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 "Stage Directions" When Quoting Text
When quoting a text work, is it acceptable to use the Bolded Name: + [bracketed actions] format when quoting text if it'd be cleaner or clearer than quoting the text in full? Or is it better to just leave the would-be bracketed part out altogether?
E.g., in the middle of a conversation:
The second one feels weird because "there" doesn't have a referent. It just feels incomplete. In some cases, it may also make it unclear that Bob is pointing towards Charlie. (The rules are, however, plenty clear that this is the correct format when you're solely quoting dialogue.)
The third one solves both of these problems, plus a third one: if including all the narration would be unnecessary, it lets you only mention the important parts (such as, potentially, just that he was pointing behind himself or just that he was pointing at Charlie). The (possible) problem that it's using a format that the rules imply is for visual media.
Edited by Kestrelguyresolved Would this count as an EditWar? Web Original
On Sep 5th 2021
, I removed the Trope Informed Wrongness from the YMMV page of the fifth episode of Helluva Boss, due to said entry being Trope Misuse as a result of misconstruing the events of the episode.
On Dec 30th 2022
, jOSEFdelaville added Informed Wrongness to the page again, but with a different entry. I believe this is also an example of misuse that misconstrues the events of the episode, as Millie wasn't the one who brought up the fact Moxxie had a gun, Moxxie himself did. Millie only said he didn't need to prove he was stronger physically after he lamented not being strong enough, saying basically to stick to his strengths when facing him this time. Moxxie was the one who said "I probably should have used this earlier, huh?" after remembering he had a gun on him, Millie's reaction being more exasperation when she sees him remember and make the comment. "I love ya hon, but for fucks sake."
Would it count as an Edit War if I removed the trope since I had already removed Informed Wrongness once before, even if it was a different entry?
Edited by RebelFalconresolved Rewriting Walkthrough Mode Page Videogame
Here's the summary of Walkthrough Mode:
For example, let's say Alice adds the Puppy Stomper 3000 to That One Boss. Bob follows this up by stating, "Actually, the Puppy Stomper isn't tough if you have the Ring of Puppy Protection, which only requires you to do X, Y and Z." Then Clara comes by and adds, "To be fair, you need Sven in your party to use the Ring of Puppy Protection. It's easier to use the Stick of Puppy Protection, which only requires you to bring the Ring of Puppy Protection to the Ring Transumation Fairy in Scary Town."
Using the example from the above paragraph, here's what it looks like on a page.
- That One Boss: Puppy Stomper 3000 is hard because of blah blah.
- Actually, the Puppy Stomper isn't tough if you have the Ring of Puppy Protection, which only requires you to do X, Y and Z.
- To be fair, you need Sven in your party to use the Ring of Puppy Protection. It's easier to use the Stick of Puppy Protection, which only requires you to bring the Ring of Puppy Protection to the Ring Transumation Fairy in Scary Town.
- Actually, the Puppy Stomper isn't tough if you have the Ring of Puppy Protection, which only requires you to do X, Y and Z.
The first two paragraphs basically describe a videogame mechanics-themed version of Thread Mode, which... editors shouldn't do either, but if all the page has to say is "don't thread mode about game mechanics", it probably doesn't need to exist — just point to Thread Mode instead.
To my understanding, what Walkthrough Mode should tell readers is that they should avoid cluttering examples with numbers, niche mechanics, and long-winded guides that are only tangentially relevant to how there is an example of a trope — this is suggested to me by that last paragraph. Here's a version I think could work, which emphasizes that:
For example, let's say Alice lists the Puppy Stompertron as an example of That One Boss, engaging in Walkthrough Mode to do so:
- That One Boss: The Puppy Stompertron appears at the end of the Puppy Factory and presents a massive roadblock to the player. It's got a massive 70,000 HP health bar (by the end of the factory, you'll be dealing 300 DPS at best), has immunity to Bleed, Stun, Dizzy, Confuse, and Love, and all of its attacks are That One Attack. Puppy Squishing deals 10,000 damage and can only be survived with the Anti-Ten Thousand Medal from the Numbers Swamp, Puppy Flamethrowing is supposed to deal only 40 damage to the player once but a bug with the level geometry can cause the flames to deal 400 damage if the player's standing on the many hills around the arena, and the Dog Food Ingester will heal it back to full unless the player has done the sidequest to obtain Dog Food Poison, which is easily missable at the start of the game. The only thing that can make this easy is the Puppy Stompertron Control Device to cut its HP in half, which is only available to builds that use the Dagger of Air Vent Entry, a 37 Charisma build to take it from the Puppy Factory Foreman (you can't go with any other level of Charisma, he starts liking you too much if you do), or a glitched maximum Speed character to clip through the northeast locked door and access the room where it's stored.
As you can see, this entry is hard to read because it's loaded with tangents on whole-game strategies and numbers that mean nothing to an outsider, when all that's needed is to explain how the Puppy Stompertron boss is harder than the rest of the game. Let's see an example that does just that:
- That One Boss: The Puppy Stompertron appears at the end of the Puppy Factory and presents a massive roadblock to the player. It has massive HP for that point at the game, immunity to many of the useful status effects, and all of its attacks are That One Attack — dealing massive damage or healing itself to full. The only ways to get past it painlessly involve highly-specific strategies and/or exploiting glitches, neither of which are available to every character class.
This entry is much more succinct in stating why the Puppy Stompertron is an example of That One Boss: it has high stats, immunity to statuses, powerful attacks, and the mechanics to make it easier aren't universally applicable. By cutting out details, the example becomes easier to read and digestible, yet the non-Walkthrough Mode entry still manages to communicate key points on why the Puppy Stompertron is this trope.
As a side bonus, when talking about games that are receiving post-launch updates, avoiding exact numbers gives a degree of futureproofing. In many games, if a change needs to be made, the numbers are usually first to be adjusted, so if the Puppy Stompertron ever has its HP or damage values changed this way, the example doesn't suddenly need an update to correct those parts.
While it is understandable why Walkthrough Mode happens, wiki articles are not walkthroughs for how to beat That One Boss or That One Level. Trope examples should be generic enough that those who aren't familiar with the game can understand them, and shouldn't be cluttered with something like the exact attack strength of a weapon or helpful asides about which two of the three Superbosses can be affected by the Game-Breaker. This isn't to say that you shouldn't list your example with little to no information, which is the opposite problem; you just need to explain why your example is that of the trope in question in a way that's digestible to the average reader.
See also Word Cruft, another writing element that makes examples bloated and indigestible by adding too many unnecessary words.
Does this look good to use on the page?
Edited by Pyhrrousresolved Removing a re-added MemeticLoser entry
I’ve already brought this to the ‘Memetic X Cleanup’ thread, but since that thread hasn’t seen much use in the past month, I’ve decided to also bring this here in the hopes that this can get resolved quicker.
Yesterday I found this Memetic Loser entry on the YMMV Mortal Kombat 1 page:
- Kotal continues this trend too. His sole mention in the game's story mode is a line where he lost to Raiden offscreen.
I had previously removed this entry as, while he may have been a Memetic Loser in the previous game, not only was Kotal not the only character Raiden defeated offscreen (two other characters, Sheeva and Motaro, were also listed among those that Raiden had defeated offscreen and even then it’s stated that Raiden had also defeated many others besides them, those three were just the only ones to get name-dropped) but the fanbase itself has not singled out Kotal’s loss specifically, in fact this throwaway line has barely even been talked about by the fanbase at all thus far.
However I saw that someone has recently re-added and reworded the entry without an edit reason. As the person who removed it initially, I obviously think that the entry should be removed again for the reasons that I’ve described, especially since no reason was given for adding it back.
Edited by CorvusIXopenKarma Houdini
If a character dies getting what they exactly wanted are they still a Karma Houdini?
Say, Junko letting herself executed, Ragyo and Nui's death etc.
Edited by Mr-ex777openConsent to remove redundancy on What an Idiot!.Saw
Among the additions Ansongc2000 had recently done on the "Jigsaw" folder from What an Idiot!.Saw was this excerpt.
- Listening to a tape and finding three syringes with numbers on them, they realize that they'll all be hanged unless one of them, Carly, injects herself with the correct of three needles. One of the other two needles will kill her, one will do nothing.
As part of a grammar cleanup on the additions, I changed the bolded part into the following:
- Listening to a tape and finding three syringes with numbers on them, they realize that they'll all be hanged unless one of them, Carly, injects herself with the correct syringe; said needle will do nothing to her, while the other two will kill her.
Later on, Ansongc2000 corrected a mentioned aspect they and I missed on the film, with the edit reason "it's stated that one syringe holds acid, one holds a saline solution. A saline solution is generally harmless when injected." The bolded part, however, ended up becoming rather redundant when compared to how the left the rest of the text.
- Listening to a tape and finding three syringes with numbers on them, they realize that they'll all be hanged unless one of them, Carly, injects herself with the correct syringe; said needle will do nothing to her, while one will do nothing and one will kill her.
Currently, I'd like to change the bolded part to the following so as to remove redundancy on the entry the excerpt is on:
- Listening to a tape and finding three syringes with numbers on them, they realize that they'll all be hanged unless one of them, Carly, injects herself with the correct syringe; said needle and another with a saline solution will do nothing to her, while the third one will kill her.
Can I have permission to do this while citing this query, or does anyone have other ideas?
Edited by Inky100resolved American Girl - Ban Evader Literature
It looks like a recent editor, Peachy2023, was found to be a ban evader for another account and their edits were reverted on multiple pages they added to. However, I edited two American Girl character pages they added to to remove or correct some of these edits, thinking it was a new editor making the same mistakes: the Historical Character Page at American Girls Collection Historical Characters and Girls of the Year page at American Girls Collection - Girls of the Year. Does someone else need to come in and revert these edits from the evader, or can I remove the other remaining examples myself?
(edit because the name made a red link and linking the affected pages. )
Edited by NethiliaopenShould MK 1 characters have new folders on the MK 1 character page
So I recently tried to create new folders for the Kombat Kast for Mortal Kombat's reboot timeline, using precedent such as Soul Series, since virtually every character has a radically different history and/or personality to the point that their old character folders are incompatible
Futhermore these new incarnations of the characters are regarded by the lore of the story itself as being distinct entities (For example: original timeline Kitana has no continuity with New Era Kitana, instead existing as Titan Kitana who's a completely different character; all of Liu Kang's prior relationship with Kitana is only present when interacting with Titan Kitana)
I don't think there's a feasible alternative to creating new folders for all the characters on the New Era's character page. Trying to just slot them into their old folders is just a recipe for confusion and clutter. And the only other alternative is to create individual character pages for all the characters so we can put multiple folders on their pages for all their different incarnations, which is just needlessly messy and still confusing since we have situations like New Era Scorpion being Kuai Liang instead of Hanzo Hisashi
Plus I'm under the impression that TV tropes wants to avoid creating individual character pages where possible
Unfortunately someone reverted my attempt to create new folders on the Mortal Kombat 1 character page and I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm bringing it to the ATT thread
I also brought up the matter on the Mortal Kombat Discussion thread, and the limited replies so far have been in agreement that the New Era should have it's own character folders as well
Edited by CrimsonOddballopenHow to deal with a character whose innocence is unclear
In the FNAF Security Breach page YMMV page.
- Montgomery Gator is implied to have murdered Glamrock Bonnie to take his place in the band before being rendered Brainwashed and Crazy like the other antagonistic animatronics and has the most thuggish and aggressive personality of the bunch. Despite this, fan portrayals often downplay Monty's anger issues, portray him as a Jerk with a Heart of Gold, and depict his decommissioning of Glamrock Bonnie as either an accident that he feels guilty about or something Vanny brainwashed him into doing, if he's even shown to be responsible for the incident at all. It's also implied that Monty is plotting to kill Glamrock Freddy in order to become the face of the Pizzaplex, and yet there are fans who ship them together. That's not even getting into all the fans who feel sorry for Monty, wanted him to get a happy ending, and like the idea of him as an ally.
OK, for the people who aren't familiar with FNAF: This isn't nearly so cut and dry as the entry makes it out to be. It is an Ambiguous Situation. On one hand Bonnie was last seen heading towards Monty's residence, but nothing from Monty himself hints he is particularly ambitious or hungry for fame and attention. In game Monty is hinted to be The Aloner who often misses out on main shows in favor of being by himself, and it's explicitly laid out that he did not possess the murder weapon (special, very sharp claw-upgrades) for Bonnie at the time Bonnie died. The idea that he's planning to kill Freddy comes from a scene in a Game Within A Game which is strongly implied to have been hacked by the main antagonist anyway (most if not all such games are), not being an easter egg but explicitly an actual level, making it less likely to be a look in Monty's mind. The fan base is pretty much split down the middle about whether or not he did it. While Monty is a (Brainwashed and Crazy) antagonist and he certainly has flaws, this particular thing is unclear. Also we don't know when Monty and the others become Brainwashed and Crazy, he COULD have easily been in such a state when Bonnie died. So yes, people do feel sorry for Monty, especially since there really is a case to be made for his innocence regarding Bonnie. I have no doubt Monty gets genuine DILP in some form as all FNAF antagonists do, but there is a case to make for Monty being innocent and many people (myself included) do. But since I am trying my best to be fair and impartial and I don't want to start an edit war, I need some advice on how to handle this. Should I move this text to Broken Base and modify it?
Edited by CatcherInTheWryresolved Spotted a non-YMMV trope in YMMV section in Project Zomboid
Okay, I just found this on the YMMV page of Project Zomboid:
- Do Not Go Gentle: A common outcome if one discovers a bite or begins suffering signs of the Knox infection.
Checked this on the YMMV home page and the trope page itself. Both don't have them listed on each another.
What to do with this?
openSole item disambiguation/misuse
YMMV.Healin Good Pretty Cure E 43
- Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped: You have a right to live a happy, healthy life, and you don’t need to sacrifice yourself in order to help someone who has abused you. Especially when said abuser has NO intention of changing and intends to continue abusing you.
SANTBD is no longer a thing. It is now a redirect to Anvilicious which is just about being heavy handed which doesn't apply to this example so misuse. I'll cut the page unless I hear anything.
Also, do I need to run cutting pages by ATT if the sole item is misuse?
openCould this be considered an edit war or not?
Recently, MaLady had launched the trope Memory Trigger. For the page, I suggested them several examples from the Saw series, structured in a way not too different to the structuring of multiple entries, but Malady edited it to include more bullets while removing some information that was relevant to certain examples (mostly in the general "main trials" example). We had a discussion on it until Malady said that the example writing is mostly "semi-personal" beyond the basics of bulleting, but I'm still not a fan of their edited version of my examples.
- Used in several Saw films to set up flashbacks, usually involving the characters that are remembering.
- The main trials of Saw IV, Saw VI and Saw 3D have numerous clues left to the protagonists involved regarding past events in their life, either to make them figure where to continue with the game (e.g. one of the letter messages Rigg reads in Saw IV) or to simply remind them of what they did to be tested (the written text on William's skin under the bombs strapped to him in Saw VI, the environmental props and text Bobby comes across in Saw 3D).
- Also in Saw VI:
- Hoffman telling Jill that he'll no longer see her once he's finished with all the tasks listed in the envelopes Jill left him makes the latter reminisce of the time John tried to show her that his "method of rehabilitation" works by showing Amanda (who had recently come out from her test back in the first movie) to her.
- Hoffman himself gets a Memory Trigger when he enters the surveillance room for William's game and finds a blackmail letter he had sent to Amanda back in Saw III, with the ensuing flashback montage revealing the sequence when Hoffman wrote it and Amanda read it using footage between Saw III and IV, with some additional scenes establishing the circumstances. Said letter was left by Jill (who had previously received the letter from Pamela, and was infuriated when she discovered that Hoffman was the one who wrote it) in the surveillance room as part of her sneak attack on him.
- Used in several Saw films to set up flashbacks:
- One of the letter messages Rigg reads in Saw IV helps him remember how to progress in the game.
- Reminders of what they did to be tested:
- Saw VI:
- Hoffman telling Jill that he'll no longer see her once he's finished with all the tasks listed in the envelopes Jill left him makes the latter reminisce of the time John tried to show her that his "method of rehabilitation" works by showing Amanda (who had recently come out from her test back in the first movie) to her.
- Hoffman himself gets reminded when he finds a blackmail letter he had sent to Amanda back in Saw III, in the surveillance room for William's game. The ensuing flashback montage reveals the sequence when Hoffman wrote it and Amanda read it, using footage between Saw III and IV, with some additional scenes establishing the circumstances. Said letter was left by Jill (after Pamela previously found it and gave it to her) in the surveillance room as part of her sneak attack on him, who was infuriated by the letter when she discovered that Hoffman was the one who wrote it.
