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:
openQuick question on the WhatHappenedToTheMouse entry on the PRTF character page Live Action TV
Back in June 2023, I removed the What Happened to the Mouse? entry from Gluto's section in the Characters.Power Rangers Time Force page (history is here
). V-Nerd re-added it nearly a month ago here
.
In many stories, some characters enter the story, serve their role, and move on without any fanfare. If they have served their purpose and exit the story, then it's not a What Happened to the Mouse? situation just because there isn't some final "where are they now" information given. The trope is for cases where a character simply disappears without reason or acknowledgment by the rest of the cast. Plus, it's also a plot point. In this instance, Gluto slipping away during the final battle between Frax and the Rangers by freezing himself is a reasonable explanation for him leaving the story.
Rather than get involved in an Edit War, I'm bringing this up here. That said, any thoughts on what should be done?
Edited by gjjonesresolved A goof in the Mr. Robot page Live Action TV
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/MrRobot
There is a goof in the Disposing of a Body section:
Someone wrote that Mr. Robot and Elliot found Tyrell's dead body after he was shot and burned it with the white Dark Army van. That never happened. Tyrell walked away after he was shot and the last we see of him was looking at the blue light. The body that they burnt with the van was of the dead DA soldier who killed himself. We don't know till this day what happened to Tyrell.
openWhat do you do with a page mostly plagiarized? Live Action TV
I’m doing a plagiarism clean-up of Doctor Who’s trivia pages. I got tipped off a while ago that almost every page of the first Three doctors’ pages has examples (mostly under What Could Have Been) that have been plagiarized from either the show’s wiki or this comprehensive website
(which the wiki itself has cribbed from).
For example, several trivia examples from the episode “An Unearthly Child” (the very 1st episode of the series) had been plagiarized from it’s wiki article’s story notes.
- The first school scene was re-written to reduce the tension between Barbara and Ian. In the original script, Ian says, "When I've had a bad day, I come in here [the staff room], and I want to smash all the windows". Barbara retorts, "It hasn't been a bad day", and Ian remarks, "You're just naturally like that?" Barbara replies, "I hope not. I've had another kind of day. A very puzzling kind of day".
- Ian and Barbara's relationship was much more romantic in the original script.
- In the original script, the "PRIVATE" notice at the junkyard was originally supposed to appear significantly newer than the lettering on the gates. The junkyard was also supposed to contain "a broken-down old shed".
And while doing cleanup the trivia page for the episode “The Romans”
and it is seeping with plagiarism, up to and including Wikipedia.
So how should I go forward with this? I’ve been editing previous pages to remove plagiarism, but this particular page is compromised with it.
Edited by CanuckMcDuck1openDropped a Bridge on Him example Live Action TV
A long while ago I added this example to Recap.Doctor Who S 27 E 13 The Parting Of The Ways:
- Dropped a Bridge on Him: Not to anywhere near the extent of say, the Sixth Doctor's death-by-falling-over or the Eighth Doctor's regeneration not (at the time) being explained at all, but the fact that Rose was able to store the vortex energy for several minutes and only got a headache as a result, while the Doctor is killed by just storing it for a few seconds raised more than a few eyebrows.
Another troper later added this underneath the entry:
- Considering that Rose was able to bring Jack back to life, the Doctor might have been able to heal Rose, but couldn't heal himself.
This resulted in a third troper deleting the entire example with "Repair, Don't Respond" in the edit reason. However, would I be right in thinking that the second-level bullet point was speculative troping, and that the right course of action would have been to just delete that rather than nuking the whole example?
Looking back on it I'm not very happy with how I worded the example in the first place anyway, but just so I'm not engaging in a (very slow-motion) edit war, would I be okay to put the example back in as this:
- Dropped a Bridge on Him: The Doctor's dying as a result of holding the vortex energy in his body for roughly five seconds before he returns it to the TARDIS was seen by some fans as an abrupt and poorly-explained reason for his having to regenerate, especially since it comes right after Rose kept the same energy in her body for several minutes of screentime, while using it to wipe out the Daleks and resurrect Jack.
openRemoving a page redirect Live Action TV
I'm currently working on reworking the Giant Robo page into mediums (i.e. manga for the manga, series for the Toku show, anime for the OVA) instead of clumping every entry on one page. However, the current page for Giant Robo is a redirect to Giant Robo. I don't know how/if I can remove the redirect by myself. Is there a way I can do this, or is mod interference needed?
open 80s Horror/possession TV (mini?) series/film Live Action TV
Right! A little obscure here. 80's British TV show/mini-series/film about a possessed teenage girl. Set in a pretty normal urban British household. Myself and my sister both remember so I know I didn't dream it 😁. I only really remember one scene, the mother comes into the bedroom and the daughter is twisted into a weird pose with a scissors stuck in her shoulder/chest/clavicle. It's wrecking our heads for years here as all both of us can remember is that scene. I've tried many different Google searches and come up with nothing.
