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 Does this part of a Pop-Culture Isolation example really qualify? Live Action TV
On YMMV.Squid Game, 8BrickMario
recently added
the following bolded sentence to the page's Pop-Culture Isolation example:
- Pop-Culture Isolation: The reason the reveal in "Front Man" that the Front Man is Jun-ho's missing brother In-ho was more shocking to Korean audiences but kind of got lost in translation internationally is because the Front Man's actor – Lee Byung-hun – is one of the top A-list megastars of all of South Korean cinema, and whose film Inside Men was explicitly referenced earlier in the series by Ji-yeong in the past episode "Gganbu", even mentioning Lee by name. While Lee has also played roles in Western cinema before Squid Game, most notably Storm Shadow in the G.I. Joe film series, neither Lee himself nor the use of Celebrity Paradox via passing dialogue are anywhere near as popular in Western media. From a Western perspective, imagine if a player sarcastically referred to the games as "our mission, should we choose to accept it", only for it to turn out that the mysterious leader of the masked guards is portrayed by Tom Cruise. Perhaps recognizing that Lee Byung-hun's reveal didn't hit as much outside of Korea, the show does pull off a similar casting effect for Western audiences by Season 3, where we see an American games recruiter played by Cate Blanchett!
The issue is that this added sentence was apparently to mention how the series "corrected" the pop culture issue with another big-name actor, but I don't really get how it can parallel to the issue of Western audiences not regarding Lee Byung-hun as much as Cate Blanchett, since the latter's character is someone who appears only once (unlike the former's major role) and didn't first appear masked before then having their face visible to amaze audiences at the actor, nor is there any mention or reference to said actor and/or their other roles beforehand.
I'm wondering, could this added sentence feel too redundant for what the example is referring to? What are your thoughts?
Sent a PM to 8BrickMario so they can be aware of this query, by the way.
Edited by Inky100resolved "See the subpage" vs. crosswicking Live Action TV
~Mariofan 99 removed
two Franchise Original Sin examples from YMMV.Obi Wan Kenobi and replaced it with something to the effect of "See FranchiseOriginalSin.Star Wars". I feel like this practice violates Crosswicking policy (i.e. I'm okay with having a franchise hub subpage but I think examples should still be crosswicked on individual work pages), but since I wrote one of the examples myself, I want a second opinion to avoid edit-warring.
They also failed to actually add the removed example to the subpage.
Edited by StarSwordopenAbby Cadabby Live Action TV
From PeripheryHatedom.Live Action TV:
- Showing that history can indeed repeat itself, Abby is currently getting the same treatment as Elmo, mainly from the generation of young adults and teens that grew up watching and fell in love with Elmo. Abby's popularity with the older fanbase is a Broken Base—some find her a refreshing change from the two decades of Elmo (although how long this will last before they start getting annoyed by her remains a question), while others still don't care and still want the focus to be back on Big Bird and the Muppets (and human characters) of their time. The root cause of the hatedom here is The Generation Gap combined with a Nostalgia Filter, combined with a heaping dose of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.
openDisagreement/Slight Edit War over DesignatedHero Live Action TV
So Troper Desert Dragon put up a Designated Hero entry on the YMMV page of Marvel'´s runaways. I deleted it because I don't really think that applies. Not just because of my own opinion (what he thinks), but because pretty much every Runaway in that season has done their own share of morally ambiguous things that the rest of the group disagreed with (heck, Nico even killed several people) and is called out in-universe, respectively. Alex is not singled out as in any way particularly bad.
The troper however put it back up. How should we proceed?
(Ironically, a similar topic was started over myself recently^^)
Edited by Forenperserresolved Edit war report Live Action TV
In Kamen Rider.
On 20th Feb '17 5:55:07 AM, Ryulong remove fan-speak term from description with edit reason "don't use that it's stupid as shit".
On 21st Feb '17 5:40:54 AM, Wolf Thunder add it back and claim that Ryulong edit is rude.
Personally, I agree with Ryulong that the term doesn't make sense (I think Western fanbase of Kamen Rider is too small to worth noting their lingo). And while their edit reason is bad, it's direct at the term itself, not editor.
Too bad, checking history, this isn't the first time Ryulong remove it. So it is Edit War.
openClarification On This Live Action TV
From Mean Character Nice Actor Live Action TV
- Mark Pellegrino has pretty much built his career on playing assholes that include abusive husbands, Jacob and Lucifer. In real life, he is a devout christian and family man who comes across as very sweet, relaxed, funny and very appreciative of fans.
