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:
openNo Title
boleroinferno left a really rude edit reason
for Romanticism Versus Enlightenment.
While the edit itself increased conciseness, could someone inform him that that kind of ranting is unacceptable?
openNo Title
How long should a list of tropes be before it splits off into its own page?
I also wanted to know if this was where I should ask this question - the pages for each of the films in The Dark Knight Saga have their own subpages, but the page for the saga itself also has subpages. Should they be merged together?
openNo Title
Despite a note from Eddie not to restore, this YKTTW has been restored https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=xxsbzi072881to60fbudbiqv
and the Put on a Bus page mentioned in Eddie's note has had a busload of edits after the system restore which seems to have undone at least some of the system restore restorations. Can a mod look into this please?
Edit: Could I have accidentally restored it myself just by looking at it? If so, then I profusely apologise for that.
Edited by CrypticMirroropenNo Title
Despite a pm from myself a couple months ago, and later I believe a mod spoke with him/her after I reported them here last month, Sky Hedgehogian Maestro continues to make nattery edits. For instance, adding a second bullet on Action52 that says "Often averted. Sometimes pseudo-averted."
Edited by TerrieopenNo Title
Quick question. I'm not exactly sure how to word this but I'll try my best.
I've seen trope names on work pages where they're slightly modified to fit in with the terms used in the work itself. Hypothetical example: Our Friends And Squishy (adjusted for My Friends... and Zoidberg). If, like the above case, the first letter of the adjusted trope name is different from the actual trope name itself, would it go under the tropes starting with O or starting with M?
I hope that makes sense? I just need to make sure before I go around doing the wrong thing.
Edited by CenturyopenNo Title
I found a page that is nothing but a stub containing no tropes, only a vague description, and the fic itself has apparently been deleted form Fan Fiction.Net. Pages like these are supposed to be purged aren't they?
openNo Title
Should I list tropes for Dreams of Empire on Past Doctor Adventures or can I make a work page for it all by itself?
openNo Title
16 august, Nano Moose removed a Villain Protagonist example in The Last of Us with the following reason: "A Villain Protagonist isn't a protagonist who's done bad things; they actively do evil things for evil reasons. Joel is ruthlessly pragmatic and selfish, not evil." 3 Sep, Ronin X put this back with the following edit reason:"Regardless of intentions, someone who does bad things is a villain. For example, a great number of fictional works contain a villain who is simple a Well Intentioned Extremist." Look, this is not (yet) an edit war, was a bad idea i alert this?
openNo Title Film
On the character sheet for the X-Men movies
, someone changed Deadpool's entry to make it self-demonstrating.
Now... I already hate SD pages, but that's just really, really jarring to suddenly get a page turn SD halfway through for just one entry.
Edited by LarkmarnopenNo Title Film
Have a bit of a dispute between myself and Zaptech on the Battle Los Angeles film page. I've made an edit that the Marines' tactics are not quite correct, but Zaptech keeps deleting my edits, in his believe that the tactics are correct. This despite analysis that I've linked.
Not that the tactics are wrong per se, but that they're not wholly applicable to the situation, and run counter to actual US doctrine (essentially using COIN tactics in a defensive engagement).
I've tried to PM him, but he won't respond. Third opinions would be helpful.
openNo Title Live Action TV
Since the previous thread I put up as a premptive measure has gone, I'll repeat this here.
Moderators really need to talk to JIKTV
about his Single-Issue Wonk with Trish Stratus. He bordered on personal attacks in that page's discussion thread, accussing anyone who was against his edits of being either Trish's personal publists or working for the WWE (and when I removed one of his bad entries on another page he sent a PM to me accussing me of being put up to it by two of the people he had been arguing with on Trish's discussion page), made edits that were venturing into Real Life territory against the actress behind the character, and added this to a seperate character page and filled it with entirely negative tropes (as well as insulting those who had been reverting his bad edits):
- Adored by the Network/Creator's Pet: WWE basically hyped her as the greatest thing to ever happen to the Women's Division or to the Women's Title or to humanity in general. According to WWE, she's the only one who was ever even IN the division (Lita was involved here and there), and that she carried it all by herself or some nonsense. All the other wrestlers who got jobbed out to her, demoted, buried and thrown out the door like yesterday's garbage aren't important and no one should waste his or her time thinking about them. She got to retire as Champion, violating wrestling tradition which says that you are supposed to lose your last match. She had the head of "Creative" induct her into the WWE Hall of Fame.
- Protection from Editors: She even has that on this site.
- Boring Invincible Heroine
- Designated Heroine: Her first title win, over Jacqueline, Ivory, Lita, Molly and the debuting Jazz in the six-pack challenge at Survivor Series 2001, really came out of nowhere. She hadn't been competing much on TV and hadn't even had a PPV match since InVasion in July.
