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:
openEdit war on Laconic page Film
A couple of days ago, I edited Laconic.Music 2021 to be less complainy. It was originally this:
I then changed it to this, per the Laconic improvement thread:
Then The Living Drawing (Also the page's creator) went and completely reverted my edit back to what they originally wrote without an edit reason. Admittedly, I forgot to link back to the cleanup thread in my edit reason, but it's pretty clear they're edit warring now.
Edited by PlasmaPoweropenLocking YMMV/SonicTheHedgehog2019? Film
As reported here, here and here, the Sonic The Hedgehog 2019 page is full of complains and knee-jerk reactions about an unreleased film. Also we recently had to cut a Nightmare Fuel subpage because it was used as an excuse to complain about Sonic's design and stuff
Wouldn't it be better to lock the page until the full release of the film?
open Editor with an agenda Film
Can we get a mod revert to Awesome.Avengers Endgame? Leon Embers removed most mentions of awesome moments performed by female characters, and changed the wording in others. For example, "[Thanos] putting [Captain Marvel] out of commission" became "[Thanos] putting [Captain Marvel] in her place".
ETA: The edit reason left for removal is "Nobody cares".
Upon further inspection of their edit history, I found some other red flags.
They (twice) added the following to YMMV.Clarence here and here:
Furthermore, they made an overtly transphobic edit in Heartwarming.Critical Role, link here, where they removed information about a "genderfluid" person (not familiar with the work, just quoting as I read) citing that "Nobody cares".
Edited by RoundRobinopenShipping Wank? Film
Troper Beyondthesea has been making a flurry of edits to the page of Avengers: Endgame regarding the ending of the film and its effects on Steve Rogers.
While most of these were initially germane if a bit Fan Wanky, I did delete a portion of theirs that seemed to be overtly taking a side as opposed to passively reporting on the situation in fandom, which is what the YMMV page and Broken Base are supposed to do. However they're now shoehorning in improper use of Unfortunate Implications, strawmen, and all kinds of what I consider to be lengthy Natter in order to justify their standpoint (based on the nature of their edits they seem to be an especially passionate Steve/Peggy fan).
Can I get any second opinions on this? As someone who is a fan of both Steve/Bucky and Steve/Peggy and has been passively involved in both subsections of fandom, I feel that this has crossed the line when it comes to impartiality, fair representation of viewpoints (I know some fans of Steve/Peggy or neither of the above ships who hated the fact that Steve voluntarily chose to go back during the ending, or who thought he was OOC in Endgame, personally), and overall good etiquette. I can also submit this to the Broken Base repair thread if necessary.
Edit: They're now also making shipping-based edits to Captain America: Civil War. See downthread for more information.
Edited by AlleyOopopenSong of the South deletions Film
pino has been deleting entries related to the backlash against Song of the South (many of which just objectively describe decisions related to the film's controversial content) without providing edit reasons. I PM'd them yesterday about this issue, but they have not responded despite actively editing today. I'm concerned this might be a matter of personal agenda, though they have other valid edits.
Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Edited by mightymewtronopenPotential Edit Warring Film
While I'm not sure if they've got into edit wars on this particular page yet, whenever DragonMaster408 makes edits to pages like Black Widow (2021) the edit reasons that've been given are lengthy walls of text that are filled with typos and grammar issues that also often seem to fail to understand the narrative they're supposedly arguing for (which lead to unnecessary conflict with other tropers who also take issue with their edits).
They also tend to focus on tropes that attract a lot of activity such as Unintentionally Unsympathetic with what would be better served by an entry on the discussion page (especially since, as far as I've seen, a lot of people really do have the UU reaction to those characters in this movie; even if Dragonmaster 408 doesn't personally agree with the opinions of these viewers, it's still an opinion held by a large number of people, and thus unfair for them to dismiss those opinions so unilaterally like that).
It also sounds like this isn't the first time they've made a mess of things involving edits to Unintentionally Unsympathetic, and searching their name indicates that they have a tendency for getting involved in edit wars.
Edit:Fixed ATT Report link.
Edited by AlleyOopopenPlagiarism report Film
Recap.Chinatown, as brought up in the Recap cleanup thread, is word-for-word the same as the Wikipedia summary.
The page was created by William Shakesman.
openQuestionable Star Wars trivia removal Film
The following entry was removed by Phoenixion from Trivia.The Rise Of Skywalker:
- Creator Backlash: Oscar Isaac and John Boyega were both interested in having Poe and Finn become a couple due to their chemistry in previous films; Isaac would later publicly accuse people (whether referring to the filmmakers or the fans isn’t clear) of being “too afraid” to have a gay couple as leading characters in the franchise.
The edit reason given was:
Troper's personal page opens with a rant about how TV Tropes is "too gay" and that we "[shouldn't] blame [him] for being borderline homophobic!" (EDIT: As pointed out below, he also claims to block anyone who PMs him and immediately delete all messages without reading them.)
The first half of the edit reason is a huge can of worms I won't open, but the second half I disagree with; Lando's sexuality is never really on display in the film beyond some vaguely flirtatious mannerisms and only came from some ambiguous Word of Dante; the actors mentioned in the entry have been very vocally supportive of a romance between the two characters in interviews and Isaac's quote about how "people are too afraid" is real.
