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:
resolved Notify Page Move
How do I notify the admins that a page should be moved, if I can't (or don't want to) do the move myself for technical reasons?
openYMMV's not allowed for creator entries?
I want to create a "Funny Aneurysm" Moment entry for Little Kuriboh's page, in relation to his self deprication about his schedule slips, since he mentions in one of his "We're Still Here" videos that all the pressure from his fanbase ("Where's the next episode?!") over the years has had a very serious effect on him. But I tried to put in on the main page as a sub bullet under Self Deprication and got the "this entry contains a YMMV entry, it should be moved to the YMMV tab" (since I had put a wick to Funny Aneurysm Moment in the text) when I previewed my change. So I tried to make a YMMV tab, and got a page that says creators can't have YMMV pages!
So um...wtf do I do? This pretty clearly falls under FAM to me, but I can't call attention to that at all?
openLiterature/Survivors, Too Dumb To Live Example Literature
On Literature/Survivors, there is this example of Too Dumb to Live:
"The other dogs, from Lucky's point of view (and probably the readers' as well). Individual dogs' antics include going back into a house they just established was filled with carbon monoxide (especially since it had caused the one dog to become unconscious and they had just rescued her), swimming too far out in the river after Lucky had just warned them about it being deep and fast, and one dog trying to put a collar back on after he'd gotten it caught on a bush and nearly choked himself to death."
Now, there are... problems with this example. One, in the book proper, the Leashed Dogs (pet dogs) agree to hold on to one memento as a reminder of their longpaws. (human owners) Of course, this means returning to the houses to get them. Daisy, the one who lived in the house that now has a gas leak, holds her breath as she goes in, knowing the second time around that she shouldn't inhale the toxins. Two, while I don't recall enough to talk about the example with the river, I do know that in a later book, Lucky is actually grateful that the Leashed Dogs kept their collars on, as it saved one dog's (Mickey's, who was the one who almost choked to death in the first place) life.
So, what should we do about this example? In fact, the page could use a little cleaning up, with the series still having new entries being written.
openF bomb tropes
Should tropers be linking to the "F bomb" tropes (Atomic F-Bomb, Precision F-Strike, Cluster F-Bomb) every single fucking time they use the word "fuck"? (Like quoting a work that used it, for instance.)
openLinking to a source but it's in a different language
Sometimes, on Word Of God tropes, there is some sources I would like to add since I want to show the confirmation is real instead of just made up, but the source itself is in a different language. Do I add the source itself anyway or just leave it as it is? I don't want to make it seem fake with nothing to back it up but not many people can read other languages....
It can get troublesome with the saying sounding all wild and not plausible at all, but the only source that shows the people behind the media confirming it is the only one that isn't translated.
Edited by RaddishesopenRashandfierce
What are the odds that Rashandfierce
is not Creator.Sonbreezie? RAF is literally the only person editing Sonbreezie's pages (poorly, I might add. They're putting in waaaaaaaaay too much troping of the artist like they're a fictional character), and have very similar tastes (in both works and fictional crushes).
But troping your own works is fine, the problem is this same person is the only person adding to the YMMV and audience reactions pages.
Honestly, I hope it's the same person because some of the edits come off as overly self-congratulatory if they're the same one, but if they're someone else they're kind of creepy.
Edited by LarkmarnopenEdit explanations for full-page edits?
Often when I finish a new book/movie/series/etc. I will go through the full page here on TV Tropes to clean up, reformat and add/remove tropes as needed. Since I am usually late to the party and the page has already been growing for weeks or months or years, this normally means a lot of edits all done at once; dozens of formatting changes, misapplied tropes deleted, examples re-written, etc.
I usually give a lump-sum edit reason (i.e. "Re-writing whole page") instead of listing every change because that would make the edit reason an essay in itself, but I've been wondering if there's an official way to explain a full-page re-write.
