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:
open Etiquette on deleting contentious/false moments examples Web Original
Got something that has been bothering me for a few weeks and rather than go the edit route I thought I would get a proper consensus first before taking any action.
Over on the H.Bomberguy heartwarming page there is an example for his RWBY criticism video with two subpoints and one third point. Most of the second and the third dot points are potshots at the show or it's company disguised as compliments to HB and could easily be cut out without much controversy. It's the main entry that I have an issue with.
To summarize, in his video on RWBY HB portrays himself as having been a life-long fan of Monty Oum (RWBY's creator who was long deceased at the time of the video), and the heartwarming entry on his page is talking about how much respect HB has for Monty as a creator and a person. The problem is that this is a lie; whilst Monty was alive HB made a lot of outright venomous statements on Monty and his skills that contradict his claims about how he was always in awe of Monty's work and considered him a personal hero. This makes HB contentious in the RWBY fandom since a lot of people see him as pretending to respect Monty (or at the most generous obscure his previous hatedom which he's since backed down on) to make his criticism seem unbiased rather than someone who went into the show as someone who thought its creator lacked talent and thought it looked average at best. It touches on a sore spot in that community of haters of the show using Monty's name as a way to bash the show/it's remaining creators.
So to circle back to the entry, it's repeating the claim that HB respected Monty and his work. That is a lie as HB's own forum comments can attest to. Would that be enough to get the entry taken down, or does this still fall under a subjective opinion and so the entry stays? If so, would deleting the sub-entries which lean towards taking potshots at the show and it's fans be acceptable?
openIs It Okay to Create a Page About ChatGPT? Web Original
The year 2023 is now the year of A.I., especially ChatGPT and AI Generated Artwork.
If it's okay to make, we could make it self-demonstrative, like so:
TropeGPT: Sure! Here's a page about ChatGPT on TV Tropes.
The Laconic page can also be self-demonstrative too:
A chatbot developed by OpenAI that can write whatever the user asks.
- Troper: How do I go back to the unabridged version?
TropeGPT: Here's a link that will take you back to the unabridged version.
Edited by Oxyrhynchus
resolved Re-added Hilarious In Hindsight shoehorn in spite of cleanup Web Original
Near the end of April on the Hilarious in Hindsight page for Zero Punctuation, rundownforge50 added this sub-bullet
to an example that just happened to offhandedly mention Garry's Mod. I figured this seemed like a shoehorn since it didn't strike me as something which later context has made all that much more amusing or entirely relevant to the context given in the parent bullet, so I raised it to the Hindsight Cleanup thread
and was cleared to cut the example
.
Fast forward to today and I check the page's history since it's in my pinned pages list, and I notice that the same troper had added the same example back
the day before, with superficially altered wording that really doesn't help the example's case for being an example of Hilarious in Hindsight.
Speaking to the substance of the example itself, perhaps it would have been an example of Hilarious in Hindsight if the player model was one that Yahtzee himself created and/or frequently used, but a quick glance at the linked workshop page tells me that it isn't. So as far as I'm concerned, the example still seems like a shoehorn.
I won't say one way or another if the readding of the example is a breach of the Edit War policy, if only because the passage of time between the deletion and readding makes it unclear from my perspective. But I'm assuming, given the linked approval from the hindsight cleanup thread, that I'm still clear to cut the example?
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Would this count as an EditWar? Web Original
On Sep 5th 2021
, I removed the Trope Informed Wrongness from the YMMV page of the fifth episode of Helluva Boss, due to said entry being Trope Misuse as a result of misconstruing the events of the episode.
On Dec 30th 2022
, jOSEFdelaville added Informed Wrongness to the page again, but with a different entry. I believe this is also an example of misuse that misconstrues the events of the episode, as Millie wasn't the one who brought up the fact Moxxie had a gun, Moxxie himself did. Millie only said he didn't need to prove he was stronger physically after he lamented not being strong enough, saying basically to stick to his strengths when facing him this time. Moxxie was the one who said "I probably should have used this earlier, huh?" after remembering he had a gun on him, Millie's reaction being more exasperation when she sees him remember and make the comment. "I love ya hon, but for fucks sake."
Would it count as an Edit War if I removed the trope since I had already removed Informed Wrongness once before, even if it was a different entry?
Edited by RebelFalconopenHandling Fanfic Recs Who Break The "No Self-Recommendations"-rule Web Original
I was told to come here for this question, so I hope it's not a dumb one:
How is the breaking of the "No Self-Recommendations" rule handled in Fanfic Recommendations? Like, if somebody posts a fanfic rec of their own fic, is the entry in question just cut with a provided reason for the entry being cut, or does the user in question also get a warning?
