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 "See the subpage" vs. crosswicking Live Action TV
~Mariofan 99 removed
two Franchise Original Sin examples from YMMV.Obi Wan Kenobi and replaced it with something to the effect of "See FranchiseOriginalSin.Star Wars". I feel like this practice violates Crosswicking policy (i.e. I'm okay with having a franchise hub subpage but I think examples should still be crosswicked on individual work pages), but since I wrote one of the examples myself, I want a second opinion to avoid edit-warring.
They also failed to actually add the removed example to the subpage.
Edited by StarSwordopenVideo Games folder in Gondor Calls for Aid
It's not alphabetized compared to the other folders. Is it okay for me to move the folder since it might count as a "big edit"? Just the folder itself, I'm currently busy to alphabetize the contents within.
resolved Theme Parks under No Real Life Examples Please? What's the stance/scope?
So, on some pages under No Real Life Examples, Please! (e.g., Americans Hate Tingle), there is a folder for theme parks, which isn't too bad by itself, but several examples list entire parks (Disneyland Paris, Universal Studios Japan, etc) which are real-life places, so I want to question, does their inclusion violate No Real Life Examples, Please!?
My assumption is that:
- Specific theme park rides within the parks(Haunted Mansion, Small World, Wizarding World of HP, Super Nintendo World, etc)/characters original to theme parks/rides (e.g., Duffy, Figment, Hitchhiking Ghosts, etc) - Fine to add and doesn't violate NRLEP since they're works/characters.
- Theme parks as a whole (like listing Disneyland Paris under Americans Hate Tingle) - Violation of NRLEP since theme parks are real-life locales.
But I understand there is a grey area given the nature of theme parks (not unlike sports), and correct me if I'm wrong.
Edited by Tylerbear12openMagazines
I want to write pages for a few comic magazines (think EC's stuff, Out of the Night, and Dark Mysteries), but the main thing I keep tripping over is that I don't know whether to put them under Magazine or Comic Book.
- Administrivia.Namespace gives no specifics on what does or does not fall under Magazine and Comic Book.
- Looking through the list at Anthology Comic, most entries are Comic Book, but a few are Magazine and some that use Comic Book as namespace are described as magazines. I can't figure out what the (general; I do know about Creepy specifically) deciding factor is, if there is one to begin with. The list at Magazines does not make things any clearer either.
- Taking a step back and going purely with my own thought process, if something like Weird Tales is a "magazine" that contains "literature", then something like Strange Tales is a "magazine" that contains "comic( book)s" and should not itself be under Comic Book. Furthering that sentiment on my end is that there's a few of these magazines that have a feature comic under the same name, such as Supernaturals, and they could have separate pages. If they were both under Comic Book, you'd have something like "ComicBook/SupernaturalsMagazine" and "ComicBook/SupernaturalsComic" and that looks infuriating.
My guess is that TVT does not have any guidelines/rules yet on this matter and that the use of "Comic Book" for what seem to me magazines flowed over from the (super)hero side of it, where magazine and comic book are roughly the same thing. If that's correct, then I take it this is not the right place to ask. I'm not opposed to seeing if I can get a discussion started; which forum would be best for that?
Relatedly, I can't find anything about whether magazines (and similar anthology works) are exempt from needing tropes. A number of magazine pages have no tropes, while for instance four out of five of Weird Tales tropes seem ZCE and not really applicable to the magazine to me. I would guess magazines are exempt because they are a variation of creator pages and come with the same difficulties in trope gathering, but creator pages explicitly don't need tropes and I can't find anything like that for magazines.
Edited by Pfff133openPage moves/edits without approval
I made a request here
mentioning that Series.Clarence and WesternAnimation.Clarence should have 1988 and 2014 respectively. I had no response if I can do that move myself or not.
I also made another request here
on Ask The Tropers where a page titled MediaNotes.Hot Ones Actors sounds like an accurate name.
openEdit warring over nattery subbullet.
This is a follow-up to another ATT
alerting of a nattery edit in YMMV.The 100 Girlfriends Who Really Really Really Really Really Love You because today I noticed the example is being edit warred.
- [1]
: Huniepop Completionist adds a lone subbullet to the Vanilla Protagonist example that looks like it's arguing with itself.
- digdis makes the ATT
, which is inconclusive aside from reminding that YMMV has no exceptions for the natter and indentation rules.
- [2]
: Rebel Falcon removes the subbullet because examples are not arguable.
- [3]
: Huniepop Completionist adds it back again.
I've sent them a notifier, but what else should be done? I'd also like to reach a conclusion on if Rentarou Aijou counts as a Vanilla Protagonist in the first place.
Edited by animuacidopenNew DC Universe Franchise Page Film
So Franchise.The DC Universe Film Universe has been launched, and I'm not sure if that was the agreed upon name that should be used. It feels clunky to me, and very easy to missearch, on top of the fact that there is no "The" used, and it's going to confuse alot of people. Myself and others were already working on Sandbox.DC Universe 2024, and while I don't want to use a year disambiguator, idk what else to do.
