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:
openVideo examples for Let's Player without a page? Videogame
I have a potential video example I want to upload, but it's from a Let's Play by HawkZombie
, who doesn't have a page here. His channel isn't very big yet (he has 359 subscribers right now), and I don't know enough about him to start a page for him.
What's the best way to handle this? Is it okay to only use the game itself as the video source? Can I link to the original video, or the player's channel, in the description?
It has to be from this Let's Play because the trope depends on the player's reaction.
Edited by DrNoPumaopenUse of Filler on work pages? Live Action TV
I'm adding the trope Filler to work pages, but would this sort of thing be OK for usage:
- Filler: Due to its high episode count of 22 episodes, this show has some episodes that tend to be standalone and not focusing on the story arc, and it's been one of the show's major criticisms. However, some episodes that seem like filler actually are relevant later; but in general, there are episodes which don't add much to the wider Story Arc of the season itself.
To avoid trope misuse - Square Peg, Round Trope - what would qualify as filler?
I've added this to series like Grey's Anatomy, Supergirl (2015) and The Blacklist but want to avoid square peg, round trope.
Also, would the trope qualify for that administrivia page?
If anyone could help I'd be grateful for any advice.
openDid I do something wrong aside from bad grammar?
I am a bit paranoid about being reported for a minor thing such as bad grammar because I didn't check it before I send it. Not surprising, Michael did report me for bad grammar
. I did admit I should have go to the get help with English forum in the first place but I sometimes didn't either because people might take a while to responds or I thought my examples are good enough. So I want you guys to check my edit history if I did something wrong aside from bad grammar because I believe you guys can help me improve myself. I really don't want to be suspended for my mistakes from the past and I'm sorry for what I did. Thank you.
openCharacter Perception possible misuse.
These Character Perception Evolution entries are possible misuse as they fail to explain if/how the popularity of their portrayals before that change was effected.
- Back when Kingdom Hearts II initially released, Roxas was a major Base-Breaking Character due to the games' infamous Prolonged Prologue at the beginning. Roxas was considered to be a less interesting and appealing character compared to Sora, his storyline was accused of being full of melodrama and wangst (the scene of him smashing DiZ's computer and later screaming at him were often cited as reasons to make fun of the game), and most players were unhappy that Roxas took the focus away from Sora or any of the Disney characters. These days, Roxas is considered to be one of the most beloved characters in the fandom (thanks in part to games like Kingdom Hearts II: Final Mix and 358/2 Days fleshing out his character more) due to his more mature and serious personality, in contrast to Sora. His backstory is also considered to be one of the most tragic in the fandom and fans are more likely to feel bad for the trauma that he had to endure. Word of God has even stated that the popularity of Roxas was the entire reason that he returned in Kingdom Hearts III and was finally given a happy ending. Sound like it's a valid retroactive shift, but not sure how to state it here.
- Master Xehanort, who upon the release of Birth by Sleep, was praised as the best villain in the series due to his Affably Evil demeanor, his massive Xanatos Gambit pulled over the course of the game, having a The Chessmaster role that directly tied into the at the time widely anticipated Kingdom Hearts III, and amazing performances by both Chikao Ohtsuka and Leonard Nimoy. However, in recent years, it is easy to find fans calling him out for being indirectly responsible for the infamous Kudzu Plot, often criticized for being an Invincible Villain, and contributing to several Retcons and Ass Pulls. His reception was soured even further after the release of Kingdom Hearts III and Dark Road, both of which attempted to paint Xehanort in a sympathetic light to varying degrees. The former revealed that he was actually a Well-Intentioned Extremist who detested the darkness all along and was attempting to restore balance by wiping out the world and starting anew. Many fans called this out for being a large Motive Decay that largely contradicted his characterization in games prior. The latter game would reveal that Xehanort had been manipulated during his adolescence and was driven to becoming a villain due to the death of his friends pushing him down that path, which some fans found to be a poor Freudian Excuse that attempted to rationalize his actions and make him more sympathetic. Fairly certain this is misuse as just complaining about their later portrayals as opposed to prior ones being re-revaulated, but asking here to be sure.
- Steven Universe: When the late Rose Quartz was first introduced, the fanbase fell in love with her. This was thanks in part to her chemistry with Greg, her formation of the Crystal Gem Rebellion to save earth, and her encouraging Pearl and Garnet to be themselves, the former of whom she had a romantic subplot with. However, as the show went on, many both in-universe and out of universe learned about her character flaws. In particular, her views on humans were shown to be much more condescending than originally thought, she was implied to have left Pearl for Greg without considering her feelings, and she poofed Bismuth and left her trapped for eons in the bubble without telling anyone, a situation that was morally grey at best. But what really changed many people's opinion on her was the revelation that she was Pink Diamond the whole time, Pearl was her slave, and her faking her shattering lead to the corruption of all Gems on Earth and the creation of the Cluster in an attempt to destroy the planet outright. This caused many to turn on her, viewing her as a selfish individual whose irresponsibility, poor decisions and numerous mistakes overshadow any good she might have done. On the other hand, many defenders remained, pointing out her more positive traits, such as her genuine love of Steven despite never getting to meet him, as well as hints that she genuinely regretted some of her actions during the war. As a result, she became one of the most polarizing characters in the entire series; though even her die hard fans view her as a severely flawed individual at best. Fails to explain the retroactive change but it does seem likely the case. My question is does it count if the change was 100% intentional by the work? And is In-Universe Broken Pedestal instead as IU CPE would mean Show Within a Show?
resolved "Stage Directions" When Quoting Text
When quoting a text work, is it acceptable to use the Bolded Name: + [bracketed actions] format when quoting text if it'd be cleaner or clearer than quoting the text in full? Or is it better to just leave the would-be bracketed part out altogether?
E.g., in the middle of a conversation:
The second one feels weird because "there" doesn't have a referent. It just feels incomplete. In some cases, it may also make it unclear that Bob is pointing towards Charlie. (The rules are, however, plenty clear that this is the correct format when you're solely quoting dialogue.)
The third one solves both of these problems, plus a third one: if including all the narration would be unnecessary, it lets you only mention the important parts (such as, potentially, just that he was pointing behind himself or just that he was pointing at Charlie). The (possible) problem that it's using a format that the rules imply is for visual media.
Edited by Kestrelguyresolved Would this count as an EditWar? Web Original
On Sep 5th 2021
, I removed the Trope Informed Wrongness from the YMMV page of the fifth episode of Helluva Boss, due to said entry being Trope Misuse as a result of misconstruing the events of the episode.
On Dec 30th 2022
, jOSEFdelaville added Informed Wrongness to the page again, but with a different entry. I believe this is also an example of misuse that misconstrues the events of the episode, as Millie wasn't the one who brought up the fact Moxxie had a gun, Moxxie himself did. Millie only said he didn't need to prove he was stronger physically after he lamented not being strong enough, saying basically to stick to his strengths when facing him this time. Moxxie was the one who said "I probably should have used this earlier, huh?" after remembering he had a gun on him, Millie's reaction being more exasperation when she sees him remember and make the comment. "I love ya hon, but for fucks sake."
Would it count as an Edit War if I removed the trope since I had already removed Informed Wrongness once before, even if it was a different entry?
Edited by RebelFalconresolved American Girl - Ban Evader Literature
It looks like a recent editor, Peachy2023, was found to be a ban evader for another account and their edits were reverted on multiple pages they added to. However, I edited two American Girl character pages they added to to remove or correct some of these edits, thinking it was a new editor making the same mistakes: the Historical Character Page at American Girls Collection Historical Characters and Girls of the Year page at American Girls Collection - Girls of the Year. Does someone else need to come in and revert these edits from the evader, or can I remove the other remaining examples myself?
(edit because the name made a red link and linking the affected pages. )
Edited by NethiliaopenSelf-reporting: Any evidence of an edit war here? Videogame
I'm self-reporting about if I started an Edit War in a Goddamned Bats entry of my own in the YMMV page of Diner Dash.
Back in the middle of July, I added the entry, which read as follows:
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're pretty quick eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly, in addition to being more patient.
Then at the end of the month, Shaker Troper 2002 corrected the entry in accordance to how the Goddamned Bats in question actually behaved (unlike what I initially thought about them).
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're pretty quick eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly. Like cellphone addicts, their own patience also drains fast as well.
