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:
resolved Thomas and the Magic Railroad in the wrong namespace (?) Film
Currently, Thomas And The Magic Railroad resides in the Western Animation namespace like the original show. However, I question this. While it makes sense for the original show and the other films to be in the namespace, since they either use claymation/Supermarionation for the early stuff or CGI for the later stuff, Thomas and the Magic Railroad is a unique case as it features real humans in real settings for major chunks of the film, so I wonder if the "film" namespace is better suited for it.
I mean, if Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a film that is more animated than Magic Railroad is in the film namespace for having real humans and stuff, than Magic Railroad probably fits there too. What do you think?
Edited by Tylerbear12resolved Belligerent troper who edits poorly and bashes characters Film
English Lady 01 has been making edits on MCU: Tony Stark that paints him in a mire negative light than he should be and it almost comes off as them bashing Tony. They’re also very bad at formatting; not knowing how to spell and link tropes properly, not italicizing, and having pretty questionable grammar. Here’s one of their edits filled with bashing Tony and grammatical errors
. Also a new account so we might need to look into that. I sent them a complaining notifier but let’s see how they handle that.
resolved Does the trope really apply? Film
So I was reading Trivia.Kraven The Hunter 2024 and I noticed this, which was added by Alexcs:
- Magnum Opus Dissonance: When the film was delayed for a third time in April 2024, producer Matt Tolmach told Collider
that the reasoning behind the delay was not only to avoid competition with other films released during August, but also because Sony was feeling confident that the film would do well in the lucrative Holiday season with audiences. Director JC Chandor also advised fans to watch the film, that it would not be the same level of quality as the previous SSU movies, and Sony even released the full first eight minutes of the film on their YouTube channel for free, which was perceived as a strategic, desaparate or confident move to lure audiences to see the film in theaters. Regardless, the film ended up receiving negative reviews from critics and is projected to have a low opening weekend, ending the SSU with another failure.
So, to sum up, the director, the producer and the studio talked highly about the film, but got a negative reception. Now, AFAIK Magnum Opus Dissonance is when a creator says X work is their best work but the audience disagrees, and I don't see the example actually saying that. All I see is that people involved in a film heavily promoted it, they didn't say they considered it their best film. Ultimately I think that the example is worthy of a trope but I don't quite think MOD is it. Thoughts?
Edited by JamesAustinopenSpider Man What Could Have Beens Film
I noticed that the What Could Have Been page for the Spider Man Trilogy is now a red-link with the cut explanation "As discussed in other Ask The Tropers, it's best to keep WCHB entries to their respective works own Trivia pages, not merge them into one page for the trope."
But now there's no What Could Have Been section at all in the trivia pages of any of those films, just that redlink. Can they be restored to those pages? I think they might still be in the history of the respective articles.
resolved Notifier responded with rude PM Film
The user Pokedude1013 recently created a page for the movie Cleaner (2025). Since the page had many grammar issues, including a lack of punctuation and capitalization, I fixed them and sent a notifier.
Today, Pokedude responded with a rude PM telling me to get a life. They’re pretty extreme comments to send over basic grammar fixes, so I feel like this report is necessary.
Edited by CanuckMcDuck1openRegarding the main ''Endgame'' quote Film
There seems to be an Edit War regarding the main quote for Avengers: Endgame but it primarily has to do with satisek repeatedly changing the main quote to "Part of the journey is the end." This happened four times already even after the tropers tried expanding Iron Man's initial quote.
The previous quote before the change is: "We lost. All of us. We lost friends. We lost family. We lost a part of ourselves. Today, we have a chance to take it all back. You know your teams, you know your missions. Get the stones. Get them back. One round trip each. No mistakes. No do-overs. Most of us are going somewhere we know. That doesn't mean we should know what to expect. Be careful. Look out for each other. This is the fight of our lives... and we're gonna win. Whatever it takes."
Which quote do you guys do you think best describe the movie itself? Personally, I like Captain America's quote much better.
Edited by Loekman3openRecent additions to WhatAnIdiot.StarWars Film
There were some lengthy additions to WhatAnIdiot.Star Wars recently. Long story short, they were nitpicking on insignificant details. I trimmed some of them down and removed a the rest as misuses of WaI, only for another troper to restore them.
