Follow TV Tropes
I've added a description of the three main characters to the box beneath the main picture. Problem is, it sort of looks stupid with the Friends, School and Demons thing, but since that's been here a while, I didn't want to delete it. Any suggestions to make it look a little better?
I don't... really think we need a description of the characters, honestly.
I might just move it to the starred part of it and someone can delete it if it really isn't wanted.
Should we get to creating a subpage for the Persona 3 film trilogy, considering how the first movie is now out online?
I honestly don't expect them to get enough separate edits to warrant their own page, but it should be considered. Does it deviate much from the original?
Recent trailers of Persona Q and screenshots show that both Protagonists can be renamed. What should be done for the Persona 3 page? Recent changes I've seen, seem to try to cement "Minato Arisato" as the Canon Name.
The main character's canon name seems to be Minato. Course of action?
It's mentioned on the page. That seems to be enough.
Technically, that's the canon name for the movie continuity; it's not necessarily canon to the games. As such, when referring to the games (which is... pretty much all of this page) then it's not really necessary to name them.
Apparently in the new trailer for Persona Q his name appears as Minato Arisato (his movie name is Makoto, subverting our prediction of him being that).
Ah. My bad, I didn't know and I apologize.
How... canon is Persona Q? Based on This page, it doesn't seem like it fits in with the games (what with SEES and the Investigation Team meeting way before P 4 A, which is canon). Even if it is, we'll still probably do the same thing we did with Yu; update the character sheet saying that's he's "Main Character/Minato" and allow use of either, since the namelessness is still in effect for the majority of media.
Alright, seems cool. Just heard about it and was just wondering.
On the topic of Artemisia:
The Persona 3 Official Design Works was compiled from Shigenori Soejima's design notes. While the actual name of the Persona is indeed the same name as a historical figure, when the designer himself◊ says that he drew inspiration from the Greek goddess that trumps any Wikipedia search.
Does that say anything about the little dude in Caesar's chest? That's always made me wonder who that was.
This was cut from the page:
While I don't think this is true, I'd rather give it the benefit of the doubt and ask if this is canon and where exactly this is stated (in-game or All in the Manual).
That's not stated anywhere in the game or in supplementary materials. Just some fan theory meant for gushing. Keep it of the page.
Hmm... The section on the Classical Mythology trope is really, really long. While I enjoy reading it, isn't that sort of analysis better suited for the Analysis page?
I don't think that the Double Standard trope really applies.
"Subtle and fairly low-key one; how the romantic relationships get started. For the male protagonist, all his social links will default to a romantic relationship regardless. For the female protagonist, she needs to choose the correct responses at certain points"
While this is true, it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Fe MC is, well, female. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with P 3 P being made after Persona4, and includes all of its advances. One of which was the choice on whether or not a Social Link was romantic or not.
You're right, cut it.
Quick question, does the No Fair Cheating voiced thing only apply for the Universe Arcana? Because I was hoping to use the infinite yen code for P3P (seriously, you can only get money through Card Chance now? What?), but I don't want my navigators lecturing me every five minutes.
No idea here. But as for getting money in P 3 P, there's more ways than the Card Chance. There's also working at places during night shift, and when you rescue people from Tartarus, you're usually rewarded with money. Just saying. Never heard of the Infinite Yen Code, personally.
Chests still hold money in P3P, and golden enemies still drop high-selling coins. There are actually more ways to gain money in Portable than in the previous iterations of the game.
Elizabeth/Theodore's missions also frequently net some fairly large yen rewards. When I played through P3P I quickly had more yen than I had any use for, even without doing part-time jobs or farming wealth hands.
The reason I deleted the Official Couple entry is because it got a bunch of JustifyingEdits beneath it. That should be a huge clue that people disagree with the initial statement. "The hundreds of tropers" as you put it most likely tolerated the entry not because it was correct, but because they saw (or were the ones who added) those justifying edits.
You make a lot of arguments that Yukari is the "main" love interest and, to be fair, you have a point there. Your argument, however, is one-sided in that it doesn't take the feelings of the main character into account. This is important because, in this instance, the protagonist can choose who his love interest is. Because of that, we really need clarification from Word of God before we go about declaring who the Official Couple is. Again, "Canon has a crush on the hero so that's close enough" is not the same thing as Official Couple.
