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:
openA troper who posted extremely biased and outright fabricated edits due to shipping bias Videogame
I saw troper Sayacha change several YMMV entries on Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth and even wrote on Ship Sinking (videogames) that had very biased takes and even blatant lies. I felt compelled to delete and undo their edits, especially the claim on the Ship Sinking page. As I've said there, the claim that protagonist Cloud Strife "friend zones" Aerith Gainsborough in the final chapter of Rebirth is complete fabrication. There are two ways their conversation can go, based on Relationship Values. He either enthusiastically looks forward to going on a date with her again, or responds with less enthusiasm, but he never outright rejects her. Writing that Aerith "probably realized she doesn't like him romantically" is another very biased reading. All she said was that she really likes Cloud but is unsure yet what kind of "like" she feels. It's a deliberately vague response. Anyone with common sense and an objective mind can see that what I say is true by looking at Youtube videos of that scene on Chapter 14.
Sayacha also claimed on both Ship Sinking and the YMMV page that developer's commentary on a book (Ultimania) allegedly said that Aerith was "certainly killed off again" and that developers "confirmed" it themselves. Another blatant fabrication. I checked the claim and the only thing that came up from every non-biased fan translator who translated that Japanese book was that the developers deliberately designed the outcome of Aerith's fate as of Rebirth to be vague and mysterious. Did she die? Is the Aerith shown "alive" afterwards a mere illusion by Cloud? Or is there something more going on? The game's story introduces the concept of Alternate Self and what appears to be Alternate worlds. There are no details yet revealed as to how this phenomena occurs within the lore of FF 7 but it's there. And the developers made a deliberate narrative choice to keep the ending of the game ambiguous and leaving the story full of questions in order to entice players to look forward to the next entry for answers. Ask yourselves. What kind of writer/developer would be incompetent enough to spend YEARS of development time to deliberately create an ambiguous situation to create speculation for the next few years, only to go a couple of months later and say "Actually, nothing changed. LOL"?
I'm also reporting this because I regretfully ended up engaging in an edit war on the YMMV page by deleting/reverting Sayacha's biased edits back to the more neutral posts. However, the main reason I'm reporting this is because I'm seeing another bad sign that the FF 7 pages are about to be swarmed with another wave of edit warring by extremely biased shippers intent on spreading their agenda with bad faith justifications. We've seen this nightmare before in the original 1997 version of FF 7. It may be best to take preventive measures by locking down the pages of FF 7 Remake and Rebirth too until the third and final game finally clarifies everything.
openI think I am part of an edit war by accident.
So, on SeasonalRot.Doctor Who, I was editing an entry but then I looked at the history and I feel like I am part of an edit war by forgetting I already edited the same entry in a similar way. Basically, the fallowing happened:
- Lilybelle added
emphasis (two ('')) around the word "still".
- I removed
it because I felt the emphasis was not needed but I for got to put an edit reason.
- Lilybelle added
emphasis (three (''')) again without an edit reason or discussing it anywhere.
- I removed
the new form of emphasis, this time with an edit reason.
Did I edit war? If so, I would like to report myself for punishment.
openWonky/weasel edits by previously suspended user spread out over time
On the "Is this an example?" forum I had asked
about a user named CorvusIX
making an edit on the Total Drama Unintentionally Unsympathetic page that seemed to contradict the edit reason they provided for removing it in the first place. I had remembered seeing a post specifically by them on ATT about restoring an edit that had tons of elaboration so it didn't really seem that unusual. However when I searched their name the post didn't show up, and apparently, in addition to getting suspended due to these circumstances
, there have been at least two other cases
of edit warring
that CorvusIX had started dating back to two years ago. It had apparently gotten bad enough that in the first cited instance of this happening someone suggested that they were going out of their way to do this, which in and of itself implies this wasn't an isolated incident even before then. On top of that some of their non-warring edits go beyond Weasel Words and seem
to rely heavily on assumptions
that can be traced
to Fan Myopia. Since instances of both edit warring and the Weasel Words/Fan Myopia + wonks + misinformation seem really sporadic (I haven't found instances of any of that concoction the second page of their edit history) it really seems like they're doing this to try and make biased edits undetected, but I can't say I'm 100% sure since (as I mentioned) I can't always go by anything more than a couple implications. Thoughts?
resolved A strangely added YMMV trope question?
