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:
openAHI-3000 and LGBT Self-Discovery
The draft LGBT Self-Discovery
has been attracting random discards and it was discarded for a third (fourth?) time without any comment. I don't know if it has been the same troper each time, but the most recent time was a mass discard spree by AHI-3000. I've looked at the drafts he discarded and I agree with all but this one. That said, silently discarding (i.e. not saying anything ahead of time) does not seem kosher. It isn't this troper's responsibility to discard drafts and it seems like he takes the TLP a bit... like his hangout. I say that knowing that he discards and launches drafts without comment from time to time.
If this particular draft wasn't having a silent discarder perennially discarding it, I honestly wouldn't think to comment about this since AHI-3000 usually seems in the right to discard what he does discard. But we — the people participating in that draft — seem to be in agreement that it isn't a duplicate, which was the main concern for that draft.
openQuotes/CompleteMonster could have a possible edit war?
There could be a possible edit war in the Complete Monster page for the quotes. A couple of weeks ago, I added this quote a while back but G-Editor doesn't believe this explains why Mephiles the Dark counts.
openTrouble understanding Administrivia Create New Redirects Western Animation
I recently made a page for Hey Arnold! The Movie and I'm trying to figure out how to make a Character page for it that redirects to the main characters page. I read the instruction on creating redirects, but they are a bit confusing to me and I want to confirm the process before I end up messing something up as I've never done this before. When I edit "Characters.Hey Arnold The Movie" do I just type in "[[redirect:Characters.Hey Arnold]]" and boom.?
Figured someone else might do it, but I have no idea when that might be, so I figured I'd try and do it myself.
Edited by thecarolinabull01openEdit War YMMV/XenobladeChronicles2
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.XenobladeChronicles2
I deleted this entry from Troper:Miin U
- Hilarious in Hindsight: Near the end of Bleach's run, it was finally revealed that Retsu Unohana had been feared and reknowned for her skill with a sword. So fans found it egregious that she was not only defeated by a child (Zaraki), but that she was so outmatched that said child held back to prevent himself from killing her. So it's amusing to see the same scenario play out again years later, when Doragi (another reknowned swordswoman) is defeated by Rex (a child). After Rex and his friends escape, she notes that he could've killed her, but also chose to hold back instead.
On the ground of improper use of a trope. Miin U and I have exchanged a few messages but we have not reached a concensus. However, Miin U went ahead and readded the entry.
Edited by SeptimusHeapopenspoiler policy violation
In the article Professor Layton and the Miracle Mask, there's a violation to the spoiler policy in the Apocalypse How example, as even the name of the trope is covered. I cannot fix the issue because I'm playing the game for the first time and don't want to be spoiled myself. There is also rampant misindentation, but I can fix gthem after I finish the game if nobody else does in the meantime.
openBendis' children
Comic book artist Brian Michael Bendis created the character Miles Morales. The YMMV page Brian Michael Bendis says that they are based on Bendis' children. I have removed that entry because it's false: according to this interview
, Bendis based Miles on Donald Glover. It was then restored, adding the info about Glover. However, is it a good idea to have this? Is it a legitimate concern, did some actual media pointed this, or is it just something made up by some fan? And if it is the second, Bendis himself is a public figure, but his children are not, should be have an entry talking about them?
resolved Can I make new Image Picking thread on same topic with old one in morgue?
On Lethal Joke Item again. There used to be one thread, but it got locked and the trope itself got TRS treatment. Now that's done and it's clear that the image, despite being picked by IP, doesn't illustrate the trope (and possibly misuse, hard to tell since the entries of the image source are ZCE).
Edited by Kuruniopen What to do about a rude edit reason?
I was casually browsing through the site when I came upon a rather rude edit reason left by someone. The edit reason wasn't directed at me personally or an edit that I made, but it was still needlessly vicious, and it seemed like something I should report. I noticed that you can click the "Send a message" button to send users an automatic message, and that "rudeness" is one of the issues that can be reported. However, I'm not really comfortable sending the rude user in question a PM myself (and having him/her see that I sent it) when it wasn't an issue that I was directly involved in.
