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:
openAvoiding Edit War/RoCEJ Web Original
A while back I made this entry on the Forgotten Weapons YMMV Page putting in folder for length.
- Broken Base: Forgotten Weapons is associated with Headstamp Publishing, which publishes in-depth books about firearms history. In February 2022, they announced their latest book, a memoir by a foreign volunteer who fought in Ukraine in 2014/15 in the Azov Battalion. Unfortunately the Azov Battalion is controversial and the author was found to frequently post far right and neo-Nazi views, Ian insisted this book itself was non-political and his audience was sharply divided between those who wanted it published for the sake of the information and those who found financially supporting the author to be morally unacceptable. Ultimately the book was cancelled when the site used to run the funding campaign pulled out of the project and Headstamp decided not to find another funding site for it.
And a few days ago I noticed another user had made an edit to change it to this:
- Broken Base: Forgotten Weapons is associated with Headstamp Publishing, which publishes in-depth books about firearms history. In February 2022, they announced their latest book, a memoir by a foreign volunteer who fought in Ukraine in 2014/15 in the Azov Battalion. Unfortunately, author was found to frequently post far right and neo-Nazi views. Ian insisted this book itself was non-political and his audience was sharply divided between those who wanted it published for the sake of the information and those who found financially supporting the author to be morally unacceptable. Ultimately the book was cancelled when the site used to run the funding campaign pulled out of the project and Headstamp decided not to find another funding site for it.
Removing the section stating 'the Azov battalion is controversial' with the edit reason: "I guess that by now only chosen ones can view Azov as controversial."
Now I PMed them and they said they were okay if I reverted the change.
So two questions: 1)If I did revert it is an edit reason saying 'discussed this via PM' enough to avoid it being an edit war? 2) Should I revert it? I guess the edit reason was saying that given the Ukraine War, it's no longer acceptable to call them that but it was at the time, and it was their reputation as well as the specific person's postings that caused the controversy (Alas all the videos and comments on them were deleted from youtube after the incident so proving anything is difficult)
resolved Problematic Wall of Text example Web Original
I originally raised this on the Wall of Text cleanup thread
, but it's had no reply for two weeks, so I decided to raise it here.
On the YMMV page for Crash Thompson, there's this lengthy sub-bullet listed under Broken Base:
- Crash's tendency to put certain albums at #1 on his "Worst of" lists that others felt weren't nearly as deserving of the spot as others. Many were surprised that Doug Walker's Wall parody album was even included on the list at all considering very few people even cared about it and many saw the segment as little more then an excuse for Crash to vent about his own disillusionment with Channel Awesome (which he applied to in the past), likewise in the "Worst of 2020" list some thought Crash was stretching by calling the "Living the Dream" music video for Five Finger Death Punch as being "anti-masker", and him trying to use a select few Youtube comments as an excuse to condemn the whole band as being rather unfair, not to mention Crash's repeated insults towards the band's own fans over the years in his reviews of their albums has led some to believe that he just wanted an excuse to rant about the band again and that accusing them of causing deaths was going too far, not to mention impossible to factually prove (plus seeing blaming a band for something that a few of their fans do as rather unfair), not to mention Crash slagging the band for their views (or at least what he thought they were) and penalizing them for it by putting them at #1 came off as hugely hypocritical to some considering he put Deftones "Ohms" on his "best" list despite one of their members (guitarist Stephen Carpenter) outright revealing himself to be not only an anti-vaxxer/anti-masker but a flat-earther as well (in addition to a whole bunch of other crazy conspiracy theory nonsense), yet Crash didn't penalize their album in the same way. For what it's worth, Crash himself later admitted in one of the "Rock Coliseum" videos that he regretted going as hard on both albums as he did, admitting that even if they were bad they weren't really worth all the anger he directed at them.
Originally, I was aiming to heavily gut this example due to its reliance on weasel words and what I initially interpreted as reaching for complaining via an appeal to hypocrisy (an appeal to hypocrisy which isn't even accurate even with the later context, considering that Crash actually did speak out against Carpenter in the same "best of" video). Other than maybe removing the attempt at drawing a double standard concerning Ohms, I'm wondering how exactly this can be trimmed to be easier on the eyes and less complain-y, if not cut completely.
