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:
open Unilateral Change to "StrawMisogynist"
In January of last year, a troper changed the definition of the "Straw Misogynist" trope to indicate it as a sub-trope of the trope "Politically Incorrect Villain". (And removed a previous indication that examples were "almost always" examples of that trope.) No edit reason was given.
Being, I think, unsure of whether the change was valid or not, I brought up the matter in the "Unilateral Changes Cleanup" thread. There the person who made the edit stated that they didn't know why they had done it (due to the interval of time since then), and to revert it if it was deemed incorrect.
No other comments were given on the matter in the thread, however, leaving me a little uncertain on how to proceed.
My inclination is to revert the change—but to do so myself, with no consensus, feels a little unilateral on my part.
So, I bring this here for consensus: should I revert this change?
Here's a link to the edit in question:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.StrawMisogynist#edit28310966
open YMMV The Batman (2022)
User Bio Yugi removed these entries from "They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot" justifying it as trying to "pare down too many entries" to "what could have actually happened instead of wishful fanfic".
- In the last 10 minutes of the movie, it's revealed that one of the guys behind the Riddler masks is the same guy that in the funeral scene ranted about the "rich, privileged assholes" that ran Gotham. While this is still a major "oh shit" moment for Batman and one that changes his outlook upon the way he's changing Gotham, it would have been far more impactful if he was instead the guy he saved at the start and actually listened to Batman uttering the phrase to the terrified thugs that were about to beat him up. This would not only enhance the already present feeling that Bruce is doing very little to combat a system corrupted to the core, but that he's also sending the wrong message to the people he's supposed to be inspiring and saving. Alternatively, the kid he spared at the beginning could have helped him in the finale, cementing Batman's turn from a figure of fear to one who inspires and helps Gotham's population.
- Related to the above, the Riddler mentions that he isn't much for physical action and mainly relies on his brain. This could easily have set up for the previous murders to have been carried out by some of his followers, with Riddler only orchestrating things. Hints could have been placed in the movie to this possibility, offering an alternate means for realizing the danger in the finale.
- A minor case but some feel Batman should have revealed his identity to Selina Kyle at least near the end. Since Selina mentions Bruce Wayne’s name as one of those "corrupt, white, privileged" people she clearly despises, Batman coming out and revealing himself to her after sometime could have added some extra tension to their growing romance, as well as making her realize that they are both orphans who similarly lost their loved ones to corruption. The set-up is there for it as she mentions Bruce's name in disgust at least twice, but nothing is done with this despite the potential.
- Similarly, Bruce Wayne is in-universe seen as a reclusive and apathetic billionaire, who many characters make assumptions about without knowing because he's seemingly got zero public profile. Mayor-elect Reál proposes he should take part in philanthropy or local politics because of his family legacy, Falconé sees him as someone he can easily exploit and has been for years, and Riddler targets him in-part out of petty jealously but also because the Renewal program has been misappropriated due to his apathy. As the film deals with Batman's evolution from Terror Hero to Hope Bringer, it would have made sense for the climax to see him establish his classic "Bruce Wayne, billionaire Philanthropist" persona, or at least to make efforts to use his wealth more responsibly for Gotham's sake. Instead, while Bruce talks about bringing hope, it appears this amounts to reframing his Batman persona and the film ends without "Bruce" making any public efforts to help the city.
I don't want to engage on edit warring, so I came here to ask if it's ok to restore them or if Bio Yu Gi is right. By the trope standards, the possibility of the story following into the direction has to be stablished (which was done for all these examples, they don't come out of nowhere), but the work ends up doing nothing/little with them, so the "wishful fanfic" justification feels like the troper just disagreed with the examples here and wanted to remove them.
openSelf-reporting involvement in Edit War
On Oct 22nd, keyblade333 added this example
to YMMV.Tales Of Arise.
