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:
openIncredibles 2 Award Snub Western Animation
The Award Snub entry has been a contentious one for Incredibles 2, and has been added and deleted multiple times over the years.
Those that add it are fans of the franchise, jubilant over finally getting a sequel and are disappointed it didn't win the Best Animated Picture Oscar.
Those that remove it point out that it's not an Award Snub situation, Incredibles 2 ran against Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse which was universally acclaimed to be a groundbreaking achievement in animation. As such Incredibles 2 simply lost to a superior film.
We're in the situation of it being added back again with the troper, perkeez, insisting that "Some people preferred Incredibles 2. As long as some people agree with the entry, it belongs in YMMV."
I don't know if it's worth arguing that point, however, I think the entry as currently written is problematic:
- Award Snub: Incredibles 2 was a strong contender for the 2018 Best Animated Feature Academy Award, but was very unlucky another great animated film was released in the same year. It lost to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which broke a six year run (2012-2017) of a Disney/Pixar film winning that category. Incredibles 2 only received 7 wins and 40 nominations compared to 40 wins and 71 nominations for Spider-Verse. In most other years, Incredibles 2 would have won the Academy Award.
Issues:
1) It leans very heavily into the presumption that if Spiderverse was not in the running then Incredibles 2 clearly would have won the award. In 2018 there were several equally good challengers. Wreck-It Ralph 2, Isle of Dogs, Incredibles 2. To imply that Incredibles 2 was the clear winner of those three, is speculation and doesn't need to be part of the example.
2) The line "broke a six year run" is just a trivia factoid that has nothing to do with Incredibles 2 being snubbed or not and kinda implies that Incredibles 2 was snubbed simply because of its Disney/ Pixar pedigree.
3) The wins/nominations statistics should be removed. While it illustrates how Spiderverse won more awards and thus won the Oscar, the gap between it and Incredibles 2 is quite large. Spiderverse won over 5 times the awards (40 vs 7) and had almost double the nominations (71 vs 40). These facts show just how much of an underdog Incredibles 2 was to winning the Oscar that year and undermines the case that an Award Snub even occurred at all.
I opened a discussion on this and three tropers participated (myself, perkeez, and Larkman) but we could not achieve a consensus.
Reference: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=YMMV.Incredibles2#comment-141341
I suggested this wording to reflect the feedback of Larkman and myself... (Example A)
- Award Snub: Although Incredibles 2 was a solid candidate for the 2018 Best Animated Feature Academy Award, it lost to the equally great Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. It was clearly a case of two strong films being in competition but There Can Be Only One and Spiderverse ran a clean sweep of the awards circuit that year.
Perkeez suggested this wording which takes into account issue #3. (Example B)
- Award Snub: Although Incredibles 2 was a solid candidate for the 2018 Best Animated Feature Academy Award, it lost to the equally great Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, breaking a six year run (2012-2017) of a Disney/Pixar film winning that category. It was clearly a case of two strong films being in competition but There Can Be Only One and Spiderverse ran a clean sweep of the awards circuit that year. In most other years, Incredibles 2 would likely have won the Academy Award.
So I put before you:
A) Should Incredibles 2 even have an Award Snub entry at all?
B) If yes, which wording is the best for the example? Example A or Example B?
Edited by rva98014openEdit War on Characters.Metroid Samus Aran
Hey guys. Back again with another Metroid-related problem.
Tropers.Mew1996 is falling into the trap of over-zealously editing after the release of a hot work, and as a result making several bad edits on Characters.Metroid Samus Aran.
The foremost issue is that they re-added a second page quote
after said quote had already been removed by another troper.
In that same edit, they have also added several poorly-written trope examples:
- A Cain and Abel entry that violates Examples Are Not Arguable (it starts off calling itself an "odd example" and then tries to bend over backwards trying to justify how it "fits" the trope).
- An Ax-Crazy "subversion" which is Not a Subversion. Ax-Crazy is a specific thing, not just "a person kills a lot of stuff", especially if the stuff in question are predators and aliens out to kill her first.