Edited by Dirtyblue929openReport Troper for Highly Inappropriate Edits Film
Rockand Roll Movies 1996 keeps adding innappropriate tropes to the Human Characters page for "Toy Story", including stuff about Andy (a kid) and his Mom having an incestuous, pedophilic relationship. I've told him to stop multiple times now but he keeps undoing my edits without giving any explanation.
When I messaged him directly about this and his other edits that have a perverse nature to them he replied saying "people deserve to know".
Edited by GaryKing95openOverly protective of the DCEU. Film
Somewhat preemptive, but Deeed is being way protective of the DCEU and edit-warring to do so.
The worst example so far is on IdiotPlot.Live Action Film, where they pulled an entry without an edit reason. A discussion post was made by someone else asking for an explanation, and then it was restored after I pointed out that it was deleted without explanation (which, you know, is vandalism). They did then participate in the discussion... after re-deleting the movie, and rather than give an explanation, they linked a bunch of youtube links and said "no, it's totally explained." So they are using the discussion... but upon further thought, that might be worse since they're ignoring it.
Also unacceptable:
- Deleting link to a narm subpage
- Again, deleting an entire movie without explanation. When it was restored, they then neutered an example into what's at best a ZCE, despite being near-universally considered laughable.
Now again, this is preemptive as though he's edit-warring, he's at least checking discussion pages and responding, even though his responses are unsatisfactory.
Edited by LarkmarnopenOwnership issues/extreme deletion habbit Film
Troper Saveelich seems to have a bit of an ownership issue with everything related to the DC Extended Universe. He seems hellbent on deleting as many things as he can that are negatively towards the verse (which, admittedly is not few, but the verse isn't exactly hugely popular). And he doesn't really take anything to disscussion first, he straight-up deletes everything.
Edited by ForenperseropenAgenda-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 AlleyOopopenSpiderman No Way Home spoilers Film
prgiordano decided to make Spiderman No Way Home Spoilers Off. This was not discussed anywhere I could see. Like it makes sense for all the previous movies, but I really think it's too early to be making it for the whole movie, especially if there haven't been talks on the wiki.
Edited by jjjj2openMisleading entry? Film
The YMMV page for Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore has this entry under Surprisingly Improved Sequel:
- Both critics and general audiences considered the film to at least be better than Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald thanks to a simpler plot, better pacing, and more in depth character work, especially the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. However, while critics didn’t particularly care for it, it was more warmly received by general audiences who gave it the highest score of the series on Rotten Tomatoes note Which is the only review site that requires proof of purchase to rate. It also had much better holds at the box office (outside the US where it had a huge drop the second weekend before eventually stabilizing well) which implies good word of mouth.
Based on what I've read, the second part of the entry is not accurate. The film actually had a lower opening weekend than either of its predecessors and then dropped even further in the second week, and it currently stands as the lowest-grossing film in the franchise. It did somewhat better overseas but not enough to make up the difference. I edited the entry to include this information, but it was reverted with no edit reason given.
Edited by Javertshark13openTime 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 AsherinkaopenAgenda-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 AlleyOopopenEvading spoilers-free pagelock on other MCU Pages Film
Okay, I had a suspicion and fear this would happen. But I see it happen. Basically some fans are posting Endgame spoilers on YMMV pages for other Marvel movies as a way to get around the page lock and subvert the intended purpose behind it.
This poster (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=The12thDoctor) is doing it multiple times.
I gather the movie is released in some parts of the world and it can be frustrating for posters not to post spoilers given the page is locked, but going to other Marvel movie pages and posting there, in my opinion, feels like a cheap trick since obviously many readers will be revisiting the pages and moments from earlier films in preparation for Endgame. Can someone revert these pages soon?
openEdit War Film
Rice Romp added the following to Narm.Spider Man Trilogy on March 17th:
I removed it as it was deemed not to be an example by the Narm clean-up thread
Today he added this to the page which, is more or less the same example but with slightly different wording:
openEdit war on Ymmv/Candyman 2022 Film
Sigh here we go again..
So the 2021 Candyman page has an Edit War.
So * Gregorian added an uncited Unfornate Implications entry
- I removed it for not having a citation
- He added it back
- It was then deleted for having creepy insinuations
- He then added it back with an odd edit reason
The entry also has uh a very creepy part in "role black on black violence plays in keeping blacks disenfranchised". Like Woah that's a very uh unfortunate statement.
The Extractor added things relating to apparent leaks about Spider-Man: No Way Home to a few pages. I removed them, since my understanding is we don't trope leaks. They contacted me, somewhat rudely, citing some rule that "the forums" arrived at where leaks could be troped if confirmed by two specific sources, and presumptuously expected me to add the examples back to avoid an edit war.
I asked for a link to the discussion, and after replying twice to me, they still haven't bothered to link it. They did send me a snarky message with "you'll add the example back tomorrow ;)" (referring to a trailer release), however, after I linked a forum post replying to them, that they replied to that says not to use leaks, as well as the Content Leak page saying not to do it.
It was a weird way of conducting the entire thing, and I figured I should mention it.
Edited by FuzzyBarbarian