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:
openSpringfield as a whole is a Card Carrying Jerkass?
I found this entry on the recap page of The Simpsons episode "The Boys of Bummer"
- Card-Carrying Jerkass: The whole town quite proudly (literally, as in has it on billboards advertising the place) labels itself "The Meanest City In America".
But is this really why there is billboard that labels the city as such? For all we know, somebody outside of Springfield could've put that billboard up.
Edited by BrianKTopenUncertain Audience examples?
Questions about the validity of the following Uncertain Audience examples:
YMMV.My Little Pony The Movie 2017: One reason for its mediocre reception. Fans of the show were less than impressed with the lack of continuity past Season 4 and it not doing anything the show hadn't done better prior, while non-fans who wouldn't mind or appreciate the lack of Continuity Lock-Out still had little reason to care for The Movie if they weren't already interested in the show.
Animation Lead Time meant this was due to it being written right after Season 4 and wouldn't be able to include later continuity beyond cameos if it wanted. If it was not caused by a deliberate chose by the writers on which audience to target does UA count? If not is there anything it does fall under?
YMMV.Fantastic Beasts The Crimes Of Grindelwald: A common complaint from critics, especially after the underwhelming box office receipts came back. Unlike Harry Potter, which focused on kid heroes and self-contained adventures with interesting lore and scope underneath, Crimes of Grindelwald is heavy on backstory, exposition, and lore, but does little in advancing its own story or major arcs forward. Thus, detractors of the film point out it lacks the elements that appealed to young audiences in the original films while also being downright impenetrable to anyone who doesn't have a Ph.D. in Wizarding World mythology. This is cited as one of the reasons Warner Bros. halted production on the third to give Rowling more time to figure out how to remedy this.
This sounds like it put off general audiences, but fails to explain how those it was supposed to appeal to (like those with a "Ph.D. in Wizarding World mythology") were put off by the work as well. Is there a reason they were so put off (normally don't care for the movies?) or should this just be moved to Continuity Lock-Out?
openTitle Drop
Just stumbled upon TitleDrop.TV Tropes, which feels bizarre to say the least. It has only two examples (one with natter), hasn't been edited for seven years, and is affected by the AC markup bug (if anyone cares about that). Doesn't seem like the second one applies, and I don't think the wiki itself really has examples of this trope. Do we actually have them, or should this just be cut?
Edited by PiterpicheropenCombining Character Sheets?
Hello. I made this ATT entry and no one answered. I think I understand why, because my description was way too vague without any proofs to make you guys see what I'm actually proposing.
(That thing has been locked)
So, after a discussion with another troper who also have been editing MOBA character pages, he gave me some input, I worked on some Sandbox pages for the months to come. And I'd like to re-open this discussion.
Proposal: I want to combine the character sheets of Honor of Kings and Arena of Valor
Reasons
- Honor of Kings received a global release.
- Both Honor of Kings and Arena of Valor are created by both Tencent Games and TiMi.
- There has been an update in lore that the world both games took place have been reimagined as 'neighboring regions' (Honor of Kings' world is called Primaela, whereas Arena of Valor's world is called Athanor)
- Both Honor of Kings and Arena of Valor have lent their characters to each other. So we can see some HOK characters being playable in AOV and vice versa. So we now have characters overlapping with each other.
- A lot of characters of Arena of Valor have their moveset taken from Honor of Kings with some small tweaks, creating 'counterparts' between two games without too much of being expies.
Here are the Sandbox pages:
I will still continue to work on these Sandboxes for other things, like making each folders more complete and of course, the GRAMMAR (Yes, once all folders are filled, I will run through the grammar check to all pages myself). But one vital question remains...
Is this an okay thing in TV Tropes? I'd like to know so I don't end up making all future works end up for nothing. (If this is not okay, then I will just share what I worked on to the default pages and modify appropriately, even if there will be similar entries.)
Thank you!
Edited by ChrisXopenPermission to re-remove
A troper
was suspended over unjust deletions/rude edit reasons and their deletions reversed. I feel some of those deletions were valid as misuse.