Recently found this trope from the YMMV for the western animation movie Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole.
- Complete Monster: Metal Beak, real name Surtr, is a savage owl and the leader of the Pure Ones. Embarking on a war of conquest to kill all who oppose him, Metal Beak is fond of "moonblinking" victims, turning them into mindless slaves and robbing them of their identities, with even children subjected to the process. His intention behind enslaving them is to use magical flecks to set up a trap to kill all of the Guardians and moonblinked owls by draining their blood with bats after their gizzards are severely weakened, using his traitorous spy Allomere to lead them to certain death. When Allomere is no longer needed, Metal Beak leaves him to be devoured by the bats after falsely promising to make him King of the Great Tree, and later on attempts to kill the hero Soren in front of his sworn nemesis and Soren's teacher, Lyze of Kiel, out of little more than savage spite.
- Video game: Allomere is a traitor to his people and the true villain of Shard's quest. Long ago having secretly aligned with the Pure Ones in the name of power, Allomere paved the way for the Pure Ones to slaughter the Glauxian monastery, which Allomere framed the innocent Grettir for. Allomere then hunted down and killed Grettir and his mate to silence all loose ends, narrowly prevented from claiming the life of Grettir's son Shard, too. Years later, Allomere continues to serve the Pure Ones' purposes and give them inside info that helps their wicked plans to enslave and moonblink all owlets. Allomere reveals himself as the traitor by trying to trap and murder a large group of heroic Guardians, and when confronted by Shard, Allomere smugly boasts of his hand in the deaths of Shard's parents.
Any thoughts or suggestions on this?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpaiopenSpeculatory Entry on Hazbin Hotel page.
The character page for Hazbin Hotel: Heaven had a folder on it specifically referring to the "Elders of Heaven" and treats them like a legitimate group of characters... except they aren't. Aside from a single line from Charlie in the very first episode, there's no indication they as a group exist at all and wasn't just a catchall term used to refer to Heaven's authority, especially since one of the so-called "elders" is Sera the High Seraphim, and its all but said she is the leader of Heaven, aided by the aforementioned first episode depicting Sera alone when Charlie mentions "Heaven" making the "heartless decision" to conduct the Exterminations, and the only beings said to outrank her being God himself and the "Speaker of God". So I deleted
the folder on the basis that the group was a fanon concept.
Despite this, Kronger 3124 readded it
while claiming they do exist because of that first scene and an unrelated scene from the song "More Than Anything" where Lucifer shields Charlie from a generic group of angels, Kronger claiming they are the same angels from when Charlie mentioned the "Elders", despite the designs not being the same nor even being consistent in the alleged depiction from the first episode. Evidence: Scene of the "Elders" including Sera and "biblically accurate angels"
◊, Scene of the "Elders" scolding Lucifer with six generic humanoid silhouettes
◊, and Scene from "More Than Anything" depicting the angels allegedly the same as the "Elders"
◊. The only thing suggesting the ones from the second and third pictures are the same characters is the shape of the halos, which alone is not evidence enough to suggest they are the so called "Elders", especially since several characters have been shown to have similar looking Halos and when it contradicts the one that depicts Sera among them.
My point being is that, as of now, it is still fanon that these so called "elders" are a legitimate group and not just a term used to refer to the older angels to contrast Lucifer being the young "dreamer", and attempting to trope them as if they were is pure speculation.
As such, requesting permission to remove it without instigating an Edit War.
Edited by RebelFalconopenWhy people are so mean ?
Like I just asked that more tropes were dedicated to Buffy. Thank you, I'm aware of how the site got created but that doesn't mean it's doing it justice. What I mean is that no expy is done on Buffy characters when they (Buffy herself in particular) influenced a whole lot of characters. Kim Possible and Veronica Mars were confirmed to be inspired by Buffy, however none of them has Buffy written on their Expy. It bothers and I have a right to speak. What is wrong with you people ? At what point did I express a love (or even mentions) the name of Joss Whedon ? Never so why people are bringing that up. At what point did I speak badly or insult anybody ? None, so thank you to be polite. Like, what is this ? Twitter ?
openIs this work too NSFW to add?
