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:
openPage quote citing a work's creator?
On Flow (2024), the page quote is sourced from an interview with the creator. The animation itself does not feature any dialogue. Is this suitable?
openCan a Continuity Nod qualify as a Mythology Gag at the same time? Videogame
Probably a stupid question, but, what the title says. This is a super specific situation I'm dealing with: I'm thinking of editing a page that's about the second game in a series that was originally self-contained but contained a cameo of the Big Bad from a previous game made by the same developer, before being adopted as part of a series later on as a Non-Linear Sequel.
Can this be considered both a Continuity Nod as well as a Mythology Gag, due to the circumstances? The page I previously made and edited currently lists it as a Mythology Gag when it really should be considered a Continuity Nod (a mistake from the days where I had way less experience as a troper), but can I retroactively slot the Continuity Nod in while explaining that it was originally the latter before later games made it into the former? Or should I Take a Third Option and just replace Mythology Gag with Continuity Nod and call it a day?
resolved Suspicious review thinly veiled as a personal attack.
Troper Biri made a rather suspicious review
of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood that comes off more as complaining than reviewing it. When other viewers asked about their hatred of Fred Rogers himself, they proceeded to go on a rant alleging that he was a homophobe/anti-LGBTQ, a phony, using a Christian agenda to condescend against children, referring to his fandom as "fanbrats" and, most disturbingly, hoping that someone urinates on his grave.
Now, I get that not everyone is going to like something or someone, regardless of popularity, and if all of that's true about him, so be it, but I don't think being so hostile towards someone's fanbase or hoping that their final resting place be desecrated is okay or complies with the site's rules, do you?
Edited by Erin582
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
openConcerning edit on The White Lotus
I stumbled across this on YMMV.The White Lotus Season Three:
- Diagnosed by the Audience: Some viewers have claimed that Frank's desire to be a submissive Asian woman is rather reminiscent of autogynephilia, a sexual fetish where a male is aroused by the thought of himself with female anatomy.
To my knowledge, "autogynephilia" is a transphobic dogwhistle which basically means "trans women are just perverted men with a fetish for becoming a woman." I don't think the term is used by anyone who isn't a TERF.
Putting that aside, I don't think this is a valid example anyway, as Diagnosed By The Audience is about mental illnesses and disorders, not fetishes. Maybe Trans Audience Interpretation could work for this example, but I'm not really familiar with the show so I'm not sure. I've just heard a little bit about the scene in question through other sites.
Edited by ZuxtronopenNot sure this should have been removed. Videogame
I recently added an edit for Fourth Wall Myopia on Dragon Age: The Veilguard, that was removed:
- Dragon Age: The Veilguard: This is a major factor to Taash's infamous confrontation with their mother in their personal quest coming off as Unintentionally Unsympathetic to audiences, even though anyone familiar with such issues would recognize the ethos, logos and pathos all hold up. Taash's grievances were on paper entirely understandable; they were emotionally neglected by their mother for most of their life, and one of Taash's fundamental questions is how non-binary characters would even exist in a religion like the Qun. Suffice to say, not well at all; the Qun are adamant that the role you play is the one you're born in and will die in, and are likewise adamant that men and women are assigned to strict gender roles, and while this means that the Qun are surprisingly okay with trans people, they don't even consider non-binary people to even exist. This is a sentiment that several trans people go through when explaining their gender identity to their own parents, and Taash was clearly meant to emulate that with them finding it difficult to keep themselves composed over the matter as their mother doesn't even recognize why Taash made this choice and even insinuates that Rook had a reason for "making her like this". Unfortunately, due to Taash taking an overly defensive tone and their mother being calm by comparison, it comes off to many unfamiliar with such a dilemma that Taash's mother was being unfairly railed on by her child, despite the context making total sense within the universe. This leads to a scene that would otherwise be poignant being undercut by an awkward execution, even when the details of the scene in question make total sense on paper versus how it impresses on itself in practice.
