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:
openCharacter-specific page
I'm planning to create a character-specific page, largely because all other options were exhausted and second, it's so big that it exceeds 40k character bytes. Problem is, there also exists an Alternate Self of that character who is equally important as him. Do I include him as well since they share the same identify?
openCharacter sympathy in Superman and Lois Live Action TV
I deleted the Unintentionally Sympathetic entries, which included Jordan and Lois, from the YMMV page of Superman & Lois because I personally believe that they are meant to be sympathetic in their respective situations.
- Jordan is treated as unreasonable for being upset that his girlfriend Sarah kissed someone else, but he has the right to be angry that he was cheated on.
- Lois is seen to be in the wrong for not reporting that Lucy had a vision in line with what Ally preaches, treating it like she only shared the parts of the story that would let her go after Ally. Considering that Lucy supposedly had said vision after a drug overdose that nearly killed her it makes perfect sense that Lois didn't say anything about it. Reporting that her sister had a genuine vision of another version of herself, which near anyone would think would be a result of the drugs or the near death experience, would have seen Lois laughed out of the room by any editor. Not helping are the other stunts Lucy pulls in the scene, like blaming Lois for their mom leaving and revealing she's pulled this at Ally's behest, which makes it look less that she's bothered by Lois' supposedly hypocritical journalistic integrity and more that she's interested in getting back at her sister out of resentment over completely imagined slights.
Lois' example is pretty self-explanatory, but I think Jordan's needs to be elaborated on a bit further. I've watched the show and I don't see Jordan being that angry over Sarah's cheating. Yes, he was upset and mildly betrayed, but he was later consumed by guilt that Sarah was honest with him, while he can't tell her that he has superpowers. In fact, he wants to tell her because he admires her for her bravery and honesty (I'm paraphrasing), but Clark tells him not to because the secret isn't actually Jordan's to share. Jordan's brother and Natalie Irons even compare Jordan and Sarah's secrets, which strikes me as a false equivalance for the reason I've stated above. One secret is simply infidelity, while the other could put an entire family, maybe 2, in danger. This could be Informed Wrongness or something.
But still, I want to know what you guys think.
openFilm/TheBatman concerning edits Film
Edit: Was tired when I wrote this this morning, edited to explain their edits.
Jeyeraj has some concerning edits on Film.The Batman 2022 and Characters.The Batman 2022. In the movie Selina decries that Rich Privileged White guys are the ones running Gotham. I'm not gonna say that black people can't be racist against white people (I don't like that prejudice plus power definition outside of academia), but this really doesn't feel like that. In the universe of the movie, that's an objective fact, most of the people in power are privileged white people. I'd need more to say she's racist towards white people. He insinuates in his edits that this makes her a bigot. Finally he insinuated that the Riddlers were occupy wall-streetesque, when I felt they were more QANON ajacent..
I just also found an edit where he posted about the Videogame.Ready Or Not and Kotaku's criticism of the games school shooting level. He talks more about the article than the game itself in the edit, which is trivia at best. His criticism of the article definitely seems to be political in nature.
There's also this edit on Film.Black Widow: %%"Their" or spoilering the pronouns would give away the reveal that Taskmaster isn't a man, as the film presents her until the reveal.%% (They are talking about taskmaster). And in that edit they changed the pronouns of the example from "their" back to "his". Taskmaster in the film is a women. I felt like it was perfectly valid to use "their" pronouns to disguise the gender.
I definitely feel like he's editing with an agenda.
Edited by jjjj2openAre currently not-present music tracks allowed in Awesome Music pages?
I was browsing some work subpages, including Awesome Music, and wanted to add some entries. Problem is, the entries are of music that was once in the work or is in a sister project, but aren't in the work itself as of today. Are Awesome Music examples like these allowed? And why?
openLilybot
So, as I do, I dewicked another Not So Different wick tonight, at VisualNovel.Piofiore No Bansho. Then I checked the history, and noticed that almost the entire page worth's of edits tonight has been done by Lilybot and their edits are... a bit concerning, as they're deleting several tropes about a specific character, demanding people not add a "spoiler character", and claiming that "talking about how a love interest feels" is too biased— even if it's literally mentioned in the work itself.
