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:
open Permission to technically restore a YMMV entry
On Jun 7th, 2020
, Tropers/Ferot_Dreadnaught cut the following entry from Transformers: The Last Knight due to Crazy Awesome no longer being considered a trope but instead a disambiguation page.
- Crazy Awesome: People have liked Cogman for how manic and impulsive he can be. For example, his reaction to Cade and Viviane being flirtatious is to set up a dinner date. But since there's no supplies on-hand for food or to cook it, his reaction is to fire himself out of the torpedo chamber, catch two tuna by the tails and drag them flopping and thrashing back to make sushi.
As such, I request permission to restore the entry but under the Crazy Is Cool trope.
- Crazy Is Cool: Cogman became an Ensemble Dark Horse for viewers due to how manic and impulsive he can be, making him an entertaining little psycho that many viewers wished they could see more of. Standout examples being his partaking in a high-speed car chase where he lets road rage overtake him, or firing himself out a torpedo chamber just to get fish to make sushi with for Cade and Viviane's dinner date, even proceeding to beat the fish to death when he comes back with two live ones.
resolved Moving removed Talking to Himself examples to Acting For Two
Before Talking To Himself was made a disambiguation, I added some examples of it to Trivia.The Life And Times Of Juniper Lee. When dewicking the trope started, it was removed here
. Would it be considered an edit war if I added those examples under Acting for Two?
openhow much natter is allowed on headscratchers? Videogame
Parts of The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is reading like a micro-forum as people add replies.
See the entire folder below I pulled from the page (reminder: contains unmarked spoilers):
- Perhaps she doesn't want to be coronated until Hyrule is at least restored to a basically functional kingdom again? Alternatively, she may be awaiting some ceremonial age of majority (as she is still biologically a teenager) or there may even be some kind of ancient dynastic tradition requiring her to complete some ritual, quest, or even just getting married before assuming formal queenship.
- As the original question noted, she's probably not biologically a teenager as years are implied to have passed since the first game, however, it is noted at the start of the game that Hyrule Castle has fallen even further into a state of disrepair. Further, Zelda and Link have been living in a simple home together since the Calamity. Perhaps until the castle is restored Zelda can't officially become queen, or she simply sees other matters as more important for now. The nation was able to hold itself together with just its regional leaders for a hundred years, so presumably there is no hurry to crown a new king or queen.
- Neither Link nor Zelda have gotten noticeably older or taller in the interim, compared to the adult Hylians we meet they're still significantly shorter. However much time has passed between games, it seems very unlikely to have to have been the real life six years.
- Indeed, probably not six years. But Zelda was seventeen before she went into stasis with Ganon. Given Hylians grow and age like humans, she wouldn't likely get any taller (most girls have reached their max height by sixteen). Link might as men can grow for a few more years, but chances are they are both just shorter than average Hylians.
- It seems rather unlikely that both Link and Zelda would have remained exactly the same physically if significant amounts of time had passed. Further, Riju is at an age where she ought to be growing significantly were much time to have passed, and yet, hairstyle aside, she doesn't appear to have changed much. I can see little reason to assume that anything more than a handful of months have passed between the games.
- Hudson and Rhondson (who are introduced to each other by Link during Breath of the Wild) have a daughter that's old enough to read and write (and has the usual "young child" model for the Gerudo), it's undeniably that at least around 5 years have passed, any character that didn't change was just due to the designers not wanting to redesign them. As for the original Headscratchers, Zelda probably doesn't want to get crowned before she's helped the kingdom recover in a more hands on way, or something like that.
- For another bit of proof that Link is older and simply short, he's now able to order the Noble Pursuit drink from the Gerudo that he was regarded as too young for in Breath of the Wild.
- The Noble Pursuit Link can order is specifically stated to be a new recipe that all ages can enjoy; the creator even comments that normally Link would still be too young to drink the old version.
- Which just raises questions about what is it about that drink that requires such a high age. Especially when to my knowledge it is never even said to be alcoholic. Regarding Riju, she did get taller. She was about half a head shorter than Link in the previous game, but now from what I can tell is slightly taller than him.