Edited by Akriloth2160open Obvious Beta misuse?
VideoGame.Pokemon Scarlet And Violet:
- Obvious Beta: The game launced in a very buggy state, with serious framerate issues and loads of glitches in the game quickly making rounds on social media.
It was deleted citing "the trope description itself says that the Obvious Beta trope is not meant for a game with bugs and it's only for games that are really unplayable. if it's really unplayable, there wouldn't have been players who finished the game earlier and share spoilers for the ending of scarlet and violet beforehand."
This was added back by a separate troper.
- Obvious Beta: While the game itself is technically still playable, there are numerous performance issues, ranging from frame drops, textures framing to load, models clipping through each other, and many other, more specific glitches, up and to including game crashes.
The first paragraph on the Obvious Beta page states "Attention: This trope is ONLY meant for games that are genuinely nigh unplayable at release. A few missing features, oversights and bugs do not count." Only the crashes part counts but I'm not sure if it's common enough to count.
What to do?
open CircularRedirect is Self-Demonstrating
not Administrivia.Circular Redirect, but the main Circular Redirect page is, well, a circular redirect. according to the history, it was made such by mod fiat going back to 2012. it says it's "to demonstrate what happens", but... do we really need that? the Administrivia page explains what happens, and someone forgetting to properly namespace the link would lead people to get the redirect error without the context of it. i don't think we need a page on the wiki that intentionally induces a browser error, demonstrative or not.
open Should Suletta and Ericht be listed as separate characters or as one?
Hello, Twisted Wanderland here, but please, call me “The Wanderer”. Why? Because it sounds cooler.
As for why I’m on here, last night I joined a discussion on the Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury character page about whether the main character, Suletta and the character from the prologue, Ericht, should be considered the same character or not: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Characters.MobileSuitGundamTheWitchFromMercury&id=140666#140666
Another user, Kuruni, thinks they should be treated as separate characters, but when asked why, they said that there’s no official source stating that they are, even though the same could be argued for there is no official source stating they aren’t. I’ve tried asking them if they had any evidence as to how Suletta isn’t Ericht after the timeskip between the prologue and the first episode, but they claim that Ericht being in the prologue is reason enough to count them as separate and that it’d be more convenient if they are separate, despite pointing out how if they are the same then it’d be counterproductive to go through Suletta’s examples and add in Ericht’s. This also seems to be a unilateral decision because I searched Ask The Tropers and Trope Talk to see if there was a discussion involved with this, but only found a self-report from them for edit warring with another user over this and when they keep skirting around the question whenever I ask for evidence to support their claim.
At this point, we’re just going back and forth with no resolution in sight, which brings me here to get a consensus on whether Suletta and Ericht should be considered the same character or not. I know that theories are going around on how Suletta may be a clone and that the real Ericht is Aerial herself but with nothing conclusive, saying they aren’t the same is purely speculation.
If an agreement can’t be made, then I may have an alternative solution: we treat Suletta and Ericht as the same character, but separate examples exclusive to Suletta from the series and Ericht from the prologue.
resolved Should we prioritize Canon Names for protagonists that can be named anything by the player? Videogame
What's the standard here? In I Was a Teenage Exocolonist, the game suggests naming your character Solane/Solana/Solanaceae, implying that either of the three's their Canon Name if you don't name them yourself. However, in all its pages, they have been referred to as either "Sol", "the protagonist", "the MC", or "you". Do we stick to one name/identifier for them, or are all of them "correct"?
openHandmaid's Tale ROCEJ?
This is an example on the YMMV page
for The Handmaid's Tale, under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot. It was added added by drmeagher13:
- Simiarly, there are no vocally non-religious characters in the show. In spite of the show taking place in a religiously-derived dystopia, no one seems to suggest that maybe religion itself is the problem. The tenets of Gilead are indeed derived from lines of the Bible, and no one seems to suggest that maybe disregarding the whole thing might be a good idea. Instead, the heroes seem to all be cut from the cloth of more mild religion. A major example is June sympathetically baptizing her child in the Catholic Church, which in the real world has been implicated of routine systemic child abuse, much like Gilead in the show. It represents another failure of representation on the show.
