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:
openCan I remove factually wrong Dethroning Moments? Print Comic
On the Garfield page, the latest entry complains about a couple of strips that have "no joke to be found" or "seem to have no punchline." Except... They do have punchlines, and the person who posted those entries just didn't get the joke. Can I remove those examples, since they're factually incorrect?
(EDIT: As I wrote this, I realized that listing multiple unrelated strips goes against the rules anyway, so I could just delete the ones I listed. But for future reference—is it acceptable to delete Dethroning Moments that are evidently untrue? Like, I get that listing made-up lines from movies would be frowned upon, but is it okay to remove an entry because the entry claims a strip has no punchline when the strip in fact has one?
Edited by MichaelKatsuroopen The Deadpool pages are way to difficult to understand for people note well-versed with the comics. Print Comic
I get it, Deadpool is 4th Wall breaking, but does really need to be applied to Deadpool's T Vtropes and all associated pages, especially the tropes themselves? It's actually hard to understand some of it, especially when it's discussing specific events which A. Aren't clearly stated and B. assumes you already are well-versed with all of Deadpool's appearances. The one I have serious trouble reading in Deadpool/YMMV page for Seasonal Rot, not only is the entry needlessly long winded, but poorly explained on what events or comics it's even talking about and just isn't all the useful.
What's worse is that on the Characters / Marvel Comics aka: Marvel Universe page, next to link for the Deadpool page their's a note that says "(And if you're asking why there's no Comic Book sub-page for me, too bad! My page is always permanently on Self-Demonstrating mode, cuz I'm frickin' Deadpool.)"
Like really? Is this what T Vtropes has come to where we say screw making the site actually anyway useful or informative and just make entire sections useless for a cheap overdrawn joke that just simply isn't funny unless your a hardcore fan of the character and make fun of people for it?
I'm sorry but I really do feel the Deadpool really needs to heavily revised to at least make it understandable for people who aren't well-versed with the comics and the character and make it more clear what is even being discussed.
openThe Lobo problem Print Comic
The page SelfDemonstrating.Lobo exists.
The page ComicBook.Lobo doesn't. Once upon a time, it was a redirect to the self-demonstrating page, but it was cutlisted with the following reason "Redirect to SelfDemonstrating.Lobo, causing people to treat the page as a legitimate work page rather than a Just For Fun page. [Anddrix]"
Beyond the fact that ComicBook.Lobo should exist as it is a genuine work, trope examples shouldn't be linking to a self-demonstrating page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that it was clearly stated by mods that any such link (like SelfDemonstrating.Deadpool or SelfDemonstrating.The Joker to only name common ones) should be corrected to the ComicBook/ namespace.
However, in the case of Lobo, the result would be a red link. (There is currently 259 wicks.) What shall we do? Re-creating the redirect would seem to me the absolute minimum, until someone knowledgeable and/or courageous enough create an actual work page...
Edited by StFanopenPossible Agenda-Based Editing Print Comic
fangsheadforever has been going through the Runaways Title Team page and systematically editing any tropes related to Nico Minoru's romantic history in order to downplay her relationship with Victor and remove any implication that she did anything more than kiss Chase, most recently removing a Sex for Solace example that references Nico and Chase's implied hookup in the last arc of the third series. A cursory look through their edit history shows that this troper has edited mostly romance and relationship trope pages and a lot of their edits are about Nico's relationship with Karolina, and notably, they completely rewrote an entry on Second Love to say that Karolina is Nico's second love interest, rather than Victor, on the grounds that Nico was actually just confused about her sexuality during her relationship with Victor. Does this seem a little questionable to anyone else?
openShang-Chi Print Comic
So, someone turned ComicBook.Shang Chi from a page about the character, to a page about the Gene Luen Yang series specifically, transferred the text and picture of the old page to a character sheet, and deleted the YMMV and Trivia pages. Did we have a discussion to approve of such drastic changes?
Edited by dsneybufopenWhat Do I Call This? Print Comic
I want to make a page for the current Iron Man comic. The problem is, with current naming convention (I was recently told we're moving away from using the writer's name in the work name), the only thing to really name it is Iron Man 2020 because it started last year and isn't part of some publishing initiative or anything.
Except... there already is an Iron Man 2020. Two, in fact. The Iron Man 2020 page is used by a series that is legitimately called Iron Man 2020, which is itself reusing a name from a graphic novel also called Iron Man 2020.
What should I call the page for Iron Man Comic That Started In 2020? And should we make Iron Man 2020 a disambiguation page for both Iron Man Comic That Started in 2020 and Comic Called Iron Man 2020 From the Year 2020?
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopenIs Barry Allen a Designated Hero? Print Comic
Barry Allen has earned himself quite the lengthy entry at the comic book section of Designated Hero. It reads:
"The Flash: Barry Allen, the Silver Age incarnation of the character, has largely became this upon being brought back and pushed as the main Flash.