Characters.Sonic The Hedgehog Modern Era Antagonists 1 Mainline Games:
- Asshole Victim: His mental state and eventual second defeat in Shadow Generations is rather poignant and even pitiful. But given what he did in his debut game, he deserved every moment of it. Even if Shadow doesn't know Mephiles anymore, he concludes just from the fact that the first thing Mephiles did was try to kill him upon their meeting that a creature like him cannot be allowed to exist, for the sake of the world Maria loved. They we’re trying to kill Shadow who retaliated in self-defense, so fails the "Victim" criteria.
- Hate Sink: Mephiles has absolutely zero redeeming qualities, and in his debut game he damn well earned his place among the fanbase as the single most evil villain in the whole franchise, because he managed to do the one thing none of the others (outside of maybe Surge from the IDW Comics) have managed: he killed Sonic the Hedgehog in the final act of his debut appearance. Misuse as while utterly evil, played as Evil Is Cool (such the only well received part of Sonic 06), failing explain how/why he was meant to avert/subvert coolness.
Characters.The Texas Chainsaw Massacre:
- Hate Sink: Unlike Leatherface and Drayton, who only kill for food and survival, Nubbins is just a sadistic bastard who revels in the suffering of his victims. Only issue is already under sub-trope More Despicable Minion. Is that grounds for removal (like we do Jerkass if its sub-tropes apply)?
I asked Is this an example?
But got no feedback. Is it OK to re-delete them for these reasons, or any
other thoughts?
openWeird edit on the ShoutOut page of ''Honkai Impact 3rd''
I was about to edit ShoutOut.Honkai Impact3rd again to add or update some examples, but noticed in the page source
that there's a "numlist" tag that hides some content in-between.
For instance in the source, you could see an example which mentions "Blade Mode" from Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, but it doesn't appear normally in the live page.
Administrivia.Text Formatting Rules does say "numlist" has a side-effect of hiding blocks of text, but is it okay to use it in "live" pages? AFAIK, it seems like a way of hiding some kind of draft, which a Sandbox may be more suitable for. What bothered me at first glance is the "numlist" block being inserted right in the middle of the page's source.
The edit history
I'll be sending them a PM assuming they wanted to re-organize the entire page while adding more examples but haven't finished it yet... but I still want to ask more opinions on how this should be done, because I think there are different ways or alternatives on where to draft the updated re-organization of the Shout-Out page without having to insert some hidden code in between.
- Should some kind of separate Sandbox page be created now for the attempt at re-organizing the Shout-Out page?
- Should I move the hidden "numlist" block below the page itself so that the page source won't be confusing to look at?
- Or should I just wait for troper Zerobeat to finish editing the ShoutOut.Honkai Impact3rd page itself?
I've made an ATT like this just in case because most of the Honkai Impact 3rd pages seem to be abandoned, including the game's specific Forums
openDoubts on a page being relevant
So I stumbled upon UsefulNotes.Viscount Goderich being deleted, upon the argument that, basically, here at TV Tropes we are not out to have equivalents to Wikipedia, but rather to focus on how the subject appears in (or influences) fiction, and in this case, there were no media examples on the page, nor does Wikipedia itself have any reference to any portrayals in fiction (this actually started out a short-term thread
about similar pages about UK Prime Ministers). The point is, this discussion reminded me of a page that has basically the same issues: UsefulNotes.United Kingdom General Election 2015. The page is essentially a rather dry overview of that election... and that's it. No references to it being referenced in fiction, none. Nothing. If anything, in my view, the referendum that took place the following year that resulted in Brexit would be probably more worthy of a page like that since it has media about it that exists on This Very Wiki (like Brexit: The Uncivil War). Should we cut this page? I considered raising the question on a forum thread but I couldn't find one about a topic similar to this one (unless the aforementioned British Politicians threads counted as one, but I think that's a bit of a stretch).
openEditing issues
(Apologies if this seems rambly, but I've been trying to figure out how best to word things for more than a week at this point)
Player 8950's edits tend to have poor grammar and can fall into natter territory, but perhaps most pertinently, back around October they were making extensive edits to pages in the FanonPokedex namespace without going through the attendant PEFE thread beforehand for consensus.
I informed them of this via DM (In the midst of spending the better part of an hour to an hour and a half reverting everything), and they were further told within the thread itself, but the edits to the pages they've made since have not only often had the same issues of not going through the thread first before doing significant changes (Which I've also had to revert), and many still have the aforementioned grammatical issues, even the ones that are technically a single sentence feel like they're definitely going against the spirit of the rules if not the absolute letter.