To summarize, there's a scene in the game where one character stops another from killing a villain to avenging her parents, despite he himself having gotten revenge on said character earlier. Fans felt this was vastly hypocritical, but the story goes on to say that he wanted to stop her because (A) she had too much "hatred in her heart" and (B) he felt Vengeance Feels Empty after having gotten his own revenge earlier.
To me, the entry came across too much like Complaining About People Not Liking the Show, so I edited it
with the hopes of explaining why said moral didn't "click".
Keyblade edited my rewrite again here
and I edited here
, stating "I still don't think this wording is quite right. Not trying to Edit War, so if there's still an issue, I think we shold go to Discussion. But hopefully, that won't be necessary and this edit can find a happy medium." That was probably a mistake.
Keyblade did indeed bring it back up on the Discussion page
, stating that they had "no issues with it" but made a confusing remark about mentioning 'this is what was meant to be the taken response' and 'providing context'.
Then, last night, Tropers.gorobestboy came in and reset everything
back to keyblade's original edit, stating:
I commented out the example entirely and then moved the entire issue to Discussion because now we were smack in the middle of what I feared: a full-blown Edit War.
Here is my most recent
response on the Discussion page for the record.
openDisputed Example on Dated History
I deleted the following example from Dated History because it was utterly pointless ("we thought this, but then someone said otherwise, but then that person was disproven" does not count as an example and is just cluttering up the page). Someone else put it back. Verdict?
- "No Irish need apply" signs were once thought to be a common sight across the United States until Richard J. Jensen wrote a 2002 paper arguing that they were mostly a myth and there was no significant anti-Irish discrimination in the American job market except by a handful of English immigrants who still held the Hibernophobic sentiments common in their homeland. That being said, this paper was itself disproven in a 2015 rebuttal by 8th-grade student Rebecca A. Fried, who listed numerous instances of American signs and advertisements bearing the phrase between the 1840s and the early 20th century.
openUnusual entry on YMMV page
YMMV.Boys Dont Cry has this entry for Misaimed Fandom:
- Most reviewers loved it, but while sympathetic to the character, referred to Brandon as female and seemed to think it was a story about a lesbian who felt she had to pretend to be a boy because of homophobia. One reviewer even said something like "in disguising herself, ironically, this young woman helped other girls find themselves." In real life, Brandon was transgender, but also your average somewhat rugged young man and had the kind of opinions on feminism and lesbianism expected from a young man born in Nebraska in the early seventies.
The last paragraph of that entry seems to entirely be speculative. I searched Brandon Teena and found nothing to suggest he had something against feminism or lesbians. His WP page states that he was against Christian views on abstinence and LGBT (source 8 on the article, if you're curious).
Permission to remove that part? I know little about Brandon but wasn't able to find anything suggesting what the entry pertains.
openPossible edit war on Overshadowed By Controversy?
On September 6th, the troper ooh added this entry
on OvershadowedByControversy.Real Life for infamous activist Louis Farrakhan:
- Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam has long been known less for his support for Black equality and more for his support for Black nationalism, his open contempt for Caucasians, Jews, gays, and feminists, among others, and for making a comment praising Hitler. The fact that he may have incited the assassination of Malcolm X hasn’t helped his reputation, either. As such, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has deemed the Nation of Islam as a hate group. Many politicians do their level best to avoid ties with Farrakhan, and those that do have had their careers destroyed as a result.
Four days later, Chrononaut70 edited
the section to remove the part that I bolded, with the reason "In regards to Louis Farrakhan, the man himself considers Jews to be termites and whites to be less than human, and he prefers to have a black-only society separate from other races".
14 hours after Chrononaut's edit, DongwaChan edited
the section adding what was essentially a rewrite of the bolded part ("less for his influence in the black equality movement and more")... only for Dongwa to remove it almost six minutes later.
I'm not sure if this constitutes as an edit war but something appears to be going on.
Edited by SkylaNoivernopenShould I start a TRS thread for History's Crime Wave?
