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 Low quality edits - formatting & English
I guess I'll be the rat and I hate to do this (since I share the struggle), but it's just tiresome at this point.
Troper kruczak has zero regard for the English grammar and spelling. For months now, I've been carefully cleaning up his mess whenever I've stumbled into it, especially in works from the Polish Media index (since that's where we are both usually active, for obvious reasons). But after nearly two years of this, I'm absolutely done.
This isn't even that he's making mistakes. It's the scale and level of them, where he can't even be bothered to first check in a preview mode if his entries display properly (or notice there are red links or the formatting is off after posting). So "naturally" stuff like doing the spellcheck or fixing the grammar is off the menu. And it's almost always a one-and-done type of deal, with no attempt to fix things later, revisit or anything like that.
I get it with some of his mistakes. Polish doesn't have articles of any kind, so it's pure abstraction trying to grasp the English ones. But for Christ's sake, we reached the technological point where the browser itself is going to pick up half of the slack by itself, highlighting mistakes, and there are dozens upon dozens of grammar autocorrect tools readily available (guilty as charged for always double-checking with those and I'm still unsure most of the time). There is literally no excuse to keep making the same basic mistakes that a mid-schooler would know better than to make.
So pretty please, do something with this guy, for I'm done being his editor or covering for him.
A sample of his most recent edits, but they are all
like this:
(No, I can't PM here, I'm banned from using PMs, someone else will have to do that)
Edited by TropiarzopenSelf published works.
I'm looking for a list of works the authors published themselves, not the publishing houses.
Like will wight for example, who created the cradle series. The books are created by "hidden gnome publishing". But it's him.
The reason I'm asking this is, when the final version of the books, or video games, comics, etc. comes out is undergoing several edits made not necessarily according to the author's wishes, so I'm interested on what he's published by himself.
resolved Another troper with a wonk against a character.
Reddish Guy 1 seems to have a wonk against character Lizel from Kamen Rider Gavv:
- They first added an entry in the Tear Jerker section of the show claiming that "The vast majority of Rider fans seem to have a very easy time not feeling pity for Lizel."
When I reverted it back to what it was since YMMV is still subjective, they removed it again on the basis that it is "not objective"
.
- They replaced this more neutral entry with this
— and particularly the part "the episode is supposed to" makes it feel like a jab against the episode itself.
- Now they're trying to insert
a Karma Houdini entry for her despite it being previously deleted on the basis that the Laser-Guided Karma trope exists in her character page.
openPractically Joker - will it ever be a trope again?
So is Practically Joker ever going to be an actual trope again, or is it just going to be disambiguation? I know it was in the Trope Repair Shop (I forget if that's the actual name of the thing) for a while, but there are definitely enough examples of Joker-adjacent characters in multiple media types to have it be a trope.
I think the problem with the page as it was before it got pared down to a Disambiguation page was that examples weren't sorted by how close they skewed to the three main factors of what makes the Joker the Joker: the look (or something close to it), the personality (or one that's very similar) and the motivation (or a close approximation thereof). I think sorting examples by that method, or a combination thereof, would help to clarify that it's a trope in and of itself.
openComment Markups
It's related to a query I made a month earlier, but I decided to undo a certain troper's "un-alphebitazion" of pages they edited. (Is it actually allowed to undo them by myself?)
Anyway, my actual concerns are the markups themselves. Is there a certain order they are arranged, or the billing doesn't actually matter?
openAre YMMV entries relating to leaks that have since been officially released allowed?
I was thinking of writing a Ships That Pass in the Night example for a ship that spawned from a leaked image, from a story that is now officially released in which the two characters being shipped do not interact in the story. By the rules around leaks, would it be okay to bring up that the ship started because of a leak? I think it would be somewhat important to add that piece of info, but it's not crucial to the example.
Ideas of what I'd write:
Mentioning the leak:
YMMV.Cookie Run Kingdom - Ships That Pass in the Night - Doughael and Pure Vanilla Cookie. Before the Premonition of Doom story was released, a cutscene leaked that had a brief scene of Doughael and Pure Vanilla Cookie (as Healer Cookie) in the desert together. This immediately caused many fans to start shipping the two characters together and comparing the ship to other Pure Vanilla Cookie ships. Upon the release of the update, the two characters had no direct interaction. Healer Cookie himself is only shown in the aforementioned brief scene, having no dialogue or other appearance in the story.