But from Wikipedia:
- Pellegrino was born in Los Angeles, California. He is an adherent of Objectivism, a philosophy created by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand.[4] Pellegrino does not identify as a libertarian. Though he considers this description to be the closest to his political views, he considers libertarianism to be an anarchist political ideology and has distanced himself from this ideology, describing himself solely as an Objectivist, stating that he sees a place for government in society.[5][6][7][8] He has described his political views, instead, as classical liberalism,[9] and has also described himself as a radical capitalist.[6] He is married to Tracy Aziz and is the stepfather of her daughter Tess.[10]
- Pellegrino is an atheist.[11]
Did someone pull the bit about him being a Christian out of their ass, or has renounced faith at some point?
Edited by shoboniopenMultiple Idiot ball edits and YMMV/TheFlash2014S4E10TheTrialOfTheFlash Live Action TV
Regarding an idiot ball edit . I removed it once as it seemed stated that Barry was stupid for refusing reveal his identity. Therefore due to his stupidity was unsympathetic. When a ) he gave valid and justified reasons why he wouldn't. The safety of his friends and family b ) various criminals have escaped before Killer Shark and Peekaboo so if they knew who he was his family would be targeted c ) As said to Iris he and the others would be constantly on the run and d) Noone in the Arrow verse has a publicly outed themselves for the same reason. Also it looks like another attempt to label Barry with a what an idiot or idiot ball trope for not revealing his identity. Despite those tropes were deleted for not applying to Barry's case. I have deleted it once. As has another troper. But it has returned either as unintentionally unsympathetic or what an idiot . The argument is the same that Barry is stupid for not revealing himself. However Barry made plain WHY. The same reason no one in the Arrow verse secret ID is public. Safety of friends and family.
Not only from Metas but everyday criminals he put away.
Not only that as a CI working for the Police any case worked and convicted could lead to hundreds of mistrials as Barry reveal as a vigilante could give grounds of conflict of interest. Basically the trope is calling him an idiot for not taking an action that could not be taken realistically
I want to remove the trope but that would be edit warring. Put it up for discussion but nothing.
Edited by TuvokopenMoving the Dark Matter TV series and its subpages Live Action TV
Just bugs me: why was the Dark Matter TV series moved, and not in its entirety? The WMG, dedicated entirely to the series (as opposed to the neglected RPG system) was left with the old name, and the move itself happened last weekend.
openHelstrom editing conflict. Live Action TV
Alright, so there's a bit of an editing conflict going on with the Series.Helstrom page involving myself and a troper by the handle of alliterator. As of right now, Marvel TV is basically on its way out while Marvel Studios prepares their own series, and Helstrom is one of the last shows that the former group made. It's basically DOA with the showrunner gone, and Marvel noticeably have used absolutely no branding on their project, the latter of which is something that I pointed out. (The reasoning for this seems to be that they want to not associate Helstrom with their future shows and movies, but I don't think that that needs to be in the article.) I also pointed out that the series lacked this labeling supposedly due to horror themes, despite three Marvel projects based around horror (Moon Knight, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, and Blade) being actively developed with the Marvel Studios banner intact.
However, alliterator disagreed with that last part of the edit and excised it, saying that it had to do with a TV-MA rating which we don't even know that the show has — not that TV-MA stopped any of the Netflix shows from getting the Marvel label. I initially reinstated the edit with an explanation. Here's how it read before the bold part was cut out:
"Curiously, the series has absolutely no Marvel branding associated with it in any advertising, whereas the same was not true for any prior Marvel TV productions — or film productions without any association with Marvel Studios, for that matter. According to Marvel, this was due to the show's "horror-based content". However, this decision is in contrast to how the Marvel branding is kept on Marvel Studios-produced projects with supernatural themes, such as the television series Moon Knight, or the films Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Blade."
This edit was reverted for being "speculation"... Which doesn't make any sense to me, as Helstrom has objectively no Marvel branding while all three
projects that
I listed
have the Marvel Studios logo attached to them (and not just the generic Marvel logo). I figure that this discrepancy is noteworthy enough to be mentioned and I wanted to say my piece before I asked to have it reinstated.
openWillow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be listed as Unintentionally Unsympathetic Live Action TV
I know she's already listed as a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds but I think she should also be listed under UU.