I figure that it's probably just the former, or maybe even cut without having to provide a reason(?) because a self-recommend isn't a big deal in comparison to active policy violations, but I figure that it's better to ask anyway. I just want to know if I can just go ahead and cut such an entry or if there's more of a procedure to it.
Edited by MagmaTeaMerryopenWorks page made for a single video questions Web Original
I noticed someone made a trope page for AI Pajama Sam, which is based off of a youtuber (DougDoug) playing Pajama Sam in "No Need to Hide When It's Dark Outside" using an AI voice program. I'm unsure why it exists or if it needs to, but I wanted to mention it since it feels odd it was made.
The video it was made for was a decently length one, but it is so far the only one Doug has made, and stuff it mentions can be done on his own Web Video page. Is this something that really should be done? The page itself is somewhat barebones and even has a character page now, but it feels unnecessary to make a page for a single video like that. I think it should be deleted for now, but wanted to get feedback on this.
Edited by keyblade333resolved What's the line between Bad Boss and Mean Boss? Web Original
In response to a previous query
, I recently moved all the examples of Bad Boss on Not Always Working's page to Mean Boss due to trope misuse. Now I'm considering moving the Mean Boss examples to a new page, but I'm wondering now if some of the Mean Boss examples counted as Bad Boss examples after all.
For instance (text copied from the article itself),
- This boss
expects a worker to clean up an active biohazard without any sort of protective gear, because calling the city about it would cost too much, yet loaning the worker equipment they're not trained in, or letting them buy the equipment themselves, would be illegal. The worker quits on the spot.
- This boss
tries to send an employee out for carts in the middle of a severe thunderstorm, and then screams at and fires them when they (rightfully) object. Luckily, Laser-Guided Karma kicks in right away when her boss finds this out, and, thanks to an extensive history of screaming in front of customers, she is immediately fired the next day for intentionally putting the employee's life in danger, and later gets thrown behind bars for assaulting her ex-husband over a lost custody battle.
- The bar owner in this story
refuses to reschedule a mandatory meeting (which turns out to be just an hour of patting herself on the back for the bar's performance during a busy period, ignoring the staff's efforts) despite a two-foot blizzard being forecast, and threatens to fire anyone who doesn't attend. Despite their obvious reservations, the poster manages to get in just one minute late... and gets a write-up for it. The poster quits on the spot. Those who failed to attend — most of the staff — are indeed fired, but promptly sue for wrongful termination and win; it also comes up that the staff weren't paid for attending the meeting. The Department of Labor gets involved, and not only is the bar forced to close, but the owner ends up having to sell her home and many of her possessions to cover legal fees, damages, and back pay. At the end, the poster notes that none of this would have happened if she had just taken their advice in the first place and rescheduled.
- The grocery store manager in this story
won't allow the poster, a lot attendant, to come in for a drink of water, despite being in the middle of a July heatwave in Florida. After four hours of this, a passing gentleman convinces him to go inside, offering to speak to the manager in person and even buy some water. The manager immediately spots the poster and fires him. However, said gentleman, who turns out to be the regional director, steps in, angrily berates the manager for her reckless endangerment of an employee and gives her a fourteen-day suspension — which soon escalates to her dismissal, as it turns out that she has been forcing underage employees to work longer than labor laws allow and denying them mandatory breaks.
- This supervisor
refuses to let the OP, whose Psycho Ex-Boyfriend is always waiting for her by the door at closing time, leave through an alternate exit, laughing in her face when she has had enough and threatens to quit. She does (sending her resignation to the "big boss" who completely understands), and even goes through the unemployment process... but the supervisor refuses to accept this and treats it as her going AWOL, finally calling her up and threatening to fire her if she doesn't show up for work, and ignoring her protests that she doesn't work there any more; the poster finally agrees to come in just to shut her up (but doesn't do so, obviously). After her number gets blocked, the supervisor starts sending employees to the OP's house to demand that she come in to work, though all they do is "chill" at her house (and get paid for doing so). The poster eventually moves (and the ex is dealt with legally).
The impression I get from Bad Boss in my last query was that BadBosses are willing to kill or let serious harm befall their underlings. Would you guys say these examples count?
Edited by DancouMaryuuopenMisplaced IKnewIt Entry? Web Original
In Trivia.Cell Spex, I Knew It! is now YMMV, but it's about CellSpex herself accurately predicting a meme. Should it still be moved to the YMMV page?
resolved Should this be TRS'd: AmericaWonWorldWarII Web Original
The trope description meanders along far too many tangents to what should be a description of the trope in fiction itself...feels like most of this should be moved to an Analysis page?