So, after a discussion on the Laconic Improvement thread
, I figured that something might need to be done with History's Crime Wave. The trope itself says it's about whenever a work uses a historical villain (i.e Hitler and Caligula). However, the title, image, and several of its examples led me to interpret it as "historical villains teaming up". I even based its laconic off it and added a mention of Archived Army as well. On the discussion
, there's a Troper (I assume is the sponsor) mentioning they need some help on the description and whether or not it should be merged with Archived Army. This suggests, that my interpretation might've been what the trope is supposed to be.
I brought it up on the Trope Description Improvement Thread too, but I got no response on that. So, should I start a TRS thread for this?
NOTE: I also looked in the TLP launch list but I found no mention of History's Crime Wave there (the page was created on February 20th, 2012), however, I just learned it's common for pages published around 2007-2012 to not have any kind of TLP history.
EDIT: Added an update regarding its lack of TLP history.
Edited by Cutegirl920fireopenAvoiding a possible edit war
Since there is a possible edit war, I decided to ask here.
- Draco in Leather Pants:
- Varian gained a large fangirl following from the start, so when he started Jumping Off the Slippery Slope and became a full-fledged villain by the end of the first season, many excuses began being made for him, with many refusing to call him a truly bad guy because "he just wants to free his father". Though it may be true that Varian's situation was something no minor should have to go through, especially with him losing his only remaining family member and being abandoned and cast out by all of Corona, including his "friends", it was still due to his own mistakes that his father got sealed in amber in the first place, and his serious crimes and offenses were undoubtedly unacceptable. He directs a good chunk of his wrath towards Queen Arianna, whom he threatens and abducts despite her attempting only kindness towards him, and he implies that if his plan to free Quirin had actually been a success, he intended to terrorize Corona and destroy the kingdrom anyway for revenge purposes. Even in his reappearance in the Season 3 premiere, it's clear that in-universe Varian himself does not see his past actions as excusable or forgivable, hence trying to literally wipe the slate clean with everyone. This is expanded upon in subsequent episodes like "Be Very Afraid" and "Cassandra's Revenge", where Varian further admits that his actions at the end of Season 1 - trying to murder Rapunzel, Arianna and Cassandra out of spite - were completely out of line, and he's now deeply disturbed by what he's capable of.
Recently, the entry was deleted
with the reason, "I think it's covered better under Unintentionally Sympathetic." Well, I don't think so: US doesn't and shouldn't cover justifying or ignoring a character's evil acts, and that's what quite a few people in this fandom do regarding this one. Rumbly as it is, the entry points out that the character's ordeal is a result of his own recklessness, and he tries to murder innocent people out of spite; deleting the entry and saying he's just so sympathetic smells like DILP in practice. Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Previously, this entry was deleted by an apologist troper that eventually got banned
, then restored by The Cool Kat 1995, then deleted again by the apologist troper ban-evading
, then restored by me reverting the ban evader's edits. There probably was even more back-and-forth: YMMV.Tangled The Series has a long and dramatic edit history.
So, while I believe the entry is legit, I'm concerned about getting into an edit war if I add it back again.
If the entry is to be restored, I suggest condensing it somewhat:
- When Varian becomes a villain by the end of the first season, many of his massively numbered fangirls side with him and refuse to call him a bad guy because to them, he is just an innocent child wanting to free his father. True, he is a teenager, and he loses his only remaining family and stays alone for an unspecified amount of time. However, it is Varian's own careless experiment that gets his father sealed in amber, and even Rapunzel's magic hair is shown to be useless against it. Yet, just like Varian himself, his fans often blame his entire situation on Rapunzel, her friends and family, and all of Corona believing that he is completely justified in trying to murder them out of spite. In his reappearance in Season 3, Varian himself comes to admit that his actions at the end of Season 1 were completely out of line, and he's now deeply disturbed by what he's capable of.
Edit: And now, possible ban evasion.
Edited by TenebrikaopenWhat is NightmareFuel/PokemonAdultHorrors?
