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:
openIs Harry Potter an Adaptational Badass? Film
Much like the DC Extended Universe, the Harry Potter saga is no stranger to controversy and this time I wanna focus on our boy Harry
. His character page lists him as an Adaptational Badass under the following conditions:
- In the first book, Harry is barely able to hold off Quirrell, with the effort nearly proving fatal. In the film, Harry kills Quirrell with relative ease, and is still on his feet before being downed by Voldemort's soul when he escapes.
- When confronted by Snape in the Shrieking Shack in the third film, Harry sends him flying into the wall with an Expelliarmus from Hermione's wand, which is supposed to be more difficult with a wand that hasn't chosen him. In the books, this same effect was achieved by him, Ron, and Hermione trying to disarm Snape simultaneously.
- In the fifth book, his duel with the Death Eaters in the Ministry had him fumbling spells a few times including reversing his own spell by accident. The film portrays him as being far more competent overall.
I have to ask: are these entries valid? Adaptational Badass has seen a lot of misuse in recent years and the AB page has a paragraph that says: At its core this causes a significant dissonance with those familiar with the original character. It is not about a change in personality (Martial Pacifist to Blood Knight), method of fighting (defensive Simple Staff to offensive BFS) or battlefield intelligence (Dumb Muscle to Genius Bruiser), but in terms of how relevant they are in a fight. The key is how they are able to navigate through the story. Consider as a result of Power Creep, Power Seep that Superman himself has varied from simply "above human" in strength to near godlike, but he has always been Superman.
Also, I've always believed that Adaptational Badass applies when the character, in his/her entirety, becomes a badass in the adaptation, not when he/she is given small moments of badassery, even when he/she is already a badass in the source material. So, what do you think?
openMore YMMV/BlackWidow2021 issues?
YMMV.Black Widow 2021, which had prior ATT
, has these entries I find suspect.
- Epileptic Trees: Given the controversy around Taskmaster barely resembling the comic character, people are already theorising how to give the character a 'do-over', specifically calling to how Mandarin and Deadpool (two characters who were similarly, controversially overhauled in their respective film debuts) got revamped years later. Ideas range from a Legacy Character approach, having "Antonia" get a sudden personality change, or even just straight-up introducing a comic accurate version with no relation to the version in this movie.
- Narm:
- Dreykov being unable to be harm by the Black Widows through pheromones of all things has been met with a lot of eye rolling from fans, with many raising the question on why Natasha can't simply shoot him from across the room.
Epileptic Trees I think is off the wall improbable speculation about the work itself, not future works, but this could be valid. Narm I'm very certain is misuses as this is more Fridge Logic than unintentionally funny. Thoughts?
openFranchise Killing in Digimon Anime
So, Digimon is registered in Franchise Killer under the following context: The decline of the virtual pet craze caused Digimon to take a few major knocks in the merch sales, and it wasn't helped by Digimon Tamers underperforming in its target demographic (though it did end up Vindicated by History when older audiences rediscovered it). Digimon Frontier attempted to reverse the decline by retooling itself as a Henshin Hero series, but this alienated a chunk of existing fans and failed to create enough new ones, putting the franchise on ice until Digimon Data Squad four years later. And then it went on hiatus until Digimon Fusion four years later again. And then another hiatus until Digimon Adventure tri. four years later yet again (five'' years later with Digimon Universe: App Monsters if only counting TV shows). Needless to say, the franchise has had it rough since its heyday.
I have to ask, is this valid? Considering the franchise still continues to this day, does it really belong on the Franchise Killer page?
openA bizarre occurrence
So, Vif119 is currently involved in an Edit War on YMMV.Transformers Beast Wars 2021 over whether an example fits Fan Dumb, Hatedom, or Hate Dumb. The twist this time is that he’s at war with himself, as the majority of recent edits to that page are him editing that example. Any solutions?
Edited by GeneralGiganopenIndexing a work with an uncertain (2019/2020) release date
When I created Pinball.Stranger Things last year, I indexed it under The New '10s because it was revealed in December 2019, with at least outside forum post noting that someone had received a machine before 2020 began. Now, however, I find myself wondering if I should categorize and index it as a 2020 release instead, as the vast majority of machines were manufactured and released that year. (Long story short: there are three different versions of the game, all of which entered production at different times. The Internet Pinball Database lists the Pro model
as beginning manufacturing in December 2019, though the Premium
and Limited
models started in early 2020. In addition, the TWIPYs - the most prominent pinball awards show as of present - listed it among other 2020 pinball games for their most recent ceremony
.)
openNo Title
Godscar Chasm deleted a lot of the examples
on Nick Fury, so now it just looks like a list of tropes with no context.
openWhat Could Have Been use?
I have a question about this I found on a characters page.
- LoveTriangle: [[WhatCouldHaveBeen Had the series continued]] he would have eventually found himself in one of these.
