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:
openOn the Mario Party article
Greetings, fellow tropers. There's a question I'd like to ask.
The next thing I'd like to do in the wiki is to crosswick trope examples into the Mario Party article. However, when I checked the Related tab, I noticed that many of the redirects (namely those of the individual Mario Party games) have wicks, meaning that they pertain examples that are specific to individual installments in the series. For example, Mario Party 2 has 27 wicks, while Mario Party 3 has 29. Between this and the possibility that many of the 1197 direct wicks to the parent series page may be referring to only certain installments rather than the series as a whole, I was wondering if it would be okay to create work pages for the individual Mario Party pages, which would give home to the redirects' wicks and also limit the example section of the parent page to tropes that apply to most or all games.
Having myself played the second, fifth, seventh, ninth, and Super installments (and currently having Superstars on my wishlist), I could further contribute to the troping of their contents whenever possible: even though nearly all MP games have the same gameplay formula, they still have unique elements in the boards, minigames and (however minor) story premises.
For reference, all the Mario Kart articles have their own individual pages, same with all the New Super Mario Bros. pages.
If the answer to the question is no, I'll respect the decision and then proceed to simply crosswick examples into the parent page, in the hopes that it won't exceed the size limit. Thank you in advance.
open Should this be a page?
Should Creator.Embracer Group exist? They're not really a creator, they just own a bunch of creators. Also, the description is copied from a previous revision of Creator.THQ Nordic (some of the text is also in the current version), and the page itself mostly consists of red links.
openJohn Byrne's Superman = Audience-Alienating Era Print Comic
Ok, I gotta ask, can John Byrne's Superman, especially The Man of Steel be considered an Audience-Alienating Era?
First of, The Man of Steel was initially listed in the YMMV section as Condemned by History by the following argument: "Back in 1986, Man of Steel sold extremely well and was hailed as the story which modernized and made Superman good and fresh again thanks to scraping off the Silver Age "silliness". Over time, though, Byrne's vision was gradually rejected and ultimately retconned out of continuity. Most of his contributions (the birthing matrix, the unfeeling Krypton...) and interpretations (Superman being the only son of Krypton who rejects his immigrant heritage and declares to be fully American...) were eventually deemed mistakes and expunged from the mythos, whereas most of Silver Age lore and characters (Supergirl, Krypto, the Phantom Zone and its inmates, the Fortress of Solitude...), which he attempted to write off because of their alleged childishness and irrelevance, have been brought back. Nowadays, Man of Steel is considered a dated origin which has aged badly (especially compared to the Batman and Wonder Woman's reboots), and not even Post-Crisis Superman fans seem to want it back., but was later removed
.
Secondly, John Byrne's run itself is listed in the The DCU's section
for Audience-Alienating Era under the following argument: "Although John Byrne's 80's Superman's run got praise and good sales back in the day, it also gained many vocal detractors who decried the erasure of many classic characters and concepts, the loss of the whimsical tone and the colorful high sci-fi/fantasy concepts, the diminishing of Superman's complex dual identity, the messing-up of the Legion of Super-Heroes, the unfortunate message that "immigrants should forget their origins", the shoehorning and mishandling of the New Gods, the blatant misogyny of some stories (Big Barda being mind-controlled, raped and hypnotized into being a porno actress comes to mind), and the long-term damage done to the mythos caused by Byrne eliminating anything not protected by his Golden Age nostalgia. History -and DC, who would go to undo most of what Byrne did- ended up siding with them, and nowadays that period is disliked and disregarded by everybody but Byrne diehards."
An era can only be considered as Audience-Alienating if... 1. the era is a critical and financial disappointment even during the time of release 2. any changes the era brings to the franchise are removed by later stories 3. any time the era is referenced to by later stories, it's almost always in a negative manner.
I bring this up because a lot of examples in AAE come off as blatant editorializing. What do you think?
openPronoun inconsistency Anime
Kyubey's section
in the Puella Magi Madoka Magica character page has a few inconcsistencies with the pronouns used for him. Most sections use he/him, while some use they/them or it/its.