So I genuinely can't figure out what NightmareFuel.Pokemon Adult Horrors... is? "Adult Horrors" is not a self-explanatory term, nor is it a TVT term. The "description" just seems to indicate that it's "Nightmare Fuel... but canon!" which doesn't seem to be anything separate.
openMisaimed Complaint (Halo 2022)? Live Action TV
So there's a bit on Halo's YMMV page about They Changed It, Now It Sucks!, that is railing against the Fanservice in the show.
- A lot of fans have been complaining about the show's heavy emphasis on Fanservice from a franchise with very little of it aside from Cortana's game design, with the second through fourth episode featuring at least one nude scene, including from the Chief himself. It's even more ironic considering the reaction to Cortana's design for the show, which made her more modest.
The issue I have is none of the scenes in question are played for Fanservice at all. Even calling them nude scenes is only technically correct, as two of them are scenes of characters performing surgery on themselves, another is simply a quick shot of a character getting changed in and out of clothes, and then there's one of a character in a bath that is played less for "look at how sexy this man is" (though it is Burn Gorman) and more for "look how decadent this new ruler of a planet is" Seems more like a complaint about human nudity in general, which seems a bit odd. That's ignoring the weasel words of "A lot of fans".
I figure the example should either be cut or rewritten.
openSilly Reason for Edit War
Last year, I got into a bit of an edit war with Vulkus over Man of Kryptonite, specifically the grammar of the page quote. On December 9th, 2021
, I changed the page quote from:
To:
A little under one hour later
, Vulkus edited the page to remove the spaces after each ellipsis that I added. Unwisely, I readded them
(not thinking about how this would be an edit war on my part), and Vulkus removed them again
. (Neither of us provided any edit reasons.)
After that, I decided to drop the matter, since the matter apparently wasn't brought up to the mods' attention and because I didn't want to be suspended. However, six days ago
, I decided to re-add the spaces after the ellipses. I know that I was probably Digging Myself Deeper, but I think I was hoping that Vulkus wouldn't react and that the matter would stop there — sure enough, though, Vulkus deleted the spaces again
. (Again, no edit reasons from either of us.) At that point, I became motivated enough to PM Vulkus, hoping that we could discuss the matter — however, six days later, Vulkus has yet to respond.
I know that my behavior was unacceptable and probably grounds for a suspension, and that the matter is trivial to the point of being absurd. Nonetheless, I think it's important to bring this edit war to light, particularly because I am fairly certain that ellipses should be followed by spaces in proper English grammar.
Edited by ClancyGardeneropenSuper Mario Bros. - Dork Age or not? Videogame
Both the GameCube/GBA era and the 3DS/Wii U era are listed as a Dork Age for Mario on the video games page. Myself and a few others got into a discussion
about it, and we felt that neither of those actually do classify as a Dork Age. One of the users went ahead and removed the examples. Soon after, however, they were added back by another user, who disagreed with the deletion. The other user was unaware that there had been a discussion about it, so I linked him/her to the appropriate page.
I'm still leaning on the side of 'doesn't count as a Dork Age' myself, but I felt that maybe I should get some more opinions first. Thoughts?
Edited by StardustSoldieropenWMG Grease Film
Every entry on WMG.Grease relates to the movie's cast members, rather than the musical itself. Should the page go on the cut list?
openThatOneLevel.SuperMarioBros weird edit
ThatOneLevel.Super Mario Bros has a user by the name of Vif119
who just asked for a folder to be made right on the bottom of the page itself. He appears to have been here for a few years judging by his edit history, yet he still doesn't know how to make a folder and has problems abusing ALLCAPS, so I feel like he may need to be called in for a chat.
openDescribing suicide as Film
Okay, I know awesome and comedy are supposed to subjective, but...