The given reason for the removal was that "this trope is when character's actions make sense in-universe because they don't know something that the viewers do and thus the latter complain that the scene is irrational. In this case, it's not about having more knowledge of the characters (to the point the entry even says that viewers don't know certain elements, quite the opposite); plus, one complaint about taash's reaction is that it's very immature for their age, while it could've been more understandable if they were a teenager." Except that the edit itself notes that the execution is awkward and immature-sounding, and last I checked, the actual trope is that viewers do not realize that the plot is not known to the characters, or that they are in a story. In particular, that the Qun is very strict about gender roles, and so Taash being nonbinary does cause a breakdown in social roles.
Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I'm sincerely wondering.
Edited by LelielopenIs this an edit war?
On Characters.Rain World, this happened:
- I added a trope entry
, using a YMMV trope thinking it was deliberately invoked in-universe (Moral Event Horizon where the "audience reaction" is enacted by the work itself and not the audience).
- After a while, I grew concerned that it may have been misuse so I changed it to a non-YMMV trope
that seemed like the appropriate choice for the situation (in this case Beyond Redemption). I had not touched it since.
- Someone else changed it back to the YMMV trope
— with an explanation as to why they thought it fit better — and I was never told, I had to stumble upon it to find out.
Is this an edit war, or something else? I genuinely can't tell aside from the fact that a deliberate restoration happened after removal of what I thought was misuse. I've contacted the person and will see how that goes, but for now I just need to know if this is an edit war or not.
Edited by Eggy0openPossible error
I was editing the page for Chou Kuse ni Narisou and it is listed on the TimeImmemorial.Work Pages page. However, according to the work page itself, it was created in 2021.
openVandalism/gushing
Borught up here
, but I saw some bits that I'm certain are gushing on top of natter, and had to double-check if the troper's edits were natter on other pages too (the troper self-admitted in the edit reason, and they appear to be new, only having five edits).
On Characters.Sonic Boom Antagonists, in this edit
for Shadow the Hedgehog:
- Adaptational Jerkass: Shadow was never a saint, but he wasn't malicious and had several close friends. His original version was a Consummate Professional whose rivalry with Sonic was built around either seeing Sonic as a Worthy Opponent or an obstacle in the way. This version of Shadow is an arrogant (yet awesome) bastard who mocks Sonic for relying on his friends and wants nothing to do with them in the games. In the TV show, he's also a case of Vile Villain, Saccharine Show, being a villain that even intimidates Eggman, and knocks everyone else out of the way so he can fight Sonic one-on-one, and even then his motivations can be seen as petty.
- One-Man Army: He absolutely destroys Team Sonic like the scrubs they are, all by himself, just like the badass he is.
And these edits in Characters.Dragon Ball Z Abridged Movies for Broly here
- Hulk Speak: Just like the Trope Namer, he speaks like this after his homicidal personality surfaces.
Broly: Excuse Broly? (Rebel's Version: "Excuse me?")
- Mythology Gag: When Broly attempts to describe himself.
Broly: Monster? Broly's not a monster. Broly is a... huh...\ (Rebel's Version: Monster, you say?! I'm not a monster! I am... hmm...)Gohan: A genuine demon? note What Broly refers to himself as in the AB Groupe "Big Green" dub
—>Goku: A true freak? note What Broly refers to himself as in the Funimation dub
—>Broly: The Devil. note How Broly refers to himself in the original Japanese version and the Speedy dub
—>Vegeta: OH MY GOD, HE'S SO GODDAMN COOL! - Pre-Mortem One-Liner: Arguably, it's ambiguous whether he knew it would kill him or he simply didn't know his own strength. However, what is the last thing he says to his dad before crushing his pod (and him)? "HUG!" (Rebel's Version: "DEATH WAITS FOR NO ONE!")
- Pokémon Speak: As LSSJ, he devolves into Hulk Speak and then into saying only "Kakarot!" And also "hug"...while crushing his dad to death. Rebel's Version defies this with a huge passion.
- His general impatience even in casual conversation, especially in his Legendary form, also mirrors that of the aforementioned fans when they kept asking for Broly's movie to get the Abridged treatment.