- It probably is alcoholic, but they wouldn't be able to say as such explicitly without raising the age rating and so just had to imply it.
- As the original question noted, she's probably not biologically a teenager as years are implied to have passed since the first game, however, it is noted at the start of the game that Hyrule Castle has fallen even further into a state of disrepair. Further, Zelda and Link have been living in a simple home together since the Calamity. Perhaps until the castle is restored Zelda can't officially become queen, or she simply sees other matters as more important for now. The nation was able to hold itself together with just its regional leaders for a hundred years, so presumably there is no hurry to crown a new king or queen.
- It could be simply that a royal title doesn't have much priority for Zelda. Given how humble she is, she's probably more concerned with her reasearch, her personal life and helping out everyone, wherever she can. Given how harsh her life was as a princess prior to the calamity, she may even prefer the lifestyle as a commoner, rather than going back to being royalty.
- The above explanation is supported by the fact that Zelda has been living in Link's house in Hateno Village, while in Hyrule Castle there are no signs of her having moved back there.
- It's questionable whether the kingdom of Hyrule even exists anymore. The kingdom was destroyed over a 100 years ago, and ever since then various regions and towns of Hyrule have been self-governing units that work just fine without a higher king/queen above their regional leader. The majority of Hyrulians don't even have any memory of a unified rule, since only among the Zora is there a large number of people who were alive before the Calamity. Considering all this, maybe Zelda doesn't even want to try and restore the kingdom? What right does he have to force her rule on people who have been living without such rule for generations? The reason why everyone still calls her Princess Zelda might be out of tradition, or out of respect for her part in ending the Calamity, not because they still consider her to be their future ruler.
While I understand the game is still new and everyone including me wants to talk about it, but it feels like questions are getting derailed just because parts of the game were missed (which is reasonable given how big the game is) or just segueing into a different discussion entirely.
The original question is just over Zelda's title as princess but it's derailed into a discussion about the time gap between Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild and other parts of the game with not too much relevance beyond "Zelda should be old enough to be queen".
Is this just normal Headscratchers discussion?
Should I delete the parts that are derailing from the original question? Or should I just move the discussion into a separate folder entirely since I think discussing the game's Time Skip does have some merit.
EDIT: last-minute edit of spoilers, I haven't used this site for a while (specifically ATT) and thought my post would be cut off a little when I posted.
Edited by INeveropen Which way is better?
I may just be dumb here, but I looked through some Administrivia pages and didn't find an answer there, so I'm here now:
If you're on a trope list and you're troping a franchise where the franchise title is the same as the first entry in the series - so, for a hypothetical example, the franchise Franchise.Dead Rising has the same title as the first game, VideoGame.Dead Rising - I've seen the title of the first entry troped in two different ways, either just the title as is (so Dead Rising again, in this case), or I've also seen it potholed under the name "Original/First [whatever media]" - so in this case, it would look like "Original/First game". Basically, is one of those ways preferred over the other? Just linking the title as is or doing so in a manner that specifies it's the first entry in the franchise instead of the franchise itself? Can it go either way?
Edited by STARCRUSHER99resolved The flexibility of the words "Network" and "Executive"
Now, I know that the word "Creator" can mean more than just "the person who came up with the idea" and can include others such as actors. Can something similar happen with the words "Network" and "Executive"? Because it looks like some example think so.
For example, Trivia.Infinity Train Seeker Of Crocus has the trope Adored by the Network listed even though it is a fanfiction. So in this case the word "Network" does not refer to a traditional broadcasting company, but to the writers of the work. Trivia.A Thing Of Vikings includes the trope Executive Meddling, although it is also a fanfiction, so it uses the word "Executive", not to refer to the people on the administrative side of the project, but to the reviewers of the work (I would like to add that the author apparently ignored their meddling). This last trope even has a page dedicated to Fan Works
This all seems like a stretch, since fanfiction is self-published, so the author has absolute power over the work. In any case, the closest thing to a "Network" and "Executives" would be the mods and the people who run Archive of Our Own, the website where these works are made public.
