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:
openExample on Lost Aesop is questionable in more ways than one.
There's a Lost Aesop example featuring Star Trek: Insurrection that I think fits the trope, so it isn't misuse, but it has two problems:
- It uses the term "American Indian", which I'm a bit concerned might be offensive (though I'm not Native American myself).
- It claims the Maquis were all Native American, and while some certainly were, there was also one half-alien-half-Hispanic and a fair amount of full-blooded aliens (most of whom were Bajorans).
openGeneral rule of thumb for providing context for adaptations?
What is the generally accepted practice when it comes to providing context to trope examples of an adaptation that has deviated from its source material just enough to warrant a separate page? Is it preferred that an editor divorce from their knowledge of the source entirely while writing out context, or to use a bit of it with some measure of discretion?
Some context as to why I bring this up: There's God Eater 1 (the source) and God Eater (the adaptation), which covers only about a sixth of the original's narrative and takes notable liberties with the events it does cover as well as some of its worldbuilding. Enough to be considered its own take, if anything. In the latter, the last episode has a few Sequel Hooks which allude to storyline events that occur afterward to appeal for a second season that probably won't come in the foreseeable future and/or needle the viewers into buying the game to see what happens next. A few trope examples revolving around these hooks have been written from the perspective of someone who's either only seen the adaptation and is going only by the information provided within, or was going with the aforementioned "divorce from the source" approach. I was tempted to edit to correct any speculation that's objectively wrong or otherwise add in further details as someone familiar with the original game, before I stopped myself and began wondering whether or not I even should since they both have their own pages.
Edited by BakazukiopenUrban Hellscape description edit concern
On the description for the Urban Hellscape trope, Tropers.Shadowgazer removed a link to Lower-Class Lout.
Their reason was: "Unfortunately there is too much truth in the Lower Class Lout trope to be dismissed as just a lie used for the persecution of innocents."
The problem with this is that within the context of the crack epidemic (which was the IRL impetus for the Urban Hellscape trope), it was used as an excuse. This isn't even being political: it was the entire point of the trope.
The point of Urban Hellscape was to portray lowlife criminals as savage animals that needed to be put down by violent police or vigilantes. Even the description of Lower-Class Lout itself states: "While these stereotypes are Truth in Television to some degree, it's debatable whether the stereotype comes from Real Life, or said real-life examples are imitating the stereotype." This makes it even more weird that they would use Truth in Television as a justification for removing mention of the trope in the UH description. Lower-Class Lout is exactly the proper trope to use in the description within that context.
At the very least, that aspect in the description of the trope just feels extremely disingenuous, IMO, but I've invited Shadowgazer here to give their perspective.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenNo Title
Godscar Chasm deleted a lot of the examples
on Nick Fury, so now it just looks like a list of tropes with no context.
openDawalk86 is... worrisome
Dawalk 86 was released recently, and has some issues.
There's a bit of Zero Context:
- Eye Pop: Killer upon seeing Charlie and Itchy have returned.
- Black Face: "Little Dutch Mill" briefly features a black shoeshiner (or rather a shoe shaver-and-painter) who is designed in this manner.
The Black Face one also doubles as misuses, since it's a black character who looks like that. Racist old trope, but not this racist old trope.
Then there's Word Cruft (bolded part):
- Color Failure:In "Little Black Sambo", the titular character turns white with fright upon encountering a tiger, not noticing at first that there's a real one behind him as his dog tries to warn him.
- The Dorothy from ''Dorothy Meets Ozma of Oz". Dorothy's skirt billows from the front up to her thighs when there seems to be an earthquake in the cave.
Finally, there's a whole lot this kind of troping:
- Marilyn Maneuver: Dorothy's skirt billows from the front up to her thighs when there seems to be an earthquake in the cave. [This is a shoehorn, that seems to be here only so Dawalk can write about an underage child's thighs. The scene is HERE
and doesn't qualify, in my opinion.]
- Panty Shot: Dorothy, whose skirt billows up from behind and gives a white panty peek as she and Billina flee from the Wheelers.
(I forced myself to look this up. HERE
is the so-called panty-shot. It's not really a panty-shot as much as it's just panties being briefly visible, and it indicates that Dawalk just wanted to write about a child's panties.)
In itself not a problem that someone tropes those things as long as they're done correctly. Still, even disregarding that "Dorothy, whose skirt billows up" should read "Dorothy's skirt billows up", I'm just not sure that this is an intentional example of the trope. Also, Dawalks seems eager to trope panty shots, and again, it could just be an innocent interest so I don't want to assume. But it seems, well, one-handed. So to speak. And it seems as if he's looking for any reason to write about children's panties.
