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:
openDeleted scene examples on trope pages? Film
Are examples from Deleted Scenes allowed on trope pages? Pichu-kun deleted the Zootopia example from Racist Grandma with the edit reason "Removed a deleted scene example for being What Could Have Been." I think it's fine to keep, but don't want to start an edit war.
openDeleting Headscratchers and not responding to notifiers Film
Mistress Fi deleted three Headscratchers from Headscratchers.Jupiter Ascending without any edit reason, and has not responded to either of the two P Ms I sent about it, despite editing the wiki daily since I contacted her (edit history
).
In more detail:
On Sept. 5, Mistress Fi deleted the three Headscratchers with no edit reason. I could see potential reasons for deleting two of the deleted Headscratchers (they seem to be complaining rather than real questions, reinforced by the accompanying edit reason: "watched yesterday, need to vent"). The third one deleted was one of mine and is a genuine question about the legal system portrayed in the film.
I noticed the deletion on Sept. 8 and sent an "edit reasons" notifier along with asking why she had deleted Headscratchers without stating a reason. On Sept. 12, having seen no response (neither a PM, returning to the page to add an edit reason, nor restoring the deleted content) despite edit history showing that she had been actively editing the wiki each day, I sent a second PM (not a standard notifier) again asking the reason for the deletion and explaining that I believed my Headscratcher was a valid entry and that I would like to restore it unless there was a reason for its removal.
I still have not received any response from Mistress Fi.
Can I get a ruling on whether it's OK to restore at least my non-complaining entry to the page?
openSequelitis entry for ''Frozen II'' being readded again Film
cerealking has previously added a Sequelitis entry for Frozen II under the Sequelitis.Disney but the entry has been moved to Contested Sequel since it fits under that trope better. However, cerealking has just readded the entry back with a text that I felt is a Justifying Edit:
- The feature-length sequel, Frozen 2 , also hasn’t been as warmly received as the first film note 78% to 90% on Rotten Tomatoes by professional critics. Reviews have praised its ambition, willingness to tackle more mature themes, art, performances, and music. However it’s been criticized for being a bit needlessly dark, having a convoluted plot, some questionable character decisions, and aping plot points from Avatar: The Last Airbender and its Sequel Series The Legend of Korra . Essentially critics are appreciative of the creative team trying to do something bigger and different but feel like it’s just not as well executed. That being said, this is also Critical Dissonance as it's been better-received by general audiences and would fit more along the lines of a Contested Sequel with them.
Sequelitis is if the sequel is universally agreed to be inferior to the original but there are some fans that regarded Frozen II to be superior to the original while others don't which this trope isn't what it's about.
Edited by Loekman3openSeeking to verify an ActorAllusion in Iron Man 1. Film
Can someone who has seen both Iron Man 1 and The Brave One help to verify whether there's an actual Actor Allusion in play with the entry:
- When Tony tells Colonel Rhodes, "Looks like someone did your job for you," referencing Terrence Howard's earlier role in The Brave One.
An Actor Allusion is a deliberate, intentional reference to previous works/roles of an actor. I haven't seen "The Brave One", only read the Wikipedia summary. I can see the potential overlap but it seems that the "vigilante that does the official's job better" would be a common element in these type of stories.
My question is whether Terrance Howard's character, Sean Mercer, ever told that the vigilante is doing his job for him (or some similar wording)?
If so, then there's a reasonable and tenable case that Downey's line is an Actor Allusion. If not, then it's more that similar themes arise when a story has a character enacting vigilante justice and hard to justify that it's a deliberate reference.
open20th Century Studios Film
In light of the name change, is it okay to update the page accordingly?
openMulan WMG Film
This is on the WMG page for Mulan (2020) :
- Between the disastrous test screenings, the lead actress' poor reception (considered to be "more concerned with looking pretty than emoting"), her controversial opinion regarding the Hong Kong protests (which will not be discussed further here), the backlash Western fans have given to most of the changes (No Mushu, no songs, no Shang), and the recent underwhelming performance of Maleficent: Mistress of Evil at the box office, I'm not entirely confident that this film is going to do well in theaters. Perhaps if it ends up underperforming, Disney will decide to start releasing its remakes exclusively to Disney+, or eventually just cease to do them altogether.
- There's also the coronavirus outbreak to be taken into consideration. It took everyone by surprise, but due to the large outbreak many Chinese citizens will be on quarantined or unmotivated to go to the movies, which will lead to the box office badly hurting.
I don't think this is okay, is it?
openSo Bad It's Horrible-Films N-Z Film
A couple of things involving this page, both involving the user Pikachu 4 Prezident:
1)The entry for Segurança Nacional was edited by another user, but the above user reverted the changes for no given reason. (However, the other user didn't give a reason either.) I'm just worried about a potential edit war.
