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 looking forever for an older diy show..
I remember it was a female host..she started each show drinking a coffee in a real barn at least it looked real..she was thin with long dark hair...she always made mistakes on the show..she ended her show by laying in a hammock inside a house and dressed really fancy like from olden days...she always recited a small limerick or poem while in her hammock...the show was aired in the 80's or early 90s...can somebody help find this shows name...it's driving my son and myself crazy trying to remember it....
openMeta Unfortunate Implications?
I was reading through the YMMV page for Metroid: Other M, and I found this entry under Unfortunate Implications.
- Some have accused many of the harsher complaints of
Values Dissonance towards this game as veering dangerously close to racism, especially seeing as this game's attempts at appealing to Japanese players didn't fly well over there either.
Is this type of UI okay? It's not talking about the implications from the work itself, but about fan critiques on the game. I've never seen a UI entry applied to a fandom before, and I just want to reach some sort of consensus on it. Is any meta entry all right as long as it has a citation?
Edited by chasemaddiganopen Is there a reason that "Variant Cover" does not seem to have an article? Print Comic
Okay, so, while by necessity discussing the ridiculously confusing labeling of the covers of the Green Lanterns series it became necessary to reference the fact that part of the problem is that with fans knowing that there are Variant Covers for the issues in this comic event, it's even harder for them to automatically notice that there's more than one issue that is a different chapter of the story but numbered the same and named/labeled so closely as to be easily confused with another one (yes, I know it's confusing when tldr'd. I think I managed to give an accurate enough summation on the page itself if you need clarification on what the heck I'm talking about, though. That part doesn't really matter though, because...).
Thing is, I assumed (though yes as always I would have double-checked my link to make sure) that Variant Cover would lead to a page describing the trope. But...nope, it's a red link. "Perhaps it has an article, but just under a different name" I figured, so I searched and...
...surprisingly, there are a LOT of uses of the term "variant cover", in the correct context, all over the site. A notable example being The Great Comics Crash Of 1996 which explains the logic behind the practice. What there apparently isn't, though, is an actual article telling you what it is...?
For those less familiar with publishing industries, particularly comic book publishing, where the practice is currently still very common, a Variant Cover is:
An alternate cover option - not an alternate edition that happens to have a different cover to differentiate it, that is, but in fact a "collectible", internally identical, alternate version of the same issue/book produced at the same time, but simply with a different cover. The idea being the actual comic book issue (again, usually it is comic books where you see this) is exactly the same on the inside but it has the option of an alternate and often rarer or more exclusive cover, usually with primary art done by a different artist than the "main" cover. Sub-types of Variant Cover include: a normal full-color cover that just happens to differ from the original "main" cover (often done by a different artist, who may or may not specialize in cover art); "sketch" or black and white covers meant to show the original pencils or ink drawing instead of a full-color version of the drawing; comedic/parody covers like the series of covers Marvel did with Deadpool; event-exclusive V Cs like for San Diego Comic Con; and even mostly-blank covers, where there's only the important logos and basic information like price and issue number (these are intended for bringing to artists at events like conventions and book signings, where they can sign or sketch on the front for you)
The practice became particularly popular in the early-mid 1990s Western comic book publishing industry as a way to boost sales among obsessive collectors, but it's still very common in the West today; so common in fact, that DC recently reassured readers kind of sick of the practice that there would be only "one variant cover each" for any given issue in the DC Rebirth relaunch! But it's not just DC that does it, or even just DC and Marvel: some "indie" publishers do as well, as well as prominent but non-Big Two companies, such as Dark Horse (I know for a fact that the Buffy Season 8 and 9 comics had V Cs for instance).
Again, there are a LOT of examples (like, literally everything DC is putting out right now, probably literally everything Marvel is putting out, at least a few LONG-running Dark Horse titles, etc), to the extent even that I might suggest using it as an explanatory-only article that notes you can link the trope from the individual work's page - but I definitely think the practice is specific enough, distinctive enough from simply "different edition/different cover", and widespread enough, to deserve an article to explain it to those not familiar with the practice?
Given all that, I'd like to know if there's ANY good reason why there is NOT already such an article, aside possibly from the fact that nobody's thought to/bothered to make one yet? I don't want, after all, to start an article that might not exist for a reason, but I can't imagine a reason why it shouldn't?
open Can we please, please, please stop calling Evangelion a deconstruction? Anime
The concepts of "deconstruction" and "reconstruction" on this site are ludicrously vague to begin with, and Evangelion is one of those series that, while good, also ends up having people project a lot of assumptions on it that aren't necessarily true. And the whole "deconstruction" thing isn't the only bit either, tons of people were really anal retentive about the religious symbology until Anno or whoever just came out and said they were doing it because it was exotic and sounded cool.
