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:
openEnsemble Darkhorse move undid
- Clodsire is adored by the fanbase. Quagsire was already an Ensemble Dark Horse due to its blank, derpy yet charming looks. Clodsire's more blob-ness with it being quadrupedal like a dog made it arguably more appealing and huggable to fans. Animations like this
only further highlighted how adorable it really is.
Per Darkhorse cleanup
I moved this to Quagsire's ED entry as Clodsire was likely made in response/to bank off Quagsire's popularity as opposed to Clodsire's being unintentional, so it's part of the Quag's Darkhorse status as opposed to counting as one itself.
It was moved back to it's own entry, by a separate troper from who first added it, citing "There is no evidence to suggest that Clodsire's creation is a result of Quagsire's popularity as there have been plenty of non-Ensemble Dark Horse pokemon with regional variants that have received new evolutions (such as Corsola, Farfetch'd, Mr Mime, Basculin and Qwilfish)." I don't disagree, it would fit that Clodsire not being revealed prerelease, but this gets into the issue of speculating creator knowledge/intent.
Before taking to ED cleanup, I'm asking if it should be re-moved as that's what the cleanup decided so undoing what they voted on without discussion violates rules.
openFandom rivalry discussion
Hello. I recently deleted the following examples of Fandom Rivalry and Friendly Fandoms from DC Animated Movie Universe.
- Fandom Rivalry: A minor example with the Tomorrowverse, considering that most fans of the DCAMU are fans of DC's animated films in general, but some DCAMU fans have expressed disappointment that the franchise ended not long after Growing the Beard as they feel there were more stories this franchise could tell. In contrast fans of Tomorrowverse feel that the DCAMU only had a few genuinely good films, with the rest either being mediocre at best or boring at worst, while the new Shared Universe is a breath of fresh air that doesn't limit itself to one specific era of DC's history as well as having a reduced focus on Batman (who appeared in the first eight DCAMU films while five films in the Tomorrowverse has only used him for his two-parter).
- Friendly Fandoms:
- After the release of Justice League Dark: Apokolips War fans of this franchise have bonded with fans of the early Darker and Edgier DC Extended Universe movies, particularly those directed by Zack Snyder. A number of these fans have praised Apokolips War as the closest thing they'll likely get to Snyder's original five-film arc (which was Cut Short due to the financial underperformance of Snyder's films relative to their massive budgets).
- Since most fans grew up watching the DCAU it's unsurprising that the two fandoms get along. Most of the DCAU fans see the DCAMU as a more mature alternative to their own fandom now that they are all adults.
- Despite the above mentioned Fandom Rivalry with the Tomorrowverse, there are DCAMU fans who either enjoy both for their differences, or hope that the Tomorrowverse is the post-Apokolips War timeline that could continue the story of the DCAMU.
My argument is that those are not separate fandoms. It's literally DC fans disagreeing over which films based on the same property are good or bad.
brightfan99, who added the examples, has contacted me via PM and argues that DC should be seen as a cluster of smaller fandoms. As an example, they mentioned how fans of the Christopher Reeve Superman don't like the Henry Cavill version and vice-versa.
Requesting other tropers' opinions to settle this discussion.
open (RESOLVED) nattery wall-o'-text on Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Energy Literature
Half the Literature folder on SciFiWritersHave.No Sense Of Energy is currently comprised of a nattery, Example Indentation-noncompliant Wall of Text about the Incredible Cross-Sections firepower numbers controversy in Star Wars Legends (which admittedly I contributed to over a decade ago when I was young and stupid).
Fixing it would be a major change that I think probably could use some extra sets of eyes, but couldn't find a good cleanup thread for this to go in, so I figured I'd come here.
