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:
openShiver (2017) not showing up in searches
I don't know what's going on, but Shiver (2017) won't show up when searched for. Related pages will show up, but not the page itself.
openDisagreement about the Awesome/BobChipman page, don't want to risk an Edit War Web Original
Not too long ago, a troper called 309216364 (is that the ID of an already-banned troper or something?) deleted the single biggest entry on this page, about Bob's massive "Really That Bad" video series on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which I will post here:
- During Part 1 of his Really That Bad analysis of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bob makes a comparison between the narrative structures of The Avengers (2012) and Batman V. Superman stripped of all but their most basic elements that underlines one of the main reasons the former succeeded where the latter failed: Avengers is straightforward, easy to understand and can be enjoyed without prior knowledge of the source comics or the preceding films because it doesn't lean on them to work as a narrative with its single Sequel Hook a post-credits shot of the Greater-Scope Villain, while BvS is a disjointed, convoluted mess that doesn't follow an understandable through-line narrative, paradoxically wants to differentiate itself from the source comics yet relies heavily on them for most of its emotional weight to carry and desperately tries to set up future films through gratuitous in-universe viewings of preview trailers. And he does all of this while giving every person or object with enough plot relevance a funny nickname, with plenty of Actor Allusions and character comparisons to go around.
- The entirety of his "Batman V. Superman" Really That Bad analysis. Chipman delivers his critique in a mature respectful tone, without insulting the filmmakers personally, and goes into detail acknowledging and addressing common arguments in defense of the film.
- Two of the best things he does is to effectively and succinctly fix the movie's greatest problems.
- The first being the 'Diana/Wonder Woman watching the teaser trailer for the Justice League scene', wherein Bob proposes letting Batman, the normal human who is discovering a lot of this new information for the first time, and whose perspective the audience has been following the entire movie, be the one to discover the existence of more metahumans. This not only gives the scene greater suspense and dramatic weight and a greater impetus for Batman to fight a perceived threat like Superman, it also gives a fantastic reason why Diana never showed up for a hundred years and was breaking into Lex Luthor's drives: She was helping cover up the existence of metahumans (and her secretive race) from people like Luthor.
- The second is the entire 'conflict' of the movie being forced and contrived and way too repetitive by the time the two people in the 'V' actually get down to versus-ing each other. Bob fixes the movie without any drastic overhaul or extensive retooling with two simple words: No Batman. The plot remains the same, with all the conspiratorial machinations and the populace distrusting Superman kept intact, but transfer all of Batman's actions and motivations to Luthor, thereby making Luthor a sympathetic, justified, heroic counterpoint to the detached, reluctant, destructive Superman, which would have greater thematic resonance and streamline the plot. For an added bonus, Bob suggests keeping Ben Affleck, with all his likability and charisma and on-the-ground heroism, as Luthor, which would provide even greater metanarrative implications and make the plot more compelling.
- To make what can only be described as a near definitive 3-part, four hour critique about Dawn of Justice, all the while maintaining his normal work responsibilities, is a feat of dedication that can only really be described as impressive.
As well as forgetting to delete the next paragraph that followed on from that (an observation about Bob possibly doing a "Really That Good" series on The Lord of the Rings) and leaving it orphaned, his reason for deleting the entire segment basically came down to "I don't think it's awesome and I don't like Bob". His cited reason from the History page:
Apart from the fact that this reason for removing the entry is entirely subjective (I thought "Really That Bad" was awesome, and I'm not even the one who wrote the original entry), it's also blatantly incorrect- there are several segments in Bob's series where he goes out of his way to be fair to the film and admit the things it did well and the ways it could have worked (even though it didn't), so the troper's claim that "he is entirely biased against the film in all aspects" suggests he edited it solely because of He Panned It Now He Sucks.
I could have just restored the edit myself, but I'm quite certain the guy will just delete it again, triggering an edit war situation. And since the last time I got close to an edit war I nearly got myself permanently banned, I'm not even going to get close to the possibility of it happening again. So I'm hoping there's some way to get a 3rd party judgement on this?
Edited by ArcaneAzmadiopenPointy-Haired Boss / Clueless Boss Overlap
Whilst working on a Character Sheet Sandbox and looking for tropes to add, I saw Clueless Boss linked at the bottom of the description for Pointy-Haired Boss.
