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:
openReferences in laconics
I know there's a cleanup thread about laconics, but I'm still waiting for a question I asked there ages ago to be answered and I'm worried that if I ask another question before then, it'd be "spamming".
I'm not talking about the "unabridged version" gags. Those are hilarious IMO and can stay. What I'm talking about is when works that aren't spinoffs have laconics that are basically just "Work X, but with Y".
This, I think, is a bit unclear because what if no one's ever seen the work being referenced?
A particularly blatant example is Laconic.Airplane is "Zero Hour played for laughs." I'd never heard of Zero Hour so I went to look at Laconic.Zero Hour (because I didn't want to spend ages reading about a work I wasn't interested in) and it was "Airplane! without the jokes.", which, to make a joke myself, doesn't fly in my opinion.
Edited by UnicorndanceopenIs this too much?
YMMV.Fate Apocrypha contains the following entry:
- Rooting for the Empire: The show eventually had the Red Faction becoming the main antagonist faction. But there are some that believed that they deserve to win:
- First, the members. Shirou Amakusa is a Well-Intentioned Extremist whose end goal could be said to be admirable, Karna being an overpowered yet honorable Servant, Achilles being a sociable bro and also overpowered Servant, Atalanta for her very pure wish (and the tragedy that comes with it) and tough attitude and adorable cat ears and tails, Shakespeare for his ham in just about everything leading to hilarity even when he's the antagonist, and Semiramis for being a classy, sexy dominating queen with oddly adorable elven ears. Even their deserter, Mordred, gets a LOT of love due to her overall badass daredevil attitude and accomplishment that fans may also want her and Shishigou to snatch the Grail. While Spartacus might not get very high levels of love due to being eliminated early and unfortunately being considered 'wasted potential', his craziness and meme factor in his short run was also welcomed. While the original masters except Shishigou were reduced to props without personality, it's not quite considered a damning factor and instead wins the favor of the camp that believed that the best part of Fate series are the Servants, not Masters.
- Next, the first half's members of the Black Faction. While we had Fiore and Caules as genuinely good Masters of the faction and Gordes' fault was just being a haughty jerk; it's worth noting that the leader, Darnic, was a former Nazi collaborator that consumed the souls of children (his way of dealing with Zouken might not be enough to cleanse those). And Celenike is a serial rapist with no redeeming features. And their last master, Reika, is a crazy serial killer who directs Jack the Ripper, the one responsible for the terror in London for a long timeNote Not to mention, Reika wasn't the intended master of Jack, her place was supposedly filled by magus (possibly under Darnic's command) Hyouma Sagara who attempted to use Reika as a sacrifice for the summoning that Jack killed him on spot and switched to Reika, who went crazy afterwards.. At first, this sets up for the show being Grey-and-Gray Morality to facilitate on rooting for the Red Faction.
- A minor point but Shirou was originally a servant to an Einzbern homunculous and was distraught when the latter was killed by Darnic. Anybody who was fond of the other Einzbern homunculi tend to be slightly biased in favor of Shirou.
- Next, the second half's members of the Black Faction. By that point, both Darnic and Celenike have been killed due to their own evil actions and Gordes had a change of heart, whereas both Sieg and Jeanne entered the faction, turning the Black Faction to be the more bonafide good guy team (Reika is eliminated in a latter time). This upsets people who were more into moral grayness and thought it was unfair that the Black Faction was cleaned up to be a less subtle "good guys" team, and it didn't help that Sieg was the show's biggest Base-Breaking Character, furthering the desire for people to cheer for the Red Faction which was considered to have more nuances.
- Finally, the Servants of the Black faction, while pretty good, have been much more of a mixed bag. Siegfried might be the one who would make the faction cool, but then he killed himself very early to revive Sieg. Chiron is overall pretty cool and his relations with Fiore was well-liked, but a lot thought of him as more of a supporting cast to Achilles' development. Vlad was cool on his run, but got the short end of the stick when Darnic forced him to turn into Dracula and then was quickly eliminated by Amakusa. Avicebron committed a despicable treachery and for this was struck down like a traitor that fans overall ignored him until he got a better showing in Fate/Grand Order. Jack's design put off a lot of fans and her role as a Serial Killer didn't help her. Frankenstein is a mixed bag overall. When Jeanne came in, people eventually got pissed with her budding romance with Sieg that she was considered ruined, leaving only Astolfo as the only cool Servant there, but even he had his own detractors.
