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:
openNew troper on a weird editing spree
Let's get two things out of the way: I know I might be jumping the gun a bit, and yes, I do feel weird about posting two editing-reports back to back in a short period of time, thank you for asking.
Rubyfangirl only started editing today. Normally I'd hold off on reporting them until a few notifiers were sent, however this isn't something we have a notifier for. While some of their edits are perfectly harmless (like adding page images), their weirdest ones are on Playing With pages. Specifically, their weirdly arbitrary deletions, additions and rewrites.
For example, starting here
they have a weird chain of edits that includes potholing The Lancer for a character described as The Sixth Ranger immediately before it, adding a very specific song reference and removing the generic "a pop song" part, and somewhat arbitrarily changing character names, as well.
Pretty much all of these edits are like this. Here
they replaced an Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking gag with a Sanity Slippage pothole (not to mention some weird rewrites on the actual trope page
), here
they altered some grammar and made it wrong (turning "an accompanying" to "a accompanying"), and here
, among other edits, their deletion of several things makes No Kill like Overkill no longer a sensical pothole... And I'm just not really sure what's happening here
.
Oh, and this edit
just seems painfully redundant.
In isolation, none of these issues would be reportable. But added up, and with how much they've been editing today, it just paints a very weird picture, and I'm not really sure what, if anything, there is to do about it.
ETA: Okay, some of their non-Playing With edits are also kind of bizarre, like these
edits that start out correctly potholing something, altering that pothole several times until it's no longer correct, and adding subjectivity to it as well. Without checking the link itself, IDK if it's in the game or is a fan thing, which could also be a problem. They just edit so fast and aren't slowing down to think their edits through at all.
resolved A troper added information that is irrelevant / too early to tell Film
I was checking out the King Richard page, and noticed that Troper ovskii
added further information on Win Back the Crowd in the YMMV.King Richard page. The entry originally spoke solely about Will Smith's performance earning back respect from fans and critics after having a spotty filmography as of late. The information that was added earlier today by ovskii has entirely to do with the Oscars controversy.
Since (1) the Oscars just happened this past Sunday — not even a week has passed as of this original post — and I've seen various ATT posts and forum posts here on TVTropes discussing how the controversy is still too soon and recent to say anything about Smith's legacy, and (2) the added information is irrelevant to Smith's performance itself, should that added information still be there, or should it be deleted?
Here is the information added by ovskii: "[...] Sadly, and completely independent of his performance, his popularity dropped dramatically on the very night of his Oscar win, due to him assaulting Chris Rock on stage over a joke about his wife, which then led to Smith resigning from the Academy in shame a few days later."
UPDATE: To any moderator who sees this: request to close out this post as resolved?
Edited by mouschilightopenEdit War on VideoGame.EldenRing
I brought this up on the unreleased works thread
, but haven't gotten a response. Crossposting here to get more eyeballs on the matter. The issue is this entry on VideoGame.Elden Ring:
- Lighter and Softer: Downplayed, but compared to the other games directed by Miyazaki, the area seen in the network test is positiviely Ghibli-esque,. Whereas the settings of Lordran, Lothric and Yharnam were rotten and dying, the Lands Between are positively brimming with life and light, even if it's only one area. It's still dotted with the ruins of old kingdoms and civilization is clearly on its last legs, but the world itself is doing just fine.
Lighter and Softer is a trope about the overall tone of an entire work, and therefore it seems to me that one would need the entire work to know whether it applies, which we don't have, as the game hasn't been released yet. I deleted it, and troper ~Sana Naryon restored it with the edit reason, "We get to see a portion of the map in the network test, which is far lighter and softer than any area in any other soulsborn game."
So, we've got a couple of potential issues. First, there's no citation in the example text telling where this comes from. Second, I'm skeptical that it's a trope that can be included at all based on preview footage; it's inherently speculative. And third, since Sana Naryon was the person who added it in the first place, restoring it without discussion is an Edit War.
