Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
resolved Likely self-admitted edit war
Today, I stumbled on Peppermint Park while on a Wiki Walk through Bile Fascination. When I got to the WMG page
, I saw one entry that accused the show of being a Mafia laundering scheme. That's bad enough, but then there's the bullet point below it that says this:
- "Even more suspicious, this Troper could have sworn up and down that she had posted this WMG already, but mysteriously, someone seemed to have deleted it. Hmm."
I can only assume that the entry was previously removed for being too controversial. Since the page history only has one entry for February 2022, but the troper's edit history
shows an edit on the page in November 2020, the page was probably cutlisted after it was decided that the entry had to go. Regardless, by recreating a cut page with an entry that includes the line "I know I added this before, but it was deleted", the troper has basically admitted to edit warring.
open Weirdly off-topic poster.
We're having a bit of an issue over on Complete Monster cleanup thread with a troper Molokai198
whose umh really disruptive and off-topic with some offputting comments.
- This one was a very strange comment arguing about whether infecting people with HIV
is horrible?
- Their was this weird time they just went off-topic to ask about the contents of an article
about Purdue and the Opoid crisis.
- Now we've gotten this post
which featured this shockingly bad statement.
This is just both incoherent and offensive.
He also doesn't vote On anything so much as the questions.
Like the fact this has happened three separate times.
Edited by MacronNotesopenNeed help to avoid Edit War (bad example)
On 6th Jun 22
, Aetos added this entry to Characters.Classical Mythology Olympians:
- Benevolent Boss: When Erysichthon caused the death of one of her dryad nymphs, she fucked his shit up hard.
It's so bad case of melodramatic ZCE that I had lapse of judgement, removed it on the ground that has intense sex with the guy who killed her followers has nothing to does with being a Benevolent Boss.
They restored it with explanation that "Fuck shit up" has nothing to does with fucking. Fine, so I properly commented it out for being ZCE and pointed out in edit reason that even Mean Boss can lash on someone for take away their propeties.
Today
, Tropers/lalalei2001 uncommented it and changed the entry to this:
- Benevolent Boss: When Erysichthon caused the death of one of her dryad nymphs, Demeter took revenge by cursing him with insatiable hunger until he ate himself to death.
It's better, actually telling what happen in the story. BUT it still doesn't explain why she's an example of Benevolent Boss, just that she's vengeful when someone kill her follower. One can be abusive toward their own underlings yet angry yet someone else done it.
open Misuse in Trivia/AgentAli + Edit War?
Before Ejen Ali was localised to Agent Ali, End Bringer 99 added this example
.
- Saved by the Fans: Years of campaigned led the show being greenlit for a third season, exclusive on Hotstar.
I removed it as misuse
with this edit reason:
Nothing more ever came of this example until about 3 months after I localised the work's pages
, just about 10 days ago, in which EndBringer99 brought back the entry, albeit slightly reworded.
- Saved by the Fans: The fanbase demand saved the show from a three year cancellation.
I sent a message from the edit in question itself to say that I'd give 3 days to await a response/explanation/existence of evidence of cancellation until I'd inquire on ATT. note Is the message formatting by that method different from normal messages? Because I typed it as if the markup would work but it didn't - it looks like a mess of a paragraph. That was on 16th June and now it's an hour past midnight into the 20th in my time, and there've been a couple edits in that user's edit history since after I sent it.
I'm tempted to remove it again but I don't know if that'd account as an edit war, or if EndBringer99 is already in one, because it's technically the same page but under a different (the localised) title.
As I already stated, Saved by the Fans is for characters brought back by popular demand, and its description says that if this happens to a work, that's Un-Cancelled. However, I've found no evidence of Agent Ali ever at risk of being cancelled - there just happens to be a 3 year gap between The Movie (2019) and the upcoming 3rd season (2022).
I still await a response to see if there is any source saying the show was at risk of being cancelled because I've heard no such thing. How should I proceed? Thank you.
Edited by BlackFaithStaropenCharacter Perception Evolution misuse and example?
