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:
openWhen whole scenes of a movie are published before the movie itself Film
I've been looking at Creating A Work Page For An Unreleased Work. Either I'm missing something or it doesn't mention cases where scenes are published on, say, YouTube (almost) in full before the movie itself did. For example, TRON: Ares.
These started with more higher-profile "movie channels", so I'm not sure if it counts as a Content Leak.
Edited by DoomTayopenDrink!! Again!! Film
I’m not troper, don’t think I’m capable of doing all the appropriate linking, but there is a Hard Drinking trope missing. The trope where an older, stronger character tells a younger character to “Drink! Again!” when they are sad or depressed about something. I saw there was a “drowning your sorrows” trope, but this isn’t the same. This is not a character falling into addiction, this is a one time event. The older character is wiser, usually a heavy drinker himself, and he knows that this younger, inexperienced character needs a few drinks to cope with the new/shocking/depressing/traumatic event he just went through. While this drink is occurring the older character is almost always dispensing wisdom, usually on how he’s been through whatever the younger character is experiencing, and life will be fine on the other side. Alcohol is the best short term solution, and he’s right, because by the end of the talk the younger character seems to move entirely past whatever was bothering him before, and is actually stronger and more mature when we see him again.
openAPP Goofy Movie fanfic trope inquiry Film
I’m in need of assistance to determine which trope would best fit this highlight from my fanfic story “Face Off with Principal Mazur”:
PM: Ah yes. Mr. Goof. And the young man who incited that little riot at the assembly last year. G: Now see here. My Max is no juvenile delinquent and did not start a riot at all. PM: And how do you know that? (Roxanne then enters.) R: Because I saw what went on at that assembly. He wasn’t trying to incite any violence. All the other students were cheering for him and his Powerline performance because they loved it. And he and his dad also got to dance alongside the real Powerline himself at his concert in LA. My friends and I were watching, and they obviously impressed Powerline with their own dance moves, and he decided to make it part of his show without any objection. (Mazur just scoffs) PM: Another hijacking. Disrespect. That’s what’s wrong with today’s kids, don’t know when to stop making things miserable for others.
Basically, what this implies is that rather than acknowledge Max and Goofy’s talent and apologize for his misleading exaggeration to Goofy, he just flippantly disregards their dance as “another hijacking” and how today’s kids don’t know when to stop making others miserable.
openPlaying With/Against Type Film
Could someone please help me decide if the Playing Against Type and Playing with Character Type sections on Creator.Pedro Pascal look worth keeping, or if they violate the Creator Page Guideline against "Tropes applying to an individual work that already has its own page" (except for The Uninvited).
(I didn't start the sections myself, but I did expand them beyond one entry each.)
resolved Preventing edit war from continuing Film
The troper ~Remnant 43 has been repeatedly adding Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist to the villain Remmick's character sheet on Sinners (2025). They first did so here
, giving an edit reason. I disagree with the use of the trope and others did too as another troper, ~Wet Flannels altered the trope back to Well-Intentioned Extremist here
. Remnant altered it back once again here
with a frankly rude and accusatory edit reason this time.
This feels rather like the issue we ran into with one troper insisting Charles zi Britannia from Code Geass was a Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist based on the work's protagonist's line about him being selfish. A villain can be selfish and have a god complex. Well-Intentioned Extremist just requires they believe in what they're saying and this applies to Remmick. He's absorbing people in his vampire Hive Mind and wants to recreate his lost culture but he repeatedly states it will be a happy world, he believes in equality and Remnant's arguments hit of trying to play up the fact he has negative traits to allege his good intentions are wholly shut down, which isn't the case.
That's my stance at least, the much bigger problem is Remnant continually re-adding the trope and their attitude given in their latest edit reason.
Thoughts?