- A massive Wall of Text added to He Who Fights Monsters which goes into way too many tangents, flowery prose about Samus and her relationship with the Metroids, and potholing tropes which are unnecessary and distracting.
I've already removed or trimmed down all except the quote. The only reason I haven't touched it first is because of the aforementioned Edit War. Removing at this point would result in a fourth edit, so I brought the matter here first.
Edited by NubianSatyressopen Possible edit war on AlternativeCharacterInterpretation/FireEmblemThreeHouses
I think this might be an edit war, but the time periods between edits are pretty long, so I'm looking for a second opinion.
On February 2020, Tdwalls added this entry to Fire Emblem: Three Houses:
The entry was removed on Vampire Buddha on July 2021 as part of a cleanup effort, and in their edit reason they mentioned that the changes were approved
.
Tdwalls then added the entry back on August 2021 with the following edit reason:
There was no attempt to bring the entry to discussion, and I'm also a little concerned that this particular troper seems quick to accuse people of being defensive over the subject of the entry, as can be seen in this discussion thread
.
openTroper making pages that have warranted immediate deletion
wordlessapple
has recently created a page (along with a couple of subpages) that violate ROCEJ. Specifically, the page tropes real-life people involved in a very long, very toxic comment thread on Youtube. The moment it was brought up
, it was agreed that it should be sent to the cutlist ASAP.
After the main page and Trivia page were sent to the cutlist, the troper who created the page made a YMMV page for it, so I sent that page to the cutlist and noted the cleanup thread. Concerned, I had a quick check at the troper's edit history and came across this
. I wouldn't recommend clicking that link if you're of a nervous disposition (or if you've just eaten), but it's a YMMV page with only one entry. An entry for a trope that has been disallowed examples for a very long time, not to mention the content of the entry itself. That page is also now on the cutlist, and this troper's activity worries me.
openShould there be a "linking section" on every MCU film? Film
Troper TheExtractor has taken to unilaterally adding a section to the top of all the MCU films that links it to the previous/next film in MCU release schedule.
Do we really need such a thing given that there is a Franchise page Marvel Cinematic Universe that lists all the films in the franchise and allows such navigation to each film already?
It's going to make the MCU films formatted differently than other films and does that open itself to having a "link section" for other film franchises like James Bond, Star Wars, etc?
The main thing that concerns me about this is that TheExtractor did something similar back in January 2021, where they unilaterally added a "cast list" to every MCU film.
Yet, they never seem to post any kind of discussion item beforehand of "I think this would be a neat thing to add to all MCU films" and then ask for feedback and wait for consensus before making changes to dozens of pages.
Edited by rva98014openTroper Report
I'd like to report a Troper by the name of Zibmaster (edit history here
) - they've edited sporadically since 2015, but I wanted to talk about their small edit spree over on Manga.Death Note and YMMV.Death Note. A while ago, I added this entry to the main page:
- Ambiguous Situation: A little less than two weeks after Light's death, Mikami dies in his cell under mysterious circumstances, and Matsuda confronts Near with the theory that Near used the Death Note on him to ensure Light's defeat and killed Mikami once he no longer had use for him. Near doesn't say anything before Matsuda walks off in disgust, and apart from Word of God saying "Near cheats", it's never explicitly confirmed nor denied (only in the manga; the anime removes this ambiguity by having Mikami kill himself on the spot during the final confrontation)
Zibmaster deleted it from the main page by essentially saying the theory didn't make sense (which is pretty irrelevant for Ambiguous Situation when the work specifically posits the idea), and decided the best course of action was to put it on the YMMV page. Over the next twenty minutes and four edits, they then deleted the star from an unrelated Adorkable entry, put the Ambiguous Situation in the wrong spot and had to move it, put a blatant justifying edit underneath it explaining why the theory might not work (and decided to be rather loose with punctuation and not include spoiler tags), then tweaked the justifying paragraph twice.
Since I wrote the initial entry, I'm nervous about doing anything to it and being in an edit war, but we've got main tropes on YMMV, justifying edits, tweaking, not spoiler tagging when necessary, and punctuation issues just to top it all off.
