counted as one, but I think that's a bit of a stretch).
openPermission to re-remove
A troper
was suspended over unjust deletions/rude edit reasons and their deletions reversed. I feel some of those deletions were valid as misuse.
Characters.Sonic The Hedgehog Modern Era Antagonists 1 Mainline Games:
- Asshole Victim: His mental state and eventual second defeat in Shadow Generations is rather poignant and even pitiful. But given what he did in his debut game, he deserved every moment of it. Even if Shadow doesn't know Mephiles anymore, he concludes just from the fact that the first thing Mephiles did was try to kill him upon their meeting that a creature like him cannot be allowed to exist, for the sake of the world Maria loved. They we’re trying to kill Shadow who retaliated in self-defense, so fails the "Victim" criteria.
- Hate Sink: Mephiles has absolutely zero redeeming qualities, and in his debut game he damn well earned his place among the fanbase as the single most evil villain in the whole franchise, because he managed to do the one thing none of the others (outside of maybe Surge from the IDW Comics) have managed: he killed Sonic the Hedgehog in the final act of his debut appearance. Misuse as while utterly evil, played as Evil Is Cool (such the only well received part of Sonic 06), failing explain how/why he was meant to avert/subvert coolness.
Characters.The Texas Chainsaw Massacre:
- Hate Sink: Unlike Leatherface and Drayton, who only kill for food and survival, Nubbins is just a sadistic bastard who revels in the suffering of his victims. Only issue is already under sub-trope More Despicable Minion. Is that grounds for removal (like we do Jerkass if its sub-tropes apply)?
I asked Is this an example?
But got no feedback. Is it OK to re-delete them for these reasons, or any
other thoughts?
openNamespacing Quest Threads
So, I've been on-again-off-again working on the TLP Forum Quest
, which some of you might know better as a "Quest Thread" (if you don't know what one of those is, read the TLP). Considering how many Quests are being given trope pages, they really could use a definition + index page (which is what the TLP is trying to do), but there's another problem with Quests on this site that I'm not sure how to resolve: there's no consistent policy for namespacing them. Currently, they seem to be split between the Roleplay and Fanfic namespaces depending largely on author whim (and whether it's a derivative or original work), and the ones with accompanying artwork are often labelled as an Interactive Comic and accordingly placed in the Webcomic namespace. I'm completely convinced that Quests should be classified as Roleplay rather than Fanfic, but the distinction between Interactive Comic and Forum Quest is actually quite murky, given that the two formats are both descended from the same Ur-Example, Ruby Quest. I'm not sure exactly where the line ought to be drawn (as I said on the forum post, the idea that something is "not roleplay" just for having images doesn't quite sit right with me), nor what would need doing if a decision is reached. I tried asking on the TLP itself and didn't really get anywhere, and got no replies when I tried what looked like the relevant thread on the forums
. So now I'm here, where perhaps I ought to have gone first, to see what you guys think.
openOverspeculating the Pesticide in Apaches?
I've noticed in the pages for Apaches, the edits there are insistent that the pesticide Sharon drank was a weed killer containing Paraquat. This is never specified in the film itself, and yet tropers like Goji Biscuits are insistent in adding that it "likely contained paraquat" if the recent edits are anything to go by, and the section in the Nightmare Fuel page go into detail on how paraquat kills, even though again, it was never specified to have such.
Is this just a me problem or does this require fixing?
Edited by RedBerryBlueCherryopenPotentially non-existent works and a user with two accounts.
kiaesi
was an editor only for a day and worked on one page, creating Literature.Noblesse Oblige in 2018.
The other editor to the page, who started editing that same day is inaceso
, who also much more recently started editing again in January to make WebOriginal.Fatherless Behaviour.
Even if they are the same user, that's not a problem in of itself. But I can't find any indication that either of these works actually exist (in addition to the latter page being a complete stub). There's a post on its discussion page
.
I've P Med the second account about the stub-ness but I'm not sure what to do about the fact I can't find any trace of either work they made pages for.
openWhat's the burden of proof for side content?