I can see a perfectly-valid argument to be made for why people would want to root for the Red Faction, despite my own opinions on the matter. It's just... this feels too damn long with several long bullets being devoted to building up the same point, which is probably in defiance of Administrivia.Clear Concise Witty. Should I shorten this, and if yes, how?
openRecurring Fanon Character vs. O.C. Stand-in
- Very common in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic circles.
- The "Background Six" were all characters with absolutely no characterization beyond some slight gags, or maybe a bit line or two. The fandom went wild with them anyway. All of these turned into Ascended Fanon within the show itself in the episode "Slice of Life". These characterizations mostly still persist to this day within the fandom.
- Flufflepuff from Ask Fluffle Puff
- Gamer Princess Luna from Ask Princess Molestia and Ask Gaming Princess Luna
The first example sounds more like O.C. Stand-in they are not fan made characters. The second might count as a persona adopted after they got canon characterization but was commented out as I was posting this.
I’d say O.C. Stand-in should be a separate thing, as such characters aren’t OC’s. But there’s this description from Recurring Fanon Character:
- A reinterpretation of a canon character; these characters are known as the counterparts of the canon characters. The Tails Doll of Sonic R is a robotic doll meant to serve as Tails' Metal Sonic, but is an otherwise Flat Character. Due to its unintentional creepiness, the fans treat as an actual creature of nightmares, which has been the base for many fanworks and creepypasta.
How is O.C. Stand-in separate from RFC? Because OCSI is Depending on the Writer while RFC is a constituent characterization?
And why is O.C. Stand-in not Trivia like Fan Nickname or YMMV if it’s how audiences treat characters? If it is for characters intentionally written to be such do they need proof it’s intentional as opposed to incidental?
openChanging "Characters/GodzillaTheGodzillas" as Characters/Godzilla The Character Film
I want to know if it's okay to change Godzilla: The Godzillas as "Godzilla The Character", since while it's a page designed to show multiple versions of the character, the title itself makes it sound like they in the same continuity when there's 10 different versions of the same character while adding other media-related characters.
openShould this be troped?
Found on YMMV.Metroid Prime:
- Harsher in Hindsight: The tales of developers sleeping on couches in the office and consuming massive quantities of fireball candy to get the game finished is a lot less appealing to the current industrial standards in which developers from multiple companies such as Riot and Netherrealm studios are working their staff into what can be charitably called sweatshop conditions.
I feel like this is in a gray area considering it's not talking about the game itself.
openCreate page button
I was thinking could we create a dedicated "Create page" button on the wiki?
I mean having to edit the url of an existing page to create a new page really doesn't make sense.
1. Creating a page is a fundamental function so there could be a fundamental button for it. Having to modify an existing page to make a new page, is like having to turn on the dishwasher to use the stove. It doesn't make any sense since couldn't the stove just have a button of its own to turn itself on rather than having to operate another appliance.
2. Having to modify the url of a an existing page can be complicated based on what characters you have to add/remove and where. Do I remove these characters? Do I add these characters? Which part to I focus on removing and adding characters.
3. Having a "Create Page" button would make it so much easier to make a url for it and make it less likely that you'll mess up the url for the new page by manually changing an old one. The create page would do all the work for you rather than "Do I change these characters or these characters?"
If this feature is implemented this would make it easier to contribute to the wiki. I mean you wouldn't have to worry about messing up a url to create a new works page. I mean if you know about a show for example that hasn't been added yet, you could right then and there add it before you forget.
Basically it'd make adding works so much more efficient.
openWhen should I split off a sub-page to a trope?
When should I split off a sub-page to a trope?
I have at least 25 to add from one author, to One-Word Title....
Should I give that author their own page, or just split off the Fanfic section?
But really, if a work has 50 examples, it should just get its own sub-page all to itself...