Broly: BROLY DOES NOT LIKE TO WAIT! (Rebel's Version: "TIME'S UP, MOTHERFUCKER!")- Played straight after becoming the Legendary Super Saiyan: his interest in Trunks has increased to the point he thinks Trunks is his property.
Vegeta: You've been ignoring someone this entire time.
Broly: Broly's wife?\ (Rebel's Version Are you referring...to Trunks?
Trunks: Well, technically, I was the one who killed Freeza.
Broly: That's hot.
This is all grounds for vandalism and I can remove without issue, correct? I should also send both a natter and gushing notifiers too?
1x1x1x1 (NOT FORSAKEN)
openWould this be better as a trope or a useful notes page?
So, I am currently working on an article on the topic of "selfshipping" (not to be confused with Screw Yourself) on my sandbox page, but I don't know if this would be better off as a trope or a useful notes page.
resolved First post Live Action TV
Hello,do you have any example of a live action tv show or movie where a mother involves herself in a sex for services situation to benefit her kid in some way?Other than those already present on this site i mean
openScrappy Misuse
YMMV.My Brave Pony Starfleet Magic
- The Scrappy: Even with readers who find the fic to be So Bad, It's Good, various characters leave a bad taste in people's mouths.
- By far, the most hated character in the entire fic is Rhymey. He has no personality outside of his annoying Running Gag of always rhyming and arguably contributes the least of the Starfleet, which is saying a lot. While he is meant to be a Plucky Comic Relief, his jokes and rhyming quickly became annoying due to how constant and uninteresting they are. Additionally, despite not having any significant backstory or character development, he ends up taking up as much screentime and standalone adventures as Lightning and, despite his aforementioned lack of contributions, parades his successes for attention and as an excuse to do whatever he wants. His questionable relationship with Fluttershy doesn't help. Unsurprisingly, most docs based on Starfleet tend to have him killed off or Demoted to Extra.
- Goldwin, besides sharing a lot of problems with Rhymey, spends a lot of his time complaining about not being a real unicorn, constantly taking his mask off as a Running Gag despite the fact that it basically kills him, and constantly putting actual heroics on hold in favor of complaining.
- Dr. Emil Kudos is hated for just how Unintentionally Unsympathetic he is. He was dumped prior to the story in favor of a unicorn, so his response is to lead a massive conspiracy against his own people out of spite towards magic and abducts Peni just to rub it in her face and later kills himself just to spite her. Needless to say, several readers did not feel the same amount of sympathy towards him as Starfleet did.
Prior cleanup
said this works doesn't count as Scrappy must be hated by those who unironically like the work. Permission to re-remove and add a note? (Asking here because Scrappy cleanup
has yet to reply to current unrelated inquiry there.)
openDetermining whether certain content is "official" enough to trope
I'm looking to have a conversation on whether certain content can be official enough to be included as part of a work's (character) page, and kinda found myself stumped on finding a specific forum threat to ask this in due to the specific nature of the work in question, so I'm just gonna try here and see if anyone can help me out.
Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition has 12 character classes that developers Wizards of the Coast consider "official" canonnote Artificer was a late addition which was not in the game's SRD, but that's an issue for another time, and those classes are documented appropriately on Dungeons & Dragons Classes: Fifth Edition Classes. However, I'm wondering if there's enough room to document the additional "unofficial, yet WotC-endorsed" classes of Blood Hunter and Illrigger, both of which are technically homebrew content created by third-party developers, but are available as selectable character options on D&D Beyond, what has become WotC's official toolset/digital platform for maintaining games of D&D.
Something that may give this precedent is that back in Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition (especially 3.5E), there used to be PrestigeClasses — extra character classes beyond the central "core" lineup exclusive to certain sourcebooks. Due to not being core classes, they aren't referenced as part of the game's official, vanilla lineup and "canon" means of play, but they were options that WotC considered official enough to publish, and they're evidently enough to warrant a character page specifically to document them. Blood Hunter and Illrigger fall into a similar grey area for 5E, but I'd like a second, well-informed opinion of anyone who can piece together whether this makes sense, and whether or not we can trope those content as part of Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition (with an understanding that it is only kinda-sorta-official).