So, my question is, is there another way to report rude edit reasons? I'm asking partly in regards to the rudeness I saw just now, but also for future reference in knowing what to do if I come across something like this again.
openBroader interpretation of Rescued from the Underworld?
So early on in Chrysalis Visits The Hague, Šarić organizes an expedition into the Everfree Forest to look for ponies who have gone missing in the recent-ish past, and they find a rather large (as in 350 trapped ponies) Changeling (do you capitalize it? I don't watch FiM) hive in a cave. I know that (strictly speaking) it's not a Rescued from the Underworld scenario (they don't literally go to the underworld), but it has a lot of elements thereof: there's a harrowing journey into a confined, dark place where several hundred ponies are trapped by a character who's a demon archetype, and there's a Cerberus equivalent (though they're both pretty messed up — strictly speaking, none of the ponies are dead until after they get rescued, and the Cerberus equivalent is a malnourished, brainwashed pegasus with a single booby trap).
Does this count as Playing with a Trope, maybe downplayed or subverted? Or am I playing Everyone Is Jesus in Purgatory games with myself?
Thanks.
Edited by XndrKresolved Nostalgia Critic Awesome Moments Web Original
On the Nostalgia Critic Awesome Moments page, there is a bit of conflict over whether this example from the Blues Brothers 2000 review should be included: "The Critic's constant tearing into Blues Brothers 2000 for being a severe downgrade of the original. He even goes out of character at a few points, one in which he interrupts his "Fuckital" ad to show the statue of The Blues Brothers atop the Hollywood Blvd. Theater to show how the original movie is such a symbol of Chicago." Some people said this shouldn't be included because in the skit, there was a Black Comedy bit where one of the characters overdoses on the "Fuckital" and is implied to have died, with them saying that it shouldn't be an awesome moment because the Critic was more concerned with a bad movie than someone else's life. While in-universe, it may be the Critic being selfish, from a meta perspective, the creator, Doug Walker was making a statement about the movie's poor quality and calls out how it fails to live up to the original film. So should it be included?
Edited by costanton11openSo, I want to create a work page for my review series? Web Original
Hello. I'll admit is kind of selfish, but, I used to work on a series of reviews for many years, even having some sort of mascot for it, and I wish to create a work page for it on this site. However, what rules should the workpage should have, since, well, you know, is my own work and I think there should be a restriction to it, right?
openExcessive Spoiler Tags in GE - Good Ending Anime
Earlier today, I Wiki Walked my way into GE - Good Ending and, to be blunt,the page was a mess. I've done what I can to deal with the worst of it (links to manga sites, multiple tropes listed together, example indentation, ZCE's... oh man the ZCE's...) but there's one issue I'm not sure how to handle: Spoiler tagging.
The spoiler tagging on the page and its subpages strikes me as very excessive. Several Wall of White entries for a start. A few spoilered trope names though I dealt with those. The thing is I don't know the series well enough to differentiate what is and is not a spoiler so I'm not sure what to uncover to keep things looking both good and correct.
I was wondering if anyone had some advice (or, if there's a forum thread for this kind of thing, point me in the right direction). I did look for a forum thread for GE itself, but had no luck.
Edited by sgamer82openCharacter Derailment misuse
From CharacterDerailment.Film:
- Loki became somewhat of a caricature of himself in Thor: Ragnarok. Though he had chronic backstabbing disorder and an overblown need for people to worship him in previous movies, these traits were flanderized in the last Thor film. Thor's character was also somewhat derailed, though not to the same extent. Though he wasn't entirely humorless in his previous appearances, in the most recent film he was constantly joking around about things that he would have previously been a lot more serious about. Both cases of character derailment seem to have been to change the tone of the series to make it more popular.
Exaggerating character traits is not a drastic enough change to qualify for this trope to my knowledge. Misuse?
openImage changed without discussion.