In YMMV.The Butterfly Effect, under Crosses the Line Twice, there's an entry that says Evan going back in time to kill himself as an fetus is unintentionally hilarious and awesome. Also, in Awesome.The Butterfly Effect, there's a whole entry that goes into detail about just why said event is so awesome.
This just seems... wrong. It's not just me, is it?
Edited by ChaoticQueenopenHarry Potter Acceptable Targets Literature
On the Harry Potter Philosopher's Stone YMMV page, there's this entry for Acceptable Targets:
- Overweight boys. Dudley's weight is openly scorned, with the supposed justification of Rowling's implicit association of it with parental indulgence. Years later, Rowling, outraged at the pressure on girls to be thin, called fat insults "strange and sick." Perhaps as an Author's Saving Throw, later books blame Vernon and Petunia for Dudley's weight, with Dumbledore outright calling them out for inflicting a different kind of abuse on their own son. Dudley also picks up boxing, and switches from being morbidly obese to an example of Stout Strength.
And also on the Goblet of Fire YMMV page:
- Overweight boys. Dudley's increased weight, while treated with some seriousness, is still Played for Laughs. Implied association in previous books of his weight with parental indulgence, his comical resentment of his diet, Fred and George's playful hope for a glimpse of the "great bullying git," and Fred slipping him a toffee which magically engorges his tongue seem to dismiss obesity as idleness. Years later, Rowling, outraged at the pressure on girls to be thin, called fat insults "strange and sick."
I don't feel that these are valid examples of Acceptable Targets. I explained my reasoning on the Goblet of Fire discussion page
. But basically, while it's true that Dudley's weight is poked fun of, I don't see how that applies to overweight boys as a whole. I think that's a stretch. Hagrid is another heavy-set character, and a much nicer and more likeable person, and his weight isn't made fun of (as far as I can remember anyway; it's been a while since I read the books). To me, the entries feel like they're more targeted at J.K. Rowling herself to criticize her apparent hypocrisy on the issue, but I don't see how Rowling's comment in itself really has anything to do with Harry Potter. (I do agree with Rowling's later stance; I just feel it's a separate issue.)
But that's just my take on it. I wanted to get some other opinions.
Edited by StardustSoldieropenUnfortunate Implications on YMMV.The Last Jedi
Rotide put this entry on YMMV.The Last Jedi:
- Unfortunate Implications: In spite of the general popularity of TLJ with social justice bloggers for its diverse cast and increased prominence in female roles compared to earlier movies, others have roundly criticized the movie for taking an overly-sympathetic stance to Kylo Ren, downplaying the actions of the First Order (Most especially by engaging in an attempt at Black-and-Grey Morality, when the antagonists are based off a very real horror visited upon the world), how Rey seems to be sidelined in favor of Luke and Kylo's conflict, and how Poe (played by the Latino Oscar Isaac) is taught a lesson on respecting authority by Admiral Holdo (Played by the white Laura Dern). Some examples of people discussing this are here [1]
, [2]
, [3]
Apocrypha removed it with the following edit reason:
Tuvok added it back with the following edit reason:
So what do? I don't think a citation from reddit is reputable.
openIsaac Heller and Pokemon Spoilers Videogame
I'm a bit worried that the Troper Isaac Heller is adding story related spoilers from Pokémon Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon to various pages, but I don't want to spoil myself from this aspect, so I'm not willing to check his edits.
Edited by PDLopenPosts not showing up
For some of the threads here in ATT, I'm replying and my post gets eaten by the Data Vampires. The thread itself gets bumped, but my post is lost.

Hi, I don't know if this is the place to bring this. But this troper Nyame keeps adding length to entry and negativity about Felicity Smoak from Arrow. For example they took this entry on YMMV.Arrow's Creator's Pet:
and changed
it to this:
or this
Abandon Shipping one:
And their edit history seems to be full of things like this
though also a lot of legit examples without complaining also to be fair. Some examples:
Again, I don't know if this means anything or if this should be reported here or not. I just find it strange.
Edited by Bullman