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:
openAnother wave of page vandalism from the Voltron shipping FanDumb Western Animation
Bombonn has been going about editing various Voltron pages and entries with a clear bias in favor of Keith/Lance and attempting to delegitimize those ships that are in competition with it. Although some of them aren't completely horrible on their own, some of them are (for example, the changes to Straight Gay), and on the whole it's blatantly clear that a shipping agenda is at play, including comments that are meant as attacks on real-life people. Their one non-Voltron edit to the Promare page is pretty bad too, as it suffers from a bad case of rabid fujoshi shipping goggles syndrome as well as trope misuse.
Since the account is brand new it might merit a check to see if they're a sockpuppet of any previous editors to the Voltron page who have gotten suspended.
Edited by AlleyOopopenGetting started
Uh, I found this site a couple months ago, and I have been reading it for a while, but like, I still just only now made an account, so I was like, hoping someone could refer me to where I can get tips on getting started and see the forum rules while also like, getting advice on how to work here. I was planning to use the related feature to start finding a bunch of examples of tropes not listed on the trope pages and than like, copying and pasting them, and maybe editing a few pages from works I'm familar with, but I still would like some advice and tips for being on here.
openbad grammar
I've noticed Tropers/drewpalazzolo has made many edits with major grammatical errors. their edit history dates back to September 2018. Aside from bad grammar, they also deleted some stuff without giving a reason (like their first edits on Characters.Maya The Bee and The Antagonist).
I actually deleted a whole bunch of stuff from The Antagonist last week, most or all of which was added by them. Next time I checked some of it was back.
"While Antagonist is generally a Villain, not all Antagonist are Villain because they always considered Neutral and was not in real life." (the part of this that's comprehensible is just repeating what was already there)
I haven't sent them a message yet because I'm not sure what the policy for stuff like this is. This could use some cleanup anyhow.
openHate Sink misuse?
Found this entry in Banjo-Kazooie but looks a bit shoehorned
- Hate Sink: The figure single-handedly responsible for everything fans of the franchise complain about in his game of origin, who constantly mocks them, personally, the previous games in the series, and the fact that Nuts and Bolts is going to be a Franchise Killer. In-game, he also brags about being responsible for some of the most annoying sidequests of the previous games, most notably Canary Mary.
openPutting tropes for adaptations of characters on comics character pages?
So I recently removed a bunch of tropes entries for adaptations of characters on the X-Men pages because those are comic pages and I haven't seen this done on any other character sheet (Venom, Naruto, Captain America, Batman or anything where the characters have a notable video game presence) and it just sort of looked weird when usually these entries are under the adaptations' own pages. E.g. "Teleport Spam: In [GAME] he does this" or something where it is explicitly said that the person isn't normally something, but in one specific adaptation they are, or Actually A Doom Bot in one instance for a videogame adaptation. This is in the comics character pages, not the character pages or trope entries for that specific adaptation. There's also their appearances in a videogame apparently warranting being in the main body of text above the examples, which I find questionable.
zealots re-added them without discussion saying there's no rule against it, but the main X-Men characters page itself says it's for the comics and some of the pages themselves state it's for the comics versions, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Thoughts?
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopen Troll on the TLP?
Forgive me if this is premature, but I'm suspecting the sponsor of this TLP is either trolling, or just really doesn't get TLP etiquette.
open Where to suggest creating a franchise page?
The title says it all really, not sure if it goes into trope talk or projects.
Edited by Ideal_KnightopenVideo Example Guidelines
What is prohibited in a video example, by that, I'm talking about what videos can be added, are you able to add completely unedited videos from YouTube? Does it have to be wholey original and recorded in high quality with a capture card?
Edited by AfishnamedclishopenImagine Spot misuse?
Everybody seems to think Imagine Spot and Fantasy Sequence are synonyms, but actually an Imagine Spot is a really short Fantasy Sequence. The misuse has even spread off the wiki. What should I do?
openNever Life it Down misuse?
- Among critics of the trilogy, that Disney didn't have a set plan for how the trilogy would go and that the directors basically had a blank slate to do whatever they wanted lead to a lot of the major problems beginning in Force Awakens that would go on to haunt the series going onward for years.