The Cool Autistic Gamer 774 is a YouTube channel that does edits and reanimations of Smiling Friends. With Season 3, these edits have started to include voice acting and animation that appears almost indistinguishable from the show itself and have been released within hours of the main episode's air time, so fan consensus seems to be that The Cool Autistic Gamer is either an elaborate bit from the official creators or a marketing stunt.
Here's my question: TCAG has never appeared in an official cut of the show and there's no official confirmation one way or the other about who made it, but the character has a character folder on the page. What's the burden of proof necessary to decide this character is actually from the show and should be on the "official" page? Does it matter? Are there even rules that cover this phenomenon? Am I wildly overthinking something from a show that doesn't take itself that seriously to begin with?
Edited by TheMasterPandaopenAvoiding an edit war
Drope has just removed
this entry I originally added on Fanon.Hazbin Hotel, on the grounds that it's "outdated fanon".
- Although there are a lot of theories about who Alastor's soul is bound to, him being soul-bound to Lilith is the theory that's most commonly implemented in fan works, as not only does it correlate with canon coincidences, but it also explains his Berserk Button over it in the most insecure and ironic way, leaving open the possibility of Charlie changing on how she sees him.
I think just deleting the entry wasn't the right way, since the page itself features several other entries citing examples of Fanon that have been Jossed in canon.
Thus, I'd like to re-add the entry with a re-write:
- Before "It's a Deal" revealed that Alastor had made his secret deal with Rosie, there were a lot of theories about who Alastor's soul was bound to, but him being soul-bound to Lilith was the theory that was most commonly implemented in fan works, as not only did it correlate with canon coincidences at the time of Season 1, but it would have also explained Alastor's Berserk Button over it in the most insecure and ironic way, leaving open the possibility of Charlie changing on how she sees him.
Sent a PM to Drope so they can see this.
openRegarding the deleted autism examples
This thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=147690&type=att
about a troper mass-removing references to autism has been locked as resolved, so I'm opening a new thread for this question.
The thread mentions that one of the deleted entries (on the Real Life section of Little Professor Dialog) mentioned Dr. Asperger himself, so I looked it up out of curiosity on what he'd said. I ended up reinstating the entry after rewriting it to, hopefully, be a bit more carefully worded (after all, it discusses diagnostic criteria). It now reads like this:
- The Little Professor speech is one of the traits associated with Asperger Syndrome. Dr. Hans Asperger, who identified the condition, would playfully refer to his patients who had it as "the little professors". Note that people may speak like this for many reasons, so by itself this is not necessarily a sign of autism.
But I'm having second thoughts. Is this, apart from the Dr. Asperger quote, a useful example of how the trope can occur in real life, or is it just on the level of gossip that encourages armchair diagnoses? Do we want these kind of Real Life entries? Just looking for input before we start restoring the deleted examples, because there may be more like this.
Edited by GnomeTitanopenWhy this human posture (Butt in the Air/ Knee-Chested Posture) is not in tvtropes.org? Anime
Full Question: Why this human posture (Butt in the Air/ Knee-Chested Posture) is not in tvtropes.org? Please make it have a page in it.
The posture sample:
another sample:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F263ht8nqple51.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D3a8dfb23855ec68ee082c87887fa0a78076e7434
This posture is almost present in Cartoons, video-games.... heck alot in anime nowadays for laughs. sometimes for *ahem arousement...
openEdit War on YMMV.Wednesday. Could this use a rewrite?
So, here on YMMV.Wednesday, the following happened:
- Damian Wayne added
an Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry for Tyler.
- Endurable Narwhal 313 removed it
citing "A character can very much be a Tragic Villain even if they cross the Moral Event Horizon. Additionally, a vast majority of fans sympathize with Tyler and want o see him redeemed."
- Damian Wayne re-added
it, without discussing it anywhere, citing "1. A quick look on reddit, X, tumblr and bluesky shows this is a very comon criticism. 2. I may vhange the introduction. However "tragic villains" usally also have redeeming qualities".