Without mentioning the leak:
YMMV.Cookie Run Kingdom - Ships That Pass in the Night - Doughael and Pure Vanilla Cookie. In the ending cutscene of the Premonition of Doom story, there is a brief scene that shows Pure Vanilla Cookie (as Healer Cookie) and Doughael standing alongside each other in the desert. Despite Pure Vanilla Cookie not making another appearance in the story and having no dialogue in it, this caused fans to start shipping the two characters and comparing the ship to other Pure Vanilla Cookie ships.
openIs the Oxford comma mandatory here?
Being a native German speaker, my edits tend to invite corrections when I don't pay enough attention, as the german language uses more commata between sentence parts than the english one. I try my best, to avoid cases, where it becomes so visibly excessive, that the sentence feels scattered in English.
The one place, where I feel a comma does definitely not belong, but where I get some edited in frequently, is the so-called Oxford comma in listings. I suppose, automatic spell checkers are geared to include it by default. Without wanting to start a debate (or even flame war), that has likely been exercised fruitlessly countless times among linguists, it just feels completely out of place to me.
Many work titles, from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly to Ed, Edd n Eddy forego it as well.
So, yeah... am I expected to include those things here, or are they considered a volountary linguistic element?
openBest forum thread to discuss on cleanup for Take That!
I'd like to bring up an issue regarding a recent removal
of a Take That! example by Big Bad Shadow 25 under the reason of "Cutting complaining/gushing". It was discussed in the work's corresponding media thread
, but it just involved BigBadShadow and another troper who agreed with them about removing the entry, which I think isn't enough discussion on what should've been done about entries for tropes like Take That! (especially because other tropers, myself included, could also prefer re-writing the entry).
Problem is, I can't find a forum thread specifically dedicated for cleanup of Take That! entries. Can someone please tell me where would be the best thread to discuss the issue I'd like to bring up? (including the possibility of starting a short-term cleanup thread for Knights of Guinevere)
Edited by Inky100resolved Need help parsing "Crippling Overspecialization" Entries
This morning, a new user, ~amybranch posted a handful of Crippling Overspecialization entries on Characters.Dungeons And Dragons Classes Fifth Edition Classes, describing a few classes (namely the Barbarian and Monk) as suffering from this. I disputed them because to me, their descriptions seemed very misleading and off-base for what qualifies as Crippling Overspecialization: they're focused entirely on having nerfs between the 2024 and 2014 rules while ignoring their side buffs, as well as their holistic design — they're painted as "only" good as combat classes in ideal combat scenarios despite that being kind of the intent of their design.
I removed most of the entries
because these examples didn't illustrate being "crippling" or even "overspecialized" to the degree that the trope warrants, but they were added back just now
with this edit reason:
That doesn't sound right, right? I don't think a character being as equally weak to certain types of damage as other charactersRef."2024 Barbarians are resilient against enemies that only deal bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, and especially vulnerable to anything else." constitutes "crippling", or that a class explicitly about specializing in a particular form of combat is "overspecialization"Ref.While describing the Bare-Fisted Monk class, "The result is a class that's good at running up to enemies and punching them...and very bad at anything else.". The fact these character are — anecdotally speaking from my experiences in the community — generally seen as pretty strong, makes me really have to tilt my head as to where this is coming from, and so I'd like some extra eyes here to help judge these examples.
Edited by number9roboticopenTypepad shutting down; how to set up a project to deal with typepad links?
Typepad, a blogging service, is shutting down in a month. https://everything.typepad.com/blog/2025/08/typepad-is-shutting-down.html
I searched for 'typepad' and found that 42 pages seem to have Typepad links, which are going to all go dead in a month. So those links need to be archived or some such so we can maintain access to the content. But I don't have the time to do it all myself.
How do I go about setting up a project on the forums for this? Is there a 'dealing with external links' projects or page that I should post on?
resolved Does this part of a Pop-Culture Isolation example really qualify? Live Action TV
On YMMV.Squid Game, 8BrickMario
recently added
the following bolded sentence to the page's Pop-Culture Isolation example:
- Pop-Culture Isolation: The reason the reveal in "Front Man" that the Front Man is Jun-ho's missing brother In-ho was more shocking to Korean audiences but kind of got lost in translation internationally is because the Front Man's actor – Lee Byung-hun – is one of the top A-list megastars of all of South Korean cinema, and whose film Inside Men was explicitly referenced earlier in the series by Ji-yeong in the past episode "Gganbu", even mentioning Lee by name. While Lee has also played roles in Western cinema before Squid Game, most notably Storm Shadow in the G.I. Joe film series, neither Lee himself nor the use of Celebrity Paradox via passing dialogue are anywhere near as popular in Western media. From a Western perspective, imagine if a player sarcastically referred to the games as "our mission, should we choose to accept it", only for it to turn out that the mysterious leader of the masked guards is portrayed by Tom Cruise. Perhaps recognizing that Lee Byung-hun's reveal didn't hit as much outside of Korea, the show does pull off a similar casting effect for Western audiences by Season 3, where we see an American games recruiter played by Cate Blanchett!
The issue is that this added sentence was apparently to mention how the series "corrected" the pop culture issue with another big-name actor, but I don't really get how it can parallel to the issue of Western audiences not regarding Lee Byung-hun as much as Cate Blanchett, since the latter's character is someone who appears only once (unlike the former's major role) and didn't first appear masked before then having their face visible to amaze audiences at the actor, nor is there any mention or reference to said actor and/or their other roles beforehand.
I'm wondering, could this added sentence feel too redundant for what the example is referring to? What are your thoughts?
Sent a PM to 8BrickMario so they can be aware of this query, by the way.
Edited by Inky100openDMOS entries Videogame
On the Video Games page, there is the following entries:
- Five Nights at Freddy's:
- Dr Y 9 K: Five Nights at Freddy's: Sister Location and its stupid twist in the end. Before I go on, let me just say that for the most part, I found Sister Location rather disappointing. I was disappointed with the gameplay, the lack of cameras save for the Private Room, Ennard's canon design, and I was especially disappointed with the non-canon Custom Night. The only redeeming quality for the game was the animatronics themselves. But even that didn't last long. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you what may be the series' worst twist possible: the identity of Springtrap. For almost two years, we were led to believe he was actually William Afton, the series Big Bad, dead and revived. But then the creator released a cutscene, that pretty much confirmed he was actually Michael Afton, William Afton's son. What? You mean to tell me that Springtrap is not the Creepy Awesome Robotic Psychopath I thought he was, but yet another innocent(?) soul? That was terrible! That was the worst, most character-derailing Ass Pull I had ever seen! It made me permanently disown the series and stop liking it! For so long, Springtrap had been one of my favorite animatronics, since I always saw him as the only legitimately "evil" animatronic. Now I can't look at him or enjoy him the same way anymore. The creator said he wanted Springtrap to return, and so did I, for a while. But now? I want nothing to do with him, or this age-old series.
- batmany: I was really looking forward to the release of Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator (AKA FNAF 6) in the hopes it would finally wrap up some of the numerous plot twists and mysteries of the franchise. Well, the game was released earlier this week and....well, it makes absolutely no sense. The reason why is because it utterly contradicts everything established in previous games. The ghostly children being freed in FNAF 3? Nope, they're now possessing Molten Freddy! How? When? At no point (apart from Baby) were any of the Funtime Animatronics ever haunted by ghosts. Remember in Sister Location how Baby didn't like being created for murder and wanted to be free? Remember how Elizabeth (William's Daughter) was an innocent victim of a tragic accident? Now she's daddy's little killer! Why? There was absolutely no indication that either had any interest in murder. And, speaking of Sister Location, now William Afton is Springtrap instead of his son Michael. Nevermind the fact that the Custom Night in SL strongly hinted that Michael was Springtrap and that the Freddy Files guide book even stated that this idea was entirely plausable. Speaking of Michael, he dies in this game by sacrificing himself in a fire with the other Animatronics. Apparently Scott forgot or is completely ignoring that Michael is cursed with immortality. Also, Springtrap survived a fire before so why would this one be any different? William Afton has gone from a evil genius serial killer who lurks behind the scenes to what can best be described as a poor man's version of The Joker. Fazbear Corporate went from being an incompetent if well-meaning company with some questionable business practices to a blatantly over-the-top corrupt one with no regards to safety whatsoever. I could go on and on about how this game did a piss-poor way of explaining things. I feel Scott was more concerned with trying to appease fans who were not happy with Sister Location's plot twists and haphazardly trying to wrap everything up in a neat little bow. Scott, please, if you ever make another FNAF game, give me "Miketrap" and "Freakshow Baby" and retcon this mess of a game out of existence.
- DukeNukem4ever: Mine would be the fact that the mystery of the Bite of '87 and existence of Shadow animatronics went completely unexplained. Since this is (currently) the Grand Finale, I was expecting these things to become finally clear. But no, once again we have to draw suggestions what exactly happened back then. The creator pulled this trick back in Five Nights at Freddy's 4, and now he did it again. As much as I respect Scott Cawthon, I sometimes can't understand his logic. And apparently I am not the only one to think so.
Duke's entry is fine to stay, but there are problems with the other two:
- DrY9K's entry is based on the complete misunderstanding that Springtrap is Michael, when Scott Cawthon has gone on record to say this was never the intention and that the SL Custom Night cutscene was misunderstood by the fandom.
- The boldened part of Batmany's entry is also about Miketrap, which was already explained above. It also questions as to why fire could kill Mike and William, when the game itself explains that fire is the weakness that gets rid of their immortality (Remnant).
As "Correcting factually incorrect information about the work" is a justified reason to edit another user's DMOS entry, should Dr's entry and the boldened part of Batmany's entry both be deleted?
resolved YMMV/LindsayEllis
This is something that I think will require the attention of mods or those who have access to the records of such, but I'm noticing that YMMV.Lindsay Ellis seems to be an active page again, being launched in March 2025, after it was previously cut. The last archived instance on the Wayback Machine from before it was cut was December 2023
; why was the page cut to begin with if it's just going to be around again? Should it stay, or should it leave? Because based on what I'm seeing on both instances of the page do seem like they warrant existing (they're largely referring to discussing Lindsay Ellis' video essays rather than she herself as a creator).
openApplication of Administrvia.RealLifeTroping to non-fictional works
Earlier today, I noticed the existence of Manga.My Brain Is Different Stories Of ADHD And Other Developmental Disorders, and, having read a bit of the work (I still have a copy of it), I'm not sure if this work is tropable or not in light of Administrivia.Real Life Troping.
The issue is, this work appears to me as a collection of several people's autobiographical experiences with developmental disorders (including the author herself), and is usually classified as nonfiction in bookstores (for example, Barnes & Noble
). However, since the subjects are just otherwise mundane Japanese, I have no way of knowing how much of these stories were real, and how much was dramatized.
Is this work still tropable, may I ask? The standard in Administrivia.Real Life Troping is not very clear to me.
EDIT: Added Barnes & Noble link to showcase the "classified as nonfiction in bookstores" part. Edited by SamCurt
resolved Foreign Remake - Same Roles, Same Characters? Live Action TV
I made a page for Marry My Husband: Japan, which is a Foreign Remake of Marry My Husband set in Japan instead of South Korea (itself a live-action adaptation of the original webcomic) made by the same studio behind the first series.
Since the characters are obviously different people such as the protagonist Misa Kanbe having the same role as Kang Ji-won, would certain character tropes apply to the equivalent roles if they're unambiguously meant to be the same? For example:
- Adaptational Villainy: In the original webcomic and series, Min-hwan's mother Kim Ja-ok is abusive and overexpectant of Ji-won at worst, while her Japan equivalent Hirano Masako not only openly mocks the late Misa at her funeral for supposedly committing suicide, but was willing to help her son Tomoya commit fraud by using her job at Misa's insurance firm to illegally change her life insurance beneficiary to Tomoya instead of Misa's grandmother.
openHow can I add an alternative linkable title for a work? Literature
Specifically, the Scum Villain's Self-Saving System. Right now I can only link to it by typing out the full whopping The Scum Villain's Self-Saving System: Ren Zha Fanpai Zijiu Xitong which is just kind of silly!!!! The Scum Villains Self Saving System is already long enough and should work just as well.
openThe Definition of "Salvaged Story"
According to the Laconic page, it's "A poorly-received story or aspect is recontextualized to fix its issues, while still keeping it canon." But I keep seeing it be misused as a way to include a Author's Saving Throw example without the citation.
Like this example in YMMV.Like A Dragon Pirate Yakuza In Hawaii:
- Salvaged Story: Bryce Fairchild, considered an underwhelming villain in Infinite Wealth, is given a fair bit of backstory in this game and remains a consistent Greater-Scope Villain owing to his actions in the previous game having lasting ramifications here well after his arrest. All while not even being present at any point in this game.
Nothing was retconned here. This is just a poorly-received character from the previous game getting more fleshed out in this game without recontextualizing anything about him or his actions.
This is just the most recent example I've seen. Am I just misunderstanding the trope myself or should something be done to clear up any confusion about what counts as a Salvaged Story?
Edited by Sugarp1e1

On Acceptable Feminine Goals and Traits, user ~SimonTrope removed a wick to The Hero in an example/explanation, saying that the trope is being dewicked
.
I put it back
because in the header on the cleanup thread, it says
" While The Hero no longer allows examples itself, references to the term in the text of other examples are fine." (my emphasis). The page has—had—The Hero as a reference to the term in a wick.
It's been removed again
by SimonTrope who stated that "According to cleanup thread, The Hero is now a category of tropes, rather than a trope itself. Thus, the trope is being dewicked." A quick check of the edit history shows they're dewicking it across any page it's on
, regardles of if it's just a reference or not.
If I put it back without consult, I'm causing an Edit War. The thread itself says in multiple places that it can be used and wicked in examples
, just not as an example.
Here's the example in question before any edits were made: