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:
open Why does Artistic License Law list examples?
Artistic License – Law says it should not be used in example lists but instead we should use its subtropes. However, the page itself lists examples, indicating that the supertrope is needed in some way. How to make sense of this?
Edited by eroockopenOdd edit reason
Nightwolf Gamer 03 appears to be a new account, with only one edit made today. That wouldn't be too much to talk about, but the edit itself is a bit... questionable. Specifically, on LGBT Representation in Media, they replaced
an instance of "agender" on a point about Craig of the Creek with "non-binary" with the edit reason "Agender does not equal non-binary. Agender equals agender. Non-binary equals non-binary." If memory serves, agender is indeed part of the nonbinary spectrum (it's the black stripe on the nonbinary pride flag), and nonbinary is itself an umbrella term for gender identities that fall outside the western "male/female" model, so the edit feels a bit gatekeep-y in a somewhat shifty sort of way. Thoughts on how to address it?
openDefense/Defence?
jeez recently sent a grammar notification for an edit I did on Elements of Justice and not to use Commonwealth spelling, themself changing two instances of defense into defence. However, the only edit I made to the page was moving an example to a proper location, the spelling was like that when I moved it. I also noticed how the words defense and defence are used interchangeably throughout the page.
openTroper removed YMMV without edit reason
So on YMMV.Live Free Or Die Hard, ultrafan removed
a lot of entries without an edit reason:
- Base-Breaking Character: Some saw Matt as annoying and useless, while others admired his courage in assisting John through all of the dangerous insanity and even killing two bad guys (case in point, Zeus in the third film didn't kill any).
- Evil Is Sexy
- Her boyfriend Thomas Gabriel (played by Timothy Olyphant) is quite easy on the eyes himself.
- Fandom-Specific Plot: Post-film fanfiction often has hacker Matt moving in with John, since Matt's apartment was destroyed in an explosion. John lives alone and kinda lonely without his ex-wife and kids; Matt was shot point-blank in the knee, an injury that would require weeks to months of recovery with assistance. What better setup for fanfic roommates?
Like I don't know why they removed them. Like Matt is the cause of many debates in the fandom, Gabriel is considered sexy by many female fans, and that is a super common plot in fanfiction based on the film's. These also weren't discussed anywhere. So um what should be done here?
openQuestion about Definition Only Tropes and potholes
So, do Definition-Only Pages allow potholes. I ask because on YMMV.The Devil Wears Prada there's this Alternate Aesop Interpretation thing example:
- The Take
posits that another interpretation is less "holding true to your morals" vs "selling out," and more about finding a healthy balance between being invested in your job without falling into its toxic or destructive tendencies. Andy starts off thinking the fashion industry is beneath her and is rightly called out for it, but once she applies herself she outstrips Emily as Miranda's preferred assistant. Meanwhile, Emily is so devoted to her job that she's a Nervous Wreck, Extreme Doormat, and Professional Butt-Kisser who is literally killing herself to please an unappreciative Miranda (goes on starvation diets, works even when sick, and is hospitalized due to being so distracted running errands for Miranda that she gets hit by a car). Whereas when Andy realizes she's becoming too invested in her industry's cutthroat and back-stabbing politics, she takes a step back and decides to pursue the career she really does want.
The Take: So, like Emily, we can all stand to learn that a job is just a job.- The Take
Now the reason I am asking is that Hello 83433 removed
the Static Character pothole from the quote citing "Dewicking as Static Character is now Definition Only" and then rjd1922 added
the pothole back citing "Definition-Only Pages allow potholes". So I am kinda of confused due they allow potholes like this are not.
openEdit War and Avoiding Entering One
A while back, in Characters.NU Carnival, I deleted a Beauty Mark entry as that's no longer a trope and I explained that in my edit reason. However, Shootthestar18 brought it back
. While I sent them a "not a trope" notifier a few days ago, I still haven't gotten a response. I also checked the history and I realized Shootthestar 18 engaged in an Edit War since they originally added the entry.
Would it be ok if I remove this Beauty Mark entry? I would do it myself, however, I want to avoid an Edit War. If somebody else wants to delete it, you're free to do so.
EDIT: Slightly trimmed this.
Edited by RandomTroper123openEdit War Over Chained Sinkholes
In Characters.A Nightmare On Elm Street Freddy Krueger, Night Games made an edit
in which they used a couple Chained Sinkholes. I therefore sent them a notifier about this and fixed them
while noting this in my edit reason.
However, they clearly ignored my notifier and my edit reason as they just re-added
the Chained Sinkholes. Can I please revert these changes? (Of course, I would myself. However, I don't want to be a participant in said Edit War.)
openVanillaEdition
Should Vanilla Edition be a trope or a Trivia item? It's not technically a part of the work itself, but how it's released; compare DVD Commentary and Early-Bird Release, which also involve home video tropes.
openNot example/complaining?
