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.
Honestly, trope indexes usually don't have a short description of what the trope is for (that's what the laconic is for, usually). I'd say the thing's there for flavor mostly. Admittedly I think getting offended by what appears to be satire seems to be a weak reason for removal, the concern that it can make the tropes seem bad seems somewhat understandable. I lean towards keeping it how it is.
Edited by Piterpicher Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods Of Incremental)Honestly, I really like the way it's written now. It's more fun.
Space Battles Dot Com fanworks (now oficial) index in my Sandbox.I don't mind the first-person perspective, but the slurs might be piling it on a bit too thick. If nothing else, we could language that's still derogatory but not as harsh. Like, we could easily rewrite Unsettling Gender-Reveal as "The pretty girl I was flirting with is really some kind of gay freak in drag?!" and Prom Is for Straight Kids as "Only hetero couples can attend prom, not you homos!" (still derogatory but not as incendiary as the F word) and it gets the point across. Given what happened with the old names for the Double Standard Rape pages, it's not bad to keep an eye out for things that could be misconstrued.
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.^I agree with those rewrites. Oddly enough, Transgender Fetishization is written from the perspective of a sexualized trans person rather than someone who fetishizes trans people.
Keet cleanupYeah, I find it odd how some of the tropes are written from the perspective of the victimized as opposed to the bigot. It's a bit of an inconsistent reading.
I did swap in my rewrites to get rid of the harsher slurs, if that's okay.
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Even then, the page is still very inconsistent. At least one of the descriptions isn't even speaking as a character.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall^ Maybe later additions? A while back I spotted a similar problem with the Body Horror index, and did my best to make the descriptions consistent (I went with the funny ones, which was the majority), but my success was... Limited.
Edited by Lermis Space Battles Dot Com fanworks (now oficial) index in my Sandbox.NGL, I'm not a fan of the Transgender Fetishisation entry because of the way it describes the speaker's gender as "preferred" and potholes to Attractive Bent-Gender.
Ironically making it hit in the way that the entry immediately above it (for Trans Tribulations) was intended to.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faerI still like the self-demonstration but it is kind of awkwardly organized. I wonder if re-organizing or even soft-splitting the index could help with the weird tone? Some tropes are about being a bigot, and some tropes are about being the victim of bigotry, and that leads to the weird shifts in tone and perspective.
I'll try to rewrite Transgender Fetishization since it doesn't actually describe the trope anyway (it's not just "trans person is good-looking").
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Yeah, we need to at least make it consistently written.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallOn the matter of the Body Horror index, I rewrote a few entries (and made the format more even) to be clearer, but it might still need to be brought more towards describing a trope than trying to make a joke about it.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.^ Most of the trope names are pretty descriptive on their own right. Like Creepy Long Fingers; It's Exactly What It Says on the Tin.
Space Battles Dot Com fanworks (now oficial) index in my Sandbox.^^ I don't know, I kinda like the current descriptions. The jokes make it easier to browse through the entire list, whereas a bland description would make a read-through mind-numbingly boring. Besides, it adheres to the Clear, Concise, Witty rule, so I see no reason to change it.
Edited by RoundRobin - Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!I don't know about controversy, but if they're not uniform they can lead to problems. Once I had to delete every single description from the Classic mythology Trope Namer index, because it was the only of the trope namer indexes that had descriptions, and they were basically the troper showing off his mythology knowledge.
Space Battles Dot Com fanworks (now oficial) index in my Sandbox.

Most of the tropes listed on the index Prejudice Tropes currently have a short, self demonstrating description of the trope, generally written from the perspective of someone who shares that particular prejudice. For several reasons, I wonder if this is really the best way to describe tropes of this nature. For one, descriptions written in such a manner sacrifice clarity in a similar way to Example as a Thesis, giving an example of the trope being described in place of a proper description thereof. Furthermore, there are some that definitely cross the line — the f-slur and t-slur cropped up multiple times — and that I find very hard to justify in this context. While I understand the intent, I worry that those newer to the site and less familiar with our standards (in particular Tropes Are Not Good and Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Language) could easily get the wrong idea from this page. Would it be a good idea to rewrite these examples for the sake of clarity and neutrality?
Edited by Mahoxy