Edited by SoyValdo7openPage full of improper image formatting
Pokemon Mystery Tourney is filled with hotlinked images, which don't show up properly if they're not put into the image uploader first. What do I do with them? Do I replace them all with proper images myself or do I have to start an Image Pickin thread first?
openIs It Okay to Create a Page About ChatGPT? Web Original
The year 2023 is now the year of A.I., especially ChatGPT and AI Generated Artwork.
If it's okay to make, we could make it self-demonstrative, like so:
TropeGPT: Sure! Here's a page about ChatGPT on TV Tropes.
The Laconic page can also be self-demonstrative too:
A chatbot developed by OpenAI that can write whatever the user asks.
- Troper: How do I go back to the unabridged version?
TropeGPT: Here's a link that will take you back to the unabridged version.
Edited by Oxyrhynchus
open Etiquette on deleting contentious/false moments examples Web Original
Got something that has been bothering me for a few weeks and rather than go the edit route I thought I would get a proper consensus first before taking any action.
Over on the H.Bomberguy heartwarming page there is an example for his RWBY criticism video with two subpoints and one third point. Most of the second and the third dot points are potshots at the show or it's company disguised as compliments to HB and could easily be cut out without much controversy. It's the main entry that I have an issue with.
To summarize, in his video on RWBY HB portrays himself as having been a life-long fan of Monty Oum (RWBY's creator who was long deceased at the time of the video), and the heartwarming entry on his page is talking about how much respect HB has for Monty as a creator and a person. The problem is that this is a lie; whilst Monty was alive HB made a lot of outright venomous statements on Monty and his skills that contradict his claims about how he was always in awe of Monty's work and considered him a personal hero. This makes HB contentious in the RWBY fandom since a lot of people see him as pretending to respect Monty (or at the most generous obscure his previous hatedom which he's since backed down on) to make his criticism seem unbiased rather than someone who went into the show as someone who thought its creator lacked talent and thought it looked average at best. It touches on a sore spot in that community of haters of the show using Monty's name as a way to bash the show/it's remaining creators.
So to circle back to the entry, it's repeating the claim that HB respected Monty and his work. That is a lie as HB's own forum comments can attest to. Would that be enough to get the entry taken down, or does this still fall under a subjective opinion and so the entry stays? If so, would deleting the sub-entries which lean towards taking potshots at the show and it's fans be acceptable?
openI'm worried
Normally, I wouldn't be doing this, since I'm not seeking for any attention, but I think I should break the silence now: I'm currently adding a lot of FNF mods' pages and putting them into the main game's fan works page (and also in other proper pages so they could get attention). During last year, I was getting some users helping me fill those pages. Sometimes the mod wasn't so famous, so tropers weren't appearing in those rare cases, but I didn't mind that at all, plus every person has their rights to choose what they want to do.
One day, now in 2024, I've created the page for Glitched Legends, a popular Pibby mod in the community. While I was thinking on other mods to add and working in other stuff at TV Tropes, I've been noticing the page hasn't been having anything new; no corrections, no examples, nothing. I wasn't thinking too much about it, then. "Maybe it's because it's a Pibby mod. Even if it's a high-quality mod, Pibby mods are oversaturated, so maybe not many people are into it". Then I've been created other pages: Vs Slenderman, Funkin In The Massacre Night, Friday Night Funkin VS Chara, and so on. None of them have been updated ever since.
I don't want to make any publicity here, or force anything to anybody, since like I said, anyone can choose if they want to help or just see those pages, but I'm genuinely worried. I've been patient for two months now, and I'm not receiving any help from other users. Even Roastin' on a Cartoon Cartoon Friday, probably my most elaborated page during these months, only had one foreign edit, and it was only a little correction. Are my pages not causing any interests? Am I getting some bad reputation for something?
I'm sorry for creating this whole Wall of Text, but I wanted to explain myself clearly.
Edited by UzarNaimBer15openIn-universe YMMV moves?
YMMV.Overanalyzing Avatar is the review shows reaction to the work so objective rather than audiences to the review show, which should be moved to the main page, correct?
Question about these entries:
- Character Derailment: Often Discussed Is Flame Bait so question if viable to move. Note these don't meet this wikis standards for CD.
