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:
openCaptain Marvel Film
Just a heads up, a troper has added a lot of entries for Hypocritical Fandom to Captain Marvel (2019). I'm not taking action myself, but I feel like a lot of the entries are distortions of the context for the film's criticisms (poor use of flashbacks, retcons to the timeline of the series) or bring up criticisms I haven't seen made about the movie (bad villains, use of 90s music, boycotting the military).
Given this film's "controversial" nature, and the controversial nature of the trope itself, would anyone else like to weigh in?
openFranchiseOriginalSin.StarWars Film
I want to start this by saying that locking or cutting a page should be used for worst-case-scenario pages only.
I've been trying to fix up FranchiseOriginalSin.Star Wars, and I've found that the page has many, many issues regarding the examples listed. It, of course, suffers from Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, as most Star Wars Audience Reaction pages end up like. Now, this in itself is a pretty fixable situation, because it's very similar to Narm.Star Wars, which we successfully cleaned out. Yes, it took months, but it was a satisfying conclusion.
But the Narm page was different, because that had 1-3 sentence examples that resulted in a simple cleanup objective of "remove misuse". It was very simple to fix the page. But with this page? No, my objective was to shorten the examples instead of cutting them. But the more I go into the page, the more I realize that nearly every example is a violation of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, and it's frustrating. Just like Example Indentation or Zero-Context Examples, complaining is a fair reason to remove a bad example.
So here's the "Ask" part: What should be done with the page? If it's undeniably hard to fix, and just about every example is a heavy violation of policy, what can be done to help? I was thinking of maybe locking it, but it sounds too obstructive. Cutting is also an option if the cleanup proves unmanageable, but it's barely on the table.
So, what does the rest of the wiki think about the page?
openChanging "Characters/GodzillaTheGodzillas" as Characters/Godzilla The Character Film
I want to know if it's okay to change Godzilla: The Godzillas as "Godzilla The Character", since while it's a page designed to show multiple versions of the character, the title itself makes it sound like they in the same continuity when there's 10 different versions of the same character while adding other media-related characters.
openWasted plots and characters Film
So, I found these entries in the YMMV page for Wonder Woman (2017).
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character:
- In the backstory the Greek Gods (especially Diana's patron goddess Athena) are all dead save for Ares, who by his own admission destroyed them. A common complaint among Wonder Woman fans is that while she is an excellent character herself, her stories generally don't have the same density of Worldbuilding and Rogues Gallery that Batman and Superman have, and that DC rarely does heavy lifting in integrating the richness of Classical Mythology to its superhero lore the way Marvel does with Norse Mythology, and that arbitrarily wiping out the Pantheon, for the sake of simplifying Diana's origin, potentially limited the scope of her stories going forward.
- Some viewers were disappointed more wasn't done with Dr. Poison. For starters, she's a female scientist during World War 1, a period of time where someone such as herself would be looked out with confusion or disdain from her allies. One youtuber
discussed this by pointing out how she acts as the perfect Foil to Diana: Diana had the ability to choose her destiny, while Dr. Poison essentially didn't, but the choice was made to make her a straight up villain in the end and not a Tragic Villain. Others think it may have been more interesting if she was Ares.
- The choice to kill off Ares. Not only is he Wonder Woman's most powerful and iconic villain, but he has so much backstory and potential that lends him to being one of the biggest villains in the DCU. He easily could have been a villain the Justice League could have had to face, and with how small Wonder Woman's Rogues Gallery is, he makes for a good long term villain. Instead he gets killed shortly after appearing, which calls into question now what they can do with Wonder Woman since her first solo-film has her beating a literal God of War.
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: Quite a few people considered it a wasted opportunity that the movie did not stick to the idea that Ares was not behind the war and that the people fighting in it were fighting purely because they wanted to, particularly since it would have provided a great reason for Diana to seclude herself from humanity. This is especially strange given that up until that point in the movie, Diana's entire character arc was about learning how humans are both capable of evil and good, but the choice for Ares to appear throws all of it under the bus. Its such a sore spot for people that many feel it damages the films quality.
Do they really qualify for these tropes or not? I'm asking because sometimes, the inclusion of these tropes in YMMV pages are less "This plot/character wasn't properly developed or explored" and more "I didn't like the way this plot/character was handled."
openHilarious In Hindsight on the Megamind page, misuse or not? Film
I've noticed that keyblade333 recently deleted the entirety of the Hilarious in Hindsight entry from the Megamind page.
After I talked to them about it, they claimed that it was because of misuse.
I think they're a mixed bag. Things like Jonah Hill's and Will Ferrell's roles in The Lego Movie count, given that Jonah Hill was voicing a character who was heavily inspired by Jimmy Olsen, with the names of two Green Lanterns, only to later voice Green Lantern himself who has an obsession with Superman. Same thing with both Will Ferrell characters having a tendency to mispronounce things and also being parodies of over-the-top supervillains.
