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 The flexibility of the words "Network" and "Executive"
Now, I know that the word "Creator" can mean more than just "the person who came up with the idea" and can include others such as actors. Can something similar happen with the words "Network" and "Executive"? Because it looks like some example think so.
For example, Trivia.Infinity Train Seeker Of Crocus has the trope Adored by the Network listed even though it is a fanfiction. So in this case the word "Network" does not refer to a traditional broadcasting company, but to the writers of the work. Trivia.A Thing Of Vikings includes the trope Executive Meddling, although it is also a fanfiction, so it uses the word "Executive", not to refer to the people on the administrative side of the project, but to the reviewers of the work (I would like to add that the author apparently ignored their meddling). This last trope even has a page dedicated to Fan Works
This all seems like a stretch, since fanfiction is self-published, so the author has absolute power over the work. In any case, the closest thing to a "Network" and "Executives" would be the mods and the people who run Archive of Our Own, the website where these works are made public.
Edited by SoyValdo7resolved 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 Living Macguffin or...?
I'm a little confused about this trope and how given that it's supposed to be a macguffin made into a person (which to my understanding seems like a person whose only purpose is to move the plot ...and not much of anything else), which means that there should be a difference between this trope and say... Apocalypse Maiden, The Chosen One, or Sealed Inside a Person-Shaped Can
I understand how overlap is possible but when does a character go from being a mere Living MacGuffin to any of these other tropes about a character relevant to the plot in one way or another? Or are ALL of those characters inherent macguffins? I mean since the trope itself is divided into more categories -some of which feel either really narrow or way too broad - and the main page description mentions the chosen one trope and at no point makes the distinction about the whole thing.
EDIT:
@Xtifr: Thank you for the answer, but now I see that I need to clarify a little more:
I know that in the most basic level Living MacGuffin has little if any to do with the tropes I listed before, my confusion comes from the fact that in the Macguffin page we have this laconic description:
An object that, while not relevant to the main narrative, is frequently pursued throughout it.
Whereas the Living MacGuffin has this one:
A plot object that is a person.
So, follwing these thread, my question basically boils down to this: In a narrative context, when or how does a character stop being a Living MacGuffin? For example you said that this person's value is determined more by other characters and how much they pursue it rather than for the overall plot right? So this character could be a princess or a diplomat who at the end of the day doesn't not accomplish much but their purpose to the story is met for the simple fact that they are wanted people in the setting right? But a character with an established personality who happens to grab the Distress Ball is not right? Or a character who is The Heart of the team and is pursued for their importance to the main characters, or ( sorry I swear this is the last example) an established character (with personality, motives and connections to other characters) who is pursued by some unknown attribute that for a while is not specified to the audience so for a while they are indeed a Macguffin of sorts, their pursue fuels the plot at least half of the time, and at some point their importance in indeed a pivotal part of the Bad Guy's evil plot? Are they still a Living MacGuffin?
Hope this is not too convoluted or something.
Edited by RoseBrideresolved Tux1
Tux 1
's edits are...kind of odd.