Now, if I am mistaken and Atlus has done so, then feel free to correct me and re-add the entry. But, until then, your description of Yukari falls under Implied Love Interest.
To me, the main reason why Yukari (or any other girl, for that matter) isn't an Official Couple with the Main Character is summed up in one word: Aigis.
This is specially true in FES, where Aigis gets a LOT more focus than even Yukari, some of which is even romantic in nature. And then there's The Answer, where she's the one who carries on the MC's legacy while Yukari is reduced to near-hysteric obsession, and...
Thank you. I completely forgot to mention the thing with Aigis.
This page needs a massive cleanup. It's covered in natter, conversations, and unnecessary spoiler tags blanking out most of the text.
I'm on it! ^_^
I noticed a big problem here is that people use trope entries as excuses to gush in detail about the plot, which is where the massive spoiler tags come from. In many cases, the spoilers weren't even necessary for explaining the trope: you could just delete the spoiled text and it reads just as well without it. At any rate, nuking...
That is friggin' huge, it's already covered by Mythology Gag anyway and there's very little connection to the first two games apart from said Mythology Gags. The "snarl" only comes from how they're interpreted, and that's what the Just Bugs Me and Wild Mass Guessing pages are for.
Natter go squish.
That's like saying a wizard fighting another wizard is Beat Them at Their Own Game because they both use magic. Beat Them at Their Own Game is about the hero's deliberate strategy to, well, "beat them at their own game", not just the hero and villain both using a neutral power.
Broke Your Arm Punching Out Cthulhu is about making things worse by punching Cthulhu. Neither one of the above made things worse, they're just not full victories.
It's debatable, since delicate-looking female combat androids are practically their own trope in anime, and Captain Ersatz is about very specific, unmistakable examples.
The Crowning Moments should really be on their own page, since they're subjective tropes. I might move these over to their respective pages later, if they're not already there.
Since the male MC couldn't date Junpei either, that's not cutting off the branches.
Way, way too vague.
That's not really what that trope's about, and the entry goes on to subvert/avert/twist the trope sideways so much that it's easier to just say not an example and cut. Besides, Did You Just Punch Out Cthulhu? covers the same ground.
Listing every monster doesn't fit the trope, and I can't think of any single monster that would be universally agreed upon as a Goddamn Bats or Demonic Spider.
Why Akihiko? Wouldn't Aigis versus Ryoji be the more obvious choice? Since I don't want to simply replace someone else's example with my own, and Determinator could be applied to so many circumstances and characters depending on each troper's favorite character and scene, I'm just removing.
That's just Alternate Character Interpretation with a preference towards slashing, which comes into play for just about any story with a sizable slash-fic fanbase.
I'm skeptical of how many of those Fan Nicknames are genuine, and how many are just injokes for the individual troper who listed each one.
Please, people, theories like that are exactly what the WMG pages are for.
This trope is in the game, but I can't figure out how it can possibly be listed without spoiling things. Even saying "Subverted" gives the spoiler away, and having the whole thing in spoiler tags renders the entry useless.
My eyes! That's just a mess, and I don't see what it adds to this page other than a bunch of random trope/character mash-ups. Maybe it's best just to move the above list over the How To Become A Love Interest page, if it's not already there.
This keeps getting deleted and added. Just because his name's Igor does not make him The Igor. <_<
Do these meme entries ever help any page? To anyone who's not in on the meme, it just looks like random shouting, and to anyone who's in on it, the net effect is just "heh, yeah, I rememeber that". Let's just keep them over on the Memetic Mutation page.
Okay, after deleting the fifth Shinjiro-pimping entry so far, Shinji has officially crossed into my Hype Backlash hate list. The above is no more related to the Official Couple trope than any other romantic possibility, such as Ryoji or Akihiko. It's just two tropers gushing, at length, about a relationship they like.
I'm not sure that's true. The only three people confirmed as dying in the Dark Hour during the backstory were Ken's mother and the MC's parents and, being the parents of persona users, it's possible they had the potential and remained human too.
