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 Another post by me!
Hey gamers, I want you to make self demonstrating pages for: Mario, Metal Mario, Four (BFB), Two (TPOT), Animatic (Animatic Battle), Emmet Brickowski
Edited by Realnameresolved Roman Numerals in work titles
Just a quick question - I was wanting to launch a new works page for Schedule I, the silly black comedy drug dealer game that came out. The game's title and steam listing using Roman Numeral I, I was wanting to double check if we'd still use the I, use 1, or typed out One for it, since I'm not sure myself.
resolved Typo in the title: Recap/TheChicagoCodeS1E13MikeRyokosRevenge Live Action TV
The Chicago Code S 1 E 13 Mike Ryokos Revenge
The episode title should be "Mike Royko's Revenge," not Ryoko— the reference is to a Chicago Tribune columnist, not a J-Pop singer. But I'm not sure how to fix it as it's in the page title itself.
openTrouble with uploading video example
I'm trying to add a video example for Art Shift, but the video I try to upload is flipped to a vertical resolution for some reason. The video on my phone is not flipped and is horizontal, and getting the video and uploading it on my laptop instead didnt work. The video is still awaiting review, but I dont know why it is flipping itself. Is it because of the file type or something?
openRepair Don't Respond policy actually unclear or are some people purposefully misrepresenting it?
I've always understood the Repair, Don't Respond policy to be about putting "replies" to incorrect or inaccurate content onto wiki pages themselves instead of removing or fixing the content, the page itself states so.
But I've seen some people link it in response to being told outside the wiki pages about their editing mistakes, at least one instance of it in a PM to me. Nothing on that page mentions editing mistakes nor does it mention being told through PM or ATT or the like, and if the policy did apply in that way, it would directly contradict the existence of the Notifiers system. When told about that some of said people claim the page does not contradict their claim.
Do we really need to spell it out on the page? EDIT: Spell out what the page doesn't mean, particularly.
Edited by homogenizedopenHow Do You add Secondary Tropes to Video Examples in videos if one is not the original uploader?
I have noticed in some of my videos that some secondary tropes have been added by other users/tropers, even though I myself have not added them. How do people add secondary tropes to video examples that were not uploaded by them?
resolved Possible Edit War on YMMV Watson(2025) Live Action TV
Regarding this page, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/Watson
there was an UnintentionallyUnsympathetic example I removed as audiences and critics noted that Ingrid seemingly set Isaac up to take his spot. I did add reasons for the removal, as Ingrid did not deny her actions and deflected his accusations. In episode she seemed knowingly let him drive while (mildly) intoxicated then turned him in not out of morality but out of benefit to herself.
It was originally added by {{6 »Tropers}} , then re-added again after removal, not sure if that counts as EditWar or not.
As pointed out by the reasoning stated she didn't deter him from driving, she didn't call for an UBER. She waited till he was on the road then called the Police to advise of a drunk driver, including his car model essentially setting him up. As critics and other audiences pointed out she set him up to take his spot, ruining his life and deflecting blame. Making his character sympathetic.
As the example was re-added without reasoning am I able to remove it again.
Edited by TuvokopenMetroid Prime 4 edit war
It really hurts me to write this query, because the involved troper is a good contributor, but unfortunately coming here is the only resort I have.
On YMMV.Metroid Prime 4 Beyond, QU 4 DR 4 X 15 had written a flawed Tainted by the Preview entry, which had issues like self-contradictory sentences and focus on knee-jerk reactions from a Vocal Minority. I removed the example on those grounds, but they added it back with a different wording that, if anything, amplified the aforementioned issues. The edit reason also comes off as needlessly defiant.
At the very least, they should have brought this up on any venue, but I can't seem to find any thread or discussion board where they did.
openPoppy Playtime's Prototype sympathy
Would like to prompt for more opinions on the subject here
, since there are only 3 people arguing and I myself would like to step down from it. It's been almost a month and I don't think the back-and-forth on what essentially is an Alternative Character Interpretation will be getting anywhere any time soon.
resolved Unsure of edit to Symbiotes page Print Comic
An editor made an addition to the Characters/MarvelComicsSymbiotes page that's got me scratching my head—stating that when the symbiotes were first introduced "it was said only very specific people can ever bond with [them], much less form an actual partnership with them".
I consider myself a big Venom fan, but the only time I remember that being a thing is in the Venom movies.