A lot of the concepts in Evangelion that people seem to think are revolutionary and "deconstructive" were already thoroughly explored, warts and all, in the genre's infancy in the same way that people find so amazing in Evangelion itself. Astro Boy, Great Mazinger, Zambot 3, Ideon... Hell, even Combattler V which wasn't that much to write home about still could've been argued to "deconstruct" the combining mecha subgenre it set up in its first episode when the leads weren't able to actually combine and work together as a team because they had only just met and hadn't bonded in the slightest. I think the real cause for this is simply Evangelion was one of the highest-profile mecha series of the 90s and one of the ones most likely for people to see one way or another. And from it and its dark subject matter, assumptions were made about the old mecha shows of the 70s and 80s and somewhere along the line, bam. Deconstruction label got slapped on it and everyone just assumed it was true when, as far as I can tell, there's never been official recognition and confirmation of this idea. Same with people thinking Metal Gear Solid 2 was supposed to be some amazing masterpiece of Post-Modernism.
Granted there is still a mountain of analysis to it especially in the final third when Anno really got into the concept of psychology as he was coming out of his depression. But every time I see a page where something in Evangelion is marked as a deconstruction, or that Gao Gai Gar was meant to rebel against its trends and Gurren Lagann in turn was in turn Gainax recognizing that they got the message, what that's really telling me is someone is making a lot of claims about the genre with a lot of undeserved, unwarranted, and unfounded certainty.
Edited by SteamopenYMMV.PokemonRusty Edit war Web Original
On December 1st, 2015, The Jayman 49 added an Designated Hero to YMMV.Pokemon Rusty even though the trope cannot apply (Designated Hero requires the narrative and other characters to treat a character as an ideal hero even though said "ideal hero" is a jerkass or worse). I removed it on December 18th that same year on grounds of it being factually incorrect.
Then, on the 29th of April this year, The Jayman 49 re-added it, and is now trying to claim the audience reaction is deliberately invoked even though, from the context of the series itself, it isn't. Here is the extended edit history detailing it
.
[ETA] I checked the discussion page, and there was no discussion on the subject.
Edited by TheNerfGuyopen Undertale Fanfiction Videogame
That one guy self-pimping his Undertale fanfiction is back posting in the Undertale page under the name Chivalrous Craibou.
Edited by AlleyOopopen Time traveling Dumbledore army Literature
so as shown in Harry POA Hogwarts and by extension Dumbledore has at least one time turners and apparently when they use a time turner they duplicate themselves I should also note that it is an established fact he is the only one Voldemort fears so with that in mind why doesn't he just create an army of himself i know in stories they say you seeing your future self will create a problem but whatever problem that is can't be worse than wizard hitler
openBlackBaroness
BlackBaroness
restored an entry I removed from the on the grounds that it's basically written as the troper's opinion (instead of the show's) with YMMV links. I even sent her the YMMV issue helper PM. She added it back with the reason being that it's fine because the trope itself is not YMMV, only taking out the Critical Research Failure link, but otherwise leaving it unchanged.
Looking through her past edits, and she's added YMMV links to at least a couple of pages before, despite being here long enough to know that it's not allowed.
Thought I'd bring it here and ask if I should remove it first so I'm not accused of edit-warring.
openA weird fixation on crossovers
It's somewhat harder to explain, but the user Sonicfan9988
seems to only edit to throw in a lot of these odd crossover references. The problem, however, is that he's pushing them outside of WMG in things like the actual YMMV sections. A notable one is YMMV/PokemonBlackAndWhite
where they're pushing completely strange theories under Hilarious in Hindsight. While the WMG'ing in itself is fine, they should not be messing with YMMV tropes that make no sense whatsoever.
It's notable that he tried to remake the crossover page in general, and then suddenly added the same page(some weird Sonic crossover) on Darth Wiki. It's a pretty clear fixation and agenda-based entry pimping at this point.