- God-Mode Sue
- Karma Houdini/Protagonist-Centered Morality: Apparently, she only felt that the whole Molly Holly "big ass" garbage was a bad thing to do was because she was a Face at the time. That's right, it might have reflected negatively on her. Never mind that it was a terrible idea and they never should have done it in the first place.
- Sacred Cow: Look what happened to Melina and John Morrison for daring to say anything negative about her.
- The Scrappy/Hype Backlash: It's out there if you know where to look. Do a Google search for her name and "overrated" and see the results.
- Screw the Rules, I'm Beautiful!: She may not have said this herself, but, there are fans who will use "she was hot" as a defense against any criticism of her.
- Viewers Are Morons
A moderatator really does need to get involved at this point because while he's not edit-warring on any page that his examples are getting taken off of, he is finding as many ways as possible to get around that.
EDIT: To give some more evidence towards his obsession, he edited Designated Hero, Jobber, and Girls Need Role Models to reflect negatively towards Trish to the detriment of the article. For the last one, here's what he wrote about her in the trope:
"Trish Stratus was there because the company really loved her. She basically established the template that led to WWE purging the talented WRESTLERS (Jacqueline, Ivory, Molly Holly, Jazz, etc.) in order to make room for the Diva Search Idiots and the Catalog Idiots (John Laurinaitis found Kelly Kelly and Alicia Fox in the same swimsuit catalog, which is apparently what he considered "scouting talent.")" (If you're interested, the original line before he added all of that in was "Trish proved that beautiful women could become talented wrestlers", which fits with his discussion and PM rethoric to always bring up that she was a model before she became a wrestler)
He also takes every chance he gets on any wrestling page that is mildly appropriate to bring up that Trish Stratus won her retirement match and that it was violating wrestling tradition, while anyone who has followed Professional Wrestling for awhile could list off more than a few names who have all done the same.
Edited by ShaokenopenNo Title
There are several redirects for Series.The X Files, for main namespace, versions without the article or dash in the title or the one with curly brackets. The problem is that the title displayed in the article is the title of the first film (The X-Files: Fight the Future), even though it's clearly an example from the series.
I tried to edit one of the redirect but it pointed correctly to the series (but displayed as the movie).
Does this justify opening short-term project for cleaning it up? Or is there any opened discussion where could I post it and ask for help?
I thought I would edit it myself, but there are lots wicks for one person.
Thanks.
Edited by XFlloopenNo Title
Okay I don't know if this is the right place for it, but everywhere except Ask The Tropers itself has the "o" in the wiki's logo replaced by a Skull and Crossbones (in a way that implies death rather than pirates) why is it there and does it have something to do with that whiteout/glitch that made the wiki inaccessible?
If there's a better way for me to ask this question (I don't think this is negatively affecting the site), can you tell me where to ask and then lock this?
Edited by MorningStar1337openNo Title
Slash Fic seems to be confusing itself in the description, first it says it comes from the show having a LGBT Demographic, but later on it says it comes from Girl-on-Girl is Hot and it's reverse.
openNo Title
The Diamond deleted commented-out mark-up on Hot Witch in anime/manga folder without providing proper context in most of them. Link to history.
I'd rather do the reverting myself than asking for restoring earlier versions because there are some edits that appear fine or at least save-able.
EDIT: I looked briefly at their edit history and there seems to be an issue with adding Zero Context Examples in general. And Natter, too.
Edited by XFlloopenNo Title
I feel like Cowboy BeBop at His Computer when a journalist writes an ill-researched article on a work should be under Trivia, and not go on the work's primary page.
If the journalist has his own page, it can go on his main page there, I suppose. But it doesn't make sense to me that people's reactions to the work going on the work's page itself.
openNo Title Literature
I ordered a book called Rasp which is related to the bookseries Halvgudene the other day, but it hasn't come yet so won't write about it until then. But I'm wondering about something... if all the important characters in the book are also in Halvgudene, would it be possible that if one click on "characters" on the future Rasp-page that it takes one to Halvgudene's character page? Or even better, straight to where the information on Rasp herself is? Thanks ^^
Edited by killikim

In the flowers for algernon page I added an trope instance of bring my brown pants
- Bring My Brown Pants: One of the few times it's Played for Drama. Charlie has a tendency, especially as a kid, to shit himself whenever he gets frightened, which doesn't take much considering he's retarded. This just leads to more pain and suffering since then Rose decides she has to spank him, somehow thinking that disciplining him will stop him from being retarded.
This was later replaced with simply- Bring My Brown Pants: One of the few times it's Played for Drama.
the reason given that the original example was needlessly inflammatory natter. Since I really do not like getting into flame wars/edit wars, I was wondering if the original example was really inflammatory, since the current example is pretty much zero context. Edited by jjjj