- CoriFalls's work tries to be a deconstruction of Ash's dealings with Team Rocket only to fail by swinging the perceived unfair treatment the other way around: instead, Ash becomes the highly abused villain who's just trying to live his life while Jessie, James and Meowth become the self-centered "heroes" who believe everything they do is good and right because they're them and they're Such Good People.
I intend to delete this as misuse and complain as:
- Deconstruction is a Playing With which can't by played with so unsuccessful attempts are just not examples. (Not sure if this applies to Deconstution or Genre sub-tropes so asking here first.)
- Complaining/YMMV for non-YMMV items which is not allowed
- It doesn't even say what about it it's supposed to deconstructing. (If it did I we could cut the plaining parts and it would be valid.)
Thoughts?
openRude Troper
From what I've seen, Mr Stranger 616 seems to be rude. I realized he posted a harsh message in the discussion page
for KarmicButtMonkey.Western Animation. When I asked him to remove a Super-Trope he added to WesternAnimation.Donald Duck as a Sub-Trope was already listed, he started being rude. (Granted, he did do so
. I also won't reveal exactly what was said, partially because I don't think we're supposed to do that.) For the record, the trope he added
was Butt-Monkey and the Sub-Trope that was already listed is Karmic Butt-Monkey. I also would have deleted it myself, however, I didn't want to get in an Edit War since I previously deleted
the Butt-Monkey entry.
openCan I give the BECK manga its own set of pages? Anime
I'm talking about Beck. It's currently sharing sub-pages with the musician Beck, as well as an unrelated movie. Being a diehard fan of this series, I'd like to make the usual suite of pages for the manga/anime (Character page, Funny, Heartwarming, YMMV etc.), to avoid sharing with the musician and movie. The BECK manga has an official alternate title, "BECK - Mongolian Chop Squad" or just "BECK - MCS", and I was thinking if I could just go for it. Would I be allowed to do this myself? Thank you in advance!
Edited by pottskiopenQuestion about Graceful Loser
So I looked at the Graceful Loser page and was surprised to find that it specified that it was a trope for villains only. Mainly because of the name. Which got me wondering if it should be taken to the trope repair shop, because the title implies it's broader than it actually is, which seems like an open invitation for misuse.
I'd have gone to TRS myself, but I can't figure out how to make a post there. Does anyone here know how to solve this issue?
openIs it alright to discard someone else's draft?
So there's a TLP draft
that's been gathering bombs as its a stub and already covered by The Napoleon. It now has 11 bombs (including one from myself) and I feel that it's enough as IMO it's clear that it needs to be discarded. However am I allowed to do that or only the sponsor and mods are allowed to discard drafts?
EDIT: Whelp, the draft got discarded but I still would like to know just in case.
Edited by Cutegirl920fireopen Edit war report (including self-report).
First of all, sorry for accidentally contributing to edit war. I'll try not to repeat it again. Second, there was an edit war on Trivia.Freedom Planet 2, regarding a user adding complainy natter.
- A user called jerkwad152 added this
complainy natter edit as a sub-bullet to Development Hell at November 25th of 2021, the statement being a response to the comment's finalized date being "So far, anyway. There have been a number of "final" dates.", obviously insulting the developers for not meeting their deadlines in the past.
- It was removed by Mister Tambourine Man on February 3rd of this year with an edit reason "This isn't a message board".
- jerkwad152 re-added the edit with a rude edit reason of "Rent-a-modding not needed".
- Mister Tambourine Man re-removed it again, given edit reason being "This is a wiki page, not a message board."
- jerkwad152 re-re-adds the nattery edit with "No one is using the wiki as a message board. It's an objectively true statement. Continued misuse of the edit function simply because you disagree will result in the involvement of site staff." as an edit reason.
- And then I removed it again (sorry about contributing to edit war, by the way. It won't happen again).
Anyways, we have an issue with a user being defensive of their complainy and nattery edit. I'd ask we keep an eye on the page just in case.
openEdit war if I modify?
There are several entries I made that were modified in ways that I think have issues. Want to check if it's edit warring or not to modify as opposed to reverting entries, and to run them by here first.
- Overshadowed by Controversy: The heavy criticism regarding Penelope's poorly done Face–Heel Turn so blighted the game's reputation, despite its gameplay and most of the rest of the story being well-received, that once it was announced its cliffhanger wasn't going to see a resolution, fans were quick to disown the game.
Was changed to:
- Overshadowed by Controversy: The heavy criticism regarding Penelope's poorly done Face–Heel Turn Face–Heel Turn and the ending involving Sly being trapped in Egypt]] so blighted the game's reputation, despite its gameplay and most of the rest of the story being well-received, that once it was announced its cliffhanger wasn't going to see a resolution, fans were quick to disown the game. Overshadowed Cleanup said endings due not count and should go under Audience-Alienating Ending instead. Permission to move?