While I can certainly see the TWAPGP part of having no vocally non-religious characters in a religion-dictated dystopia, parts of this example seem like they're pushing into ROCEJ territory, especially the bit about baptism and child abuse.
open Justifying edit on recent Unintentionally Unsympathetic edit
A while back, a troper argued that Atreus fell under the Unintentionally Unsympathetic trope in God of War Ragnarök. Recent add-ons to the edit seem to point to the idea that what is being described may not in fact be unintentional on the developer's part.
For further context:
- The lesson Kratos learns about trusting his son (and others) was very much needed for him to grow into the man he is by the end of the game. But for most of the story, Atreus is nothing but untrustworthy. He went behind his father's back to study Loki, continues to do so after coming clean and after unintentionally disappearing to Jotunheim for two days, all while refusing to elaborate on where he's been — even if Atreus was trying to protect Angrboda and Ironwood at her request by keeping his movements secret. The whole time, Atreus demands his father trust him in spite of the fact that Atreus has done nothing but lie and hide his intentions. The rest of the adults even agree with Kratos and rightfully call out Atreus for thinking he could fix everything all by himself. In the end, it's played realistically: Atreus lampshades himself that Kratos' lack of trust is entirely justified, but he's emotionally unequipped to resolve it.
Should the edit be removed?
Edited by WiryAiluropodineopenProblem Making Troper Page
I'm trying to make a Troper page for myself, but because my name has an _ in it, the wiki shows an error message and doesn't have the Edit Page button. Since the name of the Troper page is what ties it to the edit history and PM buttons, I can't do a version without the _ or with a space because it won't link to me.
What are my options?
resolved An assortment of editing issues and potential rape apologia
Marianabelle is more-or-less solely responsible for creating and editing Without Her Consent and its associated subpages. They have also displayed quite a few issues when editing the subpages of this work alone, including poor spelling and grammar, trope misuse, putting non-YMMV tropes on the YMMV page, and more.
What changed my train of thought from "They really need notifiers sent to them" to "This really should be reported on ATT" was the content of their edits, particularly on the YMMV page. A (likely unapproved) Complete Monster entry that is somehow combined with Freudian Excuse (which they even made a separate entry for), a Jerks Are Worse Than Villains entry that suggests that a selfish Manchild is more loathed by the audience than a Serial Rapist, and more (and this is just on the YMMV page). I felt the need to bring this up because things like a Complete Monster entry for a Serial Rapist that starts with "Doubles as Freudian Excuse" pushes the page too far into rape apologia territory.
And then there's the Fridge and WMG entries that push the narrative that the Serial Rapist will still get away in the end by somehow winning a court case despite being found guilty of rape, even going so far as to say that he will sue the police for negligence and somehow win. Further still, there's graphic detail in the Headscratchers section theorizing as to how the rape scene was "supposed" to play out and meta headscratchers that go way too far into ROCEJ territory.
Edited by UFOYeahopenNeptunia Characters page Videogame
The characters page is split based on each game. The first game has its own continuity, and the third game introduces some AU Counterparts, but the Hyperdimension characters appear repeatedly throughout the series, so they're often just getting the same tropes on each game's character page. Wouldn't it be better to have Character Specific Pages like Broly's with folders for different continuities as well as one for common traits?
Edited by KOmanresolved Regarding conflicting external sources... Web Original
Hello. It took me a while to get my mind on about this, but I would like to politely ask question to get help.
It's about Fire Emblem on Forums - I was trying to do a little editting as can be shown here.
However, after than there is this edit, which says that the GM actually said that the game has not been completed.
After a bit of reviewing, I would assume they're right, I just realize that there are two contradicting possible external sources for this.