Thing is, I'd now like to edit the examples back to my original writing because it's more concise and easier to read, but I want to ask if this could be considered an act of starting an Edit War. Edited by Inky100
open Good Character Turns Bad
Well, what's the exact trope for when a good characters is turned evil by force. Like, he is spelled, or brainwashed, or some sort of mind control, well, all this way?
Another question that is also related to the previous one:
Well, the "hero" becomes a "villain", the other heroes face him, manage to solve it and help him return to the light side, and... different from what they thought... The hero, who until recently was a psychopathic villain who did evil because he was corrupted by the power of darkness, returned to his original state of goodness, or in this specific case, is no longer the great evil threat but retains some trace of darkness. Some of which I would like to mention:
- The character returns to being a hero in character and personality, but still has some of his dark power and could use it as his normal self; - The character returns to being a hero again in personality and character, but maintains a darker tone; - The character returns to being a hero, or at least in this case, tries to be one, as he still maintains his evil personality, being more daring and debauched than his original self; - Regarding this last example, in addition to personality, he can also retain the dark power together. In this case, the character is no longer a threat or danger, just a "mean" version of his other self;
All of these categories above that I mentioned have a temporary effect on the character. In other words, at one time or another (better said, one episode or another), the character will return to who he always was before his "evilization".
openActor Allusion clarification Film
SOLVED: Production Throwback
Can Actor Allusion be also applied to the director or is it strictly for actors?
In Conspiracy Theory, one of the scenes has the characters hide in a crowded cinema, where they are screening Ladyhawke. Both were directed by Richard Donner and he picked the screened movie himself as a joke.
Edited by Tropiarzopen ChaseScene
To those who can get a video from TMNT Mutant Mayhem, can you please get a video of where the turtles try to get away with the last piece of Superfly's plan? I’d do it myself if the scene was on You Tube, but since it isn’t…
openSelf-reporting: Any evidence of an edit war here? Videogame
I'm self-reporting about if I started an Edit War in a Goddamned Bats entry of my own in the YMMV page of Diner Dash.
Back in the middle of July, I added the entry, which read as follows:
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're pretty quick eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly, in addition to being more patient.
Then at the end of the month, Shaker Troper 2002 corrected the entry in accordance to how the Goddamned Bats in question actually behaved (unlike what I initially thought about them).
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're pretty quick eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly. Like cellphone addicts, their own patience also drains fast as well.
A couple months later (just now), I noticed that the entry was edited, so I decided to rearrange it a bit so it looks clean and organized, without changing any of the context addressed. It currently reads like this:
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time have a low patience of their own and make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're also pretty fast eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly.
I know this self-report might be quite dumb, but I did it just in case there was some issue, since I didn't intend to do anything against ShakerTroper2002 nor start an Edit War in general.
Edited by Inky100open"Wasted" misuse added back
YMMV.Ruby Gillman Teenage Kraken
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: The movie hints at the idea that the conflict between krakens and mermaids isn't all black and white and there can be good and evil members of both, with Grandmamah expressing Fantastic Racism towards mermaids, Chelsea presenting herself as a friendly mermaid and developing a genuine-seeming friendship with Ruby, and Ruby trying to find some way to end the war between mermaids and krakens. This idea completely goes out the window when Chelsea is revealed to actually be the evil Queen Nerissa, in turn affirming Grandmamah's beliefs that all krakens are good and all mermaids are evil, and derailing the debate into a fairly basic good vs. evil conflict.
I deleted this prior as TWAPGP cleanup
deemed it misuse (about plot that could have been explored so anything contradicting the intended plot is other complaints). Permission to re-remove?
And since this is an issue, how should I phrase the note saying not to add it back?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught

Hello there. I'm hoping someone can answer my question, but moreso that I can articulate my question clearly.
Basically, I want to create a Let's Play page for Youtuber 8-BitRyan. I have gone through his entire Youtube playlist to figure out which games he's played and which ones have their own Tropes page, and I can add to the tropes that apply to Ryan's channel as I go. The problem I have is that I have to create the page as "EightBitRyan" since I can't have numbers in the URL...which is understandable.
However, what I'd like to know is how to title the page as "8-BitRyan" instead of "Eight Bit Ryan". I've seen a few trope pages over the years where the URL has the numbers typed out and special characters omitted, but the title of the page itself includes them. I'd like to know how to achieve this before I start creating the page.
Edited by danunplanned