- Upon returning, he created the Flashpoint incident while trying to undo the meddling of his arch-enemy, Eobard Thawne/Reverse-Flash, who had altered Barry's past to give him an angstier backstory involving his mother getting murdered. However, rather than work with other heroes who are experts on this kind of thing, like Booster Gold or even his own former protege and Superior Successor Wally West (who unlike Barry, could run through time-and-space unaided and understood their powers on a much greater level), he did this by himself, resulting in a distorted Darker and Edgier timeline. While his motivations were sympathetic, the sheer idiocy of his blunder and how easily it could have been avoided, especially as he was warned prior during the Prelude to Flashpoint about what was going to happen and did it anyway.
- When he realised what he did and undid it, the result still didn't fix his mistake, resulting in a new timeline that was still Darker and Edgier, only everyone was also Younger and Hipper on top; while Barry's life in this new timeline wasn't bad, his friends were made miserable with both marriages and people erased, including Wally West, Wally's kids, and also Jay Garrick, Jesse Chambers, and the rest of the Flash Family. Though all of this was because Executive Meddling was in play (co-publisher Dan DiDio wanted the rest of the Flash family erased due to his personal dislike of Wally West and his belief that the franchise should be simpler, as well as his preference for Darker and Edgier stories and belief that True Art Is Angsty), it essentially meant that in-universe, Barry was personally responsible for erasing his nephew and family from existence, essentially killing them, while making everyone else he knew miserable and lonely. Meanwhile, Barry in this new timeline? He was a young, happy single with a cute Adorkable girlfriend, largely beloved by his city, with nobody knowing or remembering what he did.
- The Rebirth era didn't help with this matter, even after Wally West returns. During a team-up with Batman, he discovered Wally wasn't the only forgotten speedster when he meets Jay Garrick in the Speed Force. Rather than working tirelessly to save Jay, as you would expect a hero like Barry to do, he seemingly forgets about it to instead focus on other stuff. Then, Wally has his memory of his kids restored to him, and he calls Barry out on not even informing him about other trapped speedsters; he claims he was working with Batman to investigate it off-panel, but they were clearly not sparing much time looking into this, which could have been resolved by informing Wally, who not only wasn't busy with anything thanks to having his life erased, and also understands the Speed Force to a much greater extent than Barry and would be better suited into looking into it. Then, after the two are manipulated by Hunter Zolomon, Wally has a breakdown over the memory of his kids, so Barry sends him to a mental health facility where he never visits him, trusting instead that the facility can help him. It doesn't. Meanwhile, after sending Wally away, Barry could take this as an indication he should put more focus into finding the lost speedsters, but instead, he starts a different investigation into the "Other Forces", something he could have left up to his new ally, Commander Cold while he continued searching for Jay, Jesse, and Max. While his lack of focus on this could be chalked up to not remembering the other speedsters, it still looks callous of him to know people are suffering and to do nothing, even when told these people are his family."
Okay, I gotta ask: is this valid? I know that some people still have grievances towards Barry even after the end of Comic Book/Flashpoint and I do admit that I don't have the best knowledge on Barry's history, but this entry is so long and descriptive that it comes off as opinionated writing. What do we do with this?
Edited by MasterHeroopenBetsy Braddock/Psylocke Print Comic
The new Dawn of X relaunch sees Betsy Braddock become Captain Britain and her identity as Psylocke is taken by Kwannon. I'm unsure of what should be done with the page exactly, other than that I know it'll need some overhaul soon because it'll be strange for it to remain the same way soon.
For example, Ms. Marvel used to specifically refer to Carol Danvers, but since becoming Captain Marvel it was changed to Carol Danvers, whereas the original Ms. Marvel is now a general page describing the legacy.
I asked this on the discussion page of Psylocke, but got no replies. It seems no one has seen it. So I'm asking here, what should be done?
My idea was similar to the Ms. Marvel case: make a page for Betsy Braddock covering her specifically, and make Psylocke a general page for the two. It could provide bios for both, tropes for Psylocke as an identity in general, and specifically the bio and tropes for Kwannon (who doesn't seem to have any entry due to her obscurity beforehand outside the "Freaky Friday" Flip).
What do you think?
openContent leak issue - Spider-Man Print Comic
As mentioned here, here and here, we've had some issues with today's Spider-Man content leak, revealing a "shocking twist" in a comic to be released later this month. As the comic is due to be followed by a special Fallen Friend (final title embargoed) issue, the assumption was that it involved a major character death.
As per mod guidance from Synchronicity, I added a comment to some of the relevant pages warning tropers not to add leaked content.
Later today, hours after the initial leaked pictures made it onto the internet, Entertainment Weekly published it as an 'exclusive' scoop with clearer images. They also revealed the cover and final title of the Fallen Friend one-shot.