I need to sleep so I don't have time to dig through the history and figure out all the tea. This is just what I noticed when checking five minutes ago.
openAre these valid Creators Pet entries? Live Action TV
Found these on the YMMV subpage for Once Upon a Time
- Creator's Pet: The four mainstay "villain" characters on the show have all had this accusation thrown at them:
- The producers have openly stated that Regina is by far their favorite character, and their first question about literally any plot idea from the writing staff is "How can we make it about Regina?" This really started to be a problem around Season 3 when the show started treating Regina as a hero, which made her seem like an Easily Forgiven Karma Houdini to many fans. And it got even worse in Season 4 where she wanted to force the Author to write her a new happy ending. And with the 100th episode in Season 5 it's taken Up To Eleven: you would expect the 100th episode to star the main character (Emma), but nope, it's Regina. The finale does go some way into addressing fan concerns though, although Season 6 just broke the base on the matter all over again. Accusations worsened beyond what was thought possible after she is crowned "the Good Queen" over every realm in the series finale.
- Hook has been accused of this because, due to his position as Emma's official love interest, he has gained a more prominent role in the stories than Henry, Snow, or Charming. In Season 5, every main character, including several who have no motivation to do so, choose to risk traveling into the Underworld to bring him back to life, contradicting the previously established rule that the dead cannot be resurrected. Not helping matters is that the resolution to that plot ended with a literal Deus ex Machina that revives him which occurs in an episode that kills Robin permanently and in a way that prevents revival. This occurred after it looked like Hook would stay dead. Love him or hate him, there's little doubt that Hook has received much more preferential treatment from the writers than just about any of the other men in Emma's life, be they former lovers (Neal) or potential love interests (Graham and August).
- And of course, there's Rumplestiltskin / Mr. Gold, who some fans feel has long worn out his welcome by the fifth season and should be considered irredeemable at this point, but who not only continues to stay on the show and in important roles, but more often than not seems to get off scot-free for all of his evil deeds, if not flat-out rewarded with even MORE power. Whether or not he redeemed himself by the series finale is a major point of contention.
- Following her promotion to regular status, Zelena became viewed as this by fans too. While the fifth season gave Zelena her own redemption arc and did a decent job in fleshing her character out enough for more fans to feel sympathy for her, there were a number of fans who questioned if she was being forgiven too easily even by the standards of this show. She has at least expressed remorse for the things she did to Regina, but hasn't actually done the same for all the other people she wronged. Since Zelena's crimes include: manipulating Neal into trading his life to resurrect Rumple, abducting Snow and David's infant son as soon as he was born to use in a magical ritual, potentially killing him, and murdering Robin's lost love Marian in order to masquerade as her, then having sex with Robin (which can be considered rape by fraud) thus producing their daughter — it can be jarring for viewers to see how easily the group accepted Zelena's change without much fuss.
Thing is, I'm not too familiar with the fandom but the show's YMMV entry states that the characters in these entries are Base-Breaking Characters so could someone more familiar with the show's fandom check to see if these entries should be cut? Thanks
openLimits for TLP adoption?
I want to see if there's any old drafts in the TLP that I can give some attention to, but ones from ten years ago are easier to access than ones from ten months ago due to the "last page" button. So I have to wonder: what's the procedure for necro-bumping an ancient draft for the purposes of taking it on yourself? Considering the original sponsors of drafts that old might not even be around anymore.
I don't have any specific ones in mind at the moment, I'm still looking.
openAssPull misuse?
