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:
openOverlapping character pages due to misnamed work Web Original
Transformers: War for Cybertron is sharing its character page with the unrelated Transformers: War for Cybertron because someone misnamed the former. The show is actually called Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy (also, I'm not sure if it counts as Web Animation if it's a Netflix original, since Castlevania isn't considered web animation, and War for Cybertron calls itself an anime).
Can I move it? And if yes, should it be to Transformers War For Cybertron Trilogy, Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy or Transformers War For Cybertron Trilogy?
open Complain-y edit on Twitter Web Original
With Twitter now doubled their character count to some users (I havn't have that yet as of 2017/10/01), as I was editing the page to tweak out the recent edit from a user named reterusu, I left out this part out of reluctance to remove it and had to consult to you guys about it first:
I think it's more of a Broken Base than a metaphorical shark jump for having 280 characters, (I myself kinda like that idea. 280 is more than enough to add more tags.) but I'll let you think about it more. I intentionally left that sentence because I thought to myself that removing that might start a potential Edit War.
EDIT: Changed some instances of "this troper" to "I to avoid confusion.
EDIT 2: I wasn't being clear here. My bad. The 'this troper' to 'I' edit" was for this thread only.
Edited by alnair20aug93openDoes This Violate No Real Life Examples? Web Original
I added an entry into Police Are Useless for The Last Podcast on the Left, but only afterward did I realize that the trope is in the No Real Life Examples, Please! index. I now have two questions: does the following violate NRLEP? If so, do I take it off the works page, too?
- The Last Podcast on the Left:
- The hosts often note times when police ineffectiveness is a major factor in how long a serial killer goes without getting caught. For example, in the Dean Coril series, they note the Huston police were underfunded and understaffed so much that, as a result, they actively avoided investigating things like homicides and shut down a victim's family when they provided a letter written by their missing son that they suspect was faked, but which Missing Persons took as evidence he was no longer missing.
- They also note occasions when a killer was caught by dumb luck or mistakes rather than anything police did. Leonard Lake and Charles Ng, for instance, were only found out when Lake was held for questioning for an act of compulsive shoplifting by Ng, and police never suspected anything serious until Lake killed himself while in custody.
The trope is discussed on the show, but on the context of real life events (which I included so they wouldn't be purely general examples).
If this does violate NRLEP, could I rewrite the example to state that the hosts hold this view and then describe a character they created, Detective Popcorn, as a way to mock them?
Edited by sgamer82openA Review Series that Doesn't Exist and some Possible Self-Promotion Web Original
There is a review series called Movie Dorkness on Agony Booth. The page for it, however, was littered with some references to a so-called ascended fanboy called the "Professor Detective". According to the edits, this person has their own review show and is a fan of the host of Movie Dorkness, and indeed, there's a page for said show. Only the show doesn't exist. The page for Professor Detective mentions a You Tube account, but I found no videos by any user under that name. It mentions a Tumblr, but I found no such Tumblr bearing that name. And to top it all off, the edits done to both pages were done by a user named Professor Detective. I edited out some mentions of the person in the Trivia page for Movie Dorkness, but I'm wondering if this is possible some kind of self-promotion for some anonymous troper?
Edited by AdricDePsychoopenNightmare Face Web Original
Nightmare Face has a lot of examples from TV Tropes itself, which lists pages whose images fit the trope. The thing is, examples are not supposed to mention that they provide the page image. I already cleaned up a bunch of examples that had unnecessary "This example illustrates the show's Nightmare Fuel page", so do I delete all of the TV Tropes examples?
openLimiting vitriol/harsh edits on a YMMV page. Web Original
I’m the creator of a web original project, Diamond In The Rough, a Touhou self-insert fic part-deconstruction part-satire, and I also overlook the trope pages for it.
Recently, there’ve been some patronizing edits, but I’m not sure how to go about it. The edits have some legit complaints, but the wording feels hostile. If I’m not mistaken, the rules for creators on their own YMMV pages are stricter, but at the same time, what if an edit broke TV Tropes’ guidelines, but the creator wanted to clean up said edits while maintaining the essence of the complaints?
