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 Can Hypocrite apply to the author of a work or just its characters? Web Original
For instance, say the author of a work clearly in an author's note expresses contempt for a certain trope or story beat, but then in the work itself they use that same trope or story beat straight without irony or deconstruction when necessary to suit the narrative.
EDIT: If not, is there a more appropriate trope to use?
Edited by RaxisopenDogwhistle on Memetic Mutation Videogame
So i was reading the YMMV page for the cancelled Video Game/Hyenas, and i came across the following example of memetic mutation:
- JOIN THE ACK- explanation At the end of the announcement trailer for the game, the slogan "JOIN THE PACK" is supposed to be displayed. However, due to the fact that You Tube puts the thumbnail of the next recommended video on the screen at the end of every video, said thumbnail ends up covering the word "PACK" and turning it into "ACK"—a common exclamation for sudden dismay or frustration—making it seem like the writer of the slogan got into some unfortunate incident and couldn't finish writing it. The abrupt cancellation of the game itself just adds to it.
The part "common exclamation for sudden dismay or frustration—making it seem like the writer of the slogan got into some unfortunate incident and couldn't finish writing it. " really bugged me, this whole sentence felt really weird. That feels terribly specific and it's overall just a clunky piece of writing.
So i decided to investigate on google for "hyenas "join the ack" " and my suspicious were validated, all of the results containing the phrase where from Kiwi Farms and 4chan, with true context of this "Ack" that the troper pretends it's a "common exclamation for sudden dismay or frustration—making" was actually a mockery of the suicide of transgender individuals, one other example of "join the ack" that i found was an steam user making a community post with this as the title and going full transphobe.
Now, the point i'm trying to make is that based on my research, there is absolutely no way KB Zheng 123 didn't know what the context of that was about, which means they intentionally and knowingly added a transphobic joke to the site and tried to pass off as a regular joke, and that requires action by the moderators, as there should be zero tolerance for transphobia and transphobic users in this site.
openComments As Moments on Webvideo pages Web Original
I've noticed that there are a few moments pages for youtube series (mostly funny moments) where some of the moments listed are comments on one of their videos instead of anything from the video itself. Wouldn't those technically count as meta moments, or at least not count as actual content from the show itself?
Edited by AfterwordopenNot-Edit War but still should move here
Hey so, I edited Not a Subversion to replace the line
- (in fact, it might even be better for aversions to simply be called "avoidances", were it not for the enormous hassle such a change would be for this site).
- (in fact, it might even be better for aversions to simply be called "absent tropes", were it not for the enormous hassle such a change would be for this site).
My logic was that the Averted Trope page itself classified a Defied Trope as a trope "acknowledged and avoided by the characters" and saw "absent tropes" as a more clear way to communicate the idea of an Averted Trope.
I then looked at the history, and noticed a similar edit has happened before, where someone edited the line to be
- in fact, it might even be better for aversions to simply be called "avoidances," were it not for the enormous hassle such a change would be for this site and the fact that it would instead be confused with Defied Trope, in which a character actively avoids the trope).
this change was reverted by a moderator. That makes me think the current line is actively wanted.
I am of the opinion "avoidances" is a misleading term as well, and that line should be changed in the article. But think that should be discussed here first (obviously I reverted my edit).
edit: I'd also argue this usage of the word avoid doesn't accurately cover the meaning of aversion. Like when a trope is absent because it doesn't exist in the culture that made the story, it isn't "avoiding" the trope. And I also think it's too easy to mistake for the concept of "defying" regardless of the explanation of the author "avoiding" the trope (which as mentioned, doesn't actually describe the meaning of aversion).
Edited by IronAnimationopenShould spoiler tags be used in Late-Arrival Spoiler examples?
I know that the trope page says the examples are unmarked, due to the nature of the trope itself. But does it apply only to that trope page? Or does it apply to the rest of the trope's examples on this entire wiki as well?
Specifically if the Late-Arrival Spoiler trope is used/added/crosswicked in the work pages, should the trope example(s) have a spoiler markup or not? It seems like there are some inconsistencies, for example:
- Page(s) with hidden spoilers for the trope: The Expendables 3
- Page(s) with unhidden spoilers for the trope: Bayonetta 2, Deadpool 2, God of War (PS4), Batman: Arkham Knight
- Pages(s) with both hidden and unhidden spoilers for the trope: Spider-Man: Far From Home, Persona 4 Arena Ultimax
resolved Potential edit war? Web Original
On this page of this RWBY episode:
- Super N 9999 added a "Nice Job Fixing It Villain!" entry about Neo
.
- gjjones deemed it as potential misuse, so they took it down
.
- SuperN9999 re-adds it back, with the justification of the entry being present in Neo's character page
, despite reiterating that it was previously removed due to misuse.
Do we have a concrete Edit War here?
Edited by skan123resolved A goof in the Mr. Robot page Live Action TV
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/MrRobot
There is a goof in the Disposing of a Body section:
Someone wrote that Mr. Robot and Elliot found Tyrell's dead body after he was shot and burned it with the white Dark Army van. That never happened. Tyrell walked away after he was shot and the last we see of him was looking at the blue light. The body that they burnt with the van was of the dead DA soldier who killed himself. We don't know till this day what happened to Tyrell.
openNamespacing Quest Threads
So, I've been on-again-off-again working on the TLP Forum Quest
, which some of you might know better as a "Quest Thread" (if you don't know what one of those is, read the TLP). Considering how many Quests are being given trope pages, they really could use a definition + index page (which is what the TLP is trying to do), but there's another problem with Quests on this site that I'm not sure how to resolve: there's no consistent policy for namespacing them. Currently, they seem to be split between the Roleplay and Fanfic namespaces depending largely on author whim (and whether it's a derivative or original work), and the ones with accompanying artwork are often labelled as an Interactive Comic and accordingly placed in the Webcomic namespace. I'm completely convinced that Quests should be classified as Roleplay rather than Fanfic, but the distinction between Interactive Comic and Forum Quest is actually quite murky, given that the two formats are both descended from the same Ur-Example, Ruby Quest. I'm not sure exactly where the line ought to be drawn (as I said on the forum post, the idea that something is "not roleplay" just for having images doesn't quite sit right with me), nor what would need doing if a decision is reached. I tried asking on the TLP itself and didn't really get anywhere, and got no replies when I tried what looked like the relevant thread on the forums
. So now I'm here, where perhaps I ought to have gone first, to see what you guys think.
openJay Garrick: The Flash Print Comic
For some reason, edits to Jay Garrick: The Flash aren't being reflected on my "Followed Pages" list, even though I'm following the page and even though I just made an edit to the page a few minutes ago. In theory, it should be at the top of my "Followed Pages" list, but it's on the second page, and according to the list, its most recent edit was November 23rd. I've checked the work page itself and the its edit history, and those are both up-to-date. Is this a known bug?
openHelp me make a page for Off Book: The Improvised Musical Radio
I recently started listening to Off Book: The Improvised Musical, a podcast run by Jess McKenna and Zach Reino (also known from Welcome to Mountport, which their podcast inspired) where every episode is full-length, totally improvised musical. I’ve made a page before (SpongeBob SquigglePants), but I just started this very long podcast, so I don’t have enough information to add all the tropes, and I don’t wanna spoil it for myself. It would make the most sense to have a recap page so every episode’s tropes could be listed separately. I could start the page, but I’d have to update it very slowly overtime. If anyone here has listened to most/all of Off Book and would like to volunteer to start/contribute to the page, it would be appreciated. This podcast is too awesome and trope-filled to lack a page entirely (especially since Welcome to Mountport already has one).
Edited by HopHoppipopenLinks for Awesome Music
I'm aware that for Awesome Music, we ask to link official uploads of tracks. However, do we have any preferences regarding platforms? I'm asking such because I was planning on adding an entry to YMMV.Celeste, only to notice this commented-out note:
I checked the page history, and discovered that this was added
back in 2021. What I find odd, however, is that the user who added the note swapped out Youtube links for Bandcamp ones—even though the Youtube links sent you to official uploads from the composer's Youtube channel
.
So, do we have a preference regarding links to websites? I personally find Youtube to be a bit more convenient myself, but I figured it was worth asking about here.
Edited by jandn2014resolved Very belated notice of an edit war
July 2024 update: They're back at it again.
Was doing cleanup, found an analysis page for Unproblematic Prostitution and an out-of-place headline reading "We now break from our usual entertaining content to provide a one-sided editorial as to why sex work is inherently bad. Because, clearly, this is the one right and true analysis of the sex trade.", which was edited the previous January by Iamcuriousblue. According to page history, this wasn't the first time it was added — they first did so in December 2022
, and after it was removed for vandalism
, they added it back in without any edit reason. They also have an edit history of trashing the page on the main
Unproblematic Prostitution page itself, as well as editing out this one passage of the main description
for "out-of-place propaganda for the Nordic Model approach to prostitution" when it was literally just saying an objective fact on some countries passing laws.
This user isn't very active, only between 2021 to 2023, with their editing-back-in-of-vandalism being their last act. I couldn't find any verification if they were at all suspended or punished for their behavior, but I do notice in their edit history they have a suspicious single-issue focus regarding the portrayal of women in sexual or otherwise fanservice-y scenarios, so treating the topic with that level of unprofessionalism is a smidge concerning.
Edited by number9roboticopenWhat do?