- He accuses "The Deserter '' of doing this to Zhao, whose introduction he praised for establishing him as a genuinely cunning and imposing villain. Here, he gets goaded into burning his own boats by a twelve year old hurling insults at him.
- He is similarly critical of Azula's Villainous Breakdown in the finale, critising the sheer speed at which it happens.
- Sacred Cow: Played With in regards to Azula, as while OA doesn't consider her (or any character really) to be above criticism, he found out the hard way when criticizing Azula's childhood behavior, take over of Ba Sing Se, and later expedited mental breakdown that her fans are very protective of her, to the point that in his "Overanalyzing Overanalyzing Avatar" video he adamantly refused to discuss Azula's characterization as clips from those scenes are played. This might be worth keeping as a YMMV to the review. But YMMV cannot be played with and this seem's more Avatar's SC status.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: In "Return To Omashu", he criticizes Bumi for surrendering without giving his people a chance to fight or even consulting them about it. Saying he understands what Bumi was trying to do, but still thinks it was a dick move of him to hand over the city and at least seemingly screwing over his people. Fails to explain why they were supposed to be sympathetic (Bumi was called out in-work), so would normally remove but if this is in-universe is it valid?
openIs Paris Jackson's page a little too prying?
The biography for Paris Jackson talks a lot about her mental health struggles and self-harm attempts, which seems a little bit too prying into her personal life, especially since she's still living, still pretty young, discusses things that happened before she started her actual career, and has talked about how much she doesn't like being a paparazzi magnet. Should this be edited?
resolved Discussions on edit reason?
So, on YMMV.Jocat there has been
a back and forth regarding this Offending the Creator's Own entry:
- Offending the Creator's Own: Despite himself being quite left-leaning, the infamous harassment campaign that targeted JoCat due to his "I Like Girls" was partly from far-left/radical feminist people who accused the video of objectifying women and being perverted.
Now I don't know if the entry is true and I have no dog in rather if it is political bias or not, but the thing is that it seems like the tropes particularly this one
are using the edit reason for discussions. Am I correct that is what is happening or am I mistaken.
openNOPE discrepancy?
How come on Internet Backdraft it says that Fandom Heresy is No On-Page Examples, but there are on-page examples on Fandom Heresy itself?
Edited by moxedenopenUnexplained removal
On Let Us Never Speak of This Again, a since-inactive user removed the SpongeBob and Patrick Star Show entries without a reason.
Can these be added back?
resolved JDF-related Harsher In Hindsight example
On YMMV.Kyoryu Sentai Zyuranger, IncredibleFulk1 added
this example under Harsher in Hindsight, in light of the at-the-time passing of Jason David Frank, who played Burai's counterpart Tommy Oliver. The example was later deleted
by Anicomicgeek with an edit reason of "As tragic as Frank's passing was, death it-and-of itself doesn't count." However, another example related to Frank's death was added by Donnatemple on May 24th, 2023, under different wording:
- The fact that Tommy Oliver, Burai's occidental counterpart, is Spared By Adaptation and became a Composite Character of five rangers, became this with the death of Jason David Frank.
Unlike the previous example, this one flew under the radar for at least eight months, with no-one questioning if this example should count as being Harsher in Hindsight. Even if it was a case of that trope, it falls flat because neither Burai or JDF's deaths have anything in common (the former had a time limit that would put his life on the line; the latter due to personal and health issues that culminated in his demise via suicide). I would understand if it was Burai's actor, Shiro Izumi, who died and not his Western counterpart, but even then I doubt it would be from living on borrowed times. The only connection I could find is Izumi voicing his condolences to JDF
, but it wasn't related to either show. Any thoughts?
(and yes I don't know much about Zyuranger so I think I might have gotten Burai's death wrong)
Edited by ToonAbbyopenComments As Moments on Webvideo pages Web Original
I've noticed that there are a few moments pages for youtube series (mostly funny moments) where some of the moments listed are comments on one of their videos instead of anything from the video itself. Wouldn't those technically count as meta moments, or at least not count as actual content from the show itself?
