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:
openSelf-Demonstrating icon
Why is the icon for the Self-Demonstrating namespace some kind of fruit? (See here)
openAdding a hat on a draft I grabbed
Few days ago I grabbed a very old draft, Barbarian Tropes
, which has right now 4 hats. I'm basically done with it, I just have to discuss whether to reorganise the tropes present there and whether to add only a few more. Theoretically, nothing prevents me to add the fifth hat and launch it myself when I'll feel it is ready, but I'd feel like that would be "cheating" on the rules of the TLP, since if I had started the draft from scratch I wouldn't have been able to add a hat; like if I forcibly launched a draft with still 4 hats. Is it better for me to wait for a fifth hat by a third part, or what I'm saying was already done in the past without consequences?
openNever My Fault edit war
On this
recap page for an episode of Bojack Horseman, there's an edit war for a Never My Fault entry. For context, one episode of the series has Bojack hanging out with some teenagers on their prom night. He gives them alcohol, but when one gets alcohol poisoning, he convinces her boyfriend not to tell where the alcohol came from and left them by themselves. In the latest season, the boyfriend, Pete, returns again and recounts the story to Bojack's sister, Hollyhock.
A Never My Fault entry was originally added, stating that Pete put the blame solely on Bojack despite the fact that Pete gladly encouraged them drinking. Ben Beasted removed it with the edit reason "Just because they were already drinking doesn't absolve Bo Jack of responsibility. He wen out of his way to get harder alcohol and left both of them behind at the hospital." Chubzac, the original poster, re-added it with the edit reason, "Just because Bojack holds some responsibility doesn't mean Pete and Maddie aren't also at fault. They were already drinking before Bojack met them and willingly chose to drink the alcohol Bojack bought them. Pete is twisting facts about Bojack forcing them to drink Bourbon against their will."
Personally I think this is more a YMMV response of Pete being portrayed as faultless, since the episode itself doesn't seem to point any blame on him. This reception happened before when Diane accused Bojack of taking advantage of Sarah Lynn. It's under Unintentionally Unsympathetic for the episode, for the record. In any case, should they be alerted for edit-warring?
open Question about an obscure DC Character Print Comic
I was reading information pertaining to Grant Morrison recently and it was referencing all the forms he has taken in various comics written by both himself and others. I unexpectedly had the topic come up again today in a conversation and was looking up a piece of information I had noticed. There was reference to (if I remember correctly) a Silver Age DC Comics time traveler that looked like Grant Morrison in his signature look years before he had adopted it. This isn't the Invisibles or anything since it wasn't by Morrison. It was just a weird coincidence someone was noting. Now, I know most time travelling characters across various publishers and I just can't place who this might actually be. It was either someone stretching what they thought or something I just haven't found through any cursory searching. I have a set of links from the day I saw that but I'll dig through all of it to find the answer. Was just seeing if there was a more expedient way of digging this up however. Now, is there anyone who might have any idea what I may be talking about?
open Rules regarding fake links
What I'm referring to is the (ab)use of the [[url]] system (or an equivalent like Google's hyperlinks, or Steam's [url]HTML Tags[/url]) to make one link lead to another as a form of trolling. As an example, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/Rickroll
appears to link to JustForFun.Rickroll, but instead leads to the video itself.note Even though it's quite obvious that a sane troper would use the WikiWords on their own, which renders as Rickroll. Not to mention that the "preview" in the lower-left invariably shows the real link regardless. A more extreme example is where you're at work, on your work computer, when a coworker sends you an email saying that they need help with a contract they've put on Google Docs. The link appears legit, but when you click on it, it instead leads to a XXX dark-web porn-site that usually sets off the trackers in the wi-fi. Worst case scenario, you get fired, while the trollish coworker gets away scot free.
What I want to know are the policies regarding stuff like this, just out of curiosity.
Edited by GofastmikeopenSlight edit war or something over at Hazbin Hotel
Bringing this up also here since I was advised to
from the Is this an example thread.
Context:
Tropers/Napoleon_Blownapart apparently wants to add a certain trivia about Jeffrey Dahmer
to Hazbin Hotel. That Jeffrey apparently was repentant for his crimes and technically shouldn't be in Hell in this setting or something along those lines.
Originally it was just a random note they included to a Historical Domain Character entry they added. As such it was removed by another troper.
