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:
openNo Title Film
SelfDemonstrating.The Beast Of Yucca Flats appears to be mostly identical to its non-SD page.
Botched attempt to remove the self-demonstration?
open Shipping bias re: Star Wars' Rey and Kylo Ren Film
Does anyone else think we need a project to clear up various pages that deal with Rey and Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, specifically the interactions between them, and possibly to address some tropers with a shipping agenda? I've been trying but it's too much to tackle solo (pun intended) and they have disagreed with some of my edits. Some tropers have been writing that Rey and Kylo are "confirmed" "explicitly" "in love", but I think what we see across the films is more like this—
The Force Awakens: Foe Yay Shipping. All of their interactions are antagonistic, and the "subtext" falls into misattribution of arousal.
The Last Jedi: Foe Romance Subtext. They start and end the film as antagonists, but the middle involves intense non-antagonist moments and the held gazes are no longer about fear or aggression. Rian Johnson made it clear the subtext is intentional.
The Rise of Skywalker: After a majority of the film spent as antagonists and maybe Kylo being a Stalker with a Crush who has a Villainous Crush, there's a big Ship Tease kiss immediately followed by Ship Sinking because Kylo/Ben dies.
The Official Couple argument was already settled as NOT an Official Couple since they never actually enter into a romantic relationship: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=83435&type=att
A related concern is tropers overemphasizing what they consider sympathetic about Ben/Kylo and downplaying that he's the Overarching Villain; he isn't heroic after becoming Kylo Ren except for the last act of TROS, and he never chooses the heroic path until his turn back, only feels "conflicted" while choosing villainy over and over except for not killing Leia. I keep seeing tropes that depend on extrapolating a traumatic backstory for him based on context-free mentions of the past or otherwise assuming what his past was like to support a sympathetic read. We haven't actually been given enough material to know many specifics, so there's a lot of Speculative Troping. I'm more iffy about what to do about this. For instance, his character page has: Affably Evil, Anti-Villain, A Lighter Shade of Black, Driven to Villainy, Hidden Heart of Gold, I Just Want to Be Loved, "Shaggy Dog" Story, Sympathetic Murderer, Tragic Villain, and Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds.
(Thanks for reading all this!)
Edited by immichanopenAgenda-Based Editing for YMMV/AvengersEndgame? Film
Can I get some more opinions on the Pandering to the Base entry by Kelvin G under Avengers: Endgame? I deleted the first version of the edit for being a Zero-Context Example, and while I'm not a big fan of the scene either I don't think the kind of "half-assed wokeness" scenes Disney has become notorious for constitute this trope.
Edited by AlleyOopopenAgenda-based editing for YMMV/MarvelCinematicUniverse? Film
Shivader recently added an entry for Broken Base that reads heavily skewed, since:
- Many of these characters are already well-liked in their own right (even if I'm not personally one of them for a few of these cases), and thus adapting them would not be letting them rise or rescue them but acknowledging their existing popularity.
- Faux-progressivism or "passive-progressivism" is a problem but the way it's writen along with "woke culture" makes it come off as if it's treating the rantings of anti-SJW as truth. Outside of those types, almost nobody actually considers TROS "woke culture".
- It's not really a true Broken Base as the latter are an extremely Vocal Minority; most are either very happy or at worst indifferent to it all.
I'm going to delete it anyway just because of that last bit but I'd also like some additional thoughts in case.
Edited by AlleyOopopen Re-add or remove this example? Film
In Hypocrite Film added an example for Tony Stark in regards to Civil War. It was removed with a reason by editor Team-Tony. It was taken to discussion and have reached an impasse. Have PM Team-Tony taking it to ATT . Checking if valid to readd or leave removed
Heres the link to the discussion.
Edited by TuvokopenEdit War on Midsommar Film
Recently, I deleted a batch of examples from Midsommar for misuse and/or shoehorning, and rewrote a few others, all with edit reasons given (edit history).
Soon afterwards, phylos restored several of them, just as they were before (no changes). They did give an edit reason—-technically; however it amounts to (I paraphrase) "You only deleted these examples because you think they are misuse and/or misrepresenting what is happening in the movie! You can't do that!", plus an invocation of Tropes Are Flexible.
Now how would I go about to resolve this? I don't think phylos has in any way refuted the reasons for which I deleted these examples; but deleting them again would be edit warring.
For some of these examples, the point of contention is that we have a different interpretation of what is even happening in the movie. Hence why I would like to get people who have watched the movie to weigh in. I don't think there is much use in bringing it to the discussion page, because very few tropers ever actually go there. Should I present my case here in ATT? Or should I make a dedicated thread on the forums?
Edit: Since phylos complained that I did not present his argument (while simultaneously declining to defend it himself), I figured I might mention the points of contention. (The following requires you to have seen the movie. For those that haven't, 'spoilers ahead).