At this point there is no such announcement on marvel.com and it's unclear how 'official' that EW exclusive is, as Marvel had previously said all details were embargoed until end of month. There are certainly no Marvel quotes/comments within the EW article, and there's nothing about it on Marvel's own site yet.
However, Magi Mecha has now:
- Deleted the content leak comment from YMMV.The Amazing Spider Man 2022 and troped it there (spoiler tagging used), edit reason "Cat's out of the bag"
- Deleted the content leak comment from ComicBook.The Amazing Spider Man 2022, edit reason "Cat's out of the bag"
- Deleted the content leak comment from Trivia.The Amazing Spider Man 2022 and updated the Content Leak example to add details and a link, saying " Ultimately, Marvel, via Entertainment Weekly, revealed the shocking death to be [spoiler tagged name]". Edit reason is the EW link, with the character death confirmed in the URL.
- Edited the character's own Characters page (spoiler:Marvel Comics: Kamala Khan) to add the full title of the Fallen Friend special comic, spoiler tagged in a "Notable Comics" list above the line (which I think is in breach of spoiler policy?).
Where do we stand on this? It was clearly an unwanted/unofficial leak earlier today (with Marvel warning fans to avoid spoilers just a couple of hours ago), and although EW's scoop looked a lot more professional, there was nothing to directly say it was with the creator's permission.
Do we accept that the cat really is out of the bag, and let some of these edits stand? (I'm assuming the spoiler tagged title on the Characters page needs to go, either way)
UPDATE: Marvel themselves have finally given in and announced it, with an article on their site. Spoilers, of course. So it looks like the EW story was with their backing.
I guess some of the same questions remain, though - and some of the usual Creating a Work Page for an Upcoming Work considerations will apply to how we cover an unreleased instalment?
Edited by Mrph1openTroper struggling a little with new page creation Print Comic
Troper ~Miscellaneous Soup has just created a new Fantastic Four (2022) page. I've sent a couple of notifiers, but there's no one single issue here, as it's got quite a few gaps that need addressing:
- No indexing
- No crosswicking
- Links to Main for Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2018, Marvel Comics and Black Mirror, all of which should have specified a namespace (and were mostly redlinks that would have been visible in any preview).
- Mixing examples for published stories and pre-release examples from solicitations/promos, sometimes without clearly marking which is which.
- Misuse of at least one trope (Anthology Comic, which should have been Rotating Protagonist)
It looks like they were an active troper years ago (all the way back to 2013), but have just returned after a long break.
I've done a quick update and may do more, but they might need a little assistance with current site rules & customs. Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1openBatman controversy Print Comic
Over these past few weeks, troper Nyame has been doing some... unorthodox edits on several pages from the Batman franchise, such as Batman's character page, the main YMMV page and the YMMV page for Batman (Rebirth). All these edits talk about Batman's character flaws (like his turbulent relationship with his family) and the declining quality of Tom King's run, and well, they come off as very opinionated.
I get that Batman is one of the most controversial characters in all of fiction and that YMMV is for opinions, but these are very detailed edits and, well, I'm starting to suspect that Nyame is using these pages to describe what he/she doesn't like about Batman. I don't want to start any conflict with Nyame, I just want to see if his edits are valid, but the only way I could do that if I read all the Batman comics from the New 52 to the present and that will take me a very long time. If anyone could help me with this topic, I would certainly appreciate it.
openDorkAge Print Comic
Many entries in the Dork Age article seem to be written just to express annoyance for annoyance's sake. Seriously, someone once wrote Brian Michael Bendis' Superman before that story had just started publication. I think I know how to specify when does an entry in a long-running franchise qualifies as a Dork Age:
1. It has to be a critical and financial disappointment
2. Any changes it brought to the series must be undone by later installments
3. Whenever it's referenced by other entries, it has to be done in a negative manner.
What do you think?
open Ant-Man Edits and Motivations. Print Comic
Hello. I would like to call attention to potentially problematic behavior.
On Ant-Man main page and its ymmv page, I added clarifications about Hank Pym's actions slapping Janet and so on (a famous Never Live It Down Moment). I quoted chapter-and-verse, issue number, comic panel and scene descriptions.
There's this poster (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=FastAsFastCanBe) who undoes my edits, in some places without giving reasons. And, in my opinion and judgment, it blatantly is leaning into Victim-Blaming (attacking Janet) and minimizing and whitewashing Domestic Abuse. I put a long post on Discussion but this poster has not responded. Looking at his post-history, he seems to have started recently and mainly devoted to defending Hank Pym's good name since all his edits are related to minimizing this.
I believe this is what is called Troping with an agenda. Can someone please fix this and revert to earlier versions?
openPeople keep re-adding objectively untrue entry Print Comic
EDITED: Link should work now.