Character Perception Evolution states Rescued from the Scrappy Heap examples don't count as RFTSH is when the work changes them for the better while CPE is viewed differently by fans despite being unchanged. I question this CPE then.
- Ahsoka Tano debuted in Star Wars: The Clone Wars Pilot Movie and swiftly became one of the most disliked characters this side of Jar Jar Binks, being utterly despised for her obnoxious personality, her Bratty Half-Pint tendencies, and her obnoxiously cute half-naked "Cat Girl" design. A metric truckload of growth and Character Development later, and she is now fondly liked by the vast majority of both fans and critics alike who love her for her complexity and for being a foil to Anakin Skywalker. So much so that her live-action appearance in The Mandalorian was celebrated almost as much as Luke's.
I believe this might be misuse as instead Rescued from the Scrappy Heap as it's changes to her in the same series (the Pilot Movie is treated as part of it as opposed to a standalone/separate work) as opposed to how she's seen prior (my impression is her pre-Rescued character is now seen as worth the later payoff as opposed to good in and of itself). On that there's this from YMMV.Mass Effect 1.
- Rescued from the Scrappy Heap: When the game was first released, Kaidan was widely written off as a Tier Induced Scrappy due to having less biotic talents than Liara and less tech talents than Tali. As the game aged, the playerbase realized that his array of support powers was more potent than it first seemed, and he is now considered a top-tier character due to the overall power of biotics.
I believe this is Character Perception Evolution instead as it's not the work changing them. But a big part of this was Kaiden being Rescued from the Scrappy Heap in the third game contributing to the reevaluation. I assume this is a separate enough work to fit CPE as opposed to RFTSC but an asking to be sure.
openA little too much real-life troping on Michael Jackson Music
chizo made some absolutely massive
edits to Michael Jackson's main page, and probably edited some of the subpages as well. Most of these are troping the man himself, and also bloated his page description by a crazy amount. Much of the page description can honestly go with the RL tropes, but I wanted to get consensus before firing up the chainsaw.
openUser not replying to crosswicking notifer or crosswicking
Apologies if it turns out it's not worth the ATT report, but I'm not sure what else I could've done.
So, wayside99 created the The Serpent Queen page a while back. However, they haven't really crosswicked the page that much, only putting it on 3 pages. While admittedly, not crosswicking work pages is not as big as a deal as say Trope pages, it's still needed in order to keep the page from stagnating. I sent them a crosswicking notifier a few days ago when I discovered the page and its lack of wicks.
As someone who likes crosswicking to the point of making it a hobby, I understand how tedious crosswicking can be, so I decided to give them some time. However, they haven't responded to my notifer nor have crosswicked the page as of today (in fact they were editing today and yesterday, so they should be aware of the notification on their profile by now). While I don't mind crosswicking the page myself, it's still ultimately the responsibility of the page creator to crosswick it.
So, what should be done if there is an action to take?
openKavorka Man Image deleted
Visiting the Kavorka Man page, I had noticed there was an image for it and it's gone now. According to this part of the edit history
, Solsun ended up deleting the image and didn't leave an edit note. And looking at Image Pickin' and Image Pickin' Morgue, I haven't seen anything discussing this being deleted and the page source itself still has the "Image picked by Image Pickin' notice, don't change or remove without starting a new thread". I don't really go on Image Pickin' (mentioning just in case I missed something), but I do wonder if it should be restored back on the page?
openRemoval due to Rule of Caution Editing Judgement?
This entry of WebOriginal.Role Ending Misdemeanor was deleted by troper Super_Weegee just giving Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement as an edit reason:
- In September 2022, Cloudflare dropped the notorious website, KiwiFarms, from their DoS protection services, after a campaign organized by Canadian transgender activist and Twitch streamer, Clara "Keffals" Sorrenti, who herself was one of the victims of constant doxxing and harassment by the website, culminating in a swatting incident which made her flee the country. Cloudflare initially made a statement in response to Sorrenti's campaign, declining to drop KiwiFarms from their services, they walked back their statement a few days later when the threats escalated into threats of violence. And during the week after that, KiwiFarms was also dropped from other services, like Captcha, and their Russian and Chinese domains.
