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:
openTime to reach concensus Film
There was a bit of the controversy going on with the Protagonist-Centered Morality on the Spider-Man: Far From Home page and troper HighCrate
pulled the contested example to the example thread
. It happened at Jul 15th 12:24 AM. Two tropers replied to him there, and six hours later, at Jul 15th 6:25 AM he pulled the example back "per concensus". What kind of concensus can be reached during 6 hours when none of the people originally editing that example got the chance to be involved in the discussion? To be clear, I was not among them but I find it wrong.
The resulting example "per concensus" is factually incorrect. It states that Tony Stark "proclaimed himself a hero" for creating E.D.I.T.H. while nothing like that happened in the film. How do I delete that part when "concensus" was reached?
Edited by AsherinkaopenPossibly 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.
openComplaints Magnet? Film
The Critical Research Failure section under Mulan (2020) is getting quite long and nitpicky, in excess of even what the most flexible interpretations of the trope allow. While a lot of people have correctly called the film out for failing to get basic aspects of Chinese culture correct despite advertising itself as more authentic, a lot of these examples come off as less informed criticisms and more an excuse for certain users to kick the film while it's down by parroting criticisms they saw elsewhere, some of which may misunderstand the actual reason for why the mistake was such an issue in the first place, or introduce Critical Research Failure of their own.
This despite scholars of Chinese culture and people of Chinese descent themselves pointing out that these aspects of Chinese culture get subjected to Artistic License within Chinese-created media all the time, and are not as clear-cut or even the worst crimes the film commits.
Edited by AlleyOopresolved 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 AudioSpeaks2openShould there be a "linking section" on every MCU film? Film
Troper TheExtractor has taken to unilaterally adding a section to the top of all the MCU films that links it to the previous/next film in MCU release schedule.
Do we really need such a thing given that there is a Franchise page Marvel Cinematic Universe that lists all the films in the franchise and allows such navigation to each film already?
It's going to make the MCU films formatted differently than other films and does that open itself to having a "link section" for other film franchises like James Bond, Star Wars, etc?
The main thing that concerns me about this is that TheExtractor did something similar back in January 2021, where they unilaterally added a "cast list" to every MCU film.
Yet, they never seem to post any kind of discussion item beforehand of "I think this would be a neat thing to add to all MCU films" and then ask for feedback and wait for consensus before making changes to dozens of pages.
Edited by rva98014openNo Way Home: What An Idiot Film
I noticed that WhatAnIdiot.Marvel Cinematic Universe Films (specifically for Spider-Man: No Way Home) has a moment where Spider-Man tries to Save the Villain by preventing a bunch of old bad guys from dying while fighting other versions of himself. Could this really be considered a stupid thing to do? It felt like Peter was just being an All-Loving Hero since he practices Thou Shall Not Kill. While it DID have consequences, he was ultimately successful in saving all of them, albeit with help from his counterparts. It seemed like Dr. Strange was just holding the Jerkass Ball by showing the villains No Sympathy. They could've worked together, but Strange complicated things by claiming You Can't Fight Fate.
Edited by 227someguyopenSeinfeldIsUnfunny.LiveActionFilms Film
Noticed a lot of entries about Star Wars on SeinfeldIsUnfunny.Live Action Films that seem to argue with themselves, get facts incorrect, or are nattery.
"Darth Vader was noted in 1977 for being one of the scariest villains on-screen at the time. However, after becoming a heavily-marketed Series Mascot (even to kids), having seen Luke, I Am Your Father parodied a million times (which are, more often than not, more or less equal amount of Darth Vader clones) in the Expanded Universe,note which has been officially declared defunct by new Star Wars owner Disney, perhaps in part because of this trope and after getting to see villains like Exar Kun, Darth Revan or Kylo Ren, Vader is no longer perceived as the sinister force he once was, and instead has a reputation as a "cool" character akin to a superhero. Rogue One addresses this by depicting Vader, a One-Scene Wonder here, at his most sinister and brutal - making him Nightmare Fuel by 2016 standards and reminding audiences of why he's such a fearsome character."