Should I actually specify each and every change? Is there a policy in place?
open2 Jean Grey examples straight form the DepeartmentOfRedundancyDepartment Print Comic
The comics folder on the First Law of Resurrection page has the following two examples
- Jean Grey wasn't actually meant to die at the end of the Dark Phoenix Saga (as stated by Claremont and others), and it was the intention from the beginning to bring her back, just not as a super hero who committed genocide. She has yet to return only because Joe Quesada demanded her death and enforced a "dead means dead" policy concerning her, out of his "characters are 'more interesting' without their Love Interest" beliefs. They got around this by eventually bringing in a teenage, time-displaced Jean in All-New X-Men.
- Jean is remembered as doing this more than she actually has; the Never Live It Down trope was originally named for her. She died at the end of The Dark Phoenix Saga, returned at the beginning of X-Factor, and was an A-list X-Man for decades until a certain cheesy quesadilla decided she had to die to make Cyclops "more interesting." The current comics version of Jean is a younger one from the past. Exactly where the idea that she dies over and over and over comes from isn't quite clear; it could be the various adaptations of the ending of the Phoenix saganote We've seen her return by way of her real body being in a healing cocoon and no two writers having the same idea on if it was her real mind/soul and how it all works, her getting a life force transfusion from the other X-Men, proving to have not actually died but merely lost her memory, continuing to exist as a non-corporeal entit,, and time alterations resulting in her not having gone nuts. However, those are all from comics, shows, and movies who do not share a continuity, each describing her return after the Dark Phoenix ending in a different manner., or it could be the fact that hosts not staying dead is an official power of the Phoenix, so she has to have used it a bunch, right, right? But actually, she hasn't.
while the 2nd one goes into detail about how many times Jean "Phoenix" Grey has actually been brought back from the dead, the first part of it covers the exact same thing as the preceding example, which explains her death at the end of the dark Phoenix saga, Joe Quesada wanting her gone for reasons and that a time-displaced version was used to circumvent that dessication (the only difference being Jean's appearance in X-Factor)
I'm debating with myself what do to do with these entries. The first bullet could be cur or merged with the 2nd, but I feel like that the 2nd example is might have natter problems.
Edited by MorningStar1337open Shows that don't take themselves too seriously
What trope would it be when a work doesn't take itself very seriously, and sometimes teases themselves?
Examples
- Starkid
- Phineas and Ferb
openHow to remove/change a redirect?
I hate to bother with something everyone seems to get already, but I have been unable to teach myself how to create a redirect despite reading https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/CreatingNewRedirects
, and beg someone to take pity on me and explain how to create a new redirect step by step in a way that I can understand. I know how to create, edit, and index pages, but my inability to understand how a redirect works makes me feel like an idiot. Once I understand that, I would like to learn how to remove or change an existing redirect.
The redirect I want to change is Anime/KenpuuDenkiBerserk, which currently redirects to Manga/{{Berserk}}. This is no good, because in the process of splitting off new pages for each of Berserk's adaptations, I created Anime/SwordWindChronicleBerserk, a page for the 1997 anime adaptation which is the only Berserk adaptation titled Kenpuu Denki. I need to make it stop redirecting to the Manga/{{Berserk}} page and make it instead redirect to Anime/SwordWindChronicleBerserk. Actually, what I'd really like to do is make Anime/KenpuuDenkiBerserk the official namespace and have Anime/SwordWindChronicleBerserk redirect to it. But failing that, I at least need to remove the redirect to the manga page.
Edited by TheBigBopperopenEdit War in PopularityPolynomial
A while ago, troper What Art Thee brought up the Pokemon-related trope image for Popularity Polynomial here at ATT
, suggesting it be removed. He didn't get much support for the idea but was directed to Image Pickin'. Whether he ever brought it up there I don't know— can't find any record of it— but he did take it upon himself to delete Pokemon's entry on that page.
Troper Jhonny brought the issue up in Discussion believing it should be reinstated. I agreed with him, no one else showed up to weigh in one way or the other, so Jhonny reinstated the example.