Is What Could Have Been not allowed under character pages or non-Trivia tropes as it doesn't happen in the actual work? Or is it allowed if the series never reached the point to contradict it (the notes the author revealed it in are effectively the continuation of the work as opposed to something they changed their mind about, or does it not count as they might have changed it in the final product?) and/or only allowed if it provides important context for what is there (like what it was building to)?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenUse Of The R-Word
I was reading one of the trope pages for American Dad! and came across an entry for a minor character. The character was described as “mentally re***” (uncensored on the page, but I refuse to type it in full), which I really must question. I know that phrase used to be used as a medical term, but it just seems... really not polite and kind of shocking on the page itself.
Sorry if this sounds whiny, I have a big thing against slurs.
openQuestionable WMGs
Recently, I have come across a few WMG pages/entries that may go against the rules.
- The Mysterious Mr. Enter. Most of the entries are about his reviews and what he'll review next, which is fine. However, there are a couple that are based on him as a person. The first WMG in particular is downright absurd, considering it's talking about a real life personnote by contrast, the "Mr. Enter will turn into an enter keyboard button" entry seems to be referring to his avatar, not him as a person.
- Perfect Hair Forever only has one entry, and it's about the show being brought back for another season (or at least more episodes). While WMG guesses are supposed to be about what happens in the work itself, this one skirts the line a bit, although the reason given seems to lean more into the "not allowed" territory; it basically says the show may get more episodes just to fill more Adult Swim timeslots. Speaking of which...
- Adult Swim is the one that really stuck out. Entries about Adult Swim execs take the piss out of anime, blaming Adult Swim for both Cartoon Network's downfall and a bomb scare, and guessing Adult Swim's schedule in the years to come (which may go against WMG rules, but is comparatively tame compared to some of the other entries).
openPossible fanfic page "ownership" issue
Happened to look at the Cut List and see that Muse Hysteria and its Trivia subpage are listed, with the reason of "fanfic is being retooled". The page looks like a stub, but all its content was just removed
by HotmanX32, who, it turns out, is also the author
. The story itself does seem to still exist
.
open Disproportionate Retribution
So Ferot_Dreadnaught has been removing a bunch of examples from DisproportionateRetribution.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic on the grounds that it needs to be In-Universe or intentional. The problem is that the trope itself never states that it needs to be In-Universe or intentional only that some for retribution to be disproportionate to what happens. So I don't think that these removals are valid.
Edited by Ordeaux26openRaya and the Last Dragon - Villain has a Point Western Animation
This has been added and removed by various tropers, the most recent of which is rva98014:
- Villain Has a Point: Downplayed. Namaari isn't a villain so much as she is the story's antagonist, but towards the climax, she's not wrong when she soberly points out two things. First, she tells Raya that while Sisu was the bigger person and bothered to trust Namaari, the disasterous outcome happened because Raya didn't trust Sisu's judgement nor anyone else. Second, although Namaari bringing a crossbow played a part in Sisu's Disney Death, Raya causing the misfire technically makes it Raya's fault as well.
For some context, the hero accidentally causes a crossbow bolt to kill a supporting character who could have saved the world. The person who she made accidentally shoot said character blames her, and the animation supports this.
Can we get a consensus, here? For the record, I really do think it was solely Namaari's fault, but it's not supported in the movie itself, and Word of God hasn't said anything on if both characters were in the right/wrong.
Edited by FishiousRendopenEdit war(?)...in custom WikiWord display?
I have some concerns regarding the page Bug Fables. Right now it displays as Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling. What concerns me, however, is that the page name just uses two words: 'Bug Fables', and the custom display just changes the page name to the game's full title. And the thing that worries me even more is that this custom display was already used before some long time ago, and was, for some reason, got reverted back to just 'Bug Fables' at some point of time. And now, several days ago, it's back at 'Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling'. Also, it prompts people to wick the redirect to the work page instead of the work page itself, and it bugs me.
I'd like to ask: is this acceptable to have the full title as custom display when the link itself uses the shortened title? And does this fall under the definition of the "edit war"?
Hope my wording doesn't confuse you.
Edited by I--Vanya--IopenTheReasonYouSuckSpeech and the "commentary community" Web Original
In December 2019, this
discussion in the "Is this an example?" thread led to the removal of all examples on TheReasonYouSuckSpeech.Web Original that involve reviewers bashing works/characters/writers they don't like or that were posted in the form of comments on YouTube videos, etc. In that thread, I noted
that the folder for the "commentary community" that used to be on the page seemed like a bunch of questionably valid examples dripping with drama importation, and everyone there was okay with me cutting them.
But earlier today, I found out that TheReasonYouSuckSpeech.The Commentary Community was made from the deleted examples in May 2020 by Blazing_Larvesta, with the edit reason of "Turning a deleted section into its own article. Really hope I don't wind up clowning myself here..." The examples are still pretty questionable, and they're still taking sides in internet fights, so can I cutlist that page?