Edited by MaiBaloneyopenPutting back info in a Creator page
I noticed that gorobestboy has heavily altered Sayuri Hara (a page I made by myself), and I noticed that they removed some dots containing certain roles such as Reimi Sugimoto in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Diamond is Unbreakable and Yori in Princess Connect! Re:Dive. While I'd like to put them back, I'm hesitant to do so since I was the one who put it in and I don't want to get into an edit war. Would it be okay to put them back anyway? Also, they didn't provide any Edit Reasons as to why they rearranged the page. Do you need to ask for permission to rearrange the list order in a Creator page?
Edited by Excessive-MenaceopenTabletop Games and/or Magazines?
A question that is starting to bug me: in the "Tabletop Games" folder of tropes, I frequently see (and probably added a few myself) examples related to a roleplaying game, but actually coming from a magazine devoted to it (most often, Dragon for Dungeons & Dragons).
However, should such examples be placed instead in the "Magazines" folder? And when crosswicking, should they go on the Magazine's work page, or the game's?
openMulti-works reference example
Does this writeup look... I dunno... too dependent on other works to make its point?
- Gorn: Miura depicts all kinds of bloodshed and dismemberment with a level of detail that straddles the line between horror and fascination. To elaborate, it's even bloodier than all of Quentin Tarantino's films combined, is packed the very gills and guts with gratuitous extreme graphic aberrant violence that not only makes Mortal Kombat 11, Doom Eternal, The Last of Us Part II and even Manhunt look like games made for little children but also, makes the Live-Action Deadpool duo logy look and feel more like a So Bad, It's Good Live-Action Adaptation of Cardcaptor Sakura as a Sitcom by comparison (and if Deadpool killing so many people aren't that Bloody enough, then think again with how many people and monsters has Guts beaten up to the death), there's large amounts of Gratuitous Rape that downright obscene and pornographic, explicit brutality that makes Crossed look like a joke and much, MUCH more. This holds the reputation as the most violent manga ever created in history and for good reason. And not to mention, Invincible is basically Berserk with Superheroes.
openProblematic entry Film
The YMMV page for the Black Panther film has the following entry under Alternate Character Interpretation:
- Is Killmonger a Death Seeker? Besides refusing medical help after his defeat, he always chooses the self-destructive path. He kills his girlfriend and burns the sacred garden, implying that he isn't interested in having an heir or leaving a legacy for himself even though he's a prince with a legitimate claim to the throne. Furthermore, despite having the skills and connections, Killmonger also chose not to follow a more heroic career like becoming a costumed vigilante, entering politics or starting his own company, thus denying himself the chance to help others and live a life of luxury without the needless deaths. The fact that Killmonger pursues self-defeating atrocities implies that he doesn't care about what happens to himself so long as everyone experiences his suffering. This only makes his evil plan more horrifying in hindsight, since it amounts to a murder-suicide as he intentionally wants millions of innocent lives to die alongside him.
The idea that Killmonger is a Death Seeker may be a valid interpretation, but the entry doesn't make its case very well. Most of what it says simply applies to villains in general not using their skills in a better way, and while Killmonger may be willing to die if necessary, he doesn't seem to see his cause as self-destructive. The specific examples the entry cites don't support this either (burning the garden does not affect his ability to have children, and killing his girlfriend was done in order to kill Klaue, which his entire plan depended on). The last sentence seems especially problematic, as it states this interpretation as though it were fact.
Edited by Javertshark13openCut trope being re-added (and other misuse?)
Hodor For King added this to YMMV.Elysium
- Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped: There has been a [[defence https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/whats-the-most-cringeworthy-alternate-history-youve-ever-read.47523/page-758?post=22129077#post-22129077
]]of the supposed lack of subtlety of the film:
Elysium seems stark to us because there's no massive propaganda machine in the movie itself constantly telling us that the system of the people of the Elysium universe Is A Good Thing, Actually. We're not automatically primed to dismiss the concerns of the people of Earth in Elysium in that sense.But let's be honest with ourselves - Elysium is happening right now. Millions of people go without life-saving medical care in America for want of a way for them to personally pay for it. It's not this way because there aren't enough medical resources to go around - America spends more resources per capita than anyone else in the industrial world to get worse health outcomes. It's this way because it is profitable for the ruling class to keep it this way.
