• 1 Aug 16th, 2017 at 9:09AM
    Lastest Reply: 16th Aug, 2017 09:42:10 AM
    Should the "DVD/Blu-Ray Release" folder on the bottom of the movie's page list tropes for all of the bonus features? Should other MCU movies' pages also list tropes that could apply to their respective extras? Alternatively, could the remaining content go in any of the above folders? Reply

      In the case of Guardians 2, the content is significant enough that people felt they should make it. If in the cases of other DVD releases, you have a similar situation than it is fine. But most DVD releases don't have content large enough for a separate folder...

      In the case of video games, you have the main page subdivided for Main Game and DLC, like Dishonored does.
  • 2 Aug 13th, 2017 at 9:09PM
    Lastest Reply: 13th Aug, 2017 09:10:14 PM
    I'm not sure this is a trope because I can't seem to find anything simply by searching, but I see it so often that is should be. Why.. do the "bad guys" always track down their traitors and instead of just killing them or simply packing up potentially compromised operations and reorganizing/restructuring, they demand to know what they told their interrogators. Why bother? If you have the chance to execute them, do so! Stop screwin' around. Or, just leave them be to prevent further exposure and just reorganize whatever resources were potentially compromised. I see so many "bad guys" make this mistake that they wind up throwing their entire organization into the drain just to recover from this one Human Resources issue. When the organization is heavily compartmentalized; it makes violating this trope so much more baffling. Reply
  • 3 Aug 8th, 2017 at 3:03PM
    Lastest Reply: 10th Aug, 2017 05:48:12 AM
    I don't see this trope covered in your website.

    It happens all the time when one army is staring down another. To demonstrate the steep odds facing the one army, the ominous music (or sound effects) plays, the camera cuts to a vacant ridge, then we see the whole of the opposing army slowly emerge until they darken the entire ridge.


    Mulan = the Huns charge the Imperial Army through The Tung Xiao Pass.

    Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace = the Droid Army's tanks slowly approach the Gungan force fields.

    The Return of the King = the Riders of Rohan arrive at the gates of Minas Tirith.

    Game of Thrones, S 07 E 04 = We hear the Dothraki screamers for a long while before they charge the Lannister Supply Train.

    I'm sure there are dozens, if not scores, if not hundreds of additional examples.


      If you want to see whether a trope exists, you should ask the question in Trope Finder.

      If you want to propose a new trope, you should do so in Trope Launch Pad.

      That all said, are you sure you aren't thinking of Hidden Army Reveal?

      There are two courses of action you can take to solve this:
      1. Check Trope Finder. This will get you in touch with people who know many tropes around the site. It's possible that the trope you're looking for is out there but you just haven't found it.
      2. Use TLP (courtesy link). This will allow you to propose this trope, create the first draft, and participate in this trope's creation.

      In fiction this dates at least as far back as the bandits showing up on the crest of the hill in Seven Samurai.

      In Real Life this happened when the Saxons showed up unannounced and annihilated the Norwegians at Stamford Bridge in 1066.
  • 9 Aug 5th, 2017 at 9:09AM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Aug, 2017 06:07:25 PM
    How does a person put the entry "Crowning Moment of —-?" into a TV Trope page? Reply

      By editing the page.

      However, two things to bear in mind: such entries go on the YMMV page for the work, not on the main page, and none of them have been called "crowning" for a very, very long time.

      They don't go on the YMMV page, they go on the their own pages.

      Sometimes they go on YMMV. Usually when there's only one or two examples and no one's created a page.

      As a historical observation, it is correct that sometimes they have gone on YMMV, because people don't always follow the correct procedure.

      As a statement about what should be done by somebody adding a new item, "They don't go on the YMMV page, they go on the their own pages" is correct. Crowning Moments are part of Sugar Wiki, which is a separate section of the site from YMMV, and items from one don't belong in the other.

      They're not Crowning moments, and haven't been since before Fast Eddie retired.

      The YMMV placement generally occurs because of Rule of Three. Whether or not it specifically applies to Moments pages is often confused, particularly for newer tropers.

      "Rule of three" does not apply to Sugar Wiki articles. They always get a subpage even if there's just one example.

      I said "Crowning" because that's the term the person asking the question used, and it was shorter than "Awesome, Funny, and Heartwarming Moments", but you're right, that's outdated usage.

