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:
openUrban Hellscape description edit concern
On the description for the Urban Hellscape trope, Tropers.Shadowgazer removed a link to Lower-Class Lout.
Their reason was: "Unfortunately there is too much truth in the Lower Class Lout trope to be dismissed as just a lie used for the persecution of innocents."
The problem with this is that within the context of the crack epidemic (which was the IRL impetus for the Urban Hellscape trope), it was used as an excuse. This isn't even being political: it was the entire point of the trope.
The point of Urban Hellscape was to portray lowlife criminals as savage animals that needed to be put down by violent police or vigilantes. Even the description of Lower-Class Lout itself states: "While these stereotypes are Truth in Television to some degree, it's debatable whether the stereotype comes from Real Life, or said real-life examples are imitating the stereotype." This makes it even more weird that they would use Truth in Television as a justification for removing mention of the trope in the UH description. Lower-Class Lout is exactly the proper trope to use in the description within that context.
At the very least, that aspect in the description of the trope just feels extremely disingenuous, IMO, but I've invited Shadowgazer here to give their perspective.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenUndoing edits without discussion
I originally raised this on the Moments clean-up thread, but it was suggested I flag it in ATT as well. The full clean-up thread post is here
.
The summary for ATT purposes is this:
The troper Bellaboo2 has added back two Tear Jerker entries (removed from YMMV.RWBY Chibi), with original wording intact. The edit reason
is long, but basically makes it clear that:
- They're aware of the Moments clean-up thread and have read the reasons for the removal (since they're twisting one of the reasons).
- They have zero intention of engaging in a discussion about it.
- They seem to be confused about the difference between a summary of a scene and a summary of an audience reaction to a scene.
- They can't be bothered to rewrite the entries as legitimate audience reactions to get them added back to the page in a legitimate way... despite being willing to write audience reactions into the edit reason itself. This baffles me: if you're making the effort to write a legitimate audience reaction, why not do it to the entry itself instead of the edit reason?
Edited to add a link to the YMMV page the edit occurred on.
Edited by WyldchyldopenBad history in OlderThanDirt
I believe I asked about this a year or two ago, but can't find the old thread.
Someone has added highly contentious statements about the oral traditions of certain cultures to Older Than Dirt - claiming without any hedging that they accurately record memories of events from tens of thousands of years ago. While of course this is possible, the truth of these claims is fundamentally unknowable, and for this reason the vast majority of relevant scholars don't take these ideas terribly seriously. As Older Than Dirt itself notes:
"Note: Tropes originating in mythologies/religions that aren't Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Anatolian, Vedic, or Chinese are never indexed here, as we have no idea whether those stories even existed in 800 BC, or what form they had, centuries or millennia before they were first written down. [...] Early folklorists often started with the assumption that folktales and myths were primordial; more research has shown that people can and do modify all sorts of tales for any purpose."
I think we should generalize the above statement to cover oral traditions as well. Otherwise, we'd need to list every single culture with a flood myth, as it's at least conceivable that such myths retain a memory of some Ice Age-era deluge.
openBlank Recap Pages
So when checking the "new page" edits for today, I stumbled upon a troper named Sabrinamichelle4ever and their apparent hobby...of just creating dozens upon dozens of blank recap pages for the show 6teen.
I'd list them all, but that'd be an exercise in insanity. I sent a stub notifier for a random one of them, but it's probably best if you just see for yourself.
openEdit War involving Flame Bait
Today, I was going through and removing Flame Bait from various YMMV pages (and a couple of others). When I found this page
, I saw it had a So Bad, It's Horrible entry (which was apparently an intended reaction). I promptly removed it; no other YMMV page has a SBIH entry, and hasn't in a long time. But then, I looked at the edit history (probably should have done that to begin with) to see who added it. Somebody had added it only a few days ago...
And they had also added it back in November of last year. And I had removed it a few months later (which I forgot about). It's an edit war. Which I've (unknowingly) got myself into.
So, what should I do? If I revert my own edit, will that push me out of Edit War territory? Or will it not make a difference?
Edited by Shadow8411openTroper Can't Grammar
Hollywill06 is making some pretty huge mistakes. I caught them with their Timeline.Gunners Genocide page, which...sort of speaks for itself, both when it comes to grammar issues and general lack of wiki understanding. note the page has been cutlisted; Mightymewtron copy pasted the text in a comment. The strange thing is, they've flown under the radar since at least February of this year, and scrolling down the list, yeah, none of their edits are passable- due to both grammar mistakes and other issues, like formatting problems
, a lack of wiki words
, and stub pages with a context issue
. For those who don't feel like clicking wicks, their grammar issues include:
- Lack of punctuation
- Randomly capitalized words
- Randomly uncapitalized words
- A complete lack of proper wiki formatting, in good number of examples
- Run-on sentences
- Generally confusing / nonsensical phrasing
I sent a notifier today but for problems this severe I'm not sure waiting around is a good idea.