Here is the page in question: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/DiamondInTheRoughTouhou
As you can tell by the recent edit history (in addition to me hitting enter too quickly and having to redo my edit reason separately), some of the edits were either less-than-flattering or just outright broke the rules. If it’s against the rules for me to edit this, I guess let me know and revert the page, though somebody else will have to clean it all up.
I’d rather leave the person who made the edits out of this since, again, they had common complaints, plus it seems by the fast edits it was done in the heat of passion. I just mainly wanna know what I, as the creator, can do to clean up the language/what I can do in general within the creator’s guidelines.
Edited by SpaztiqueopenReadding incorrect entries Web Original
On Characters.Death Battle Season Eight, this entry was added:
- Adaptational Wimp: Not Link himself — who puts up a strong fight against Cloud before losing — but his much-hyped Fierce Deity form, which gets hit almost immediately by Cloud's Omnislash V5 Limit Break and then dies seconds later without even so much as landing an attack.
I removed it with the reasoning that it was less about Link being nerfed and more of Cloud simply being stronger, as seen in the animation itself
.
Then Gf93, a troper that I have brought up multiple
times
for reinserting entries before, readded the entry under Clipped-Wing Angel, which again, does not count since the Fierce Deity is never shown as a detriment to Link.
Is it okay if I remove this entry?
resolved Kill Count and Dead Meat are separate pages Web Original
As the title says, I've noticed that The Kill Count and Dead Meat (the latter of which refers to the channel that the former series is hosted on) are separate pages, but most of the Dead Meat page and its subpages focusses on Kill Count, with hardly anything talking about the rest of the channel's content. What should we do about this (besides possibly renaming the page for Kill Count to remove the "The" if we're keeping the page, since that's not in the title of the show itself outside of James' signing on/off phrases)?
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Edit War ...Death Battle again Web Original
In Jul 23rd 2019, qwigly added this to DeathBattle.Tropes A To C as an example of Bloodless Carnage.
- In the span of Weiss Vs Mitsuru, Mitsuru actually manages to draw more blood from herself (via the Evoker) than she does from Weiss
In Jul 27th 2019, ironcommando edit the entry to following, with "Evokers don't draw blood." as edit reason.
- In the span of Weiss Vs Mitsuru, nobody lands any bloodletting hits despite both combatants being impaled at two different points of the battle.
Today, qwigly edit it back with "Someone probably should have told Torrian that, as there is very clearly a blood effect when she fires her Evoker." as edit reason.
- In the span of Weiss Vs Mitsuru, Mitsuru actually manages to draw more of her own blood than she does of Weiss's, via the Evoker..
As someone who played Persona 3, I can confirm that it doesn't draw blood. And rewatching that episode of Death Battle, it's not really look like blood either.
openDifficulty Figuring Out a Trope Web Original
I have an entry I want to add to In Spite of a Nail but I wasn't sure it counted, due to having a bit of an Entry Pimp habit when it's a series I like a lot, so I'm trying to get it vetted. I haven't had any luck in Trope Talk, either with the Is This an Example Thread or a dedicated thread
on the matter, so I thought I'd try here.
I've only gotten one response on the matter, from Fighteer
, who said that the two worlds/timelines involved seemed to different than was normally allowed under the trope. The question I've been pondering since is, isn't that the point? My understanding of the trope is that despite the differences involved between two universes or real life and the fictional setting, certain significant events still occur more or less the same? I've gone through a few versions, but this is the most recent version of the entry.
Any and all help is appreciated.
- In the Red Panda Adventures episode "The World Next Door" and its Sequel Episode, "A Dish Best Served Cold" a time traveler from an Alternate Timeline's World War II named Baboon McSmoothie convinces the Depression era Red Panda to help him steal the prototype of an invention that would one day become a major part of the Nazi war effort by offering him the case file of a Villain Team-Up that killed his Red Panda's Flying Squirrel. It's noted in-universe that there are enough differences between the two worlds, such as the Red Panda's costume being different, the alternate Flying Squirrel being a teenage boy instead of an adult woman, and three out of five members of the Villain Team-Up being either Gender Flipped or having different identities entirely, that neither the Red Panda nor McSmoothie are sure how much, if any, of the file's information will be relevant. Despite these differences, the conference the prototype was to be displayed at, the Villain Team-Up, and eventually World War II itself, all occur across both timelines. The conference in particular is part of the reason the main universe was picked for McSmoothie's heist in the first place, besides avoiding a Temporal Paradox.
openTroll edit of The Guy with the glasses; needs fixing Web Original
Peng 1 recently deleted nearly everything off That Guy with the Glasses and replaced it with a single line denouncing the show. I'm not capable of fixing the page myself since I don't really know how the editing works, plus I'm not sure what the proper response to said troper is. Regardless, figured I should bring it up, even if I'm not entirely sure this is the right place... And now another troper, Magicwolf 78, in his own words, plugged his favorite book series on the page as well.
