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:
openExample-less trope
So Numerological Motif currently has no listed examples on its page, but a decent number of crosswalks elsewhere on the site. There's nothing on the page itself saying why, so does anyone know if it was an intentional decision to keep it this way? I was thinking of crosswicking it, but I didn't want to go against a previous ruling by mistake.
open Know Your Meme misuse/not fit to trope?
- Americans Hate Tingle: Both entries are about fans of other sites hating KYM, not other nations hating it which is what it's about. Cut?
- Creator's Pet: Donald Trump. It's certainly Not Hyperbole to say that a new page is created literally every time the man does something noteworthy, to the point where numerous Trump-related articles can pop up in a single day. Everyone, even the site's right-wing users, have grown exasperated about it. Only entry that might count as a character, others are disliked meme template. Even if non-characters count (doubt it) this and the others fail the Pet criteria of being "Put into big scenes for no reason" as KYM has no scenes or narrative.
- Ensemble Dark Horse:
- The Bad Luck Brian image macro has become the community's poster child for a legitimate meme that's been ignored by the mods in favor of fads or Forced Memes. The profile image of BLB itself lampshades it! Impressive, considering BLB was initially utterly hated by the community.
- Super Robo Jesus is considered to be the Memetic Badass of Deadpooled Memes because of how the article is So Bad, It's Good.
- Deadpool is treated by the community as the site's unofficial mascot.
- DON, so much so he himself became a meme. I believe Darkhorse only applies to characters and these straddle the line between them and templates. Suspect misuse as they're not minor getting disproportionate fan love as there's no narrative to be minor in. Brian might fit Unpopular Popular Character better.
- The Scrappy: In 2019, the Belle Delphine image gallery got this treatment, for refusing to disappear, even weeks after she herself has fallen out of relevance. Even those who initially found her attractive quickly got annoyed at seeing that aheago face wherever they go. Many users blame the popularity of the gallery on the poor taste of immature users, leading to the gallery staying relevant even though no-one is posting anything anymore. Only characters count so not sure if valid as it's less the character than their use, but I've seen other Scrappies hated for such.
Thoughts? Is KYM even a tropeable work given it's not a story/narrative but a creator/content channel which doesn't warrant a YMMV or other such pages?
open Trope for when a character becomes completely unimportant
Trope name for a character (or a group of characters) becomes less important and/or unimportant at all?
For instance, the Hole-Digging Club members in Shimeji Simulation were slightly important characters from Chapters 1 to 21, but the Hole-Digging Club itself becomes unimportant after the latter chapter.
open Re-adding missuse with an incredibly rude Edit Reason and a potentially biased troper
So on YMMV.She Hulk Attorney At Law there was this entry
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The scene where Jennifer calls out Bruce about controlling her anger did not endear her to some. Fans are well aware of Bruce's troubled and traumatic past note undergoing a botched super soldier experiment that resulted in the deaths of some of his coworkers, being hunted by the US government for years, having to give up his relationships with Betty Ross and Black Widow due to his deep-seated fears of accidentally harming them, coming to terms with Black Widow's death, and attempting suicide at one point, while Jennifer is not, due to how (in her own words) Bruce has isolated himself from her and she's only heard the barest details until recently. Yet even if she is ignorant of the depth of his issues, and/or people understand where Jennifer is coming from, Bruce is the wrong person to be calling out over such (relatively) petty issues as catcalling and mansplaining.
It was decided by the Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup
. That is was a bad faith argument that misinterpreted the scene as she wasn't actually comparing tramas with Bruce like it said and bias attempting to Jen as petty when she wasn't. So I removed
it. Well General Horseradish re-added
with this incredibly rude Edit Reason, "what the hell do you mean "bad faith argument", it's literally how the scene plays out lmao" I also feel that they might be bias. As they also removed
a Nightmare Fuel entry that mentions the speech in a positive light. However, I could be very wrong there.
Now I don't care one way or another about the entry, but would like some opinions.
Edited by BullmanopenA question about Edit War policies
Now, this question is strictly theoretical, but I can't find an answer in Administrivia and it's been bugging me for a while.
Let's say, I put up some example and another troper removed it. I messaged them, we civilly talked it out, and they agreed that my example was correct and should be reinstated. Would I be allowed to reinstate it myself?
I mean, going strictly by the rules: "If you add something, someone changes or removes it, and you change it back, you're edit warring." Does this mean that only the other troper is allowed to change it and if I do it, I'll be still edit warring, even though we have talked it out already? Should I bring it up in ATT and get mod permission first? Or is it okay to reinstate the example as long as I write something like "this example has been discussed with [troper], it is reinstated with their consent" in edit reasons?
openStaving off edit war
In February 2022, negatwenty
edited AwesomeMusic.Super Smash Bros (courtesy link to page history
) to put a redundant pothole around the spoiler warning at the top of the page, changing Administrivia/YouHaveBeenWarned. to [[Administrivia/{{YouHaveBeenWarned}} You have been warned.]] I removed it on the grounds of its redundancy; the double curly braces alone are unnecessary, but so is potholing the title to itself purely for the sake of only having the initial Y capitalised.
And a few days ago, they put it back again without an edit reason. This is a pointless hill to die on, so I'm reporting it here instead. Permission to re-remove it?
Edited by mlsmithcaopenQuestion About Old Shame
I'm a little confused about the Old Shame trope. It's categorized as trivia, yet the trope page itself also specifies that it can have in-universe examples, and there's an entire section for these non-trivia examples.
I do see that Old Shame is currently under discussion at the Trope Repair Shop, but I can't tell if this is what's being discussed or not. Basically, my question is, can we use Old Shame as a regular in-universe trope (not listing it as trivia) or not?
open Word Cruft notifier
Okay, this is a bit of a weird situation, and I just wanted to send it out here to get the lay of the land and see what people think. I'm gonna admit up front that I might be in the wrong here, but I just want to be sure.
Yesterday, I made an edit to Characters.Better Call Saul Howard Hamlin. It was an edit to a Foil entry for him and Hank Schrader (which I admit in hindsight should probably actually be under Contrasting Sequel Main Character, but that's another issue). I wrote this:
- Their deaths are later used as part of a deception for Jimmy and Walt to help their loved ones; Walt claims responsibility for Hank's murder on the phone in order to confirm it to the authorities and play himself up as a monster for Skyler's benefit, while Jimmy lies about Kim's role in Howard's death in order to spare her prison time and take all the blame for himself.
Yesterday, Random Troper 123 removed the "in order"
that I bolded in the entry citing Word Cruft - and sure, I guess the entry still makes grammatical sense without it even if I think it added to the grammar of the sentence and don't think it was worth deleting, so nothing wrong there - but then they went the extra mile and sent me a Word Cruft notifier about it. I might be overreacting myself taking it here, but that seems like a bit of an overreaction, and looking through their recent history, they seem to be on a bit of a Word Cruft binge today (among other things that seem perfectly legitimate) and making some edits that seem unnecessary:
- Changing "quite a few" to "several"
- Removing the word "also" from the sentence "There's also grenadiers"
.
- Turning the sentence "breaking heads in" into just "breaking heads"
- Changing "pretty much" to "well-nigh"
and "That said" to "Still", even though it didn't change the meaning of the sentence.
- Trimming an entry
by removing the word "that" in the phrase "She claims that", changing "tend to" to "often", "such as" to "like", removing the qualifier "a bit", and changing "the girl" to "someone".
Like, maybe I'm reading too much into things, and if I am, please don't hesitate to tell me, but there's worrying about word cruft and then there's taking the time to change two words to one seemingly just because. It just seems a bit unnecessary, plus a look at ATT shows that this has come up before
, and if I'm getting a notifier over this, then other editors probably are too, so I want to see what people think.
openCalebSu
CalebSu's
only edit was vandalizing the Self Demonstrating Thanos article
.
I already reverted it back. Their edit reason ("Reduce cost of hosting TV tropes") smells like a troll.
openSingle Issue Wonk
Rift Witch appears to have a Single-Issue Wonk with a YMMV.RWBY entry (Values Dissonance for Blake's Declaration of Protection to Yang), and historically has not been willing to engage in discussion about building consensus to address their concerns, thereby edit warring in the process. The timeline is as follows (I hope my links work):
- 4th February 2021: Rift Witch deleted
several entries, including the Values Dissonance entry, complaining that they're misogynistic.
- A few hours later, Psyga315 restores
all the entries back, stating they're not misogynistic, and it's about them acting "American" not "ladylike".
- A few hours later, Psyga315 restores
- 13th September 2021: Rift Witch again deleted
the Values Dissonance entry (but none of the others), this time stating that the entry is sexism and that they think it's unreasonable to expect Yang to stop being angry.