      [and everything else I had to say has been ninjad]

      Like I said, it can be confusing. :) (/humor)
  • 6 Jul 31st, 2017 at 12:12AM
    Lastest Reply: 31st Jul, 2017 01:39:49 PM
    On Kingdom of Heaven, Troper ACW changed all instances of the spelling of a character's name, from Reynauld to Reynald. The movie is English-spoken and Reynald seems to be the English spelling of the name. The character is French though, so In Universe would probably have the French spelling of the name, Reynauld.

    Previously on this TvTropes page, everyone spelled the character's name Reynauld, and it seems not kosher that one Troper one-sidedly changes the spelling, without even bringing it up on the Discussion page. Thoughts? Reply

      I just watched the end credits of the movie, and it is definitely Reynald.

      If that's the character's official name in the movie, it's the one we should use.

      Yes, if the name is spelled out in the credits that is the spelling we use.

      Even though this is an English-language work so the translation policy doesn't apply, the name is in the credits so there's no debate about how it's supposed to be written.

      It's an unambiguous spelling correction, so there's really no need to take it to a discussion page unless it turns into an edit war.

      though, a reminder to ACW to use edit reasons would avoid a lot of issues since a simple "this is how the name is spelled in the credits" would have sufficed.

      Yeah. While not applicable in this instance I often use "swapping to official English" when making such an edit.

      Ok, thanks you all. Seems like the name change was legit then.
  • 1 Jul 31st, 2017 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 31st Jul, 2017 08:44:06 AM
    Looks like the beginnings of an edit war are going on Man of Steel. Absolute Sword added an example under Narm, Master Hero deleted the example, Absolute Sword has re-added it. Reply

      Absolute Sword is edit warring and will be suspended. Master Hero, for his part, seems to be passionately defending the article against any sort of criticism and may also need a tap.
  • 1 Jul 31st, 2017 at 5:05AM
    Lastest Reply: 31st Jul, 2017 05:42:31 AM
    Hi there. My work colleague and I both have the same memory of a film/video but cannot remember the name of it. It may have been an educational film shown in schools in australia, but I was in Victoria and she was in South Australia. We are the same age so put it early 80s as we remember it from primary school days. It may have been made in late 70s and likely was from overseas. All we remember is that it was a live production. Filmed on a black stage. There were white sets. The kids wore white and some musical score. Not much talking but everything was communicated through paint. I remember at one point there is a big paint fight and paint goes everywhere. It might have been some sort of social studies lesson aide or something but I am not having any succes in relocating this. It'd be great if someone else remembered it... especially the title. Would love to solve this one. thanks. Sorry the details are sketchy but that's all we've got! Reply
  • 2 Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:01AM
    Lastest Reply: 30th Jul, 2017 06:53:11 AM
    I am wondering... I know that recap pages for TV series have a no-spoilers-tag rule, and a strict "no spoiler for future episodes", which completely make sense.

    However, what about the work page for films within a film series? Those are not under a no-spoiler-tag rule, so what about spoilers (even properly tagged) for a sequel, or a trope that only make sense in view of the sequel? Are those acceptable? Reply

      For clarification, can we say the series is numbered 1, 2, and 3? (0 if there's a prequel).

      I don't think a sequel trope can apply to film 1.

      Generally, if a trope example only makes sense in view of the sequel, it would be listed on the sequel's page.
  • 1 Jul 26th, 2017 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 26th Jul, 2017 04:55:07 PM
    Don´t know why I was remembering a very weird movie that I watched a long time ago. It was about a group of women living in a house (kind of a school), then a new girl came into, and started to tell them that they could swim naked, because they were all girls. I just remember this scene.. Do you identify the movie? Reply
  • 2 Jul 25th, 2017 at 5:05PM
    Lastest Reply: 26th Jul, 2017 04:11:45 AM
    Why does YMMV.Spider Man 1 redirect to YMMV.Spider Man Trilogy? There's not even a section designated to the first film. Reply


      Because the latter page is used for all YMMV items in that trilogy.
  • 0 Jul 26th, 2017 at 1:01AM
    Mmhh... I can understand there is a page for Sinister Six, as it does have some interesting information, however should it be placed in the Film/ namespace, considering there never was anything to show in theaters? I thought we had the Script/ namespace for those cases... Reply
  • 11 Jul 19th, 2017 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 24th Jul, 2017 10:27:40 AM
    Not that it matters, but the article that leads me to ask is this one:

    The Three Stooges Punch Drunks

    If one is making a page for a work within a series of works, by the same creator or starring the same creators, is there a preference for putting it in the Recap namespace or the Film namespace? Or, I guess, Anime or Live-Action TV or what have you? My own instinct would be that a film should be under Film but I can't see anything wrong with a page like that as it is constructed. Reply

      Well, the Three Stooges were originally a series for movie theaters. I would think that Film would be the place.