2)The user also posted an entry on a movie review. I'm not sure, but I think that section is only for the movies themselves, not their reviews. (If the entry has merit, it should probably be moved to Web Video.)
Edited by BKelly95openEdit War Film
Pysiewicz
added several The Un-Twist examples to YMMV.Ex Machina, Tuckerscreator
removed them as the examples appear to be misused, Pysiewicz has now re-added the examples back.
openWiggly Shark Film
Wiggly Shark
keeps adding a download/streaming link to The Mummy (2017).
openCapitalization of Hydra/HYDRA in the MCU? Film
Ray AP 9 did a very large edit to the Captain America: The Winter Soldier page arguing that the all-caps spelling of the organization "HYDRA", the version typically used across MCU pages, is unofficial and that "Hydra" with regular capitalization is the proper way to write it. They provide citations for that statement, so it's not a rogue edit, and for what it's worth other places are also holding the same debate
, as canonical sources flipflop between the two variants.
I would like to see further opinions on this before deciding whether this should be reverted or left alone. For the record, if we're going to allow popular opinion to factor into the decision, I am familiar enough with the fanbase to say that HYDRA is the preferred spelling and the one most fans assume to be official. If you would like I can ask Ray AP 9 to join in the discussion as well.
Edited by AlleyOopopen(Minor) Edit War - Captain Marvel (2019) Narm Film
This entry keeps getting taken out, then put back in by ajbit26 (Let me know if I'm not supposed to name them):
- Brie Larson's complete lack of a facial expression in much of the trailer has led to some rather unflattering comparisons to Bella Swan.
It's a misuse of narm, I'm pretty sure. And it's just unnecessary complaining. Thoughts?
openLaconic.AvengersEndgame Film
The Laconic.Avengers Endgame was deleted with reason "Works don't need laconic pages". If this is so - is someone going through each work and deleting them all? If not, Let's bring it back.
open Questionable edits Film
So... Tropers/Emberfist seems to have a fixation with YMMV.Blac Kk Klansman, specifically with the way its ending uses footage of the Charlottesville incident to draw parallels between the KKK in The '70s and (in their words) the Trump Administration in The New '10s —and how this falls under Anvilicious.
Normally, I wouldn't make a fuss, but:
- a. This is the Trump Administration we're talking about. I don't know if Americans realize it, but there's only two reactions when the name "Donald Trump" is mentioned: fervent patriotism or frothing rage. No middle ground. Hence, anything mentioning Trump should, IMHO, be hacked with a chainsaw.
- b. Emberfist added the example again a couple of weeks back (after removing it from Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped), only way more in-your-face. I removed it on the grounds that it showed political bias. I hoped they'd learn their lesson and drop it, but...
I snipped away at the most politically charged bits, but I'm still not comfortable with the result.
Anyway, other that this their edits to YMMV.Blac Kk Klansman were kosher; those examples under SANTBD were so bloated and non-ROCEJ that they needed an axe.
openWeird trope entry Film
Pokémon Detective Pikachu has a strange, semi-gushy entry on Revisiting the Roots that doesn't seem to fit any of the various cleanup threads, so I brought it here. It reads like it was written by someone dissatisfied with current Pokemon games or someone attempting to justify everything dark in the trailers with evidence from various Pokemon media, while the Detective Pikachu game itself doesn't really have any of that, and Pokemon media after Gen 1 have had those things even though in the franchise as a whole they're uncommon (Team Galactic killed a Clefairy and presumably a bunch of Magikarp, Ghetsis as mentioned tries to attack you directly, a couple Sun and Moon anime episodes were all about people and Pokemon that died, etc.).
"* Revisiting the Roots: The trailers may look out of place with the tone of the main-series games, but they're not too far removed from the anime, manga and games of the original generation, which feature gunsnote An episode of the anime involved the Safari Zone warden utilizing guns heavily, including holding Ash at gunpoint and shooting at Team Rocket, which led to 4Kids skipping over it entirely, profanitynote it's always been in the anime's Japanese dub, realistic violence in Pokémon battlesnote an infamous scene in the manga involves Blue's Charmeleon slicing an Arbok in half and disemboweling it, deathnote besides the aforementioned Arbok, the Lavender Town mission in the Kanto games involves a Mercy Kill on the spirit of a Marowak killed by Team Rocket, and villains using Pokémon to directly attack humans and human citiesnote unlike Mewtwo's destruction of his lab and the siege of Saffron City, non-Pokémon battle violence in the games is either offscreen or unanimated (with some major exceptions, like Ghetsis in Pokémon Black 2 and White 2)."
Any ideas as to what to do with it?
Edited by lalalei2001openSpoilers on Spoiler-Free pages Film
Can spoilers for one work be on a spoiler-free page for another work?