Edited by WarJay77openCharacters/TheFuzzyPrincess
Right. So! On the 19th, I removed an "example" of UsefulNotes.Bisexual from Characters.The Fuzzy Princess as Useful Notes are not tropes. A day later, Mark Lungo added it back, knowingly starting an edit war over something incorrect (though he at least asked for a better solution). I only noticed this on the 22nd, so I sent him a PM restating that Useful Notes were not tropes, and that the character's bisexuality should be mentioned in her character description if it must be mentioned.
He does a burst of edits the following (aka this) morning. The characters page remains untouched, and my PM goes without a response.
So I did it myself, once again removing the bunk example and instead mentioning her being bi in her character description. I have been told multiple times that cleanup edits do not constitute as an Edit War, so I thought it was fine... but then I realized this could easily be interpreted as a Single-Issue Wonk, so I'm making this query ahead of time to clear things up.
resolved Here's johnny?
Taylorswiftscat edited the quotes page for replacement scrappy
, just as one of johnnyfog's socks did, along with johnny himself. They also edited a bunch of quotes pages and the WCW page
.
They do seem suspiciously familiar with the wiki for a newcomer, based on my interactions with them.
Edited by SkyCat32
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
openExpy limit
I SWEAR I remember seeing somewhere that a character can only be an Expy of one other character, and if they're listed as being an expy of multiple other characters, the example is misuse. This led me to delete an example on Characters.My Hero Academia Izuku Midoriya which broke this rule.
This morning, I woke up to a PM from Nejiiuyn saying that I was wrong and that there's no such rule. Looking at the Expy page again, it is indeed never said that one character can't be an expy of two other characters.
Am I going crazy, or was the restriction removed recently?
Edit: I see this rule in the Expy cleanup thread
, but again, it's not on the trope page itself.
openLarge Scale Edits and no response Live Action TV
So troper Metal Shadow X is one of the most active editors of the Arrowverse. And I want to make it clear that I do not wish to diminish him or his contributions which, for the most part, have been pretty good. However, as of late he keeps making
tons of large-scale adjustments to all pages, constantly moving stuff and never discussing any of it.
While that by itself might not warrant any action, what tipped me off was him moving the Star Labs Page
to Team Flash
.
The biggest problem here is that he outright deleted some character folders and hasn't put them up anywhere else. I have messaged him this morning, but haven't received anything back. He did make 1 edit afterwards though.
What would be the best course of action?
Edited by ForenperseropenWhat Do I Call This? Print Comic
I want to make a page for the current Iron Man comic. The problem is, with current naming convention (I was recently told we're moving away from using the writer's name in the work name), the only thing to really name it is Iron Man 2020 because it started last year and isn't part of some publishing initiative or anything.
Except... there already is an Iron Man 2020. Two, in fact. The Iron Man 2020 page is used by a series that is legitimately called Iron Man 2020, which is itself reusing a name from a graphic novel also called Iron Man 2020.
What should I call the page for Iron Man Comic That Started In 2020? And should we make Iron Man 2020 a disambiguation page for both Iron Man Comic That Started in 2020 and Comic Called Iron Man 2020 From the Year 2020?
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopenEdit War
On Creator.Allison Pregler, Gemma
added the following:
to a second-bulletpoint, to this:
SailorTardis
removed both the second level-bulletpoint and the last sentence as Natter.
Gemma has since then added this to the above example:
openRule of Cautious Editing Judgement wicks
I've been involved with the currently-quiet cleanup effort
surrounding Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment sinkholes, and thus far, I've been adhering primarily to the idea that the "And that's all we'll say about that" and "overwritten euphemism for Broken Base" varieties of ROCEJ wick should be removed on sight.
Looking at the remaining ROCEJ sinkholes, I'm wondering if those could do with removing as well, considering the impetus behind the cleanup effort and the distinction of what is meant by "rule" in this context. Some of the remarks with ROCEJ sinkholes reference the ROCEJ as if it meant "rule" in the sense of something that everyone has to make sure to follow, but the ROCEJ page itself and some of the discussion in the ATT post that led to the cleanup effort
refer to ROCEJ as a rule in the sense of something that happens naturally, therefore tropers shouldn't need to be reminded of the ROCEJ every time something contentious comes up.