I've been thinking about creating a page for The Penisman but I'm not entirely sure if it would be allowed or not.
The Penisman is a webcomic created in 2009 by Sui Ishida, who would later go on to create Tokyo Ghoul among other works, before he started drawing manga professionally. The Penisman follows a superhero with a penis for a head who fights enemies by ejaculating on them. Unsurprisingly, this was originally intended to be nothing more than a shitpost webcomic. However as time went on, it started taking itself surprisingly seriously with way more effort being put into the art and writing than a glorified shitpost had any right to. Despite still being about a guy with a penis for a head, you can really see the DNA of some of Ishida's future works.
Obviously there's a lot of graphic nudity and uncensored genitalia, and so several sites have it marked off as "pornographic," so I'm unsure if it would be allowed on this site or not.
Edited by ThereAintNoMountainresolved Fire Emblem edit war
- Dimitri from Fire Emblem: Three Houses. He is meant to be the closest to a traditional Fire Emblem lord. But even without his Sanity Slippage over the timeskip, some fans think that his heroic traits have setbacks that make him the very opposite of what those traits should make him. Even though his Ax-Crazy mindset for the first half of Part II is supposed to be wrong, many think that it is sloppily done because the cataclyst for it is him believing Edelgard caused the Tragedy of Duscur through small steps that come across as illogical, and that it happened when she was only 13 years old which is something he never thinks twice about until Cornelia drops some hints that leads him off from suspecting Edelgard. And even though he does eventually make attempts to better himself and atone for what he has done, it's seen as him being Easily Forgiven despite how mean he had been to his friends up until that point and that someone close to him such as Rodrigue had to die for it to happen. His overall goals is probably the biggest point against him, which is to keep Fódlan as it was before the war started and make changes in a slow but steady pace to prevent unnecessary sacrifices or upsetting the people, since he thinks the nobility and crests still have values. Many find this to be in incredibly poor taste when so much about the game's story is about showing how the current system has made Fódlan into the Crapsack World it is that brings harm to both nobles and commoners and is the exact thing Edelgard started the war against. And even if Dimitri were to install changes, who's to say they won't just as easily be undone by a future ruler, setting the world back to what it was before the game started? Even if that might happen somewhere down the line in every lords' ending, it is the easiest for Dimitri's reforms to be undone since it was so easy for him to install them, as opposed to the other endings where radical reforms are introduced and therefore is gonna be harder.
Ruderruby added this, Jamesjamm deleted citing "As another troper explained when removing this from the YMMV page, this is misuse as the only truly villainous acts are the Sanity Slippage the entry acknowledges is portrayed as wrong, and since Three Houses runs on Grey And Gray Morality, none of the lords can be said to be designated heroes since they’re antagonists on routes that aren’t theirs", Ruderruby added it back without explanation.
Thoughts on the matter?
openIs this an edit war?
So, on YMMV.Deadpool And Wolverine I removed
this entry:
- WTH, Costuming Department?: As great as it is to finally see Jackman wearing the Wolverine cowl, the item ultimately looks cheap and rubbery. One can't help but understand why it hasn't been employed in live-action before.
I removed because most fans liked the mask, and I couldn't find anyone claiming that it looked bad or cheap. However, then I looked through history and found that I removed this
Narm Charm entry that was very similar (and I forgot about):
- Narm Charm: Wolverine's suit on its own doesn't look bad in live action, but the mask is a little ridiculous and has some impractical features, like covering Logan's eyes. But when he put it on, many in the audience, and Deadpool himself, love it anyway despite or because of how ridiculous it looks and because they have waited since 2000 for this to happen.
It was removed per Narm thread
. Now they are not exactly the same and they are different tropes, so I don't think I edit warred, but I wanted to make sure.
openDid I misinterpret the rules for Useful Notes?