The closest I can remember to seeing something along the lines of that statement in the comics is a narration/thought box in 1996's Venom: The Hunger where Eddie Brock muses that symbiotes didn't evolve to be bonded to humans, and that whatever host they did evolve to naturally bond to would have supplied them with the phenethylamine levels they need to survive... but that was retconned a long time ago—even before Donny Cates introduced Knull.
I was equally curious and confused, so I did some digging to see if I could find anything, but all I've come up with are several instances where that's is shown not to be the case—even early on:
- In 1984's Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man #99, the symbiote that became Venom bonded to a man named Leonard Elkhart to get back to Peter Parker.
- In 1991's Fantastic Four (Vol. 1) #359-360, Dreadface bonds to a random gorilla before taking over the Thing and jumping to the Human Torch, and was where symbiotes were first established as being part of a marauding interstellar empire and prefering strong hosts suitable for facilitating planetary conquests.
- In 1993's Fantastic Four Annual #26, Dreadface takes over a woman named Carrie Burke and consumes her from the inside-out—marking the first time symbiotes are shown doing so to their hosts.
- In 1994's Venom: Seperation Anxiety (Vol. 1) the Venom symbiote bonds to Doctor Zwerling and an unnamed trucker to get back to Eddie Brock.
- In 1995's Venom: Sinner Takes All the Venom symbiote bonds to Anne Weying to save her life, later rebonding to her to save Eddie.
- In the 1995 Planet of the Symbiotes event, it's established that symbiotes are capable of bonding to any host they please, but have a modus operandi of draining their vitality / adrenaline / phenylethanolamine until they die and/or just straight-up consuming them from the inside-out before jumping to a new one—something later seen with the Venom symbiote in 2003's The Spectacular Spider-Man (Vol. 2) and the Mania symbiote in 2003's Venom (Vol. 1).
- In 1996's Venom: The Hunted, two symbiotes that survived the aftermath of the invasion were shown having bonded to otherwise ordinary civilians named George Strickland and Zeena Hodges.
- In 1996's The Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 1) #410, the Carnage symbiote leaves Cletus Kasady to take over John Jameson without issue before jumping to Ben Reilly.
Am I missing something? I will admit it's possible—I haven't read every single Venom-related comic (yet) and it's been a long time since I've read some of them. But if this ever was said to be a thing in the comics, it both contradicts the earlier lore (what little there was, at least) and is completely ignored by the later lore—which wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened at Marvel.
Edited by Arawn999openPage quote citing a work's creator?
On Flow (2024), the page quote is sourced from an interview with the creator. The animation itself does not feature any dialogue. Is this suitable?
resolved Velma YMMV and the Alt-Right Accusation
Hello, everyone. I was browsing through "Ask the Tropers," and I see that a troper called "Neverwood" tried to report me for spreading "Alt-right" messages on the Velma YMMV page
, and I'm having trouble moving forward from the accusation. I know this accusation was 2 years ago, but it's still a jarring thing to see considering it's visible to the public. Because I wasn't tagged in the conversation or notified of it when it came out, I wasn't given a chance to explain myself. I am aware of the misfortune and ramifications of posting this on April Fool's Day. I assure you, this is not a joke; I truly wanted to address this with sincerity.
I know it's pointless talking about it now, considering it's been almost two years since the accusation, and this post would only bring attention to it. I want to get this off my chest and clear things up, even if it doesn't matter anymore, because this is a serious accusation from my point of view. The edits I made on Velma YMMV page were caused by a lot of anxiety and stress. For clarity, I was never trying to spread an "alt-right" agenda, and I would never endorse those beliefs.
- In Neverwood's complaint, they accused me of posting "alt-right nonsense" and that I was claiming how "Velma is racist against whites". Although I did describe Velma's behavior as racially motivated in previous entries, it's too strong a description, and I should have used the terms "biased" or "wary" because they align more with the creator's intent behind these remarks. To explain the difference, "bias" is used to describe a mistrust or wariness, whereas racism implies the speaker believes in superiority over another race or ethnicity. I interpreted these actions as racist or racially motivated because I have read reviews and seen reaction videos that called Velma's actions bigoted, hypocritical, and racist for her comments about Fred's race. I understand that Velma was referring to the system, not Fred's race. Because of these reviews, I mistakenly thought it was the consensus towards the character. I was being literal-minded when I interpreted her comments, not that it excuses my actions. This misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Velma's comments are what led to these statements. That said, I'm aware this isn't the place to discuss what constitutes racism.