- My Little Pony: The Movie (2017) was meant to appeal to fans of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic as a Big Damn Movie of the series as well as general audiences given an early pitch was dropped due to complaints of Continuity Lock-Out, but received mediocre critical and financial reception do to this. It got disproportionately negative reception from critics and apathy from general audiences as still being too saccharine and lacking appeal if they weren't already a fan of one of the most successful/prolific cartoons of the decade. While faring better with fans it was divisive for ignoring much of the shows continuity and Character Development that kept them vested and the action still not a step up enough from the show to offset. The next movie My Little Pony: A New Generation instead focused on general audiences with a new cast and setting and de-actionized story, which got better reception from both audiences (much better general and mixed but less negative fan).
Was changed to:
- My Little Pony: The Movie (2017) was meant to appeal to fans of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic as a Big Damn Movie of the series as well as reel in general audiences who weren't already sold on it, but was mostly shunned by critics and general audiences as being either too saccharine or having too much Continuity Lock-Out. It fared better with fans of the show, but was still divisive for ignoring much of the show's continuity and Character Development from after Season 4, and the action wasn't a big enough step up to compensate. The series' next movie, My Little Pony: A New Generation, instead focused on general audiences with a new cast and setting and de-actionized story, which earned it a better reception on both sides. '''I like how it's more concise, but Continuity Lock-Out is misused as the problem wasn't fully understanding the plot requiring knowledge of prior work, but the opposite as making the story accessible to non-fans watered it down. Permission to change?
- Paul was not a sympathetic character per se, but others defended him, even praising his strength as a trainer, per the Aesop you need to respect those with different opinions which Paul would ultimately learn to do and become a better off, (somewhat) more sympathetic character for. But besides defending him despite his being far worse about disrespecting those who disagreed or didn't live up to his opinion, the frequency and seriousness of his cruelty was worse than many of the shows clear cut villains whom were justly condemned. Notably his training and abandoning for being weak of Chimchar was identical to what was treated as a Moral Event Horizon for the prior trainers of Ash's other fire-type staters, the one, unacknowledged, difference being Paul was upfront to Chimchar about it. The catalysis for his redeeming character development, losing to Brandon and learning Ash had beaten them, was seen as being negated by Paul beating Ash almost immediately afterwards and all his other praise causing his change to be seen as insufficient and unearned if not illegitimate.
Was changed to:
- Paul's not a sympathetic character per se, but his character was defended and his strength as a trainer praised on the principle of respecting those with different opinions, as Paul would eventually come to do himself—but before he finally got there, Paul routinely failed to respect different opinions by disrespecting those who disagreed with him or failed to live up to his expectations, and "different opinions" was no justification for his punishing treatment and abandonment of Chimchar for being weak (which has happened before in the series, but when it did it was treated unquestionably as a Moral Event Horizon). The ostensible catalyst for Paul's redemption—his loss to Brandon and discovery that Ash had beaten him—had its effect weakened by Paul defeating Ash in a rematch almost immediately after. In the end, even if there was something to be said for Paul's ideas of how to train pokémon, the show went beyond that and routinely tried to insist Paul was respectable when he generally wasn't. Like how some of it was make more concise but it moved the objective reason some saw him as such. Permission to modify?
Permission to make my proposed modifications?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaughtopen Miraheze wikis
I've been looking at Miraheze wikis for a while and been wondering:
https://terribletvshows.miraheze.org/wiki/Terrible_Shows_%26_Episodes_Wiki
https://besttvshows.miraheze.org/wiki/Best_Shows_%26_Episodes_Wiki
Are Miraheze wikis good sites to build your examples off of? I looked on Deviant Art yesterday and quite a few posts are condemning them. I myself am beginning to doubt their reliability.
openExample needs expansion
From the Real Life section of Shocking Defeat Legacy:
"The Mongols have done this a lot to others: they conquered China, decimated Persia, ravaged Russia, and nearly conquered Europe. For Russians especially, the Mongol attack on Kievan Rus' is cited as one of the major reasons for why Russians are backward compared to Europe."
This needs expanding, because (opinions of Russia right now to one side) it sounds like cultural posturing. This should be expanded to explain how they are "backward" from a purely objective viewpoint. Technology? Culture? Economy? What is it?
I am not an expert on this, so I can't flesh this out myself. Should it be commented out until someone with more knowledge can fix it?

I don't know how to word something like this, so I'll make a timeline of events that happened:
I'm just asking: did I take part in an edit war? I don't think the rules for an edit war apply if the edit breaks the rules, but I just want to make sure.