A couple months later (just now), I noticed that the entry was edited, so I decided to rearrange it a bit so it looks clean and organized, without changing any of the context addressed. It currently reads like this:
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time have a low patience of their own and make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're also pretty fast eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly.
I know this self-report might be quite dumb, but I did it just in case there was some issue, since I didn't intend to do anything against ShakerTroper2002 nor start an Edit War in general.
Edited by Inky100open"Franchise Original Sin" or "Older Than They Think"?
I did some edits of the YMMV page of Metallica's St. Anger, and some people have been fudging around on an entry between Franchise Original Sin and Older Than They Think. The matter has to do with St. Anger's negative reputation among fans, and how the flaws of the album (namely sketchy audio mixing and James Hetfield's lyrics) were argued (particularly by Todd in the Shadows) to have been around to a less significant degree in previous Metallica albums. Timeline for context:
- Was originally coined
as Franchise Original Sin.
- I later removed it
because I argued the trope should be applied on the original work, not on the nadir.
- A different user swooped in
and reinstated it as Older Than They Think because "Indeed, not Franchise Original Sin but another trope." I mostly agreed that this was probably more correct and could be left be, though I still did a bit of tweaking on the entry
to give clearer context, be less complain-y, and remove the egregious Todd in the Shadows reference.
- Several months later, an entirely different user switches it back
to Franchise Original Sin without giving an edit reason.
I don't want to risk an edit war by switching it back after we'd already gone through this, but I just wanna make sure if it's actually correct to do so or not. There's a chance this topic might not even fit for either trope in the way they're meant to be used, but I think it's supposed to be more Older Than They Think (referring to present issues being, in fact, older than believed), not indicating that St. Anger is itself the "franchise original sin". Thoughts?
openAre there guidelines on how to organize "Voice By:"
Are there standard ways to organize voice actors/actresses?
I've noticed a few different styles, and I was wondering if it was up to the editors of the page(s) to make their best guess, or is there some policy they were supposed to follow.
Here's some different samplings I can find.
From Characters.One Piece Monkey D Luffy
Voiced by: Urara Takano [OVA], Mayumi Tanaka [TV series onwards] (Japanese); Colleen Clinkenbeard [Funimation dub], Erica Schroedernote (credited as Bella Hudson) [4Kids dub], Chuck Powers [Odex dub] (English)note Other languages: Diana Pérez [4Kids dub, first voice], Karina Altamirano [4Kids dub, second voice], Ayari Rivera [One Piece Film: Gold], Mireya Mendoza [Netflix dub, until 4 season], Desireé González (Netflix dub, season 5 onwards) (Latin American Spanish); Jaime Roca (European Spanish); Daniel Schlauch (German)
From Characters.Mega Man Classic Robot Masters NES, folder for DLN.003 Cut Man:
With Luffy, does the "(Japanese)" apply to the OVA and the TV series? or just the TV Series? (I'm aware I could look it up. I'm looking for the text to communicate the information without that for myself and others)
With Cut Man, it doesn't have the three exclamation points that many other characters has.
Edited by bud0011openMaybe check in case of a possibly edit war...
Well, this is most likely something that people rarely notice due to being one on the page that isn't viewed as much due to the work being more vague to the non-guest visitors of this site compared to others, but unfortunately for the person below who did this, I do stumble into the page on occasions. But anyways;
Thrilling One Way did uncomment Color-Coded Characters without changing the description (it was commented out by Hello83433, who thought it was ZCE), while adding information to Four Temperament Enesemble and also uncommenting it. This applies to not one, but two pages; Characters page D4DJ Happy Around
and Characters page D4DJ Peaky P-Key
.
I have no idea either about how to do about how much description the trope Color-Coded Characters needs to be valid and usable in the page information though. It isn't a solid claim myself, but it exists because of the "uncommenting" rule after someone comments it out as "ZCE".
Edited by JustNormalMusicLoverresolved Re-added Hilarious In Hindsight shoehorn in spite of cleanup Web Original
Near the end of April on the Hilarious in Hindsight page for Zero Punctuation, rundownforge50 added this sub-bullet
to an example that just happened to offhandedly mention Garry's Mod. I figured this seemed like a shoehorn since it didn't strike me as something which later context has made all that much more amusing or entirely relevant to the context given in the parent bullet, so I raised it to the Hindsight Cleanup thread
and was cleared to cut the example
.