So far, I don't think there's anything in the post that's factually incorrect or biased, thoughts?
openTroper removed YMMV without edit reason
So on YMMV.Live Free Or Die Hard, ultrafan removed
a lot of entries without an edit reason:
- Base-Breaking Character: Some saw Matt as annoying and useless, while others admired his courage in assisting John through all of the dangerous insanity and even killing two bad guys (case in point, Zeus in the third film didn't kill any).
- Evil Is Sexy
- Her boyfriend Thomas Gabriel (played by Timothy Olyphant) is quite easy on the eyes himself.
- Fandom-Specific Plot: Post-film fanfiction often has hacker Matt moving in with John, since Matt's apartment was destroyed in an explosion. John lives alone and kinda lonely without his ex-wife and kids; Matt was shot point-blank in the knee, an injury that would require weeks to months of recovery with assistance. What better setup for fanfic roommates?
Like I don't know why they removed them. Like Matt is the cause of many debates in the fandom, Gabriel is considered sexy by many female fans, and that is a super common plot in fanfiction based on the film's. These also weren't discussed anywhere. So um what should be done here?
openOver Spoiler-ing
A bit of context: a few days ago, I removed some spoilers from the description of VS OURPLE GUY that were hiding the mod's final song, which is unlocked by beating the rest of the mod's songs and is a homage to another game's ending. To compromise since it is still a spoiler, I put who sings it in a note, since the song title itself isn't too spoiler-y in my opinion. I also added an example of Brutal Bonus Level discussing this song, spoiling what it is while still keeping the actual context visible.
A few hours ago, Bread Pear not only put the entire song into the note in the description, but also widened the spoilers on Brutal Bonus Level to almost the whole thing, meaning the context is now under a black bar someone has to click to know if it's a spoiler.
I can't fix it because I added it originally, but I'm curious what to actually do here.
Edited by Crossover-EnthusiastopenGodzillaFan1954
Could someone please help me check the accuracy of their edits? I recently had to revert their apparent attempt to make the Channel Hop entry on Trivia.Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory much less accurate, but they also worked on pages about subjects I don't know much about myself. At the least, they don't bother italicizing movie titles.
openAvoiding an Edit War
So on YMMV.Glass Onion I deleted
this entry:
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The film does its best to paint Andi as a victim whose life her identical sister Helen and Blanc seek to avenge by ruining Miles’s life. Yet a few viewers, along with Honest Trailers, point to several details in the film that suggest she may have actually been an Asshole Victim who wasn’t any better than Miles and rest of the Disruptors. First, she’s the one who gathered all the Disruptors together in the first place and encouraged them to pursue their ambitions as well as bringing Miles into the group, instigating the story’s events. Second, the all important napkin Andi wrote her business ideas on is about about “crypto scalability” which is extremely dodgy and casts Andi in a more negative light than Johnson likely intended. Not to mention, despite being pretty wealthy as a co-founder of a company, Andi apparently didn’t share a single dime with her sister Helen who is baffled and out of her depth by the luxury on display. While the film is all about deriding the frequent stupidity and callousness of billionaires, it doesn’t acknowledge that Andi (given what we see of her) may not have been an exception to the rule either.
I deleted after the Unintentionally Unsympathetic decided
that Andi is not supposed to be sympathetic. Well Dragon 101 added
a new entry for her:
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Helen seems to put her sister on a pedestal and is determined to uncover her murderer, and looks down on all of the terrible people And surrounded herself with; all the same, Andi did surround herself with terrible people and arguably was even the one who corrupted some of them in the first place, and seemed as concerned with her own legacy and wealth as Miles was- in short, she's likely just as bad as the rest of them (and maybe worse for seemingly being the most intelligent), which undermines the triumphant ending where she is avenged.