First, the source that came from the hub page
shows the game as completed, however, the actual game itself is indeed not yet marked as completed
. I think while it's external source and I can't help about it right now, I would like to mention the fact that a contradiction that has confused me was indeed present.
I'm sorry for having to point this, it might seem minor but it has mislead me into typing error. Forgive me for the incorrect edit, but the troper "IcyTea" and the person who told them are actually correct, so I'll just respect and accept their edit decision for now.
So the only problem here is trying to confirm. The latter edit is more preferable, right? I'm aware that I cannot re-edit it back because that would been an edit war that can be punished. I'm just unsure, and apologizes if this case wasn't that simple. I promise that the intent is to clarify and help. Thank you for understanding.
open Can we put some of our unused/discouraged practices of TV Tropes in Discredited Meme?
We've evolved for quite awhile. I still remember back then when TV Tropes still has A LOT of phrases accompanying either Tear Jerker or Heartwarming Moments: "If you do not tear up on this scene, then you're a horrible, heartless human being without a soul."
But of course, right now, we are not allowed to do it anymore. For good reasons and I agree with the sentiments of disallowance.
Still, here's a question... Is that an example of Discredited Meme? I thought the "have no soul" thing back then was quite widespread that it's a TV Tropes-ish meme. Now that it's extremely discouraged, does it look like an example of the trope Discredited Meme? Is it OK to add that in the page or I shouldn't?
Thank you very much. I would try to add that myself, but just so I don't step into a landmine, I might as well ask here first. Pretty sure there are other 'formerly OK, now discouraged' practices, but I'll just use that as an example first.
Edited by ChrisXopenTaylor Swift-Kanye West incident at the VMAs
From Heartwarming.Real Life Other:
- At the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, when Taylor Swift went up on stage to accept her Moonman for Best Female Video, she was rudely interrupted by Kanye West, who infamously declared that "Beyonce had the best video of all time!" So when Beyoncé herself wins the award for Video of the Year, what does she do? Rather than deliver the acceptance speech that she had prepared, she invited Taylor back on stage to finish hers.
- Harsher in Hindsight as experienced media reviewers spotted evidence that the "interruption" had been prearranged
. Beyonce's husband Jay-Z later revealed that it had indeed been staged.
- Harsher in Hindsight as experienced media reviewers spotted evidence that the "interruption" had been prearranged
Disclaimer that I am a Swift fan and not a West one, but I attempted to search for Jay-Z's "reveal" and Google turned up no results. The "experienced media reviewers" seem to be giving nothing but speculation and gossip, and even the comment section of that page calls them out on it.
Should the second bullet point be removed, then?
Edited by annieholmesopenRemoval due to Rule of Caution Editing Judgement?
This entry of WebOriginal.Role Ending Misdemeanor was deleted by troper Super_Weegee just giving Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement as an edit reason:
- In September 2022, Cloudflare dropped the notorious website, KiwiFarms, from their DoS protection services, after a campaign organized by Canadian transgender activist and Twitch streamer, Clara "Keffals" Sorrenti, who herself was one of the victims of constant doxxing and harassment by the website, culminating in a swatting incident which made her flee the country. Cloudflare initially made a statement in response to Sorrenti's campaign, declining to drop KiwiFarms from their services, they walked back their statement a few days later when the threats escalated into threats of violence. And during the week after that, KiwiFarms was also dropped from other services, like Captcha, and their Russian and Chinese domains.
So far, I don't think there's anything in the post that's factually incorrect or biased, thoughts?
open Edit War alert (self report)
Some background first. There are two characters in Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury that fan presumed to be the same character. The first one is Ericht, a 4 years old girl from Prologue episode, and the other is Suletta, the heroine of the show who's stated to be 17. But the recent 6th episode has dialogue implies that the Prolgue takes place 21 years before the main story. So they're unlikely to be the same character.
While it's true that the dialogue isn't explicit that the 21 years old incident is the Prologue, there is no official words that they're the same character either.
So I removed all assumption that Ericht being Suletta
from Characters.Mobile Suit Gundam The Witch From Mercury.