For starters, she attempts to destroy the world and her friends just because some killed her girlfriend. To top it all off, she hocks herself up on dark magic despite knowing the implications. It's not for her to decide if the world needs to be destroyed or not yet the show paints her as a tragic figure despite her attacking her friends. To me, she comes off as petty and traitorous and the forgivenss and redemption she gets is completely undeserved
Edited by deathnoteFNBOI58openInappropriate Armchair Diagnoses on ST Discovery pages Live Action TV
Hi... UGH! I've been tempted to make a couple edits to the Star Trek Discovery pages... in particular the various, rather un-clinical claims that Cadet Tilly's "special needs" are "code for some form of Autism." But I thought doing so would touch off an editing war, so I'm bringing it here.
I am a veteran of 8 years in Autism services and I find these armchair diagnoses very frustrating. I don't think "Ambiguous Disorder" would be inappropriate to list on the character page or the main page in reference to Tilly, but 1) for context, it's clear her "special needs" have to do with allergies, this was estalbished in the first ep where she appears. 2) Being socially awkward in itself is NOT enough to make a clinical diagnosis of Autism. 3) I wouldn't care so much about this if it didn't come off like a bunch of amateurs offering armchair diagnosis of "Autism" based on a character who is socially awkward and sometimes blurts odd things out, and 4) if I didn't think that this contributed to a serious public misunderstanding of Autism and to problems created where persons in online subcultures relentlessly self-diagnose (and try to justify behavior they know is inappropriate by appealing to their clinically uninformed self-diagnosis.)
As someone trained to assess for and diagnose Autism, who can genuinely speak from an expert opinion on this subject, I see ZERO traits of Autism in Tilly. The armchair overdiagnosis is, no pun intended, a "symptom of a broader disease" that we in social work are trying to bring attention to: the problem of "over-medicalization" or "over-pathologization." If Tilly presented with significant sensory or communication challenges, I'd be more open to other tropers' armchair diagnoses, but there is ZERO clinical basis for the claim that Tilly "offers a more realistic portrayal of Autism" than actual intended portrayals of Autism in other media that have actually been established by "Word of God" and/or in canon, in-universe (IE Max in Parenthood), or implied much more directly by other observed behaviors (like Holtzman in the new "Ghostbusters.")
Sorry, guys, but as an expert in Autism, I don't see it. The truth about behavioral health is that lots of people can be socially awkward at times without requiring a mental health diagnosis to justify human diversity.
Can we please be more judicious about this on the Star Trek Discovery pages? For the sake of not over-pathologizing/over-medicalizing the degree to which social skills vary in human beings even without Autism? Can we PLEASE stop labeling every character in fiction who sometimes struggles with social skills as "Autistic?" Or at least acknowledge this could be YMMV and link to Useful Notes: Autism for a more clinically informed persepective/comparison?
I apologize if this strikes a nerve with Trek fans who themselves have Autism and want to believe Tilly is Autistic too because it's positive to see someone who reminds them of themselves on a Federation Starship. But that's still wishful thinking that has yet to be directly behaviorally implied or confirmed by "Word of God" and there's even a lot of evidence that Tilly is not supposed to have Autism in-universe.
Edited by FTDopenEdit War on Agents of SHIELD recap Live Action TV
This troper https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=Peeve
has basically started an edit war (last 3 edits) about what he personally sees as 'objective', despite the matter being present as the typical 'AI gains consciousnes and overthrows her creator' on the show, with Aida doing a lot of things clearly out of spite and self-interest, not just 'following her programming' and several tropers besides me see it the same way, so just deleting it is not very productive.
openCall-Back vs. Continuity Nod Live Action TV
I came very often upon examples of Call-Back that don't fit for not being plot-significant, and move them to Continuity Nod. As the description of the trope specifies:
- [A Call-Back is m]ore or less a Shout-Out to itself — but if that's all that it's doing, then it's a Continuity Nod; a Call-Back brings back an element that is actually relevant again.
However, on Andor S2E10 "Make It Stop", one such move of mine was reverted by palm529sw, despite the two concerned examples being pure flavor with no relevance at all to the episode. I did PM this editor, but got no response yet.
I'd like to have confirmation that my interpretation of Call-Back is correct, and that I can move the two examples back to Continuity Nod without being accused of edit warring.
Edited by StFanopenQuestionable edit. Live Action TV
These two entries were recently posted on YMMV.Young Sheldon by user "marshenwhale".