      The Recap/ namespace is usually used for the episodes of a TV series, animated or not. However, it has been used for other kind of series, like the volumes of a comic, the episodes of a Web Video show, etc. So yes, it does have some flexibility to it. Considering they are short films rather than full-length, and strongly linked together by the leads, I don't see this use as a problem.

      Recap.The Three Stooges is definitely a correct page, but the individual short films have an inconsistent namespace application.

      Given their role in theaters, I'm not exactly opposed to putting them all in Recap, but I am opposed to the inconsistency with the current situation. I favour the Film/ namespace.

      Personally I would favor Film as well but I'll go with consensus.

      I thought Series the episodes had to have some relation/continuance to each other. The Three Stooges films tend to be "these three people get in trouble and are funny" with the locations and events all over the place (literally sometimes).

      ^Well, the Three Stooges are in the Film namespace, The Three Stooges.

      I guess I'm stumped as to what the difference is between a Recap page and a regular work page, or if there is a difference.

      Series is specifically for television series. As far as I can recall, the Stooges only made short films for use in theaters, which were later converted to an assortment of other formats.

      ^Yes, the Stooges movies were theatrical shorts. And like I said above, the main page (The Three Stooges) is under the Film namespace. There were theatrical serials going at least as far back as The Perils of Pauline 100 years ago.

      The Stooges, on the other hand, didn't have continuity between their shorts. Given that they did not have continuity, I would think these article should go under the Film namespace instead of Recap.


      I ask for input. Leave these short film articles as they are, in the Recap namespace, or move to Film namespace?

      I'd lean slightly towards moving, if you really felt it was worth the effort. I don't think we have solid rules here, but putting these pages under Film/ seems more consistent with other similar pages. Most of our pages on early cartoon shorts, for example, are under WesternAnimation/ instead of being recap pages for WesternAnimation.Bugs Bunny, or WesternAnimation.Mickey Mouse.

      All right, if no one objects I'm gonna start moving those articles soon.
  • 1 Jul 22nd, 2017 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 22nd Jul, 2017 05:54:25 PM
    Where would you file the idea of two people having a higher conversation usually a protagonist and antagonist both knowing who each other are but not breaking the other's cover?

    I'm remembering a scene where a conversation gets deadlier and deadlier without the room knowing what's going on and ending with something like "Are we quite done with this game?" Reply
  • 2 Jul 21st, 2017 at 11:11AM
    Lastest Reply: 21st Jul, 2017 11:56:22 AM
    I stumbled upon this page and every trope for each character is a Zero-Context Example except for one. There is no description for the characters as well. Reply

      The creators/editors should be messaged and, if they don't improve it, the article should be nominated for the Cut List.

      I've sent the messages but the last edit was on august 2016 so I'm not sure I'll get a reply.
  • 2 Jul 15th, 2017 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 19th Jul, 2017 05:54:01 AM
    After this movie premieres, if I still want to write a Dethroning Moment of Suck about one of its differences from the Mary Poppins books by then, does that sound too much like a "real life" moment? Reply
  • 2 Jul 14th, 2017 at 6:06AM
    Lastest Reply: 14th Jul, 2017 06:31:13 AM
    I am not good at explaining but i will try my best.. So it was a movie that aired on either jetix or diseny in the year 2009 i think so. the story was about a boy who is always sad and depressed becoz he was dumb i think so later he meets a pumpkin or potatoe like creature who knows magic.the creature was small not very big he was approximately 2 to 3 feet tall so yeah. they both became friends then.and that creature helps the boy with his magical powers but later it turns into a big problem and so the movie was with a happy ending. here are some scenes that i remember from the movie so in a scene the patatoe like creaure give him some foods to eat like noodles burger etc with his magical powers. in this the creature helps the kid by helping him in exam but it turns into problem becoz he copied the whole answer sheet of a girl he copied the girls name to in the boys paper so the teacher comes to know that he had copied. so...i tried my best to explain you now ur trun plzz help me i cant focus on anything else Reply
  • 4 Jul 12th, 2017 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 13th Jul, 2017 05:51:04 PM
    I understand that the general practice when a work is adapted into a different medium is to put the work page under the namespace of the original work. Don't necessarily agree with it in all instances, but I get it...movie based on a book goes under Literature unless you're splitting off separate articles. OK.