- 14th September 2021: I restored
the entry, stating that disliking an entry isn't a valid reason for deleting YMMV items, sent them a notification about deleting YMMV on the basis of disliking someone's opinion, and spotted that Nubian Satyress had also started
a discussion on the discussion page, arguing that Rift Witch's deletion does not address the audience reaction itself. I therefore also joined in the discussion page thread.
- A few hours later, Rift Witch deleted
it again, stating that it's not an example of values dissonance. They also responded to my notifier, accusing me of not reading their edit reason and declaring that the entry isn't Values Dissonance. Although I tried to get them to engage in a discussion they weren't interested (I have no problem with the mods reading the PM exchange between us). They also never joined in the discussion Nubian Satyress started either.
- A few hours further on, Zaptech restored
the entry telling Rift Witch that if they want to discuss removing it, they need to take it to the discussion page.
- A few hours later, Rift Witch deleted
- 20th August 2022: Rift Witch rewrote
the entry, stating that the entry doesn't belong there at all, but since people insist on it being there, they're going to rewrite it to remove the implication that Japanese men don't understand women.
For full disclosure, I have edited the entry on two occasions that were unrelated to these events (removing a parabomb note in September 2020 and a natter note in July 2022, different tropers involved each time). I don't know if that means I've also Edit Warred because the reasons were Administrivia-related rather than the entry itself, but I will accept the consequences if that is the case.
Edited by WyldchyldopenVideoGame/{{Diablo}} MagnificentBastard entry Videogame
Baal from the franchise was approved by the thread
. I thought I had forgotten to add him to the YMMV page so I just put him up but later noticed he was deleted here
with the edit reason citing some of the tropes should be going on individual game pages. Noticing my mistake, I've commented out the example but I don't see him being put on any particular game page. To avoid an edit war, does anyone mind pointing me to the proper YMMV page he should be on as I don't know the games myself?
Edit: Changed from a comment out to a deletion of my own addition until this gets resolved just to be on the safe side.
Edited by 43110openToo Long?
Hello again. In Characters.Star Wars Imperial Navy, someone added
a Rousing Speech entry complete with a quote. However, I feel the quote is too long. What do you all think?
- Rousing Speech: Delivers an impressive speech at the start of the Battle of Jakku in Empire's End.
Rax: Loyal soldiers of the Galactic Empire, madness is at our door. Ruffians and barbarians of the Rebel Alliance have claimed for themselves a government of no legitimacy, a government given over to corrosion, chaos, and the corruption born of alien minds and radical terroristic teachings. It was our own Emperor Palpatine who showed us the weakness that presents itself when a Republic becomes sick with the disease of craven politics and the illness of elite oligarchs who force their agendas upon us. With the death of our beloved Emperor, our own Empire was cast into disorder. It gave strength to the illegitimate, and emboldened them with a fraudulent claim of bringing peace and justice to the galaxy—and yet, for so long, who have been the champions of peace? The only war visited upon the galaxy has been the one brought by the criminal Rebel Alliance. Scattered and lost, we could have perished. After attacking Chandrila and injuring the fraudulent politicians who seek to steal the sanctity of our galaxy, I brought us here to Jakku, unifying our people and our powers in this faraway world—a hard world that has tested our mettle and forged us and sharpened us into a stronger blade. A blade with which we will slit the throats of the traitors that crawl on their bellies toward our door. Soon they come! Soon they try to finish what they started. They want to end the Empire. They want to set up as a tumor on a healthy body, leeching the blood while growing fatter like a parasite. They deny our legitimacy. They lie about the stability and sanity we created for the galaxy. For those are their truest weapons: deception and delusion. We must not give in. We must not believe that they are right. We must see them as they are: Brutes and barbarians! They are subhuman. They are alien to us in the truest sense of the word and are deserving of no mercy from us. This is our zero hour, and I call you now to do your duty by the light of the glorious Galactic Empire. The battle to come is not a fight for Jakku or even a fight for the Empire. It is a fight for all the galaxy. If we fail here, we fail everywhere. We fail our loved ones. We fail our children. We fail all who crave constancy and light in these dark times. We pursue no other aim than freedom from oppression, liberty from lies, emancipation from depravity. Today is the day we fight back and reclaim our galaxy. Today is the day the New Republic dies at the Empire's hand. Today we take our future! The battle is upon us. Go! Go and drag them down to the ground and break their necks with your boots! Take their heads! End their tyranny!
openShould work pages contain plot spoilers?
I was going through George's Marvellous Medicine, and was wondering whether work pages should contain a synopsis plot, completely unmarked as a spoiler, rather than a blurb, or something along those lines. (Note: Not as a trope, but in the page description itself).