Edited by Hero2014openLinks to Video Reviews Web Original
I've been noticing an increasing number of articles that have "Hilariously reviewed by popular youtube critic LINK" or "you can watch a great let's play here LINK" as the bottom paragraph. Is this appropriate?
These links can be fun, but putting them in top of the page seems inconsistent at best and like ugly self promotion at worst.
resolved "Blitzo" or "Blitzø" for ''Helluva Boss'' main character? Web Original
There's been a bit of a back and forth between myself and another editor—TheAmazingBlachman—as to whether or not the main character of Helluva Boss' name should be spelled "Blitzo" or "Blitzø".
For context—the main character in question is an imp assassin who in his youth was a circus clown named "Blitzo", but as an adult he spells his name "Blitzø" (how it's spelled on official merch and in the credits, with the "ø" representing a crossed-out "o") or "Blitz⦻" (how it's spelled in the episode "Truth Seekers"—again to emphasize that the "o" has been crossed out) and pronounces it "Blitz" (which is how some of the other characters spell it) in order to make himself sound more mature and badass.
TheAmazingBlachman's point of contention, to my understanding, is that "ø" is an actual letter in several languages, and therefore Helluva Boss improperly using it in the main character's name to represent a crossed-out "o" comes across as nonsensical to speakers of those languages—akin to a played-straight usage of The Backwards Я. Ergo, TheAmazingBlachman has been going through and changing "Blitzø" to "Blitzo" because—to quote the editing reason—"Ø is an actual letter, not a silent O, and his name sure isn't Blitz-euh."
I'm personally of the opinion that—at least when referring to the character as an adult—his name should be spelled how the series does in the credits and official merch, but our discussion in DMs was going in circles without resolution so I figured the matter should be taken to ATT for a vote rather than risk an edit war starting up.
resolved Wrong namespace? Web Original
I was looking through the videos on the VideoExamples.Super Mario Bros page for potential videos that could be kept there, when I came across JustForFun.SMB Plumbing page.
At first I thought, "okay, this is a troper trying to have fun with that Advertising Campaign / ARG website where it's like it's going to the in-universe website where Mario and Luigi are running it"
But then I looked at it and saw it cataloged the actual thing the website was and how it worked both in and out of universe (the page itself might need some cleanup).
I couldn't find a forum thread immediately for a problem like this, but am I correct in thinking this shouldn't be a Just for Fun page, and should go to a different namespace like a Website?
openDisagreement about the Awesome/BobChipman page, don't want to risk an Edit War Web Original
Not too long ago, a troper called 309216364 (is that the ID of an already-banned troper or something?) deleted the single biggest entry on this page, about Bob's massive "Really That Bad" video series on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which I will post here:
- During Part 1 of his Really That Bad analysis of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Bob makes a comparison between the narrative structures of The Avengers (2012) and Batman V. Superman stripped of all but their most basic elements that underlines one of the main reasons the former succeeded where the latter failed: Avengers is straightforward, easy to understand and can be enjoyed without prior knowledge of the source comics or the preceding films because it doesn't lean on them to work as a narrative with its single Sequel Hook a post-credits shot of the Greater-Scope Villain, while BvS is a disjointed, convoluted mess that doesn't follow an understandable through-line narrative, paradoxically wants to differentiate itself from the source comics yet relies heavily on them for most of its emotional weight to carry and desperately tries to set up future films through gratuitous in-universe viewings of preview trailers. And he does all of this while giving every person or object with enough plot relevance a funny nickname, with plenty of Actor Allusions and character comparisons to go around.
- The entirety of his "Batman V. Superman" Really That Bad analysis. Chipman delivers his critique in a mature respectful tone, without insulting the filmmakers personally, and goes into detail acknowledging and addressing common arguments in defense of the film.