"*** With some female fans complaining about the use of The Smurfette Principle in the series, many forget that having a woman like Leia being just as heroic as the male heroes was a groundbreaking move in the first place. Like the Vader example, this was addressed in The Force Awakens by having Rey, a woman, as the surprise main character, giving her a surge in popularity and serving as a breakthrough for the aging franchise." Seems unclear in the latter part if it's referring to Rey or Leia.
"*** George Lucas changed the 'Han shot first' scene because he and MPAA thought it was too dark and violent. Nowadays with the normalization of heroes shooting first, many fans consider the change to be an overreaction especially since Greedo was pointing a blaster at Han and he was acting in self-defense. Not helping matters is how later films show moments of heroes trying to kill helpless people like Cassian shooting a handicapped informant or Luke trying to kill his sleeping nephew." Han shot first was only changed in the '98 special editions, 21 years after ANH was first released.
open Excessive (?) gushing Film
Awesome.Avengers Endgame features several paragraphs of gushing over the movie breaking every box office record and becoming the highest grossing movie ever. To wit:
- The film's box office performance has been nothing short of astounding:
- Most box office prognosticators were cautiously optimistic that it could break $300 million opening weekend in the US, which would handily break Infinity War's record of $257 million, in and of itself a staggeringly high amount of money. It completely obliterated everyone's expectations by making $357 million, $100 million more than its predecessor. Barring some ridiculous future inflation, it's hard to imagine a future movie breaking the box office record by a 9-figure sum.
- Endgame became the first movie ever to gross one billion (with a "B") dollars in its opening week! $1.2B to be exact, which is almost double what Infinity War did on its opening. This also makes it the second entertainment product to do so, outside of Grand Theft Auto V.note And of course, being a AAA video game which costs $60 rather than just the cost of a movie ticket, GTA V has a massive unfair advantage there. To put simply, it became the highest grossing movie of 2019 and the 18th-highest grossing movie of all time in four days, and it's even more impressive when one takes the film's heavy Continuity Lock-Out into account.
- As of its opening Sunday (28 April 2019), Endgame broke 144 records
.
- It became the highest grossing import movie in China ever in just a week. It hit $500 million there the Thursday after release, blowing past the original record holder The Fate of the Furious's $392 million total haul.
- After just 12 days into its worldwide release, Endgame not only surpassed $2 billion
(becoming the second comic book movie to do so), but also blew past Avengers: Infinity War, The Force Awakens, and James Cameron's Titanic to become the second-highest grossing movie of all time. In turn, this makes the MCU the first franchise to have two $2 billion grossing movies under their belt, unadjusted for inflation.note If you do adjust for inflation, then it's second only to Star Wars, but it's still impressive either way.
- Crossing over with Heartwarming, Cameron himself, a man infamous to MCU fans for his comments about "superhero fatigue", congratulated Marvel Studios
for surpassing Titanic:
@JimCameron: An Iceberg sank the real Titanic. It took the Avengers to sink my Titanic. Everyone here at Lightstorm Entertainment salutes your amazing achievement. You've shown that the movie industry is not only alive and well, it's bigger than ever!
- Crossing over with Heartwarming, Cameron himself, a man infamous to MCU fans for his comments about "superhero fatigue", congratulated Marvel Studios
- In 20 days, it grossed 2.5 billion. The only other film that achieved this was Avatar, and it took 72 days to get to that point.
- Then 89 days after release (July 20th, 2019), Endgame went above and beyond any other record it's broken prior to this point, and officially surpassed Avatar as the highest-grossing movie of all time.note worldwide, not adjusted for inflation, and the first sequel to do so. The last few weeks prior to this achievement were nail-biting, because even with the re-release in theaters it was clear that it'd be a photo finish either way... and yet it happened regardless. In fact, it happened with such perfect timing that Kevin Feige himself got to announce it during the Marvel panel at San Diego Comic Con. You'd swear it was pre-ordained from the heavens to work out this way.
- Once again, Cameron congratulates Marvel Studios for passing Avatar
:
@JimCameron: Oel Ngati Kameie, I see you Marvel. Congratulations to Avengers Endgame becoming the new box office king!