Edited by number9roboticopenQuestion regarding Definition Only Pages
Let's say we have a Definition-Only Pages like Hat-and-Coat Shot which states that examples should not be added to work pages. Does this also mean that we should avoid potholing the trope in example lists?
For example, would this be allowed?
- Flyaway Shot: Explanation of the example, hat and coat pothole.
If potholing is allowed, what would be the rationale behind not allowing the trope to be listed by itself?
Edited by eroockopenInappropriate No Yay quotes?
The No Yay trope is supposed to be about fictional relationships that are disgusting because of something wrong with the relationship itself (pedophilia, coercion, Unequal Pairings, rape, incest, etc.), correct? It's not for relationships that turn people off of shipping just because one or both of the participants are butt-ugly. That sounds more like Fan Disservice or Fetish Retardant.
With that said, some of the quotes on the Quotes page appear to have missed that memo…
- "This teaches us all a valuable lesson—rape is undesirable when ugly people are doing it."
That's the standout, though there were some others that also raised my eyebrows.
openHow should I include this information? Videogame
Sorry if this is confusingly worded. If this is more of a Trope Finder sort of question, please tell me so or redirect me to elsewhere more appropriate.
Context: This query is about the song “Corruption” from the Phineas & Ferb themed Friday Night Funkin’ one-shot mod of the same name.
The mod’s creator Milo008 has released a remake of the song called Corrosion V2
with significant changes to production, most notably the lyrics rewritten to be more in-character. While the remake was never officially brought into the mod, it was very well received among fans of the one-shot and was considered to be even better than the original, to the point that there were multiple unofficial fan-made charts of this song for the mod itself.
I feel that this information is important to include in the description of this mod, but I don’t know how to mention this remake in the page, or to even mention it at all since it's outside of the mod.
Please advise.
Edited by Duy03resolved Spotted a problem that's beyond my powers as an editor
I've discovered that, back in July, someone named Tropers/TMH-Sir-Iron-Vomit made an edit that deleted huge swaths of the Scary Scarecrows page, without an edit reason and seemingly without permission to make such sweeping changes.
Being a good troper, I'd ordinarily try to fix the problem myself, but there's too much gone for me to restore. What should I do?
openCan I trope my autobiography? Literature
I'd like to create a trope page for my self-published autobiography Andy's Nature: Asperger's, Obesity and the Supernatural. Would this be allowable? If so, could I link it to my You Tube channel? The channel is linked to my website, which in turn is linked to the book's Amazon page, and I understand commercial links are forbidden on TVT.
resolved Plot Hole page for Ranma 1/2? Anime
I love Ranma ½, but the series was clearly an episodic comedy that Takahashi was making it up as she goes along, and it shows, because there's quite a few times when the story doesn't make sense or contradicts itself - three major examples are how Ranma is perfectly happy to go back to China in the first 2 chapters, but Shampoo's intro reveals he left China partially to escape Shampoo; how Ranma goes from wanting to investigate potential cures in those same chapters, only for everybody to know that the Nanniichuan can cure Ranma and the other guys like him in the Instant Nanniichuan story; and of course the Instant Nanniichuan temporarily curing Ranma and Genma, but Taro being able to upgrade his curse with water from the Jusenkyo Spring of Drowned Octopus.
But... the Plot Hole page notes that it's a No Examples trope. Does that just mean no adding examples to that page, or does it mean that a Plot Hole page for Ranma 1/2 is forbidden as well?
openIs this natter or word cruft?