Edited by IreneopenBlanked page
The work page The Road to Willa Cather Landing was blanked about a year ago (by the creator?). That's a faux pas in itself, but should the page even be revived in this instance? It's an orphan that isn't linked to anywhere within the wiki.
openDragon Ball Super Anime
Sorry, but there is a problem in the https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/DragonBallSuper
. A troper named Monsund added some stuff to the YMMV that was based off of misinformation. Long story short, the troper added information and tropes for the Pilaf Gang such as Unintentionally Un Sympathetic and Moral Event Horizon. The misinformation being that they stole or took the last wish before Piccolo was killed in the Future Trunks' timeline. When in truth, they gathered the Dragon Balls on their own and made a wish that happened to be the final wish Shenron granted before dying. So they rightfully found the Dragon Balls and made their wish.
I know the YMMV is opinion base, but the information is factually incorrect and Unintentionally Un Sympathetic is misused since the person they're blaming isn't the one who caused the situation, nor is the character made sympathetic to begin with. And Moral Event Horizon is just crazy since even if their wish was selfish, they rightfully found all the Dragon Balls and had the right to make any wish they wanted, while the good guys tried to steal the wish.
Again, since any further action on my part is edit warring, I leave it to the mods to decide who's right in this.
Edited by Ramona122003openTropes in common
A work contains several unrelated tropes (Really 700 Years Old, The Savage Indian, Make My Monster Grow, Glowing Eyes of Doom, etc.) that depend on one character telling the truth about himself, when it's deliberately made unclear whether it's true or not. Can they be lumped together under Unreliable Narrator to avoid a bunch of entries containing a variation on "If the character is telling the truth"?
openWould this be EndOfAnAge
When a member of La Résistance , despite being happy that they eventually managed to pull out a win against the Empire, or Alien Invaders, finds the self drawn back to where their friends and allies had been making their base. Theyve won, their allies have moved on, and they're feeling nostalgic about the days when there was a war on, perhaps because they'd been fighting for so long that the character in question honestly has no idea what they are going to do next.
openEdits to YMMV/TheForceAwakens Film
I noticed on The Force Awakens that Clint Rider deleted a bunch of articles/commentary criticizing the identification of Rey as a Mary Sue as well as added some equivocating language that "In general, there are valid argument that can be made either way, but are likely to still attract criticism."
In general, he basically deleted everything criticizing criticism of he movie, especially if directed against MRA types. And changed some entries to be more critical toward the movie.
His edit reason is "What "controversy?" Glorified muckrakers making clickbait headlines aside (And the Fury Road boycott never happened, the only evidence of its existence was said muckrakers who are known for lying), Furiosa got next to no criticism. Also, I don't see the point of actually including Waid and Del Toro's comments as their own thing- the point is already made enough as is."
Edit- Incidentally, was looking at some of their recent edits and while the example itself probably violated The Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement, on Ghostbusters (2016), there was an entry about how the attacks on Leslie Jones by Milo Icantspellhislastname and his followers finally got him kicked off of twitter, he deleted the entry and gave this edit reason: "Debatable, given how Leslie Jones has a lot of skeletons in her own closet, especially in relation to doing the exact same things Milo did. If you wanna say stuff like that, then politely take it to your tumblr."
So yeah, my MRA alarm is going off.
Edited by Hodor2openMy own troper page.
Is there a way to reopen my troper page but make it private, thus only being visible to me?
If not, is there at least a way to prevent vandalism on the page and make the editing privileges exclusive to just myself?
openWMG: Karate Kid 2 Film
Chosen is shamed in front of the entire image. He has to make up, but after his actions the entire village will probably disown him, not to mention his family. So he only has two choices-leave in shame and never return or spend his life hunting down Daniel. OK, Daniel's still alive in the sequel, but that's only because Chozen was making himself stronger, and eventually he located Daniel (Miyagi was training Hilary Swank and so couldn't rescue Daniel)...what do we think?
Edited by FurtivePigopenI normally would post it under a related entry, but...(rude edit reasons) Videogame
However, I feel this needs its own.
Marth of the Moon's edit reasons are getting rather inappropriate here
on the page. "Oh you motherfucker" and "Quite the Determinator for your shitposting, aren't you?" are extremely rude and uncalled for.
I will note that the entry he reported is reported for a good reason, it's clearly somebody shoehorning their site in for some form of advertisement of a crack pairing. That in itself is a problem(and that particular tumblr
is now attacking the user I'm reporting too, which is exporting drama). However, the fact that Marth of the Moon is being this rude is the entire reason for the pointless drama in the first place. That is not to say that Globplumber(and apparently is a ban evader of someone?) is not a problem regardless.
open Copy-pasted description on Creator/VanBeurenStudios Western Animation
The description on Van Beuren Studios is taken from a blog post about the studio on another website. I was just randomly browsing articles and don't actually know anything about it, so I don't feel comfortable rewriting it myself. Can someone write an original description for the page?
openThe Skybox "Trope" Videogame
Right, so this particular page has been bothering me for some time, with some people already voicing some concerns about it (back in 2010, no less).