Now, from my understanding, these tropes are quite different:
- Pointy-Haired Boss can be good or bad, uncaring, inexperienced, overtaxed or out of their depth, but always incompetent at the position they hold.
- Clueless Boss is merely unaware (or, well, clueless) of what his subordinates are doing, ordering others to do in his name, or scheming behind his back.
Except, on the Clueless Boss page, I found this example:
- Many, many examples on Not Always Working. For example:
- One story tells of a video game store boss who discontinued the store's biggest draw (customers being allowed to play the games before they bought them) because he didn't want parents dropping off their children while they shopped. After this costs them half their business, he fires half the staff and discontinues the weekly game tournaments which another employee points out brings in more money than any other day. He also discontinues new game sales and trade-ins and holds off on ordering new parts for old console repairs. Since the story's submitter relies on commission for older console repairs, he quits since he isn't receiving a paycheck. He also notes that the store went out of business a few weeks later.
Now, if my understanding is correct, shouldn't this be on Pointy-Haired Boss? Generally speaking, I think the tropes might accidentally overlap, or the first trope might have a non-indicative or non-intuitive name that might lead to these kind of mistakes. Not everyone knows of Dilbert, and the Trope Namer embodies several negative qualities whilst the trope itself has expanded to include incompetent leaders of all types.
Any thoughts?
Edited by GearFriedTheKnightresolved Question about pages of works that you authored.
I have written a book, it is currently in the process of being published.
Once it is published, there are the guidelines of The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours.
But one thing in particular struck me as odd about that policy: specifically, the trivia section:
"You may not add any examples marked as Trivia that contain information not known to the general public"
What exactly does this mean? That I need to write about it somewhere first before being allowed to put it on Tv Tropes? I do not have a public online presence, I am not a professional author, but I am here, a troper. By definition I am one of you. Would Tv Tropes itself not count as being "known to the general public"? Or do I have to make a twitter account that no one follows, write it there, and then link to it when writing a trivia entry?
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 CanuckMcDuck1resolved New Crowner - troping Reality Show contestants
A new Crowner has been created to resolve some queries about the way we trope Reality Show contestants as 'characters'.
As per Real Life Troping, it's acknowledged that these shows deliberately blur fact and fiction, and that examples must be "written in the context of the work, not describing the people with lives outside of it".
With that in mind, we have two proposals on the current Crowner:
- Breakout Character should only apply to someone who acquires a much larger role within the same reality show or its wider Series Franchise, not someone who uses a Reality Show appearance to launch or boost a much wider media career.
- As audience reaction tropes such as The Scrappy and Base-Breaking Character can be a mix of in-show behaviour and reaction to a contestant's real life (e.g. their social media presence and/or tabloid headlines), they should only be listed for Reality Show contestants if acknowledged within the work itself.
Please comment or vote here
resolved Vocabulary Conflict Anime
A little while ago now, Dentaku made this edit
on YMMV.Bocchi The Rock for the LGBT Fanbase example.
All instances of "Sapphic" were replaced with "Lesbian", saying the former is an "old-fashioned" form of the latter. I reverted the change with the reason that Sapphic is actually an umbrella term for any woman who loves woman (which does include lesbians, but also labels like bisexual, demi, etc.)
And then just today, someone reverted it again with no edit reason.
Edited by IkeaHanresolved Should this be TRS'd: AmericaWonWorldWarII Web Original
The trope description meanders along far too many tangents to what should be a description of the trope in fiction itself...feels like most of this should be moved to an Analysis page?
Edited by DarthWalrusopen Curly apostrophes
This issue has been going on for sometime now. Many tropers, including myself, use iPads as well as Windows. Curly apostrophes (’) are the default on iPads, instead of the industry standard straight apostrophes (') aka 'typewriter apostrophe', we're all accustomed to.
I find it visually irksome and distracting to read through a lengthy page, where the unicode character marks suddenly keep switching back and forth between curly and straight. Its an unrealistic expectation to ask iPad tropers via messaging to turn off "Smart Punctuation" under general keyboard settings.