Napoleon_Blownapart later readded the trivia back in another form under as Historical Villain Upgrade.
- Historical Villain Upgrade: Played with. A little-known fact about the real Jeffery is that he actually always despised himself for having the monstrous urges he did, and made every attempt to save his soul after he went to prison. Even if Hell worked such that he wound up there anyway, starting up a cannibal cooking show is one of the last things he'd do, and would be one of the first in line for services like what Charlie is offering.
After some time, another troper Tropers/three_of_Six removed it with the reason "The man was a child abuser and a liar. Nothing in that entry is even close to being true."
Napoleon_Blownapart readded it back citing a passage from Jeffery's Wikipedia page as a reason.
three_of_Six removed it again saying "Very much YMMV. He might have claimed to want redemption but his actions did not reflect that." and citing another passage from Jeffery's Wikipedia page.
Napoleon_Blownapart as a result has decided to add the entry over at the YMMV page of the show instead.
Sidenote:
Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't actually appear in-person in the show. His likeness only appears on a background poster and he's mainly used as a brief Black Comedy Cannibalism joke.
Question:
What should the proper course of action be? I'm tempted to remove the entry yet again on the basis that it's not a YMMV trope. However, I don't want to continue further this slight edit war or something.
Edited by ElfkaiseropenOdd edit reason?
On the Awesome page for Rick & Morty here
, SP Burke added this entry:
- During the time the show was off the air, Rick & Morty received frequent criticism thanks to the toxic fanbase who like to ignore the deeper messages and just want wacky adventures that don't talk about politics. So after finally coming back after a long hiatus, how does the show address that portion of the fans? By calling them a bunch of fascists and telling them to fuck off.
I don't know if this entry is kosher or not, but in any case, concernedalien11780 added the simple line of "among other things" to it.
My concern is not that—it is the HUGE edit reason along with it.
"Most of the toxic fandom controversies relating to Rick and Morty were in relation to either people who use Rick as a reason to act pseudo-intellectual and mean to others, harassing female writers on Twitter, or acting like lines like "Wubba-Lubba-Dub-Dub!" and "Pickle Rick!" are funny without context, and where all three of those might overlap. While certainly not apolitical, Season 3 didn't really have any obvious political satire or moralizing, because despite Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland being ardently liberal, albeit Harmon rather moreso, they don't like to preach very much, at least not within the show itself. Even the instiutionalized racism allegories in S 3 E 07 "Tales From The Citadel" didn't have anything obviously referencing any real-life instances of police brutality or systemic struggles. Perhaps "Fascist Morty" was a way of calling out fans that harp on any liberal politics or bigotry being depicted as negative appearing in the show whatsoever and interpret it as being preached at, or people who say they don't want politics in their TV when they really just don't want to see alt-right types depicted as villains, despite there being few other ways to depict them in modern mainstream media. This is perhaps more applicable to the controversies relating to HBO's Watchmen show than Rick and Morty. The way it was done in this episode was perhaps the least preachy way to address a larger issue surrounding the show's fandom, and could trick the kinds of fans implicitly being mocked into laughing at it as well. TLDR, while I won't remove the "Awesome" entry on them calling out neo-Nazis in the Rick and Morty fandom, because of the rules on opinion-based entries, I at least chose to add the "among other things" to at least partially address what the controversy is really about. While there perhaps is something to be said about not letting the show be honest about the world we live in, I don't think that not wanting to hear a certain kind of opinion in the shows one watches should automatically make someone be seen as a neo-Nazi, and that if they're going to acknowledge anything relating to the toxic fandom, it should be the other things I mentioned, even if it runs the risk of making the show come off as more preachy. Most alt-right people hate Rick and Morty already anyway due to it being a defining part of the liberal comedy community of the 2010s, so they're probably not going to see the show anyway, let alone get the message. If my rant here makes any of the higher-ups decide that the entry I'm talking about should be removed or more heavily edited, then OK. I'm not trying to change anything too heavily, I just want readers to consider things from multiple angles."