- In one of the Star Wars Legends technical manuals (now non-canon along with the rest of Star Wars Legends), a starfighter's main guns are about 1/200,000,000th the power of a capital ship's heavy guns, and yet starfighters still try to shoot at enemy capital ships like they can do more than annoy the enemy captain by obstructing his view out the bridge. The series that book belongs to throws out words like kilotons for starfighter weaponry, megatons for Slave-1's weaponry, hundreds of gigatons each shot for capital scale weaponry, and the latter being powered by reactors with the energy output of a star. All this for weapons which, for the films that they're detailing, display yields that rarely stack up to the more extreme episodes of MythBusters and are outdone by modern heavy cruise missiles. The light ion cannons the size of mortars on the Invisible Hand are supposedly throwing out as much heat as a 4.8 megaton thermonuclear bomb, which is strange when compared to the Hoth Ion cannon, a weapon that disabled an Imperial Star Destroyer in a handful of shots and yet didn't produce enough heat to melt the surrounding snow. In general, you could probably knock off about six orders of magnitude on anything written in those books and you'd still get way too much. Supposedly, these represent the maximum yields, but because nothing like these figures occur in the movies and there are multiple times when using even a percentage of these maximum yields would prevent ship-wide destruction, where do these numbers come from?
- In general, all of the Star Wars films basically depict combat as being World War II IN SPACE!. This extends to firepower. Fighter cannons can hit the ground a few meters from foot soldiers without harming them, while main gun batteries on capital ships seldom display effects beyond a few tons of TNT- which is roughly in line with World War II era battleship guns, albeit with a higher rate of fire and effective range. There's even a famous scene in Return of the Jedi where the kinetic energy (plus whatever explosives were still on-board) of a crashing kamikaze fighter was able to cripple a Star Destroyer by destroying its bridge, something that would be completely impossible if these things were routinely trading shots with ships capable of depopulating a planet with a single salvo. These numbers have been made even more ridiculous in hindsight by material that came out after the Disney buyout. For example, the Last Jedi art book depicts a strategic-scale (i.e. orders of magnitude more powerful than regular guns) plasma bomb carried by the Free Virgillia-class corvettes as being the size of a building... yet "only" having a 100 megaton yield (which makes these bombs, per area, less efficient than the Tsar Bomba). For reference, by Saxton's old numbers, any single Acclamator-class ship (which are the size of heavy cruisers) had 12 turbolaser cannons each capable of dishing out 200 gigatons per shot. So basically, a ship not much bigger than the Virigillia-class could dish out 2,400 gigatons or the equivalent of 24,000 strategic-scale plasma bombs, every second, continuously. Imagine that every ship in the U.S. Navy had an autocannon that shoots the equivalent of 24,000 nuclear missiles a second and you start to see how ridiculous this idea is.
- However, the author of these works, Dr. Curtis Saxton, is an astrophysicist and so by any right should have a very good understanding of the yields being described. Unfortunately, there is controversy surrounding the author's relationship with those in the online "versus debate" community, which, if true, would mean that the author didn't so much screw up the math as deliberately misrepresent it. Another scientist and Star Wars fan/contributor, Gary Sarli, analyzed Saxton's work and came to very different conclusions. Particularly one of Saxton's most influential calculations, which not only vastly overestimated how much damage needed to be done to fulfill a certain operation ("Base Delta Zero", glassing a planet, in other wordsnote A big part of Sarli's argument pointed out that the original description in the Imperial Sourcebook limited itself, relatively speaking, to wiping out the planet's assets of production, like factories, arable lands, mines, fisheries, and all sentient beings and droids, which, while on a planetary scale is definitely impressive, wouldn't necessarily mandate slagging literally everything on the surface or vaporizing the oceans unless the commander was in a particularly vindictive mood, nor would it have to do so by itself, in under an hour. For context, the entire world nuclear arsenal (more than enough to wipe out all major cities and industry) totals 1.5 gigatons. Ten times that number should easily be able to kill nearly every human on Earth. Melting off all the Earth's crust and vaporizing all its oceans, on the other hand?
7 exatons or 7,000,000,000 gigatons.).