Could someone else get a look at the page? I'll admit, I am getting annoyed at all the "fans" bringing their negativity to the Star Wars pages, so I'm rather quick to reach for the axe. It'd be nice to have another opinion.
openCommon Knowledge in Man of Steel Film
Five years after its release and Man of Steel still causes controversy in this very website. Troper Tuvok deleted the Common Knowledge entry in the movies YMMV page.
The entry said: "The final fight scene with Zod has garnered this reputation. People generally describe it as the fight destroying the entire city with Clark being responsible for most of the destruction and being completely indifferent to the rest. In reality, most of Metropolis is left completely untouched and the destruction seems worse than it is because of the focus given to it and the fact that the film doesn't hold back from showing how terrifying it is from a civilian perspective. Similarly, Clark is personally responsible for almost none of it as much of it was done by Zod's world engine or Zod himself and Clark did make an effort to lead him into space and even made a point of avoiding buildings when he punched him at one point. As for claims of indifference, he was busy trying to stop Zod to begin with who wasn't exactly an easy opponent."
Tuvok justified the deletion with: "The damage was calculated as quite large and city wide as shown in B v S , as well as the Director addressing it [1]
. Snyder wanted there be consequences for hero interactions. ‘’’I wanted a big consequence to Superman’s arrival on earth. Certainly, Batman v. Superman sort of cashes in all its chips on the ‘why’ of that destruction.’’’ Which would signify the damage was large. It was also calculated by various outlets [2]
Done by the Watson Technical Consulting to assess the cost. So confirmation the destruction was city wide, the main critisim during the fight was Clarke punching through flying through various building with no indication of making an effort to check damage caused. Making out with his girlfriend with the city in waste in the background did not help."
I must protest the deletion because Common Knowledge is about correcting and clarifying details about a story that average viewers might not be aware of and Tuvok's reasoning is about reaffirming something the viewers already know. Yes, there is an estimation to the city's damage but there were parts of the city that were largely untouched during the climax. Yes, Superman's fight with Zod caused damage but Superman attempted to limit the damage by fighting Zod in the sky. As for claims of indifference, Superman was busy fighting Zod, so it's not like he was shown not caring about civillian casualties.
What do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroopenDeleted scene examples on trope pages? Film
Are examples from Deleted Scenes allowed on trope pages? Pichu-kun deleted the Zootopia example from Racist Grandma with the edit reason "Removed a deleted scene example for being What Could Have Been." I think it's fine to keep, but don't want to start an edit war.
openDeleting Headscratchers and not responding to notifiers Film
Mistress Fi deleted three Headscratchers from Headscratchers.Jupiter Ascending without any edit reason, and has not responded to either of the two P Ms I sent about it, despite editing the wiki daily since I contacted her (edit history
).
In more detail:
On Sept. 5, Mistress Fi deleted the three Headscratchers with no edit reason. I could see potential reasons for deleting two of the deleted Headscratchers (they seem to be complaining rather than real questions, reinforced by the accompanying edit reason: "watched yesterday, need to vent"). The third one deleted was one of mine and is a genuine question about the legal system portrayed in the film.
I noticed the deletion on Sept. 8 and sent an "edit reasons" notifier along with asking why she had deleted Headscratchers without stating a reason. On Sept. 12, having seen no response (neither a PM, returning to the page to add an edit reason, nor restoring the deleted content) despite edit history showing that she had been actively editing the wiki each day, I sent a second PM (not a standard notifier) again asking the reason for the deletion and explaining that I believed my Headscratcher was a valid entry and that I would like to restore it unless there was a reason for its removal.
I still have not received any response from Mistress Fi.
Can I get a ruling on whether it's OK to restore at least my non-complaining entry to the page?
openSequelitis entry for ''Frozen II'' being readded again Film
cerealking has previously added a Sequelitis entry for Frozen II under the Sequelitis.Disney but the entry has been moved to Contested Sequel since it fits under that trope better. However, cerealking has just readded the entry back with a text that I felt is a Justifying Edit:
- The feature-length sequel, Frozen 2 , also hasn’t been as warmly received as the first film note 78% to 90% on Rotten Tomatoes by professional critics. Reviews have praised its ambition, willingness to tackle more mature themes, art, performances, and music. However it’s been criticized for being a bit needlessly dark, having a convoluted plot, some questionable character decisions, and aping plot points from Avatar: The Last Airbender and its Sequel Series The Legend of Korra . Essentially critics are appreciative of the creative team trying to do something bigger and different but feel like it’s just not as well executed. That being said, this is also Critical Dissonance as it's been better-received by general audiences and would fit more along the lines of a Contested Sequel with them.