- There is a scene in which Christian, who has earlier been given psychedelic drugs by the cultits of HÃ¥rga, has sex with a HÃ¥rgan girl, Maja (which a HÃ¥rgan elder had already tried to persuade him to previously). phylos believes that since Christian was drugged, he was not able to give consent, therefore (and because the HÃ¥rgans kind of pestered him to do it) the act was non-consensual, ergo constitutes rape of Christian by Maja. Therefore rape tropes like Double Standard Rape: Female on Male apply.
- At the end of the movie, the HÃ¥rgans request Dani, Christian's girlfriend, to select the last human sacrifice from among all people present. She choses Christian. Because Dani had earlier seen Christian having sex mit Maja (see above) by peeking through a keyhole (and which she obviously experienced as traumatizing), phylos feels certain that Dani choses Christian as a punishment for, or in revenge of, him having cheated on her with Maja. But as (see above) Christian was really raped, he was not cheating on her, Dani watching the scene was a case of Not What It Looks Like, and her dooming him to death is Victim-Blaming.
I could explain why I think phylos' interpretations are distorted, but as phylos has already declined to engage in discussion, I'll just wait whether anyone else wants to voice an opinion.
Edited by LordGroopenFord v. Ferrari page Film
I noticed that the history had been purged and the page being recreated is being treated as "Large Edit". Is there a bug of sorts? I've not seen this kind of thing happen before.
openCharacters.VForVendettaFilm Film
People are constantly adding Dragon Their Feet or Dragon Ascendant to Peter Creedy's character page, in spite of the fact he directly kills the ostensible Big Bad, which, as per the definition of the various tropes involved, makes him strictly The Starscream. In the interest of avoiding an edit war I just want clearance to remove and tag it with a note saying he doesn't count for DTF or DA so it doesn't keep getting put back.
openSplitting Film/AntMan into its own page Film
Been thinking we should probably split Ant-Man page off from the Ant-Man. A lot of the pages refer specifically to the film and not the comics, and other works pages like the YMMV, Nightmare Fuel, and Awesome Moments share entries from both the comics and films. Makes reading through them more than a little clunky.
openFed up with negativity Film
The Narm.Star Wars, IdiotPlot.Star Wars, and WhatAnIdiot.Star Wars are filled with negativity. That's old news. The problem is that every time someone tries to clean them up, people always add the complaints right back.
I'm making this querry to gather opinions on whether I should ask for a lock on these three pages in order to clean them up. Knowing the SW fanbase, the lock will most likely have to be permanent.
Could I get hear people's thoughts on this motion?
openPage cut Film
Uhhh ... so, I just found out that there's a page for The Ranger 2018, but I made a separate page earlier, The Ranger. I'd like to get it cut.
openHaving a problem with a thing on the Camp page Film
It's this: "Don't expect it to take itself the least bit seriously."
Now, that may apply with Batman (1966), the works of John Waters, and some of the films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (specifically Thor: Ragnarok and The Guardians of the Galaxy films), but with all the books and articles I've read on the subject, I've found that part of the page disingenuous. The Universal Monster Movies and the films of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are very serious but are regarded as camp due to their melodrama, theatricality, and artifice.
I was wondering if it could be changed to something like "The serious becomes silly while the silly becomes serious. And there's no limit to how over the top something can get."
openBiased editing Film
I'm a little iffy about Bensolosrey . The name alone implies some strong shipping bias and his/her edits don't help, even though there are only a few yet.
Edited by ForenperseropenViolating Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment Film
Exactly what it says in the title, by H Barnill over in Marvel Cinematic Universe. Explicitly edited the entry to take the side of the complainers, and accuse those who disagree of being the Fan Dumb trope even though it's listed as Flame Bait.
openApproved by the Complete Monster thread. Film
I did some digging on the Cleanup thread, and it looks like the sea devil was discussed and approved. May I ask ACW to recreate the YMMV and the complete monster entry?
openNon-example in Fake Food? Film
This exaple is listed on Fake Food:
- On the first Harry Potter movie, Chris Columbus insisted on using all real food for the Great Hall. This did not go well, as they had to replace food whenever it spoiled, essentially forcing them to churn out the Hogwarts feast over and over again. In subsequent films, much of the Great Hall food was cast out of resin.
- Subverted in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, where the cast was told that the candy, including the Mexican sugar skulls, was lacquer-coated, when it actually wasn't, in order to stop them from eating it between shots and causing continuity errors.
- While this was kept for the Hogwarts feast, in the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince film, there was at least one instance of one of the Slug Club events (the small party for the inner circle) where the food (namely chocolate cake) was revealed and was replaced with every take.
Fake Food is a Trope, not a Trivia Trope, and since this example is not describing a trope used in the fiction of Harry Potter, but a gimmick of the filming process, it should be cut away, right?
In light of the name change, is it okay to update the page accordingly?