- Once again, Cameron congratulates Marvel Studios for passing Avatar
Do we really need all that info?
openStar Wars Expanded Universe Film
The Star Wars Expanded Universe page includes the theatrical Star Wars films, all of them dating back to Star Wars in 1977.
It would seem logical that the theatrical films should not be on the Franchise index for Expanded Universe. The film are base canon (or whatever you'd call that). The Expanded Universe is everything else that's grown out of the theatrical features—cartoons, radio dramas, books, comic books, the Holiday Special, blah blah blah. You can't expand something from itself.
EDIT: The movies are also in Star Wars Legends.
Edited by jamespolkopenHeadscratchers pages for not yet released works Film
Is it right that we have Headscratchers pages for movies that have not yet been released? Someone has set one up for the Deadpool sequel and all it is is a complaint about one of the characters that will be in it. (Link: The Untitled Deadpool Sequel ) Isn't Headscratchers to answer questions about something you might not understand from a work's plot, not a demand to know why a character is in it, without knowing how the story plays out first?
On a similar note, the Headscratchers page for The Last Jedi is full of people complaining about something the film did and then not liking or accepting when they are given an answer. Can someone take a look over that, I don't trust myself enough to be impartial on that page and I don't want to end up cutting out too much or leaving in my own pet theory, if someone less involved in that fandom could take a look then I'd appreciate it.
I feel like the headscratchers pages are devolving back towards being complaint sinks like they were in the Just Bugs Me days, and that isn't good.
open Edit warring over including Deadpool on the MCU franchise page. Film
Alright, I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but here it goes... There's been some controversy on the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise page regarding the addition of one untitled Deadpool film, which has been confirmed to be in early development by trades and anyone worth a damn. The problem is that Deadpool co-creator Rob Liefeld has recently stated something to the contrary, and that's spawned a ton of clickbait headlines and the spread of misinformation.
Here's the thing - the only person who says that nothing is happening with a character that brought in $1.5B in global ticket sales is Rob Liefeld, who is not part of the Marvel Studios picture at all. He is not being included in conversations about the next movie in spite of being a consultant on the Fox movies, and he recently shared some fan art of Deadpool killing Mickey Mouse on his social media page, so he is clearly not an impartial source of information here.
Another big problem with his statement is that allegedly, production grids for the next film in the series are out there, seen by a select few (including some industry insiders). Disney CEO Bob Iger also has an image of Deadpool on his Twitter banner, and previously noted that he's open to the idea of there being an R-rated Marvel Studios label for a third Deadpool movie and potentially other films. Marvel are currently in the process of making an omnibus of Deadpool stories from Joe Kelly, who gave the character the personality that fans of the character love. But most importantly, not only have Deadpool 1 and Deadpool 2 writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick officially met with Marvel Studios about the future of the franchise, but Ryan Reynolds, who is the only "FoX-Men" actor likely to make the jump into the MCU, has as well.
This was the original entry on the page before it got reverted:
- Untitled Deadpool film (TBA) note Confirmed by Ryan Reynolds to be in development. Reynolds will be returning as Deadpool, with writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick returning. Emma Watts and Simon Kinberg, who were involved with the previous films, will not be returning. The film will be the first R-rated entry in the MCU, and is expected to be distributed by 20th Century Studios instead of by Disney. Whether or not the film is a complete reboot or a Broad Strokes continuation of the franchise as it was prior to Disney's acquisition of Fox remains to be seen.
I tried relaying some of this information into the commented-out notes of article itself, but a Troper has recently accused me of being "biased" and is threatening to report me for vandalism... In spite of my simple relaying of crucial information like what I've shared above that debunks the speculation that Disney wants nothing to do with Deadpool. I am requesting that the Deadpool entry be reinstated into the article.
Edited by KingClarkopenFranchiseOriginalSin.StarWars Film
I want to start this by saying that locking or cutting a page should be used for worst-case-scenario pages only.
I've been trying to fix up FranchiseOriginalSin.Star Wars, and I've found that the page has many, many issues regarding the examples listed. It, of course, suffers from Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, as most Star Wars Audience Reaction pages end up like. Now, this in itself is a pretty fixable situation, because it's very similar to Narm.Star Wars, which we successfully cleaned out. Yes, it took months, but it was a satisfying conclusion.