Normally, I would stay out of it, but I actually think Damian Wayne is right to an extent. While a lot of fans sympathize Tyler, a good number don't and it's quite common to see that people just don't feel sympathy for him. But my thing is that the entry is weird to me:
- The second season was criticised, among other things, for trying to turn Tyler in a Tragic Monster, even after he crossed the Moral Event Horizon:
- While he does have a genuine tragic backstory, with many comparing Thornhill's manipulation of him to outright grooming, this doesn't change the fact he never once displayed regret for his actions. During his breakout from the asylum, Tyler still goes out of his way to hurt innocent people, including throwing Wednesday out of a window for no real reason.
- Before being found by his mother, he also wastes days obsessing over Wednesday and attacks Enid and the rest of Wednesday's friends for trying to protect her from him. Similarly to what had happened in the hospital, he was also acting of his own free will rather than being forced by his Master.
- While Francoise is an Abusive Parent, who outright chains him to a bed, Tyler's self-admitted main focus is trying to kill Wednesday again and he voices opposition to her plans only because he priorities killing the girl in question over everything else. He likewise has zero compunction murdering innocent people, at one point feeding an innocent veterinarian to Isaac and being fully willing to let Isaac eat Agnes's brain. Agnes being only thirteen years old.
- In the end, Tyler does turn against his mom and uncle and indirectly assists Wednesday and her family. However this happened only because he didn't want to lose his powers rather than any moral qualms. Indeed, his critics have pointed out he went happily along with Isaac's plan in the previous episodes even if it meant kidnapping Pugsley and burying Wednesday alive.
- The second season was criticised, among other things, for trying to turn Tyler in a Tragic Monster, even after he crossed the Moral Event Horizon:
I feel like it could be rewritten to be more concise and one entry. Is it cool if I rewrite it?
openDMOS entries Videogame
On the Video Games page, there is the following entries:
- Five Nights at Freddy's:
- Dr Y 9 K: Five Nights at Freddy's: Sister Location and its stupid twist in the end. Before I go on, let me just say that for the most part, I found Sister Location rather disappointing. I was disappointed with the gameplay, the lack of cameras save for the Private Room, Ennard's canon design, and I was especially disappointed with the non-canon Custom Night. The only redeeming quality for the game was the animatronics themselves. But even that didn't last long. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you what may be the series' worst twist possible: the identity of Springtrap. For almost two years, we were led to believe he was actually William Afton, the series Big Bad, dead and revived. But then the creator released a cutscene, that pretty much confirmed he was actually Michael Afton, William Afton's son. What? You mean to tell me that Springtrap is not the Creepy Awesome Robotic Psychopath I thought he was, but yet another innocent(?) soul? That was terrible! That was the worst, most character-derailing Ass Pull I had ever seen! It made me permanently disown the series and stop liking it! For so long, Springtrap had been one of my favorite animatronics, since I always saw him as the only legitimately "evil" animatronic. Now I can't look at him or enjoy him the same way anymore. The creator said he wanted Springtrap to return, and so did I, for a while. But now? I want nothing to do with him, or this age-old series.
- batmany: I was really looking forward to the release of Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator (AKA FNAF 6) in the hopes it would finally wrap up some of the numerous plot twists and mysteries of the franchise. Well, the game was released earlier this week and....well, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason why is because it utterly contradicts everything established in previous games. The ghostly children being freed in FNAF 3? Nope, they're now possessing Molten Freddy! How? When? At no point (apart from Baby) were any of the Funtime Animatronics ever haunted by ghosts. Remember in Sister Location how Baby didn't like being created for murder and wanted to be free? Remember how Elizabeth (William's Daughter) was an innocent victim of a tragic accident? Now she's daddy's little killer! Why? There was absolutely no indication that either had any interest in murder. And, speaking of Sister Location, now William Afton is Springtrap instead of his son Michael. Nevermind the fact that the Custom Night in SL strongly hinted that Michael was Springtrap and that the Freddy Files guide book even stated that this idea was entirely plausable. Speaking of Michael, he dies in this game by sacrificing himself in a fire with the other Animatronics. Apparently Scott forgot or is completely ignoring that Michael is cursed with immortality. Also, Springtrap survived a fire before so why would this one be any different? William Afton has gone from a evil genius serial killer who lurks behind the scenes to what can best be described as a poor man's version of The Joker. Fazbear Corporate went from being an incompetent if well-meaning company with some questionable business practices to a blatantly over-the-top corrupt one with no regards to safety whatsoever. I could go on and on about how this game did a piss-poor way of explaining things. I feel Scott was more concerned with trying to appease fans who were not happy with Sister Location's plot twists and haphazardly trying to wrap everything up in a neat little bow. Scott, please, if you ever make another FNAF game, give me "Miketrap" and "Freakshow Baby" and retcon this mess of a game out of existence.