There's also the following example:
- Heel–Face Turn: This is very unusually subverted for many reasons. The first one is that following Madoka's wish and the rewriting of reality, he/they no longer needs to be a manipulative mastermind. Secondly he/they doesn't change in the slightest, he/they just doesn't have the motivation in this world. Thirdly he ultimately chooses to re-rewrite reality anyway out of greed in the movie and goes back to their old scheming ways.
And this:
- Your Approval Fills Me with Shame: Gives one on occasion, as far as he/she/it can actually express approval. The one he's speaking with definitely feels shame as a result.
In the anime, Kyubey refers to himself with "boku", and English supplementary material refers to Kyubey with he/him pronouns.
What do we do?
Edited by YuriHaru567openRed Zone Cuba entries Film
The YMMV page for Red Zone Cuba has the following entries for Designated Hero and Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
- Designated Hero: The main characters are entirely unsympathetic, particularly Griffin. He is supposed to be viewed as a put-upon everyman who just suffers from poor impulse control, but is instead portrayed as a selfish, violent, and hypocritical murderer and rapist. When the work page describes Griffin as "one of the most disturbingly realistic portrayals of a sociopath in film", something went wrong.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Griffin was meant to be seen as a mostly decent person who was down on his luck and held back by a Hair-Trigger Temper, and what happens to him at the end of the movie was supposed to be tragic and thought-provoking. However, he does nothing even remotely heroic or altruistic at all throughout the entire story; anything he does that seems so (asking for water for a sick man in a POW camp, or treating the wife of said sick man nicely) is merely calculated to advance his own agenda. Griffin was supposed to have fallen beyond sympathy when he rapes a blind girl and murders her father, but he failed to establish any sympathy to lose by that point.
The entries don't cite any evidence that Griffin was meant to be sympathetic, and having seen the uncut film, it doesn't come off that way at all. He comes off simply as a Villain Protagonist who's driven by greed and gets his comeuppance at the end. No one in the film expresses sympathy for his death, and aside from grim music briefly playing when he's shot down, there's no hint of it being meant to be tragic. Also, his line that he wants to "go legit" is followed by him saying, "I don't want any bulls chasing me," so in context it's clearly Pragmatic Villainy rather than him wanting to redeem himself.
It's worth noting that Coleman Francis's films in general are dark and gritty, and tend to focus on unsympathetic characters, so this may simply be his Signature Style, and Griffin being the Villain Protagonist may have been mistaken for the film portraying him as the hero. Can these be cut?
Edited by Javertshark13openWall of Text entry Western Animation
The YMMV page for "The Ending of the End, Part 2" has this very long entry under Draco in Leather Pants:
- All three of the villains received this status in spades for their punishment at the end of the episode.
- Chrysalis, Tirek, and Cozy Glow being turned to stone as punishments caused backlash by defenders, saying that they didn't deserve such a punishment due to being forced by Discord as Grogar to commit said actions, and they weren't being given a chance by the heroes to turn over a new leaf throughout the episode and the previous one. What is largely ignored is the fact that what the villains did to Equestria was what they've always wanted to do ever since they appeared in the show, they were mainly forced by Discord to work together as a team instead of individuals to make their plans succeed, and they have stated and shown more than once that they are not interested in friendship or reforming themselves like when Chrysalis turned down Starlight's offer of reformation at the end of To Where and Back Again. And on the subject of the villains' punishments, they not only tried to murder the Mane Six and the other heroes, but also destroy everything that made Equestria what it was which included dividing the three pony tribes against one and other, which as a result almost made everything that the Mane Six accomplished in the entire series be All for Nothing. And considering that they almost came close with succeeding at destroying Equestria and the heroes and even presumably even creating a forever bad memory that the population of Equestria won't be forgetting for a long time, imprisoning the villains in stone would be for the best to prevent a tragedy like that from happening again.