resolved Bloated-if-not-questionable Cowboy Bebop At His Computer example Web Original
On the Trivia page for Jimquisition, there's a Cowboy BeBop at His Computer example that was added and serial tweaked across last November, and while I already take issue with the unwieldy length of the example, I watched the episode it's referring to, and I'm not sure it's accurate. Here's what it is:
- In "Why Emulating Nintendo Games Is Good, Probably"
, Jim kept equating Piracy and Emulation as one in the same throughout the video; which it is not. Piracy would be stealing a game rom to play on an emulator, whereas emulators themselves is the means to play said game. While they can be used to play pirated games, if one is prepared enough, you can just dump the games yourself (something all emulators suggest you do specifically to avoid lawsuits and copyright infringement). Jim doesn't seem to realise that emulators can also do a lot more than just play games. You can outright make homebrew games for that system, mod the game to make it look better with texture packs and custom levels, or use cheat codes to enhance the experience. None of this was mentioned by them, despite being perfectly legal activities to do, and also a draw to emulator enthusiasts. If emulators were the driving issue, Nintendo and other game companies would've attempted to sue them all years agonote and there is a reason most emulators are open source; to prove to the companies and their users that their code is not stolen from outside sources or was made with a leaked companies' data. The premise of the video is also flawed because they claim games media doesn't talk about emulation because it's a taboo subject, and goes off on a tangent about how the media relies too much on connections to get news and review copies. While the observation is mostly true, It doesn't occur to them that a press outlet featuring emulators semi-frequently will inevitably lead to the Streisand Effect; more people pirating games to try out the emulator because they heard it in an article that would otherwise not feature it (something Jim themselves is an example of; Jim went out and bought a handheld game emulator loaded with what they imply are illegitimately obtained roms because they wanted to use an emulator to protest against Nintendo's online service that they found out via a news article via Kotaku).
Except the video doesn't treat piracy and emulation as the same thing. In fact, going off of the way that Jim words themselves, the video acknowledges and understands that piracy is a mere facet of emulation more than it is the same thing. Jim's video treats it as part of the bigger issue of how Nintendo does nothing to make their service worth the money in the face of people being able to access their older games for free illegitimately, and it seems like that's the actual premise of the video more than the topic of gaming media being coy about emulation, especially since the early portion revolves around an article that's being anything but coy about it. More to the point, the video backs this distinction up further by explicitly pointing out that the Kotaku article in question isn't encouraging piracy so much as it's reporting on something that's proven to be possible on emulation software.
From what I can conclude from rewatching the video, this example seems to revolve around a lack of distinction that not only isn't visible anywhere in the video, but wouldn't have been important to the video's point even if it was. It can't just be me noticing this, right?
At the very least, the example looks like it could do with a trim and a tiny bit of grammar cleanup, if we were to keep it.
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved All lowercase trope name
Is there a particular reason the trope title for Going to the Store is in all-lowercase? all lowercase letters at least has it as a self-referential joke.
Edited by megarockmanresolved YMMV/DarkPhoenix Issue Film
patriciovalencia117 recently instituted a change in the Audience-Alienating Premise section.
Before:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: The film ended driving away many fans owing to on-going production shenanigans and its questionable creative decisions. Right off the bat, Fox's decision to adapt Phoenix Saga story didn't inspire confidence given how the studio's previous stab at the story line, the much maligned X-Men: The Last Stand, was a low point for the franchise and its poor reception ended up tainting the image of the Dark Phoenix alter-ego and story. Further hampering enthusiasm was the controversial hiring of Simon Kinberg as director; while Kinberg produced the critically acclaimed X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past, his involvement in the much-contested X-Men: Apocalypse and his lack of directorial experience left fans cautious about the project. There was also the matter of fans perceiving either Days of Future Past or Logan as the Grand Finale of the setting, which caused lowered interest in this movie. And even if most of the audience could forgive all that, near the end of 2017 Disney had made a bid to acquire Fox's film assets, and it was considered a Foregone Conclusion by many ever since that not only would the acquisition go through (which it eventually did in 2019), but that Disney would pass responsibility for making future X-Men movies onto Marvel Studios (with the possible exception of movies that star Deadpool, who Disney themselves hinted and eventually confirmed would be staying at Fox to avoid tampering with his R-rated nature), and that a hard Continuity Reboot was inevitable as a result. Ultimately, all these factors coalesced into a movie that financially fell below already-modest expectations.
After:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: The film ended up driving away many fans owing to on-going production shenanigans and its questionable creative decisions. Right off the bat, Fox's decision to adapt the Phoenix Saga story didn't inspire confidence given how the studio's previous stab at the story line, the much maligned X-Men: The Last Stand, was a low point for the franchise and its poor reception ended up tainting the image of the Dark Phoenix alter-ego and story. Further hampering enthusiasm was the controversial hiring of Simon Kinberg as director; while Kinberg produced the critically acclaimed X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past, his involvement in the much-contested X-Men: Apocalypse and his lack of directorial experience left fans cautious about the project. There was also the matter of fans perceiving either Days of Future Past or Logan as the Grand Finale of the setting, which caused lowered interest in this movie. And even if most of the audience could forgive all that, Disney ended up buying out Fox and it film assets, meaning that barring the R-rated Deadpool, the X-Men will undergo a Continuity Reboot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ultimately, all these factors coalesced into a movie that financially fell below already-modest expectations. (Note: The "ended to ended up" change and "adapt Dark Phoenix story to adapt the Dark Pheonix story" edits were done by Stardust Soldier.)
I have issues with this edit.
1. No edit reason to explain this. I'm guessing it was supposed to be a compression issue but that wasn't well-explained. This edit is not so self-explanatory as to require no edit reason.
2. Factual inaccuracy: Disney did not "buy out Fox". They acquired PARTS of Fox that were sold off because Rupert Murdoch wanted to get out of the film-making business and focus on expanding his news empire. Let's get that straight.
3. The edit makes it seem like that acquisition was the only part where enthusiasm started being dampened, even though Disney first made their bid back at the tail-end at 2017 and the possibility of the acquisition going through had ample time to fester in the public consciousness. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that was not a factor.
4. Errors in grammar and mark-up. "Fox and it film assets" indeed, and Marvel Cinematic Universe should be linked to.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved 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 SelfDemonstrating Namespace
On Wick Namespace Migration, it says that Self-Demonstrating/ is not a namespace that should be used for wicks. However for Deadpool, the Comic Book/ namespace, which is the original medium, is currently a redirect to the Self-Demonstrating page. Should anything be done with this?
resolved No Title Film
SelfDemonstrating.The Beast Of Yucca Flats appears to be mostly identical to its non-SD page.
Botched attempt to remove the self-demonstration?
resolved "Wasted" removal, valid?
Mariofan99 removed these from YMMV.Shadow Generations citing cleanup
and "Character cant be wasted if they never show up." But the cleanup said to cut the "Plot" examples, not the "Character" ones they also removed. The removals I have questions about.
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character:
- Even though Shadow is sent to Sunset Heights and Infinite is a major villain in that game who despises Shadow, Infinite makes no in-person appearance. Instead, Infinite is only shown and mentioned in the concept art and backstory logs within Shadow's Collection Room. My impression was that even a small reference to them means they're in the work enough to qualify as "Wasted". Does this not count as not an in-narrative ref (the Collection Room is fuzzy on if in-universe)?
- Mephiles, a villain heavily associated with time travel, being the Big Bad or at least a major antagonist in a game revolving around time travel would seem like a no-brainer, yet he plays no greater role in the plot outside of his boss fightnote it's at least implied he has something to do with the Corruption slime that Shadow needs Doom Morph to move around in, as it heavily resembles his shadow creep in both 06 and his boss fight here, but nothing concrete is ever said He does show up. So was he removed as the narrative never hinted he's have a bigger role in the story than just a boss fight? Would this be wasted "Plot" as unused narrative potential, or not as the plot of the boss fight was to stop him before he could become such a threat meaning it was used?