Just to make sure that the page was not an anomaly, I also had a look at Thief of Time, The Hunger Games, and Old Kingdom. The page for Thief of Time also spoils the plot, whereas the pages for The Hunger Games, and The Old Kingdom do not.
Should those spoilers exist (as a description of the work/plot summary), or should they be hidden, either in a folder, or marked as one?
openWork page with extra images
I came across Music.Self Insert, which has a bunch of images at the bottom of the page that look to be low-quality screenshots from the band's music videos. I know we usually send work pages with multiple images to Image Pickin', but none of the "extra images" are really all that good (read: I doubt an IP thread would vote to keep them over the first image). Should they just be deleted?
openBriguy52748
First, I was considering asking if
- Family Matters S 1 E 11 The Quilt
- Family Matters S 1 E 17 The Big Fix
- Family Matters S 1 E 21 Bowl Me Over
- Family Matters S 2 E 1 Rachels Place
- Family Matters S 2 E 2 Torn Between Two Lovers
- Family Matters S 2 E 11 Requiem For An Urkel
- Family Matters S 2 E 13 Have Yourself A Merry Winslow Christmas
- Family Matters S 3 E 1 Boom
- Family Matters S 3 E 2 Brain Over Brawn
Then I've looked deeper since this edit
had poor indentation, Recap.Family Matters S 1 E 11 The Quilt is just ZCE and both Recap.Family Matters S 1 E 17 The Big Fix are a bit nattery.
While that all is 2021, their very recent edit
puts Tear Jerker into non-YMMV space (and I'm not sure what YMMV.Dragnet1950s S 4 E 09 The Big Present is trying to say).
Apparently they've got attention from as far as 2013
.
What should be done here?
open Sweetness Aversion misuse (widespread)?
Sweetness Aversion is when audiences have a negative reaction to overly saccharine works. It was formerly Tastes Like Diabetes but was changed to separate the negative audience reaction examples from others. But the Sweetness Aversion sub-pages look like they were moved without cleaning up misuse as almost all fail to explain the negative reaction to it or play with it which YMMV can't be.
Some examples from SweetnessAversion.Western Animation:
- Lady Rainicorn from Adventure Time looks like a toy
◊ but is really a Badass Adorable. Not this if positively received as described.
- Animaniacs:
- Mindy. Between "Wakko's Wish" and the Buttons and Mindy episode "Mindy in Wonderland," one could vomit from the sugar overdose. Especially with the line "Fuzzy Bunny," and, "'kay I love you bye bye." Might count, might be a parody.
- "Baloney And Kids" parodies this with the namesake Barney clone. Deliberate parody. Does that fit something else?
- "Valuable Lesson" features Moral Guardians making the Warners watch an expy of The Smurfs with a lesson on being angry as an example of the kind of program Animaniacs needs to be. Same as above.
- Arthur becomes this during Kate and Pal's episodes. The series could be seen as becoming something of it as a whole thanks to the new animation. '''ZCE as to how it's such and the negative reaction to it.
- Batman: The Animated Series Baby
◊ Doll
◊ seems this, but is really a 30-year-old insane woman who merely acts like a little girl thanks to her massive issues stemming from being a Former Child Star whose body never matured past childhood. Double misuse it it was one of the saddest, best received work from the show.'
- ChalkZone is considered by many to be the sweetest and cutest of all the Nicktoons. This initially hurt its reception amongst viewers though as many it was too saccharine, but the show has earned itself a decent-sized fanbase over the years. Largely valid. But is the last part Natter?
- Hasbro's My Little Pony cartoons are famous and notorious for this, but reality is a bit murkier... Valid the franchise was considered this, but this seems wishy-washy on it. Does it count if it was wasn't actually that saccharine but still perceived as such?
- The original 1980's cartoons had this to an extent (lord knows the theme songs did), at least until the villains showed up. The Movie was probably the most diabetes-laden part of G1, even with the villains. (Y'know, the one with the ever-spreading, all-consuming, Hate Plague-inducing, eye- and mouth-spawning living ooze that is frequently compared to the Shoggoths from the Cthulhu Mythos.)