The following (spoiler-heavy) Ass Pull example was deleted from YMMV.Sly Cooper Thieves In Time as it had the following Foreshadowing:
- Ass Pull: The reveal of Penelope's Face–Heel Turn comes out of nowhere nor fits what's been established. She wanted to eliminate Sly Cooper (and possibly Murray) for holding her genius boyfriend Bentley back, it being implied she only "loved" Bentley out of planning to use him for making billions in weapon designs and/or world domination, and is shown to be a massive scheming sociopath. The previous game portrayed Penelope as a straight-up Nice Girl even compared to the other thieves Sly teamed up with, guilt-ridden when Murray was captured due to her plan, and despite seeing Bentley's genius firsthand only showed romantic feelings toward him after he rescued her from pirates. She even held a genuine crush on Sly for most of the game. Even in this game, Sly had retired from crime by this point and thus wouldn't be holding them back; in fact, Penelope giving time travel to Le Paradox causes Bentley to regroup the Cooper Gang and leads directly to Sly un-retiring, the opposite effect of what she supposedly wanted. While there was foreshadowing such as her disappearance prior to the beginning of the game and the mouse emblem throughout the level where the twist is revealed, nothing in this game or Honor Among Thieves hinted she's angry and bitter at the Cooper Gang instead of being held against her will and forced to assist Le Paradox.
- Foreshadowing: There are several hints that she is the Black Knight:
- The title of the episode itself "Of Mice and Mechs" is a subtle hint of what the chapter is all about: Penelope, a mouse, created the machines and turned against the Cooper Gang.
- The Black Knight's armor has what looks like an icon of a mouse on it, which turns out to be Penelope herself.
- When Bentley researches information on the Black Knight, he finds no information. In the same Episode beforehand, Penelope is brought up again as Bentley wonders where she is once again. Penelope is in the medieval era, disguising herself as the Black Knight.
- This isn't the first time that Penelope went under an alias with the word "Black" in the title. The last time was in the third Sly game under the alias "The Black Baron".
- The text color of the Black Knight is purple, the same color of Penelope.
The Ass Pull wasn't their Face–Heel Turn which was foreshadowed, but it was their motives and personality behind it which contradict everything shown/established about them the prior game and seemingly the flimsy explanation this game gives. Is that not enough to count? Character Derailment and Fan-Disliked Explanation are already listed under their respective pages covering this, those or and anything else a better fit for this issue?
open NSFW Webcomics
There's a NSFW Webcomics index, which is pretty much self-explanatory. I proposed on the Launch pad to have by extension an index of all the other kinds of work that are NSFW
. The draft got merely 6 bombs and general disinterest and skepticism. Many argued that it could potentially violate 5P rules, I personally can't see why (since it's intended to be a list of pages already existing on Tv Tropes and not some generic list of nasty works), but that's besides the point. My concern is: if an index about all NSFW works present is deemed inappropriate by tropers, shouldn't we by extension reevaluate the presence of NSFW Webcomics as well?
openIs it natter?
I've been skimming through Justice League episode recaps, and some of the entries in them use indentation when they just expand on the first un-bulleted example.
- America Won World War II: Vandal Savage chose to plan a massive invasion of America after learning about the outcome of World War II, particularly when his future self also warned him to ready the Third Reich for a massive US/UK/Canada/Resistance movements seaborne invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944. While the success of Operation Overlord in 1944 was definitely very bad news for Germany, wouldn't a specific warning not to invade the Soviet Union in 1941 before neutralizing the Western enemies first have been a higher priority?
- The laptop he sent back in time could have arrived years before 1945 (the Martian says it). Savage had enough time to set himself up as a revolutionary scientist, prove his new weapons, and then remove Hitler. Since there's no mention made of the Soviets, one could assume he never invaded the USSR, and was instead focusing on the center of Allied supply lines, the US.
- Also, Savage shut the laptop off while the message was in mid-sentence, implying that there may have been more to it.
- Artistic License – History: When the League make it back to 1944, they end up in Caen, where American forces are being beaten back by German forces with their new War Wheels. Thing is, Caen was in the British sector during the Normandy invasion and subsequent campaign. A more appropriate location would have been Carentan, which was firmly in the American sector.