Edited by GateStarXresolved Does YMMV have a different standard for natter than Main? Anime
Hi,
This edit
for YMMV.The 100 Girlfriends Who Really Really Really Really Really Love You strikes me as natter. I was looking to edit the paragraph so that it doesn't look like the wiki arguing with itself, but before I do, I wanted to check whether YMMV has a different (lower?) standard for natter than Main.
My reasoning is given that the opinions expressed in YMMV tend to be subjective, does that mean that it's acceptable for Tropers to respond/debate under an entry?
resolved Reporting EditWar (NVM, taking directly to MODS)
- On November 23rd, 2024
, Tropers/BK-notburgerking edited the Adaptation Relationship Overhaul entry for Momo Yaoyorozu on The Best Case Scenario, if you're being "realistic", adding the detail "as they have far more respect for her (and less for Bakugo or Todoroki) than they ever did in canon."
- On June 11th, 2025
, Rebel Falcon (Myself) edited the entry to remove that detail, leaving the edit reason "They had plenty of respect for her in canon".
- The same day, not even 4 hours later
, BK-notburgerking readded the trope, with the edit reason "Not nearly to the same extent as here, especially considering how often others take the spotlight in canon", enacting an Edit War.
This reached the point I had brought it up in ATT once before
resulting in their being suspended, had to open up another ATT just to get permission to revert the edits like I was originally aiming for
, and then get a notification half a year later because they responded to the ATT long after the decision had been made requiring I mark the topic as resolved since it already had been long resolved.
Requesting assistance in this matter, possibly moderator intervention as well. I would send them a PM notifier, but I blocked them from my PM's last year after the original ATT issue, so someone else will have to.
Edited by RebelFalconopenPotential spoiler issues for an image caption
The page Characters.Mobile Suit Gundam G Quuuuuu X had a "click to show" image added by user DinoCam1795 to the folder for the character Nyaan where the caption to click to see the image was labelled "Zeon Uniform (spoilers)". While it does warn people viewing the page that spoilers are shown if you click the image, the caption itself was self-defeating since her joining Zeon is a spoiler in of itself (for reference, every mention of Nyaan's role in Zeon is under a spoiler tag). I made an edit to the page changing the caption to read "click to see spoilers" in line with similar instances I've seen on other pages where an image depicting certain appearances is a spoiler with the edit reason "I feel like mentioning it's a Zeon uniform in the caption makes the spoiler warning a moot point.". However, user Kuruni changed the caption back (minus the "(spoilers)" portion) with the edit reason "How can anyone know if they will be spoiled or not without clicking its first? If it bother people so much, why put the image here at all?". In the interest of not starting an editing war, is this fine or should the caption be adjusted in some other way to avoid spoilers?
Edited by Kirby0189openhow do I make folders work?
I kept trying to make character folders for South of Midnight and... well you can look for yourself am I just stupid or what's going on?
openMaking threads for quality upgrades on Image Pickin
So, in the Image Pickin forum, if the image that you suggested is the same image on the trope page, but it's an upgrade in the quality of the image, is it okay to start a thread in the Image Pickin forum for upgrading the quality of the image or can you just edit the image in the trope page yourself?
openTrope misuse Literature
Beastpower 87 has repeatedly added Moral Event Horizon entries to the Harry Potter page that aren't accurate, such as saying Snape crossed it in Book 5 by not teaching Occlumency properly despite the fact he's portrayed as redeeming himself, and claiming Hermione crossed it despite her being one of the heroes which means it wasn't intended by the author (and she's claimed to have crossed it by wiping her parents' memories despite this being to protect them).
Edited by Javertshark13openUser with consistent complaining, edit war and bias issues
I previously made an ATT query
on Jondoe 1265 after noticing a lengthy edit war on YMMV.Punisher 2022. However, in the time since the query was made, several other users, myself included, have noticed several edits from there consisting of complaining, edit wars, and edits that are biased or violate Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment. Many of their edits seem to be on works that are infamous for having mixed/negative reviews.
- An edit
adding Artist Disillusionment to Trivia.Joker Folie A Deux that uses two No Real Life tropes (Pyrrhic Victory and Gone Horribly Right) to complain about Todd Philips.
- Three edits to YMMV.Saints Row 2022 complaining about the game - the first
adding a sub-bullet to Uncertain Audience to complain about political correctness, the second
adding Fan-Preferred Cut Content, and the third
adding a complaint-heavy Replacement Scrappy entry. After the Uncertain Audience entry was cut, they readded it
.
- An edit
to Series.Out Of Jimmys Head changing "mixed critical reception" to "immensely negative reception among viewers".
- An edit
to YMMV.I Am Not Starfire adding several complaint-heavy tropes (Bile Fascination, Critical Dissonance, Glurge, Too Bleak, Stopped Caring and Unintentionally Sympathetic) alongside a zero-context Fanon Discontinuity entry.
openEdit war on YMMV.Punisher2022
There appears to be a rather lengthy edit war going on the YMMV page for Punisher (2022).
