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:
resolved StatusEffects, StatusInflictionAttack, and NonDamagingStatusInflictionAttack
On Dawncaster, I had previously written three different examples for Status Effect, Status Infliction Attack, and Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack. They were as follows:
- Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack: Some cards allow you to apply one of the several Status Effects to the enemy without dealing any damage. These are useful because such cards typically apply more stacks (4-5) of the status effect because there's no damage. Most Status Infliction Attacks only apply 2-3 stacks or make the number of stacks applied equal to the amount of damage inflicted, meaning that Armored foes or foes with Impervious would not be affected.
- Status Effects: There are several in the game, both ailments and buffs. This trope however, will only focus on ailments and other non-standard status effects. To see what buffs are available, see Status Buff.
- Bleeding - Attacks do an additional +1 bleed damage per stack of bleed
- Brittle - the afflicted takes +1 damage from melee strikes per stack of Brittle
- Burn - per each stack of Burn deal 1 damage at the end of the afflicted's turn
- Charmed - if the afflicted's HP falls below the number of stacks of Charmed on them, they die automatically
- Dazed - Counts down for each card played. At zero, Stun takes effect, preventing all further actions that turn.
- Deep Wound - if the afflicted accumulates 5 Deep Wounds, they automatically die
- Frozen - Decrease the damage from all attack cards by 1 per stack of Frozen
- Jinx - Nullify the next card played
- Poison - the afflicted loses 1 HP per stack of Poison whenever they play a card
- Slow - Add 1 stack every time the afflicted plays a card. Increase the cost of the next cards drawn by 1 per stack of Slow
- Status Infliction Attack: Several cards allow you to both deal damage and afflict one of the many status ailments to the enemy. For example, one of the starting cards for the Arcanist, Frost Shard, does damage and afflicts the enemy with the Frozen status ailment for every point of damage that landed.
The logic was that the status effects listed can be applied both with an attack and without. So describing them generally under status effects and including a more specific example for Damaging/Non-Damaging Infliction Attacks made the most sense to me.
MaLady edited the page
by removing Status Effects and merging what was written under it into Status Infliction Attack, because in their eyes, since status effects can only be applied either with an attack or not, you wouldn't list Status Effects as it's the Super-Trope of Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack and Status Infliction Attack. While I understand the point in general on Super-Trope / Sub-Trope rules on examples list, placing the list of status effects under Status Infliction Attack makes it seem to me like these are the status effects that can only be applied via an attack, when really, these are all of the status effects that can be applied with or without a direct attack.
I was going to leave it more or less alone, and just edit the page to add a few effects that I missed, but some of the new ones would necessitate bringing back Status Effect since they are an effect you apply to yourself that doesn't directly buff your character (so they wouldn't fall under Status Buff either). But it also seems odd to me to bring back Status Effect and not list all of the statuses under it as it were before and describing them neutrally. So, I wanted to know what others' thoughts were on this before editing the page.
Edited by amathieu13resolved Questionable Edit removal from Recap for Rick and Morty Western Animation
On December 18th, 2022, I added a "The Reason You Suck" Speech entry for the Rick and Morty episode "Ricktional Mortpoons Rickmas Mortcation".
- "The Reason You Suck" Speech: When Rick tries to leave after making the driller once Morty makes clear he doesn't want Rick coming with him to get the Lightsaber, Morty gets pissed at the idea Rick is acting like Morty betrayed him and not the other way around. Rick, thoroughly done with listening to Morty and wanting to just go back to hunting down Rick Prime, delivers a quick but succinct tear down of Morty, both for the events of the last episode, and his general treatment of Rick overall the last few seasons, with Morty treating him like shit despite Rick bothering to open up to him. Morty himself can only wince and look upset while he's listening up until Curtis reassures him he won't kill his family.
Rick: You wanna know why I replaced myself in the beginning of that stupid Knights of the Sun thing? I said don't take the fucking sword and you were like "whatever" like I'm our neighbor Gene or David Arquette or something. You called me boring. I've become dog shit to you. That's what happens when you let people in and they stop respecting you, they touch your shit, they screw things up, they kill your fucking family. Go ahead. Trust [Curtis]. You're going to learn the same fucking thing.