Junpei had a crush on Fuuka for a long time before meeting Chidori, so it's not that out of left field. Also, way too long, rambling and feels like a Just Bugs Me entry on the main page.
That she died is canon. Junpei only says that he wouldn't reverse her death if he could. That says nothing about whether she was revived with amnesia: either way, he still lost her. Also, it's exactly the sort of nitpicking, "aaaactually" natter that clutters up main pages and creates Wiki Schizophrenia.
Good lord! What is that huge list, and why is it all under The Power of Friendship? It's like two Persona 3 trope pages for the price of one! Removing, since I can only assume it was some crazy editing error.
Some of those are valid, some are more iffy (I mean, "let's begin the operation" is a pretty standard phrase), but that's just way, way too much. Let's just say "such things as" the drinks, and leave it at that.
Useless Useful Spells are unambiguously useless, and there's way too much debate here about exactly which spells are useful and useless to keep it as a trope.
Die, Shinji, you don't belong in this world. As for the trope itself, it may count for this game, but why single Shinjiro out? Helping Maiko with her parents' divorse seems like a more straightforward example. As it is, it reads like a Crowning Moment Of Heartwarming that's been shoehorned into another trope name.
(On second thought, I might rephrase and add this one back. The main issue now is that it makes it sound like the trope only applies to P3P, and especially to Shinjiro, when the original game was already filled with helping people out: Maiko, Akinari and the bookstore owners particularly come to mind.)
(Added and done.)
Why just P3P? There's the crucifixion poses, the original opening, the phrase "memento mori", the tarot cards, the evoker headshots, the Full Moon shadows ...but since listing anything has the potential to attract "no, it really is meaningful" natter, I'm just leaving it off. Might add back later, if I can think of a way to phrase it as comprehensively and neutrally as possible.
That's Not A Subversion, it's an aversion, which doesn't need to be listed.
Die, Shinjiro, die, die! Mwuahahaha! More Shinji gushing and natter in general, and since The Woobie is a subjective trope that can apply to any favorite character, I'm just leaving it off. The Woobie page itself already has several P3 characters.
More Shinji gushing. If it's in the game at all, surely there's a more general, story-relevant example of the trope than one troper's speculation about how one supporting character might feel after the game ended?
(I did give Shinji a little bit of love, though - he's now included under Ensemble Dark Horse. I can't believe he wasn't there before, he's like this game's ED mascot. :))
That's not really what that trope means.
Both of those points are Not A Subversion, they're just not this trope at all. Ironically, the one character who might qualify, Yukari (who enrolled at Gekkuokon and joined SEES to uncover the truth about what happened to her dad) isn't mentioned. Might add it back with her later.
(It's back now.)
I really don't like Ken either, but there's too much natter about who's The Scrappy for any one character to claim the mantle. Ken does have as many fans as haters, as do the other potential scrappies listed.
On reviewing the page, this entry actually does have merit...
But I'm still not comfortable listing such specific terms when the game really doesn't go into that much detail, and alternate theories are possible. I'll move the entry over to Functional Magic instead.
I think the Continuity Snarl, etc. stuff ought to go back on the page, at the very least in reduced form. Mythology Gag as it stands doesn't cover the connections to the previous and future installments. Which are, off the top of my head:
It seems clear to me that the Persona series is supposed to be in the same continuity. Somehow.
Sounds like Continuity Nod, which is just the in-franchise equivalent of a Shout-Out (at the very least, listing it as such will help keep the continuity griping/theorizing natter down). I'll add it in.
I strongly disagree, and the main reason I do is because of the Word of God about Philemon. If the same character exists in all of the games, then that is a very strong clue that the games exist in the same Universe.
At the very, very least, there can be absolutely no doubt that 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 exist in the same continuity, respectively, and there are some snarls even with that.
I didn't say they don't take place in the same continuity. I said I don't want natter about whether they do or not, and Continuity Nod is a vague enough term to encompass both possibilities without coming off as complaining. All this stuff about how the continuities do or don't fit together should be on the JBM/WMG pages, not here. It may strike you as obvious that they're in the same continuity, but it strikes some other fans as "obvious" that they're not: neither Continuity Snarl nor Canon Discontinuity nor Alternate Continuity should be on the page for that reason. Continuity Nod was my attempt to offer a non-controversial compromise between all those theories, but if all it's going to do is spark further bickering, then it should go too.