I noticed that UsefulNotes.The Studentenverbindung had a big list of tropes. To my knowledge (I am going off Useful Notes and things I have read about in the Useful Notes cleanup thread
), Useful Notes can have trope lists, but they have to describe media depictions, rather than trope the subject itself.
The Studentenverbindung's trope list seemed to be troping the subject directly, so, on June 11, I made an edit
where I renamed the header from "Tropes associated with Studentenverbindungen" to "Common tropes associated with Studentenverbindungen in fiction", rewrote one example to explicitly discuss media depictions, and removed the other tropes.
The next day, jeez added back the tropes I deleted
and sent me a notifier about misuse. Jeez mostly left the header and example I rewrote alone.
The main question I have is, was I in the wrong? Did I misinterpret something or apply a rule incorrectly? Or was this the right call?
Edited by DieselopenBetter Than Canon no longer allowed on YMMV Pages? Web Original
I'm trying to find when the decision that Better Than Canon is no longer allowed on YMMV pages was made, as I recently got a notification that amounted to "It's not allowed on YMMV pages anymore, only on the page itself" and I'm like... since when? I remember seeing it on the SAO Abridged page less than six months ago. It doesn't make sense that its disallowed since its inverse, Canon Defilement, is still allowed.
What's the point of having a wiki-like format if we're not allowed to have links to pages from other pages?
Edited by PhyrexianAjani95openRough grammar
stemy has rough grammar— examples:
Some had already been corrected, I fixed the rest, but I checked and there are serious errors in basically every edit they've made, so it seemed worth a report
Edited by Tremmor19resolved Is spoilering out an entire example fine with the spoiler policy? Western Animation
So I noticed on both WesternAnimation.K Pop Demon Hunters and YMMV.K Pop Demon Hunters that the same troper, ReginaldOgron5, edited two separate entries for the same reason: they're both completely
spoilered out
(though for the YMMV example I can at least understand a little more, with the Fan Wank explanation).
My concern is... there's multiple other completely spoilered out examples on both of those pages? And the thing is, not only are both of those examples not Self Fulfilling Spoilers, but they're also... actual spoilers that should be spoilered?
So I'm just wondering... is this correct? Is a completely spoilered out example fine?
Edited by Eisnerresolved Ultra Series - Found an eyebrow-raising YMMV post Live Action TV
The post in question goes like this here
:
- What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?: Some have criticized the franchise for supposedly having nationalistic anti-foreign sentiments, seeing the Japanese defense teams defending against various alien threats as paralleling Japan pushing away foreigners and foreign influence. Many point to the second episode of the original Ultraman as an example, where the Baltan aliens were fleeing refugees after they blew up their own planet.note Ignoring the fact that they were planning to enslave humanity and take the planet by force, and Science Patrol actually okayed the idea of the Baltans living on the planet so long as they abided Earth's laws (which the aliens refused). This is ignoring the many times that aliens were shown sympathetically (even as tragic victims of allegorical racismnote such as in episode 33 of Return of Ultraman, episode 25 of Ultraman Max, and many episodes of Ultraseven) and the main heroes, the Ultramen, are well... aliens. The Science Patrol is also shown to be an international organisation, the series just focuses on the Japanese branch.
The post ends up contradicting itself. Should it stay or be removed?
Edited by 9thOutworldsManopenEdit Reason: "Removing the excessive content"? Anime
I know Word Cruft is a reason for editing down an entry, but is it actually applicable in this case?
On November 4th
, I/Rebel Falcon, edited the entry for the trope "Because You Were Nice to Me" for the character Kyoka Jiro on My Hero Academia - Class 1-A (11-20) to provide further context, and I didn't think the entry was that long or required any Word Cruft.
- Because You Were Nice to Me: Jiro initially didn't have much of a connection with Midoriya throughout the school year. During the preparation for the Culture Festival however, she approached him for aid in neatening up her notes on music, initially embarrassed at needing to ask but finding herself pleasantly surprised the more they worked together, slowly transitioning into the two becoming genuine friends. She brings up this moment specifically when all of Class 1-A come to bring him back to U.A. High after he had left due to becoming a target for Shigaraki due to his possession of One For All, telling him how happy she was to find they shared a hobby in note taking and, that while he has gotten stronger, she doesn't want her friend having to suffer for their sake.