I know it's not: Hammer House of Horror/Mystery, Tales of the Unexpected, Dramarama, Ghostwatch, Moondial, Dead of Night.
Cheers
open B99, s6 ep3. Live Action TV
In 'The Tattler' episode, we meet Mike Joseph, a musician wannabee.
(The rest is my opinion, based on body language.)
Initially, he is friendly with Jake, but when Jake shares how active & fulfilling his life is, Mike seems to become bitter because how his carrier isn't going anywhere.
He quickly shifts tones by insisting on talking about Jake's high-school experience as a rejected classmate & he somehow seems amused about the subject, at Jake's expense.
I've read the TVT page of the episode, but I don't feel like there is the trope I am looking for.
So, my question, after giving the context, is, What Is This Trope?
When someone you'd assume to be your friend, doesn't hesitate to lower your self-esteem by digging up all of your insecurities or flaws, just to feel less small about themselves?
And, even in contexts where their reputation isn't in danger, they just don't hesitate to bring into conversations what their 'friend' isn't comfortable with?
Edited by PassionFloweropenBad one-off edit Live Action TV
Tropers.imajakov's first and so far only edit, from about a month ago, was to add an entry to Series.House for the nonexistent trope "Genius Level Intellect." The entry itself didn't have any grammar issues and did accurately describe the show and title character, but, well... that isn't a real trope. They also wrote it out un-wikiworded as "Genius Level intellect" (complete with capitalization error)
Edited by Dirtyblue929openSapphire and Steel Word of God Invoked Live Action TV
Paul A removed the "[invoked]" from the Distress Ball example where Word of God was mentioned on Sapphire and Steel, mistakenly thinking it was related to Invoked Tropes and not realizing it was to prevent the unsightly marker from appearing on the main page. I sent them a message explaining it, but they haven't responded and may not realize they had to re-add it themself. Can a mod please re-insert it, as if I did it myself I'd be edit warring?
Edited by NOYBopenUnintentional Sympathy in Star Trek Picard Live Action TV
The YMMV page for Star Trek: Picard features two examples of Unintentionally Sympathetic:
- The Zhat Vash was right all along! The Admonition is a message to synthetic life that there is other synthetic life willing to invade and destroy all organic life if called upon, in order to save their fellow synthetics. The Soong-type androids start to bring these horrors into the galaxy, and the only reason why nothing more happens is because it takes a while for them to come through the wormhole, allowing a small window to shut down the beacon. It's probable that anyone faced with the evidence would come to the conclusion that artificial life is too big a danger to allow to exist. Especially the Federation, who already ban genetic engineering of organic life because of the risk of starting another Eugenics War. What also helps is that "mad AI goes rogue" is one of the oldest plots in Star Trek history, appearing in no less than 7 episodes of The Original Series and only going up from there. If you lived in the Star Trek universe, there's wall-to-wall evidence that you should never trust a machine that can think for itself lest you want to be killed, enslaved, or both. Even Data wasn't safe from this as he'd become Brainwashed and Crazy and a threat to others a few times himself.
- One could also say the same for Control as in the later half of season 3 the Borg effectively highjacks Starfleet from within and plans to use said new “assimilated” fully organic drones as the seed base of a new even more advanced and dangerous Borg collective to threaten and ultimately rule the entire galaxy with until the end of time. Control would’ve had access to all the Enterprise NX-01’s logs including those of the incident involving the Borg and the knowledge that a “visit” from a very real bio-cybernetic threat easily capable of assimilating others, quickly adaptable defenses, and has access to technology far more advanced than anything Starfleet, the Federation, or even the surrounding powers currently had at their disposal isn’t so much if they show up 200 years from the logs being recorded but when! While that doesn’t excuse nor justifies Control’s actions, Control was originally programmed to help protect the Federation from any and all threats but when it tried to figure out a way the Federation could win against a confirmed future threat that, for all intents and purposes, had no vulnerabilities that could be exploited (at least for long anyway), combined with the limitations of Control’s own programming, preemptively wiping out all life in the universe was the “best” solution he could come up with to stop them and save everyone.
I could be wrong about this but I thought US is about characters that come off as sympathetic, even though the story doesn't want viewers to sympathize with them. Granted, the show kinda shoots itself in the foot by portraying the Higher Synthetics (insert Mass Effect reference here) as genocidal racists, but the entries for US don't do themselves any favors by portraying the Zhat Vash and Control as genocidal racists themselves.