They didn't discuss this anywhere and it still runs into the same issue. I don't know what to do as I can't remove it without Edit Warring.
openWork page titles for arcs - should they include the series/franchise name? Print Comic
As I understand it, works pages should reflect the (or at least an) official title of the work in question.
In the ComicBook namespace, we have quite a few pages for arcs within a single series (or Bat Family Crossover events officially badged under a single series/character title) that only use the subtitle and not the series/character title.
So, for example -
- The Celestial Madonna Saga is an Avengers arc and the collected edition is titled Avengers: The Celestial Madonna Saga. There are no crossovers and no other titles involved in that arc.
- Days of Future Past is an X-Men story that's collected and sold as X-Men: Days of Future Past. Again, it's entirely from one series, Uncanny X-Men, not a crossover event.
- The Demon Bear Saga is a New Mutants arc and collected/sold as New Mutants: The Demon Bear Saga.
- God Loves, Man Kills... well, as you can see on the works page, the cover has X-Men as a prominent part of the title.
- Mutant Massacre is a Bat Family Crossover that covers three different X-books (plus odd issues of Thor and Daredevil, but is packaged and sold as X-Men: Mutant Massacre.
...you get the idea. I don't think there are many disambiguation concerns with the current names, if any. But we're inconsistent on this and many, many ComicBook pages have included the series title or character name as a prefix to the arc/event name.
It seems odd that we're editing down the names to remove the character/comic/franchise element when there are no character-limit issues, and when that's not the version that the publisher's officially using.
(It also increases the number of oddities in alphabetical indexes - e.g. tropers put One More Day and Go Down Swinging under S, because they know they're Spider-Man stories, but unless you're looking at the index page itself the structure and ** / *** bullets aren't visible)
So, subject to discussion on the relevant pages and elsewhere, is it worth a tidy up that attempts to move them?
(One note on this: due to the film of the same name, we'd probably need to add a year to X-Men: Days of Future Past to disambig if we do move it - but that's the exception)
Edited by Mrph1openMagnificent Bastard Chain Hole
Remnant 43 has a bit of an issue with potholes on Magnificent Bastard entries. Once before they edit warred over the selection of one on Breaking Bad. This time while they haven't technically edit warred Sandbox.Magnificent Bastard Call Of Duty has an entry with a Chain Hole, which they re-added after I removed (I removed while pasting over their entry to the Sandbox so it isn't technically an edit war). I'm posting this to gain consensus for me to change back without committing an edit war myself.
Edited by 43110openBrokenAesop.Naruto
Mister OM added this entry to BrokenAesop.Naruto on November 28th (bold emphasis mine):
- The story often carries out, whether intentionally or not, the message that “anybody can become the best through determination and hard work, and if you can’t, then you just need to try harder”. And the story even tries to pass on the main cast as examples of people who fit that criteria…except that they don’t. The strongest characters in the series, both good and bad, are often people who were born with either great inner strength by virtue of who or what they are, or born to really powerful, gifted or wealthy families and whatnot. Naruto himself and nearly every other character of any significance became stronger and stronger by virtue of the legacies that were passed down to them (in Naruto's case, no less than four ultra-powerful legacies, on top of the all-powerful demon sealed inside of him) leaving everyone who isn't a Person Shaped Can o' Evil or named Uchiha (and most of those besides) far behind in the dust. For all the series’s talk about hard work and determination, Hard Work Hardly Works is more in effect here. Sure, Naruto and Sasuke (and everybody else this applies to) did have to train, sweat and bleed to get where they are now, but it doesn’t change the fact that they had access to advantages, powers and shortcuts that normal people and ninjas wouldn’t have access to, and that they didn’t even have to do anything at all to get those powers bestowed upon them. Granted, some of these powers come with negative side-effects to counterbalance that problem, but even that doesn’t really mean much since Naruto and Sasuke both eventually find ways to overcome these side effects.
It is generally agreed upon that this aesop doesn't actually exist in the series and was made up by detractors. Despite this, this entry tries to circumvent this with "intentionally or not". Similar entries to this were argued upon in the past, which is why I'm bringing it here so it doesn't become an edit war.