1) Under Unintentionally Sympathetic:
- Sheldon throughout the entire show could be considered this, since he clearly is on the spectrum but the show never directly acknowledges this or delves into it, all of the times where he acts stuck up or talks down to his family for his intelligence, they treat him like a kid who is just being bratty, but since he is neurodivergent, it means his parents never handle his behavior correctly. This is probably at it's worst in "An Entrepreneurialist and a Swat on the Bottom" where Sheldon is portrayed as being completely in the wrong for calling Meemaw selfish and trying to run away to see a lecture when nobody will take him, but the fact is that Sheldon literally does not understand why what he is doing is wrong considering he doesn't read social cues properly, and is shown to not understand when he is hurting people's feelings because from his perspective, he's just stating facts. So Meemaw spanking him and him later getting grounded makes all of the adults in his life look like morons since they have clearly seen by this point that Sheldon doesn't think in a typical way and just choose to ignore it.
2)Under Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
- Going off the point above in Unintentionally Sympathetic, basically the entire family in most of their conflicts with Sheldon since they all fail to recognize that he isn't neurotypical. This doesn't apply to Georgie since he rarely fights with Sheldon, but it does make George, Mary, and Meemaw all look really dumb. You could argue that this is a result of Mary being very religious and therefore not being very educated on what the spectrum is, but considering the show takes place over multiple years you'd think at some point one of the adults in Sheldon's life would wonder if it applied to him. Worst of all, this even makes Missy look really bad, because as a child growing up in the 80s and 90s, she most definitely would have learned what someone being neurodivergent was at some point but never even brings it up, which causes all of her dislike towards Sheldon to make her look like a total jerk instead of just a child lashing out at being the The Un-Favourite, which is clearly what the writers were going for.
I have some issues with this. For one, while hinted at in both The Big Bang Theory and Young Sheldon, Sheldon has never been confirmed to be neurodivergent, not even by Word of God, who blatantly refuse to answer definitively. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say he is, but there's no official confirmation.
Also, the post reads like the poster has a bit of a bias. Neurodivergent or not, some of the shit Sheldon pulls is uncalled for and would reasonably make most people angry. When I watched "An Entrepreneurialist and a Swat on the Bottom", I was under the impression that Sheldon knew what he was doing was wrong but did it anyway because his needs are more important to him than everyone else and he acts like that quite often in both shows.
Should this stay or not? Or should it be re-written? I'll let the tropers decide since this is YMMV and I am not the biggest Sheldon Cooper fan so I'm likely biased in My own way.
openFanservice Tropes/Halo (2022) Live Action TV
I'm sorry if this should maybe go in another place, but I wasn't sure so I figured I'd start here. I've bene going over the Series / Halo 2022 character pages (which are a bit of a mess, but I'm trying to focus on one issue), and I figured I'd start with something small that's been bugging me.
Namely, the Mr/Ms. Fanservice tropes are used no less than 4 times on the character page, with what I would call very thin justification.
First, there's John the Master Chief
- Mr. Fanservice: Scarring aside, Chief is a very ripped man underneath all that armor. The third episode has him buck naked, with several full views of his rear, in the SPARTAN barracks, even if the scene in question has him taking a suppression implant out of his back using a knife.
As pointed out, the scene where John is nude is so he can perform surgery on himself, it's not scored or lit or shot in "look at how sexy John is" sort of way. He is muscular, but then so are plenty of the characters on the show.
Next, Kai another SPARTAN
- Ms. Fanservice: Like with her CO, Kai is shown naked in the SPARTAN barracks for a brief moment to show off her well-toned physique—and that she took out her hormonal pellet.
Same thing, the purpose of the nudity is not to titillate, arouse, or otherwise turn on the audience.
Third, there's Vinsher Grath, played by Burn Gorman
- Mr. Fanservice: He gets a scene in a bathhouse in Episode 4 showcasing his toned physique.
This is another one that I don't think qualifies, because as the scene did actually seem to be using the nudity for a purpose, but not fanservice. It was more so A: Vinsher could give secret orders to an assassin and B: to show how decadent he is now that he rules the planet-he's smoking a cigar in the bath as well, to showcase that he's living the high life.
Last but not least
- Ms. Fanservice: Makee gets to undress in the second episode, showing off her very attractive figure in the process (aside from some scarring).