- On June 5th 2024, bigbossdiego rewrote a large section of the page
and removed Fanon Discontinuity. Their edit reason states that the page is incredibly biased, particularly towards one character.
- On February 22nd, Jondoe1265 made two
edits
- the first changing Broken Base to Critical Dissonance and readding Fanon Discontinuity, the second being a rewrite.
- On February 23rd, bigbossdiego undid these changes
.
- On February 24th, Jondoe1265 readded them
, claiming that the people giving the comic praise are critics who don't like The Punisher.
- About three hours later, bigbossdiego undid the changes again
, claiming that people on sites like League of Comic Geeks and Reddit enjoyed the series.
- On February 25th, Jondoe1265 reverted it back again
, accusing bigbossdiego's edits of censoring negative opinions of the work.
- Hours later, Bigbossdiego clapped back
before Jondoe reverted it again
.
The work itself seems to already be fairly divisive going off YMMV's edit history. But this is an edit war, right?
Edited by SkylaNoivernresolved How to not turn this accidentally into an edit war
This will be a complex one, so bear with me for a moment.
Tief Blau cut from YMMV.Roadwarden entry describing Serial Numbers Filed Off. No edit reason, no nothing, just slashed it. That was my own entry, so re-instating it would be an edit war.
I started discussion, asking for reason. No answer. I can't PM them (don't ask) to summon them, either. And on top of that, TiefBlau did a grand total of 4 edits across past 7 years, so I sincerely doubt they will show up any time soon anyway.
What to do then? I don't know why the entry was cut, I can't put it back as it was and I don't know what to change in it to make it valid (assuming it was invalid in the first place and not cut on a whim).
So what's the procedure here?
.
PS
If there is something at fault with the entry itself
, then help a bloke fix it and thus it will be a non-issue for potential edit-warring
resolved What's the "different things, different rules" trope called?
What's the trope called where different powers are subject to different rules, thus allowing the writers to make up whatever they want without creating inconsistencies?
For example, at 2:48 - 4:07 of this video: https://youtu.be/dWAkcrplBJ0?t=168
you can see Goku giving an overly-detailed explanation about how the Fusion Dance and Potara Earrings are two completely different things, and thus, we don't need a justification for why one works inside Majin Buu's body but the other doesn't. It's justified *because they're different,* and because they're both made up magical items, Toriyama can make up whatever rules he wants for each without contradicting himself, no matter how arbitrary those differences may seem otherwise.
Another example of this trope comes at 2:22 - 2:47 of this video: https://youtu.be/a_b8O4HMXTk?t=142
. In that episode, it was explained that the device Billy used last season to undo his de-aging had a belated side effect. This doesn't create an inconsistency with the other power rangers. Why aren't they also rapidly aging? Easy: Because they used the Zeo Crystal to reverse their de-aging, not the device powered by the old power coins. Different macguffin, therefore, different rules apply. No further explanation necessary.
An example where this DOESN'T apply can be found at 19:05 - 19:25 of this video: https://youtu.be/gcSRUZ0oNq0?t=1145
. Billy explains he can't become the Gold Ranger because, when the Command Center blew up, he absorbed a large amount of [insert random technobabble here], causing his body to resist the Gold Ranger powers.
But that doesn't make one bit of sense. At 7:07 - 7:17 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cynLGdMWoVs&t=427s
, Billy explains that the Gold Ranger powers are identical to the Zeo powers the other rangers already had. They were standing in the exact same spot when the Command Center blew up, and yet they were able to accept the Zeo Powers at the start of the series without any problems.
So, this is a case where it's NOT "different things," and therefore, it should follow that you can't just make up an explanation for one character that doesn't also apply to the others. It's the same powers, and the same explanation for why Billy couldn't take them should also apply to the other rangers. So the writers really dropped the ball in that little exchange.
So what is this writing trope called, where you can quickly and easily explain away seemingly arbitrary treatment on the grounds that different mystical and/or sci-fi macguffins were used?
openConsidering making a page spoilers-off
There are several folders on Characters.Iris Hawthorne Ace Attorney where almost all of the entries are spoiler-tagged, to the point that I've made several of them spoilers-off. I'm considering doing this to the whole page because others folders still have self-fulfilling spoilers, but I think I should get a consensus first.

Long ago I created a self-demonstrating page for everyone's favorite murderous furry. Said page however was deleted because it was argued in the games Afton had too little lines to warrant his own self-demonstrating page.
Now, I argue we can make another one, mostly thanks to the collab between Five Nights at Freddy's and Dead by Daylight, which gives us a good amount of quotes from Willy and a pretty good idea of what his personality is like. Now I know some people will say "But that's not canon", and while it is true that the collab itself isn't canon (at least to FNAF), it doesn't mean the way he behaves in it isn't: remember everything that was put into this collab had to be approved by Scott Cawthon himself, and seeing how William spoke and acted in Pizzeria Simulator and AR (whose quotes are re-used for the collab) I'd say it's pretty clear that's how Scott imagines William's personality to be like (aka an evil theater kid).