- And on the third hand, proponents of the ICS numbers point out that they are several orders of magnitude less than what you'd get simply by down-scaling from the Death Star, which has been calculated from screen evidencehow? Measure how long it took the planet to double in diameter after being shot (0.83 seconds), and do the math assuming Alderaan has the same properties as Earth. For the math, see these
links
. to produce a minimum of 1E38 joules, roughly the energy that the Sun produces in eight thousand years when firing a planet-busting shot. That puts the Empire well into Type II on the Kardashev scale. By the same token, there are those who think that Saxton did the above calculations and then gave their shipboard weapons numbers that he would have expected a Type II civilization to have. Of course, both the EU and the new Disney continuity specified that the Death Star's power came from Kyber crystals, making its showing completely irrelevant to anything that doesn't also use Kyber crystals.
- And critics will counter that there are a lot of weird effects for that to be purely a brute-force weapon, like the existence of a two-stage explosion and a Planar Shockwave. And since the Death Star novel came out, they've either retconned or clarified that the superlaser uses an exotic reaction that causes large parts of the planet to shift into hyperspace (presumably in a violent manner, since vessels with hyperdrives can do so without exploding), causing the planet to blow itself up.
- (separate unrelated example about Vulture droids I added yesterday)
- Star Wars Legends:
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to be wildly out of scale with the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith). Saxton was even accused at times of making up inflated numbers to help Star Wars "win" the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny with Star Trek (he was a participant in sci-fi debating groups on the Internet at the time the books came out). Other debaters argued that some of his calculations were rooted in faulty assumptions, for example that the Orbital Bombardment involved in a Base Delta Zero operation wasn't intended to be at the Earth-Shattering Kaboom level a la Exterminatus, but just to destroy population centers and military sites. The argument was ultimately rendered moot when the Legends continuity was ended.
- (unrelated Vulture droid example)
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to be wildly out of scale with the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith); the latter number is about 10% of the estimated yield of the Chicxulub meteorite impact. Saxton has shown where his calculations came from: primarily the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan, the concept of Base Delta Zero from West End Games' Imperial Sourcebook, and shots from The Empire Strikes Back of star destroyers blowing up asteroids said to be nickel-iron in Alan Dean Foster's novelization; however, other debaters such as Gary Sarli have questioned some of his underlying assumptions. The whole thing was ultimately rendered moot after Legends was decanonized, with the efficacy of Orbital Bombardment in particular dramatically scaled down in Disney canon reference books.
Third draft:
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to significantly inflated compared to the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith); for reference, the latter number is about 10% of the estimated yield of the Chicxulub meteorite impact
. Saxton has shown where his calculations came from;note primarily the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan, the concept of Base Delta Zero from West End Games' Imperial Sourcebook, and shots from The Empire Strikes Back of star destroyers blowing up asteroids said to be nickel-iron in Alan Dean Foster's novelization however, other debaters such as Gary Sarli have questioned some of his underlying assumptions.note e.g. whether "Base Delta Zero" involves glassing an entire planet For the Evulz or just destroying mission-critical population centers Due to his author's notes thanking various members of online "versus debating" communities, Saxton has also been accused of deliberately inflating his numbers to "win" arguments over whether Star Wars factions would beat Star Trek factions in a war.
- The Incredible Cross-Sections reference books for the Star Wars prequel trilogy, written by physicist Dr. Curtis Saxton, became quite controversial for giving energy numbers that to some readers appeared to significantly inflated compared to the film special effects: for example, maximum yields of 200 gigatons on the turbolasers of Acclamator-class troop transports (Attack of the Clones) and 10 teratons for Venator-class star destroyers (Revenge of the Sith); for reference, the latter number is about 10% of the estimated yield of the Chicxulub meteorite impact
open Real Life cleanup crowner
There is an active crowner on the Real Life cleanup thread to make the following tropes No Real Life Examples, Please!.
If you want to join the conversation, do so here
. Please do not reply to this query directly.
openThe Slender Man Mythos cleanup
During the discussion for misuse and debatable use
of Slender Man Stand In, there was an idea from Warjay about the cleanup for Franchise.The Slender Man Mythos. I would like to bring this up due to the "nature" of the page in question, as not only is the page simply collecting media related to the Slender Man (regardless of their canon story) but the page is simply stating how broad and unique the universe is despite being otherwise.