I removed it as SANTBD is now a redirect to Anvilicious which is already on the page. They immediately added it back, adding the current quote explains why (still misuse as it's not about the importance/relevancy but the heavy handedness improving the delivery). I just PM'd them about it and they were unaware of it now being a redirect. Letting you know before re-removing, should I re-cut now?
Also, this:
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: General consensus is that the film has a great concept that just wasn't fully fleshed out enough. The director himself agreed.
TWAPGP is about unused plots, not poorly used. It doesn't give enough context to say but I suspect misuse as the Anvilicious entry means the issues are intended to be front and center. Any objections to cutting?
openbigmouthstrikesagain strikes again
I've been having trouble with Tropers/bigmouthstrikesagain for a while, and while it's never anything big, it adds up.
- HERE
they change an aversion into a subversion, even though it's not a subversion.
- HERE
they write an entry in the past tense, even the stuff that happens in the episode and should be in the present tense.
- HERE
they list a trope for Halloween Kills on the page for Halloween, saying that "In the following film, however..." even though obviously, any Halloween Kills trope should be on the actual page for Halloween Kills itself.
- HERE
they have an example refer to another example on the list.
- HERE
they write that somebody "has a tendency of doing this", which is zero context. (They fixed it after I told them, though, but I did need to tell them.)
So yeah. Like I said. It adds up.
openI normally would post it under a related entry, but...(rude edit reasons) Videogame
However, I feel this needs its own.
Marth of the Moon's edit reasons are getting rather inappropriate here
on the page. "Oh you motherfucker" and "Quite the Determinator for your shitposting, aren't you?" are extremely rude and uncalled for.
I will note that the entry he reported is reported for a good reason, it's clearly somebody shoehorning their site in for some form of advertisement of a crack pairing. That in itself is a problem(and that particular tumblr
is now attacking the user I'm reporting too, which is exporting drama). However, the fact that Marth of the Moon is being this rude is the entire reason for the pointless drama in the first place. That is not to say that Globplumber(and apparently is a ban evader of someone?) is not a problem regardless.
openWeird trope entry Film
Pokémon Detective Pikachu has a strange, semi-gushy entry on Revisiting the Roots that doesn't seem to fit any of the various cleanup threads, so I brought it here. It reads like it was written by someone dissatisfied with current Pokemon games or someone attempting to justify everything dark in the trailers with evidence from various Pokemon media, while the Detective Pikachu game itself doesn't really have any of that, and Pokemon media after Gen 1 have had those things even though in the franchise as a whole they're uncommon (Team Galactic killed a Clefairy and presumably a bunch of Magikarp, Ghetsis as mentioned tries to attack you directly, a couple Sun and Moon anime episodes were all about people and Pokemon that died, etc.).
"* Revisiting the Roots: The trailers may look out of place with the tone of the main-series games, but they're not too far removed from the anime, manga and games of the original generation, which feature gunsnote An episode of the anime involved the Safari Zone warden utilizing guns heavily, including holding Ash at gunpoint and shooting at Team Rocket, which led to 4Kids skipping over it entirely, profanitynote it's always been in the anime's Japanese dub, realistic violence in Pokémon battlesnote an infamous scene in the manga involves Blue's Charmeleon slicing an Arbok in half and disemboweling it, deathnote besides the aforementioned Arbok, the Lavender Town mission in the Kanto games involves a Mercy Kill on the spirit of a Marowak killed by Team Rocket, and villains using Pokémon to directly attack humans and human citiesnote unlike Mewtwo's destruction of his lab and the siege of Saffron City, non-Pokémon battle violence in the games is either offscreen or unanimated (with some major exceptions, like Ghetsis in Pokémon Black 2 and White 2)."
Any ideas as to what to do with it?
Edited by lalalei2001openRude Edit Reasons on Clueless Aesop
Tropers.Doctor_Doom (No idea how to properly format the underscore here) edited Clueless Aesop to an example wholesale
for a rather iffy reason. Basically, the example mentioned Watchmen once, and this prompted the troper in question to not only delete the entry (focusing entirely on the one mention of Watchmen), but also add the statement "With a little bit of knowledge, it's easy to see there is no relation", which comes across as a jab at the previous editor, implying that they lack the knowledge.