- Because You Were Nice to Me: During Class 1-A's fight against Midoriya, when they try to bring him to back U.A. High, Jiro brings up to him how they bonded over their shared habit of making notes to improve their works (for Izuku, it's his combat skills, for Jiro, it's her musical skills) and how he helped her prepare for the School Festival as a way to convince him to return, even if she know it's only a minor moment.
EDIT: I am not trying to get anyone in trouble, this is just me trying to clear up some genuine confusion on my end. Edited by RebelFalcon
openTrivia in trope examples
There's a recurring issue in Characters.Minecraft that I'd like to address:
There's this boss, the Ender Dragon, which is often referred to in the fandom as being canonically named "Jean". The issue is that this is not actually referenced to in canon anywhere, and from what I can tell is based on only two sources: the first is this Reddit comment by Notch from 2011
("And I, for one, am so glad she stays there. What's her name?" "Jean?"), and the second is this Twitter comment by Nathan Addams/Dinnerbone from 2015
("Officially I think it's "Jean?" ;D") Notch is Minecraft's original coder, but parted ways with it years ago and is no longer credited on the game; Dinnerbone is an active code developer.
(Incidentally, there is also this article from 2019
, which claims that "uttering [the dragon's] true name would unleash a destructive force that would obliterate not only the End, but the Nether and the Overworld at the same time", which is... not hugely authoritative either, but I'd still rank it a touch higher than "this one Twitter comment from ten years ago".)
Now, commentary from a work's creator outside of the work itself is Word of God. My understanding is that, since Word of God is Trivia, it cannot be used as a source for trope examples — and, presumably, this would go double for when God is no longer involved with a work in any way, or when the Word is just a single social media comment from a decade or more ago. So I just cut those examples, left a note about Trivia entries, and moved on.
Issue is that people keep adding this material, and I really would rather not go on a one-man rampage here because that'd probably just turn into an edit war, so I'd like some feedback. At the absolute least, I think that making broad statements like "this thing is canonically so" or "this thing is confirmed to be so" when the actual sources are, well, what they are is misleading and, if you want to add this information, you should at least qualify where it actually comes from.
Edited by TheriocephalusopenLockout or Alienating Premise?
YMMV.Captain America Brave New World.
- Continuity Lock-Out: Unlike some recent MCU films where the continuity lockout came from the sheer volume of stuff audiences were expected to know going in, a common critique of Brave New World is that it relies on its audience remembering specific events from three "lesser" MCU entries, namely a Disney+ exclusive mini-series from four years prior, a film from four years prior released during the pandemic, and another film from seventeen years prior, the latter two being not well received by MCU fans. Brave New World rapidly recaps all of the necessary information from those installments to get everyone up to speed, but it also clearly expects them to be fresh on the audience's mind.
I intend to delete as cleanup
of
YMMV.The Marvels 2023 said CL doesn't apply if it sufficiently explains past events to newcomers to follow, audiences merely assuming lockout is something else. I'm asking if Audience-Alienating Premise might apply as it contributed to work being a Box-Office Bomb.
Relating this was removed from YMMV.The Marvels 2023:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: One the biggest factors that led to the movie's colossal Box-Office Bomb is the fact that the premise of the story involves Carol teaming up with Monica and Kamala, two characters that have previously appeared in the Disney+ streams. The problem with this is the fact that the general audience have no idea who they are, the former only appearing in a supporting role in the previous movie & WandaVision and the latter only appearing in her own series which itself isn't well-received by the viewers. While the movie did give a summary regarding who they are, the perceived Continuity Lock-Out ended up leading to non-comic book fans being turned away from the cinemas' premiere.
Removal reason was "I highly doubt this was that big of a problem, given that a general moviegoer would either just see a bunch of new characters or would have likely seen both Wandavision and Ms. Marvel beforehand if they were hyped for this movie. This is like arguing that audiences would be confused on seeing Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in Age of Ultron, or Black Panther in Civil War, or for that matter The Falcon in The Winter Soldier." Valid or not?