With the site recently converting all data to UTF 8, is there a way to force straight apostrophes (U+0027) here by default?
openMichael Eisner's Creator Page
Last month, Tylerbear 12 made a case
for Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg to not have Creator pages under the pretense that they're merely CEOs rather than creators. While I agree with their argument for Katzenberg to not have a page, I'd like to make a counter in regards to Eisner, as he's published three separate nonfiction books during and after his tenure at Disney, was the host of his own talk show entitled Conversations with Michael Eisner, and after his ousting from Disney, he created his own show in the form of Glenn Martin, DDS, which he self-funded.
openWhich examples are necessary and which examples aren’t?
- Brian Griffin has a nasty tendency to be a huge hypocrite.
- He claims he likes women for their personalities, though he only seeks short-term relationships with attractive yet unintelligent women.
- He frequently voices his strong liberal opinions, yet never acts on any of them.
- In "Dial Meg For Murder" he voices his opinion that the prison system has turned the innocent Meg into a hardened criminal, but it's obvious that nobody, including him, went to visit her during the three months she was in prison.
- He fights for animal rights, but is willing to kill cats and squirrels.
- He tends to be critical of or insult Meg yet usually does nothing to help her and is the only member of the Griffin family he goes out of his way to ignore, which Meg herself calls him out on in "Family Cat".
- In "Quagmire's Mom", he calls out Quagmire for blaming all his problems on his mother. This is coming from someone who refuses to accept his own failings in both his romantic and literary pursuits, constantly blaming others for them.
- He claims to want "true love" and a woman he can spend the rest of his life with. Despite this, several episodes (such as "Movin' Out: Brian's Song" and "Brian's got a Brand New Bag") show that Brian has some serious commitment issues. Stewie actually calls him out on this in "Married... With Cancer", pointing out that he's really just a "selfish horndog".
- In "The Finer Strings", he initally takes Lois volunteering him as Carter's temporary guide dog badly, claiming to hate the "one-percenter" attitude Carter has. But after getting a taste of the good life, he quickly embraces it, and becomes unwilling to let it go when Carter no longer needs him.
- In "Be Careful What You Fish For", he calls the cops on Stewie's neglectful daycare teacher, despite the fact he willingly ignored Stewie's suffering while he tried to score a date with her.
- In "Pal Stewie", he was jealous over Stewie getting a friend his own age, to the point where he hid a birthday party invitation from him. But after Stewie reaffirmed his friendship with him, Brian admitted he didn't have any big friendship plans in mind, rather than watching TV like usual (leading Stewie to call him out for his actions).
- In "Boy (Dog) Meets Girl (Dog)", Brian was desperate to win the dog show just so he could breed with Ellie, yet in "Brian: Portrait of a Dog", he refused to do dog tricks in another dog show, even though the prize money could have bought the family a new air conditioner, which they needed.
- In "Family Guy Lite", he had no problem using what he read in what he thought was a list of qualities Lois wanted in her ideal man to try and seduce her into cheating on Peter. But when it looked like she was having an affair with someone else, he begged her not to do it, claiming she would be betraying Peter.
- In "Brian & Stewie", it is a well-established fact that Brian is a left-wing gun-grabbing liberal stereotype, Stewie questions why Brian keeps a gun in his safety deposit-box and Brian admits to having it in case he ever contemplates suicide. This is extremely hypocritical of Brian because he believes in strict gun-control laws, which includes restrictions that do not allow the mentally ill or people who are a major risk for self-harm or suicide to possess firearms, which would include Brian himself. This is essentially a continuation of Brian's most common hypocritical trait of not following laws, morals, rules, or policies that he would enforce on others.
- In "Peterminator", he accuses Stewie of being in love with himself. Brian himself is a major Narcissist, to the point of sleeping with the robot double of himself in "Bri, Robot".
- In "Short Cuts". While ranting over being kicked out of Mort's pharmacy just for being a dog, he claims it's discrimination, comparing it to what happened with "those blacks" at the Starbucks. Stewie is noticeably unnerved by Brian's choice of words.
- In "Play it Again, Brian," he talks about how Peter doesn't deserve Lois (due to Peter paying Lois back with selfishness and neglect despite Lois being so giving towards him). While what Brian said was true, you have to remember that Brian had some good ex girlfriends that he didn't deserve either due to faults of his own (with Rita being a good example).
openIndex: Different namespace, same work name
If we have to coincidentally three works with the same title but different namespace in a single index all together, it can result in somewhat confusing look.