Edited by STARCRUSHER99openEdit War in YMMV/FinalFantasyXV Videogame
Immortal Bear re-deleted
an entry I restored to Final Fantasy XV since their original deletion lacked an edit reason. They've provided an explanation after the fact, but most of it comes off as personal opinion and dislike of the Episode Ignis ending for reasons unrelated to what the original entry was about (that being that audience perception of its tone shifted due to Dot F), rather than an impartial collective observation of the reactions of the fandom at the time.
I've PM'd them as much, pointing out to them that they seem to take the YMMV label too literally as its actual focus is to describe audience responses to a work rather than to post personal opinions, that contrary to their belief the page is not trying to wage a war over which ending is objectively better, and I've also pointed out to them that though they claim the only people with a non-negative opinion are a Vocal Minority, other tropers have made the same observations as me regarding the state of the fandom at the time.
They seem to believe that because Dawn of the Future has an overall score of 9.0 on Good Reads (which often has a userbase culture distinct from the social media sites I frequent like Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, or imageboards, and whose score doesn't always take into account things like the specific comparative tone of the ending), while Episode Ignis rates an average of 7.0 (the score again mostly focusing on things like gameplay rather than tone), that it invalidates everything I've said above, since I don't have hard sources on hand for every tweet or social media comment I've seen regarding people being softer on Episode Ignis's ending or disliking Dawn of the Future's approach.
I don't think that makes for an effective counterargument as YMMV does not mandate sources in general, and Dawn of the Future's perception outside of GR tends to attract a lot of negativity in its own right, not to mention disregarding said potential inherent selection bias (the people posting reviews were probably accepting enough of the controversies around the book to read through the whole thing). The reviews themselves on GR are variable with many positive scores criticizing the ending, and many reviews that praise the ending having mediocre scores on the whole.
None of the arguments they've provided contradict the initial point (that people's opinions of Episode Ignis became less hostile once Dawn of the Future was announced) of nor justify the deletion of the entry describing how people's hostility to a certain alternate ending seen as overly happy, dipped off once another, even happier ending showed up. Especially since the edit reason for deleting it is focused mostly on arguing why Alternate Ending #1 is badly written and any talk of audience reactions is more about pointing out that a portion of the audience exist who liked the other newer, even happier ending, even though the original entry never claimed otherwise or to speak for the entirety of the fandom.
Update: They are now accusing me of outright lying and being biased in favor of one ending for disputing their deletions, despite the major issues here having to do with a lack of, followed by questionably irrelevant removal reasons in what is a potential edit war. Update 2: They've taken it back after I explained myself further.
Edited by AlleyOopopenWandaVision edit war
There appears to have been an Edit War over the entry on YMMV.Wanda Vision Episode 5 On A Very Special Episode over an Unintentionally Sympathetic entry. I don't have context for the show, but I figured it was worth bringing up to those who did.
Lighthammer added it as follows:
- Unintentionally Sympathetic: While Hayward does go overboard with his attack on Wanda, he is absolutely right in the fact that an entire town is being held against their will by -what seems by all accounts to be- her. The trio of Darcy, Monica, and Woo on the other hand, seem to ascribe to Protagonist-Centered Morality.
emeriin removed the entry with the edit reason, "they're not saying she's not being awful just there's something more (like massive trauma) than just 'terrorism'."
Dragon Master 408 re-added it, while also adding more context to the entry. Their edit reason was "Unintentionally Sympathetic is about characters who are unintentionally sympathetic. And as it stands, I think there's a good case for Hayward being this, especially since Darcy herself describes him as a dick before it cuts her off, so it seems like we're supposed to find him in the wrong."
Then The Goddess Is Dead tweaked and moved the entire entry to Informed Wrongness saying, "It's not about sympathy for characters. It's more about the fact that the episode accidentally presents that Both Sides Have a Point when they clearly only intended for Woo, Darcy, and Monica to be right."
Not sure if it needs to be discussed further as Goddess seems to have found a compromise but it felt worth noting.