What Art Thee just came around again and re-deleted it, so Jhonny brought it up in Discussion again. I went ahead and reinstated it and left a note directing What Art Thee to join us in Discussion if he wants to argue for its deletion, but so far he has a history of bringing this up, ghosting when he can't gin up consensus for his proposed edits, and then making them anyway once the conversation has died down, so I thought it worth bringing up here.
openGratuitous Japanese in work pages.
After I made an edit in LightNovel.Re Zero, I think I have gotten myself into an edit war of sorts, inadvertently . I mention "inadvertently" because I was removing some audience reactions that were on the work page, so it never occurred to me to check the history page
before clicking "save". So, out of curiousity, I checked it out, and saw that two weeks ago, luisedgarf removed the word "seiyuu" from an example mentioned in Award-Bait Song, and exchanged it with "voice actress", giving the edit reason of "Removing gratuitious Japanese". But three days later, Demongodofchaos 2 reverted it back to "seiyuu" adding that it was "not needed" (he was also the one who originally added the example in the work page, three months ago). I, unfortunately, engaged into this accidentally.
So, here is my question before making the issue more bigger, as I admit this was an accident (and couldn't give an edit reason regarding that change): I assume that the majority of the wiki only uses Anime Fanspeak in anime and manga work pages when it is catalogued as part of a trope (like Otaku Surrogate)... but when there are other terms (and not tropes) that do have an English equivalent, it's preferred to use the English words when redacting examples and descriptions, right? In this case "voice actor" or "voice actors" for "seiyuu".
I don't know where else to discuss this, and I have been trying my best to not get into any kind of edit warring. But once I started to check out the Edit War page, I preferred to bring this out here, because I don't know what else to do. And, admittedly, I'm scared I did something I shouldn't have.
Edited by kirara19openDragonBallSuper / TropesPToZ
User Ramona 122003 and I have had some dispute concerning the Sorting Algorithm of Evil trope entry, as I argue that its relevant to the trope entry to discuss how the villains compare to each other in order to avert the trope, and give an explanation for it based on in-universe statements, which admittedly required me to use the two protagonists these villains fought as a point of refernce. The other user, however, believes this to be too speculative, perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not. I guess I better let you compare. My entry:
- Sorting Algorithm of Evil: Averted in this series. Beerus is the first enemy the Z-Fighters face and he is so far above their level that Goku is still weaker than him even after training with Whis. Afterwards the next few opponents the Z-fighters face seem to be around the same level, with each of them having their own strenghts and flaws but falling behind Beerus. Frieza is a threat after coming back to life, training, and gaining an ultimate form that greatly surpasses Super Saiyan Blue Goku, but he's still weaker than Beerus and would have been no threat at all if Goku and Vegeta worked together, and also his ultimate form lacks stamina. In the Champa Saga, there is no real villain, but only Hit on the U6 team poses a threat to Goku and Vegeta in their god forms, and strength-wise he is stated not to be quite on the level of a somewhat stronger Goku and Vegeta , let alone Golden Frieza. Skill-wise, however, he is far more dangerous since he has Super-Speed and other unique abilities. Champa himself may be a little weaker than Beerus, but he is still well above any of the heroes since he was ready to murder the entire U6 team and Goku couldn't stop him if he tried. The next Arc Villain, Copy-Vegeta, is as strong as Super Saiyan Blue Vegeta, which puts him in the same boat as Golden Frieza and Hit. Even in just in his base, Copy-Vegeta is leagues above Super Saiyan 3 Gotenks, who can't even harm him. In the Future Trunks Saga, Goku Black is said to be only as strong as Super Saiyan 3 Goku. However, Black is able to improve rapidly much like Hit, and by the time Goku and Vegeta confront him in the future he has caught up with past villains and is able to endure a beating from Super Saiyan Blue Vegeta in base [[spoiler: and is revealed to have a Super Saiyan form, Super Saiyan Rosé, which he uses to strike down Vegeta with one blow using an unique blade attack and hold an edge over Goku. To make matters worse for the heroes, they also have to deal with Future Zamasu who is almost even with Super Saiyan Blue Goku and an immortal. The trope is Played Straight, however, as things goes even further downhill when Black and Future Zamasu fuse to create Merged Zamasu, an immortal being who can grow stronger like Black.