EDIT: Also, I've gone through all his post-release edits, and these are his basic trends:
- Posting Shes Got Legs every time a woman's legs are at all visible, regardless of whether it's meant to be sexy or just is a couple of legs existing.
- Posting Marilyn Maneuver every time a skirt lifts a bit for any reason.
- Calling every glimpse of visible panties a Panty Shot.
openProper Namespace for an OELManga Series?
I'd like to create a page for the OEL Manga "Orange Crows", but I'm conflicted over what namespace to put it in; Manga or Comic Books. (Clicking around in the OEL Manga titles section shows that it covers works from both namespaces, which only deepens my confusion.)
On the "Manga" side: the work was generally marketed as a "manga" when the first volume was released in the late 2000's, it was originally published by Tokyopop in their standard 5 in. × 7.5 in. tankobon format, and it draws heavily on manga style.
On the "Comic Book" side: it was written by an American author, it reads from right-to-left, and I can't find evidence that it was ever released outside of the USA. (It appears the author self-published the second volume in a similar tankobon format outside of the Tokyopop imprint.)
I would lean towards putting the work in the Comic Books namespace, but I figured I would pose the question here for propriety's sake. Is there a consensus on these matters that doesn't appear on the OEL Manga page?
Edited by LeporidaeopenIndexing Law and Order episodes Live Action TV
Apologies in advance if I missed something, a thread, a how to, but my searches have been fruitless. I am filling in Law and Order episode recaps, but I don't know how to index them once they are created. I've been able to self teach and learn from other posts, but this one I'm stuck on.
openEdit War involving Flame Bait
Today, I was going through and removing Flame Bait from various YMMV pages (and a couple of others). When I found this page
, I saw it had a So Bad, It's Horrible entry (which was apparently an intended reaction). I promptly removed it; no other YMMV page has a SBIH entry, and hasn't in a long time. But then, I looked at the edit history (probably should have done that to begin with) to see who added it. Somebody had added it only a few days ago...
And they had also added it back in November of last year. And I had removed it a few months later (which I forgot about). It's an edit war. Which I've (unknowingly) got myself into.
So, what should I do? If I revert my own edit, will that push me out of Edit War territory? Or will it not make a difference?
Edited by Shadow8411openCompletely Different Title
jOSEFdelaville deleted some examples from CompletelyDifferentTitle.English:
- The Castafiore Emerald was originally Les bijoux de la Castafiore, or The Jewels of la Castafiore.
- Flight 714 was originally Flight 714 to Sydney (Vol 714 pour Sydney); but the extra bit has been added back to recent editions of the comic printed in Britain.
- Le ciel lui tombe sur la tête (The sky is falling on his head) = Asterix and the Falling Sky
- Asterix in Spain instead of "in Hispania" (again, how the country was called in that time, and also through the book itself).
- Asterix in Britain instead of "among the Britons".
The edit reason was "Not really completely different." While it's true that they have some similarity, they definitely are deliberate, noticeable choices. Does it really have to be entirely different? Can they go somewhere else?
In addition, the edit also changed "among the Helvetians" to "at the Helvetians" (original French chez les Helvètes). That may be technically more accurate to the word "chez", but "at the Helvetians" doesn't read grammatically correct. Can anyone weigh in on this?
Edited by nw09openCan this be reviewed, please?
So flblbl has just made a very big edit to the Transgender Useful Notes page here
. I wanted to ask if other Tropers could review it and see if it's all good—I know this topic has been under a lot of discussion on the wiki as of late.
I'm also a bit wary because the edit reason contains "did delete a bunch of stuff that was just weird cis scientific voyeurist crackpot theories and self-congratulatory pats in the back"
But anyways, I'm a cis person who isn't well versed in this subject AT ALL so I'd appreciate some others' input.
Edited by iamconstantineopenWMG/EverybodyCries
I happen upon the trope page for Everybody Cries and I'm perplexed to find a WMG subpage. There's no media namespace of the same name, and the page itself (WMG.Everybody Cries) doesn't help much.
openViolations of FanficRecommendations template
I've noticed that many, many fanfic recs on the various Fanfic Recs/ pages don't follow the template listed on Fanfic Recommendations. Normally this isn't too bad - just swapping the order of the lines or adding the review button - but it's also pretty common for people to add a "comments" line and provide their (sometimes very long) thoughts and opinions on the fic, when that's apparently supposed to be reserved for reviews.