Most recently, in FanonPokedex.Pikablu, I ended up reverting
edits they made which hadn't been approved by the thread, only for them to put some of it back
without thread discussion, so at this point I think it's best to bring it here because otherwise I'll be continuing to play whack-a-mole and it's similar enough that I think just removing it would border on edit war.
openInappropriate No Yay quotes?
The No Yay trope is supposed to be about fictional relationships that are disgusting because of something wrong with the relationship itself (pedophilia, coercion, Unequal Pairings, rape, incest, etc.), correct? It's not for relationships that turn people off of shipping just because one or both of the participants are butt-ugly. That sounds more like Fan Disservice or Fetish Retardant.
With that said, some of the quotes on the Quotes page appear to have missed that memo…
- "This teaches us all a valuable lesson—rape is undesirable when ugly people are doing it."
That's the standout, though there were some others that also raised my eyebrows.
openScrappy Misuse
YMMV.My Brave Pony Starfleet Magic
- The Scrappy: Even with readers who find the fic to be So Bad, It's Good, various characters leave a bad taste in people's mouths.
- By far, the most hated character in the entire fic is Rhymey. He has no personality outside of his annoying Running Gag of always rhyming and arguably contributes the least of the Starfleet, which is saying a lot. While he is meant to be a Plucky Comic Relief, his jokes and rhyming quickly became annoying due to how constant and uninteresting they are. Additionally, despite not having any significant backstory or character development, he ends up taking up as much screentime and standalone adventures as Lightning and, despite his aforementioned lack of contributions, parades his successes for attention and as an excuse to do whatever he wants. His questionable relationship with Fluttershy doesn't help. Unsurprisingly, most docs based on Starfleet tend to have him killed off or Demoted to Extra.
- Goldwin, besides sharing a lot of problems with Rhymey, spends a lot of his time complaining about not being a real unicorn, constantly taking his mask off as a Running Gag despite the fact that it basically kills him, and constantly putting actual heroics on hold in favor of complaining.
- Dr. Emil Kudos is hated for just how Unintentionally Unsympathetic he is. He was dumped prior to the story in favor of a unicorn, so his response is to lead a massive conspiracy against his own people out of spite towards magic and abducts Peni just to rub it in her face and later kills himself just to spite her. Needless to say, several readers did not feel the same amount of sympathy towards him as Starfleet did.
Prior cleanup
said this works doesn't count as Scrappy must be hated by those who unironically like the work. Permission to re-remove and add a note? (Asking here because Scrappy cleanup
has yet to reply to current unrelated inquiry there.)
resolved Spotted a problem that's beyond my powers as an editor
I've discovered that, back in July, someone named Tropers/TMH-Sir-Iron-Vomit made an edit that deleted huge swaths of the Scary Scarecrows page, without an edit reason and seemingly without permission to make such sweeping changes.
Being a good troper, I'd ordinarily try to fix the problem myself, but there's too much gone for me to restore. What should I do?
Local Odd Squad Connoisseur
resolved Troper that seems to be here just to complain
~katiepricesaunt joined the site last month, but their only contribution is this complainy self-hatted TLP draft
that seems to be taking a potshot at Put on a Bus and has the the troper be needlessly sarcastic in the comments to boot.
I'm not sure if they're just here to complain and be rude, if they're a bandodger of some kind, or what, but I figured I'd report them here and nip things in the bud before they potentially head over to other parts of the site.
resolved Possibly accidental vandalism
looks like Agent Skyblue M 7 made an edit to Jerk with a Heart of Jerk that chopped like half of the page, including its description: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.JerkWithAHeartOfJerk&page=35#edit43464386
this was most likely an accident or something, but i'm on mobile so i'm unable to revert the change myself, could we get a mod revert to this page?
Edited by worldwidewoomyopenMultiple Violations of Quote Potholing Videogame
The page quote for The Roottrees are Dead has been potholed to Title Drop three times by three
different
editors
, despite the initial deletion
referencing What to Put at the Top of a Page. I sent the second editor the notifier and they removed their re-potholing attempt by themself, but the third editor added it back in. Does this warrant a reversion and a commented-out warning?
openNeed some clarifications on what counts as "Unilateral" Large-scale changes nowadays.