For example in Cute Girls Doing Cute Things you can see the index has "Love Live!" (in exact name) listed three times - the first-level bullet is under Franchise namespace, then the second-level bullet wick is under the Anime namespace, and the third-level one is under the Manga namespace. However, they all are displayed as "Love Live!", which can make it look a little bit confusing at first sight, if not for the fact you can highlight over them and reveal where the link redirects to.
Is it better to keep these alone, or would it be fine for me to suggest to put them with text labels in brackets to indicate the Franchise, the eponymous Anime in it and then the Manga adaptation of the Anime itself?
Edited by JustNormalMusicLoverresolved JDF-related Harsher In Hindsight example
On YMMV.Kyoryu Sentai Zyuranger, IncredibleFulk1 added
this example under Harsher in Hindsight, in light of the at-the-time passing of Jason David Frank, who played Burai's counterpart Tommy Oliver. The example was later deleted
by Anicomicgeek with an edit reason of "As tragic as Frank's passing was, death it-and-of itself doesn't count." However, another example related to Frank's death was added by Donnatemple on May 24th, 2023, under different wording:
- The fact that Tommy Oliver, Burai's occidental counterpart, is Spared By Adaptation and became a Composite Character of five rangers, became this with the death of Jason David Frank.
Unlike the previous example, this one flew under the radar for at least eight months, with no-one questioning if this example should count as being Harsher in Hindsight. Even if it was a case of that trope, it falls flat because neither Burai or JDF's deaths have anything in common (the former had a time limit that would put his life on the line; the latter due to personal and health issues that culminated in his demise via suicide). I would understand if it was Burai's actor, Shiro Izumi, who died and not his Western counterpart, but even then I doubt it would be from living on borrowed times. The only connection I could find is Izumi voicing his condolences to JDF
, but it wasn't related to either show. Any thoughts?
(and yes I don't know much about Zyuranger so I think I might have gotten Burai's death wrong)
Edited by ToonAbbyresolved Is this comment contradictory?
So I was editing Inside Out and came across this comment below a obvious ZCE for All-CGI Cartoon stating: "The above trope's page says it allows zero-context examples since the title is self-explanatory. So, please, don't comment it out." Site policy demands that ZCEs should be commented out or have added context. This appears to have been added
by Asterlix last year. I did check the page for All-CGI Cartoon and found no notice at all supporting this. Is this the troper trying to get away with adding ZCEs by making up their own rules?
openNamespace button order
Namespace subpages are sorted alphabetically as far as I know.
So why is Visual Novel positioned after YMMV?
Edited by sohibilresolved Just here to troll
Oscar Baiter only seems to be here just to make unproductive edits, as their edit history
shows them making unilateral edits to only a few pages thus far, almost to the point where they blanked the pages.
I don't want to revert the pages myself, as I don't want to start an edit war.
Edited by YuriHaru567resolved Edit war prevention for a problematic edit Film
madorosh removed
this example from Lady Ballers
- Broken Aesop: While a common conservative justification for the type of transphobia seen in Lady Ballers is to protect women's spaces, the film also promotes the idea that women are always physically inferior to men including at sports, which is both misogynistic and condescending and undermines the alleged "pro-woman" bent.
with the edit reason: "doesn't make sense, the characters in the film mention the biological fact that men have specific advantages over women, which in general is true. Not sure what 'transphobia' is being displayed - everything in the film is played for laughs"
I don't wanna cause an edit war, but the example was valid. The film tries to present itself as pro-women but the film very much plays on the supposed belief that men, even the weakest men apparently who are out of shape and washed out and haven't exercised in years, are more physically abled and skilled at sports than the most trained female athletes. Which very much does go against the film's supposed "feminist" message.
Again, I want to cause no edit war so I brought it here.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2openAbout PlayingTheirOwnTwin
Hello. Not too long ago, the Talking To Himself trope was disambiguated and some of the examples that were on the page were moved to other tropes like Acting for Two and so on.
Given that, I have a general question about the Playing Their Own Twin trope: Should we include examples from animated works (i.e. films, TV shows) or keep those examples under the Acting for Two trope?
Edited by gjjonesopenQuestion about a couple of Square Peg, Round Trope entries
I was unsure where exactly to ask this since a) it's something I'm unsure of but isn't exactly a trope example, and b) isn't something I want to do immediately regardless, so I'm taking it here.