Some of the entries really were borderline examples, but that's no reason to delete the entire entry.
Edited by tropineasilyopenEdit warring and weird message? Film
So on https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/PatchAdams
, I deleted a Funny moments entry because it was worded awkwardly, lacking in context, and for some reason I mistakenly thought the page already had a "heartwarming" section. HarleyQuinnIsGreat (who I guess entered it in the first place) reverted it back with an added " % % Do not delete the above entry without consulting someone first," and sent the deleting YMMV notifier while telling me not to delete without consulting them. (MOD EDITED TO REMOVE PM TEXT; ADDED SUMMARY INSTEAD)
At this point, I feel like the edit itself isn't really the problem here.
Edited by nombretomadoopen What's that trope? damage equals worthy of love Film
What is the trope in which an ordinary guy proves his worthiness to an extraordinary girl by taking extraordinary physical risks, and often losing in a fight? It's not "loser gets the girl" because that requires both guys to fight over her, and defeat makes her realize that the winner never really interested her. This is more like the girl does not really know she reciprocates his love, until she sees the amount of physical pain and damage he is willing to absorb in their shared cause. It may be the prelude to the "violently protective girlfriend" but not always. Is there something like the "Steve Trevor Effect" from the Wonder Woman (2016) movie? Except in that, they hook up before he blows himself up, but that causes her to (posthumously) forgive him for their fight. Any ideas? It's not "weakness turns her on" because we are not talking about a character who is congenitally weak in body or personality, but usually he is in some way inferior to her - less educated, less intelligent, less trained, whatever. Often, the guy takes a beating in an attempt to serve her in some way, protection, rescue attempt, something. This usually leads to the moment when the girl realizes that the guy who she has been somehow looking upon as insufficient is suddenly recognized as worthy. Several books do this, including Patrick Ness' "The Knife of Never Letting Go" and Brittany Cavallaro's "Charlotte Holmes" series. Any ideas?
open Edit warring over including Deadpool on the MCU franchise page. Film
Alright, I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but here it goes... There's been some controversy on the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise page regarding the addition of one untitled Deadpool film, which has been confirmed to be in early development by trades and anyone worth a damn. The problem is that Deadpool co-creator Rob Liefeld has recently stated something to the contrary, and that's spawned a ton of clickbait headlines and the spread of misinformation.
Here's the thing - the only person who says that nothing is happening with a character that brought in $1.5B in global ticket sales is Rob Liefeld, who is not part of the Marvel Studios picture at all. He is not being included in conversations about the next movie in spite of being a consultant on the Fox movies, and he recently shared some fan art of Deadpool killing Mickey Mouse on his social media page, so he is clearly not an impartial source of information here.
Another big problem with his statement is that allegedly, production grids for the next film in the series are out there, seen by a select few (including some industry insiders). Disney CEO Bob Iger also has an image of Deadpool on his Twitter banner, and previously noted that he's open to the idea of there being an R-rated Marvel Studios label for a third Deadpool movie and potentially other films. Marvel are currently in the process of making an omnibus of Deadpool stories from Joe Kelly, who gave the character the personality that fans of the character love. But most importantly, not only have Deadpool 1 and Deadpool 2 writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick officially met with Marvel Studios about the future of the franchise, but Ryan Reynolds, who is the only "FoX-Men" actor likely to make the jump into the MCU, has as well.
This was the original entry on the page before it got reverted:
- Untitled Deadpool film (TBA) note Confirmed by Ryan Reynolds to be in development. Reynolds will be returning as Deadpool, with writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick returning. Emma Watts and Simon Kinberg, who were involved with the previous films, will not be returning. The film will be the first R-rated entry in the MCU, and is expected to be distributed by 20th Century Studios instead of by Disney. Whether or not the film is a complete reboot or a Broad Strokes continuation of the franchise as it was prior to Disney's acquisition of Fox remains to be seen.
I tried relaying some of this information into the commented-out notes of article itself, but a Troper has recently accused me of being "biased" and is threatening to report me for vandalism... In spite of my simple relaying of crucial information like what I've shared above that debunks the speculation that Disney wants nothing to do with Deadpool. I am requesting that the Deadpool entry be reinstated into the article.