- Cozy Glow was hit with this the hardest out of the three villains. Defenders felt she did not deserve the same fate as Tirek and Chrysalis, due to simply being a child and saying she could have been given a lesser sentence to serve her time, and demonizing Celestia, Luna, and Discord for doing it to her. This is despite the fact that Cozy was well aware of what she was doing the entire time, and her actions were still as bad as Tirek and Chrysalis since her actions to drain the magic in Equestria and claim it as her own was kind of the same plan as Tirek's. She has even proudly called herself a villain and shows no remorse for any of her actions, and in fact actively enjoys it.
The first entry is overly long and keeps re-hashing the same points, and I'm not sure if it even fits, since it's mostly just saying that fans thought the punishment was harsh. The second entry is redundant with the first, only focusing more on Cozy Glow specifically. I've brought this up on the Wall of Text cleanup thread twice but been ignored both times.
Edited by Javertshark13open In this wiki, is Shout-Out the same as intertextuality?
Intertextuality is the intentional use of elements of other previous texts, which is what the Shout-Outs Index presents itself as. However, Shout-Out is normally conceived as a superficial reference to a work (one of its redirects is Allusion, for example, what is normally considered a different type of intertextuality from, let's say, Parodies, translations, Pastiches etc.). Is there space for a Definition-Only Page about intertext and its academic divisions? Or could the Shout-Outs Index be renamed (only the index, Shout-Out could stay as it is, even more so considering its popularity), get a redirect after Intertextual Tropes or something similar?
Edited by good-morningopenHarry Ellis Whitewashing/Edit War Avoidance Film
On Characters.Die Hard, mattc0tter re-added some whitewashing/ACI of Harry Ellis
that I previously deleted on account of the movie never showing Ellis to be anything other than a selfish prick. I do not want to get in an edit war over this, but I want to make very clear that having seen the film, Ellis' benevolent intentions are ACI at best.
openAgenda-Based Edit?
Wolfofthewest recently added a line
to Never a Self-Made Woman with the edit reason being complaining about it being sexist nonsense. Whether it's because they think the description or the trope itself is sexist doesn't matter, we don't care for editorializing of that nature.
openRecap pages
I've noticed that Khalil Goodman has made recap pages that don't list any tropes, or/and that only list the first part of the episode's plot, like this:
(Also, Khalil's descriptions are plagiarized from official plot summaries, but I've already sent a notifier about that just now.)
Edited by MichaelKatsuroopenEdit war
I think there's a minor edit war on the YMMV page
for Wuthering Heights.
Bennings
added a Common Knowledge entry about how it's "known" that all the characters are awful but only about half of them really are. (Never read the book myself, don't know anything about this.)
Bennings listed a few of these "awful" characters. caringguy
added a character named Hareton to the list, arguing he should be listed as awful if the character Nelly is, but Bennings deleted the addition with "No way in hell I'm giving you Hareton."
openPolicy on dead links?
When it comes to examples that contain external links (Important note: I'm not talking about "examples" that are ENTIRELY links, I know those should just be cut), I'm finding that Link Rot is hitting this site more and more with time due to how long we've been around.
Now, normally I head to the Wayback Machine to necromance dead links. But that's not always possible; like, an example under Astonishingly Appropriate Interruption formerly had a link to a Smosh article that couldn't be restored. The example was still valid without the link, so I took out the link and kept the example, but the additional information it was there to give and cite was lost, which is something I still found unfortunate.
How often does this issue really come up? And how do we root around for where they lay, just manually clicking on each? Is there already a dedicated cleanup effort to finding dead links? (I can't access the forums to check for myself.)
openOveruse of capitalized letters, bold and italics
Hello everyone,
Just to be sure, what is the actual policy regarding the use of capitalized letters, bold and italics? I encountered a troper who seems to have an habit of adding examples with a lot of those, which leads to entries where you suddenly HAVE SENTENCES THAT READ LIKE THAT. Which is fine in some instances (like Self-Demonstrating Article of characters), but feels like bad wiki writing everywhere else. As far as I know, the occasional italics or bolding is fine to highlight something, but I fear we may have an issue when it becomes an habit (and there is no specified Issue Helper reason dedicated to that as far as I know).