Edited by SatoshiBakuraopen Edit war on a Funny moment
Streamof Consciousness added an entry
on Funny.Hololive about a key visual depicting one character with his hand slightly masking his forehead. They think it's a Facepalm; I do not, hence why I deleted it
. Rather than open up a thread in the discussion tab while I wasn't around to respond to their DM, StreamofConsciousness found it in good taste to re-add the entry
, however slightly reworded it is, and even tried to justify themself with a mouthful edit reason that includes quoting the trope page.
Even with StreamofConsciousness's justification, I still don't see how Vesper Noir's new key visual is anything other than looking cool.

resolved Someone is edit warring on UnintentionallyUnsympathetic/TheSimpsons
On the Unintentionally Unsympathetic page for The Simpsons, there is a header for the examples that belong to the members of the Simpsons family, that would read 'Pretty much every member of the Simpsons family (except Bart and Maggie) has come across as this at some point or another.'.
Two days ago, I noticed that the user Brian KT had removed the mention of Bart that excludes him from being counted as Unintentionally Unsympathetic, claiming that there must have been some episodes where Bart came off as such without even adding any examples of him being so.
I then added the mention of Bart back, pointing out that there aren't currently any examples of him being Unintentionally Unsympathetic listed on the page, hence why he's being excluded.
Earlier today, I discovered that Brian KT has once again removed the mention of Bart, still without adding any examples of him being Unintentionally Unsympathetic and has thus started an edit war. Since I can't change it back again, as that would also count as edit warring, I've decided to bring this here.
P.S. Just wondering, after this gets resolved, will I be able to add the mention of Bart back myself or would it still count as me edit warring?
Edited by CorvusIXopenRepeated Trope Misuse on YMMV/TheVillainessReversesTheHourglas Literature
I’ve been trying to clean up the pages for the Webnovel/Webtoon The Villainess Turns The Hourglass (which is in the wrong directory but that’s a different problem) and one of the editors
keeps trying to shoehorn the same entry about the protagonist into different tropes that it does not fit. The character is a Base Breaker but the issues related to why are already well documented in the Base Breaker entry, so this just seems to keep veering into Complaining about a character they don’t like.
The trope text that keeps moving:
- As noted by some readers, Aria herself wasn't a good person in her previous life, and while she was unjustly executed, she's not exactly the case of an innocent persecuted person. After being reborn she's basically a 24 year-old woman in a teenager's body (and later, due to Rapid Aging, in an adult body) getting revenge on a teenage Mielle, who had not yet done anything particularly heinous. Even after realising Mielle was just a child manipulated by her nanny and Isis, Aria still continues to bully and humiliate her. The fact that Mielle herself is revealed to not be a very bright girl makes Aria being duped by someone like her in her previous life, and taking revenge on Mielle in her current life reflect rather badly on her.
- In fact, several readers pointed out that Mielle herself would be a prime candidate for a Peggy Sue story of her own, where Aria would be considered an outright villain.
So when I first removed it from the page it was listed as Protagonist-Centered Morality, which isn’t YMMV and this text doesn’t meet. Now it’s at Designated Hero, but I’m this case the main character’s not a hero, isn’t described as a hero except by people who she’s concealed her nature from, is honest with herself that her actions are not heroic, and constantly calls herself “the villainess.” Whether she’s a likable Anti-Hero isn’t this trope (and again, that’s already well-written up in Base Breaker.)
I want to remove the text again but I’m concerned about being accused of edit warring. I sent an indicator to the editor about the misuse with this explanation.
Edited by Rebochan

YMMV.Pokemon S 21 E 6 Mission Total Recall
These argue with themselves over Gladion. I'm inclined to cut Mis-blamed as the narrative never presented that aspect and it's about real life creators, not in-work characters, being such. But there's this from Misblamed.Anime And Manga:
This was previously removed citing "About creators being mis-blamed. This is Common Knowledge." But was added back without explanation. Thoughts?