Edited by PassingThroughopenPossibly shoehorned fan works? Film
YMMV.K Pop Demon Hunters has a lot of links to fan works even though that should be on a separate page. Examples:
- Fandom-Specific Plot:
- A fair amount of fan art pieces (like this one
) revolves around Rumi being hesitant that Mira and Zoey would not accept them for their demon heritage...Only to have the other two fawn over her in desire and eager to see more of her. <—-I don't see any reason to link to that specific fanart except for self promotion
- A fair amount of fan art pieces (like this one
- Fanon:
- As a result of the fandom believing Jinu is not dead and gone, a popular fan canon claims that his soul now exists in Rumi's new sword. There's already a fanwork
which depicts said sword as a Talking Weapon who comforts Rumi when summoned. <—-Again, I don't see the point/relevance of linking that specific fanwork except for self promotion
- As a result of the fandom believing Jinu is not dead and gone, a popular fan canon claims that his soul now exists in Rumi's new sword. There's already a fanwork
- Friendly Fandoms:
- Many were quick to point out the similarities between Huntrix and K/DA, regarding the former as something of a Spiritual Successor considering the latter is still on hiatus. Naturally there is shipping.
<—-Crossover Ship already covers the shipping aspect, no need to add a random fanart piece
- With Transformers One for similar reasons (Transformers One released on Netflix four days beforehand) due to the surprisingly similar fun yet dark vibes, action and angst. There's even fan-made edits!
<—-Why is linking the fan edit necessary?
- With Devil May Cry, due to their similarities causing this film to be perceived as a spiritual adaptation of that franchise. Rumi is being compared to Dante because just like him, she is also a sword-wielding half-demon who hunts other demons while looking good in style, and being good at dancing. Some fanworks depict them getting along as fellow hunters if they meet
.<—-Again, it is highly unnecessary to add a fan art link when it is already explained why there is a shared fandom
- Many were quick to point out the similarities between Huntrix and K/DA, regarding the former as something of a Spiritual Successor considering the latter is still on hiatus. Naturally there is shipping.
openCharacter folder using another character's quote instead of the folder subject's own. Film
Over a year ago from now sapphyblue changed the character quote
at the beginning of Mark Hoffman's folder on Saw: Jigsaw and Accomplices (which I was a regular editor at back then).
The original quote was said by Hoffman himself:
For some reason, sapphyblue decided to choose a quote about him by another character instead:
I find this change pretty odd, because not only is it standard for character folders to have quotes said by the character themselves (unless they don't speak at all, at which I think it's acceptable to use a quote from another character describing them), in the current quote Hoffman is being described from the perspective of another character rather than his own, and as someone who knows the context of the films best, I think the original quote did a better job at summarizing Hoffman's own character and his moral conflict with John (that's the theme of both quotes).
I'd like to change the character folder quote back to what it originally was, with a link to this query to avoid making the change look like an Edit War; I was originally responsible for moving the original line from image caption to folder quote, but I didn't write it in the first place, and I don't think reverting a change from over a year ago can easily come off as edit warring (unless it's clear that one of the tropers is deliberately changing things back to their liking, as in a very slow-paced edit war). But what are your thoughts on this issue, and what would you suggest me to do if you don't think switching it back myself is the best option?
openMadea Film
In the Characters/Madea characters page, the main characters only consist of Madea, Joe, and Cora. No one else. With others like Brian, Mr Brown, Hattie appearing in the other pages, what can I do?
Can moment pages start as Sandbox pages? For example, what if I do a Funny page for I Can Do Bad All By Myself, Madea’s Big Happy Family, A Madea Homecoming, etc and I mention something about Madea and Joe, I’m not sure how many examples are needed?
Edited by LarrytheKingopenClockwork Orange Animated Short (18+) Film
Hey, does anyone remember an erotic animated short film from the '70s that was supposedly shown before A Clockwork Orange? I read about it on TV Tropes once but can't find it again—might’ve had a name like Love in the Afternoon or something similar.
If it helps, I vaguely recall it saying something about how Kubrick himself handpicked it as the perfect "cartoon before the main show" for his movie when showing in select cinemas.
It had a real Yellow Submarine meets Fritz the Cat sorta feel to it, psychedelic colours, and of course, graphic sex scenes.
It's really been bothering me that I cant find it anywhere. It was a really wacky deep cut, almost like lost media.
openNew DC Universe Franchise Page Film
So Franchise.The DC Universe Film Universe has been launched, and I'm not sure if that was the agreed upon name that should be used. It feels clunky to me, and very easy to missearch, on top of the fact that there is no "The" used, and it's going to confuse alot of people. Myself and others were already working on Sandbox.DC Universe 2024, and while I don't want to use a year disambiguator, idk what else to do.