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot:
- While the game does a good job of representing Shadow's history in the series over the years (even going so far as to bring back Black Doom and Mephiles), there's a notable lack of a stage representation from Shadow's own game. Considering how much the remaster takes from Shadow the Hedgehog (such as bringing back Black Doom as the main antagonist), it's particularly jarring that the game doesn't get its own stage like Adventure 2 and Heroes do. It's even more jarring because Sonic '06 (which erased itself from existence), Sonic Forces (which takes place later in the timeline) and Sonic Frontiers (which doesn't feature Shadow at all) get returning stages, yet there's no stage from Shadow the Hedgehog despite there being a lot of creative and memorable onesnote For example, Digital Circuit and Mad Matrix, Circus Park, Sky Troops, G.U.N. Fortress, Lava Shelter and Cryptic Castle that could have easily fit the bill. Even the final battle against Devil Doom simply takes place in Radical Highway rather than somewhere like Black Comet, Final Haunt or The Last Way. Since the game is otherwise unashamed about the era Shadow the Hedgehog comes from, it comes across like it's still treated as a lesser entry. Get the criteria for "Characters" needing to be present/alluded to in-work, but what counts as setup for "Plot"? Is the Returning Big Bad and work being the sequel to Shadow not enough setup/allusion for the plots to be considered ignored? If not what is?
- A small point of contention for the story is that the future stages — the ones that take place after the events of Generations from Shadow's perspective — aren't really explored in detail. Shadow never questions what these places are, the only explanation given to their existence is an easily-missed Hand Wave from Gerald, and there's no cameos from those games to go along with them, with many citing Infinite's absence as an especially missed opportunity. Most of the game's stages don't really affect the plot much, but the future stages still give the impression that they were tacked on in comparison; it can't even be justified as representing the games that released between the original Generations and the re-release, as there's no stage for Sonic Lost World to go with them. Misuse because they do get mentions, so they aren't wasted just not used in the way fans wanted?
- Maria (and to a lesser extent, Gerald) never actually get to have any meaningful interactions with Shadow's friends that he's made. While it does make sense given the whole ordeal with the Time Eater's happening at the same time with Black Doom, and the game does try to Hand Wave this by Gerald not wanting to create a paradox, neither of them being able to at least introduce themselves to the likes of Rouge or E-123 Omega could've led to some interesting and heartwarming moments that the story never got the chance to explore. The absolute closest the game gets to featuring any characters interacting with Maria and Gerald is through the optional hub interactions, where Big reveals that he spent time with both of them for a little while, and Omega protecting them off-screen during the final battle. See above two questions.
- Some fans were disappointed that, while there's a cutscene showing Shadow's side of his boss fight with Sonic from the base game, there isn't an actual playable rematch from Shadow's perspective. Not even a simple flip of the original fight's mechanics. Seems like it was setting up a boss fight, only to pull the rug and make it happen in a cutscene. Or was this misuse as wasted "Gameplay", not "Plot"?
resolved Somebody turned a proper wick into a disambig wick
Few days ago on WhatCouldHaveBeen.Hololive (as seen on this edit
), a troper somehow changed the Franchise.Devil May Cry wick into VideoGame.Devil May Cry... which doesn't make sense because the Franchise one is already the proper wick that doesn't need fixing or changing at all, while the VideoGame one creates a green wick that leads to a disambig page.
I'm making this ATT just to be safe, because I originally used the Franchise wick before on that example, and changing it back myself might somehow make others think it's an edit war. Also, this is the first time I've ever seen a troper turn a blue wick into a green disambig wick, and I'm not sure if it was intentional or accidental.
resolved Team Fortress 2 characters edit
On the tf2 npcs page the trope Entertainingly Wrong was changed from
to
With the reasoning "Natter, also disputes canon." Firstly the new text is longer and makes what I feel is pointless use of footnotes, but also I fail to see how it disputes canon; Miss Pauling is canonically a lesbian, and when Scout (who was also staring for the 'weird to see naked people in honey' reason) tries to pull her away she says with a slightly awestruck expression
"You go ahead. I'll catch up," which I feel pretty decisively implies that she was Eating the Eye Candy.
So just wanted to check with the chorus before editing it back.
Edited by Biggbyresolved Edit war on Characters/MCUWandaMaximoff
A new troper liberty3
removed the following entry
:
- Womanchild: Despite being in her late twenties/early thirties, Wanda acts much like a teenage girl in most of her appearances. She's often seen brooding or is otherwise antisocial in most situations, and she watches old sitcoms like she did as a child to comfort herself in her lowest moments. Justified, given how Wanda hasn't exactly lived what one would call a normal or happy life.