What "further" bickering? While there was excessive detail on the example, there was no "bickering" at all. All that was needed was to cut it down, not chop it out. Just Bugs Me is for Fridge Logic, not Continuity Snarl or any of the other tropes you've listed. It's not speculation when the creators themselves have indicated that the games are in the same continuity.
Chopping it out was a gross overreaction and a disservice considering that the games do display that trope.
Look, I have tried to be nice and offer a compromise to the blatant, rambling editorializing of the original entry, and instead of working with me on this, you're just griping because your pet theory isn't being pimped on the main page. This is not a page for fans of the game to discuss all its intricacies: there's an Analysis page for that, and an It Just Bugs Me page and a Wild Mass Guessing page. In fact, this very topic has been brought up on the latter two pages. This is a page for people who might not be familiar with the game to read up on the story and its tropes, and bogging it down with an "example" that's three rambling paragraphs long and constantly waffles back and forth on whether it even really counts as an example doesn't help anything.
The game does not have an explicit connection to the earlier Persona games. People who have only played Persona 3 don't need to know anything about the first two games. They're not referenced apart from an irrelevant namedrop or cameo here and there. That's exactly what Continuity Nod means. That's why I picked it.
Continuity Snarl, on the other hand, makes some very broad assumptions that playing the game does not support. For all we know, P1 and P2 apply only in Broad Strokes, or this is an Alternate Continuity, or it's a franchise Continuity Reboot, or maybe even a Cosmic Retcon (the series has already had at least one of those via Eternal Punishment). The creators saying Philemon is the butterfly tells us nothing that Igor and the Velvet Room's presence in the latter series didn't already tell us anyway (and that's not even getting into Death of the Author). Calling the lack of a deeper, more straightforward connection a Continuity Snarl makes too many assumptions about what the story's trying to be and comes off as a disguised They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.
By the way, I really don't appreciate how personally you're making this. I spent several hours cleaning up this page, and I didn't see you or anyone else stepping up to help or offering any thanks afterward. When you raised a complaint, I tried to fix the page to include your contribution - and you responded by continuing to complain and criticizing my work on the page because you didn't get exactly the trope name you're looking for!
The page was a mess, and since nobody else was cleaning it, I had to make judgment calls on what needed to go. I made them (and I saved all the deleted material here - if I hadn't done that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now), and I don't appreciate you jumping in long after the fact with that "chopping it out was a gross overreaction and a disservice" remark. I've been working hard on these pages. If you want to help, then help, or at least show some willingness to work together (as I did by adding them as Continuity Nod instead of ignoring your message) rather than just complaining that I'm not doing it exactly to your liking.
You know what they say about assumptions, right? This is not my "pet" theory. It's not a theory at all. And not a single person was debating it on the main page. You're using hyperbole to make the position look ridiculous, but no one was discussing "all the intricacies" of the games, it's a single trope that could take a single line. Or less, it could just as easily be mentioned in Mythology Gag or Continuity Nod.
It fits the trope definition to a T - the universe is a shared one in that multiple development teams have played in it. However, despite being set in the same continuity, there are things that make it difficult to fit the games together. On the other hand, there are things that make the games explicitly (yes, explicitly, and they've already been mentioned, so I don't know why you are ignoring them) fit together as well. Nowhere in the trope does it say they must be direct sequels or that you must be familiar with one to know another.
I'm sorry you're seeing it as They Changed It, Now It Sucks!, but that is implied nowhere in my posts nor in the deleted content. The creators telling us that the same character is around (and a diety, at that) is an indication that the universe is the same. As the creators said, the butterflies are Philemon and he is "still watching over the player" (emphasis mine). The only way he can "still" be watching anyone is if he has done so before, and thus is the same character as was present in previous games. The only way to ignore that is indeed Death of the Author, but Death of the Author is not even close to universally accepted as a way of viewing media. Might I remind you that Tropes Are Tools, and Continuity Snarl is not a "negative" trope? Its presence on the page is noting its presence in the games, nothing more.