I've read this Administrivia page out of curiosity at first, but then I noticed entry #34 which says the following:
:34. unilateral
- Hi there. It looks like you've made a major change to [page] without discussing it beforehand. Large-scale changes, such as splitting off subpages, rearranging content, or altering the definition of a trope, require consensus to enact. In the future, please remember to discuss these things in the proper venue, whether it be Ask The Tropers, the discussion page, or a forum thread.
Does this mean all "Large-scale changes" will risk the editor receiving a warning or a "unilateral" edit notifier? Or are there times when a troper is allowed to make Unilateral Large-Scale changes without the risk of getting reported or notified?
- AFAIK, splitting a page if it gets too long is a very common thing to do in this wiki for years now, to the point where it's "recommended" so as to avoid the page from having any difficulty loading on old browsers or devices.
- I am following a lot of pages and I've seen tropers splitting off example lists into subpages but without providing any links in the edit reasons to prove that the action was "discussed" beforehand... But now, reading the Administrivia page implies it's "mandatory" to have a discussion somewhere before doing the split? What if the troper simply fixed or re-organized the examples into a separate subpage for easier readability, surely they're exempt from receiving warnings, right? For example, a troper moved all the Memetic Mutation entries from the YMMV page
of Zenless Zone Zero into a separate subpage
... There's no edit reason nor a link to a previous discussion, but the end-result of this "unilateral" edit is a well-organized page just like the other Memes subpages of miHoYo games.
- I am following a lot of pages and I've seen tropers splitting off example lists into subpages but without providing any links in the edit reasons to prove that the action was "discussed" beforehand... But now, reading the Administrivia page implies it's "mandatory" to have a discussion somewhere before doing the split? What if the troper simply fixed or re-organized the examples into a separate subpage for easier readability, surely they're exempt from receiving warnings, right? For example, a troper moved all the Memetic Mutation entries from the YMMV page
- Here's another thing... that Adminstrivia page says consensus, discussions, or forum threads are necessary... but what if nobody is replying to a discussion?
- For example, IIRC, I tried to start discussions for suggesting large-scale reorganizations or improvements to pages of works and franchises like Devil May Cry, Arknights, Honkai Impact 3rd, Honkai: Star Rail, Genshin Impact, Granblue Fantasy, Bayonetta, and so on... Sometimes a troper replies to say it's just fine if I already do the edits myself, but sometimes nobody replied to my posts for a long time, such as this one
. This often happens if the franchise or game is no longer "hyped" at the moment and thus, only few tropers here are still actively or regularly checking the pages.
- For example, IIRC, I tried to start discussions for suggesting large-scale reorganizations or improvements to pages of works and franchises like Devil May Cry, Arknights, Honkai Impact 3rd, Honkai: Star Rail, Genshin Impact, Granblue Fantasy, Bayonetta, and so on... Sometimes a troper replies to say it's just fine if I already do the edits myself, but sometimes nobody replied to my posts for a long time, such as this one
- On the other hand, can I still do a Large-scale change on a page or example list even if the discussion already happened long ago but the troper(s) somehow forgot about it?
- For example years ago, there has been an agreement to re-organize a Shout-Out page so that it won't look like a massive wall of text, or an approval from a mod to move trope examples from the main work page to the Recap pages... but it just so happened that I was pre-occupied with a lot of things off-site, and was unable to do the large-scale change... Can I just simply cite a link to the discussion from years ago, or do I have to start a "new" discussion or forum post instead?
Edited by DanteVin
openOvershadowed/commenting out misuse?
This is currently commented out under OvershadowedByControversy.Web Original:
- YouTuber and blogger Lily Orchard (formerly known as Lily Peet) was once known most for media analysis reviewing children's animation. However, she picked up an extremely negative reputation from controversies ranging from her extremely vitriolic coverage of the shows she reviews, her highly toxic behavior on-and-off platform—including her falling out with joshscorcher and the break up of her engagement to artist Lizzy Orchard—and a fanfic she wrote that contained explicit sex between adults and children. None of this would compare to the 2023 accusations by Lily Orchard's sister Courtney, who accused Lily of having sexually abused her when they were children. Orchard would release a video in May 2024 where she directly denied the allegations
and detailed her abusive childhood, including countering the incest arguments by saying it was Courtney who initiated the abuse, and also addressed some surrounding controversies about herself. Either way, the allegations of pedophilia, incest, and sexual assault have come to define Lily Orchard's online reputation far more than her actual content or opinions.