His entry: * Sorting Algorithm of Evil: Averted in this series. Beerus is the first enemy the Z-Fighters face and he is so far above their level that Goku is still weaker than him even after training with Whis. Frieza is a threat after coming back to life, training, and gaining an ultimate form that surpasses Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan Super Saiyan Goku, but he's still weaker than Beerus, lacks the stamina for a prolong battle, and would have been no threat at all if Goku and Vegeta worked together. In the Champa Saga, while there is no villain per say, only Hit on the U6 team poses a threat to Goku and Vegeta in their god forms, and strength-wise he is at best a little above Golden Frieza. Skill-wise, however, he is far more dangerous. Champa himself may be a little weaker than Beerus, but he is still far above any of the heroes since he was ready to murder the entire U6 team despite all the power they showed and Goku is helpless to do anything about it. The next Arc Villain, Copy-Vegeta, is as strong as Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan Vegeta, which makes him on par with Golden Frieza and Hit. Even in just in his base, Copy-Vegeta is leagues above Super Saiyan 3 Gotenks, who can't even harm him. In the Future Trunks Saga, Goku Black is said to be only as strong as Super Saiyan 3 Goku. However, Black is able to improve rapidly much like Hit, and by the time Goku and Vegeta confront him in the future he is able to withstand hits from Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan Vegeta. Then it's revealed that he has a Super Saiyan form, Super Saiyan Rosé, which he uses to strike down Vegeta with one blow and he's still getting stronger. To make matters worse for the heroes, they also have to deal with Future Zamasu who is almost even with Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan Goku and an immortal. Then things escalate further when Goku Black and Future Zamasu fused, creating Merged Zamasu.
openNothing to do with Creator Killer? Anime
I'm genuinely confused as to how this doesn't have anything to do with Creator Killer. I mean it, I thought it was an example from the minute I learned of it. Maybe the second half of the example doesn't have anything to do with the trope (and in fact would feel more at home under Old Shame), but I'm positive the first half has at least some link to the trope.
- The screenplay for Pokémon 3 has been blamed for killing series showrunner Takeshi Shudo's career. For him, the way the ending, which was supposed to have been ambiguous, was interpreted by the scriptwriter marked the beginning of the end. For the rest of his life, he had no kind word to say about the movie itself, going on record as saying that were his mother alive and missing he would never have even thought about abducting another's.
openSpanglish Example on Values Dissonance.
Here...
- In the movie Spanglish. Towards the end Flor decided to take her daughter Cristina out of a high standard private feeder school where she had a full ride and put her back into the black hole that is the California public school system. Why? Basically because she didn't think it was Hispanic enough. So apparently the moral of the story was that it's okay to do something with significant negative implications for your child's future so long as it alleviates your own cultural concerns and insecurities.
- Even worse, it implies that being Hispanic and being successful are mutually exclusive.
- It's hard to see that as negative implications for the child's future when the film implies she is accepted to Princeton. The whole point of the movie was contrasting this well-off family where the mother doesn't seem to notice her children (except to shame her daughter for being overweight) with Flor's relationship with Cristina. Maybe qualifies as Unfortunate Implications because Flor doesn't want Cristina to adopt the values of the Clasky family, who are white, but it seemed to this troper like an in-universe example of Values Dissonance based more on financial status.
- In Latin American culture family is very important, so to a Latin American audience Flor would be right to distance herself and her daughter from Deborah, who would be considered a toxic influence for neglecting her family and driving a wedge between Flor and Cristina.
I really agree with the second troper but she shouldnt include herself in the text and despite me agreeing I have to admit she broke the rules when it comes to "DO NOT TRY TO JUSTIFY THIS" that the Values Dissonance pages have.
openSpoiler Tagging on Wham Shot
Wham Shot has a warning of unmarked spoilers right above the example section, but in the example section itself some examples use spoilers anyway. Should/can I remove those spoiler tags? It just irritates me to see the different examples of the same trope following different protocols.