Sequelitis is if the sequel is universally agreed to be inferior to the original but there are some fans that regarded Frozen II to be superior to the original while others don't which this trope isn't what it's about.
Edited by Loekman3openSeeking to verify an ActorAllusion in Iron Man 1. Film
Can someone who has seen both Iron Man 1 and The Brave One help to verify whether there's an actual Actor Allusion in play with the entry:
- When Tony tells Colonel Rhodes, "Looks like someone did your job for you," referencing Terrence Howard's earlier role in The Brave One.
An Actor Allusion is a deliberate, intentional reference to previous works/roles of an actor. I haven't seen "The Brave One", only read the Wikipedia summary. I can see the potential overlap but it seems that the "vigilante that does the official's job better" would be a common element in these type of stories.
My question is whether Terrance Howard's character, Sean Mercer, ever told that the vigilante is doing his job for him (or some similar wording)?
If so, then there's a reasonable and tenable case that Downey's line is an Actor Allusion. If not, then it's more that similar themes arise when a story has a character enacting vigilante justice and hard to justify that it's a deliberate reference.
open20th Century Studios Film
In light of the name change, is it okay to update the page accordingly?
openMulan WMG Film
This is on the WMG page for Mulan (2020) :
- Between the disastrous test screenings, the lead actress' poor reception (considered to be "more concerned with looking pretty than emoting"), her controversial opinion regarding the Hong Kong protests (which will not be discussed further here), the backlash Western fans have given to most of the changes (No Mushu, no songs, no Shang), and the recent underwhelming performance of Maleficent: Mistress of Evil at the box office, I'm not entirely confident that this film is going to do well in theaters. Perhaps if it ends up underperforming, Disney will decide to start releasing its remakes exclusively to Disney+, or eventually just cease to do them altogether.
- There's also the coronavirus outbreak to be taken into consideration. It took everyone by surprise, but due to the large outbreak many Chinese citizens will be on quarantined or unmotivated to go to the movies, which will lead to the box office badly hurting.
I don't think this is okay, is it?
openSo Bad It's Horrible-Films N-Z Film
A couple of things involving this page, both involving the user Pikachu 4 Prezident:
1)The entry for Segurança Nacional was edited by another user, but the above user reverted the changes for no given reason. (However, the other user didn't give a reason either.) I'm just worried about a potential edit war.
2)The user also posted an entry on a movie review. I'm not sure, but I think that section is only for the movies themselves, not their reviews. (If the entry has merit, it should probably be moved to Web Video.)
Edited by BKelly95openQuestionable edits on Horrible Live Action Films Film
The latest updates on Horrible.Live Action Films 0 To F by Idiosyncratic have some issues. There's a bit of changing Commonwealth spellings to American ("colour" to "color" and "humour" to "humor"), removal or addition of hyphens in certain word pairs, and addition, removal, or changing certain words to make the sentences not make sense. However, there were several other edits he made that fixed spelling and grammar errors. Edit here:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Horrible.LiveActionFilms0ToF#edit29417525
By the way, I feel like I've made this report before.
openDesignated Hero and Villain in Wonder Woman 1984 Film
The YMMV page of Wonder Woman 1984 places both Wonder Woman and the Cheetah as Designated Hero and Villain, respectively, under the following arguments:
- Designated Hero: At its worst, the film makes Steve Trevor out to be more of a heroic figure than Diana herself, particularly where it comes to Steve's situation. From using the body of the "Handsome Man" for sexual activity without any ability to consent (which is sexual assault and/or rape) to her reluctance to ever let this nameless man have his own life back instead of keeping Steve possessing him, she is rather selfish overall, with it being Steve insisting on her going to save the world from catastrophe. Much like the prior film chronologically, she only allows someone or something she truly desires to leave when the object of desire itself says so while telling of her heroism, showing that if she actually has a possible penalty to her actions personally on an emotional level, she would more likely not suffer said consequences at the expense of the world unless forced to.