Edited by NonoRobotopenQuestionable edits
Someone needs to check up on the troper Pakicetidae, as while they appear to have made a number of legit edits, some of their other edits are questionable:
- From here
and below, they made strange edits to Fan Dumb (changing category names to more politically-charged ones, and I think they tried to add a picture)
- Similar edits
to Hate Dumb
- An arbitrary name change
to a hypothetical example
- Added a mention of themself
to an example that already violated This Troper (the offending parts have since been deleted)
At the very least, the first two seem to violate the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, and they didn't give reasons for any of their edits. Were those name changes ever discussed anywhere, and if not, are they free to get reverted?
openWonk/complaining?
WarriorsGate added this to WesternAnimation.My Little Pony Equestria Girls:
- Contrived Coincidence: The films and specials are an awkward mix of supernatural high school thriller and wacky sitcom, with plot conveniences (Pinkie Pie spontaneously guessing Twilight's backstory in the first movie; the fake-out with the White Void Room in Rollercoaster of Friendship) that work as jokes in a comedy but do not work as legitimate plot developments in a story that takes itself seriously, leaving the sub-franchise in some nebulous void between the two.
This is largely identical to an Uncertain Audience example they added but was cut per cleanup
(entry was just about attempt to appeal to one audience poorly, UA is attempts to appeal to multiple audiences that undercut each other). This one is definitely too complainy for a non-YMMV.
It's inaccurate in that the stated examples are Played for Laughs (EG has enough legit dramatic moments you can tell the difference) and EG does not take itself more seriously than it's parent series Friendship is Magic (EG's target audiences is just a bit older that FIM's prepubescent, EG's writers stated how it would be different if it was targeting more mature audiences). Further discussion involves debating semantics about how "serious" and "maturity" are used/apply.
This is looking enough like wonk I'm bringing here.
openATT Inconsistent Suspension Glitch
If I try to make the first reply to an ATT thread, I get a pop up saying that my permissions for this area have been suspended. However, if my reply is the second or later, then it goes through fine. I have to admit it's spooked me a few times before I realized the pattern and made me wonder if I did something wrong.
This has been happening for a while, but I figured it wasn't worth reporting before due to how uncommon my particular situation is (and, with it, how unlikely to happen to anyone else it is), but the more it happens, the more annoying it gets.
And yes, it even happens on threads I create myself. I tested it just now.
Edited by BaffleBlendopenPossible Speculative Troping
Over on VideoGame.Five Nights At Freddys Security Breach:
- Foreshadowing:
- Gregory does not have a guest profile, no prior passes or merch, and starts the game already being chased by Vanessa. He also shows a surprisingly resourceful and ruthless streak, such as driving a car and using jumper cables in one ending and thinking of stealing the other animatronics' parts to upgrade Freddy with little guilt at the idea. While Vanessa and the animatronics bring up his family, Gregory never mentions anything of the sort despite being stuck in a dangerous situation without being able to contact anyone outside. Freddy is also the one who gives him the FazWatch, with no mention of a phone that could have an app with similar use installed. The one-star ending offers a potential explanation: he's shown sleeping in a box in an alleyway, with a newspaper as a makeshift blanket. This suggests he may have been homeless or otherwise significantly disadvantaged, and thus had to learn how to be independent to survive. He wouldn't have a guest profile or any passes beforehand because he probably can't afford any of it, so he most likely either snuck in or was brought in through unofficial means, possibly explaining why Vanessa was chasing him. He doesn't bring up anyone from outside because he possibly has no one, either, and everyone else just assumes he has a family looking for him.
- Alternative Character Interpretation:
- Gregory has a surprising amount of both resourcefulness and ruthlessness bordering on Troubling Unchildhood Behavior. He sees nothing wrong with damaging the other Glamrocks to upgrade Freddy, nor with the idea of lying to him about it. Combined with the fact he has no records, it calls a lot about him into question. This may be accounted for when you consider the one-star ending, which implies Gregory is a homeless child who may have had to learn how to be independent and possibly commit morally grey acts to survive.