Edited by OrbitingopenNarm subpages
I noticed the subpages of Narm mark it as flame bait, but the page itself is only YMMV. Is this a mistake?
openHow do you get tropers to give your own fanfic a shot?
So, I know this will rub people the wrong way just for asking, but I'm still doing it. Fanficrec's can't be self-recommended (which is logical of course) but what do you do if you think you've written a good fanfic and want a troper to give it a shot? Admittedly, in the hope of getting a fanficrec, but that's the troper's decision to make. However, seeing as you can't self-recommend fics, how do you achieve getting them to give it a shot? And yes, this is for one of my own fanfics, I shamelessly admit that. But the question and desire for an answer is still genuine.
openconcerning the content of "Rape Leads to Insanity"
I've been somewhat concerned for some time about the contents of the trope page Rape Leads to Insanity. Some parts of the description seem to touch on how it is in the real world and then say some things that could be easily misconstrued. For instance, one spot says that it's ultimately the victim's personality rather than the nature of the assault that determines the person's reaction. That's not a far stretch from saying that it's the victim's fault if they're traumatized by rape, especially when you also have entire paragraphs that declare "most" take sexual assault "calmly". Since this was placed right after a note of Truth in Television, it seems that a great deal of care should be taken for both accuracy and sensitivity. It's extremely easy to swing between two extremes here, deliberately or otherwise implying either that trauma is a big enough thing that a visibly stable person probably wasn't really raped, or that it's abnormal to suffer any sort of major breakdown (thus shaming those that do suffer, including a large number that display a good face to hide how much they're hurting). Truth of the matter is, no matter the specific statistics, sexual assault does create a major increase to the risk of numerous trauma-related problems as well as a variety of extremely dangerous methods of self-medication and even suicide, but not a guarantee. Worse, one of the common and more dangerous "coping" mechanisms is basically the Stepford Smiler, putting on a happy face and trying to convince everyone, even themselves, that they're fine when really they're more like a ticking time bomb waiting for the pain to find an out. So information strung along after that Truth in Television label should be carefully worded.
Also, along those lines, is there actual statistical data to demonstrate a significant benefit to the victim when their attacker is caught and dealt with? Beyond the initial matter of said attacker's ability to return of course. I know that many fiction works, particularly law and order type stories, insist that confronting the attacker and making them pay is an important step in the healing process, but I honestly haven't seen any actual studies to back up any real guarantee. Instead, it seems like, similar to other matters, it depends a great deal on both the person and the nature of the trauma: some may be best simply knowing the person won't/can't get to them without ever having to see that face again, while others might not be able to move forward until they've stared their nightmare in the face. The second is more appealing and thus more common in fiction, but is it really also "truth"?
Edited by Lyner

Asking here before I edit, since apparently the last person got wikistalked.
The page seems to be a random collection of tropes that are supposedly deadly and unrealistic, with a touch of panic, but it's insanely lecture-y, reads like a how-to, has more than a touch of Viewers Are Morons, and a lot of tropes added aren't lethal if repeated, or meant to be. Such as Big Eater, Boom, Headshot!, which appears to be meant to be deadly and lethal, British Royal Guards, which seems less "deadly" and "you'll get your ass kicked" and is demonstrated on the trope page itself, et cetera. There's also YMMV stuff thrown in, like Too Smart for Strangers, which claims this trope makes us blind to any kind of abuse perpetrated by someone the victim knows, et cetera. I'm looking at the edit history and there's something of an effort to make it so only Do Not Try This at Home tropes should be there.
I know the whole 'We Are Not Wikipedia' thing is old hat, but... on top of that, it says on the page "This is an index. A description of why a trope fits here is fine but examples should go on the respective trope pages. Try not to add 300 additional bullet points if it can be helped."
Edited by DimensionalShambler