- DukeNukem4ever: Mine would be the fact that the mystery of the Bite of '87 and existence of Shadow animatronics went completely unexplained. Since this is (currently) the Grand Finale, I was expecting these things to become finally clear. But no, once again we have to draw suggestions what exactly happened back then. The creator pulled this trick back in Five Nights at Freddy's 4, and now he did it again. As much as I respect Scott Cawthon, I sometimes can't understand his logic. And apparently I am not the only one to think so.
Duke's entry is fine to stay, but there are problems with the other two:
- DrY9K's entry is based on the complete misunderstanding that Springtrap is Michael, when Scott Cawthon has gone on record to say this was never the intention and that the SL Custom Night cutscene was misunderstood by the fandom.
- The boldened part of Batmany's entry is also about Miketrap, which was already explained above. It also questions as to why fire could kill Mike and William, when the game itself explains that fire is the weakness that gets rid of their immortality (Remnant).
As "Correcting factually incorrect information about the work" is a justified reason to edit another user's DMOS entry, should Dr's entry and the boldened part of Batmany's entry both be deleted?
openUnilateral Quote Change
Under NightmareFuel.Warhammer 40000, Lightbearer77 changed the page quote from this:
Have we exhausted all possible ways to divine the future? How many scribes must toil to scratch their visions onto ancient parchments so that we might catch a glimpse of hope? Or are we to suffer only the pangs of despair as yet more horror is let loose on our dreams? Or does the seeking itself give birth to more insanity than man can cope?
The Dark Future Beckons!
Fear the unknown!
To this:
My impression is replacing page quotes requires approval, correct or not?
openCut subpage for a cutlisted page that was never cut to begin with
Today, I discovered that Meg and Dia have a page here, albeit not in the best state when I initially came across it. I also noticed that there was no YMMV page, even if the popularity of "Monster" should signify otherwise. I soon found out that the YMMV page was cut because the page itself was to be cutlisted... and it hasn't been cut?
On the actual Cut List, or at least the extent that I saw, the Meg and Dia page is nowhere to be seen. I checked the Wayback Machine to see if this event was relatively recent, but it actually happened sometime in 2024, based on the YMMV page being present in March of that year but gone in December. I'm guessing the page was still allowed to remain up as it technically met the minimum three tropes requirement in spite of its quality. I contextualized a few entries on the main pages and added more tropes (mainly via crosswicking from other pages) to further prevent the page from being a stub - it's better than almost nothing, at least.
Since I doubt the main Meg and Dia page is on the Cut List anymore, is it okay to restore the YMMV page, given that the page it was supposed to be removed alongside was never cut in the first place (a few entries would need context, but I'll probably contextualize them if the page is brought back)?
openPractically Joker - will it ever be a trope again?
So is Practically Joker ever going to be an actual trope again, or is it just going to be disambiguation? I know it was in the Trope Repair Shop (I forget if that's the actual name of the thing) for a while, but there are definitely enough examples of Joker-adjacent characters in multiple media types to have it be a trope.
I think the problem with the page as it was before it got pared down to a Disambiguation page was that examples weren't sorted by how close they skewed to the three main factors of what makes the Joker the Joker: the look (or something close to it), the personality (or one that's very similar) and the motivation (or a close approximation thereof). I think sorting examples by that method, or a combination thereof, would help to clarify that it's a trope in and of itself.
openMagazines
I want to write pages for a few comic magazines (think EC's stuff, Out of the Night, and Dark Mysteries), but the main thing I keep tripping over is that I don't know whether to put them under Magazine or Comic Book.