A while back, I removed an Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry from America Chavez since it made a false claim and had poor indentation and natter. Somebody else has now added it back.
To be precise, it made this false claim: "America asks Lisa to uproot her life so they can move in together somewhere else as part of America's new college life. When Lisa says she can't, America breaks up with her, kicks one of her trademark PORTALS open and walks away. In other words, a character that can teleport across half the universe, and dimensions, in an instant, calls off a relationship because her girlfriend doesn't want to move, and given her powers, shouldn't have to."
This isn't true, though—Lisa never actually says that having a long-distance relationship is the reason she doesn't want to stay together with America. (The issue, issue #1, is very vague about the reason, but it seems as if she's just not interested in the plan they made.)
Furthermore, another entry says that it's hinted in issue #5 that America cheated on Lisa with America's friend Magdalene. That's not hinted at all—it's just mentioned that America and Magdalene used to be mostly friends (but a bit of something moooore, ohoho). No mention of America being together with Lisa at the time; that's pure speculation.
So far, nobody's started an editing war about this, but if I were to make another edit in the series then I would be edit warring. Therefore, I ask for other people's opinion about the matter. Is it okay for me to remove it again, since it doesn't accurately represent the events in the comic?
(Here's a link to the relevant page, BTW.)
Edited by MichaelKatsuroopenSuperman = Designated Hero? Print Comic
Troper DBZfan102 added Superman to the comic book section of Designated Hero with the following argument:
"Superman came off as this in his earliest stories, as he had yet to become the iconic beacon of hope he is today. One story showed him angry that a friend of his died to a car accident and hijack a radio stadio to declare war on all reckless drivers. Hundreds of dollars in property damage later, Superman has succeeded in his goal, as driving laws are now rigidly enforced by the mayor (after Supes kidnapped him and took him to a morgue so he could guilt him with all the victims of driving accidents, natch), and the story ends with Superman getting a ticket for parking in the wrong place. This leaves the reader wondering if it's just a kooky Ironic Twist Ending typical of comics of the time, or if Superman is receiving Laser-Guided Karma for his vigilantism. Hijacking a radio station to declare war on blank sounds straight out of a Saturday-Morning Cartoon villain's playbook."
- "He sometimes slips back into this in modern comics, particularly some moments in Superman: Grounded where he refuses to do hero things just to make some kind of vaguely-defined point about non-interference."
I have to ask, is this valid? I know that Golden Age Superman wasn't exactly the boy scout he is today, but I still question the validity of this entry. What do you say?
openTroper who adding natter and using rude edit reasons Print Comic
Ymirsdaughter added a natter example on Uncanny X-Men (2018) under Voodoo Shark which reads as fairly defensive and then gave a bit of a snarky edit reason when removing another troper's work (I don't disagree with removing the bit they removed, but still).
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopenPossible agenda-based troping? Print Comic
Troper JaneDoe1985 has been mass removing certain tropes from character pages, adding other ones, and has added a total of three Complete Monster entries to a non-YMMV page without going through the cleanup, all without leaving edit reasons. It appears they are engaging in agenda-based troping.
openGarfield Website is No More Print Comic
Garfield and U.S. Acres
Since Paws, Inc. was bought out by Viacom last year, Viacom as of yesterday have shut down garfield.com that was in use since 1996 leaving behind two links (one to Nickelodeon and the other to the Go Comics mirror).
All of the garfield.com links in the main Garfield comic pages (including audience reaction pages) along with the cross-wicks need to be updated to point the links to the Go Comics mirror.
Unfortunately US Acres does not have a mirror and cannot be accessed anymore outside the Internet Archive. Any missing comics not archived may have to have their links purged from the US Acres articles via Weblinks Are Not Examples .
The Garfield flash games may have been archived on other sites so any links to them may need to point to the sites that have them saved instead of garfield.com.
There might be other matters, but these are the three main ones I'd figure to bring up here.
openIndexing of Judge Dredd Complete Monster page. Print Comic
Okay, ~Psychotic Ranger 4567 and I seem to be going back and forth, and I want to nip this before it becomes an Edit War.
I think that Judge Dredd should be listed for works with their own examples at both Monster.Two Thousand AD page Monster.Comic Books (similar to, say, how Conan the Barbarian's listed under both Monster.Marvel Comics and Monster.Comic Books ), but 4567 thinks it should only be under one. If it were just 2000 AD stuff that'd be fine, but considering there's DC, IDW, etc., that's numerous other comics. Just like Conan has both Marvel and Dark Horse.
So, thoughts?
Edited by ACW
I was looking over Inferiority Superiority Complex, and noticed that a bunch of examples that used to be there were gone, and a look at the history confirmed that someone named Zealots deleted a whole bunch of examples, with no explanation as to why. Was this part of a trope cleanup effort, or was Zealots doing an unsanctioned purge?
Edited by StrixObscuro