Fast forward to today and I check the page's history since it's in my pinned pages list, and I notice that the same troper had added the same example back
the day before, with superficially altered wording that really doesn't help the example's case for being an example of Hilarious in Hindsight.
Speaking to the substance of the example itself, perhaps it would have been an example of Hilarious in Hindsight if the player model was one that Yahtzee himself created and/or frequently used, but a quick glance at the linked workshop page tells me that it isn't. So as far as I'm concerned, the example still seems like a shoehorn.
I won't say one way or another if the readding of the example is a breach of the Edit War policy, if only because the passage of time between the deletion and readding makes it unclear from my perspective. But I'm assuming, given the linked approval from the hindsight cleanup thread, that I'm still clear to cut the example?
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Defictionalized Recipes
I was thinking of putting something into the TLP that involved taking food from fictional media and making it real, sharing recipes of said food. I'd either mark it as either just for fun or ymmv as the intent is to share recipes for fictional dishes so that they can be made for real.
I don't exactly have any recipes I made up myself, and I am sure adding recipes from other sites and even cookbooks would be nothing more than plagiarism. I am also trying to determine the best way to format recipes. As such, how should I go about this?
open Are these long quotes really necessary?
I have a question about these entries from The Critical Drinker:
- Writer on Board: He often accuses movies of being a "personal therapy session" for writers:
- One such example is when he simply compares the appearance of the misunderstood outcast teen daughter protagonist in I Am Not Starfire to her writer, and bursts out laughing at the similarities between them.
- He harshly criticizes Velma for this, accusing it as being nothing more than a Revenge Fic of sorts for the creators who he believes used the main characters as self-inserts:
"The thing that really struck me about Velma is the sheer bitterness and hatred that seems to radiate from it. You really get the sense that this is some kind of emotional colonic irrigation for the writers, like you're witnessing a whole liketime's worth of petty resentments, jealousy, personal grudges, and bitter regrets being vomited up onto the screen in front of you. I dunno if they had a really tough time in high school or something, but I can't shake the feeling that the whole thing is some kind of coping session against anyone who was more rich, more successful, more popular, or more attractive than them. Either way, the attempted humor in Velma just comes across as hateful and nasty instead of funny and insightful."
- He similarly describes Rey of the Disney Star Wars trilogy as being such a thing for Kathleen Kennedy.
"It's no secret at this point that Rey was very much Kathleen Kennedy's baby. Her ultimate vindication for all those coffees she had to make and all those notes she had to take down as a humble secretary in the early days. All those years of slowly working her way upwards, climbing the corporate ladder, being a woman in a man's world. Rey was the culmination of her own life experiences and world view. The perfect idealized vision of how she saw herself: strong, capable, resourceful, independent, supremely talented, and lacking all the flaws and weaknesses of her male counterparts, better than them in every measurable way, and the fact that the character was met with almost universal scorn and derision from the Star Wars fanbase was a thorn in her side that she was determined to pull out no matter how many movies and how much money it requires. You know it's kind of funny when you realize just how petty and immature these 'titans of the movie industry' actually are."
- He accuses Kathleen Kennedy of this again for with Helena from Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny describing the character as "yet another addition to the growing lineup of brunette, British, flawless, idealized Kathleen Kennedy self-inserts that are better than their aging male counterparts in every possible way".
"Jesus Christ, and they talk about the male ego!
Are the quotes necessary? Like if we removed them they would be fine expect them Star Wars one which doesn't really explain this trope in my opinion.
Edited by Bullmanopen TooBleakStoppedCaring deletions
Kamon The Skunk has been deleting lots of examples this trope under the rational that the work was financially successful therefore people liked it. I feel like this should be obvious, but just because a work is financially successful doesn't mean people liked it. You can complain about something you paid for, and something can be financially successful for other reasons (you really like the director; it wasn't as despair inducing in the beginning and has a huge built in fanbase as a result of the goodwill).
Now some of them probably should be edited or deleted for other reasons anyway, but the edit reason itself is suspect.
Edited by jjjj2open Potential complaining in YMMV of Do You Love Your Mom and Her Two-Hit Multi-Target Attacks? Literature
I had a look at the YMMV section of Do You Love Your Mom and Her Two-Hit Multi-Target Attacks? and the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot entry seems more complaining about the premise than any neglected plot points.