    But is that also the case for works based on memoirs or other non-fiction books? Because Born on the Fourth of July is under Literature, which strikes me as completely bonkers. Reply

      The way I've always understood it — which may be incorrect — the page goes under the namespace of the original work if the page is about both works, but if the page is only about the adaptation there's no reason for it not to be under the namespace of the adaptation.

      Aye, that's how it works.

      Every single trope on that surprisingly short list seems to come from the Tom Cruise movie.

      Then it should be under Born on the Fourth of July.
  • 3 Jul 11th, 2017 at 8:08PM
    Lastest Reply: 12th Jul, 2017 09:12:18 PM
    If 20th Century Fox seems to consider the 1962 version of Rodgers and Hammerstein's State Fair an Old Shame, but I don't know what Rodgers himself thought of it (Hammerstein died a few years before it premiered), which of the Old Shame subpages should I put it on? Reply

      Is there any reason why a film would not go on the Film subpage?

      OldShame.Film, or OldShame.Film M To S (for Rodgers)?

      Oh, I see. I didn't realize the subpages were broken up by the name of the creator.

      I don't think it would be appropriate to list it under "Rodgers" if you don't know he was ashamed of it. For what it's worth, there does appear to be an existing "20th Century Fox is ashamed of this movie" listing (for another movie, not State Fair) under, of all things, F for Fox.
  • 1 Jul 11th, 2017 at 9:09PM
    Lastest Reply: 11th Jul, 2017 09:27:23 PM
    Ok so I got one of those DV Ds a few years ago that has like 170 old classic cartoons on it, & one in particular was about 2 heros that end up on a ship with party goers. One hero was big & strong & got all the attention, & the other was a small guy that always seemed shy. They get split up & something happened that caused the little guy to end up in a lifeboat with a lion. Later on he discovers the lion is actually a beautiful girl in a costume, & they like each other but she gets taken away from him & he goes inside some kind a encampment to rescue her. The setting is in a jungle, I don't think their mouths move when they talk, & it has really good flapper/jazz music playing all the time. It's kinda like a technicolor kind of cartoon. I think the girl had red hair & if I remember correctly the little hero kinda looked similar to the little Caesars logo dude. I really want to see this cartoon again. Does anyone know what it's called? Reply
  • 4 Jul 10th, 2017 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 11th Jul, 2017 10:10:43 AM
    I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but there seems to be a lot of people adding, deleting, and readding Unintentionally Unsympathetic to a character named Michelle on the YMMV page of Spider-Man: Homecoming. Reply

      It's currently under review in The Scrappy cleanup thread, for different reasons. I'd be nice to consolidate all of the debate in one place.

      It seems to be mainly a troper called kquinn0830 (although I noticed another troper trying to add a roundabout Scrappy example). I was actually debating making an Ask The Tropers entry because he (I'm pretty sure he's a he) just deleted an Ensemble Darkhorse example. Honestly it just seems like that particular troper has a hate-boner (for lack of a better term) for the character.

      Edit- Maybe not the only troper with this attitude given this bizarre edit I just saw by Reddy Wizard on Spider-Man: Homecoming.

      Adding an additional reply. I'm wondering whether I should PM that kquinn083, and/or if this is an issue for here, because besides the back and forth of them deleting Ensemble Darkhorse regrding Michelle, they also keep adding negative examples that are increasingly obvious issue-based editing (I forget the "technical" term for that). Like they just added an "example" under Hype Backlash:

      • In a character example, Michelle got hit with this after the character (and her actress) was featured prominently in the trailers, ads, posters, press releases, and interviews, only for her to turn out to be a gag character who had no bearing on the plot compared to other characters like Ned, Liz, and Flash.

      Edit- Also replied to the poster on the Discussion page.

      The edit warring and agenda editing issues definitely get reported here.