This
planned Underground Monkey entry, that is already taking up 12 lines, and I'm not done. Although, at best, it should... Oh, I missed some...
Note to Self: Trees, Mushrooms, (Bats?)
It might be 30 lines long...
Edited by MaladyopenNobody Poops and aversions
I don't know whether to go to Trope Talk, Wiki Talk, or Trope Repair Shop, so I just went here.
So I was alphabetizing Nobody Poops and adding a few examples, when I noticed that aversions were listed on the Video Games folder despite that the page itself said that aversions (and straight examples) are too common to list, so you should only list parodies, lampshades, etc.
Also, on several works' pages like Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, they list aversions for Nobody Poops.
openWasted plots and characters Film
So, I found these entries in the YMMV page for Wonder Woman (2017).
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character:
- In the backstory the Greek Gods (especially Diana's patron goddess Athena) are all dead save for Ares, who by his own admission destroyed them. A common complaint among Wonder Woman fans is that while she is an excellent character herself, her stories generally don't have the same density of Worldbuilding and Rogues Gallery that Batman and Superman have, and that DC rarely does heavy lifting in integrating the richness of Classical Mythology to its superhero lore the way Marvel does with Norse Mythology, and that arbitrarily wiping out the Pantheon, for the sake of simplifying Diana's origin, potentially limited the scope of her stories going forward.
- Some viewers were disappointed more wasn't done with Dr. Poison. For starters, she's a female scientist during World War 1, a period of time where someone such as herself would be looked out with confusion or disdain from her allies. One youtuber
discussed this by pointing out how she acts as the perfect Foil to Diana: Diana had the ability to choose her destiny, while Dr. Poison essentially didn't, but the choice was made to make her a straight up villain in the end and not a Tragic Villain. Others think it may have been more interesting if she was Ares.
- The choice to kill off Ares. Not only is he Wonder Woman's most powerful and iconic villain, but he has so much backstory and potential that lends him to being one of the biggest villains in the DCU. He easily could have been a villain the Justice League could have had to face, and with how small Wonder Woman's Rogues Gallery is, he makes for a good long term villain. Instead he gets killed shortly after appearing, which calls into question now what they can do with Wonder Woman since her first solo-film has her beating a literal God of War.
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: Quite a few people considered it a wasted opportunity that the movie did not stick to the idea that Ares was not behind the war and that the people fighting in it were fighting purely because they wanted to, particularly since it would have provided a great reason for Diana to seclude herself from humanity. This is especially strange given that up until that point in the movie, Diana's entire character arc was about learning how humans are both capable of evil and good, but the choice for Ares to appear throws all of it under the bus. Its such a sore spot for people that many feel it damages the films quality.
Do they really qualify for these tropes or not? I'm asking because sometimes, the inclusion of these tropes in YMMV pages are less "This plot/character wasn't properly developed or explored" and more "I didn't like the way this plot/character was handled."
open Adjusting Your Glasses
Somebody really needs to explain to me what's going on with the Adjusting Your Glasses page. The description has an example as thesis thing going on, it's got four extra descriptions trying to make subtropes that are probably unnecessary, and because of all that most of the examples are ZCEs.
I really don't know what to do with this. There is a trope in here, but the page itself is bizarre.
openPossible example Web Original
(Sorry for making so much ATT threads regarding entries i’m just kinda nervous about my contributions and I want to make sure they’re right-)
So I want to add an example for Self-Destruct Mechanism from a You Tube series I’m into, and I just want to make sure it’s a-okay before adding it.
The Final Minutes - Zombie Plague: The Path’s compound locations are fitted with a Magno Loop, an underground ring that acts as the compounds’ defense system. It’s also fitted with Complete Destruction mode, which causes the loop to cycle through all of its defense modes before detonating and vaporizing anything in a 25 kilometer radius.
Here’s the part that the info comes from
, the self destruct mode gets more detail at the 37:13 mark.
openDoes Dummied Out apply here? Videogame
This example of Dummied Out is on the page for Animal Crossing: New Horizons:
- Dummied Out:
- Data for the Sanrio villagers exists in New Horizons, but the villagers aren't currently used, possibly being intended to be added to the game in future updates. The other Welcome amiibo-introduced villagers, however, have no data for them whatsoever.