- Two of the best things he does is to effectively and succinctly fix the movie's greatest problems.
- The first being the 'Diana/Wonder Woman watching the teaser trailer for the Justice League scene', wherein Bob proposes letting Batman, the normal human who is discovering a lot of this new information for the first time, and whose perspective the audience has been following the entire movie, be the one to discover the existence of more metahumans. This not only gives the scene greater suspense and dramatic weight and a greater impetus for Batman to fight a perceived threat like Superman, it also gives a fantastic reason why Diana never showed up for a hundred years and was breaking into Lex Luthor's drives: She was helping cover up the existence of metahumans (and her secretive race) from people like Luthor.
- The second is the entire 'conflict' of the movie being forced and contrived and way too repetitive by the time the two people in the 'V' actually get down to versus-ing each other. Bob fixes the movie without any drastic overhaul or extensive retooling with two simple words: No Batman. The plot remains the same, with all the conspiratorial machinations and the populace distrusting Superman kept intact, but transfer all of Batman's actions and motivations to Luthor, thereby making Luthor a sympathetic, justified, heroic counterpoint to the detached, reluctant, destructive Superman, which would have greater thematic resonance and streamline the plot. For an added bonus, Bob suggests keeping Ben Affleck, with all his likability and charisma and on-the-ground heroism, as Luthor, which would provide even greater metanarrative implications and make the plot more compelling.
- To make what can only be described as a near definitive 3-part, four hour critique about Dawn of Justice, all the while maintaining his normal work responsibilities, is a feat of dedication that can only really be described as impressive.
As well as forgetting to delete the next paragraph that followed on from that (an observation about Bob possibly doing a "Really That Good" series on The Lord of the Rings) and leaving it orphaned, his reason for deleting the entire segment basically came down to "I don't think it's awesome and I don't like Bob". His cited reason from the History page:
Apart from the fact that this reason for removing the entry is entirely subjective (I thought "Really That Bad" was awesome, and I'm not even the one who wrote the original entry), it's also blatantly incorrect- there are several segments in Bob's series where he goes out of his way to be fair to the film and admit the things it did well and the ways it could have worked (even though it didn't), so the troper's claim that "he is entirely biased against the film in all aspects" suggests he edited it solely because of He Panned It Now He Sucks.
I could have just restored the edit myself, but I'm quite certain the guy will just delete it again, triggering an edit war situation. And since the last time I got close to an edit war I nearly got myself permanently banned, I'm not even going to get close to the possibility of it happening again. So I'm hoping there's some way to get a 3rd party judgement on this?
Edited by ArcaneAzmadiopenComments As Moments on Webvideo pages Web Original
I've noticed that there are a few moments pages for youtube series (mostly funny moments) where some of the moments listed are comments on one of their videos instead of anything from the video itself. Wouldn't those technically count as meta moments, or at least not count as actual content from the show itself?
Edited by AfterwordopenHow should I go about searching for information on this wiki? Web Original
I know this sounds like the dumbest question in the world, but I wouldn't ask it if I didn't feel like I was missing something. The search function on the site itself (I don't use mobile so I don't know if it's different there) only goes 10 pages of 10 links per search, which is obviously inadequate for deep diving. I've found a way to circumvent it by putting -[insert page I've already seen here] in my search, rinse and repeat as I go along, filtering out more and more stuff to prolong my search as much as I can. However, I can't help but think this is extremely inefficient in a way that might be obvious to everyone except me. So is there something I'm missing here? I am aware I could just do exactly what I'm doing in Google search or something, but I just want to make sure if there is an in-site solution to my problem?
resolved Would this count as an EditWar? Web Original
On Sep 5th 2021
, I removed the Trope Informed Wrongness from the YMMV page of the fifth episode of Helluva Boss, due to said entry being Trope Misuse as a result of misconstruing the events of the episode.
On Dec 30th 2022
, jOSEFdelaville added Informed Wrongness to the page again, but with a different entry. I believe this is also an example of misuse that misconstrues the events of the episode, as Millie wasn't the one who brought up the fact Moxxie had a gun, Moxxie himself did. Millie only said he didn't need to prove he was stronger physically after he lamented not being strong enough, saying basically to stick to his strengths when facing him this time. Moxxie was the one who said "I probably should have used this earlier, huh?" after remembering he had a gun on him, Millie's reaction being more exasperation when she sees him remember and make the comment. "I love ya hon, but for fucks sake."