CH4S changed the image on Geek Physiques despite there being a comment to not change the image without creating an IP thread first. Already made an IP thread to decide what to do about the image itself. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1512775677026209700&page=1#1
openMarilyn Monroe page includes dubious fact. Film
I see this assertion on the Marilyn Monroe page: 'She was also romantic penpals with Portuguese dictator Antonio De Oliveira Salazar.' This is not only false, it's perfectly ludicrous. There are other false and ludicrous things said about Marilyn Monroe, but I've never even encountered this one before. Just for starters, then, Salazar was aged 50, in 1939. You might as well be saying that Marilyn Monroe corresponded with a pure-blood wizard, Salazar Slitherin. I have a broader question about how much I should hesitate about simply deleting something like this or adding things myself?
openEvil, morally ambiguous or misguided idols?
Character A has a very big admiration to character B, they meet each other, Character A amazed sees or experiences the luxuries and trophies that made character B an idol of millions, all is well until... The truth is exposed, the Character B did something horrible in the past (whatever the motive is), did something that displeases the Character A or simply they he/she's not what character A expected to be, and character A is shocked and broken hearted very deeply, later on depending of the story character B either continues to commit more crimes, tries to escape or simply surrenders and tries to make amends after being confronted by character A. Now my question remains... Are they misguided? Are they Justified? Are they driven by anger for certain circumstances of their past? Or are they selfishly evil? I supose that depends of them, right?
openVery poor grammar from an editor
jokevv
kinda has really poor grammar and etc. While I believe their edits are done in good faith, alot of them really fail basic writing rules. Improper use of punctuation marks and spelling errors such as using "munch" instead of "much" are some of their mistakes. It's so bad in one place that I made an inquiry in Is this an example?
partially because some if not all the entries they made were really hard to decipher.
Here's part of what I'm talking about which includes one of their most recent edits:
- Alternate Character Interpretation: What does Zeldris plan to do as Demon king? He has so far been the only one to describe the demon clan as a race of outcasts and those despised by the other clans and accepting of other outcasts. He was in willing lovenote Given her powers and how ruthless and evil Meliodas was described back then. It seem incredible unlikely he was in a state to fall in love with Elizabeth without use of her magic to sway his heart with a member of a race below his own, let alone his status as prince. Does Zeldris for all his villainy see kingship the same way that King does? He cared for how his men were slowly being killed off (though it could be because of pride), he opposes Meliodas as king for the implication of he was a traitor more then it seems because he covets the throne and the fact he choose to seal the vampires brings up another question. Why seal them all when he could have just wiped out all the other vampire's except Gelda, but he choose to seal them all. Meliodas fought and killed his comrades for his love despite supposedly being more moral by that point. Zeldris came up with a compromise to fulfill his duty and kept the one he loved alive something Meliodas did not do. These seem to point towards Zeldris as more inline with Meliodas ideal of a good king embodied by King then Meliodas himself.
- Chapter 247 give even more credit to this interpretations by showcasing Zeldris outrage toward estarossa comment of killing the other demon's for their commandment's despite it being unlikely to get them any other given their loyalty to the demon king and how his desire to become king is for a single purpose. Yet he still showed anger to kill other member's of his race because their loyalty get's in the way of his goals. Something Meliodas back to his ten commandment day's did not show or even emote when the idea was brought up.
- The demons themselves bring this up. While the demon are portrayed as vicious and have no issue taking innocent lives. The question of whether they are like this by nature and the goddess opposed them justifiably despite not being munch better or devolved into the beasts the demons are stereotyped by the other clans as thanks to having to fighting for their very existence from all other races who despise them for who they are. The fact that there was a truce between the goddess and demon which the goddess broke at the first sign of disadvantage and Zeldris description of the clan hints towards the latter interpretation but it's very munch still vague.
- The Goddesses: Are they a race of Arrogant Jerkass knight templars who are truly no better then the Demon Clan and who's bigotry keeps the demons from reconciling with the other clans and causing endless war and death on all sides thanks to their pride. Or a race of Jerkass Has a Point where while terrible, the demons are a threat to all life and so powerful all the clans united is required to defeat them.
It's really hard to decipher what they're trying to say in some parts and ascertain if what they added are really examples because of the horrible grammar.
openminor edit war and questionable edit on YMMV OOT Videogame
garthvader on YMMV.The Legend Of Zelda Ocarina Of Time removed the Water Temple from a Base Breaker entry,citing that "You see nobody dislikes the water temple because it's *hard*, the dislike it because you're constantly farting around in the menu". I put it back as the WT has become shorthand for 'hard Zelda dungeon', the master quest version and remakes made it easier because of its notorious difficulty. and the level designer even apologized for how hard it was, and the BB entry cited positive thoughts on the level as well, with some really loving it.