- 1. It's not presented as the way the edit reason states, namely since Rick had been keeping Morty out of his hunt for Rick Prime rather than forcing him to help, and Morty was acting like Rick was entirely at fault for not being honest. While an argument can be made for Unintentionally Unsympathetic, the fact of the matter is that it's not presented in the manner the edit reason suggests.
- 2. "The Reason You Suck" Speech is not a YMMV trope, meaning even if Mantyf does not see it as a speech but more a rant from an abuser, the trope itself is what matters. So if the entry is an actual case of "The Reason You Suck" Speech as presented in the show itself, removing it based on an interpretation feels like a mistake.
resolved Victoria vandalism Literature
I'm on a self-imposed hiatus due to reasons, but this should be brought to the mods' attention.
Walker 45 has edited Literature.Victoria, calling it "a deranged piece of Nazi propaganda" and the like. They have also made forum posts
expressing overwhelmingly negative views towards the work and saying they will remove all mentions of it from the wiki.
Requesting mod revert of Victoria.
resolved Self-promotey language on creator page
sorry for the double post; coming across some things while wick cleaning.
Creator.Corgipon has some rather non-neutral and self-promotey language in its description, such as (emphasis mine):
- "Corgipon" is an American hobbyist web author, web artist, and somewhat underrated You Tuber."
- Her videos are often known for being either Pocketville-centric or Queen-centric, which she considers her special interests. These videos used to look quite amateur, but as for the latest video, she has shown to have adequate editing skills.
- She has also shown to have knowledge in the Japanese language, as shown in her Japanese fandubs of Adventures in Pocketville and an unofficial Japanese cover of the ending theme. The former turns out to have much better lip-syncing than the official dubbings.
Looking at the edit history and 1) the troper who created and wrote the page was Vanilla Flare and 2) Vanilla Flare is Corgipon, shown by this edit [1]
that Vanilla Flare later removed[2]
.
Is this ok/not against any site policy? Should these be re-written to be more neutral?
Edited by amathieu13resolved Potential citation edit war
Vindicator Wes added this example
to an upcoming work. When it was commented out under the "no citation" rule
. Vindicator Wes uncommented it out with no other change
to the example. They claimed "it was clarified in the press release" in the edit reason, but nothing in the example itself suggests this.
resolved Potential edit war
A Leaning on the Fourth Wall example was added to this page
that mentions that "a character considers himself to live in a story in which he's the main character". Because that sounds more like Medium Awareness than anything, I changed the trope name, while also cleaning up other mistakes on the page. The same troper who added the example changed the trope name back
to Leaning on the Fourth Wall because (paraphrased) "The character doesn't truly know he lives in a story. He just like to imagine he does."
Leaving aside how I was supposed to know the difference, would this be considered an edit war? The troper in question didn't PM me or add anything on the discussion page, they just changed the example back to how it was when they added it (even if it was just the name being changed).
Edited by UFOYeahresolved Problematic Wall of Text example Web Original
I originally raised this on the Wall of Text cleanup thread
, but it's had no reply for two weeks, so I decided to raise it here.
On the YMMV page for Crash Thompson, there's this lengthy sub-bullet listed under Broken Base:
- Crash's tendency to put certain albums at #1 on his "Worst of" lists that others felt weren't nearly as deserving of the spot as others. Many were surprised that Doug Walker's Wall parody album was even included on the list at all considering very few people even cared about it and many saw the segment as little more then an excuse for Crash to vent about his own disillusionment with Channel Awesome (which he applied to in the past), likewise in the "Worst of 2020" list some thought Crash was stretching by calling the "Living the Dream" music video for Five Finger Death Punch as being "anti-masker", and him trying to use a select few Youtube comments as an excuse to condemn the whole band as being rather unfair, not to mention Crash's repeated insults towards the band's own fans over the years in his reviews of their albums has led some to believe that he just wanted an excuse to rant about the band again and that accusing them of causing deaths was going too far, not to mention impossible to factually prove (plus seeing blaming a band for something that a few of their fans do as rather unfair), not to mention Crash slagging the band for their views (or at least what he thought they were) and penalizing them for it by putting them at #1 came off as hugely hypocritical to some considering he put Deftones "Ohms" on his "best" list despite one of their members (guitarist Stephen Carpenter) outright revealing himself to be not only an anti-vaxxer/anti-masker but a flat-earther as well (in addition to a whole bunch of other crazy conspiracy theory nonsense), yet Crash didn't penalize their album in the same way. For what it's worth, Crash himself later admitted in one of the "Rock Coliseum" videos that he regretted going as hard on both albums as he did, admitting that even if they were bad they weren't really worth all the anger he directed at them.