- Regarding my comments on the "social commentary", I sincerely believed that was the creator's intent when they made the show. Despite Neverwood's accusations that I claimed "it's the reason why most people hate the show", I never said social commentary was the thing that ruined the show or the reason why so many people hated it; all I said was that the social commentary could have been done better. I wasn't complaining or criticizing the message; I was criticizing and referring to the methods used by Velma, which were over-aggressive and heavy-handed. I never said she was right or wrong either; that isn't my place to say, I just said these themes and messages were done better in other movies and shows. The point of my argument was that bringing identity politics into the story doesn't automatically make a character compelling or deep. I believe in Show, Don't Tell. Social commentary is a delicate and complex topic that must be done in an engaging, entertaining, and thought-provoking way. To reiterate, I was not trying to spread or push an alt-right agenda by criticising the show's methods in providing social commentary. I supported the message the series tried to convey, even if I doubted and disliked its presentation and heavy-handed, over-aggressive approach.
- Finally, when I deleted the social commentary edit, I genuinely didn't know about Neverwood's complaint. It was already a point of contention on the page, and I thought I was doing the right thing to stop more complaints and edits. When I brought up the show's social commentary again, I tried to provide a calm and rational explanation to avoid causing more arguments, not knowing the matter was already resolved. I tried to explain how the show was full of identity politics and socio-political commentary, I felt it was something that had to be addressed because it was a component of the show. However, my edits had problems of their own: Firstly, whether you agree with the show or not, it's hard to talk about these issues without making the edits sound like a massive, over-aggressive rant. And secondly, despite my attempts at damage control, it unintentionally came across as flame bait. I stopped because it wasn't worth it in the end, and I haven't been on the YMMV page since 2023.
Anyway, I think I've explained everything. I am truly sorry for what happened and for causing this much drama. I can't apologise enough for my actions; it was foolish and a product of stress mismanagement. I have no excuse for my actions because I know I should have known better. I sincerely know now how my actions can upset others. I will be more careful and mindful in how I phrase my entries in the future.
Edited by Buckresolved Suspicious review thinly veiled as a personal attack.
Troper Biri made a rather suspicious review
of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood that comes off more as complaining than reviewing it. When other viewers asked about their hatred of Fred Rogers himself, they proceeded to go on a rant alleging that he was a homophobe/anti-LGBTQ, a phony, using a Christian agenda to condescend against children, referring to his fandom as "fanbrats" and, most disturbingly, hoping that someone urinates on his grave.
Now, I get that not everyone is going to like something or someone, regardless of popularity, and if all of that's true about him, so be it, but I don't think being so hostile towards someone's fanbase or hoping that their final resting place be desecrated is okay or complies with the site's rules, do you?
Edited by Erin582resolved Interesting edits on Gender-Equal Ensemble
On November 1st, 2024, I added an example of this trope from Bad Times at the Battle Royale, a movie that I had put together a couple of years ago, and in December 25th, 2024, I did the same thing for Lights, Camera, Action! Moviemaking Mania. Both examples were also crosswicked to their respective film pages. So far, so good.
Fast-forward to January 14th, 2025 where user Diask changed almost every single instance of "male and female" on the article to something different. Some examples have "males and females" changed to "guys and girls", while it was far more common for instances of "males and females" to be changed to "men and women". All of this without an edit reason. And yes, both of my film examples were caught in the crossfire.
What reason would this user have to change almost every example of "males and females" without specifying exactly why? I'm concerned undoing these changes (especially in regards to both of my film examples) might lead to an edit war and possibly another suspension, hence why I'm bringing this up here first and foremost to see what others think. I myself find it weird to make these sorts of massive changes without prior discussion, especially for an article specifically talking about how the gender ratio between male and female is exactly 50/50 for certain works of art. If it's already correct to use "male and female" to refer to both genders, then why bother changing it?
Before anyone asks, I did check the Discussion tab for Gender-Equal Ensemble to see if I could find anything, but there was nothing. If there was a discussion regarding this elsewhere on the site (particularly a forum thread or two), then please let me know about any such areas so I can take a closer look.
