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
Film.Kill Bill covers both films, and, presumably, the (hypothetically) upcoming third film.
The page is indexed under Films of the 2000s – Franchises, which is appropriate since Vol. 1 was released in 2003 and the second volume was released the next year.
However, the page is also indexed under Films of the 2010s, specifically under the 2014 folder, for the unreleased third film.
Considering that I don't think a release date has been announced, and the movie itself certainly doesn't exist yet, is that appropriate?
Also, should the series of movies as a whole be listed on both indexes, or should it be kept on one or the other, based on either the first or most recent movie?
Edited by SolipSchismopenNo Title
I feel like Stock Punishment should be listed on the Just For Pun index, considering that it's, well, a stock punishment.
Am I the only one? :o
Of course, I'm not sure how you would explain the pun on the index, since it's not a pun on a phrase, just the word "stock" (as in, Stock Characters, Stock Phrases, etc.).
Edited by SolipSchismopenNo Title
I feel like there should be an index for the following tropes, and any others that fit the snowclone:
- Awesome, but Impractical
- Cool, but Inefficient
- Difficult, but Awesome
- Boring, but Practical
- Powerful, but Inaccurate
- Simple, yet Awesome
- Cool, but Stupid
- Simple, yet Opulent
- No, Except Yes
- Awesome, but Temporary
- Embarrassing but Empowering Outfit
- The following examples are more about characterization, but still fit:
Please let me know if I missed any that are also snowclones. (Note that the snowclone is not simply "X But Y". All of the included tropes are about a weapon, technique, or other action that is either good with some drawbacks, or unimpressive but necessary/effective; or about a character who has two apparently diametrically-opposed qualities.
I opted to exclude the following from my above proposed list, because I don't think they seem to actually be cut from the same cloth, but obviously y'all are welcome (and in fact encouraged) to disagree:
- Reformed, but Rejected
- Reformed, but Not Tamed
- Forgiven, but Not Forgotten
- Devil, but No God
- Administrivia.The Same But More
- (and its baby-snowclone Administrivia.The Same But More Specific)
- Do Well, But Not Perfect
- With Europe But Not Of It
- Tanks, but No Tanks
- Same Character, But Different
- You Can Run, but You Can't Hide
- Mooks, but No Bosses
And if and when we make this index, it ought to be itself indexed on Snowclones.
Edited because I can't spell.
Edited by SolipSchismopenNo Title Film
I tried to make a YMMV part of the movie of the "judge" and moved the bit of Dwight being lawful neutral to the YMMV but it didn't work out the way I was accepting(ei:most YMMV are colored grey and the YMMV sign normally shows up on the page itself) also yeah this is the first time I attempted of making a YMMV page(also making my first movie page.)
Anyway yeah the question could you guys please help me out with making the YMMV page?
Edited by tvglaxopenNo Title Western Animation
I saw this description on Adventures of the Gummi Bears page and I was wondering if this should be allowed on this page:
At the most uncharitable, you could call this series Disney's late answer to The Littl' Bits (The Little Bits coming out in 1980; this came out in 1985), but it's more accurate to call it Disney's attempt to show how to do the premise right. Apart from obviously lavish animation, the series addressed the major complaints of Tatsunoko's series and the basic ideology of the 1980s; for instance, individuality is celebrated in proper proportion to the value of cooperation and the primary characters are far more nuanced with carefully considered flaws and strengths. Furthermore, the female characters avoid The Smurfette Principle, with multiple characters with strong well-defined personalities who bow to no one.
I brought this up because I'm not sure if this information really does pertain to the show exactly and it sounded it bit like a personal statement about the 1980s rather than the show itself. But, I was wondering if this should be removed or is it fine where it is?
Edited by RabbitearsblogopenNo Title Live Action TV
Would it count as Harsher in Hindsight if the creators blatantly meant for something to have meaning, but only after a certain reveal?
The point I'm referring to is from Series.Jane The Virgin. One woman uses her husband's frozen sperm to try to inseminate herself. At the time, it seems like a desperate attempt to get him to stay with her.
However, later on it's revealed she's a golddigger and it's just an attempt to keep him long enough for their prenup to kick in, thus giving her his money.
Still later on, it's revealed that it's his only sample and the only chance he'll ever have at having a child.
Is it Harsher in Hindsight when the creator intends for it to be harsher?
openNo Title
Are Self-Demonstrating pages a free launch, or should they go through YKTTW like other non-work pages?
openNo Title
What is the purpose of the [index] markup? I'm not finding it on Administrivia.Text Formatting Rules, which is where I typically go for help with wiki markup.