I messaged a troper a few days ago because they put some trivia examples on a YMMV page. Though they promised to move them to the right page, that hasn't happened yet. I'd do it myself, but that feels almost rude, if only because I don't know if they actually do intend to get around to it or not. And sending a second PM feels like it would be picking a fight.
openInstagram posts
https://www.instagram.com/p/C17MFwcrRli/?igsh=MzY1NDJmNzMyNQ==
This is an Instagram post of a real-life polygamous family who played around with a "turn yourself into a vampire" AI filter and posted the pictures. Is there any space for this on the page Vampire's Harem? I'm guessing this probably falls outside our scope here, but I just thought it was funny and I might as well ask.
openShiver (2017) not showing up in searches
I don't know what's going on, but Shiver (2017) won't show up when searched for. Related pages will show up, but not the page itself.
openDisagreement about the Awesome/BobChipman page, don't want to risk an Edit War Web Original
Not too long ago, a troper called 309216364 (is that the ID of an already-banned troper or something?) deleted the single biggest entry on this page, about Bob's massive "Really That Bad" video series on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which I will post here:
- During Part 1 of his Really That Bad analysis of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bob makes a comparison between the narrative structures of The Avengers (2012) and Batman V. Superman stripped of all but their most basic elements that underlines one of the main reasons the former succeeded where the latter failed: Avengers is straightforward, easy to understand and can be enjoyed without prior knowledge of the source comics or the preceding films because it doesn't lean on them to work as a narrative with its single Sequel Hook a post-credits shot of the Greater-Scope Villain, while BvS is a disjointed, convoluted mess that doesn't follow an understandable through-line narrative, paradoxically wants to differentiate itself from the source comics yet relies heavily on them for most of its emotional weight to carry and desperately tries to set up future films through gratuitous in-universe viewings of preview trailers. And he does all of this while giving every person or object with enough plot relevance a funny nickname, with plenty of Actor Allusions and character comparisons to go around.
- The entirety of his "Batman V. Superman" Really That Bad analysis. Chipman delivers his critique in a mature respectful tone, without insulting the filmmakers personally, and goes into detail acknowledging and addressing common arguments in defense of the film.
- Two of the best things he does is to effectively and succinctly fix the movie's greatest problems.
- The first being the 'Diana/Wonder Woman watching the teaser trailer for the Justice League scene', wherein Bob proposes letting Batman, the normal human who is discovering a lot of this new information for the first time, and whose perspective the audience has been following the entire movie, be the one to discover the existence of more metahumans. This not only gives the scene greater suspense and dramatic weight and a greater impetus for Batman to fight a perceived threat like Superman, it also gives a fantastic reason why Diana never showed up for a hundred years and was breaking into Lex Luthor's drives: She was helping cover up the existence of metahumans (and her secretive race) from people like Luthor.
- The second is the entire 'conflict' of the movie being forced and contrived and way too repetitive by the time the two people in the 'V' actually get down to versus-ing each other. Bob fixes the movie without any drastic overhaul or extensive retooling with two simple words: No Batman. The plot remains the same, with all the conspiratorial machinations and the populace distrusting Superman kept intact, but transfer all of Batman's actions and motivations to Luthor, thereby making Luthor a sympathetic, justified, heroic counterpoint to the detached, reluctant, destructive Superman, which would have greater thematic resonance and streamline the plot. For an added bonus, Bob suggests keeping Ben Affleck, with all his likability and charisma and on-the-ground heroism, as Luthor, which would provide even greater metanarrative implications and make the plot more compelling.
- To make what can only be described as a near definitive 3-part, four hour critique about Dawn of Justice, all the while maintaining his normal work responsibilities, is a feat of dedication that can only really be described as impressive.
As well as forgetting to delete the next paragraph that followed on from that (an observation about Bob possibly doing a "Really That Good" series on The Lord of the Rings) and leaving it orphaned, his reason for deleting the entire segment basically came down to "I don't think it's awesome and I don't like Bob". His cited reason from the History page:
Apart from the fact that this reason for removing the entry is entirely subjective (I thought "Really That Bad" was awesome, and I'm not even the one who wrote the original entry), it's also blatantly incorrect- there are several segments in Bob's series where he goes out of his way to be fair to the film and admit the things it did well and the ways it could have worked (even though it didn't), so the troper's claim that "he is entirely biased against the film in all aspects" suggests he edited it solely because of He Panned It Now He Sucks.
I could have just restored the edit myself, but I'm quite certain the guy will just delete it again, triggering an edit war situation. And since the last time I got close to an edit war I nearly got myself permanently banned, I'm not even going to get close to the possibility of it happening again. So I'm hoping there's some way to get a 3rd party judgement on this?
Edited by ArcaneAzmadi

Chris DV seems to be misunderstanding the trope Cowboy BeBop at His Computer as he's claiming that because Sophia Bush thought a plotline that was filmed but not used made it into the final version of a One Tree Hill episode that it qualifies for this trope. I explained that this trope is meant for examples of people outside a fictional work itself getting details wrong about it, not actors slightly misremembering things about it(and he claimed it was "misinformation" when it wasn't) I didn't see any examples like his on the trope page itself under Live-Action TV or anywhere else so I removed the bit on the OTH YMMV page about Sophia but kept in the bit about the show's fan-wiki being inaccurate(as i'm unsure if fan-wikis being inaccurate would be an example of this trope or not, that seems like more of a grey area but I left it in just in case).
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Trivia.OneTreeHill&page=8
Edited by Neverwood