- The movie as a whole will likely never live down it's "subverting viewer expectations" approach. While subverting expectations isn't bad in itself, the fact that a number of things fans speculated about were given wildly unexpected results contributed to making TLJ a very divisive Star Wars movie. Whats more, the subverted plotlines would go on to create issues that would affect the franchise in the years following the movies' release, issues mostly fixed through supplementary material.
- This film is also notorious for many fans as the entry which confirmed and reinforced what TFA strongly implied: nothing the Original Trilogy heroes did mattered in the long run since their accomplishments were nipped in the bud or undone, and Luke dies anticlimactically this time. Even Mark Hamill voiced his misgivings until he issued a retraction, the sincerity of which some of these fans doubt.
- Fans will never live down The Reveal that Luke Skywalker almost went through with killing his nephew just because he had bad dreams about him turning evil, when he was willing to save his already evil father despite him killing or trying to kill Luke's loved ones and chopping his arm off. Following on that, said fans especially won't let live down that when Kylo did go evil partially as a result, Luke decided to go into exile as a grumpy hermit drinking milk out of animals instead of confronting the First Order.
- Fans will never live down that Rose stopped Finn from doing a Heroic Sacrifice which he thought would've saved the Resistance. Rose's kiss with Finn at the end did not help at all.
The first two I think cross into RL example which need 25 years, the claim "will likely never live" sounds like major Weasel Words and a red flag for cutting. The rest I find suspect per prior ATT which state NLIP requires explaining how fans are exaggerating that aspect, otherwise it's just complaining about something that objectively happened as opposed to how it's this trope. I don't desire the latter one are valid, just not as written. Thoughts?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenTroper with consistent indentation issues:
tvtropesZeroSeven has shown a complete disregard for indentation rules in most of their edits (among the most recent cases are here and here), on top of misusing Expy and various other tropes that are subject to forum scrutiny.
Edited by AnoBakaDesuopenLuigi a SacredCow?
YMMV.Super Mario Bros recently had a Sacred Cow entry about the franchise itself deleted, while a sub-bullet about Mario being one was deleted in favor of Luigi. Luigi is generally well-liked, but so is Mario, and I think the franchise as a whole is definitely one even more than specific characters. (I've also seen more than a few fanfics where Luigi gets Ron the Death Eater treatment, like I HATE YOU, so his appeal isn't necessarily universal either.)
Here's the deleted entries:
"** The franchise in general is this, due to its incomparable level of success and recognition. Almost all gamers (let alone Nintendo fans) have had some exposure to Super Mario, often as a first childhood game; each major release has a lot of love put into it, and the franchise actively defies the Fleeting Demographic Rule so that fans can continue enjoying the series well into adulthood. Mario is held in such high regard that the series was able to redeem a franchise widely disliked in the gaming community (the Raving Rabbids) via a crossover game, something very few other franchises are able to pull off.
"** As Nintendo's mascot, Mario himself gets this treatment. While some people dismiss Mario for being a dopey, cartoonish everyman Vanilla Protagonist compared to characters like Link, he is near-universally loved and is almost never criticized outright, largely due to his universal appeal — something even Mickey Mouse couldn't sustain over the years. Some modifications of his character — such as portraying him as a Bishōnen or a villain, sexualizing him, or putting him in a CD-i game — are mostly frowned upon, unless it's done for humorous purposes."
And here's the added entry:
"** Luigi is The Woobie, having been pushed out of the spotlight enough In-Universe that just about everyone who isn't Mario or Peach cannot remember his name even though he's done just as much work as Mario and has been just as good at dealing with a threat, and also being branded a coward by Toads who rag on him even while he's trying to save them. Luigi's plight has thus elicited a lot of sympathy from the fans, to the point that it's hard to find anyone who has anything negative to say about the character. Weirdly enough, while a lot of the characters who are portrayed as more of a Jerkass in fanfics and fan parodies are the ones who have criticized Luigi, this also includes Mario, even though he has put himself through hardships because he didn't want to go on without Luigi, supported Luigi while others were abusing him, and even shown his respect for Luigi's heroics. However, the reason Luigi gets next to no credit for his actions is ultimately because Mario is so much more well-known, which means that he is, in a way, somewhat contributing to Luigi's pain and is thus usually characterized as a neglectful, controlling, and sociopathic Big Brother Bully with some of the most trivial offenses — like rubbing their shoes against each other after Luigi wins a trophy in Mario Power Tennis — being used as "evidence"."