What do you think about this? Is there a cleanup thread for this trope or something?
resolved Potential edit war Live Action TV
Troper Metal Max 1991 has been constantly re-adding Alternate Self to MCU: Benjamin Poindexter that connects it to the 2003 Daredevil movie even though those films haven’t ever crossed over or been connected so they’re not canon. Are they commiting an edit war?
Edited by MaxyGregoryyyyopen Reporting Edit Warring and Vandalism Live Action TV
Editor Rm74 has made repeated edits in the Euphoria pages (Character
and YMMV
as far as I know, but I haven’t checked the other Euphoria pages) that exaggerate a character’s negative traits and actions beyond reason— even outright making stuff up about them that they haven’t done or that they aren’t— and a lot of their edits are simply bizarre. I know that YMMV is opinion based, but even still their edits are beyond exaggeration, or even again just them making stuff up. Myself and some other editors have made attempts to fix these Ron The Death Eater style edits, but RM74 has repeatedly gone and added them back in or made new outlandish edits.
openRangers Live Action TV
I just signed up and would like to add to this folder. There are several prominant TV shows featuring rangers that are not yet included and I'd like to add them.
The Lone Ranger Walker, Texas Ranger Laredo Trackdown
In movies there is also the Comancheros In Western Animation there is the series Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers.
I'm happy to make the additions myself but don't see a way to do that. Is there a tutorial?
openTroping reality TV shows (e.g. Drag Race) - contestants, presenters and judges Live Action TV
So...
Following on from this post
on the Character Page Cleanup Thread, and this earlier Creator Page Cleanup
discussion, there seems to be a grey area with regard to troping reality TV.
Administrivia.Real Life Troping clearly says:
So, looking at something like RuPaul's Drag Race -
- I can see that the competing drag queens (who have very carefully constructed personas) can potentially be troped as characters in their drag identities.
- ...but do we trope the judges and others (e.g. the 'pit crew' teams, who have no alter ego and are scantily-dressed support staff) - we have character page tropes entries for them all, and things like Age-Gap Romance and Token Minority (for the only straight guy) troped for the real people. That feels like a step too far.
- We also have Characters page examples for things like Older Than They Look (no Real Life) for RuPaul, Berserk Button (referencing her Real Life childhood bullying) for judge Michelle Visage and similar examples from the contestants' real pre-show, offscreen lives. In some cases I'm not sure they've even been directly mentioned in the work itself.
I know an awful lot of effort's gone into some of the pages, and I don't want to make major changes without a consensus (which didn't really happen with the previous forum threads, hence this post) - the one comment on the last post seemed to agree that this crossed into NRLEP, though.
What are people's views?
Edited by Mrph1openFanDisservice Misuse Live Action TV
I noticed on the Recap pages for Breaking Bad that Fan Disservice is listed any time we see Walt naked.
If I'm correct, Fan Disservice is for sexual situations deliberately played up to be disturbing or uncomfortable (like the show's infamous "Happy Birthday, Ted" scene, which ironically wasn't listed anywhere until I added it myself), not "character gets naked in this scene and they're unattractive". The examples don't list why the trope counts, it just says "Walt was naked in this scene." It even lists it for a serious moment where Walt undresses to get in the shower only to pass out on the floor while Skyler tries to talk to him.
Examples:
- "Pilot": Bryan Cranston makes the first of many appearances in his tighty whitey briefs, and it is not pleasant...
- "The Cat's In the Bag": In the opening scene, we see Walt's bottom as he walks naked to the bathroom after sex with Skyler.
- "Bit By a Dead Bee": Once again, Bryan Cranston shows some skin, this time going fully naked (albeit from the back).
- "I See You": Fanservice: Opening scene. For once, it’s Jesse that’s topless, not Walt.
- "Buried": Walt stripping in silence to take a shower, before collapsing on the bathroom floor.
- Walt's character page: Walt sometimes strips down to his tighty whities in order to cook (usually in the first season) or for other reasons, but neither for comedy nor to look pretty. I don't know about that, the scene with Walt naked in the supermarket was pretty funny...
The page for the episode "Peekaboo" lists the trope because of Spooge and his girlfriend (two ugly meth-heads) even though neither are seen naked or in an otherwise sexual situation.
I ran a wick check and couldn't find enough misuse otherwise to justify a TRS thread or a clean-up thread so that's why I'm presenting it here. Cut these examples?
Edited by supernintendo128openDoctor Who WMG - guessing for future episodes on episode-specific pages Live Action TV
How do we handle tropers adding WMG for future episodes/seasons of a show to an episode-specific WMG page?