Recursive Index Index has two entries, and one of them is within that tag while the other is outside. I was going to add Just For Pun, which contains itself, but the inconsistent markup threw me off.
Edited by SolipSchismopenNo Title
Am I the only one who's noticed that Main.Speech Bubbles and SelfDemonstrating.Speech Bubbles are both self-demonstrating, and the Main/ page is even more difficult to understand due to the lack of differentiation between the bubbles?
I mean, yeah, Speech Bubbles are not exactly rocket science, but still.
Is this worth a trip through the Improvement Drive
?
openNo Title
Could Recursion possibly have a non-self-demonstrating version? Or at least an expanded non-self-demonstrating description that actually explains something before looping back on itself? Or at least a Laconic version that explains it without resorting to a joke?
...We could also probably stand to index tropes based around recursion (not just a Search Generated Index, as I'm sure there are recursion-related tropes that don't have that word in the name). I'll take a look around and see if that would be practical.
openNo Title
I was wondering, if a work contains a multitude of worlds, and one of them is absolutely crappy, does the work qualify for Crapsack World? Or does it have to apply to the entire Multiverse?
The reason I ask is because of Mortal Kombat. Earthrealm is...well, our world, except with The Masquerade, and some of the other realms seem to be okay, but Outworld is absolutely terrible, possibly even as bad as Hell itself and I was wondering if Outworld could be legitimately listed as a Crapsack World.
(Admittedly, I already put it up, but I'm not sure it works, and if it doesn't I can always take it down.)
openNo Title
morane included the following example in God Is Evil:
- The Predestination doctrine in Calvinism. It implies that God has pre-selected those people who are destined to Heaven and those who are destined to Hell before they were even born, and that a man cannot do absolutely nothing on behalf of his final depository. Calvinism teaches that God's elect have been pre-selected to salvation and nothing can change their predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. But when some people are chosen to salvation, it also implies that the rest are just as well pre-selected to Hell - and in the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin. This distortion makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly moves man to do. This is called double predestination, and even John Calvin himself admitted this is the most monstrous doctrine, but in front of God's incomprehensible majesty the human reason must humbly yield. But on human behalf, the notion that he himself can do absolutely nothing on behalf of his salvation and that God himself have made the majority of humankind solely on eternal suffering and torture in Hell on his mind makes the salvation nothing short of raffle and God as the source of all sin and evil. Ergo, God is evil.
openNo Title Live Action TV
Ever since Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. S02E08, "The Things We Bury", was broadcast, there are some like myself who believe Daniel Whitehall is a Complete Monster solely based on his actions in that episode. However, unlike those others, I have shown a perfect willingness to wait until his time on the show ends and have even helped remove his example until the proper time.
openNo Title
I don't know if it's against the rules, but there's a troper_ abby-anne who keeps deleting Fan-Preferred Couple "Levi/Mikasa" entry on YMMV /Attack On Titan even though it's completely valid. I've tried readding it, explaining why it belongs there but she continues to delete it and ignores me when I PM her politely asking why. I don't want to go into an edit war over something so silly, but I find her behaviour about it odd and wish she'd at least explain herself instead of ignoring explanations of the trope and simply deleting it three times over.
Edited by scrooge20mcduckopenNo Title
Self-Demonstrating/Charizard has been recreated, and with pretty much the same issues that got it deleted before. Clean up or axe?
openNo Title
Is Three D Movie a trope to be placed on a work page? A lot of the time it just appears on the page with no context as "self-explanatory". With 3D becoming so widespread, isn't it now too common to be a trope?

I just wanted to make sure of something. I recently removed an example of Based on a True Story from VideoGame.Five Nights At Freddys, on the grounds that the entry was based on a fan theory posted by The Game Theorists which loosely connected some elements of FN@F to the 1993 Chuck E. Cheese massacre wherein a disgruntled ex-employee shot five other employees.
I pulled it for discussion, but I wanted to ask here just to make sure I'm in the right here. Two questions:
1. Am I correct in my assumption that Based on a True Story has to be PROVEN to be an example? As in, it has to be something the game's developer himself said, and not just a fan theory?
2. Also, I'm pretty sure Based on a True Story is a disambig page and that, if this IS a valid example, it should be listed as the closest relevant sub-trope, which in this case would probably be Very Loosely Based on a True Story. Is this correct?
Edited by wrm5