Initial Battle Royale edit on Gender-Equal Ensemble by myself: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.GenderEqualEnsemble&page=23#edit42324893
Initial Lights, Camera, Action! edit on Gender-Equal Ensemble by myself: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.GenderEqualEnsemble&page=23#edit42887001
Edit to Gender-Equal Ensemble by Diask changing almost every instance of "male and female" without prior discussion: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.GenderEqualEnsemble&page=23#edit43089160
openCan a Continuity Nod qualify as a Mythology Gag at the same time? Videogame
Probably a stupid question, but, what the title says. This is a super specific situation I'm dealing with: I'm thinking of editing a page that's about the second game in a series that was originally self-contained but contained a cameo of the Big Bad from a previous game made by the same developer, before being adopted as part of a series later on as a Non-Linear Sequel.
Can this be considered both a Continuity Nod as well as a Mythology Gag, due to the circumstances? The page I previously made and edited currently lists it as a Mythology Gag when it really should be considered a Continuity Nod (a mistake from the days where I had way less experience as a troper), but can I retroactively slot the Continuity Nod in while explaining that it was originally the latter before later games made it into the former? Or should I Take a Third Option and just replace Mythology Gag with Continuity Nod and call it a day?
openNot sure this should have been removed. Videogame
I recently added an edit for Fourth Wall Myopia on Dragon Age: The Veilguard, that was removed:
- Dragon Age: The Veilguard: This is a major factor to Taash's infamous confrontation with their mother in their personal quest coming off as Unintentionally Unsympathetic to audiences, even though anyone familiar with such issues would recognize the ethos, logos and pathos all hold up. Taash's grievances were on paper entirely understandable; they were emotionally neglected by their mother for most of their life, and one of Taash's fundamental questions is how non-binary characters would even exist in a religion like the Qun. Suffice to say, not well at all; the Qun are adamant that the role you play is the one you're born in and will die in, and are likewise adamant that men and women are assigned to strict gender roles, and while this means that the Qun are surprisingly okay with trans people, they don't even consider non-binary people to even exist. This is a sentiment that several trans people go through when explaining their gender identity to their own parents, and Taash was clearly meant to emulate that with them finding it difficult to keep themselves composed over the matter as their mother doesn't even recognize why Taash made this choice and even insinuates that Rook had a reason for "making her like this". Unfortunately, due to Taash taking an overly defensive tone and their mother being calm by comparison, it comes off to many unfamiliar with such a dilemma that Taash's mother was being unfairly railed on by her child, despite the context making total sense within the universe. This leads to a scene that would otherwise be poignant being undercut by an awkward execution, even when the details of the scene in question make total sense on paper versus how it impresses on itself in practice.
The given reason for the removal was that "this trope is when character's actions make sense in-universe because they don't know something that the viewers do and thus the latter complain that the scene is irrational. In this case, it's not about having more knowledge of the characters (to the point the entry even says that viewers don't know certain elements, quite the opposite); plus, one complaint about taash's reaction is that it's very immature for their age, while it could've been more understandable if they were a teenager." Except that the edit itself notes that the execution is awkward and immature-sounding, and last I checked, the actual trope is that viewers do not realize that the plot is not known to the characters, or that they are in a story. In particular, that the Qun is very strict about gender roles, and so Taash being nonbinary does cause a breakdown in social roles.
Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I'm sincerely wondering.
Edited by LelielopenIs this an edit war?
On Characters.Rain World, this happened:
- I added a trope entry
, using a YMMV trope thinking it was deliberately invoked in-universe (Moral Event Horizon where the "audience reaction" is enacted by the work itself and not the audience).
- After a while, I grew concerned that it may have been misuse so I changed it to a non-YMMV trope
that seemed like the appropriate choice for the situation (in this case Beyond Redemption). I had not touched it since.
- Someone else changed it back to the YMMV trope
— with an explanation as to why they thought it fit better — and I was never told, I had to stumble upon it to find out.
Is this an edit war, or something else? I genuinely can't tell aside from the fact that a deliberate restoration happened after removal of what I thought was misuse. I've contacted the person and will see how that goes, but for now I just need to know if this is an edit war or not.
Edited by Eggy0openPossible error
I was editing the page for Chou Kuse ni Narisou and it is listed on the TimeImmemorial.Work Pages page. However, according to the work page itself, it was created in 2021.

About seven years ago the troper Seguir made a sweeping edit
to the Tearjerker page
for Death Note, removing a number of entries with the edit reason saying "removing apologism for murderers and melodrama" with no further explanation given. I don't see how a lot of the removed entries (such as Hatori's death or Light's amnesiac self screaming when he regains his memories) fit this description so I'm wondering if anyone feels they should be restored.
Edited by Javertshark13