- Administrivia.Namespace gives no specifics on what does or does not fall under Magazine and Comic Book.
- Looking through the list at Anthology Comic, most entries are Comic Book, but a few are Magazine and some that use Comic Book as namespace are described as magazines. I can't figure out what the (general; I do know about Creepy specifically) deciding factor is, if there is one to begin with. The list at Magazines does not make things any clearer either.
- Taking a step back and going purely with my own thought process, if something like Weird Tales is a "magazine" that contains "literature", then something like Strange Tales is a "magazine" that contains "comic( book)s" and should not itself be under Comic Book. Furthering that sentiment on my end is that there's a few of these magazines that have a feature comic under the same name, such as Supernaturals, and they could have separate pages. If they were both under Comic Book, you'd have something like "ComicBook/SupernaturalsMagazine" and "ComicBook/SupernaturalsComic" and that looks infuriating.
My guess is that TVT does not have any guidelines/rules yet on this matter and that the use of "Comic Book" for what seem to me magazines flowed over from the (super)hero side of it, where magazine and comic book are roughly the same thing. If that's correct, then I take it this is not the right place to ask. I'm not opposed to seeing if I can get a discussion started; which forum would be best for that?
Relatedly, I can't find anything about whether magazines (and similar anthology works) are exempt from needing tropes. A number of magazine pages have no tropes, while for instance four out of five of Weird Tales tropes seem ZCE and not really applicable to the magazine to me. I would guess magazines are exempt because they are a variation of creator pages and come with the same difficulties in trope gathering, but creator pages explicitly don't need tropes and I can't find anything like that for magazines.
Edited by Pfff133openExample with unnecessary mention of Rule 34? Videogame
So, regarding this example from the Unnecessary Makeover page:
- Midna in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess thinks little of the form in which she's trapped for most of the game; she refers to herself as a "hideous little imp" and jokes with Link that her true form is so beautiful that it leaves him speechless when he first sees it. However, many players find her initial implike design cuter, more unique, and conveying more of her sassy appeal. It's not uncommon for people to joke that Midna's imp form essentially proved the codifier for "shortstack" designs (i.e. a short, busty female character with curves), and artwork of Midna's imp form far outweighs her true form, even—hell, especially on porn sites.
That last part really seems to me like a case of Too Much Information, especially with the way it's worded. I was going to remove it, but I thought I should ask first, because maybe I'm just being too prudish.
Edited by BluethornopenQuestion regarding AI upscaling
Awhile back I saved a reminder to my first sandbox about page image uploading (I'm not sure if I should link it directly to the forums just to be safe?) as a reminder to myself and it got me thinking...
"What are the rules for AI upscaling images? Is there a ban on doing such? Should we only upscale images if the page really needs it? If there is an image I think is super relevant but it's super low quality (and can't find a higher quality version), should it be AI upscaled or not posted onto the site at all?"
PS. I know how to use Photoshop but I don't know how to upscale images manually without using AI tech. I have never upscaled an image before and I do my own trope writing by myself without AI.
openIs Majora's Mask Low Fantasy Videogame
So Majora’s Mask is listed as Low Fantasy, but as a huge Majora’s Mask fan myself, I really think it doesn’t in any way fis Low Fantasy. I’m sure it was deleted in the past, but it looks like it was added back.
The entry claims Magic is less present than other Zelda games and that the plot of Majora's mask is more grounded with realistic things.
To list how magic is ‘’extremely’’ prominent as well as how the plot and the setting are not realistic.
- Far from using basic magic, Link can:
- Time Travel
- Slow down time as well as fast forward through time.
- Shapeshift into other people via healing their ghosts. One of these transformations (Fierce Deity), is even a creature, created by the memories of all the people of the land that Link befriended.
- Teleport
- Create decoys of himself.