Suggestions would be welcome if a possible cleanup is worth it (and if the Slenderman himself is worth keeping in the wiki).
openDuplicate page
I'm not sure if this would be better suited for the Copy/Paste thread, since it's a copy/paste of content within TV Tropes itself, but the description for WebAnimation.Cupcakes Sergeant Sprinkles as well as the majority of the trope examples, page quote and image caption are almost word-for-word copies of those on the page for the fanfiction it's based on, changed just enough to reflect that it's talking about the video rather than the fic. Is there anything that should be done about this?
openBounds of tropable material
I had some questions regarding what information is considered part of an official work for the purposes of troping.
I'm aware of how the basic guidelines work: examples need to draw from information present in a released work, while stuff that the author mentions elsewhere is considered Trivia and should be listed under Trivia entries such as Word of God, Author's Saving Throw, and the like. I am wondering precisely where the line is drawn.
For specific reference, I am looking at a Deviantart webcomic, so the "boundaries" there are a little loose by definition. There's the comic itself
, and that's obviously the work proper. The author also includes a few images describing additional lore and worldbuilding that don't appear in the comic itself, which are kept in a subfolder of the comic's main gallery
. I am not confident on whether this stuff would be considered part of the work, and thus tropable under the aegis of All There in the Manual or something like that, or Trivia.
openAuthor's Saving Throw vs Salvaged Story
Can someone explain the difference between these two tropes, because I'm wondering whether my understanding is correct? My understanding of Salvaged Story is when a sequel/prequel introduces a retcon that fixes an issue fans have with a previous instalment (using an example from the page itself, Now You See Me 2 retcons the details of the first film to stop the main characters from being examples of Designated Hero). But I've seen people put things under this trope that don't match it, such as a sequel simply having characters do something that fixes a problem that fans had with a previous instalment (again using examples from the page, the examples from The Kissing Booth trilogy sound more like the writers reacting to critics and telling a different story to fix those problems instead of using retcons). People are also just moving stuff from Author's Saving Throw to Salvaged Story as if they're the same thing. So can someone explain whether my understanding is correct or if I've been getting it wrong?
openPunctuation issue
Brian KT just made an edit (on a page that consistently puts periods and commas inside the final quotation mark), that moved a period outside the last quotation mark without doing anything else. My understanding is that this isn’t supposed to occur (first come, first served on style) so I’ve reverted the edit and sent a notifier.
Page edit history here
.
Troper edit history here
.
I don’t think I was the troper who added the example in the first place (it would have been long ago, if so), but am posting here to cover myself in case I did.
resolved Self-promotey language on creator page
sorry for the double post; coming across some things while wick cleaning.
Creator.Corgipon has some rather non-neutral and self-promotey language in its description, such as (emphasis mine):
- "Corgipon" is an American hobbyist web author, web artist, and somewhat underrated You Tuber."
- Her videos are often known for being either Pocketville-centric or Queen-centric, which she considers her special interests. These videos used to look quite amateur, but as for the latest video, she has shown to have adequate editing skills.
- She has also shown to have knowledge in the Japanese language, as shown in her Japanese fandubs of Adventures in Pocketville and an unofficial Japanese cover of the ending theme. The former turns out to have much better lip-syncing than the official dubbings.
Looking at the edit history and 1) the troper who created and wrote the page was Vanilla Flare and 2) Vanilla Flare is Corgipon, shown by this edit [1]
that Vanilla Flare later removed[2]
.
Is this ok/not against any site policy? Should these be re-written to be more neutral?
Edited by amathieu13openUnfortunateImplications and FlameBait
Since Unfortunate Implications is now Flame Bait, would it be prudent to purge all examples from the page itself? Or are those examples okay to place on the page?
I ask because an example was removed from a page, and said example was properly cited.
openQuestion about moving a work page
So I brought up here
that the page for Supermarioglitchy4's Super Mario 64 Bloopers contains a very outdated name. The series hasn't called itself that since March 18th, 2017
. Since then, it's called itself "SMG4", and in War of the Fat Italians 2021, it was established that "SMG4" doesn't stand for SuperMarioGlitchy4 but instead SuperMemeGuardian4. Should the page be renamed?
openWanted to bring up a case on a new user.