I came across a couple SPRT entries about a month ago that I've been ruminating on, one that was added in 2011
and the other in 2019
, which respectively (in their current forms) are:
- Fridge Brilliance isn't "My favorite show is awesome and makes no mistakes". All series have plot holes and issues, even if insignificant, and trying to deny it with an "I Can Explain" won't change this. That'll just lead to invokedFan Dumb. A lot of people don't understand the line between Fridge Brilliance and Wild Mass Guessing. Fridge Brilliance is "Oh, X is Y because Z", Wild Mass Guessing is "Why is X Y?"
- Amazingly enough, the word Trope itself has undergone severe Trope Decay on this site. A trope is something that's objectively a part of the work. Audience Reactions and Trivia are specifically stated on these pages to not be tropes, since they occur either in the work's audience or other external materials, not the work itself. Despite this, it's hard to find a page for an Audience Reaction or Trivia item that DOESN'T refer to itself as a Trope (they even all have “trope” as the page type in the sidebar), and the YMMV and Trivia subpages for most works contain examples that say "This trope happens" or something similar. Even this very page, supposedly dedicated to correcting misused terminology, contains examples describing Audience Reactions and Trivia as "tropes"! And Playing with a Trope is something that can only be done to actual Tropes since Audience Reactions are very rarely "played" in the first place, so most examples on a YMMV page that are "Subverted" or "Downplayed" are inherently misuse.
The FB entry was originally natter according to the archive, but I don't necessarily think the phrasing/restructuring of the phrasing is related to the actual problem I'm personally seeing — that being that this sounds like its discussing another Audience Reaction entirely. Sacred Cow was the first thing that came to my mind, but that's not really speculation-related; the only thing I can gauge from the entry is that it's common for tropers to ask a question in the context of FB (like "X, perhaps?"), but I can't say that I've ever seen people use FB to justify plot holes. Mainly this entry is just really unclear.
The Trope entry...is a bit more complicated. I'm too lazy to fetch the exact archive dates now, but Subjective Tropes and (I think) Trivia Tropes used to be a thing for quite a while, before it was decided that neither were actually tropes. That aside, the page for the former says, and I quote, "this used to be the name for YMMV, tropes that objectively exist, but whose examples are subjective", something that the entry either ignores entirely, is simply written without the knowledge of, or is misinterpreted. The part about the sidebar was added a bit earlier this year, which I don't think is necessarily a bad addition—especially since the rest of the entry (particularly the last couple of sentences) are pretty complainy—but it makes the entry sound contradictory, even if it doesn't really "prove" anything one way or the other. "Inherently misuse" also sounds like Word Cruft.
So what should we do with these? Should they stay on the page or nah? Curious about what others think. Edited by Coachpill

I'm not a fan of Rooster Teeth or Achievement Hunter, but the Tear Jerker page for the latter work contains a lot of real-life examples that covers the personal issues or departures of its members, despite Tear Jerker itself prohibiting real-life examples on its work pages unless scripted (assuming that scripted RL examples are allowed in the first place). The example I want to bring up is the firing of Ryan Haywood.
As someone who knew Haywood AFTER the news broke out, and was more of a fan of RT's animated content than their Let's Plays, I didn't really have much of an attachment to Ryan as his former fans were. However, as serious and heartbreaking as the whole event is, I feel like this violates the No Real Life Examples, Please! policy by virtue of not only doing a breakdown of an unscripted event (the heartbroken reactions of Ryan's coworkers, the removing of Haywood's contributions to RT, Jack desperately trying to take of his wife in light of the incident) that had nothing to do with the LP's themselves outside of making Ryan's Comedic Sociopathy in those videos retroactively abhorrent and discomforting, but also having examples that skew uncomfortably to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement territory (such as bringing up his family getting the brunt of online harassment after the news broke). And yet somehow this example managed to stay on that page for three years without anyone questioning if it should be allowed on there in the first place. It's like putting the widespread condemnation of Elliot Gindi after his misconduct allegations came to light on Genshin Impact's Tear Jerker page despite the controversy having no affect on the story itself.
I remember someone on the "Moments" thread mentioning that RL examples should be allowed on Tear Jerker pages for Let's Plays, but I'm not sure if they changed their mind on that idea or not. What should be done of this?
EDIT: Fixed grammar and spelling mistakes.
Edited by ToonAbby