Several weeks ago, I made an edit to our page for The Binding of Isaac regarding which parts of the game do and don't meet the qualifications to be considered a Brutal Bonus Level… it's not exactly straightforward in this case. Specifically, this edit right here
. (I wanted to ask about it sooner, but I couldn't for… reasons.) I went pretty in-depth on how Chapter 5 does count as a Brutal Bonus Level for the first 11 or 12 playthroughs, since you have to go out of your way to go there and the game normally ends before then, but once you've formally unlocked Chapter 5, you have to go there to reach most of the game's endings that are available at that point (unless you take one of a handful of later-unlocked routes that circumvent it), and the most "basic" endings available at that point happen at Chapter 5. (Contrast this with, say, Bullet Hell in Enter the Gungeon, which always qualifies for Brutal Bonus Level because, while you can end the game there, you always have the option of ending your run at the Forge right before it or going to your character's Past instead.) However, I have some reservations about the quality of my edit… I'm not sure whether or not I went off-track into Natter or Word Cruft territory by explaining the complicated situation as thoroughly as I did. I'll share what I said and request feedback.
- Brutal Bonus Level: All of the floors past the standard ending point in Chapter 5 count as this, retaining the full-heart damage of the Womb floors while mixing in tougher enemies and obstacles. These include the Chest, the Dark Room, the Void, the Corpse, and the Ascent (plus Home).
- Chapter 5 (Sheol
and Cathedral
) itself is a downplayed case, as it actually is a bonus level before the game has been beaten 11 times (i.e. beating Mom in Chapter 3 for the first time, then clearing Chapter 4 10 times). While beating the game 11 times is the formal criterion to unlock Chapter 5, it's possible to get there before meeting that requirement by using a level skip (such as We Need To Go Deeper!) or getting into the Devil or Angel Room of Womb II. However, once Chapter 5 has been properly unlocked and the Chapter 4 endings are exhausted, Sheol and Cathedral become the standard end-point for a run that doesn't end with the player character dying. The only ways to not enter Chapter 5 on a successful run after unlocking it are to bypass it entirely by warping directly to the Dark Room via a Sacrifice Room or to get into an endgame chapter before Chapter 5 (which means either entering a portal to the Void in the Depths, Womb, or Blue Womb or getting into an endgame that branches away from the main route before Chapter 5 (i.e. Corpse
or Ascent). However, Chapter 6 and the aforementioned Void, Corpse, and Ascent do count as Brutal Bonus Levels regardless of game progression, since they all have special criteria that must be met during a run in order to enter themnote the Chest and Dark Room require Isaac to have taken the correct item (the Polaroid or the Negative, respectively) after defeating Mom and then go to the Chapter 5 that matches that item (Cathedral or Sheol, respectively); the Void requires finding its portal after defeating an endboss, Corpse requires accessing and defeating Mom's Heart in Chapter 3.5 (usually but not necessarily with the Knife Pieces from Chapters 1.5 and 2.5), and Ascent requires taking the Polaroid, Negative, or Faded Polaroid to the Strange Door in Chapter 3 and then obtaining Dad's Note in the special Chapter 3.5 accessed in this way, and not meeting any of those criteria will result in the game ending at Chapter 5.
- Chapter 5 (Sheol

An editor made an addition to the Characters/MarvelComicsSymbiotes page that's got me scratching my head—stating that when the symbiotes were first introduced "it was said only very specific people can ever bond with [them], much less form an actual partnership with them".
I consider myself a big Venom fan, but the only time I remember that being a thing is in the Venom movies.
The closest I can remember to seeing something along the lines of that statement in the comics is a narration/thought box in 1996's Venom: The Hunger where Eddie Brock muses that symbiotes didn't evolve to be bonded to humans, and that whatever host they did evolve to naturally bond to would have supplied them with the phenethylamine levels they need to survive... but that was retconned a long time ago—even before Donny Cates introduced Knull.
I was equally curious and confused, so I did some digging to see if I could find anything, but all I've come up with are several instances where that's is shown not to be the case—even early on:
Am I missing something? I will admit it's possible—I haven't read every single Venom-related comic (yet) and it's been a long time since I've read some of them. But if this ever was said to be a thing in the comics, it both contradicts the earlier lore (what little there was, at least) and is completely ignored by the later lore—which wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened at Marvel.
Edited by Arawn999