Originally, I was aiming to heavily gut this example due to its reliance on weasel words and what I initially interpreted as reaching for complaining via an appeal to hypocrisy (an appeal to hypocrisy which isn't even accurate even with the later context, considering that Crash actually did speak out against Carpenter in the same "best of" video). Other than maybe removing the attempt at drawing a double standard concerning Ohms, I'm wondering how exactly this can be trimmed to be easier on the eyes and less complain-y, if not cut completely.
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved An assortment of editing issues and potential rape apologia
Marianabelle is more-or-less solely responsible for creating and editing Without Her Consent and its associated subpages. They have also displayed quite a few issues when editing the subpages of this work alone, including poor spelling and grammar, trope misuse, putting non-YMMV tropes on the YMMV page, and more.
What changed my train of thought from "They really need notifiers sent to them" to "This really should be reported on ATT" was the content of their edits, particularly on the YMMV page. A (likely unapproved) Complete Monster entry that is somehow combined with Freudian Excuse (which they even made a separate entry for), a Jerks Are Worse Than Villains entry that suggests that a selfish Manchild is more loathed by the audience than a Serial Rapist, and more (and this is just on the YMMV page). I felt the need to bring this up because things like a Complete Monster entry for a Serial Rapist that starts with "Doubles as Freudian Excuse" pushes the page too far into rape apologia territory.
And then there's the Fridge and WMG entries that push the narrative that the Serial Rapist will still get away in the end by somehow winning a court case despite being found guilty of rape, even going so far as to say that he will sue the police for negligence and somehow win. Further still, there's graphic detail in the Headscratchers section theorizing as to how the rape scene was "supposed" to play out and meta headscratchers that go way too far into ROCEJ territory.
Edited by UFOYeahresolved Regarding conflicting external sources... Web Original
Hello. It took me a while to get my mind on about this, but I would like to politely ask question to get help.
It's about Fire Emblem on Forums - I was trying to do a little editting as can be shown here.
However, after than there is this edit, which says that the GM actually said that the game has not been completed.
After a bit of reviewing, I would assume they're right, I just realize that there are two contradicting possible external sources for this.
First, the source that came from the hub page
shows the game as completed, however, the actual game itself is indeed not yet marked as completed
. I think while it's external source and I can't help about it right now, I would like to mention the fact that a contradiction that has confused me was indeed present.
I'm sorry for having to point this, it might seem minor but it has mislead me into typing error. Forgive me for the incorrect edit, but the troper "IcyTea" and the person who told them are actually correct, so I'll just respect and accept their edit decision for now.
So the only problem here is trying to confirm. The latter edit is more preferable, right? I'm aware that I cannot re-edit it back because that would been an edit war that can be punished. I'm just unsure, and apologizes if this case wasn't that simple. I promise that the intent is to clarify and help. Thank you for understanding.
resolved Should we prioritize Canon Names for protagonists that can be named anything by the player? Videogame
What's the standard here? In I Was a Teenage Exocolonist, the game suggests naming your character Solane/Solana/Solanaceae, implying that either of the three's their Canon Name if you don't name them yourself. However, in all its pages, they have been referred to as either "Sol", "the protagonist", "the MC", or "you". Do we stick to one name/identifier for them, or are all of them "correct"?
resolved Character pages - navbox 'index' links and crossreferencing? Print Comic
Are there any guidelines for start of page navbox 'indexing' (the cross-referencing wikilink kind, rather than [[index]] tagging) on Character pages, for the cases where a work or franchise has a huge number of characters across a large number of sub-pages?
Looking at Characters.X Men Arakko (and the other X-Men Characters pages), I count 19 lines of links in the navbox before the page itself starts, mapping out approximately 50 different X-Men character pages. Presumably that also needs to be updated on all 50(ish) of the character pages any time it changes.
That's not an exhaustive list either, as it doesn't directly link to some of the single-character pages or the works-specific pages for particular comic books.