Would I be clear to remove any remaining ROCEJ sinkholes with that latter idea of the term "rule" and the subsequent fact that tropers don't need reminders of the rule in mind? It won't be a unilateral removal regardless, since there are some wicks on the related page where the example specifically talks about the rule itself instead of reminding people to follow it, or indexes that ROCEJ happens to be categorised on.
Edited by Akriloth2160openSilverlady
I have a few concerns about Silverlady's edits, especially where the TLP is concerned. I'll start off with their wiki contributions, though.
- Back in August, I sent a grammar notifier for this edit
. Notably, while they made other edits there, those two were never even touched. Grammar issues are still an issue with them
even now.
- They have a very
consistent
issue
with
context
, though IDK if any notifiers have been sent for those yet. However, let's put a pin in this.
- They also have an issue with trope misuse. For example, this
Crapsaccharine World example massively exaggerates both how idyllic and how awful the town is for Belle and her father. This Too Dumb to Live example doesn't make clear what's happening
, as it implies Belle attacks the fake beast after he was impaled, at which point... where's the danger? Etc.
All of these issues can be seen on the TLP, and while there, they've been told about these issues and yet haven't made an effort to fix them. Additionally, they're one of the tropers who keep posting new examples in the middle of discussion, which means they're ignoring everything that says there might be an issue here... something proven by their voting history
, which proves they hat just about anything (save for three random drafts that, ironically, everyone else liked, and no they didn't explain it). note and if you're wondering how I'm getting this info, TLP history is public, you just have to add "?for=username" to the URL
Here's some of their recent TLP post history:
- Serious Hero, Comical Sidekick
has them posting a bunch of examples that, as Amatheiu pointed out, don't fit the description. Additionally, this came in the middle of a discussion over if the trope was covered.
- Diabolical Deer
: Poor grammar/spelling in their example, low context as to what the Moose's plan is and how evil they actually are, and using the trope as "evil deer character" when the trope at that point was specifically about subverted innocence and not just '"evil deer".
- Involuntary Servitude
: Multiple examples starting at the linked post, many with poor grammar and others that don't describe the servitude itself, instead of just saying "they were made a slave".
- Misplaced Mindfulness
: In this one I just can't see the trope at all tbh... It's just a character making a mistake and falling into guilt.
- Children's Covert Coterie
has them again adding something that doesn't fit.
- Comically Tiny Wings
had them learn what a ZCE was, but don't be fooled. They were told on the 17th, but these issues are still showing up in their edits and in the other examples, with the Recap.The Owl House S 3 E 1 Thanks To Them one being on the 18th and the Involuntary Servitude ones being on the 20th and 21st.
- Jumping backwards quite a bit, Diagnosis: Silence
is their first TLP post according to the history... and even back then they had trouble with following the definition and was called out for it.
Now, obviously not all of their posts and edits are bad, but these are some recurring patterns that they're falling into even after being called out. They're clearly going back to threads because they constantly notice when their examples weren't added, so there's no real justification for not learning yet to read the descriptions thoroughly and not stopping to engage with any ongoing discussions. This is, of course, without getting into their grammar and context issues, which, let's be clear...
openRude Troper
From what I've seen, Mr Stranger 616 seems to be rude. I realized he posted a harsh message in the discussion page
for KarmicButtMonkey.Western Animation. When I asked him to remove a Super-Trope he added to WesternAnimation.Donald Duck as a Sub-Trope was already listed, he started being rude. (Granted, he did do so
. I also won't reveal exactly what was said, partially because I don't think we're supposed to do that.) For the record, the trope he added
was Butt-Monkey and the Sub-Trope that was already listed is Karmic Butt-Monkey. I also would have deleted it myself, however, I didn't want to get in an Edit War since I previously deleted
the Butt-Monkey entry.
openPotential Sockpuppet
I suspect Lord Of All could be a sockpuppet of Lemarhoffman, just like RileyBrant 20, yoyospinner17, and gothamarkhamlord
. They both:
- Talk alike, e.g. leaving "Minor edits" as an
edit reason
.
- Have edited the same page, at least when Lemarhoffman was Riley Brant 20, namely Characters.The Amazing World Of Gumball Gumball Wattersonlinks evidence #1
, evidence #2
and Characters.The Big Bang Theory Sheldon Cooperlinks evidence #1
and evidence #2
.