So...Yeah. Is this okay?
openCreator's page redirected from Troper's page
So the troper Kelothan had recently decided to make a TLP draft on which they revealed their intention to quit the site. Out of curiosity I looked at their troper's page...but it redirects to a "creators" page for themself, making it much harder to actually see their edits. Since they've left, should this be cutlisted? I don't think it's kosher in the first place to have your troper's page redirect to something else.
open Why there's no pague on Kodomo No Jinkan? Anime
I'm not an idiot, I understand it's a very controversial manga but still... I first started reading it as a part of my quest to witness the most banned content on this world, but what I discovered the was one of the most unapologetic, engrossing stories I've ever read which not only do I believe is probably my favorite Manga now but it helped me cope with my own abuse story as a kid. In my case, it was very ambiguous, there was no violence and my abuser was not that much older than myself, I had always been told that the pain of abuse was instantaneous so as a kid I thought that if it didn't hurt instantly it wasn't abuse. But the pain started to creep up as the years went by and such ambiguousness was compounded with a lot of doubts no one wanted to answer or aknowledge could be asked since it was tabu to question the white and black morality of the situation and just doing it surely meant you were an abuser. But Kodomo No Jinkan asked those questions and slowly I felt I wasn't so alone, in my quest for edgy shit I thought I had become insensitive, but the uncomfortable actions combined with actually caring for the characters made me so uncomfortable I couldn't believe it. Near the end there's an abuse scene that made me angry and disgusted (that was the intention) to levels I didn't thought I was capable of feeling anymore. And the ending is quite controversial for not being ideal to many moral standard (maybe stretching them a bit), but that's kinda the point, when you have been broken you happiest ending will still be a shattered one for the eyes of most people but is one you should strive for instead of giving up because the perfect normal people's ending is unreachable. Also there's a very sick character with PTSD which at the end decides to start dealing with it after avoiding it for so long, it hurt deep inside in a very needed way. I know in appearance it looks bad and most people want it to "tell don't show" but I think of it as medicine, not for your normal headache as it is chemo extreme so I guess is fine if people can't take it, but to be hated after doing so much good it makes me feel alone. So I wanted to ask if we can include it back please, I think it can do a lot of good with people still stuck in between traumas they can't just tell anybody about.
openRequesting Image Edits
Is there a forum thread where I can go to request an image edit? I launched the SpongeBob SquarePants: Video Game Characters page recently, and unfortunately, the best image I could find of Robo-Patrick contains a distracting number that I'm unable to edit out myself because I don't have the photoshop skills to do it.
openTwo fanfics Need Magic Wiki Love Western Animation
My crossovers Code Saw and Code Wings 3.0 need some help getting tropes. I've been trying to get them myself (and would edit the page Needs Wiki Magic Love myself if it weren't locked), but I can't do it on my own. Do you all think you can help me?
Please and thank you. It would help a lot.
(I would put it under Fan Works, but you don't have a category for that, unfortunately.)
Edited by Teenlyokofan7777openSubtitled video has watermark
On a video I may plan on uploading, I added translations and subtitles to it myself (because no English subs exist, and I can understand Mandarin Chinese) with Kapwing.com—which has a watermark on the top-right of the screen. Is it okay to upload it anyway?
openAversion Example to Delete?
Found this entry on Anime & Manga. Should I delete it?
"Surprisingly averted in Shokugeki no Soma: While cooking is incredibly serious business within Tootsuki, it is recognized that gourmet food is a niche interest outside that limited sphere, and the people who take it seriously do so because they are within that niche, but most of the world couldn't care less. Even the most obsessive cooks never consider cooking to be a goal in itself, but always have another goal in mind and consider food to be a stepping stone towards that goal. The ones that actually do consider food to be the most important thing in existence (Eishi, Azami, young Joichirou, Akira during his tenure at Central) are seen as maladjusted at best, and teetering on the brink of insanity at worst. Soma, the most competitive of the lot, at one points stands to lose his culinary career, but rather sanguinely points out that as a driven, reasonably intelligent sixteen-year-old, he could do a lot of other things with his life than cook, and losing his chosen career would be a heavy blow but hardly a crippling one. Nearly all the main characters are shown to have hobbies and other interests. Isshiki is an organic gardener of growing repute, Yuuki a skilled hunter, Ryoko experiments with brewing, Megumi plays table tennis, Hisako and Ryou take care of their respective charges, Nene plays the zither and is a skilled calligrapher, Senzaemon works out rather obsessively, Azami takes time off to ski and practice iaido, Miyoko is the star of Tootsuki's basketball team and even Erina "God Tongue" Nakiri enjoys afternoons in bed reading romance manga."
openCouldn't we have talked about this some first?