Thoughts?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.SuperMarioBros
Edited by lalalei2001open All The Tropes Vs TV Tropes
What the fuck is the difference between All The Tropes and TV Tropes?
openEdit Warring on Dragon Age pages
Tropers.Arthas 123 has performed an edit > revert > edit with questionable validity.
To summarize, on several pages throughout the franchise, the protagonist of the second Dragon Age game, Hawke, is listed as the World's Best Warrior. To explain, the trope is about characters who are reputed in-universe to be the best (or amongst the best) fighters in the story. In the story, Hawke is best friends with the a storyteller named Varric, who has written a series of successful novels which portray Hawke as the greatest fighter in the world. By Hawke's own admission, most of Varric's praise are embellishments, and several characters also show skepticism at some of Hawke's accomplishments, but nonetheless Hawke is famous for these accomplishments, and most of these accomplishments ARE true, despite being friends with a walking Unreliable Expositor.
Arthas erased all references of Hawke qualifying as the trope and replaced them with references about The Warden (protagonist of the first game and a fan favorite). However, The Warden is not famous for being a great fighter. They ARE, most certainly, but what they're famous for is being a Warden who stopped a Blight (an apocalyptic event only a Warden can stop). Of the three games' protagonists, only Hawke is famous for victories they achieved via combat, and at several times in the second game, characters acknowledge how much better Hawke is than anyone else (even their own party).
Also, to note: I have sent Arthas a PM attempting to explain this to them, asking for them to show any In-Universe sources which give the Warden (or the third game's protagonist, the Inquisitor) praise for being amongst the best warriors. If they do, then I will propose expanding the examples, but that still wouldn't justify removing Hawke's entries.
EDIT: Also of note is that Arthas reverted one of the entries with the justification "Removed without reason or explanation", which is the reason I gave when I did the initial revert. Their original edits had no explanations.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenAngry Troper
So... this is happening.
I personally don't think I was being rude, but my attempt to be reasonable has caused things to spiral beyond my control. I don't know what to do, and I'm bringing it here so that someone can either help cool the situation down, or so we can keep an eye out just in case this creates more drama elsewhere.
Edited by WarJay77openBlack Dot Pupils marked No Straight Examples Please, but launched with mostly straight examples?
Black Dot Pupils is marked as No Straight Examples, Please! with the statement "As this is an Omnipresent Trope in certain styles of art/animation, this page only lists cases where the trope is somehow played with." However, most of the examples appear to be straight examples, and many of them were there from launch despite it being launched with the No Straight Examples warning.
There are a couple of examples that are clearly Playing with a Trope: Conversational Troping in Brain Dump and a Lampshade Hanging in The Simpsons. But the majority of the examples are works where some characters have Black Dot Pupils and at least one other character has eyes of another style, without context indicating that the difference is meaningful. Since the trope description doesn't specify that it's limited to works where all characters use this art style, these examples seem to be completely straight uses that don't belong on the page. A few of them refer to characters who usually have Black Dot Pupils and occasionally are shown with colored eyes (e.g., the examples about Rocko's Modern Life, Patrick in SpongeBob SquarePants, and Wander in Wander over Yonder), which seems like it could potentially be notable, but still doesn't seem to fall under any of the categories of "played with" tropes.
Am I missing something that makes these non-straight examples? Should they be removed due to being straight examples, or should the warnings on the page be adjusted to more accurately reflect what type of examples are appropriate (e.g., if the intent is to allow otherwise-straight examples where this eye style is only used for a subset of characters)?
(I tried to post this question a few minutes ago, but it appears to have vanished without posting. I'm trying again in case it was the wikiwords in the title that messed it up—I hope it doesn't double-post.)
openSomeone who has played Chaos;Child fully, please answer this question.
I plan on making a Complete Monster effortpost on the thread for Shuichi Wakui. However, I read on reddit that all of the heroines’ routes are All Just a Dream, a shared delusion while Takuru and the others are in a coma. Is this true? Because if so, it severely hurts the chances of Mr. Wakui making it, since some of their most heinous actions are committed in the Kazuki route, which according to reddit did not actually happen.
Our current article is Young Indiana Jones, but the Wikipedia page titles it The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and also mentions The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones.
How do we determine which title is the "official" one?