But the Narm page was different, because that had 1-3 sentence examples that resulted in a simple cleanup objective of "remove misuse". It was very simple to fix the page. But with this page? No, my objective was to shorten the examples instead of cutting them. But the more I go into the page, the more I realize that nearly every example is a violation of Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, and it's frustrating. Just like Example Indentation or Zero-Context Examples, complaining is a fair reason to remove a bad example.
So here's the "Ask" part: What should be done with the page? If it's undeniably hard to fix, and just about every example is a heavy violation of policy, what can be done to help? I was thinking of maybe locking it, but it sounds too obstructive. Cutting is also an option if the cleanup proves unmanageable, but it's barely on the table.
So, what does the rest of the wiki think about the page?
openMCU - Confirmed to be Earth-616 repercussions Film
Hoping that this doesn't constitute that big of a spoiler. But in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is officially revealed that - at least inside the MCU multiverse - the main MCU is designated as Earth-616. This only confirms the previous reveal by producer Nate Moore
that the MCU is Earth-616.
I know that maybe this contradicts the official designation by the Marvel databooks, but my stance on it is that: different multiverse, different rules, different designations. So, following from this, would it be ok for me to start to replace "the Sacred Timeline" mentions in entries with "Earth-616"??? I will confess that I have always felt a bit annoyed by how cult-ish the term sounds, and considering how comicbook-616 and MCU-616 have never interacted, it wouldn't lend itself to any problems. Besides, "the sacred timeline" is a mouthful when compared to "-616".
Also, strengthening the argument for the Earth-616 denomination - this is the third time so far it has officially been called that, two of them inside movies. While "sacred timeline" was only used in Loki.
Edited by Edgar81539open Issues re: Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) Film
1. Dolph Z has a severe hang-up about the MonsterVerse version of King Ghidorah. They keep trying to insist that he's not pure evil, despite evidence suggesting he is in both the film and its novelization. I called them out on it over PMs and their latest justification is that Ghidorah isn't listed under Complete Monster yet. (Who wants to tell them how the appeals process for Complete Monster entries works?) Given that this is not only causing a prolonged Edit War but also shows signs of Single-Issue Wonk, I'm curious to know how best to address the problem.
2. Daethalion has added two main page entries to the film's YMMV page. I've moved them both, and plan to address the user myself, but I want to leave this here just in case things aren't cleared up quickly.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved 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 MinisterOfSinisteropenCaptain Marvel Film
Just a heads up, a troper has added a lot of entries for Hypocritical Fandom to Captain Marvel (2019). I'm not taking action myself, but I feel like a lot of the entries are distortions of the context for the film's criticisms (poor use of flashbacks, retcons to the timeline of the series) or bring up criticisms I haven't seen made about the movie (bad villains, use of 90s music, boycotting the military).
Given this film's "controversial" nature, and the controversial nature of the trope itself, would anyone else like to weigh in?
openDescribing suicide as Film
Okay, I know awesome and comedy are supposed to subjective, but...
In YMMV.The Butterfly Effect, under Crosses the Line Twice, there's an entry that says Evan going back in time to kill himself as an fetus is unintentionally hilarious and awesome. Also, in Awesome.The Butterfly Effect, there's a whole entry that goes into detail about just why said event is so awesome.
This just seems... wrong. It's not just me, is it?
Edited by ChaoticQueenopenSchindler's List as an example of White Man's Burden Film
A while ago Mark2000
added Schindler's List as an example on the trope page of White Man's Burden, which was removed for the entry itself being objectively inaccurate, they also added Mighty Whitey to that film's page and edit warred about it until it was deleted a second time.
Flash forward and LadyEros
has added the example to the White Man's Burden.
Now personally I think the trope doesn't apply, for the reason that The Holocaust was targeting people who were white Europeans too, even if the rhetoric back then portrayed them as sub-human. And also by the editors' logic then any instance when a privileged individual helps an oppressed group would be this trope.
What do you think?
openWMG Grease Film
Every entry on WMG.Grease relates to the movie's cast members, rather than the musical itself. Should the page go on the cut list?

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 PassingThrough