I have issues with the fact that Brainulator9 and Piterpicher have been mass-deleting potholes from "The Reason You Suck" Speech without discussing it first. No visit to the dedicated quotes thread, no use of the page's discussion page, no visit to ATT, not even personal messages to anyone who's been editing that page on and off such as myself asking us to dial back on the potholes, just a purge of the square brackets. I've had these issues for a while, but I've waited this long because I didn't want to talk about it in a knee-jerk, angry shouting match way. I've let the initial reactions fade out and am prepared to talk about them politely and courteously now.
I'm not saying they're wrong, but sweeping, zero-tolerance edits like this have massive impacts on how a page appears and this isn't the right way to compress an overly-long page. I already suggested breaking the page down into smaller, dedicated quotes pages on the thread and didn't get a lot of objections. Wouldn't that be better?
In any case, I'm paging both to come here at their nearest convenience. Let's all keep this civil.
openAcceptable Targets in ''Survivor''?
Recently while editing YMMV.Survivor, I cut most of an entry for Acceptable Targets since I know there have been issues with misuse in the past and I wasn't convinced the listed examples fit; the only part I left behind as potentially legitimate was about people who quit the game, since "quitters" is a category that automatically gets scorned by the show.
Since then, I glanced over the Acceptable Targets page itself and saw a "This is based on opinion" warning; though I wasn't sure if it meant it was limited to YMMV or that it wasn't to be used period. Happyfrybreath also restored a couple examples and added new ones "that most people seem to agree upon".
So what's the consensus of the community at large? I'm not entirely sure what the right way to use Acceptable Targets is, if at all.
openDiscussion Page input
Hi, there's a discussion between myself and another troper regarding a Trivia entry I removed. However, the discussion is at an impasse, so I'm hoping someone can help us resolve it. Since it rests on the possibility of my interpretation of the trope description being wrong (which wouldn't be the first time), please would it be possible for someone to take a look at the discussion and see whether the entries should be re-added?
The discussion is here Trivia.RWBY
The trope is: Creator Backlash.
The entries I removed are as follows, along with the edit reason I used:
Edit reason: Creator Backlash is not about creators who can look at flaws in their work and wish they'd done things differently. It's for creators who come to hate a work that is popular with fans.
- Creator Backlash:
- The crew in general don't look back on Volume 1 with a lot of good memories, with Ruby's actress Lindsay Jones frequently wishing for a chance to redub the season and Miles Luna frequently bemoaning the Jaundice arc for taking too long.
- Miles Luna admitted prior to Volume 5 that he was painfully aware of how often Yang got shafted for screentime and plot relevance, and specifically noted that Yang would get a lot of focus in that coming volume.
- Since Volume 5, Luna has taken several small potshots at the season in retrospect, such as mocking several lines he wrote on the commentary track, noting that the team wouldn't be stuck in a house again all season for Volume 6, and specifically promising that Ruby would get more focus and her leader status would be more emphasized in the coming Volumes.
openDamsel no longer in distress
When the series started, the naive girl is kidnapped by a human trafficking network and sold to a brothel for forced prostitution. She barely understand anything of it (she does not even speak the language, as she's taken from a distant country), and completely depends on the hero to save her. Meaning, a Damsel in Distress.
Did I say that she did not understand anything? Only in the begining. During the series she learns the way everything works, how to outsmart the bosses and look for herself, without needing the hero. By the ending of the series, she makes the big plans herself, and the hero is more of a drawback than a good help. Meaning, a Damsel out of Distress.
Would it be correct to list both in the character page, explaining the context, or the final characterization is the one that prevails?

First of all, may all those who died in the fire rest in peace.
That being said, I was wondering if the July 18th 2019 fire at Kyoto Animation could fall under the No OSHA Compliance trope (under Real Life), if it would be zigzagged or something. Based on descriptions of the building itself (no sprinklers, a spiral staircase, a difficult-to-open emergency door) this could be an example. But then, I was also thinking it's being zigzagged because the building passed the local fire codes - the structure was apparently built with accidental fires in mind, but the incident was an arson, so the damage was much worse.