* They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: The very idea of exploring an Isekai setting based in an MMORPG is nothing new, but has the potential to be extremely deep and rich if the lore and write-up is done right. The actual novel itself, though, only seems to rely on the game as an excuse as to why the players are there fighting the monsters as they are. There is no exploration of the game mechanics, how players interact with them and the bearings they have on the plot at large à la Sword Art Online, and actual story content is threadbare and disjointed. It doesn't even really work as a game setting, as games have to have rules and balancing if they're to be fair and believable, while gameplay in the story is deliberately designed poorly to favor a subset of players for no discernible reason than a gag, which is the deconstruction of isekai protagonists being The Ace. Nothing would have changed plot-wise had all of the game-related aspects been removed, as their presence in the story is just fluff. In fact, removing the constraints of a game setting would give the author even more leg room to wiggle without breaking the audience's Willing Suspension of Disbelief, since it still has the makings of a standard isekai plot.Wanted input on what to do rather than get gung ho about deleting the example.
EDIT: Noticed the appropriate thread. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16509479720A72263400&page=1
Best just close this already.
openTroper removing page images without discussion
I notice the image for Self-Demonstrating Article to be missing, but there's no Image Pickin thread in the history, just Michael 108 tweaking the caption several times before deleting it and the image outright.
From the troper's edit history, they've done the same to Fourth Wall Greeting. Michael 108 has no forum history so I assume these were changed without discussion.
There appears to be a pattern of tweaking captions note (and laconics, but they don't seem as severe), which aren't all bad, but a few stick out over the others. Examples:
- Adding and deleting a caption for Advertising.The Simpsons
- Adding a ":p" to NightmareFuel.The Simpsons (which another deleted)
- WesternAnimation.Animaniacs no longer has its theme lyrics(?) in the caption, what replaces it now isn't even formatted properly.
- Replacing Creator.Tress Mac Neille's caption to one (arguably) more Fan Myopic compared to its initial "The woman of a thousand voices."
Which notifiers would be suitable, if Michael 108 hasn't received any already?
openSuggestion of the replacement of Page Quote on "Nuclear Weapons Taboo"
I've already posted on the discussion page a month ago,
but there's no response, so I'll ask here: Can I replace the Page Quote on the nuclear weapons taboo page?
The current Page Quote is:
For me, this page quote puts too much emphasis on Japanese people's "victimizing" attitude about the WW 2, as well as the article itself. As a Japanese person, I should admit that this is basically true, but the page quote seems to give us the false impression that it is the SOLE reason that the Japanese raging against the Atomic Bombings (especially the line "guilt them over it". Isn't it rational to condemn the cruelty of the bombing toward the civilians, which killed them in a brutal way? "There are part of the war machine, so they're not 'civilians'" won't be an excuse).It's like you only focus on the opinion about Holocaust by the Arabs, who think the Jews are "playing the victim" and deflect people from the oppression of Palestinians. The main reason why the Japanese people making the depiction of the nuclear bombings "taboo" is not victimizing themselves in the war, but to condemn the actual cruelty of the nuclear bombings, which was horrible compared with the usual air-raids. This article mentions it too (very briefly though), so I wondered if there's more appropriate page quote. And I've found one
. Here's the translation made by me:
I personally think this is more fitting to the article and the actual taboo in Japan. Not only the statement mentions the cruelty of the nuclear bombings, but also the Japanese people's victimizing attitude on the war. The current one by Sawyer Wallace only mentions the latter one, so I think it's more appropriate in the "Quotes" page (Honestly, I wanted to remove it entirely, but I decided not to do it because it's a violation of the freedom of speech). Of course I can do it myself, but I felt like changing the content without asking anyone would cause trouble (and I'm not an historical expert. My Japanese viewpoint can also be biased too), so I ask here whether I can do it or not.

It seems that we have one of these situations again: Gerbil1
wiped pretty much everything on the The Misadventures Of Gerbil main page and YMMV page. The main page edit had the following edit reason:
As author of this page (and the original comic), this was a mistake. The comic itself has long been wiped from the internet. I'd prefer not to have my name associated with it any longer.
For the record, the link that was on the page does not appear to work any longer, but I haven't done anything past that to see if it still exists in some fashion.