But there's this under AudienceAlienatingPremise.Film:
- This was a major reason why Thunderbolts* (2025) became an Acclaimed Flop. It sold itself on a unification of various villains from prior Marvel Cinematic Universe projects—which, due to the MCU's propensity towards killing off its villains, left it with a collection of second-string characters from divisive or less-acclaimed projects, with Black Widow (2021) and The Falcon and the Winter Soldier providing the lion's share. This put it in a weird position of simultaneously dealing with Continuity Lock-Out and not really benefiting from star power, and it bearing little resemblance to the most popular runs of the comic Thunderbolts didn't give it much of a draw with the core fanbase, either. The result was a lukewarm-at-best runup to release, and while the film tended to pleasantly surprise those who did see it, it nonetheless lost quite a bit of money, with even Kevin Feige admitting that the film was probably doomed from the get-go.
Since asking about other possible AAP examples, asking about this as well. And if valid, would disinterest/unfamiliarity with prior works be grounds for applying AAP to the others?
resolved Need help parsing "Crippling Overspecialization" Entries
This morning, a new user, ~amybranch posted a handful of Crippling Overspecialization entries on Characters.Dungeons And Dragons Classes Fifth Edition Classes, describing a few classes (namely the Barbarian and Monk) as suffering from this. I disputed them because to me, their descriptions seemed very misleading and off-base for what qualifies as Crippling Overspecialization: they're focused entirely on having nerfs between the 2024 and 2014 rules while ignoring their side buffs, as well as their holistic design — they're painted as "only" good as combat classes in ideal combat scenarios despite that being kind of the intent of their design.
I removed most of the entries
because these examples didn't illustrate being "crippling" or even "overspecialized" to the degree that the trope warrants, but they were added back just now
with this edit reason:
That doesn't sound right, right? I don't think a character being as equally weak to certain types of damage as other charactersRef."2024 Barbarians are resilient against enemies that only deal bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, and especially vulnerable to anything else." constitutes "crippling", or that a class explicitly about specializing in a particular form of combat is "overspecialization"Ref.While describing the Bare-Fisted Monk class, "The result is a class that's good at running up to enemies and punching them...and very bad at anything else.". The fact these character are — anecdotally speaking from my experiences in the community — generally seen as pretty strong, makes me really have to tilt my head as to where this is coming from, and so I'd like some extra eyes here to help judge these examples.
Edited by number9roboticopenTrope misuse Literature
Beastpower 87 has repeatedly added Moral Event Horizon entries to the Harry Potter page that aren't accurate, such as saying Snape crossed it in Book 5 by not teaching Occlumency properly despite the fact he's portrayed as redeeming himself, and claiming Hermione crossed it despite her being one of the heroes which means it wasn't intended by the author (and she's claimed to have crossed it by wiping her parents' memories despite this being to protect them).
Edited by Javertshark13

So I ended up coming across a page for p#blm, and I'm wondering if this is a project that has been discussed or permitted in the past, because the content looks sus as hell. This webcomic is a load of wall-of-text soyjak memes from 4chan where the shtick is that person A is introduced spouting a huge Wall of Text of racism/sexism/antisemitism/anti-LGBT/whatever hateful rhetoric before person B enters to with an equally huge Wall of Text arguing against their bigotry. All edits on the page since its creation have been handled by one troper.
Putting aside the questionable taste in subject matter (especially when half of it is loads of unfiltered hateful rhetoric written by a 4chan user), and especially not to put the troper on blast (they've done plenty of exceptional work and I fully believe the page was made in good faith), but is this actually something that warrants a page? I know There Is No Such Thing as Notability, but this feels sort of like a weird grey area considering the "soyjak" memes this thing is basing all its characters on are not of its own creation — the content is otherwise an author(s) delivering a pretty blatant war on straw and long proselytizing in "meme" format. Compare it to something like Rage Comics, which itself kind of has problems of coverage but at least treats the "work" about the actual original characters and contexts they're made for.
Edited by number9robotic