Edited by DarthWalrusopenDisagreement about the Awesome/BobChipman page, don't want to risk an Edit War Web Original
Not too long ago, a troper called 309216364 (is that the ID of an already-banned troper or something?) deleted the single biggest entry on this page, about Bob's massive "Really That Bad" video series on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which I will post here:
- During Part 1 of his Really That Bad analysis of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bob makes a comparison between the narrative structures of The Avengers (2012) and Batman V. Superman stripped of all but their most basic elements that underlines one of the main reasons the former succeeded where the latter failed: Avengers is straightforward, easy to understand and can be enjoyed without prior knowledge of the source comics or the preceding films because it doesn't lean on them to work as a narrative with its single Sequel Hook a post-credits shot of the Greater-Scope Villain, while BvS is a disjointed, convoluted mess that doesn't follow an understandable through-line narrative, paradoxically wants to differentiate itself from the source comics yet relies heavily on them for most of its emotional weight to carry and desperately tries to set up future films through gratuitous in-universe viewings of preview trailers. And he does all of this while giving every person or object with enough plot relevance a funny nickname, with plenty of Actor Allusions and character comparisons to go around.
- The entirety of his "Batman V. Superman" Really That Bad analysis. Chipman delivers his critique in a mature respectful tone, without insulting the filmmakers personally, and goes into detail acknowledging and addressing common arguments in defense of the film.
- Two of the best things he does is to effectively and succinctly fix the movie's greatest problems.
- The first being the 'Diana/Wonder Woman watching the teaser trailer for the Justice League scene', wherein Bob proposes letting Batman, the normal human who is discovering a lot of this new information for the first time, and whose perspective the audience has been following the entire movie, be the one to discover the existence of more metahumans. This not only gives the scene greater suspense and dramatic weight and a greater impetus for Batman to fight a perceived threat like Superman, it also gives a fantastic reason why Diana never showed up for a hundred years and was breaking into Lex Luthor's drives: She was helping cover up the existence of metahumans (and her secretive race) from people like Luthor.
- The second is the entire 'conflict' of the movie being forced and contrived and way too repetitive by the time the two people in the 'V' actually get down to versus-ing each other. Bob fixes the movie without any drastic overhaul or extensive retooling with two simple words: No Batman. The plot remains the same, with all the conspiratorial machinations and the populace distrusting Superman kept intact, but transfer all of Batman's actions and motivations to Luthor, thereby making Luthor a sympathetic, justified, heroic counterpoint to the detached, reluctant, destructive Superman, which would have greater thematic resonance and streamline the plot. For an added bonus, Bob suggests keeping Ben Affleck, with all his likability and charisma and on-the-ground heroism, as Luthor, which would provide even greater metanarrative implications and make the plot more compelling.
- To make what can only be described as a near definitive 3-part, four hour critique about Dawn of Justice, all the while maintaining his normal work responsibilities, is a feat of dedication that can only really be described as impressive.
As well as forgetting to delete the next paragraph that followed on from that (an observation about Bob possibly doing a "Really That Good" series on The Lord of the Rings) and leaving it orphaned, his reason for deleting the entire segment basically came down to "I don't think it's awesome and I don't like Bob". His cited reason from the History page:
Apart from the fact that this reason for removing the entry is entirely subjective (I thought "Really That Bad" was awesome, and I'm not even the one who wrote the original entry), it's also blatantly incorrect- there are several segments in Bob's series where he goes out of his way to be fair to the film and admit the things it did well and the ways it could have worked (even though it didn't), so the troper's claim that "he is entirely biased against the film in all aspects" suggests he edited it solely because of He Panned It Now He Sucks.
I could have just restored the edit myself, but I'm quite certain the guy will just delete it again, triggering an edit war situation. And since the last time I got close to an edit war I nearly got myself permanently banned, I'm not even going to get close to the possibility of it happening again. So I'm hoping there's some way to get a 3rd party judgement on this?
Edited by ArcaneAzmadiresolved Potential edit war? Web Original
On this page of this RWBY episode:
- Super N 9999 added a "Nice Job Fixing It Villain!" entry about Neo
.
- gjjones deemed it as potential misuse, so they took it down
.
- SuperN9999 re-adds it back, with the justification of the entry being present in Neo's character page
, despite reiterating that it was previously removed due to misuse.
Do we have a concrete Edit War here?