I ask this because YMMV.Avengers Endgame has an entry that spoils the newest episode of Game of Thrones (I don't watch GoT though, so I don't know how big of a spoiler it is).
openMan of Steel and its arguable Idiot Plot Film
Even after five years, the controversy around Man of Steel continues. Troper Dylanbk argued in the movie's YMMV page that the movie features an Idiot Plot because a) Zod needs the codex hidden in Superman's blood to rebuild the Kryptonian race, he is well aware that Superman spent his whole life on Earth too. What's does he tell him he plans to do when he gets the codex? use earth to rebuild krypton and wipe out the entire human race.
and b) On top of that there is no reason for Zod to have to rebuild Krypton on Earth, there are other planets in the Solar system that are uninhabited. On top of that, the world engine confirms this has no point.
I had to reverse his edits with these arguments: a) Zod and his minions are genetically engineered soldiers. They are bred to seek the most violent solutions to a problem. If there is a logic in their thinking, they are biologically compelled to ignore it.
b) This
What do you think?
openRegarding the main ''Endgame'' quote Film
There seems to be an Edit War regarding the main quote for Avengers: Endgame but it primarily has to do with satisek repeatedly changing the main quote to "Part of the journey is the end." This happened four times already even after the tropers tried expanding Iron Man's initial quote.
The previous quote before the change is: "We lost. All of us. We lost friends. We lost family. We lost a part of ourselves. Today, we have a chance to take it all back. You know your teams, you know your missions. Get the stones. Get them back. One round trip each. No mistakes. No do-overs. Most of us are going somewhere we know. That doesn't mean we should know what to expect. Be careful. Look out for each other. This is the fight of our lives... and we're gonna win. Whatever it takes."
Which quote do you guys do you think best describe the movie itself? Personally, I like Captain America's quote much better.
Edited by Loekman3openRecent additions to WhatAnIdiot.StarWars Film
There were some lengthy additions to WhatAnIdiot.Star Wars recently. Long story short, they were nitpicking on insignificant details. I trimmed some of them down and removed a the rest as misuses of WaI, only for another troper to restore them.
Could someone else get a look at the page? I'll admit, I am getting annoyed at all the "fans" bringing their negativity to the Star Wars pages, so I'm rather quick to reach for the axe. It'd be nice to have another opinion.
openPassion of the Christ as Splatter Horror Film
I added
Splatter Horror as part of the description to The Passion of the Christ because it's on the Splatter Horror page
Then, Lightysnake reverted
my edit claiming it was "vandalism"
To avoid an edit war, I'll bring it here.
My addition was valid. Besides the fact that I'm essentially crosswicking Splatter Horror to the page because the SH page already listed The Passion as an example, the film is objectively a horror film and definitely a Splatter Horror film.
Mel Gibson very clearly made it to shock and terrify the audience by showing how gory, painful, and horrific the end of Jesus' life was.
It is a horror film so I don't see how what I did was vandalism.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2

Five years after its release and Man of Steel still causes controversy in this very website. Troper Tuvok deleted the Common Knowledge entry in the movies YMMV page.
The entry said: "The final fight scene with Zod has garnered this reputation. People generally describe it as the fight destroying the entire city with Clark being responsible for most of the destruction and being completely indifferent to the rest. In reality, most of Metropolis is left completely untouched and the destruction seems worse than it is because of the focus given to it and the fact that the film doesn't hold back from showing how terrifying it is from a civilian perspective. Similarly, Clark is personally responsible for almost none of it as much of it was done by Zod's world engine or Zod himself and Clark did make an effort to lead him into space and even made a point of avoiding buildings when he punched him at one point. As for claims of indifference, he was busy trying to stop Zod to begin with who wasn't exactly an easy opponent."
Tuvok justified the deletion with: "The damage was calculated as quite large and city wide as shown in B v S , as well as the Director addressing it [1]
. Snyder wanted there be consequences for hero interactions. ‘’’I wanted a big consequence to Superman’s arrival on earth. Certainly, Batman v. Superman sort of cashes in all its chips on the ‘why’ of that destruction.’’’ Which would signify the damage was large. It was also calculated by various outlets [2]
Done by the Watson Technical Consulting to assess the cost. So confirmation the destruction was city wide, the main critisim during the fight was Clarke punching through flying through various building with no indication of making an effort to check damage caused. Making out with his girlfriend with the city in waste in the background did not help."
I must protest the deletion because Common Knowledge is about correcting and clarifying details about a story that average viewers might not be aware of and Tuvok's reasoning is about reaffirming something the viewers already know. Yes, there is an estimation to the city's damage but there were parts of the city that were largely untouched during the climax. Yes, Superman's fight with Zod caused damage but Superman attempted to limit the damage by fighting Zod in the sky. As for claims of indifference, Superman was busy fighting Zod, so it's not like he was shown not caring about civillian casualties.
What do you think?
Edited by MasterHero