I'm specifically looking at WMG.Doctor Who 2022 CEN The Power Of The Doctor, which accompanies the equivalent recap page. Now that episode has screened (at least in the UK), all of the existing WMG has been marked as Jossed, Confirmed, not addressed in this episode etc.
However, the final cliffhanger leads into the three 2023 specials, which are very likely to get their own recap pages. And we're now getting tropers adding new WMG about the plots of those specials and the possible payoff for the cliffhanger.
My initial thinking is that this isn't a problem in the short term ... but as soon as those new episodes go out, adding any Jossed/Confirmed response to those guesses would be a problem. It's a Spoilers Off page, but even if they were tagged, my understanding is that a WMG page for episode #22 of a series shouldn't include any spoilers for episode #23 onwards?
So should we leave the WMGs about the next batch of episodes there indefinitely, move them once a more appropriate WMG page is created, or immediately delete them from the page?
(I did delete one on this basis, explaining my thinking in the edit reason - but more are now being added and I'm second-guessing myself)
Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1openEditing quibble - HOTD Live Action TV
Hello everyone, I hope this is the correct place to ask this?
For this page https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Heartwarming/HouseOfTheDragon
(sorry I am not sure if there is a better way to link it) there has been some disagreement about it's contents.
I recently edited it to cut down some length; for example some of it went into too much paragraphs detail as opposed to a one paragraph summarization, I feel some personalised bits like "Fuck the Seven Strictures! And the Faith!" as a viewer's reaction don't fit and others are outright wrong in interpretation (while saying theirs confirms all other interpretations are wrong) as confirmed by a showrunner himself/ Word of God (Miguel Sapochnik). I didn't add anything, just removed some pieces.
I explained the reasons in the edit box as it would be improper to do such a shift without a given reason - however it has since been edited back with the following comments from the original editor;
"No-one who can't speak English properly is removing another's examples" / "Miguel Sapochnik told viewers their T Vs were at fault and not his lighting direction in 'The Long Night'. He has no right to give a carte blanche interpretation of a scene."
Can I ask what to do here? The first comment especially did feel hurtful and mean-spirited.
I would like to edit it since as I said I feel it goes off the format and it's confirmed some of it is incorrect, but I don't want to get into that with those sorts of comments to me or spark an editing scuffle which would be unfair for everyone.
openLucy Lane = Unintentionally Unsympathetic? Live Action TV
A few days ago, I described Lucy, younger sister of Lois Lane, as Unintentionally Unsympathetic in the YMMV page of Superman & Lois with the following argument:
"An argument can be made that Lucy was treated with a lot of sympathy for someone who willingly betrayed her own family and endangered her own universe in service of a cult leader. Over the course of season 2, Lucy attempts to destroy her sister's reputation, drugs her father to break Ally out of military custody and almost gets Superman (her own brother-in-law) killed but her family doesn't have any hard feelings against her. Further aggravating the issue is that she doesn't suffer any comeuppance for her actions. Sure, she feels guilty for almost getting Superman killed, but it comes off as Lucy repenting her actions when she herself suffers from them. Possibly justified due to the fact that Sam and Lois aren't angry at Lucy but rather at Ally for manipulating Lucy and at themselves for failing Lucy when she needed them most, but it's still notable."
I really don't want to come off as the guy trying to editorialize his opinions and I certainly don't hate Lucy as a character or as a concept. I just don't like what the show did with Lucy.
So, what do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroopenAdaptational tropes in Halo Live Action TV
Okay, we really need to do something about Adaptational Jerkass and Adaptational Villainy in the pages related to Halo (2022). Tropers have been adding these tropes to plot and character pages simply because the characters, especially the Master Chief himself, aren't as squeaky-clean and goody-two-shoes as their video game counterparts.
Yes, I get that the show is deliberately meant to be Darker and Edgier compared to the games, but those dark and edgy elements were always present in the games' background. They just didn't get enough screentime because the games focused less on the UNSC's unsavory actions and more on the heroic defense of humanity. Besides, despite his flaws, the UNSC's soldiers are still devoted to their duty and part of their character development is to form bonds with each other, just like the Chief and Cortana are doing throughout season 1.
But these are just one man's opinions. What do you think?

Having just seen the show, I've started editing the page of Ripley (staring Andrew Scott as the titular Tom Ripley).
In it, there is an Actor Allusion as John Malkovich plays a character (and in the trailer even says he like Ripley's name, though the context is different in the show itself), having played the role of Tom Ripley in Ripley's Game (2002). This has already been added.
However, on top of this, it's revealed he plays the character of Reeves Minot, a character with a major role in the plot of Ripley's Game. Would this be playing the actor allusion trope straight further, exaggerating it, or something else?