Edited by skan123openComments As Moments on Webvideo pages Web Original
I've noticed that there are a few moments pages for youtube series (mostly funny moments) where some of the moments listed are comments on one of their videos instead of anything from the video itself. Wouldn't those technically count as meta moments, or at least not count as actual content from the show itself?
Edited by Afterwordresolved Can Hypocrite apply to the author of a work or just its characters? Web Original
For instance, say the author of a work clearly in an author's note expresses contempt for a certain trope or story beat, but then in the work itself they use that same trope or story beat straight without irony or deconstruction when necessary to suit the narrative.
EDIT: If not, is there a more appropriate trope to use?
Edited by RaxisopenHow should I handle spoilering on my page? Web Original
Self-explanatory. I want to put ROYN as an example of media that uses certain tropes in their respective pages, but the format of the series makes it hard to handle this, so how should I handle this?
Edited by GammaRaulopenLinking external works? Web Original
If one were to add a quote or example from a fanfiction without a page on this site, is it ok to link the title to the fanfiction itself? Additionally, should the page of the original work be linked somewhere in the quote?
Eg.
as opposed to
resolved Is this a valid example of Playing Against Type? Web Original
So someone added this to Etra chan saw it!:
- Playing Against Type: In this episode
, Azami, who usually plays an Obnoxious In-Law, gets the role of the abused daughter-in-law and her usual role goes to Akane. Yuzuriha is also cast as a nerdy girl, which is usually Tsutsuji's role, and Tsutsuji herself gets Yuzuriha's usual role as a Crusading Lawyer.
As far as I know, the trope seems to cover only actors that play against what they're usually cast for, and don't include any in-universe examples. (For context, Etra chan saw it! has the characters as actors In-Universe).
Edited by mickey96resolved Super Mario Odyssey: Hide and Seek Web Original
So I made a page for Super Mario Odyssey: Hide and Seek the other day, and then I thought of something. I was going to put the series into the FanWorks.Super Mario Bros page... only to be confused for quite a while, because the series itself is based on a mod for the game, so do I put it in ROM hacks or Web Video?
I have no idea.
Edit: I just realise that I thought about it too much, please ignore this.
Edited by Narioresolved Entire Page Typo Web Original
I was looking on the Dethroning page for Web Orginal Others and noticed that there was a very obvious typo in the title and page url, with "Original" being spelled wrong.
Is this something for a mod or admin to fix? I'm hesitant on doing this myself, not only because of how big this change would be, but I just don't know how to do that properly.
Edited by MidnightRun99resolved Is this mf a Love To Hate villain? Web Original
https://hate-sink.fandom.com/wiki/Patrick_Star_(Paka)
This is Patrick Star, from Paka's Dark SpongeBob Parodies. It's more than obvious he's a Hate Sinknote while some people may not trust FANDOM much because of some mistakes they have from time to time, they clearly discuss
every character before adding pages related to the Moral Ranking Wiki, Heroes Wiki, and Villains Wiki, since the series itself presents him as an irredeemable and dislikable, violent and cold asshole who wants nothing more than to kill SpongeBob and Junior (a baby clam, btw) at all costs (and he also basically represents the abusive husband in a toxic relationship when the sponge took the clam to his house, doubling his hatable points), whether is by killing people, threatening them at gunpoint, and -spoilers if you didn't see the animatics- making SpongeBob digs his own grave in a graveyard while having Junior in a cage.
Yet even with all this hatable and unsympathetic traits, he also has some Evil Is Cool moments when he kills an entire gang all by himself, all of the things he does to get to Sponge and Junior actually shows him how much of a clever and manipulative son of a bitch he is that accompanies his brutality (and this is Patrick, by the way), and, after the events of Part 2, he's shown to have the regenerative and cloning powers like his The Bikini Bottom Horror counterpart, which he uses to beat the crap out of and kidnap Mr. Krabs and asphyxiate Bubble Bass by making him gulp one of his parts by force, killing him and latter making a clone of himself be created, also Paka does a really good job at voicing him.
Apparently, I also saw that Hate Sinks can indeed also be "Love to Hate" characters, so he may also count.
Also sorry for all this Wall of Text.
Edited by UzarNaimBer15

On the recap page for RWBY's final episode for Volume 9
:
- Full Metal Heart 20 added a Surprisingly Realistic Outcome entry tackling Ruby's ascension
.
- It was deemed misuse by Wyldchyld, who deleted it
about four hours after it was added.
- Full Metal Heart 20 re-added the entry, albeit worded differently
with no given edit reason.
Edited by skan123