Frankly, your offense means very little to me. No one has ever thanked me for the 350+ pages I watch and keep clean. No one has ever thanked me for the thousands of pages I've folderized, organized, cleaned of natter, and removed bad examples from. If you can't handle doing the work without thanks, perhaps editing a wiki is not the hobby for you. You made a change I think was wrong. You posted it here for feedback. If you can't handle the feedback, then perhaps you should have left the job to someone else.
As to not working with you - I am trying to, by posting here, instead of simply editing the page. Unlike you, I was attempting to come to a consensus (with preferable more input that just you and I) before starting a potential edit war. I could have just trimmed down the entry and returned it to the page (and I'm starting to think I should have), but instead I challenged it here. I could have simply removed your additions to the page, but I have not. It's not a compromise if you don't allow anyone a chance to agree to it, first.
You don't get how to talk to people like equals or handle conflict, do you? See, there are these things called politeness, mutual respect and courtesy. That begins with acknowledging the validity of other people's perspectives. I did that by trying to work with you on a compromise, but I see now that offering a compromise is simply a sign of weakness in your eyes. I would have been better off sitting back and letting your message drift away - which, after nearly a week with no feedback, was exactly where it was heading. Nobody cared, and you got no replies. I was the only person who saw fit to respond and try to work your points back into the article, but despite that, you're determined to treat me like the enemy. I would address your points and discuss the issue further but frankly, I don't feel like wading through the sarcasm and vitriol to get to them. I have enough stress in my life, I don't come here because I need more of it. I tried to be nice and helpful, you've only been antagonistic and hostile. So okay, your wish is my command. This topic can sink right back into obscurity.
On an aside: does anybody remember a time when fans used to like each other for being in the same fandom, and start off with some measure of comradery over that shared interest? <_<
You haven't worked with me, you've unilaterally decided what to do without consulting me. If that's your idea of working with a person, it's no wonder that you meet with conflict.
Since simply making changes and calling them a compromise and working together seems to be the order of the day, I went ahead and put in a neutral statement that is, as I said, a single line that is worded in such a way that it will hopefully not attract natter.
you've unilaterally decided what to do without consulting me
But that's how a wiki works! People edit to improve the articles as they think best, and then other people further edit to refine them, fix them or remove them as needed. Of course I edited the article immediately; I did so with the understanding that you can go in after me and rework it if needed. This isn't a TRS topic or a crowner; the only "consensus" to be achieved is to just jump in, make the edit and see how it holds up.
BTW, for what it's worth, I think your entry looks good and covers all the bases.
If you know someone has an active interest in an article, then it's polite to gain their consent before editing. That's precisely why I posted here and waited before making the change. If no one had responded, then I would have assumed that no one would revert the edit and made the changes I thought appropriate. By the same token, after someone responded I would have discussed a compromise here before making the changes because I already knew at least one person cared about the change and there was potential for an edit war.
In other words, deliberately making changes you know can lead to an edit war when you haven't yet exhausted diplomacy is bad wiki etiquette.
There is a world of difference between an edit you know is potentially controversial and there is already discussion about and a drive-by edit to casually improve an article.
Honestly, you've been combative from very early - you made the changes without running them by here, you accused me of "bickering" with you when I'd done nothing argumentative at all at that point, and then you threatened to take your toys and go home, so to speak, because I was "bickering" with you. I apologize if my wording after that seemed harsh. I probably could have handled it better, I know. But it's frankly very difficult to be perfectly civil to someone who is not being very civil in return.
You wanted your points made in the article. I agreed and went ahead and added your points to the article. Instead of collaborating by editing in the changes you wanted made or, if you're really determined to edit by consensus, saying something polite and constructive like "that's a good start, but can we add something about the continuity," you assigned a POV to me that I never expressed just so you could argue about it, all because the edit I made on your behalf wasn't exactly the way you wanted it. That sequence of events says it all.
And again you're assigning motives and actions to me which I have not had or done. I'm done playing this game with you.
As to the final "solution", I really don't care for it at all (after all, at least one of the tropes listed must apply, by definition), but I'm really done with this whole discussion. It's better than nothing.
If you don't like how that summary makes you look, maybe the problem isn't the summary.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?