- Summon a living Scarecrow.
- See and talk to ghosts, sometimes turning them into magical masks.
- Transform into a 50 foot tall giant.
- Turn his arrows into beams of Fire, Ice and Light.
- There’s many Fantastic monsters and creatures even by the standards of the Zelda series, whom are all treated as normal by regular citizens, including:
- Plant people that shoot bubbles or nuts and can fly with magical flowers.
- Rock people that can roll into balls and move at superhuman speeds.
- Fish people that run a rockband using sea animals as instruments.
- Fairies that are common knowledge and the citizens of town regularly visit.
- An entire valley and city composed of undead like Ghosts, Mummies, Skeletons and Zombies.
- Snowlems just outside town.
- Alien ghosts!
- Locations are extremely weird like a dungeon that you repeatedly have to change gravity in.
- Time Travel and shapeshifting via magical masks are central elements in general.
- The Big Bad is a demonic Evil Mask possessing an Undead Child and commanding a gigantic army of very strange monsters. He was also friends with the Giants that literally created the world he lives in.
- There’s a living scarecrow just walking around town that is treated as normal.
- Many ordinary citizens possess Masks of Power, they even explain to you bestow magical abilities upon their wearer.
- Gonk-ish witches are regular merchants.
- Other fantastic things include Talking Animals as well as Funny Animals, including a possibly Cybernetic beaver
- The Magic effects of the milk from the milkbar is well known and even a point of advertisement.
And I can’t find it at this moment, but in an interview, with one of the game’s writers, possibly Aonuma, he stated he added in whimsical and dream like elements into the game to offset another writer when he added scary stuff.
Make no mistake, I love Majora’s Mask, but it doesn’t seem to fit the trope at all.
Even in the Zelda series, I feel The Legend Of Zelda 1 is more Low Fantasy, though I don’t think it fits the trope either.
Edited by MonsundopenHTAW goes where/limits and complaining
- Hard-to-Adapt Work: The Secret Invasion comic series was a large Crisis Crossover event that overhauled the post-Civil War status quo and continued to have an impact on the Marvel Universe. The concept of Skrulls posing as established characters such as Rhodey and Everett Ross for an uncertain amount of time would have repercussions that could be covered over the course of a Phase, if not a Saga in and of itself. Having such a grand event being covered in a six-episode TV series can feel underwhelming, especially with such a small cast consisting of little to no superheroes. Even The Avengers Earths Mightiest Heroes had taken several liberties when adapting the comic storyline.
The last part makes me think Hard-to-Adapt Work should only apply to the work being adapted, not the adaptation. And the many complaints I've seen about the 2023 series make me thing more of this is difficulty of fitting it in the MCU given its differences than difficulties within the source material.
Two other related questions about Hard-to-Adapt Work.
- The Lord of the Rings is listed as one even after the films proved it possible and well done. Is it due to the prior adaptations being poorly received and/or it being surprising the success of the film adaptations were.
- Undertale isn't listed despite many attributes prohibitive for non-interactive work. So does it require serious effort/discussion regarding adapting to count?
Also there's so much complaining under YMMV.Secret Invasion 2023 that it might need looking into.

Hello. I made this ATT entry and no one answered. I think I understand why, because my description was way too vague without any proofs to make you guys see what I'm actually proposing.
(That thing has been locked)
So, after a discussion with another troper who also have been editing MOBA character pages, he gave me some input, I worked on some Sandbox pages for the months to come. And I'd like to re-open this discussion.
Proposal: I want to combine the character sheets of Honor of Kings and Arena of Valor
Reasons
Here are the Sandbox pages:
I will still continue to work on these Sandboxes for other things, like making each folders more complete and of course, the GRAMMAR (Yes, once all folders are filled, I will run through the grammar check to all pages myself). But one vital question remains...
Is this an okay thing in TV Tropes? I'd like to know so I don't end up making all future works end up for nothing. (If this is not okay, then I will just share what I worked on to the default pages and modify appropriately, even if there will be similar entries.)
Thank you!
Edited by ChrisX