This is, in fact, not the first time they did this, as they did it to myself almost a year ago
, removing another entry related to comic books with a lengthy edit reason that includes "The entry also had the pointless and uninformed assertion that the comic was about real life, which didn't work, but its themes worked in context. Due again to the slant of industry commentary, it's clear to anyone that only that part is what's intended. Projecting an imaginary relation with real life doesn't change that. The writer had clearly read *about* KC rather than actually reading it, which would explain the falsities here. Section has been removed."
I took the matter to the Discussion page at the time, and they apologized for their actions. But here we are, now.
Edited by KingZealopenEdit War on The Dragon Prince Western Animation
There is a potential edit war brewing on The Dragon Prince YMMV page.
Antidragon has added these two points: Strawman Has a Point:
- In Season 2 Episode 7, Soren fires a ballista at the dragon preforming fly-bys on a local village, and later accepts that the resulting damage was his own fault for provoking it. Yet the humans had no idea what the dragon's objectives or motivations were, and the dragon itself had made no attempt to communicate with them (Even if it couldn't speak, as an intelligent species it could have at least tried). Knowing nothing of the dragon's intent, Soren had good reason to fear that the town-destroying juggernaut could change it's mind at any moment.
- Furthermore, said ballistas prove to be too inaccurate to hit the dragon; the town offered no threat to it whatsoever and nothing was preventing it from simply flying away. It's subsiqent attack seemed more a matter of spite than legitimate self defense, yet Soren still accepts the blame for the resulting damage.
- In Season 2 Episode 7, Soren fires a ballista at the dragon preforming fly-bys on a local village, and later accepts that the resulting damage was his own fault for provoking it. Yet the humans had no idea what the dragon's objectives or motivations were, and the dragon itself had made no attempt to communicate with them (Even if it couldn't speak, as an intelligent species it could have at least tried). Knowing nothing of the dragon's intent, Soren had good reason to fear that the town-destroying juggernaut could change it's mind at any moment.
- When Soren provokes the Dragon in S2 E7 by firing a ballista at it, said ballista proves to be no threat to the beast and nothing was preventing it from flying away. When it subsequently sets the town on fire, the show (and even Soren himself) treat the resulting havoc as his own fault, even though said dragon was apparently acting out of spite rather than self defense.
They were removed by Mr. Death and then Antidragon added them back.
openBroken Aesop edit war
BrokenAesop.Western Animation:
- The season three finale, "Magical Mystery Cure", the Cutie Marks of all the Mane Cast are switched, which drives them to want to pursue the wrong special talents, and Twilight has to find a way to fix it. This episode ends with the message that you can only be happy by choosing your own destiny, but this contradicts everything the story has established about destiny itself:
- Cutie Marks in general. Ponies gain their cutie marks when they discover their special talents, but they have no control over what those talents actually are. When they attempt a special talent that isn't dictated by their Cutie Mark, either because they've misinterpreted what their Mark actually means or because they're actively going against it, they fail catastrophically, which means there isn't any choice in a pony's destiny. It's implied that the Cutie Mark Crusaders were able to influence the appearance of their Cutie Marks through hard work and dedication, but "discovering the special talents of those who haven't had their Cutie Marks appear" is still the only thing they've been able to successfully, since everything they've done has been an attempt to do exactly that. Season Five even begins with a villain who uses magic to obscure her victims' Cutie Marks and has them do other jobs, which makes them miserable. If it really were a matter of choice, then Cutie Marks wouldn't be such a big deal.
- Celestia's choice in making Twilight her student, and everything that came afterward, was based on Celestia's knowledge of the meaning of Twilight's Cutie Mark. Everything about her progress was actually foreordained and Celestia tailored her lessons to fit that destiny, not the other way around, including the part where Celestia changed her into an Alicorn without actually asking her if she'd be comfortable with that, which means that Twilight's choices didn't matter because she was obeying Celestia's lessons. Twilight is still happy with it, so clearly having someone decide your destiny for you can't be all that bad.