- That being said, the US First Army landed at the Cotentin Peninsula, just 54 miles from Caen, in our history. So while American forces are a little odd, they're not completely unbelievable.
- It could also be that since this is an alternate history version of the war, American and British forces were assigned different sectors than what they were assigned in real life. So for example, the British could have been the ones who stormed Omaha and Utah beaches, while the Americans stormed Gold and Sword.
- Anti-Climactic Unmasking: As Lex is being chased through the Watchtower by the rest of the League, he stops in a bathroom and muses that at the very least, he has a rare opportunity:
Luthor (in Flash's body): If nothing else, I can at least learn the Flash's secret identity. [removes mask, looks in a mirror, then frowns] ...I have no idea who this is.
- The director's commentary reveals that they'd been wanting to do this joke for a while, since there's no way that Luthor would know everyone in the entire world. Flash is neither from the same area nor remotely famous.
openTroping creative work hosted on Neopets?
A post in the Roleplay Cleanup thread
made me start thinking about how much untapped potential the Neopian Times has for finding tropeworthy creative works. For those who don't know, the Neopian Times is a newsletter produced by Neopets, filled with creative content made by site players, from comic strips to short stories to longform stories. There's a lot of really, really tropeworthy stuff hidden away in that one corner of the website.
My question is, if I did one day decide to go on an Archive Binge and find as many tropes as possible from these stories, how would I trope them? I don't think they'd go on the Neopets page itself, since the stories weren't produced by the site, merely hosted on them. At the same time, making separate pages for each work seems a little much, though I can definitely see how these stories could be considered fanworks.
So, how do?
openTrivia misuse?
On the TV show Euphoria, there's a joke about a character being a One Direction fangirl who wrote Louis x Harry fanfiction - complete with a fully-animated Imagine Spot sex scene. The real Louis Tomlinson has made it known that he really didn't like the joke.
This was originally noted on the Trivia page
for Euphoria under Disowned Adaptation. I deleted it because Disowned Adaptation is "Creator rejects adaptation of original work," not "Celebrity doesn't like a Real-Person Fic joke about themself."
It's since been re-added (not by the original Troper who added it) under Creator Backlash, which I'm pretty sure is still misuse, because that's "Creator comes to hate their own work." Am I right in this line of thinking? I don't want to delete it again and start an edit war, but it seems like shoehorning.
Edited by iamconstantineopen Seeker of Crocus discussion
I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, but I'm literally gonna go mad
So, I stopped reading this little spin off from the Blossomverse a long time ago after a lovely response by Green_Phantom_Queen from one of my criticisms, but after reading updates about the latest chapter (or more specifically the one before it) I feel like this needs some serious discussion:
So. to make a long story short: Chloe goes absolutely apesheet after Sara. with the power of the Unown, cripples Parker (oh no), merges Professor Cerise with an unown-made copy of himself to create a perfect version of her father (OH NO!) and is about to pull a Parker on all of Vermillion City all of spite. Professor Sycamore, the main character of the story, tries to talk her down, but not only does she rebukes him, but does so by tearing down his optimistic point of view and stating she's going to kill the culprit to stop them no matter what he said.
This hurts him bad enough, but then Specter (from Yu-Gi-Oh) talks her down by appeasing to her pessimism and does so in a way that makes the professor looks completely useless, which in turn causes him to go nuts.
The Professor merges with his shadow and intents to either destroy everything or Restart the World because he's grown sick of the story's growing pessimism and his inability to do jacksheet despite being the freaking main character, and he has to get his madness sealed before he kills everyone.
After all of this... the story tries to paint Chloe as having done nothing wrong, and instead show that Professor Sycamore is the one who needs to learn a lesson, not her.