Since I don't think it's possible to move these comments to the proper place myself, what do we do about this? Delete the comments outright? Message the (active) tropers and warn them that the comments belong in a review, and, if nothing's done, will be removed after X amount of time?
I feel a bit bad deleting all this information outright, especially if it could go elsewhere, but moving it wouldn't be easy and all the comments are really bloating some pages.
openI think I edit warred by mistake.
I think I edit warred by mistake. So it was decided that the Resident Evil games can't have an FPC on the FPC cleanup thread a while ago. Here is a link
. Leon in particular is given Ship Tease with everyone, and lacks an official pairing which is needed for the trope. However today I noticed an entry on YMMV.Resident Evil 2 Remake. It was for Leon and Claire who are given Ship Tease in the remake. This already makes it impossible to for it be a FPC as it's for non-canon ships, and Ship Tease means that the creators meant for it to be shipped. So I removed it here
. However, I hadn't noticed that it had been removed and readded by tropers that are not me. As I didn't check the edit history.
Did I edit war? If so I will accept the consequences and would like to report myself.
Edited by BullmanopenFollow-up query to RedMoonAlgesco
The original query is long buried by this point, but consider this new query a "bump" of sorts because Red Moon Algesco is still displaying very bad editing issues. Most notably on Characters.Genshin Impact Archons (history here
).
Here's an example they added to Baal's profile, which is a clear violation of Example Indentation in Trope Lists.
- Jerkass: Baal is a very self-centered, arrogant and egotistic Archon who rules Inazuma as more of a ruthless Dictator than a proper Ruler. To summarize...
- Jerkass Gods: Compared to the mischievous Venti and the collected Zhongli, Baal is a massive Narcissist who holds her country in an iron grip and even initiates a decree to seize all vision-holders inside her domain. It is said that as of currently, it has been a year since she granted anyone an Electro vision. Reasons for this is currently unknown.
openRedirect policy and one-man cleanup projects
A while ago, I noticed that Vulkus (who I'm pinging here so they can respond) had started to systematically remove all redirects to The Legend of Zelda: Oracle Games (primarily The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons, the two games in the duology) and replacing them with the main page name. I was a little concerned, primarily because a) most of the examples affected were specific to one game or the other but not shared between them, so I wasn't too clear on the reasoning, b) relatedly, Vulkus did not leave any edit reasons nor links to any discussions to explain what they were doing, and c) this seemed like kind of a big project do out of one's own initiative. I contacted them through PMs to ask what was going on, and they stated that they were in the process of removing all redirects for certain pages that in their opinion had too many (they specifically identified the The Legend of Zelda and Golden Sun games here). Their stated reasoning was that these pages had been given too many redirects by a specific troper and that these redirects clutter up the pages for mobile users, and so they were intending to remove them all.
The primary reason I'm concerned here is that from what I'm understanding of this, this is far too big a project for a single troper to just decide they're going to across the entire site without consulting anyone else — especially if this is supposed to include actively cutting the redirects on all these pages right now instead of "just" editing examples to have a different active link. This was the primary thing I was trying to stress in my messages, but I'm not too certain I got my point across because after a while they simply stopped responding to me but continued right on with their one-troper cleanup project (they finished with the Oracle games, moved on to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and I think they're on The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess right now). Essentially, they decided to undertake a wide-scale wiki project on their own, apparently did not attempt to engage in any discussion over this before implementing it, did not leave justifications in their edit reasons, and simply cut off communication without altering their editing when contacted independently. I'm a little concerned about this.
Regarding the issue itself, I would actually tend to agree with their basic reasoning (a lot of the Zelda redirects are simply truncated or modified versions of the titles that don't seem to have ever actually been used officially, which does mean that they probably shouldn't actually exist) — but this should have been discussed and agreed on publicly, not decided by one person without oversight or input. This is especially so because a number of the redirects are the valid titles of secondary games and re-releases, and it seems to me that they would be the appropriate links to use for tropes and examples specific to them and not the broader and/or base work.
Basically, this should have been taken to the forums, and probably should be taken there still. A dedicated redirect cleanup thread is probably something we could make use of.
openSelf Promoting Troper?
This one is a bit weird, and I'm not sure It's strictly bad, it's just... weird and I wanted to probe the hive mind about it.