Edited by mightymewtronopenIssues concerning WMG/FIsForFamily
Recently, an Edit War has broken out between two factions; a troper named Johnny 2071 who has acted in violation of Complaining About Shows You Dont Like, and both myself and fellow troper AHI-3000, who have taken issue with his edits. Johnny 2071 has an obsessive hatred of the Netflix show F is for Family and has taken to venting his frustrations about the show on the WMG page. Prior attempts to negotiate with Johnny 2071, on my part, have only led to tempers flying high. This attempt to resolve the issue personally has gotten me nowhere, so, on AHI-3000's suggestion, I have come here to try and work things out far more professionally than previously handled. How do you suggest this issue be resolved?
open Reporting edit war, including self-report.
Troper Duncril 01 is still at it with removing Arch-Enemy from hero pages and insisting it is a villain only tropes, despite this already being resolved on this thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=95619&type=att
I undid the edits here
and here
while linking that thread as the edit reasons PLUS private messaging them, but he has failed to respond or listen, redoing the same edits that got undone.
I presume he has also removed this trope from countless other character pages too, but I'm not sure which ones.
Edited by Snowy66openGrojfan
Grojfan’s been showing numerous issues in their edits.
- They added images to Headscratchers.My Gym Partners A Monkey and Trivia.Casagrandes. The former is under “No Pic” on Image Pickin' Special Cases, and the latter probably shouldn’t have a pic either.
- They added an image to Heartwarming.The Casagrandes which I don’t understand in the slightest.
- Some self-indentation here
.
- This edit has two ZCEs, some concerning usage of the r-word, and some odd misuse of
Depraved Bisexual.
- Transphobic edit with more bad indentation and some CRF misuse
.
- Created NauseaFuel.My Gym Partners A Monkey, which has lots of ZCEs.
- They also added lots of misuse to Radar.My Gym Partners A Monkey (which they also created), but all of that is from a while ago.
open Potential Nazi Apologia?
On YMMV.Extra Credits, this comment was added by Supreme Interceptor under Critical Research Failure regarding this video
:
- Despite what Dan might have you believe about every last soldier in the Nazi military being Nazis and German, not all of them were Nazis or even German. The Nazis had plenty of formations made up of non-German conscripts and auxiliaries that fought under their command including White Russians
, Serbians
, Finns
, and Armenians
. And even more than this, it is a well-known fact that Hitler made an effort to recruit Muslims
from Eastern European ethnic groups like Albanians, Tatars and Bosniaks into the Schutzstaffel's ranks
.
The video itself is controversial, to say the least, but this seems like both A) misuse of Critical Research Failure, as the topic wasn't related much to the video anyway, and B) potentially trying to whitewash the Nazis, saying that they weren't that racist. Is it just me, or does this seem problematic?
openProblematic Review Web Original
Kelekona
left a review for Protectors of the Plot Continuum
, which is basically them importing personal drama from their interactions with the authors and not actually reviewing the work itself.
I flagged the review for drama importation, and Very Melon left a couple comments criticizing the review for that. Kelekona then decided to make a YMMV page for them, accusing them of being "pro-bullying". So now, this has descended into personal attacks against other users on the site.
Edited by chasemaddiganopenPM from a banned user
Today I received a PM from a forum-banned user in response to a forum post I made. Apparently they were still reading the thread and thought it appropriate to chime in via PM since they can't post on the forum itself.
The PM itself is also of a nature that probably would have gotten thumped had it been a forum post (calling for the death of a real-life person over a bad video game). It is not, however, an appeal for me to help them circumvent their ban by posting for them, for what it's worth.
Do I just tell them to buzz off and block them, or is this something that should be handled by moderation? I'm not entirely clear on the rules regarding the intersection of PMs and forum bans.
openAvoiding an edit war.
On Happiest Season I found a Unintentionally Unsympathetic that didn't really explain how a character is mean to be sympathetic:
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Harper. She is understandably afraid to come out to her conservative small-town family, but it doesn't excuse that she lied to Abby about being out and continuously acted in a way that made Abby uncomfortable.