Edited by KingClarkopenUnrelated Trope Example Film
So recently I found a bad example in The Glass House like this:
- Financial Abuse: This is basically the plot. The siblings Ruby and Rhett were adopted by Erin and Terry, the best friends of their dead parents... only to be targeted for death so the "new parents" can collect the kids's HUGE inheritance. Not to mention Terry makes passes at Ruby, who's squicked outta her mind. Then, Ruby finds out that both Terry and Erin staged the parents's deaths. She then goes Plucky Girl, attempts to fight back against Terry and protect Rhett, and ultimately kills Terry (Erin had been Driven to Suicide out of guilt a while before). Then, the kids are taken in by their uncle.
openComplaints Magnet? Film
The Critical Research Failure section under Mulan (2020) is getting quite long and nitpicky, in excess of even what the most flexible interpretations of the trope allow. While a lot of people have correctly called the film out for failing to get basic aspects of Chinese culture correct despite advertising itself as more authentic, a lot of these examples come off as less informed criticisms and more an excuse for certain users to kick the film while it's down by parroting criticisms they saw elsewhere, some of which may misunderstand the actual reason for why the mistake was such an issue in the first place, or introduce Critical Research Failure of their own.
This despite scholars of Chinese culture and people of Chinese descent themselves pointing out that these aspects of Chinese culture get subjected to Artistic License within Chinese-created media all the time, and are not as clear-cut or even the worst crimes the film commits.
Edited by AlleyOopresolved Work with no tropes found Film
Madras Cafe had no tropes listed when I stumbled upon it via Wiki Walk. I've added one from the trope I found it from but it needs more, I've not seen it myself so I'm in no position to add insight on it, and I don't know where else to bring this up (Needs More Wicks seems to be cases of trope pages needing listing, not works).
openExcessive spoilering. Film
The page for Self/Less is very heavily spoilered, covering entire examples.
This movie does have twists, sure, but it looks excessive. Is there a standard procedure for such a case?
open Slow-motion grocery items dropping Film
What do you call this trope: The unsuspecting character, ofttimes a mafioso, is innocently carrying his groceries out of the store, or into his home, etc and is then ambushed by a gun-wielding assailant. The assault itself is typically off-screen while the camera instead goes into slow-motion, focuses on the groceries (fruit, produce, raw pasta, etc) slowly tumbling and rolling away on the ground, and which might be followed up by a puddle of blood then pooling near the spilled groceries. The music accompanying the slow-motion trope is operatic or classical music coming to a crescendo as this little scene plays out.
Edited by icebergopenWill This Film Have It's Own Page? Film
Will Nature Unleashed: Volcano (The Volcano Disaster 2005) have it's own page like most films? I've always wondered and originally I wanted to make the page myself, but I'm not that great with tropes and have only have done small additions and edits to a few films so far (even though I come to Tvtropes almost everyday to view tropes, pages, and films that I like so I can have some good laughs and make some stories and novels of my own with those tropes).
openDoes this qualify as a TropeBreaker Film
Upon rewatching The Mist, I've realised something. The entire premise of the evil cult that forms through the story and preaching of their leader hinge almost entirely on the fact the story is set in place with Protestant majority and the concept of predestination is not only a tenant, but actively used, both for the story itself and the in-story cult. If the story was set in any other background, the entire premise of the cult as "God will only save a handful of chosen ones, and everyone not worthy will go straight to hell, so prove your worth" falls flat on its face, because it just won't work out if you don't, say, have the story set in Maine.
But does it qualify if the location or social background of the story was changed as a Trope Breaker? I was thinking about this exact same story playing out in my own country, which is Catholic, and the type of person that's best described as a local equivalent of a fundie. And they would preach completely different things - assuming they wouldn't just blame it on Jews, then simply pray in the corner to pass time, which would be far more likely than anything else.
openStrawman Has a Point in Godzilla King of the Monsters 2019 Film
Troper Derv0s B 2 added this to Strawman Has a Point in the YMMV page of Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019):
"A surprising number of viewers reacted this way to the government's Gotta Kill 'Em All demands regarding the Titans. Said viewers argue that while the ending proves The Extremist Was Right, with what little the human race knows about the Titans at the film's start, the demand comes off as highly understandable. Of course, this argument ignores the fact that Monarch have already established before the film's start that the Titans are ecologically essential, and that the government are basically getting it into their heads that they somehow know better than the professional Titan experts."
I think the fact that the entry argues with itself disqualifies it for the trope. What do you say?
openShould there be a "linking section" on every MCU film? Film
Troper TheExtractor has taken to unilaterally adding a section to the top of all the MCU films that links it to the previous/next film in MCU release schedule.
Do we really need such a thing given that there is a Franchise page Marvel Cinematic Universe that lists all the films in the franchise and allows such navigation to each film already?
It's going to make the MCU films formatted differently than other films and does that open itself to having a "link section" for other film franchises like James Bond, Star Wars, etc?
The main thing that concerns me about this is that TheExtractor did something similar back in January 2021, where they unilaterally added a "cast list" to every MCU film.
Yet, they never seem to post any kind of discussion item beforehand of "I think this would be a neat thing to add to all MCU films" and then ask for feedback and wait for consensus before making changes to dozens of pages.
Edited by rva98014openDesignated 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 MasterHero

SelfDemonstrating.The Beast Of Yucca Flats appears to be mostly identical to its non-SD page.
Botched attempt to remove the self-demonstration?