Edited by GateStarXopenYMMV trope misuse question? Film
Recently someone added the Catharsis Factor regarding the 1990 American biographical crime film GoodFellas as seen here (click here)
, I'll cover it with spoilers just in case if anyone does not want to know the plot yet?
- Catharsis Factor: After a long time of bullying, sadism, murder and many other crimes, Tommy is unceremoniously executed during the trap that he believed to be his making ceremony.
I believe this is a misuse because Tommy was unexpectedly gets whacked from behind by an individual and he seems helpless to do anything to save himself. While I know and aware for sure that Tommy DeVito is a terrible (for the lack of a better term) villain himself and it seems like a textbook example of Tommy's well-deserved comeuppance but for some reason it doesn't feel very gratifying. I admit to not have much good reasons to defend Tommy or to protest against the YMMV trope in someway/or form but it somehow just does not felt right at all and I think this is probably an example of the Catharsis Factor has gone too far. In short, it just seems wrong to add Catharsis Factor on Tommy DeVito.
Side note: This is my personal opinion and I fully acknowledge that YMMV is an opinionated based trope page. And most if not all Catharsis Factor makes sense when it comes to Audience Reactions to the villains in fictional stories but still I think this seems worthy of attention. Any thoughts, suggestions and opinions on this?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpaiopenFormatting error on the Deadpool and Wolverine page - anyone know how to fix this? Film
Recently some trivia linked under spoiler tags are listed as invoked on the Deadpool & Wolverine page, but with the way it's formatted it breaks some of the example's spoiler tags (specifically under All for Nothing, Ambiguous Situation, and Self-Deprecation) - I've tried fixing it through editing previews, but nothing short of removing the invoked tags seems to be working.
resolved Misuse of ascended memes for Sonic 3? Film
These were added to the Film.Sonic The Hedgehog 3 page, under Ascended Meme:
- Ascended Meme:
- A minor one; Shadow gets totally interested in La Ultima Passion and roots for the Love Interest to just kill the other legs of the Love Triangle she's stuck in. He just loves Latinas.
- At one point, Sonic calls Shadow "Hot Topic", Shadow's nickname in Snapcube's Real-Time Fandub.
I feel like this is misuse, as Ascended Meme is when the meme itself appears in a work. Neither of these feel like actual references to the memes and are a bit of a stretch to connect them and are Fan Myopia at worst.
Cause hearing Sonic call Shadow "Hot Topic" made me think "okay, reference to edgy stuff zeitgeist in the mid-2000s" and not a reference to Snapcube fandubs (FWIW I haven't watched either).
Similarly, Shadow watching the spanish drama and getting into it feels more like he's The Comically Serious and Not So Above It All, rather than the latinas meme.
Like, I feel an actual ascended meme referring to at least the Jehtt thing is if Shadow actually said "I Love Latinas" in the dialogue of the film.
Edited by taotruthsresolved Move, pls Film
I think the real reason why Itsuki No Kimi E has only 1 wick is because the title itself is misspelled. A quick search shows that the title is supposed to be "Itsuka no Kimi e" ("Loving You"). And one of the characters' names is "Noboru Fukami", not "Noboru Funami". How to move a page?
resolved Alien: Romulus retcons Alien: Covenant? (Spoilers) Film
The page for Alien: Romulus says that it definitively retcons Ridley Scott's assertion that David-8 created the Xenomorphs in Alien: Covenant by revealing that the Xenomorphs contain the Engineers' black goo.
Fox has seen fit to largely ignore Ridley Scott's assertion that David created the Xenomorphs—at least in regards to the official TTRPG, which was written with the intent of integrating and streamlining all the "canon" material—but I'm not seeing anything in the film itself that contradicts what's shown in Alien: Covenant given that David very expressly used the Engineers' black goo to create the Xenomorphs shown there.