- It's mostly in the Direct-to-Video Generation 3 (early 2000's) that the My Little Pony cartoons acquired the reputation for tasting like diabetes. This generation contained, arguably, some of the cutest ponies in the show, and had a very feminine look towards it, as well as heart-warming friendship moments being used to their fullest. This got taken Up To Eleven when the already-cute characters were retooled into the "Animesque" style fans dubbed "G3.5". But even these two eras have their share of adventuring (in particular, the hot air balloon they take to the place they need to go always seems to end up with ponies needing to be saved from plummeting to their deaths, and never get into water in G3: the Inevitable Waterfall is a certainty!) Valid if it was big part of audiences feeling the franchise was such.
- Unintentionally subverted with one specific part of G3.5, Newborn Cuties, and not in a good way. They obviously try to go for this, but instead, the peculiar art style and poor animation leaves the "cuties" looking very unsettling. Behold.
Can't be played with so this seems like a unrelated complaint.
- Unintentionally subverted with one specific part of G3.5, Newborn Cuties, and not in a good way. They obviously try to go for this, but instead, the peculiar art style and poor animation leaves the "cuties" looking very unsettling. Behold.
- My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic from mere subject matter alone is a very adorable and sweet show, so there is no shortage of diabetes and Narm Charm is in abundance. But that hasn't stopped it from playing around and lampooning itself to lessen the diabetes. While the show has diven into the sugar sweetness with no hint of irony whatsoever, it will sometimes throw lampshades on this as a source of comedy. Fluttershy's cute shyness is sometimes played up for jokes. Pinkie Pie's singing and overly cheerful demeanor has irritated characters on many occasions, Spike mocks Twilight's excessively sentimental wrap-up in an episode, The Cutie Mark Crusaders react to Big Macintosh's and Cheerilee's sappy love talk with visible disgust, and Rainbow Dash is utterly terrified of extreme cuteness. Not an examples as this has broke the franchise stigma of being this such it achieved mainstream popularity/acceptance. Cut or worth noting it playes with this expectation as part of the series. If the latter should it just be added to the franchise wide examples saying it broke that?
Almost all the other examples have these issues? Should we just cut examples that don't mention the negative audience reaction? Or is this something needing a proper cleanup?
openEdit War on Characters / Genshin Impact Sumeru
Courtesy link here
.
- July 28: Phi Sat added
Nahida's profile and provided most of her examples.
- July 29: cureconquestgirl commented out
some of Nahida's examples with this edit reason: "please don't trope information that hasn't been officially confirmed in game yet".
- August 11: PhiSat uncommented
the same examples with this edit reason: "Since the Sumeru Promotional Trailer's video description says Nahida is the narrator and her voice is the same voice heard in the Summer Fantasia Event, it's safe to say Nahida = Kusanali is confirmed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZEpU-DbzZU
".
Even if PhiSat is sorta correct about their assumption of Nahida being Kusanali, Sumeru hasn't even been released yet so we're still not 100% sure if that's the case. Even then, this is still an Edit War since PhiSat contributed and then uncommented Nahida's examples.
EDIT: I just want to clarify that I watched the trailer itself and found nothing that currently connects Nahida to Kusanali, so it seems PhiSat is trying to push a Speculative Troping agenda.
Edited by CytoZytokineopenMaking a new Prehistoric Life page.
An idea for a small move that I thought it was worth asking for feedback: I noticed in the paleontology fact checking/discussion thread that, in the useful notes page Prehistoric Life - Non-Dinosaurian Reptiles, the group of mammal-like reptiles (the same group of the sail-backed Dimetrodon) was together with reptiles, despite the fact that they aren't considered to be so anymore in the cladistic sense, as the page itself notices. It also talks about the small mammals of the age of the dinosaurs, meaning it included non-reptiles anyway. But since taking it out would be extremely pedantic, as the term was widely used for a long time, I thought that it would be a good idea to move the section to its own page about the ancestors of the mammals and their relatives in general, since it seems to have enough content compared to other small Prehistoric Life pages like Prehistoric Life - Primitive Ornithischians and Prehistoric Life – Hadrosaur Predecessors.
I made the sandbox Prehistoric Life Mammal Predecessors and wrote a description, what did you think? Would this help to organize it or is it pedantically unnecessary? I plan to put a link directing to that in the "mammal-like reptiles" section of the non-dinosaurian reptiles page in case it is moved.
Edited by good-morning

Er... I accidentally triggered an Edit War on Fast-Killing Radiation without realizing it so I deeply apologize, but figured I should get this out of the way. Courtesy link here
I'll await further judgment from the mods, but do know that it wasn't my intention to start an Edit War in the first place. I simply had a brain fart and reverted St. Fan's edit without realizing it would trigger an Edit War.