First off, the description is written in a pretty nonsensical way:
- "Skyboxes are independent graphical elements." - what does that even mean?
- "Usually, a given skybox can be 'swapped out' for one that suits a particular setting." - well yeah, of course it can, like anything else in the level.
- "Some computer games come with several Skyboxes" - Of course they do.
- "...showing different types of meteorological phenomena (such as aurora borealis or other things that can't physically be rendered) or a even an entirely different setting (apocalyptic vs. modern, for example)." - The first part is correct (although the phrase "can't physically be rendered" doesn't really make sense, I assume it means "in real time".) The second part makes less sense though, what does it mean for a skybox to show a "entirely different setting"? (From what, the rest of the level? Why would a developer want that?)
- "The Skybox may also contain 3D models that will be projected larger than life, such as distant land features or buildings" - this can be debated a bit, since most game engines don't make a distinction between a "Skybox" and the rest of the level. In most games the background elements of a scene are simply that, objects placed in the background outside the area designed for the player. It's only really the Source Engine where there is actually a proper distinction between the two, which is probably what this statement is referring to.
- And then the statement: "Note that Skyboxes are specific to computer games; animated cartoons don't use Skyboxes, for the simple reason that there's no need to use them - the sky will naturally be drawn as part of the cartoon itself." doesn't even make any sense, especially the last part (you don't draw anything in a 3D animated film, and a 2D animated film obviously isn't going to have a "Skybox"). But the statement is also very wrong - CG animated films absolutely use Skyboxes, in fact they use a multitude of different 2D background elements even more frequently then games do, because there's no point in rendering a large part of the background if the camera is only going to be facing a certain direction or move a small distance in the shot.
The description probably needs to be rewritten completely, but there's another issue - this isn't really a trope. This is PeopleSitOnChairs. The fact is there's no point listing examples on this page because virtually every 3D game ever created will have a Skybox of some sort. It's just a basic fact of game development that there's going to be 2D elements in the background, and if the description is believed, the term Skybox also includes 3D background elements, so this article is literally describing the concept of a "background" itself. And every game that takes place in an outdoor environment is going to have one of those. It's such a universal concept that it's almost like making a trope page for the concept of "polygons". Personally I would either move the page over to Useful Notes or just delete it entirely.
Edited by SirBlah

Going to have ask this about reviews due to this rather inflammatory review
I've read.
Is it okay for users to change their reviews completely that the reviews don't resemble what they originally look like and express completely different opinions?
Dawn Velocity has changed their review of The Seven Deadly Sins for at least three times. I've not seen the first version but I've seen the second version and the apparent third.
The second version was simply titled more or less Pedo Bait and simply stated that people should forget their original review ever existed. It gave absolutely no context other than expressing their disgust over this series as a result of recent chapters. I kinda had it flagged since it was at best, useless as a review and at worse, Flame Bait.
The apparent third and current version expresses their views more in context but is still Flamebaity but is flagged for reasons related to the second version.
On a sidenote:
While Dawn Velocity has not expanded their angrier views to the rest of the pages, they have been kinda insistent that they be expressed in the review and YMMV sections. Based on their reviews; Unfortunate Implications and Squick related edits; PM discussions I've had with them; and a current heated argument
going on between us, they really seem hellbent on condemning certain aspects about the series to a point that they were willing to allow Unfortunate Implications rules to be broken; and delete at one line that would give more context and a neutral stance to a squicky subject.
They added Unfortunate Implications entries clearly of their own opinion rather than of an outside sources per the rules. They deleted one entry after I asked them to provide citations but insisted in our PM discussions to leave the others clearly on the basis that the related subject matter be outright condemned. We had our PM discussions, they got somewhat heated, and I decided to end the discussions to simply edit things following the Unfortunate Implications rules and modify others so that they give more contexxt and be more neutral.
Unfortunately however, we are in said heated argument and while I think I may be getting myself in trouble more than I can handle for somewhat reporting this, it seems worth reporting especially based on the tone I've gotten from things such as their review and our discussions together.
Edited by Elfkaiser