What should be done about those claims?
openCan overriding other tropers' entries in favor of your own entries count as an Edit War? Film
About a couple years ago, I added this example of Numerological Motif to Saw VI:
- Numerological Motif: Being the sixth Saw film, there are several allusions to the number six throughout Saw VI.
- Overall, there are six traps in the film, including the opening trap and all the five traps in William's trial. This is further cemented by one of the film's taglines: "6 chances. 6 lessons. 6 choices."
- One of the traps in itself, the Carousel Trap, has six victims.
- Jill is seen holding an instruction envelope from the box with the number six written on it, likely implying that there were six of them inside the box.
- The film's "Hello Zepp" rendition, "Zepp Six", clocks at six minutes within the six-minute climax.
Later, on January of this year, Ze Trope Guy 999 added
the following example of Arc Number in the same page, the sub-bullets of which, while fewer and less elaborate, are similar to those of my example.
- Arc Number: Six, as befitting the sixth entry.
- There are six victims on the Shotgun Carousel.
- Jill Tuck’s box is revealed to have six envelopes in it - the sixth one containing a photograph of Hoffman.
I'm planning to combine the two entries, mostly using my descriptions but also including some minor facts mentioned in ZeTropesGuy's entry, into a single example of Arc Number, as I had noticed the latter entry today and realized that Arc Number fits better for the film's symbolism of the number six than Numerological Motif. The end result would look like this:
- Arc Number: Befitting its status as the sixth Saw film, there are several allusions to the number six throughout Saw VI.
- Overall (without counting the Reverse Bear Trap 2.0, an updated version of the first film's Reverse Bear Trap that has considerably less screentime than the other traps), there are six traps in the film, including the opening trap and all the five traps in William's trial. This is further cemented by one of the film's taglines: "6 chances. 6 lessons. 6 choices."
- One of the traps in itself, the Shotgun Carousel, has six victims.
- Aside from the five envelopes she gives to Hoffman, Jill is seen holding another instruction envelope from the box with the number six written on it (revealed in the climax to contain instructions on how she has to set up the Reverse Bear Trap 2.0 on Hoffman, likely implying that there were six of them inside the box.
- The film's "Hello Zepp" rendition, "Zepp Six", clocks at six minutes within the six-minute climax.
However, I'm worried that the fact that I'm overriding much of ZeTropeGuy's entry with mine could lead to an Edit War if I don't address my planned edit properly. Can this edit really be considered Edit Warring, or is it completely fine to do?
Edited by Inky100resolved "A time to kill": From Questionable trope entries to a questionable page overall. Film
So...I noticed the page for A Time to Kill was made years ago by erforce, who's account was deleted a while ago. Overall, the way it was all written sounds weirdly apologetic to the two white supremacists while overtly critical to Carl and the protagonists of the film.
I'll be very honest; I'm unfamiliar with the policy in regard to entries with tropes like Black-and-Gray Morality, if any, so I will need the perspective or knowledge of fellow tropers on this one.
I was looking through the page, and then I noticed the entries done for Black-and-Gray Morality, and I noticed this:
* What the men did to his daughter was undoubtedly reprehensible, but did that give Carl Lee the right to take their lives? If it had been a black rapist getting shot, would there be as much discussion? What if it had been your child? Well, much depends on the personal standpoint.
I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this entry, aside from the obvious whataboutism, but there's something that seems a bit off.
I'm also thinking, upon second inspection, it's not just the entries for that trope that are the only problematic thing about the way this page was written. Again, alot of this was edited by other tropers, but I do know that it wasn't really altered so much as it was broken up into smaller entries from what Erforce originally had written. There's more than what I've listed here, but that can be seen on the page itself.
Overall, what should be my next step of action with this? More importantly, what does everyone else make of how this page was written?