Edited by Afterwordresolved Using ChatGPT to help answer Headscratcher questions
Is it ok to directly cite answers generated by this program in answer to a question posed on a Headscratchers page? In this case, I had searched the work's wiki pages for relevant information, but it had nothing more to offer than the work itself. Furthermore, as it can be hard to do a granular search using a search engine for a very specific question like the one (for the work) I have in mind, and in the absence of any other troper stepping up (to date) to answer the question, AND as the answer appears to hold up (doesn't show any typical AI-anomalies or peculiar interpretations of the content), I don't think there's any harm to this approach?
Edited by FlashStepsopenPage Revert for Lobo
Recently, the page for Characters.DC Comics Lobo (which used to focus just on Lobo) has been turned into a redirect for Characters.Lobo (which is for Lobo's supporting cast), presumably as part of the new policy regarding Character-Specific Pages.
However, it seems like the actual content for the former page was not moved at all, meaning there are absolutely no tropes listed for Lobo. His character folder links to his character page, but because of the redirect it now just links to itself.
Can I either a) get a page revert for Characters.DC Comics Lobo or b) just have the content that used to be on Characters.DC Comics Lobo moved to Characters.Lobo?
Edited by chasemaddiganresolved Should I put this into TRS?
I've been reading through Animated Shock Comedy and noticed that many of the examples tend to comment on its quality. Whether if it's gushing about the inclusion of character development, or discussing about negative or divided viewer reactions.
Examples in the page that show this:
- "Sausage Party has plenty of Character Development and a solid plot, but it still sold itself on being the first 3D computer-animated feature to get an R-rating. Viewers are divided on its quality, with some feeling that it tried too hard to shove crude humor into every available place it could find."
- "Hoops, another Netflix cartoon. The main character is a completely unlikable Jerkass, and the humor is very crass, with lots of dick jokes and extreme amounts of F-bombs from its VERY foul-mouthed protagonist. While jerkass protagonists are hardly rare in this genre, this one's sheer obnoxiousness garnered the show many negative reviews, and likely led to its swift cancellation."
- "A lot of the humor in Rick and Morty is extremely sophomoric, with phallic imagery, burp/fart jokes, pop culture references and violence galore; however, much like Bojack Horseman, it plays the consequences of a lot of these jokes completely straight for the sake of furthering the story and developing the characters, who even at their flattest are much more fleshed out and three-dimensional than a good deal of the show's contemporaries..."
Basically, I think the trope tends to attract both complaining and gushing that I think examples should be rewritten to be less YMMV.
What do you think?
Edited by RuckusHearts

Given how the use of The Multiverse has becoming increasingly popular in fiction, especially in how it retcons previously unrelated adaptions to exist as alternate universes to each other, I think the main Alternate Self page needs to be edited to include the situations that "count" as this trope. This is because in the past I've had debates with people about the use of the trope, and those same people tend to only delete the trope from certain pages and then leave it alone in other pages. As a result this makes the use of the trope wildly inconsistent and only causes more confusion.
For example, recently someone deleted the Alternate Self trope from Spider-Man: Spider-Verse character pages that included links to the other Spider-Man/Marvel media that were shown to exist in Across the Spider-Verse on the grounds that characters simply appearing in those adaptions doesn't count. However that same person, even though I pointed out the hypocrisy, hasn't made any attempt to delete the use of Alternate Self in the MCU, SSU, Raimi and Webb films which are connected to the Spider-Verse films. This is what I mean by how the there isn't a clear consensus on how to use the trope, and as a result even if it's decided by a bunch of people what examples do count everyone else has no way of knowing that and will make the same mistakes.
Based on what the people deleting the trope have said, Alternate Self only "counts" when the AU characters appear in the same piece of media. So for example when MCU Spidey met Raimi and Webb Spidey, or with an Alternate Reality Episode. If that's true, then I think that should be made clear in the main Alternate Self page to avoid further confusion and misuse of the trope.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with using Alternate Self when a character appears in adaptions that have been confirmed to coexist as part of The Multiverse. The way I see it, it's no different when two previously unrelated pieces of fiction are confirmed to exist in the same Shared Universe, which can lead to tropes like Identical Stranger or Celebrity Paradox.
Edited by DarthDavros75