Most of these characters range across the wider franchise, appearing in multiple Marvel Universe comics and webcomics, so are not specific to any one comic series and their Characters page names don't mirror a particular works page.
(It's also using WMG tagging, which I’m not used to seeing outside of WMG pages, but I’m assuming that's not a problem?)
Looking at other sprawling franchises -
- Characters.Star Wars takes a different approach, with a single link back to the top-level page - e.g. as seen on Characters.Star Wars High Republic Era Jedi.
- Characters.Star Trek uses a much shorter list of links on subpages, mapping back to the relevant series (e.g. on Characters.Star Trek Deep Space Nine Federation And Bajor)- but its characters tend to be series-specific so it doesn't have quite the same structural challenge.
Is this approach fine 'as is', should it be condensed/removed in a similar way to Star Trek & Star Wars, or can it be streamlined in a different way (e.g. hide it in a folder to save space)?
Thanks!
EDIT: Edited to fix terminology and make navbox references clearer.
Edited by Mrph1resolved LGBT Fanbase example concerns
i am once again bothering tvt about hideri /s
so the LGBT Fanbase example on YMMV.Blend S lists that gender-nonconforming and transfem fans really like hideri (after a bit of tweaking from me, since the entry used to only list that GNC fans like them), but as far as i'm aware the common consensus on the wiki is that crossdressing and gender-nonconformity in general doesn't automatically equal LGBTQ+, and i feel like that part of the entry could be trimmed off considering that.
however, i'm a bit worried about doing so myself since it could come off as agenda-based, seeing that it's. not really a secret that i'm very much in the "transfem hideri" camp when it comes to the character in question, so i'm coming here for consensus. what do
Edited by worldwidewoomyresolved Questionable cut reason for CowboyBebopAtHisComputer/ZeroPunctuation
A while back, I restored the cut Critical Research Failure page for Zero Punctuation under Cowboy BeBop at His Computer, since the former ended up being disambiguated.
Since then however, the page got cut with a reason that I really don't think adds up, nor do I think received much in the way of consensus from the discussion page linked in the cut reason. I grant you, I was initially not going to raise this, since unlike the time when the CRF variant was cut, it tried to explain why it was misuse. But the explanation doesn't add up to me:
"Page is all misuse as CBAHC is about/goes under the works errors are made of, not the works making the errors."
The wording on this explanation is rather poor in and of itself (as the one reply in the cut reason's cited discussion thread alludes to) but on top of that, I've no idea what it's trying to get at after reading it carefully. Fundamentally, Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is, as the laconic page says, "when a source gets basic facts wrong about a work", and nowhere on the page does it mention anything resembling what the cut reason mentions.
On close examination, maybe the cut reason is saying that the error example should go on the page for the work rather than the work talking about the work, but not only does nothing on the CBAHC page specify this, but that's honestly a rather poor way of doing things if we trope reviewers and if it's the only option. Another part of me thinks that the key phrase is "facts about works", but that puts into question the idea that "all" the examples were misuse, considering what was on that page.
Based on the above and the minimal feedback in the discussion thread cited in the cut reason, I believe the page's cutting was unjustified, but I'd like other thoughts on this just in case I'm reading into the wrong thing.
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Bad Sequelitis Entry on YMMV Total War Warhammer III Videogame
A while back, there was an Edit War ATT concerning the Sequelitis entry on Total War: Warhammer III. See here
. I don't disagree that it was Edit Warring, but what got lost in that discussion is that the offending entry is genuinely bad, violates a number of rules and is very outdated compared to the current state of the game. For context here is the current entry as it stands on that page.
- Sequelitis: It was very clear that the team developing this game and the team maintaining the previous game either disagreed heavily or just weren't coordinating as much of the fixes, patches, updates, and design evolutions that made the previous game so popular were not present at the launch of this one. The game shifted back in favor of things that were either patched out of or specifically avoided in the previous game resulting in a launch that many fans agree was a major step backwards.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
. It's widely theorized that the core of the game was forked off an older build of the previous game before the big Potion of Speed update and thus never received most of the multitude of fixes, patches, and updates present in that patch and subsequent ones.