- Are apparently Batman fans; Lord Of All has an avatar
of the man himself with Lemarhoffman's page saying on his page that he enjoyed several works from said series.
Also, it's notable that Lord Of All's account seemed like it was created shortly after Lemarhoffman's otherwise most recent sockpuppet (Riley Brant 20) was bounced
.
I would like to hear what you all think, especially if you're a mod. (From my experience, mods are the best at figuring out whether a troper is a sockpuppet or not.)
EDIT: For the curious, I referred to Lemarhoffman as a guy because his page reveals he's that.
Edited by RandomTroper123openEdit war on Condemned by History
The following entry:
- The "angry reviewer" style was a popular style of reviewing in the late 2000s and early 2010s. It was popularized around 2006-2007 by The Angry Video Game Nerd and The Nostalgia Critic, who made a name for themselves deliberately reviewing bad video games and movies with comedically exaggerated anger. They often interspersed their "reviews" with skits, foul language, and Vulgar Humor, alongside giving background information about what they reviewed. The genre also spread outside of reviewing video games and movies, with many critics reviewing comics or animated works.
However, in the mid-2010s, the genre saw a massive decline in popularity. Once AVGN and The Nostalgia Critic blew up, Sturgeon's Law kicked in: a large number of inferior copycats tried to ape their style by simply ramping up the vitriol and Vulgar Humor, while ignoring the wit and research they had in their videos of the two aforementioned review shows. Several of these videos also contained personal attacks against the creators, as well as against fans of the works being reviewed, which were not always done humorously. By the late 2010s, viewers began to see such reviews as too mean-spirited and often done in bad faith, gravitating towards straightforward video essays with less vitriolic humour. Perhaps the final blow was a series of scandals involving Channel Awesome, and The Nostalgia Critic's poorly received review of The Wall, which showcased all of the problems of this format.
Nowadays, the only truly successful shows that survive with this style are the aforementioned AVGNnote Largely due to the Grandfather Clause, James Rolfe's tendency to stay out of Internet drama, the formula often being changed around to work with the original style on top of being more informative and extensively researched, and Rolfe being as respectful as can be to both fans and the creators of the content he reviews when not in character, Angry Joenote Mainly because he regularly does positive reviews as well and his criticisms are more often than not actual criticisms instead of anger for the sake of anger and JonTronnote Who phased out the style for more surreal, zany humor over time. Even Doug Walker himself, despite being the main inspiration and source of criticism for the genre, significantly toned down the anger in his Nostalgia Critic persona when the show was Un-Cancelled and incorporated film re-enactments and surreal comedy. Most of the critics known for the genre have either retired from reviewing, suffered from declining viewership for sticking with the old formula, or have transitioned into a more professional style, with some, like Quinton Reviews and Lindsay Ellis, going so far as to publicly disavow their older videos.
had the bolded portion added
by Cavery 210.
Neverwood recently removed it
with the following edit reason:
Cavery 210 then added it back
with the following edit reason:
openNo Title
On the page for Bogleech, Bog himself (under his TV Tropes username Scythemantis) removed and changed some examples, saying in his edit reason for the YMMV page that they were inaccurate or obsolete. If it were some other user, that would be one thing, but the fact that it's the creator himself makes me concerned like there's a little bias going on...
Edited by MrMediaGuy2open Other M
The Analysis page on Metroid Other M should be cut
. Or at least seriously overhauled.
To put it simply, that's not an unbiased analysis, it's an extensive review with a vested interest in "saving" the game. I went back in the history to try to find the undo point, but apparently the analysis page was created purely to host it.
This isn't the first time someone has gone out of their way to "explain away" the intense problems with Metroid: Other M and try to "clarify" how audiences who took issue with it "don't truly get it". The review itself - both on-page and the linked Lexicon Lookout review - are polite, sure, but also...wrong. They make many extrapolations that are more than generous, and they've bled out onto the other pages associated with Metroid: Other M. I'm planning on cleaning them up myself, but I don't know what to do with the Analysis page.

This time, it's impracticaltroper for unilateral moves.
Basically, back in May, they moved the page for Jill Roberts from Scream IV
to a different page while we were in the middle of discussing what to do with it. They came to the CSP thread
, explained their reasoning, and admitted they should have left an edit reason. Today, I noticed they created Breaking Bad: Hector Salamanca without discussion or leaving an edit reason again, they merged characters from Better Call Saul into Breaking Bad character pages (I don't disagree with it, but again, no discussion occurred), and created The Walking Dead (2010): Gregory. I've pinged them to the CSP thread to explain themself but I figured I should bring it here too.