Now, I don't know about you, but this looks to me like co-writer Green_Phantom_Queen (Spinnerette is the main author, but I haven't read her works that much, and even if I did, all this writing just reeks of Queen's traits) has learned absolutely nothing about the previous year or two writing the Blossomverse, but I do feel like this situation is a bit too complicated to see it like that.
So, what do you guys think? Is Chloe at fault? Is Professor Sycamore at fault? Is Specter at fault? Is nobody at fault? Just... let's try to reach a consensus here.
And note: Green_Phantom_Queen and Shady Missionary are not allowed here. This is for unbiased, third person opinions only.
Edited by MacronNotesopenEdit War?
So on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice DogOnRollerSkates added
this Broken Aesop example:
- Broken Aesop: Batman's initially portrayed as having lost his way by developing into brutal, merciless killer. However, even after he has a Heel Realization, he's still shown indulging in the same kind of behavior that was previously portrayed negatively. The fact that Zach Snyder has made comments seemingly defending his killings only further muddies up the issue.
Then MasterHero removed
it with a link to a video as an edit reason, which is a bad edit reason, but then DogOnRollerSkates re-added
it without discussing it the edit reason of "You can’t just attach a separate video to justify cutting a trope, if you wish to do so state the reasoning yourself and see if it stands. And given the point this trope brings up has been repeatedly discussed since release and is even mentioned elsewhere on this page, it’s odd that it wouldn’t be here in the first place." Which while I agree with, the latter part has nothing to do with the first part.
Is this an Edit War?
Edited by Bullmanresolved How to suggest a rename for a trope?
Ever since I saw the Everything Has Rhythm trope existed, I've been thinking it should be renamed to Rhythm And Brooms.
The reason for this is because the stereotype involves brooms being used as a makeshift dance partner, and is a pun of “rhythm and blues”.
I haven't suggested it, because A) I don't know where one would go to do that. And B) I don't want to do it myself, as I'm pretty sure that changing a trope name without consultation is tantamount to vandalism.
Anyone willing to give me a hand?
Edited by Trogdor7620openAbout BadassAdorable Videogame
Hey there. I'm sorry if this query has been posted before, but I've been seeing this trope abused a lot lately to the point that it's practically become a vague catch-all term for literally anything and everything that a troper finds admirable/likable about a character. One recent example I deleted was from this character's page: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/FinalFantasyXIIILightning
Here's what the trope entry said: "A beautiful woman who changed herself into a stronger, more confident person capable of protecting both herself and her little sister."
Like, I know this character, and at best the only traits that could be subjectively seen as "adorable" out of her are those rare moments she goofs up. Most of the time, she's either a rude and edgy type (pre character development) or a serious and caring yet still edgy type (post character development), and doesn't even have the least bit of semblance to how a physically adorable character is supposed to be.
Could it be the way the trope page is written? Is it okay to just have it turn into an ambiguous, loose terminology?
openTroper weirdly deleting entries beacuse they don't agree.
So on RelationshipWritingFumble.Animated Films JoLuRo075 deleted
this Frozen entry:
- In Frozen Anna is interested in both Hans and Kristoff, with varied conclusions, but both fall into Strangled by the Red String in different ways (although in Hans's case this was intentional) and Anna ultimately has way more romantic subtext with her sister Elsa than either of them. The coronation scene where Anna tries to compliment Elsa comes off more as flirty than sisterly, as does her reaction to Elsa's new appearance when they reunite. It doesn't hurt that the Act of True Love that saves the day is between the two of them. In context, it's sisterly love between Anna and Elsa, but since Disney has spent almost a century showing True Love as romance and only romance, since Elsa's narrative arc of finding her identity and learning to accept herself has such a heavy Rainbow Lens that 'Let It Go' became an instant LGBT anthem, and since her sister is both the only female character she spends much time interacting with and the person she has the closest and most important relationship with, it can come across as quite a mixed message for some. At the very least, the massive amount of fan-works featuring the pairing suggests that there was enough unintentional romantic chemistry there to spark a lot of imaginations.