- The skill and tech trees for many factions are poorly-executed, with many technologies or skills that range from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). Several skills and technologies also don't do what the description says they do, making it hard to know what bonus you're actually getting. On top of this, some factions have their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies (such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology), something that was specifically hated about the Greenskins in the first game and removed from them with a series of reworks in the second. Patch 1.2 focused heavily on beefing up factions' tech trees, mitigating this.
- While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords to level 50 they didn't necessarily give them any more skills, meaning some heroes can get more skill points than they can spend; Iridescent Horrors with the Lore of Tzeentch, for example, can only spend 47 due to having mutually-exclusive skills, and even if they didn't would only have 49. This was previously only a problem with mods and those modders had solved the problem early in the first game's lifecycle.
- Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI is both less appealing and harder to read due to the overemphasis on the color red compared to the previous game's more vibrant interface. A common source of frustration is that the colors for many different functions are effectively the same, making it impossible to quickly distinguish if a settlement is, for example, building a structure or demolishing it.
- The campaign that launched with the game, Realm of Chaos, doubled down on the elements players hated about the second game's Vortex campaign (particularly the time pressure and the random invasions) without making many improvements, ignoring well-received diversification of faction objectives and stories from the previous game's DLC packs. See Scrappy Mechanic for more details on why the Reign of Chaos campaign mechanics are especially loathed. The reception of this campaign was so bad Creative Assembly had to delay their first planned update and rush out Patch 1.1 specifically to address it.
- The series has long had a reputation for amazing mods that expand and improve on the game in a myriad of ways. This game did not launch with Steam Workshop support and went without for two months until the 1.1 update.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
And here is my critique of this entry and its sub-bullets, breaking it down by the elements.
1. For starters this entry really shouldn't be broken down into multiple sub-bullets. They give the appearance of a Wall of Text. A single bullet that's Clear, Concise, Witty is preferable.
2. ""Poorly Optimized" is an understatement" etc.: The video link can stay but the words inside it should be rewritten and the rest of the paragraph should be cut. One half is hyperbolic Word Cruft with unnecessary italics, the other is pure speculation.
3. "The skill and tech trees for many factions" etc.: The points can stand but the bracketed text should be moved into Notes to make the paragraph more concise. Also, the text may need to be put into past tense as the subbullet itself admits CA have been working on this, though I think it should go as I would rather keep that element for last.
4. "While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords" etc.: The point is valid, but IMO we can reduce this to a single sentence or even a fragment of one. e.g. CA raised the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50, but some characters don't have enough room for that many skill points.
5. "Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI" etc.: Can delete. The point is valid but they directly addressed it in a later patch which means it should go under Author's Saving Throw. At most a fragment of a sentence like "issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red".
6. "The campaign that launched with the game" etc.: Valid but needs compression and to remove the reference to Scrappy Mechanic which is considered bad form. A single sentence should do it.
7. "The series has long had a reputation" etc.: Delete. Yes it was frustrating but it's been addessed.
So with all these in mind, a revised version of the entry as I see it would go something like this:
- Sequelitis: At launch, the game was very divisively and even negatively received for feeling like a step backwards after the much-lauded final state of Total War: Warhammer II. Reasons for this include a large host of glitches, bugs and programming errors
that made it feel unpolished, complaints about poor choices for skillnote Ranging from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). and technology treesnote Some factions had their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies, such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology. for certain races, CA raising the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50 but not accounting for characters who didn't have enough skills to accommodate 49 skill points, issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red, not launching with built-in support for Game Mods like its predecessors did, which might have mitigated some people's complaints about it, and worst of all, a base game campaign that was almost universally derided for loathsome mechanics, an irritating amount of time pressure and homogenising the storylines and campaign goals of the factions featured, making people who hated the how the Vortex campaign in the second game started out before DLC packs brought diversification of faction objectives and stories cry, "Oh, No... Not Again!" Fortunately, CA have since worked hard to address all these issues throught game patches and their first DLC pack, which has led to the game getting a much more positive reception.
Note this is not the final form I would put it in, I just needed to make something for this, but I also wanted to achieve consensus before I posted it. Thoughts?