It was deleted Dec. 4th per cleanup
citing "Lily Orcahrd ultimatly attracts too many contraversies for one to outshine the rest". A separate troper added it back but commented out
citing "Looking at the cleanup thread, Lily still counts, its just unclear what specific controversy overshadows here. Commenting out until a consensus is reached"
I believe it was deemed misuse of commenting out to sneak in entires that violate rules like this does as written. So should it be deleted as misused as written and or replace with a not saying not to add them without forum approve (which would be required here given the connection caused)? Or what?
openRegarding the deleted autism examples
This thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=147690&type=att
about a troper mass-removing references to autism has been locked as resolved, so I'm opening a new thread for this question.
The thread mentions that one of the deleted entries (on the Real Life section of Little Professor Dialog) mentioned Dr. Asperger himself, so I looked it up out of curiosity on what he'd said. I ended up reinstating the entry after rewriting it to, hopefully, be a bit more carefully worded (after all, it discusses diagnostic criteria). It now reads like this:
- The Little Professor speech is one of the traits associated with Asperger Syndrome. Dr. Hans Asperger, who identified the condition, would playfully refer to his patients who had it as "the little professors". Note that people may speak like this for many reasons, so by itself this is not necessarily a sign of autism.
But I'm having second thoughts. Is this, apart from the Dr. Asperger quote, a useful example of how the trope can occur in real life, or is it just on the level of gossip that encourages armchair diagnoses? Do we want these kind of Real Life entries? Just looking for input before we start restoring the deleted examples, because there may be more like this.
Edited by GnomeTitanopenAvoiding an edit war
Drope has just removed
this entry I originally added on Fanon.Hazbin Hotel, on the grounds that it's "outdated fanon".
- Although there are a lot of theories about who Alastor's soul is bound to, him being soul-bound to Lilith is the theory that's most commonly implemented in fan works, as not only does it correlate with canon coincidences, but it also explains his Berserk Button over it in the most insecure and ironic way, leaving open the possibility of Charlie changing on how she sees him.
I think just deleting the entry wasn't the right way, since the page itself features several other entries citing examples of Fanon that have been Jossed in canon.
Thus, I'd like to re-add the entry with a re-write:
- Before "It's a Deal" revealed that Alastor had made his secret deal with Rosie, there were a lot of theories about who Alastor's soul was bound to, but him being soul-bound to Lilith was the theory that was most commonly implemented in fan works, as not only did it correlate with canon coincidences at the time of Season 1, but it would have also explained Alastor's Berserk Button over it in the most insecure and ironic way, leaving open the possibility of Charlie changing on how she sees him.
Sent a PM to Drope so they can see this.
openWhat's the burden of proof for side content?
The Cool Autistic Gamer 774 is a YouTube channel that does edits and reanimations of Smiling Friends. With Season 3, these edits have started to include voice acting and animation that appears almost indistinguishable from the show itself and have been released within hours of the main episode's air time, so fan consensus seems to be that The Cool Autistic Gamer is either an elaborate bit from the official creators or a marketing stunt.
Here's my question: TCAG has never appeared in an official cut of the show and there's no official confirmation one way or the other about who made it, but the character has a character folder on the page. What's the burden of proof necessary to decide this character is actually from the show and should be on the "official" page? Does it matter? Are there even rules that cover this phenomenon? Am I wildly overthinking something from a show that doesn't take itself that seriously to begin with?
Edited by TheMasterPanda

This is rather belated, but it's something I wanted some feedback on to prevent an edit war.
About three weeks ago, I saw an example on Characters.Nickelodeon All Star Brawl without a citation:
The game in question still hasn't been released yet, so I commented it out
since it lacked a citation, along with a small tag explaining this (in addition to the edit reason). At the time, I did not remember the source.
Twelve days later
, ravioliluigi uncommented it out and slightly altered it with the following edit reason:
In spite of this, they did not add a citation in the example itself, going against the guidelines explained in Administrivia.Creating A Work Page For An Upcoming Work:
I sent them a notifier explaining the policy not long after their edit. However, in the interim, I remembered where the animation in question can be seen: this short teaser for a Gamescom character reveal
. I could add the necessary citation to the example, but I wanted to make sure that this would not constitute an edit war.
Edited by BlueGuy