Their edit reason was "Incest?, squick" and while I don't disagree this is also a legit example as a lot of fans did see the writing fumble. The also deleted
this entry from YMMV.Madagascar 3 Europes Most Wanted:
- Relationship Writing Fumble: Alex is given a Designated Love Interest in the form of Gia, though there is no explicit declaration of love and the relationship could be interpreted by the viewer as a platonic friendship, or even a sibling-like relationship. Alex develops a far more genuine bond with the gruff, manly tiger, Vitaly, and many of their interactions can just as easily be interpreted as attraction.
Also probably unrelated but they also deleted these from AmbiguouslyGay.Animated Films
- Frozen:
- Queen Elsa, what with her spending her entire life hiding something she was born with and how she became much happier once she embraced it; to the point that her big song
has been called "an gay anthem"
. Frozen II adds onto this with Elsa's arc and her new big song being easy to interpret as a Coming-Out Story, her Les Yay with Honeymaren, and her dislike of romance as a child. When asked about her sexuality, Jennifer Lee stated it was best left unsaid. On the other hand, she herself ships Elsa with Ralph, so maybe she considers Elsa's sexuality to be up to viewer interpretation or just wants to avoid Ship-to-Ship Combat in the movie's fandom. Later, she gave this comment:
"We know what we made. But at the same time, I feel like once we hand the film over and it belongs to the world, so I don't like to say anything and let the fans talk. I think it is up to them. Disney films were made in different eras, different times, and we celebrate them all for different reasons, but this one was made in 2013 and is going to have a 2013 point of view."- There's been a scuffle amongst Frozen fans when it comes to Oaken. When he's talking to Anna he points to a family in the sauna. Many think they're his family. It's been argued the only adult is the blond man and the familiarity between Oaken and them suggests they're related, while others think the oldest brunette is an adult woman instead of a teenager and she's the blond guys wife. Olaf's Frozen Adventure canonizes that they're his family but doesn't explain it further than that.
- Queen Elsa, what with her spending her entire life hiding something she was born with and how she became much happier once she embraced it; to the point that her big song
- Alex: with his flamboyant, Broadway-style dance maneuvers, overexcited personality and suspiciously close relationship with his best friend, Marty the zebra. It's also been pointed out that his interaction with his father seems like a metaphor for a Coming-Out Story. Come the third movie he is given a Love Interest in the form of Gia, but considering their relationship could just as easily be interpreted as friendship, there is the problematic matter of her age, and Alex is...rather close to the gruff, butch tiger Vitaly, nothing is really resolved.
openShould this example be restored?
An entry for Final Boss was removed here
, with the stated reason that the fight in the example is not major enough to count. I sent a message about this soon after, arguing that Final Boss is based on a fight being last, not necessarily major, and that "the Jinx confrontation that comes immediately after" is irrelevant since it wasn't a fight. Haven't heard anything back.
I hesitate to restore it myself since I did some editing on that entry, and didn't want to potentially edit war.

Lord Gro and I have had an amiable PM discussion on a particular topic, though we haven't reached an agreement, and I'd like to bring the matter up for broader discussion. There is a forum thread
here which may apply, but it hasn't be active for a couple weeks now. If the discussion should be moved to the moribund thread, let me know.
This involves the troper's deletions from Creator pages, specifically Johannes Brahms, in which almost all the tropes were cut. I can understand some of the removals, as they referenced Brahms's personal life with no mention of his music or career. Some however involved Brahms's musical career, which I'm not in favor of. Specific examples:
Lord Gro's position is based on this page
and this passage was cited from there in the deletion note: "Please resist the urge to apply character tropes to Real Life people."
This is a more restrictive implementation of the approach than I'm comfortable with.
Thoughts:
My wish is to reinstate the entries in the first folder. It might not technically be an edit war if I do, but I don't want to do this ill-advisedly.
Thanks!
Edited by BoltDMC