Edited by SeracopenIs it appropriate to add a relevant reference to one's self to a work's page?
So, in effect, I am a Promoted Fanboy who has gone on to also become a variation of Teasing Creator for a web original. I'm certainly not the only Promoted Fanboy, so I can be pretty vague on that one, but the Teasing Creator part is unique to me and one other person involved in the work. I want to avoid accidentally adding anything to the page that could be read as self-promotion, since I know that is against the rules, but I also seem to be the only person maintaining the work's page. Would it be appropriate for me to add these facts to the work's trivia page?
resolved Work with no tropes found Film
Madras Cafe had no tropes listed when I stumbled upon it via Wiki Walk. I've added one from the trope I found it from but it needs more, I've not seen it myself so I'm in no position to add insight on it, and I don't know where else to bring this up (Needs More Wicks seems to be cases of trope pages needing listing, not works).
openConsole wars
I really didn't want to resort to this, because since I edited this page for the first time I thought I could keep it clean to the largest extent possible, but in the midst of... certain controversies (such as Microsoft's buyout of Bethesda), it's no longer something I'll be able to handle alone.
Right now, the Console Wars page has a problem of what Wikipedia calls "undue weight". Whereas the first seven generations, and to a lesser extent the eighth, are covered appropiately, with each important aspect of them being touched upon with the necessary-yet-measured weight, the section for the ninth generation is already a big mess before the generation itself even started. The way I see it, at this early point only the most entirely general aspects should be covered, and any other details can wait until the generation starts to wind down. As of now, there's a recently added large paragraph just about Microsoft having bought Bethesda.
This wouldn't be a problem if all generation sections had this much detail, but that's not the case. Every single thing is being lumped in the 9th gen section as if we were sure it's going to be an absolute game changer. For one, it's too soon for us to truly gauge the impact of Bethesda being sold to Microsoft.
I propose a major trim to that section, only covering the truly relevant things, and the rest can come when we can definitely see the evolution of things. What do you guys think?
EDIT: I had submitted this query because I think the Bethesda thing was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it also gives undue weight to the whole controversy over the sequels to Spider Man and Horizon. Are we sure this will be something to be relevant over the years for the generation? It might cause some uproar, but it still looks like it'll be something purely situational, and of little-to-no importance to the widespread scope of the page's subject.
Edited by MyFinalEditsopenAbout audience reactions
So on the YMMV page for Mary and Max here
has a Nightmare Fuel entry that I find questionable, but I wanted to bring it up Here.
Spoilers for the movie, I guess. The film is about the unlikely friendship between a young girl with low self-esteem named Mary and an older, autistic man named Max as they write letters to each other. The film covers the years of their friendship and their individual problems, including a fight between them, but it isn't until the end that they finally get the chance to meet when Mary flies over to visit, only to find that Max has already passed away. Mary sits down beside him, sees that he's saved every one of her letters over the years, and is comforted knowing that her friend died in peace.
It's better when seen, of course, but the ending is presented as bittersweet but heartwarming. But the YMMV page in question has a Nightmare Fuel entry about Mary sitting next to Max's corpse. I don't really...agree with the entry since the scene is presented as nothing but touching, but I don't know if this is just a case of "Your Mileage May Vary."
So, this specific entry aside, I guess I'm curious if Tearjerker, Nightmare Fuel, Heartwarming, etc. entries like these - reactions that were not ones that were intended - are valid? Obviously sitting next to a corpse isn't an endearing thought, but nothing about the scene is trying to be scary in the slightest. I don't know where we draw the line with YMMV entries, I must admit.
openDMOS Advertising
On DethroningMoment.Advertising, there are several different entries made by the same tropers (myself included, admittedly), but about advertising from different products. Other genre works allow repeated examples as long as they're not repeating the same moment from the same show/movie/etc, so what's the standard for DMOS on advertising? Is it a DMOS for all advertising, in which the repeated entries wouldn't be allowed, or just a DMOS for those specific brands' advertising campaigns, in which the repeated examples are okay if they're for different franchises? (This would also make it clearer whether examples that refer to entire campaigns can be cut, since they may be the nadir of advertisement in general, but too general for a specific campaign.)
Edited by mightymewtron

I will be adding this to TooBleakStoppedCaring.Fan Works per Cleanup
.
I was thinking of adding that, despite having a tropes page, it took nearly a year for this wiki to acknowledge its cancelation as more evidence its fans/readers have stopped caring. Would that be OK to add if it is only secondary evidence to the primary out of wiki proof? Or should such be avoided if unnecessary (there's other proof enough) and/or overly myopic/self-referential? (I asked the cleanup but they seemed mixed on it.)