- They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character:
- Gregory, despite being the protagonist, has had some people wishing he'd get a bit more development. Besides his desire to survive, his eventual bond with Freddy, and his snarkier moments, he remains pretty much a blank slate throughout the game, not really growing or changing at all. Heck, the game itself frequently hints that there is more to Gregory than meets the eye, given the repeated mention of his missing personal records and the question as to how he got into the Pizzaplex in the first place without a guest profile. Also, the one-star ending hints at Gregory possibly being a Homeless Hero, which adds an extra layer to the game's story. But none of these plot points are ever followed up on, leaving Gregory as a rather run-of-the-mill Protagonist Without a Past.
For those avoiding spoilers for this game: tropers from the FNAF fandom have taken one of the endings for this game to mean that the player character Gregory is homeless, a runaway, or otherwise disadvantaged. And they have begun troping it as though it were a confirmed part of the game's official canon. Even though this alleged implication is not supported in any way by the game or Word of God, according to my present knowledge.
What's the policy for handling this?
Edited by JAG01open People who "helpfully" cut stuff entirely instead of trying to fix it
Inspired by [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=VideoGame.LegendOfMana#edit30094066
this edit]. Yes, I'm aware that he was correct on the fact that the section wasn't organized per TVT policy. I do, however, think that cutting it entirely without making any attempt to integrate it properly was not good. Furthermore, this is far from the only time I've seen self-appointed janitors muck up articles with hamfisted "cleanups."
Could we maybe get some kind of policy regarding this? Like don't take a weedwhacker to a page without trying to fix it up first, and if you muck the page up in the name of overzealous cleanups it's basically vandalism?
openTrope Feedback Request
Me and ~username2527 have a disagreement over three tropes I've recently removed from the Total Drama character pages and would like feedback to resolve it.
- Screaming Gophers: Justin
- Narcissist: He's always admiring his physique, and seems to carry a mirror with him everywhere he goes.
I changed this to pride because the trope description states that just being vain is not enough. And Justin lacks any of the detrimental aspects of narcissism, such as how once he thinks he's not beautiful anymore (and while he's vain, he's also a professional model, so his looks matter), he panics for a bit, but then just tries other things to make himself count and kinda goes with the flow.
Username 2527's argument is that he "has a sense of self importance and need for attention and admiration such examples include him frequently taking his shirt off to flash people, posing for the camera and he felt very upset when Lindsay and Beth stopped paying him any attention, believing that he was becoming ugly because the girls weren't gushing over him anymore."
- Race Lift: I moved the instances that concern prototype designs to What Could Have Been. Just to be sure, is Race Lift for adaptations only or do prototype designs also count?
- Toxic Rats: Lightning
- The Bad Guy Wins: In his ending of "Brain vs Brawn: The Final Showdown". Granted, the finale gave us a good few reasons to give him sympathy, too...and all of them are bad, and worst of all, he keeps the prize money to himself. Jo was most displeased.
As far as I'm concerned, A.) not a character trope and not a characterization-relevant event, and B.) very disputable example text.
There's also a C., which is relevant to my removal of the The Bad Guy Wins from the main page too. From what I understand from the trope description, the trope is only in effect in case of "complete and ultimate triumph for the villain". But every time a villain wins in TD, there's a catch, whether that is that they don't get the prize money in the end, that they get maimed, and/or that the finale reframes them as "not so bad". Lightning ends up badly injured (he's advised to spend the money on recovery) and there's a note that while winning prevents his relationship with his father from getting worse, it's not going to improve it. Meanwhile, the other finalist is leaving unharmed with a new outlook on life, new possibilities, and new friendships to enjoy.
So, the question is, is The Bad Guy Wins literally The Bad Guy Wins, or does the win need to be a triumphant one?

I would like to make a page for work I made on here. If I haven't violated any of the rules on the page (i.e. the work is tropable, i will not add subjectives/audience reactions/trivia/recommendations on the work, and I won't Entry Pimp myself), is it still considered Auto-Erotic Troping, therefore not allowing me to?
Edited by nonalienpersonyep