They re-removed it, saying " No, it's NOT notorious for being difficult, it's notorious for the fact that every time you mess up you have to repeat a sequence of annoying steps and menu transitions. Lying about why people don't like it makes a poor example. As an addition, the level designer did not apologise for how hard it was, quote: "I am most sorry that it was not easy for you to put on and take off the heavy boots, that all the time you had to visit the inventory. I am very sorry about that. I should have made it much easier to switch to the heavy boots," Aonuma said."
However, right before that Aonuma said "“The Water Temple in the Ocarina of Time was notorious for being very tough to conquer," implying he was being sarcastic about the boots, and even if not he does say the temple itself is difficult. I found the edit reasons a bit rude as well ^^;
But even more than they they added this to the YMMV page, which seems questionable. "**Naming Link as "Hitler" also results in a, um, interesting new interpretation of the story."
Edited by lalalei2001

In TV tropes about Mary Sue, there is a line that says ( As this essay reveals, suspiciously Mary Sue-like characters were noted in subscriber-submitted articles for 19th-century childrens' magazines, making this trope Older Than You Think. )
Before that line there was this line first : ( The name "Mary Sue" comes from the 1974 Star Trek fanfic A Trekkie's Tale. Originally written as a parody of the standard Self-Insert Fic of the time (as opposed to any particular traits), the name was quickly adopted by the Star Trek fanfiction community. Its original meaning mostly held that it was an Always Female Author Avatar, regardless of character role or perceived quality )
The essay reveals was this : http://www.merrycoz.org/papers/MARYSUE.xhtml
While the " older than you think " was this : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OlderThanTheyThink
From what I understood the trope name it self or the term name it self wasn't there in 19-th-century, because from reading the first link they meant that the too perfect characters was there back then but the term Mary Sue it self wasn't created yet, but there was Mary Sues without the term being there, is that right ? Did I get it right ?.
And that what they wrote in the first link - The essay reveals - In the 19-cetunry part was this : ( Nineteenth-century versions appear in the pages of Robert Merry’s Museum. Founded in 1841 by Samuel Goodrich, by the time the magazine was absorbed by the Youth’s Companion in 1872 it had featured works by every major nineteenth-century American writer for children, from Goodrich to Alcott, Jacob Abbott, Mary Mapes Dodge, and Sophie May. It also published works by lesser literary lights, most notably the subscribers themselves, who made the magazine their own from 1857 to 1868. While boys tended to write non-fiction articles, girls most often wrote stories and poems—some about wonderful girls whose accomplishments and charms are tangibly appreciated by those around them. Emily Martin, who in 1862 saves a sleeping Indian chief from certain death by bear; Maia, whose gentleness and kindness are extolled by animals and elves in 1858; Unella, a white child raised by Native Americans in 1865, so lovable that she holds the entire village in a gentle thralldom; even little Ellen, who dies beautifully of her mother’s thoughtlessness in 1849—all have elements we associate with Mary Sue. )
which means from my understanding that there was Mary Sues in 19-century but the term it self the name of this trope it self wasn't there, the Mary Sue characters was there back then in 19-th-century making Mary Sue thing older than we think but not the name " Mary Sue " there was just too perfect characters nothing more or less, which means too perfect characters was always there, which we call them in our days Mary Sue by a someone in a fandom and the silly things start to came out after 70's and some people took this term too far, so since we have a term of too perfect character, even in 19-century, characters who are too perfect we can call them in our days Mary Sues, even if the term wasn't there back then, but the too perfect was still there, so originally the term Is made up, the too perfect was there even before the reason of this term came out in 70's, Mary Sues was still there even without the name of the trope or the term in the 19-th-century I really hope you answer me with simple small answer, thank you.
Note : if you want to know more about that to help me, here is Mary Sue trope link https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue
)
Edited by ranko