Edited by Stardust5099resolved Internet Backdraft/Marvel Cinematic Universe has a stupid entry Film
On Marvel Cinematic Universe there's this entry:
- A theory has been springing up that Marvel are sabotaging the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises in order to weaken Fox's success with their films, noting their reduced presence in the comicsnote which isn't true; the X-Men are currently one of the biggest lines they're producing, with more spin-offs than ever, Wolverine and Deadpool dying note which is no different than any other 'big shocking deaths', and is being used to launch several miniseries attracting tons of publicity to the X-Men line as it is, the Fantastic Four comic being cancellednote which has been underselling for a while, and while not the worst seller, it's still been pretty bad and doesn't have the cult following that their other books have, lack of merchandise produced for X-Men: Days of Future Pastnote which wasn't true; there weren't any children's toys produced, which is largely down to licensing issues; they still sold Hot Toys collectibles for them though, are still selling toys for the franchise in general, and sold toys for the film before that, their reduced appearances in recent animated seriesnote ignoring that Wolverine did get an animated movie and has appeared in their other cartoons, and a memo apparently sent out asking for artists to not send them Fantastic Four artworknote the validity of this memo is questionable at best. The theory itself makes little sense, but hasn't stopped people buying into it, including Rob Liefeld note Liefeld's creations are tied with Fox's licenses, so of course he'd be on their side over this.
- Disney's acquisition of Fox. Beyond the "Yay, X-Men and the Fantastic Four can be in the MCU!" cheering, fans were concerned about how Disney continued to acquire a huge amount of popular IPs to the point of becoming a near monopoly.
The first one is iffy in its own right, but the second bullet is my concern today. A couple of things:
1. This isn't about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's about Disney. The only connection the MCU really has to this is that Marvel Studios, the guys who oversee it, are owned by Disney. Unless the entry is alleging that Disney spent $71.3 billion acquiring the Fox film assets primarily to get the film rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises, in which case... yeah, I totally believe that. TOTALLY.
2. In all seriousness, Disney didn't do this because they thought Marvel Studios needed two more franchises. They did it because they want to bulk up their collective film library in preparation for going into the streaming market. Remember, Disney+ launches later this year, and Disney wants to leverage their majority control of Hulu to push for an international release around the same time, with the stated goal of being a place to put their adult-leaning content. That's why this happened.
3. For the record, this entry is heavily biased, mentioning the backlash to the decision to greenlight the acquisition while dismissing ANY praise or excitement as just people being excited for certain franchises; call me crazy but I don't think it's as bad as this entry makes it out to be.
4. This is a minor complaint compared to the preceding three, but it's also an example of bad indentation. It's got nothing to do with the preceding entry other than that they both involve Fox. I mean, seriously?
Look, my vote is to just delete it, but I wanted to at least make sure I consulted the community to see if that's the only workable solution, because I get the feeling that SOMEONE is going to want to talk about it on the wiki SOMEWHERE and it's worth figuring out where, if anywhere, is an appropriate place to do so.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved Edit war prevention for a problematic edit Film
madorosh removed
this example from Lady Ballers
- Broken Aesop: While a common conservative justification for the type of transphobia seen in Lady Ballers is to protect women's spaces, the film also promotes the idea that women are always physically inferior to men including at sports, which is both misogynistic and condescending and undermines the alleged "pro-woman" bent.
with the edit reason: "doesn't make sense, the characters in the film mention the biological fact that men have specific advantages over women, which in general is true. Not sure what 'transphobia' is being displayed - everything in the film is played for laughs"
I don't wanna cause an edit war, but the example was valid. The film tries to present itself as pro-women but the film very much plays on the supposed belief that men, even the weakest men apparently who are out of shape and washed out and haven't exercised in years, are more physically abled and skilled at sports than the most trained female athletes. Which very much does go against the film's supposed "feminist" message.
Again, I want to cause no edit war so I brought it here.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2

So in Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, Valinante added edits that claimed that Chance didn't forgive Sassy and Shadow at all after Delilah leaves him.
Hero Gal 2347 removes and/or alters them with this reason:
Valinante readds the This Is Unforgivable! entry.
I removed it with an admittedly rude reason (which i apologize for) and sent them a notifier quoting the Hero Gal's reason (if that's not okay I also apologize.
Valinante sent me a rather rude message that basically amounts to "Chance didn't say he forgave them, so he didn't." and disregards him saving them proving otherwise. And regardless I don't think an optimistic and upbeat movie would have such a pessimistic quality like "no forgiveness between friends".
Is it alright if I take this here? Does something further need to be done?
Edited by RedBerryBlueCherry