The next day, frankywifeey274 added them back without edit reason
. I removed them again the next day
state that it's speculation and sent Speculation notifier to frankywifeey274. They added it back later, without edit reason
.
They sent PM to me, claims that there is no proof that they aren't the same character and how "The official Gundam wiki" states they are the same and so the page should remain as is. I replied that there's no such thing as "official Gundam wiki", only fans-operate ones. And as I noted, there is no official source ever state that they're the same character at all. Their next PM pull argument from ignorance that there's no proof that they aren't the same character beyond the statement from 6th episode. Again, I replied that Ericht being Suletta is the speculation itself and it was tolerant prior but now the show suggest that it might not be true. There's no further PM and the edit is still there.
So I did start the Edit War. My defense is that it's to remove Speculative Troping, although I realized it might not be obvious to a third party.
open Draco in Leather Pants misuse
I've noticed a lot of DILP entries that don't really make the case that fans are downplaying a villain's crimes, but instead act like merely liking or defending the villain at all qualifies as the trope, even if fans still acknowledge that they're the villain. These entries often make aspersions on the work's fandom, or read like this: "[Character] gets this a lot from fans, but this ignores the fact that they [list of the villain's crimes]." Some of these entries also come off as sexist, such as this one:
- The Dark Knight Trilogy: The Joker and the Scarecrow/Jonathan Crane seem to get this a lot in fanfiction for the Nolanverse Batman films. Leave it to crazed fangirls to pick two of the most evil characters in a series that actually has several sympathetic (or in the case of the ordinary mobsters, at least normal) villains to crush on.
It also doesn't help that the trope page itself seems to attribute the trope to fans finding the villain physically attractive, and states (without citing any evidence) that it's mostly fangirls who invoke the trope. I'm starting to think it might be better if this trope was limited to specific fanon examples, similar to what was done with Ron the Death Eater. Thoughts?
Edited by Javertshark13openSelf-reporting - image replacement Print Comic
So...
As a new(ish) troper, when I started actively editing works pages, I swapped out a fair few images for 'better' versions on both ComicBook and Characters pages. By which I mean different images that looked better, not just permitted quality upgrades.
At that point I hadn't fully understood the Image Pickin' rules and how they also applied to non-trope pages with existing images that weren't Image Pickin' approved.
Now, after much more troping, I have a much better understanding of the tools and customs for making that sort of change.
I've never had notifiers on this, and other tropers working on the same pages seemed to be comfortable with the changes. But. This is one of those things where I have seen other tropers get notified and suspended months or years after a change. And I'd prefer not to get caught up In that months or years further down the line, especially if that comes up multiple times on different occasions for the different images.
So what's the best way to make it right? Is it a case of leave it and deal with it if a particular image is challenged, or should I try to look back through history and take the cases to Image Pickin' (or elsewhere) to get them reviewed and confirmed or overturned?
Edited by MacronNotesopenCan Playing With pages be Self-Demonstrating?
I've written up a Playing With page for Back to Front, but I was considering making it Self-Demonstrating. (Starting with a link back to the main page and ending with Basic Trope.) Is this allowed?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UnintentionallySympathetic/AnimeAndManga
In My Hero Academia, Endeavour is shown isolating and roughhousing Shoto, for seemingly no other reason than besting All Might vicariously through his offspring. Shoto and Natsuo blamed their father for their loved ones' downfalls, even if he wasn't physically present at the tragedies. Though Touya's backstory recontextualized the Todoroki history. While Endeavour was still a major cause of conflict, all the family members contributed. Rei agreed to the quirk marriage and having more children after Fuyumi, thinking it could help her family. She could've of put her foot down more and pay closer attention to her older children, when she was wrapped up in her own fears. Besides from Shoto, who was too young at the time, the Todoroki children played their part as well: Touya would burn himself for his hero training and lash out against his loved ones' warnings. Fuyumi was aware of her family's unspoken tension, but kept silent for the sake of keeping the peace. Natsuo grew tired of Touya's ramblings and wasn't as supportive as he could've been.
This doesnt argue that Endeavor Is sympathetic but rather how unsympathetic everyone else is.