There is, to be fair about a two-second shot of Makee's backside from a wide angle, but once again the nudity is being used to tell a story-namely, Makee is changing out of the clothes she wears when working for the Covenant (which she has presumably worn for decades) and into more human clothes. The scene also cuts to John explaining how he felt emotions for the first time in basically forever, to highlight that John and Makee are similar (both are becoming more human, so to speak, which gets brought up in later episodes), and in this case Makee spends a lot of time staring at her body, as if re-examining her limbs to understand that she is a human (as someone basically raised by aliens, she doesn't think of herself much as a human), so the nudity is, again, being used to tell a story.
So, I think the problem I have is these examples are operating under the idea that "nudity, for any reason at all=fanservice". Am I making too much of this, or should these examples maybe be removed? Obviously, anybody can be turned on by anything, and all of these characters are played by actors who are conventionally attractive, but given how attractive everybody is in tv/film, I figured there were some thresholds for Mr./Ms. Fanservice to avoid overuse and gushing.
For what it's worth, every single example was added by one troper, chris4449.
Edited by ArthurEldopenDoctor Who WMG - guessing for future episodes on episode-specific pages Live Action TV
How do we handle tropers adding WMG for future episodes/seasons of a show to an episode-specific WMG page?
I'm specifically looking at WMG.Doctor Who 2022 CEN The Power Of The Doctor, which accompanies the equivalent recap page. Now that episode has screened (at least in the UK), all of the existing WMG has been marked as Jossed, Confirmed, not addressed in this episode etc.
However, the final cliffhanger leads into the three 2023 specials, which are very likely to get their own recap pages. And we're now getting tropers adding new WMG about the plots of those specials and the possible payoff for the cliffhanger.
My initial thinking is that this isn't a problem in the short term ... but as soon as those new episodes go out, adding any Jossed/Confirmed response to those guesses would be a problem. It's a Spoilers Off page, but even if they were tagged, my understanding is that a WMG page for episode #22 of a series shouldn't include any spoilers for episode #23 onwards?
So should we leave the WMGs about the next batch of episodes there indefinitely, move them once a more appropriate WMG page is created, or immediately delete them from the page?
(I did delete one on this basis, explaining my thinking in the edit reason - but more are now being added and I'm second-guessing myself)
Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1openEditing quibble - HOTD Live Action TV
Hello everyone, I hope this is the correct place to ask this?
For this page https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Heartwarming/HouseOfTheDragon
(sorry I am not sure if there is a better way to link it) there has been some disagreement about it's contents.
I recently edited it to cut down some length; for example some of it went into too much paragraphs detail as opposed to a one paragraph summarization, I feel some personalised bits like "Fuck the Seven Strictures! And the Faith!" as a viewer's reaction don't fit and others are outright wrong in interpretation (while saying theirs confirms all other interpretations are wrong) as confirmed by a showrunner himself/ Word of God (Miguel Sapochnik). I didn't add anything, just removed some pieces.
I explained the reasons in the edit box as it would be improper to do such a shift without a given reason - however it has since been edited back with the following comments from the original editor;
"No-one who can't speak English properly is removing another's examples" / "Miguel Sapochnik told viewers their T Vs were at fault and not his lighting direction in 'The Long Night'. He has no right to give a carte blanche interpretation of a scene."
Can I ask what to do here? The first comment especially did feel hurtful and mean-spirited.
I would like to edit it since as I said I feel it goes off the format and it's confirmed some of it is incorrect, but I don't want to get into that with those sorts of comments to me or spark an editing scuffle which would be unfair for everyone.
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.
openUse of Filler on work pages? Live Action TV
I'm adding the trope Filler to work pages, but would this sort of thing be OK for usage:
- Filler: Due to its high episode count of 22 episodes, this show has some episodes that tend to be standalone and not focusing on the story arc, and it's been one of the show's major criticisms. However, some episodes that seem like filler actually are relevant later; but in general, there are episodes which don't add much to the wider Story Arc of the season itself.
To avoid trope misuse - Square Peg, Round Trope - what would qualify as filler?
I've added this to series like Grey's Anatomy, Supergirl (2015) and The Blacklist but want to avoid square peg, round trope.
Also, would the trope qualify for that administrivia page?
If anyone could help I'd be grateful for any advice.

Troper Metal Max 1991 has been constantly re-adding Alternate Self to MCU: Benjamin Poindexter that connects it to the 2003 Daredevil movie even though those films haven’t ever crossed over or been connected so they’re not canon. Are they commiting an edit war?
Edited by MaxyGregoryyyy