- Designated Villain: Barbara's wish to be like Diana is completely understandable given her circumstances. She's overlooked by almost everyone at work despite her positive qualities such as her sweetness and her knowledge. She had to rely on Diana to save her from a rapist, with the only lesson said rapist learned from the encounter was that Barbara was powerless on her own. Steve then tells Barbara and Diana that anyone who made a wish on the stone must renounce it regardless of their reasons for making the wish. Diana agrees with Barbara that they just can't do that; they are both reluctant to renounce their wishes. It doesn't help that Barbara's wish is corrupting her mind, while Diana's own wish is for reasons that seem frivolous in the big picture (see Designated Hero). Adding to all of this is that Barbara's less-sympathetic moments only ever kicked in during moments when selfishness would be a natural reaction. For what it's worth, Diana never sees Barbara as a villain and keeps trying to reason with her; Barbara momentarily stops attacking Diana on seeing the latter renounced her wish.
Okay, I have to ask, are these arguments valid? I did watch the movie, personally I believe these arguments to be flawed. The movie goes out of its way to make Wonder Woman realize it's selfish of her to keep her wish, especially because of the price she has to pay. As for Cheetah, she she never visibly renounces her wish even after seeing the consequences the collective wishes of humanity are having on the entire world.
I know that YMMV pages are meant to be opinionated, but it looks like there are people who using this particular YMMV page to voice their grievances with this movie and I would like to remind everyone that TV Tropes and the Internet are not your personal echo chambers you can use to say whatever you want and not expect any consequences.
So, what do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroopenUnnecessary/incorrect deleting and example trimming Film
Troper rva98014 has made edits on two pages that unnecesarily trim down good examples and delete valid examples. Multiple people in the past have had a problem with this troper ruining their edits. I apologise if I am being picky. Here are the edits:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=WesternAnimation.TheIncredibles#edit30749840
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=WesternAnimation.TheIncredibles#edit30748625
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=WesternAnimation.TheIncredibles#edit30748587
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Characters.TheIncredibles#edit30748527
openProblematic entry Film
The YMMV page for the Black Panther film has the following entry under Alternate Character Interpretation:
- Is Killmonger a Death Seeker? Besides refusing medical help after his defeat, he always chooses the self-destructive path. He kills his girlfriend and burns the sacred garden, implying that he isn't interested in having an heir or leaving a legacy for himself even though he's a prince with a legitimate claim to the throne. Furthermore, despite having the skills and connections, Killmonger also chose not to follow a more heroic career like becoming a costumed vigilante, entering politics or starting his own company, thus denying himself the chance to help others and live a life of luxury without the needless deaths. The fact that Killmonger pursues self-defeating atrocities implies that he doesn't care about what happens to himself so long as everyone experiences his suffering. This only makes his evil plan more horrifying in hindsight, since it amounts to a murder-suicide as he intentionally wants millions of innocent lives to die alongside him.
The idea that Killmonger is a Death Seeker may be a valid interpretation, but the entry doesn't make its case very well. Most of what it says simply applies to villains in general not using their skills in a better way, and while Killmonger may be willing to die if necessary, he doesn't seem to see his cause as self-destructive. The specific examples the entry cites don't support this either (burning the garden does not affect his ability to have children, and killing his girlfriend was done in order to kill Klaue, which his entire plan depended on). The last sentence seems especially problematic, as it states this interpretation as though it were fact.
Edited by Javertshark13

I added
Splatter Horror as part of the description to The Passion of the Christ because it's on the Splatter Horror page
Then, Lightysnake reverted
my edit claiming it was "vandalism"
To avoid an edit war, I'll bring it here.
My addition was valid. Besides the fact that I'm essentially crosswicking Splatter Horror to the page because the SH page already listed The Passion as an example, the film is objectively a horror film and definitely a Splatter Horror film.
Mel Gibson very clearly made it to shock and terrify the audience by showing how gory, painful, and horrific the end of Jesus' life was.
It is a horror film so I don't see how what I did was vandalism.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2