Charles Phipps is clearly Creator.CT Phipps (He makes no secret of this, it's his forum signature), which, fine, authors can be tropers and trope their own works. The part that gets weird is whenever he write an example in a trope page about his work, he'll always plug the work name "by C.T. Phipps". For examples:
- This is the policy of the Vampire Nation in Straight Outta Fangton by C.T. Phipps. (...)
- This is the case for vampires in the Straight Outta Fangton books by C.T. Phipps. (...)
- Gary Karkofsky in The Supervillainy Saga by C.T. Phipps is a prime example of such. (...)
(See basically any trope page one his creator page's related to tab
)
Now, this isn't strictly wrong at all. It's just that we don't usually list the author of a work in an example unless it's relevant and there's no policy for or against it afaik, and even then that's not a big issue, what makes me bring this here is that it's clearly being done by the author himself so it kinda enters this weird Shameless Self-Promotion territory and I'm not sure if it's something that needs to be addressed. And again, I wanna emphasize that this isn't like he's sockpuppetting or anything, he's pretty open about who he is. I'm not accusing him of violating actual policy or anything underhanded, it's more a question of form.
I removed the one in Stronger with Age at first coz it felt weird to have just the one example that listed an author, but undid it coz I really wasn't sure how to proceed.
Edited by GhilzopenDesignated Hero and Villain in Wonder Woman 1984 Film
The YMMV page of Wonder Woman 1984 places both Wonder Woman and the Cheetah as Designated Hero and Villain, respectively, under the following arguments:
- Designated Hero: At its worst, the film makes Steve Trevor out to be more of a heroic figure than Diana herself, particularly where it comes to Steve's situation. From using the body of the "Handsome Man" for sexual activity without any ability to consent (which is sexual assault and/or rape) to her reluctance to ever let this nameless man have his own life back instead of keeping Steve possessing him, she is rather selfish overall, with it being Steve insisting on her going to save the world from catastrophe. Much like the prior film chronologically, she only allows someone or something she truly desires to leave when the object of desire itself says so while telling of her heroism, showing that if she actually has a possible penalty to her actions personally on an emotional level, she would more likely not suffer said consequences at the expense of the world unless forced to.
- Designated Villain: Barbara's wish to be like Diana is completely understandable given her circumstances. She's overlooked by almost everyone at work despite her positive qualities such as her sweetness and her knowledge. She had to rely on Diana to save her from a rapist, with the only lesson said rapist learned from the encounter was that Barbara was powerless on her own. Steve then tells Barbara and Diana that anyone who made a wish on the stone must renounce it regardless of their reasons for making the wish. Diana agrees with Barbara that they just can't do that; they are both reluctant to renounce their wishes. It doesn't help that Barbara's wish is corrupting her mind, while Diana's own wish is for reasons that seem frivolous in the big picture (see Designated Hero). Adding to all of this is that Barbara's less-sympathetic moments only ever kicked in during moments when selfishness would be a natural reaction. For what it's worth, Diana never sees Barbara as a villain and keeps trying to reason with her; Barbara momentarily stops attacking Diana on seeing the latter renounced her wish.
Okay, I have to ask, are these arguments valid? I did watch the movie, personally I believe these arguments to be flawed. The movie goes out of its way to make Wonder Woman realize it's selfish of her to keep her wish, especially because of the price she has to pay. As for Cheetah, she she never visibly renounces her wish even after seeing the consequences the collective wishes of humanity are having on the entire world.
I know that YMMV pages are meant to be opinionated, but it looks like there are people who using this particular YMMV page to voice their grievances with this movie and I would like to remind everyone that TV Tropes and the Internet are not your personal echo chambers you can use to say whatever you want and not expect any consequences.
So, what do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroresolved The Mask Film
I found this page: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanWorks/TheMask
I don't know if it's a written rule, but I don't think Fan Works pages should be filled with unpublished fanworks (I googled them and found nothing). I know I can delete the page itself by putting it on the Cut List. But the three pages within, I'm not sure that they should be deleted, maybe they could be moved to Unpublished Works. How does one move them? Is it a job for admins or can regular users do it? Is it okay if they're moved?

I was reading one of the trope pages for American Dad! and came across an entry for a minor character. The character was described as “mentally re***” (uncensored on the page, but I refuse to type it in full), which I really must question. I know that phrase used to be used as a medical term, but it just seems... really not polite and kind of shocking on the page itself.
Sorry if this sounds whiny, I have a big thing against slurs.