- There's also the unambiguously cruel way in which Harper outed Riley, which is largely brushed off but which other, thematically similar films have treated as a Moral Event Horizon.
- And the fact that she smashed Jane's painting.
So I took it to the clean up thread here
. And most seemed to agree with me. So I cut it. However another troper York back added it here
with no new additions, except a link to an un related site and the reason of "after the movie came out, the points made in Fan-Preferred Couple and Unintentionally Unsympathetic have been discussed on social media and by Aubrey Plaza herself, so these entries have been added back in." Which I don't thinks is allowed. They also unhid a Zero Context example I hid for Fan-Preferred Couple, which from my research I am not sure qualifies, without new info. Then whoseliner deleted the second bullet here
I am trying to avoid an Edit war.
Edited by BullmanopenEdit War; self-reporting
Self reporting that ~St Fan and I have gotten into an Edit War (specifically on Fishbowl Helmet, but probably on others as well). I'm crosswicking examples from a Magazine, so I checked Media Categories, which doesn't have a category which fits, so I created a folder based on the namespace. Checking the history because it feels familiar, I find that St Fan has been changing the folders to say Print Media, which also isn't on Media Categories, but encompasses Comic Books and Literature in addition to Magazines.
So wiki consensus; which folder name is the correct one to use? Which one should be added to Media Categories?
open Potential agenda editing
So in Trans Audience Interpretation there's an entry regarding Naoto from Persona 4 being interpreted as trans, which says:
- Persona 4: Naoto Shirogane had an infamous character arc and dungeon level centered on gender issues, complete with a laboratory and gender reassignment imagery. The game confirms that Naoto is actually female, with some Values Dissonance about career-related gender roles that didn't translate cross-culturally. Regardless, many disregard what the game itself says because Naoto being trans has more potential to explore.
(Note that the entry was reworded per the complaining thread
.)
After I edited that entry with the one suggested on the thread, user gorobestboy deleted some lines regarding the interpretation
with no edit reason. So I'm concerned that there is some agenda going on here.
resolved Deliberate rulebreaking with unjustified reason
Plasma Power added an image to a page that already had an image
, which isn't too bad by itself. What bothers me is that their edit reason
suggests that they knew it was against the rulesnote which it is, pages are only allowed one image, and new images must be contested in the Image Pickin' threads, yet they added it anyway "for fun".
openTropers with an agenda
A couple of tropers, tsthysys09 and xxdster clearly have an editing agenda in the Final Fantasy XIII Main Party
and Lightning Returns Final Fantasy XIII
pages (links go to page histories), removing any and all examples that even tangentially refer to the Hope/Lightning ship and also the spoiler warning for Hope's folder (which I thought was extremely odd since that was added per the violation of spoiler policy thread and they didn't retag the spoilers).
Of note, tsthysys09 is a brand new account with only those two edits to the page and xxdster has been inactive since 2016, up until the 13th of this month, again with only edits to those pages. I think that's highly suspicious, either this is drama importation, or these two might possibly be the same person (possibly to avoid being suspended for an edit war) since xxdster would removed some tropes and then tsthysys09 would remove the exact same ones again after they were readded by another troper.
Some of these tropes were added by myself, and I don't want to stick myself in an edit war, so I'm bringing this here for attention.

I have some concerns about Ty Sargent 2001. Unfortunately for me, a lot of them are things that we don't make notifiers for.
Yesterday, Ty made this
blank draft, which would be bad enough, but it's also for a nonexistent work of their own creation that already has a Darth Wiki page here, and with said Darth Wiki page being seeming self-plagiarism from this wiki article
. They also gave that Darth Wiki page a trivia page, which is against the rules for Unpublished Works (and is also misleading considering the work does not and never will exist).
Then there are the issues outside of their Sesame Street fanfic. Their edits today on The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss are to add way too much information to Kick the Dog and make it a wall of text
. This addition
is redundant parabombing, and they added bad indentation here
and here
, which I think might be the one thing I've been able to send a notifier for so far (without having to script my own, which I'm not the best at).