The main reason I'm bringing it up here instead of attempting to give a PM to them, is because they're currently edit banned for a rogue launch reason, so I wasn't sure if giving it there would work out.
But to get to what I mean, I wanted to bring up the, so far only, edit of new troper karryoke. Specifically, this edit
on The Angry Birds Movie. I removed the edit myself, but this edit just feels like a big mess of what not to do: a link-heavy ZCE that was placed on the top of the page (despite being an S-starting trope), that's also a YMMV trope. Plus, there's something about the way it's worded, as if these scenes are meant to be good parts of the movie.
resolved Potential citation edit war
Vindicator Wes added this example
to an upcoming work. When it was commented out under the "no citation" rule
. Vindicator Wes uncommented it out with no other change
to the example. They claimed "it was clarified in the press release" in the edit reason, but nothing in the example itself suggests this.
openRude Troper
I recently sent The Worst Amy a stock ZCE notifier over an edit
they made to the newly-launched Significant White Hair, Dark Skin and they accused me in a DM of being a no-lifer over it. The name itself seems familiar, and I suspect this is not the first time they've gotten nasty at people over routine etiquette checks.
openDid I accidentally Edit War
So on YMMV.Wednesday there was this entry:
- Hilarious in Hindsight: In Stuck in the Middle, Jenna Ortega's character Harley quips, "If my family was a week, I'd be Wednesday."
I removed it as it is not really hindsight for the work as it happened before the show and it was already on YMMV.Stuck In The Middle. However then this entry was added
:
- Hilarious in Hindsight: Having previously played the female lead in a Tim Burton movie with a hidden villain seeking death through supernatural means, it's funny how Christina Ricci plays the hidden villain in this—another Burton-related property.
I then
moved it
to YMMV.Sleepy Hollow 1999. Because again that is not really hindsight for Wednesday as it happened before this show. Now I forgot the other entry. I know that they are different entries about different examples but I am wondering if I accidentally Edit Warred and if I did would like to report myself.
open"Redlinks cleanup"
Is the latest redlink removal on Arthur valid? It's my interesting that we should link episodes to encourage page creation; the Arthur recap is still under development, and I've made a few pages for it myself. It wouldn't make sense to only cover certain episodes in a season.
openShould Recaps contain the episode title in the page URL/name?
When it comes to recaps, should the episode name be part of the title, and the page link?
Star Trek: The Next Generation S1E1 "Encounter at Farpoint" features the episode title as part of the page name, and the page title itself.
However, Columbo S 01 E 01 does not, instead having the page title as part of the description.
Which one is the right way of doing it?
resolved Potential edit war
A Leaning on the Fourth Wall example was added to this page
that mentions that "a character considers himself to live in a story in which he's the main character". Because that sounds more like Medium Awareness than anything, I changed the trope name, while also cleaning up other mistakes on the page. The same troper who added the example changed the trope name back
to Leaning on the Fourth Wall because (paraphrased) "The character doesn't truly know he lives in a story. He just like to imagine he does."
Leaving aside how I was supposed to know the difference, would this be considered an edit war? The troper in question didn't PM me or add anything on the discussion page, they just changed the example back to how it was when they added it (even if it was just the name being changed).
Edited by UFOYeah

So on YMMV.Tomorrowverse brightfan99 added
this Fandom Rivalry entry.
I removed the "A minor example"
because it's not really a minor example in my experience and we aren't supposed to trope minor YMMV reactions from what I have been told.
brightfan99 without discussing it anywhere added "A small one"
. Which while not the exact same wording means the same thing.
I don't know what to do here.i ultimately do not care about the wording as ultimately I think I left it weirdly phrased by my original removal now that I think about it but this feels like it is now an Edit War considering the other troper added nearly the exact same wording without discussing it anywhere. But I want to get some more opinions.
Edited by Bullman