      I think that entry might need a commented out note until it's resolved.
  • 1 Jul 4th, 2017 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 4th Jul, 2017 04:33:18 PM
    Why does younger brother Braxton give his Mom the finger when she is by the taxi about to leave the family? Reply
  • 1 Jul 2nd, 2017 at 6:06AM
    Lastest Reply: 2nd Jul, 2017 06:55:18 AM
    I have recently seen a film set in a historical war (which is not World War II), where the main character is sure that the whole conflict was caused by a supernatural influence over humanity, and it turns out that no, the war was something that humanity started all by itself, with no supernatural forces at work. I thought about We Didn't Start the Führer, but that trope clarifies that it is specifically for Hitler and WWII. Is there some parent trope, then? Or should I use it anyway, taking into account that Tropes are flexible? If it is the second, shouldn't we rewrite the trope a bit, to clarify that WWII is simply a major location of this trope, but not the exclusive one?

    Note: The very question I'm making may give a spoiler about the plot of the film, so the best way I could thought about to avoid that was to speak in general terms, without mentioning the film (and, just in case, not even the actual war). If someone else here does realize the film that made me ask this question, please do not mention it, for the sake of those who did not saw it. Reply
  • 2 Jun 26th, 2017 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 26th Jun, 2017 02:40:12 PM
    Captain Crawdad has been deleting large portions of Captain America: The Winter Soldier citing that they don't follow the trope criteria. Is the logic reasonable? I'm not certain how stringent the entries need to be to fit on the page. I don't entirely disagree with a lot of the deletions but I'm worried it's a bit slash-and-burn. Reply

      Fridge has been a perennial problem child, but major cleaning operations should usually be discussed first. Send a PM asking them to come here, but one thing to note is that Fridge pages are not supposed to have conversation; that's a function of Headscratchers. And examples there should be related to material that's actually in the work.

      Hi all. I wasn't planning on doing any more edits to that Fridge page. There's too much to go through and I just don't have the attention span. Someone should probably spearhead a move to clean out the MCU Fridge pages, though.
  • 3 Jun 25th, 2017 at 6:06PM
    Lastest Reply: 25th Jun, 2017 08:08:25 PM
    Why was the YMMV for Boomerang eliminated? I am hoping to establish one for the film, not the channel. Is there any problem with there being one for the film? Reply

      It must've been solely for the channel. For the movie, there's no issue with it having a YMMV in general. Depending upon how bad the YMMV was(for entries based upon the Channel), a lock might be needed to prevent complaining.

      The Boomerang channel YMMV was removed because the complaining and flames got really out of hand. Also the whole Creators not being troped thing.

      A film YMMV page should be fine, as long as it follows the rules and all that. :)

      Having one for the film would be fine, though we will also need a comment block asking editors not to add entries for the channel by the same name.
  • 12 Jun 13th, 2017 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 25th Jun, 2017 07:32:40 PM
    How do you come up with a page for something that has no official name? I want to make a page for the Disney live action remakes but they don't have a franchise name. Reply

      Don't they have articles already? What would be the purpose of a collective article?

      They're in a franchise. It seems like they should have an index page considering there are going to be at least six of them. Disney seems intent on adapting as many films as they can.

      Note that "Disney Princess" has its own Franchise page, but that page only addresses the Franchise as a whole; the princesses are not listed there separately (they are listed on their movie pages).

      Analogous to that, you could make a Franchise page for the Disney live action remakes as a whole, but those movies themselves should be kept under the Disney (or Film, sometimes) namespace.

      Franchise sections are for things that exist in three or more distinct media. "Live Action Remakes" is only one, and by definition, it will nly ever be one. It doesn't qualify for a Franchise section.

      Not that I necessarily think it's a good idea, but Pichu never indicated a desire to make a Franchise/ page, just a franchise page.

      Similarly, I think making a page for the Tecmo-Koei _____ Warriors page is a good idea, but I don't know what to name the page.

      If the individual works already have articles, then what are these proposed articles for? A series index?

      Yeah, indexing it, maybe listing general tropes associated with the films, etc.

      General examples aren't allowed.

      I'm not sure Pichu-kun meant that kind of general examples. If "general" means "specific examples that apply to all the films" then they are allowed, but they must still be specific - that is, the example can't just say "this happens in all the films" without going into detail in how and where it happens.

      I'd just like to point out that we have LEGO Adaptation Game, Capcom vs. Whatever, Nick Verse, and Disney Channel Live-Action Universe, so there's precedent for pages for universes/series with no official name.

      Also, the _____ Warriors page already exists as Dynasty Warriors, since the other-franchise games are all spin-offs of that series.

      How does "Live Action Disney Remakes" sound? Or maybe "Disney Live Action Remakes"?

      This particular Franchise index serves no purpose.