Would it count as an Edit War if I removed the trope since I had already removed Informed Wrongness once before, even if it was a different entry?
Edited by RebelFalconopen Etiquette on deleting contentious/false moments examples Web Original
Got something that has been bothering me for a few weeks and rather than go the edit route I thought I would get a proper consensus first before taking any action.
Over on the H.Bomberguy heartwarming page there is an example for his RWBY criticism video with two subpoints and one third point. Most of the second and the third dot points are potshots at the show or it's company disguised as compliments to HB and could easily be cut out without much controversy. It's the main entry that I have an issue with.
To summarize, in his video on RWBY HB portrays himself as having been a life-long fan of Monty Oum (RWBY's creator who was long deceased at the time of the video), and the heartwarming entry on his page is talking about how much respect HB has for Monty as a creator and a person. The problem is that this is a lie; whilst Monty was alive HB made a lot of outright venomous statements on Monty and his skills that contradict his claims about how he was always in awe of Monty's work and considered him a personal hero. This makes HB contentious in the RWBY fandom since a lot of people see him as pretending to respect Monty (or at the most generous obscure his previous hatedom which he's since backed down on) to make his criticism seem unbiased rather than someone who went into the show as someone who thought its creator lacked talent and thought it looked average at best. It touches on a sore spot in that community of haters of the show using Monty's name as a way to bash the show/it's remaining creators.
So to circle back to the entry, it's repeating the claim that HB respected Monty and his work. That is a lie as HB's own forum comments can attest to. Would that be enough to get the entry taken down, or does this still fall under a subjective opinion and so the entry stays? If so, would deleting the sub-entries which lean towards taking potshots at the show and it's fans be acceptable?

I was browing the YMMV.The Nostalgia Critic page and noted an entry on applicability.
" Applicability: Autistic fans have welcomed Critic with open arms, with Doug comparing him to similarly coded Peridot, and Home Alone 2 bringing back the cereal special interest, all the nerves from the episode resulting in a meltdown when it's mocked and getting forgiven when he stresses out over thinking he ruined it. Hyper Fangirl has her fair share of Misaimed Fandom, but her most devoted audience are neuroatypical women who relate to her struggles and want to see her get better (without Critic having to forgive her). "
I didn't know what applicability as a trope was until I looked at the Laconic page, but it says "Word of God asks the audience to make up their own mind about the theme." which doesn't seem to fit these examples... and neither do many examples on the applicability page itself.
"Prometheus was designed for Wild Mass Guessing. One moment of Idiot Ball could mean an hour of theorizing behind why it is so. "
"The Day the Earth Caught Fire (1962) was made long before global warming and climate change became big issues, but is still about climate change which has been caused accidentally by technology (simultaneous nuclear tests at the north and south poles change the tilt of the Earth's axis)."
"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a case of confusing applicability with allegory. The connection between The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and the then-contemporary American political landscape was not even raised until 1963, when summer school teacher Henry Littlefield, while trying to teach the 1896 Presidential election and the turn-of-the-century Populist movement to bored history students, stumbled upon the idea of using the characters and events of The Wizard of Oz as metaphors to teach the concepts. He and his students made a number of connections - the Scarecrow represented the farmers, the Tin Woodman the factory workers, the Wizard was President Grover Cleveland or Republican presidential candidate William Mc Kinley, the Cowardly Lion was Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, the silver shoes were the silver standard, the yellow brick road the gold standard, and so on - and Littlefield eventually wrote an article, "The Wizard of Oz: A Parable on Populism," which was published in the magazine American Quarterly in 1964. You can read this article here. Unfortunately, this was eventually taken to mean that Baum wrote the book as an allegory for the political landscape at the turn of the century despite the fact Littlefield believed Baum had no political agenda when he wrote the book."
" Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid is open to many allegorical interpretations, as are its various adaptations."
So, what is applicability and are these examples valid/applicable? Should the Laconic page be rewritten?
Edited by lalalei2001