- Museum room IDs exist
for a cafe (presumably the Roost) and a Gyroid exhibit. ID data also exists for a two-room art exhibit, but this was eventually implemented into the game itself via the Nature Day update, implying that the cafe and Gyroid exhibit will be made accessible to players somewhere down the road.
- Another dataminer
found even more info about dummied content. There's an unused shopping menu for the Museum (presumably the shop that was previously seen in New Leaf), as well as "Real Estate" and "Gallery" shops of unknown purpose. Data relating to diving and deep-sea creatures (from New Leaf) that may also tie into a third unused "Seafood" section of the Critterpedianote The manila clam is the only entity in this category which was implemented in the game at launch, vegetables that can be harvested, and recipes for cooked dishes and clothing were also found among the game's files. Finally, there's also data for a third Nook's Cranny upgrade.
- The same miner also found Leif's garden shop, the return of bushes and artwork, and Redd's Treasure Trawler before their proper release in the Nature Day update. The "private beach" where Redd docks is referred to as "Nつねきち" ("NTsunekichi") in the game's files, with Tsunekichi being Redd's Japanese name.
The problem is, New Horizons is a game that's being continuously updated with new content. As stated in the example, some of the items that were listed as Dummied Out have already been added to the game through content updates, and it's likely that more of them will be in the future. Since Dummied Out appears to deal specifically with content that was cut from a game, should examples be listed if there's still a reasonable chance that they could be added to the game?
openHilarious In Hindsight on the Megamind page, misuse or not? Film
I've noticed that keyblade333 recently deleted the entirety of the Hilarious in Hindsight entry from the Megamind page.
After I talked to them about it, they claimed that it was because of misuse.
I think they're a mixed bag. Things like Jonah Hill's and Will Ferrell's roles in The Lego Movie count, given that Jonah Hill was voicing a character who was heavily inspired by Jimmy Olsen, with the names of two Green Lanterns, only to later voice Green Lantern himself who has an obsession with Superman. Same thing with both Will Ferrell characters having a tendency to mispronounce things and also being parodies of over-the-top supervillains.
Some of the entries really were borderline examples, but that's no reason to delete the entire entry.
Edited by tropineasilyopenQuestion on what to do about Nice Guy
Like Deadpan Snarker, Nice Guy is another popular established trope that has gotten huge amounts trope decay. The trope is supposed to about a character that is defined by their niceness and isnt really involved in the story events. Now it's used for character that shows an ounce of kindness or human decency even if they are a Jerk with a Heart of Gold.
To quote Administrivia.Square Peg Round Trope:
"Like the Deadpan Snarker before him, the Nice Guy distinguishes himself (or herself) from other characters by having his niceness, politeness, helpfulness, and lack of overt conflict/drama be his defining characteristic. However, much like how every character ever to make a sarcastic quip was soon labeled a Deadpan Snarker, now every character ever shown to have an ounce of kindness is being labeled Nice Guy even though it's far from their primary characteristic. Put simply: If you and/or the characters have to look for the niceness under a cold, harsh, or troubled exterior, then the character is not a Nice Guy. Please don't go slapping that label on every character who is not a complete Jerkass."
Do I make a clean up thread for it first and then if TRS is decided to be necessary take it there? Or should I gear up towards just doing the wick check and then take it to TRS?
open Valid removal?
Steve From Canada removed an example
from TheReasonYouSuckSpeech.Real Life, with the edit reason "Removed Tommy Lee's entry because he invocked the "Fine Prople Hoax" while berating Donald Trump. If you want to give to someone reasons why he sucks, stick to non-fiction ones."
This seems like an invalid deletion to me; the trope still applies, this was still a TRYSS directed at Trump, even if the speech itself had inaccuracies. I think it should be re-added, but want to discuss it first.
Edit: Hold on, this is worse than I realized. Every edit this person has made has been to this page, and all they've ever done is delete Trump-related examples from it.
Edited by WarJay77

What's the stance on indexing Fan Works examples by work on the main page (instead of a sub-page)? For example, this example from a TLP:
Fan Works Batman