I am not the one who added it in the first place, but I restored it since I believe it is perfectly fine. They removed it again. I sent a message to them and received no reply.
The trope is lampshaded in Captain America: Civil War. Steve Rogers calls her a "kid"
and she is 27 there (born in 1989, the film is set in 2016). And she dresses and behaves like a teen, too.
What should be done about it?
Edited by Asherinkaresolved Theme Parks under No Real Life Examples Please? What's the stance/scope?
So, on some pages under No Real Life Examples, Please! (e.g., Americans Hate Tingle), there is a folder for theme parks, which isn't too bad by itself, but several examples list entire parks (Disneyland Paris, Universal Studios Japan, etc) which are real-life places, so I want to question, does their inclusion violate No Real Life Examples, Please!?
My assumption is that:
- Specific theme park rides within the parks(Haunted Mansion, Small World, Wizarding World of HP, Super Nintendo World, etc)/characters original to theme parks/rides (e.g., Duffy, Figment, Hitchhiking Ghosts, etc) - Fine to add and doesn't violate NRLEP since they're works/characters.
- Theme parks as a whole (like listing Disneyland Paris under Americans Hate Tingle) - Violation of NRLEP since theme parks are real-life locales.
But I understand there is a grey area given the nature of theme parks (not unlike sports), and correct me if I'm wrong.
Edited by Tylerbear12resolved Typo in the title: Recap/TheChicagoCodeS1E13MikeRyokosRevenge Live Action TV
The Chicago Code S 1 E 13 Mike Ryokos Revenge
The episode title should be "Mike Royko's Revenge," not Ryoko— the reference is to a Chicago Tribune columnist, not a J-Pop singer. But I'm not sure how to fix it as it's in the page title itself.
resolved Character reversion for The Pitt Live Action TV
Regarding an edit on characters for The Pitt ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ThePitt2025
) . I wish to revert or if possible modify a character edit. Regarding characters tropes I believe we post both strengths and weaknesses of character to paint a full picture of said character. But feel the current edits for Doctor Landon tend to seem to attempt to protect the character from any negative aspects. To note , I am not seeking to bash said character.
Original version
- Believing Their Own Lies: Tries to convince Robby that the pain-meds his stolen does not impair his judgement or reasoning at all. However during his shift he did try to throw an attending under the bus to protect himself and was stealing and diluting much needed hospital supplies before the shift. At the end of the shift, he desperately tried to manipulate two colleagues Robby and Dana who respect him, to ignore his condition
Revised version
- Believing Their Own Lies: Tries to convince Robby that the Librium he stole does not impair his judgement or reasoning at all and that he only needs them to wean off his addiction. Robby immediately calls him out for not taking the proper steps to treat his withdrawal symptoms, bluntly laying out that he could be facing felony charges for his diversion.
The second version seemingly softens Langdon actions and ramifications of his actions. As well as the problems with the actions that he took and the consequences of them. As in the lie he tells himself is not that he needs to wean himself off the pills, but the lie is the pill affect his behaviour , ie stealing needed medication to feed his need.
Original version
- Never My Fault: Unfortunately as an addict he views his thefts as necessary. Refuses to accept he may have a problem and when forced to go into rehab and face being reported as having a drug problem tries to paint it as Robby over-reacting instead of a genuine issue due to his addiction.
Revised version
- Never My Fault: Unfortunately Langdon refuses to take responsibility over his addiction, believing that he only needs the benzos to wean off his dependence on pain meds.
Removes how Langdon acts as its NeverMyFault by removing what he is refusing to accept fault for. Seemingly makes it about his addiction and not a) the thefts he committed to feed the addiction or b) is refusal to accept fault for his actions and having a blowout over it.
Original version
- Kick the Dog: When Robby refuses to ignore Langdon's addiction and thefts. Decides to report the incident and offer to get Landon into rehab. Langdon instead of being grateful, throws the gesture in his face stating that Robby has no right to judge claiming he is as messed up as he is bringing up Robby PTSD and breakdown earlier that night. Robby who is emotionally and physically raw from end of the shift , can only walk away disappointed in his former friend.
Revised version
- Kick the Dog: When Robby gives Langdon the ultimatum of going to rehab instead of losing his license, Langdon throws the gesture in his face by stating that Robby has no right to judge since he's claiming "as messed up as he is" because of his meltdown in Pedes from earlier. Robby pointedly tells Langdon that he's the one that screwed up massively.
Again , cuts away why the example exists in order to make the character less abrasive or damaged as is. In way to prevent the character from seeming unlikable.
Original version
- Functional Addict: Langdon is addicted to Librium, a benzodiazepine, to the point of filching pills from the prescription of one of the hospital's "frequent flyer" patients. When Robby finds out, he makes an extremely poor attempt at defending himself when confronted with Santos' suspicion that he's stealing other medications on top of it. Despite this, he is still an outstandingly competent doctor, a point which he himself brings up when confronted by Robby. Despite this , Robby correctly forces him to go into treatment as Langdon is in denial about his problem. As he is actively stealing medication from patients in pain, and his argument and his argument he just need the pain-meds to get off his pill-addiction is him ignoring the seriousness of his problem
Revised version
- Functional Addict: Langdon is addicted to Librium, a benzodiazepine, to the point of filching pills from the prescription of one of the hospital's "frequent flyer" patients. When Robby finds out, he makes an extremely poor attempt at defending himself when confronted with Santos' suspicion that he's stealing other medications on top of it. Despite this, he is still an outstandingly competent doctor, a point which he himself brings up when confronted by Robby. However, Robby has to give him an ultimatum of going to rehab or face losing his medical license.
Leaves out the serious issue that Langdon is stealing pain meds from patients in pain and causing risks to other patients. Another issue it attempts to downplay the act and his issues via the statement “Despite this, he is still an outstandingly competent doctor, a point which he himself brings up when confronted by Robby.” Seemingly excusing his 'filching' because he hasn't screwed up medically , yet.
Original version
- Took a Level in Jerkass: An unfortunate side effect of addiction is the inability to accept that he has a problem and take to desperate measures to protect himself from consequence. From trying to paint Santos genuine concerns as false accusations from a new resident that most people don't like. To desperately trying to compare his pill -addiction to Robby's PTSD in order to gain sympathy , which forces Robby to walk away from him in disbelief. To trying to convince Dana who is having her own traumatic day that Robby judgement is in question and needs her to have his back despite his own erratic behavior.
New Version
- Took a Level in Jerkass: An unfortunate side effect of Langdon's addiction is his inability to accept that he has a problem, taking desperate measures to protect himself from consequences. The peak of this comes when Langdon tries to tell Robby to ignore his addiction since the latter is "just as screwed up" as he is because of his breakdown towards the end of "7:00 PM". Clearly, this does not go over well with Robby.
'The second version leaves out what desperate measures Langdon took making it a ZCE and again unnecessarily saving the character from any sort of criticism. Not looking to bash said character but the second example says they took a level without explaining ‘’how’’ they Took a Level in Jerkass. As well as neutering the confrontation he had with Robby
Again I am not attempting to bash the character. Have noted that a character should express both negative and positive aspects of a character. I just feel that the new edits seemingly go out of its way to “clean” up the character. Which doesn’t seem an issue when less popular characters like Santos is concerned. If reversion to its original version is not advised is there any suggestion to make the examples more nuanced?
resolved general site forum
I want to express my feelings about a grievance I have with a particular page (which I am in the process of fixing right now). Is there a forum where we talk about the site itself or something like that?

All of the examples for Talking to Themself have been removed from the trivia pages, as they used to refer to one actor playing more than one role. But would adding them back in as Acting for Two, which does refer to such, count as edit warring?