- This also brings the other Mane Six's choices of destiny into question by extension: for all the hard work they do, they gain a lot of success in their more mundane careers through being carriers of the Elements of Harmony, which they didn't choose, and for some of them, their choice of destiny would be impossible without social and family connections that they lucked into by birth or Twilight Sparkle herself. You may not be happy if you let someone else decide your destiny, but aspects of your future are beyond your control, so you better make the right friends so they'll control those aspects in your favor.
This exact entry was deleted twice before since that's debated if it's the actual Aesop
. And it's a Wall of Text, a red flag. Cut? I asked Is this an example?
but it's been ignored.
If I don't hear back, I'll just condense it down.
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenEdit War alert
In Unbuilt Trope. Hello 101 added wrong single two bullets entry in fanfic folder (about FanFic.The Infinite Loops). I sent natter notification to them, and then realize that the original entry seems to be misuse. It's all about how the fic itself use the trope, not how it has an example of Unbuilt Trope to "Groundhog Day" Loop (seriously, "Groundhog Day" Loop is a pretty old trope, the idea that an anime crossover fanfic unbuilt it is highly doubtable). So I removed it and state so in edit reason. Today, Hello 101 restore it without explanation.
Edited by KuruniopenNo Title Web Original
PerpetualJellyfish
made an edit on YMMV.Death Battle saying that the way one character died was meant to make their fans angry. MasterHero
removed their edit because it was biased. PerpetualJellyfish went back and readded it, added more nattery edits, and removed parts of the page that tried to give a more neutral stance on the fight's outcome, with this edit reason:
openUltimate Nick Fury Print Comic
I have made some edits in The Ultimates at the entry on Nick Fury (for those unfamiliar, the Nick Fury of the MCU is a direct adaptation of this character). I removed some examples and shortened others. First, Nick Fury is not a villain, so "Adaptational Villainy" is completely out of place. Other tropes are filled with complaining, Alternative Character Interpretation and even actual lies (for example, a trope says "he's a self-serving asshole", but his actions, right or wrong, have always been motivated by national or worldwide security, not personal gain). tvtropersuser1 simply restored everything, without even an edit summary, and ignored my request to take things to the discussion page.
openQuestionable Example?
From YMMV.Star Wars under Fandom Berserk Button:
- * The anvilicious sociopolitical messages of the sequel trilogy can get on many fans' nerves. While the most obvious reason is because of the anviliciousness itself, a possibly bigger reason is that it causes an unnecessary political divide in the Star Wars fanbase. The sequels' hatedom is largely composed of people who oppose their (well-intentioned) progressive messages ('nuff said), which causes any fan who dislikes the sequels, even if they agree with their messages, to be lumped with the haters and their often rabid and regressive worldviews. Whether intentional or not, this sort of political polarization and "guilt-tripping" of people who dislike the sequels is frowned upon by many fans who, you know, just want to enjoy Star Wars.
Is this a valid example? What messages does it have that weren't problematic in prior works?
openExample?
From YMMV.The Last Jedi under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot:
- A very divisive case: there are fans who feel like the story would have been improved if Finn had been allowed to make his Heroic Sacrifice, since it would not only show major Character Development on his part in being willing to die for the Resistance rather than running away from joining it, but it would have been the second of a one-two audience gut-punch following Snoke: first the supposed Big Bad dies in the second movie, and then the supposed male lead. Others, of course, don't want Finn to die and would have hated that direction, hence why it's divisive.
Normally, I'd say the admitting it's divisive and the last part explaining why some don't think it's the case would warrant removal as it argues with itself. But there being an argument for They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot (which lacks objective misuse far as I can tell) suggests it is a valid example. This possible open-endedness (even by YMMV standards) hi-lighted why this trope is dangerously close to complaining.
What to do.

There's a user named JBriskin who has been putting down edits on the Pocahontas character pages, specifically under Chief Powhatan. The edits are mostly about how his actual name is Wahunsenacah. I don't know if this is actually true or not, given that Powhatan himself was inspired by the real Powhatan and is his name was Wahunsenacah; but his actual name was never once spoken in any of the movies.
The point is, when I tried fixing these edits, JBriskin changed them back. What do you think? Would what he's doing be considered inserting false information?
Here's the link to the history page.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Characters.Pocahontas
Edited by kittyface44