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved AuthorAppeal - reusing characters? Print Comic
I'm seeing a few examples where tropers have added the Author Appeal trope because writers have reused familiar / favourite characters in shared-universe comics. For example, from the new ComicBook.Defenders Beyond works page:
- Author Appeal: The new Defenders roster is comprised almost entirely of characters Ewing's either created (Taaia) or written before, from Mighty Avengers and The Ultimates to Loki: Agent of Asgard.
As per the trope page, Author Appeal is "a particular gimmick or kink is so widespread and prominent that it is interpreted as a specific reason the creator actually produced the work".
I can see how that might be applied to an attribute of the characters - although that seems to veer closer to Creator Thumbprint unless it goes into kink territory.
But simply reusing existing characters, whether or not the writer created them, doesn't feel like it fits.
I'd originally asked the same question on the discussion page for the trope itself, but didn't get an answer - flagging it here just to ensure I'm not misunderstanding before I delete someone's work (I don't see a more appropriate trope to move it to?).
Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1resolved Collaborative Works and Auto-Erotic Troping
I think it's time for me to finally face the music on this one.
About ten years ago, my fellow Dino Attack RPG players and I created the RPG's page here on TV Tropes. In addition to cataloging many tropes from the RPG itself (across four trope pages and multiple character pages), we also created YMMV pages (including awesome, heartwarming, tearjerker, and nightmare fuel subpages) and a Trivia page. Back then, most of us had simply browsed TV Tropes for fun and weren't aware of all the rules and policies.
Recently, I've had to take more time to better familiarize myself with TV Tropes' rules. One such policy that I've seen brought up here in Ask The Tropers is Auto-Erotic Troping for works that you've created. Basically, the key point here is "No Audience Reactions" and "No Trivia that can't be individually researched". The latter seems easy enough; just make sure there's a public source that can verify whatever is added to the Trivia page. But the former... where does it stand with a collaborative work, such as an RPG with Loads and Loads of Writers?
Even before seeing this policy, I tended to be mindful of any YMMV entries that I'd add. Essentially, I would only add my own reactions to things other players had written, or other players' reactions to things I had written. For example, Dr. Michelle Glados is a character I wrote, but her entry under Complete Monster is based directly upon a comment
from another player. Meanwhile, I added entries for Kotua as That One Boss and Plastic Serpent as Unintentionally Sympathetic, which are my own personal reactions to characters written by other players. However, this is not always the case, especially in older YMMV entries from ten years ago, or with Hilarious in Hindsight (where I confess that I've been adding some entries based on my own writings without other peoples' reactions, largely because the actual "audience reaction" aspect of the trope is loosely applied at best).
I am willing to cull the RPG's YMMV pages if they aren't outright cut in order to meet TV Tropes policy. But first, I just want to know whether my "only trope writer reactions to other writers" rule of thumb is kosher under Auto-Erotic Troping collaborative works, or if I've been doing this all wrong for the past ten years. Please advise.
resolved Fan-made novelisation shares the name with source material
If there's a fan-made novelisation for video game (which shares the name with source material), how to name the page for it to prevent if from showing up as subpage for the game itself?
Or just add either "fanfic" or author's nick in the link, and then use WikiWord?
resolved Fanfic Recs self removal
On FanficRecs.Total Drama, one poster removed the recommendations they previously made for fics due to issues they have with the original work’s production company. Is this allowed?
resolved digeraddd
Spinning off from this ATT thread
, digeraddd
has several glaring editing problems dating back to when they first started editing in 2018 and continuing to this day. The linked thread mentions that the page they created is full of Shameless Self-Promotion, unlinked tropes, non-tropes, and trope misuse (and that they have added their self-promotion to other pages (at least one of which has been cut), but it doesn't end there. There's also:
- Several cases of natter/justifying edits (such as on this page
.
- Changing somebody's pronouns from they to he (after it was stated that they go by they/them pronouns)
.
- Their Shameless Self-Promotion reaching pages that don't even have anything to do with Youtube, podcasts, or gaming
.
- Their habit of adding non-tropes and/or with no link (and potential trope misuse) is not limited to the page they created that's mentioned in the ATT thread.
- Some edits that are just
...what (even ones that are made and then immediately undone still exist in the page history)?

How do I create my own troper page? I want to create something like this "Tropers / Yatasumuji Senpai" on my own page? I like to edit one by myself but I don’t really know how to? Is there anyway you could help me please, perhaps the instructions would be helpful?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpai