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 Problematic troper Music
cryptic-immortal has been editing the Music.Muse page and its subpages recently, and many of their edits... Concern me. For example...
- Here
, they added a Drinking Game entry to the YMMV page, even though I'm pretty sure that isn't supposed to be linked there.
- On the WMG page, they seem to be indulging in quite a bit of self-natter
, complete with the usual First-Person Writing. They're adding natter to the Headscratchers page, too
.
- They also have formatting issues, such as when they attempted to add the aforementioned Drinking Game entry on the main page
before moving it to YMMV.
- Finally, they have problems with example context, like here
.
I have sent notifers to them.
Edited by ChillyBeanBAMopenWork page titles for arcs - should they include the series/franchise name? Print Comic
As I understand it, works pages should reflect the (or at least an) official title of the work in question.
In the ComicBook namespace, we have quite a few pages for arcs within a single series (or Bat Family Crossover events officially badged under a single series/character title) that only use the subtitle and not the series/character title.
So, for example -
- The Celestial Madonna Saga is an Avengers arc and the collected edition is titled Avengers: The Celestial Madonna Saga. There are no crossovers and no other titles involved in that arc.
- Days of Future Past is an X-Men story that's collected and sold as X-Men: Days of Future Past. Again, it's entirely from one series, Uncanny X-Men, not a crossover event.
- The Demon Bear Saga is a New Mutants arc and collected/sold as New Mutants: The Demon Bear Saga.
- God Loves, Man Kills... well, as you can see on the works page, the cover has X-Men as a prominent part of the title.
- Mutant Massacre is a Bat Family Crossover that covers three different X-books (plus odd issues of Thor and Daredevil, but is packaged and sold as X-Men: Mutant Massacre.
...you get the idea. I don't think there are many disambiguation concerns with the current names, if any. But we're inconsistent on this and many, many ComicBook pages have included the series title or character name as a prefix to the arc/event name.
It seems odd that we're editing down the names to remove the character/comic/franchise element when there are no character-limit issues, and when that's not the version that the publisher's officially using.
(It also increases the number of oddities in alphabetical indexes - e.g. tropers put One More Day and Go Down Swinging under S, because they know they're Spider-Man stories, but unless you're looking at the index page itself the structure and ** / *** bullets aren't visible)
So, subject to discussion on the relevant pages and elsewhere, is it worth a tidy up that attempts to move them?
(One note on this: due to the film of the same name, we'd probably need to add a year to X-Men: Days of Future Past to disambig if we do move it - but that's the exception)
Edited by Mrph1resolved Deliberate rulebreaking with unjustified reason
Plasma Power added an image to a page that already had an image
, which isn't too bad by itself. What bothers me is that their edit reason
suggests that they knew it was against the rulesnote which it is, pages are only allowed one image, and new images must be contested in the Image Pickin' threads, yet they added it anyway "for fun".
openBrokenAesop.Naruto
Mister OM added this entry to BrokenAesop.Naruto on November 28th (bold emphasis mine):
- The story often carries out, whether intentionally or not, the message that “anybody can become the best through determination and hard work, and if you can’t, then you just need to try harder”. And the story even tries to pass on the main cast as examples of people who fit that criteria…except that they don’t. The strongest characters in the series, both good and bad, are often people who were born with either great inner strength by virtue of who or what they are, or born to really powerful, gifted or wealthy families and whatnot. Naruto himself and nearly every other character of any significance became stronger and stronger by virtue of the legacies that were passed down to them (in Naruto's case, no less than four ultra-powerful legacies, on top of the all-powerful demon sealed inside of him) leaving everyone who isn't a Person Shaped Can o' Evil or named Uchiha (and most of those besides) far behind in the dust. For all the series’s talk about hard work and determination, Hard Work Hardly Works is more in effect here. Sure, Naruto and Sasuke (and everybody else this applies to) did have to train, sweat and bleed to get where they are now, but it doesn’t change the fact that they had access to advantages, powers and shortcuts that normal people and ninjas wouldn’t have access to, and that they didn’t even have to do anything at all to get those powers bestowed upon them. Granted, some of these powers come with negative side-effects to counterbalance that problem, but even that doesn’t really mean much since Naruto and Sasuke both eventually find ways to overcome these side effects.
It is generally agreed upon that this aesop doesn't actually exist in the series and was made up by detractors. Despite this, this entry tries to circumvent this with "intentionally or not". Similar entries to this were argued upon in the past, which is why I'm bringing it here so it doesn't become an edit war.
Edited by SatoshiBakuraopenHTTYD Cleanup
I've noticed that the How To Train Your Dragon has not been worked on in quite some time. Almost every subpage is written in a way that tells me it hasn't been changed since the initial release (2010) or around that time.
Countless entries are riddled with errors, random comments or opinions, and other things that should either belong in YMMV, or nowhere at all. It seems very unprofessional. Under Leitmotif, for example, there is a comment at the end that just gushes about how great the composer was for using this trope:
- Comment: Our hero, ladies and gentlemen.
I would make these edits myself, but there are so many issues with this page that I think a clean-up may be warranted.
Edited by ovskiiopenFolders/Sections on the Shonen Jump page Anime
I'm not going to mince words on it: I think the Shonen Jump page is a complete mess, namely all of the folders and sections in the middle of the page. IMO there's way too many folders, too many gigantic folders, a bunch of weird placements that don't make intuitive sense, a bizarre Adaptations section, etc. I don't know when exactly this happened (based on the Discussion page this has been sitting like this since ~2019) but I do remember the older version of this page from years back and while it wasn't necessarily perfect it was significantly more usable than the page in its current state.
I'm bringing this up here to at the very least draw some attention to it and get some responses and feedback on what should be done before proceeding on anything. Cleaning it up would be quite a bit of work for me to do by myself/on a single go so I would appreciate any help with it, and I'd like to get some consensus on a few things with it as well. Biggest part would be addressing some of the sister mags; while most of the folders are IMO superfluous I do think some are at least worth highlighting given the overlaps involved (for example Viz's Shonen Jump app pulls from Jump+, Jump Square, and V-Jump).
openMagnificent Bastard Chain Hole
Remnant 43 has a bit of an issue with potholes on Magnificent Bastard entries. Once before they edit warred over the selection of one on Breaking Bad. This time while they haven't technically edit warred Sandbox.Magnificent Bastard Call Of Duty has an entry with a Chain Hole, which they re-added after I removed (I removed while pasting over their entry to the Sandbox so it isn't technically an edit war). I'm posting this to gain consensus for me to change back without committing an edit war myself.
Edited by 43110openConflicting Examples Videogame
Hellboy: The Science of Evil has examples for both No Problem With Licensed Games and The Problem with Licensed Games and I wouldn't think they can both be true.
- No Problem with Licensed Games: While it isn't a great example, it is definitely better than the other Hellboy licensed games, with Ron Perlman, Selma Blair and Doug Jones voicing the characters as they did in the films.
- The Problem with Licensed Games: While it was made from the makers and cast of the film duology, it wasn't programmed very well.
I've no played the game myself but I'd would seem better to combine them into something like:
- The Problem with Licensed Games: While it is definitely better than previous Hellboy games and it benefits from being made by the makers and cast of the film duology, with Ron Perlman, Selma Blair and Doug Jones reprising their role, it still wasn't programmed very well.
Or vice versa, since that example seems to come across slanted towards it being good. As I say I haven't play the game so I don't know what the issues with it were.
openFanDisservice 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 supernintendo128resolved StatusEffects, StatusInflictionAttack, and NonDamagingStatusInflictionAttack
On Dawncaster, I had previously written three different examples for Status Effect, Status Infliction Attack, and Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack. They were as follows:
- Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack: Some cards allow you to apply one of the several Status Effects to the enemy without dealing any damage. These are useful because such cards typically apply more stacks (4-5) of the status effect because there's no damage. Most Status Infliction Attacks only apply 2-3 stacks or make the number of stacks applied equal to the amount of damage inflicted, meaning that Armored foes or foes with Impervious would not be affected.
- Status Effects: There are several in the game, both ailments and buffs. This trope however, will only focus on ailments and other non-standard status effects. To see what buffs are available, see Status Buff.
- Bleeding - Attacks do an additional +1 bleed damage per stack of bleed
- Brittle - the afflicted takes +1 damage from melee strikes per stack of Brittle
- Burn - per each stack of Burn deal 1 damage at the end of the afflicted's turn
- Charmed - if the afflicted's HP falls below the number of stacks of Charmed on them, they die automatically
- Dazed - Counts down for each card played. At zero, Stun takes effect, preventing all further actions that turn.
- Deep Wound - if the afflicted accumulates 5 Deep Wounds, they automatically die
- Frozen - Decrease the damage from all attack cards by 1 per stack of Frozen
- Jinx - Nullify the next card played
- Poison - the afflicted loses 1 HP per stack of Poison whenever they play a card
- Slow - Add 1 stack every time the afflicted plays a card. Increase the cost of the next cards drawn by 1 per stack of Slow
- Status Infliction Attack: Several cards allow you to both deal damage and afflict one of the many status ailments to the enemy. For example, one of the starting cards for the Arcanist, Frost Shard, does damage and afflicts the enemy with the Frozen status ailment for every point of damage that landed.
The logic was that the status effects listed can be applied both with an attack and without. So describing them generally under status effects and including a more specific example for Damaging/Non-Damaging Infliction Attacks made the most sense to me.
MaLady edited the page
by removing Status Effects and merging what was written under it into Status Infliction Attack, because in their eyes, since status effects can only be applied either with an attack or not, you wouldn't list Status Effects as it's the Super-Trope of Non-Damaging Status Infliction Attack and Status Infliction Attack. While I understand the point in general on Super-Trope / Sub-Trope rules on examples list, placing the list of status effects under Status Infliction Attack makes it seem to me like these are the status effects that can only be applied via an attack, when really, these are all of the status effects that can be applied with or without a direct attack.
I was going to leave it more or less alone, and just edit the page to add a few effects that I missed, but some of the new ones would necessitate bringing back Status Effect since they are an effect you apply to yourself that doesn't directly buff your character (so they wouldn't fall under Status Buff either). But it also seems odd to me to bring back Status Effect and not list all of the statuses under it as it were before and describing them neutrally. So, I wanted to know what others' thoughts were on this before editing the page.
Edited by amathieu13openDark Universe
So I am not totally sure if this has been asked before but this has kept bothering me so I feel like I should bring it up.
So we currently have a page for the Dark Universe and I am honestly wondering if it is really worth actually keeping around. Technically the universe was planned to be a thing but it got scrapped after only a single movie the page itself barely has any info and is mostly just covering stuff that might have happened or stuff that happens in The Mummy, the only film that got released. The Invisible Man (2020) isn't actually part of this universe.
The page itself has a very small amount of entries for the index, only covering The Mummy, 4 tie-ins to that film and mentioning some cancelled films, most of the important stuff being already covered on The Mummy franchise page. Like it is really weird to consider this a universe worth a page when there is basically only one installment. I will admit I have made a page like this before but it did at least have more than one installment.
openJurisdiction Friction in Star Trek
In the Star Trek TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine", the conflict between Kirk, Spock and Decker is listed under Jurisdiction Friction, and this example is also cited on the Jurisdiction Friction page itself. My POV is that I really don't regard this example as Jurisdiction Friction. None of them are arguing or concerned about who has jurisdiction, they're arguing about who is in command. Two different things. They're all Star Fleet officers. If anything, it would be Artistic License – Military. Spock did have to give up command of the Enterprise when Decker pulled rank. However, as soon as Decker announced that he was going to try and attack the Doomsday Machine when everyone knew the Enterprise's weapons couldn't scratch it Spock should have simply said "that's insane, you're relieved. Security, get him out of here." It also heads into Surprisingly Realistic Outcome when Kirk orders Spock to assume command. Decker tries to say Kirk doesn't have the authority to do that but Kirk actually does, he's Captain of the Enterprise and Decker's plan is clearly insane. Anyway, that's my perspective but I wanted to get feedback from tropers before I started editing.
Edited by Traveler123open How to create a constant link in character page? Videogame
I created a separate character page for Claire Redfield in Resident Evil (because it's an abomination that Ada Wong would have one but not her), but I'm wondering whether I need to go through each individual character page in the series and manually generate the link to the page itself or if there's a way to easily index it somewhere?
openSuspected Ban Evader
I'm pretty sure Resident Blade Oreboros, who just made this
query, is actually a sockpuppet of Ninten Fire Swag 20, who got bounced over their obsession with making a scene from RWBY count as a "Ray of Hope" Ending... the same thing that Oreboros is talking about in their query.
Also they edit similar pages (a lot of creator pages, Fire Emblem, Supermarioglitchy, etc).
Hate to call someone out while they're literally a thread below me, but... well, it beat accusing them directly on their thread and something just smells fishy.
Edit: Quick fact check, they were actually trying to make it count as a Downer Ending in addition to "Ray of Hope" Ending. Just wanted to correct myself.
Edited by WarJay77openHelp in cross-wicking.
I just launched Rescue Equipment Attack and it has lots of examples that I may not be able to cross-wick them all by myself. Any help with cross-wicking the examples would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
(Do not reply to this).
Edited by selkiesopen Not sure or not Web Original
Would Helluva Boss count as a Cosmic Horror Story, or at least Lovecraft Lite, because even in death someone who hates someone else can pay to have them killed in life and it's implied that Heaven may be just as bad as hell itself so any hopes of peace after death may not even exist.
Edited by coldcascaderesolved The Troper Page Creation Guide
How do I create my own troper page? I want to create something like this "Tropers / Yatasumuji Senpai" on my own page? I like to edit one by myself but I don’t really know how to? Is there anyway you could help me please, perhaps the instructions would be helpful?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpairesolved Questionable Edit removal from Recap for Rick and Morty Western Animation
On December 18th, 2022, I added a "The Reason You Suck" Speech entry for the Rick and Morty episode "Ricktional Mortpoons Rickmas Mortcation".
- "The Reason You Suck" Speech: When Rick tries to leave after making the driller once Morty makes clear he doesn't want Rick coming with him to get the Lightsaber, Morty gets pissed at the idea Rick is acting like Morty betrayed him and not the other way around. Rick, thoroughly done with listening to Morty and wanting to just go back to hunting down Rick Prime, delivers a quick but succinct tear down of Morty, both for the events of the last episode, and his general treatment of Rick overall the last few seasons, with Morty treating him like shit despite Rick bothering to open up to him. Morty himself can only wince and look upset while he's listening up until Curtis reassures him he won't kill his family.
Rick: You wanna know why I replaced myself in the beginning of that stupid Knights of the Sun thing? I said don't take the fucking sword and you were like "whatever" like I'm our neighbor Gene or David Arquette or something. You called me boring. I've become dog shit to you. That's what happens when you let people in and they stop respecting you, they touch your shit, they screw things up, they kill your fucking family. Go ahead. Trust [Curtis]. You're going to learn the same fucking thing.
- 1. It's not presented as the way the edit reason states, namely since Rick had been keeping Morty out of his hunt for Rick Prime rather than forcing him to help, and Morty was acting like Rick was entirely at fault for not being honest. While an argument can be made for Unintentionally Unsympathetic, the fact of the matter is that it's not presented in the manner the edit reason suggests.
- 2. "The Reason You Suck" Speech is not a YMMV trope, meaning even if Mantyf does not see it as a speech but more a rant from an abuser, the trope itself is what matters. So if the entry is an actual case of "The Reason You Suck" Speech as presented in the show itself, removing it based on an interpretation feels like a mistake.

Recently, I added this particular example on Glass Onion YMMV page because I personally thought it's fitting, but not everyone may think so as well, so I thought it should be a YMMV example:
Then another troper AyyItsMidnight
deleted it by reasoning that it's not a YMMV trope, so I was wondering if this example could be added somewhere else? Or is it not applicable at all? I personally thought that the whole scene with Miles Bron explaining about "Disruptors" is quite reflective of Rian Johnson himself and his directing style, even if it's not the intended effect. Rian often breaks trends and conventions simply because he could, and that one time he caused a large rift in the Star Wars fandom with The Last Jedi that still has lasting effects today, so I thought the example applies in this case.
Edited by Willy2537