[004]
QueenofSwords
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Actually, there is \'\'no\'\' character which is universally hated; CreatorsPet is YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\'t mean they can\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\'s shilling on the \'\'writers\'\'\' parts; there\'s no \
to:
Actually, there is \\\'\\\'no\\\'\\\' character which is universally hated; TheScrappy and CreatorsPet are now YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\\\'t mean they can\\\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\\\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\\\'s shilling on the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\'\\\' parts; there\\\'s no \\\"earning\\\" or \\\"not earning\\\" it; it\\\'s because the writers have chosen to handle them in one manner or another. The respective creators \\\'\\\'actually stated\\\'\\\' that Rose and River were their pet creations, as it were. So no, sorry, they \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' actual examples. TropesAreNotGood. TropesAreNotBad. Speaking as someone who is neutral on the part of both characters, just because a character is up here does not make their existence invalid; it\\\'s simply noting the trope.
Also, as there\\\'s a note to not change it, please respect that; changing is is just \\\'\\\'asking\\\'\\\' for an EditWar and possibly FanWank. We don\\\'t need that.
Also, as there\\\'s a note to not change it, please respect that; changing is is just \\\'\\\'asking\\\'\\\' for an EditWar and possibly FanWank. We don\\\'t need that.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Actually, there is \'\'no\'\' character which is universally hated; CreatorsPet is YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\'t mean they can\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\'s shilling on the \'\'writers\'\'\' parts; there\'s no \
to:
Actually, there is \\\'\\\'no\\\'\\\' character which is universally hated; CreatorsPet is YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\\\'t mean they can\\\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\\\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\\\'s shilling on the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\'\\\' parts; there\\\'s no \\\"earning\\\" or \\\"not earning\\\" it; it\\\'s because the writers have chosen to handle them in one manner or another. The respective creators \\\'\\\'actually stated\\\'\\\' that Rose and River were their pet creations, as it were. So no, sorry, they \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' actual examples. TropesAreNotGood. TropesAreNotBad. Speaking as someone who is neutral on the part of both characters, just because a character is up here does not make their existence invalid; it\\\'s simply noting the trope.
Also, as there\\\'s a note to not change it, please respect that; changing is is just \\\'\\\'asking\\\'\\\' for an EditWar and possibly FanWank. We don\\\'t need that.
Also, as there\\\'s a note to not change it, please respect that; changing is is just \\\'\\\'asking\\\'\\\' for an EditWar and possibly FanWank. We don\\\'t need that.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Actually, there is \'\'no\'\' character which is universally hated; CreatorsPet is YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\'t mean they can\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\'s shilling on the \'\'writers\'\'\' parts; there\'s no \
to:
Actually, there is \\\'\\\'no\\\'\\\' character which is universally hated; CreatorsPet is YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\\\'t mean they can\\\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\\\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\\\'s shilling on the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\'\\\' parts; there\\\'s no \\\"earning\\\" or \\\"not earning\\\" it; it\\\'s because the writers have chosen to handle them in one manner or another. The respective creators \\\'\\\'actually stated\\\'\\\' that Rose and River were their pet creations, as it were. So no, sorry, they \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' actual examples. TropesAreNotGood. TropesAreNotBad. Just because a character is up here does not make their existence invalid; it\\\'s simply noting the trope.
Also, as there\\\'s a note to not change it, please respect that; changing is is just \\\'\\\'asking\\\'\\\' for FanWank. We don\\\'t need that.
Also, as there\\\'s a note to not change it, please respect that; changing is is just \\\'\\\'asking\\\'\\\' for FanWank. We don\\\'t need that.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Actually, there is \'\'no\'\' character which is universally hated; CreatorsPet is YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\'t mean they can\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\'s shilling on the \'\'writers\'\'\' parts; there\'s no . The respective creators \'\'actually stated\'\' that they were their pet creations. So no, sorry, they \'\'are\'\' actual examples. TropesAreNotGood. TropesAreNotBad. Just because a character is up here does not make their existence invalid; it\'s simply noting the trope.
to:
Actually, there is \\\'\\\'no\\\'\\\' character which is universally hated; CreatorsPet is YMMV by default. Furthermore, just because a character is a pet doesn\\\'t mean they can\\\'t be changed at some point, nor does it mean they don\\\'t have their fans (for example, the original TropeNamer, Wesley of Star Trek, had quite a few fans himself, and he is arguably the most famous example). Furthermore, it\\\'s shilling on the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\'\\\' parts; there\\\'s no \\\"earning\\\" or \\\"not earning\\\" it; it\\\'s because the writers have chosen to handle them in one manner or another. The respective creators \\\'\\\'actually stated\\\'\\\' that Rose and River were their pet creations, as it were. So no, sorry, they \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' actual examples. TropesAreNotGood. TropesAreNotBad. Just because a character is up here does not make their existence invalid; it\\\'s simply noting the trope.
