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 Live Action TV
Very long edit war on Anvilicious on the new Supergirl's
page. Started back in May, recently popped up again.
Basically, one person keeps putting in what amounts to a justifying edit. Other people keep trying to say "prove it." Edit reasons are getting a bit rude, too. Not great form all around.
Personally, I think it should stay gone. It's a Justifying Edit that doesn't really add any context to Anvilicious itself and it reeks of Examples Are Not Arguable.
Pulling to discussion for the moment.
Edited by LarkmarnopenNo Title Live Action TV
So given the number of Netflix original series and the like... what separates Live-Action TV from a Web Video?
Just seems odd to me that these series get listed as Live-Action TV even though they never come onto the TV itself. From the Web Video page: please note that, to fall under Web Video, a work must have first been posted or be available primarily on the Internet. A television program that's rebroadcast on the network's website or You Tube should still be listed under Live-Action TV and use the Series namespace. By that criteria, Netflix original series should go under Web Video (Netflix, after all).
openNo Title Live Action TV
Regarding reality TV shows, are we allowed to trope entries that are not explicitly shown on the screen itself, but news from other sources?
openNo Title Live Action TV
Edit war on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: The "Centipede" Group; I refuse to involve myself, but danielle is clearly in the wrong, continuing to remove examples without explanation. Possible sockpuppet? Must investigate further.
openNo Title Live Action TV
Ever since Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. S02E08, "The Things We Bury", was broadcast, there are some like myself who believe Daniel Whitehall is a Complete Monster solely based on his actions in that episode. However, unlike those others, I have shown a perfect willingness to wait until his time on the show ends and have even helped remove his example until the proper time.
openNo Title Live Action TV
Would it count as Harsher in Hindsight if the creators blatantly meant for something to have meaning, but only after a certain reveal?
The point I'm referring to is from Series.Jane The Virgin. One woman uses her husband's frozen sperm to try to inseminate herself. At the time, it seems like a desperate attempt to get him to stay with her.
However, later on it's revealed she's a golddigger and it's just an attempt to keep him long enough for their prenup to kick in, thus giving her his money.
Still later on, it's revealed that it's his only sample and the only chance he'll ever have at having a child.
Is it Harsher in Hindsight when the creator intends for it to be harsher?
openNo Title Live Action TV
I just launched AuctionKings and I wanted to put an image up.
I've read through the Administrivia pages, but I'm still not 100% clear on what's acceptable. How do I tell if an image is legal for us to use?
I'll also take any general feedback on the page itself. Feel free to make updates yourself or suggest them to me.
openNo Title Live Action TV
I am a bit confused by the fact that the Creator.Adam West and SelfDemonstrating.Adam West pages are absolutely identical. Is there a point?
openNo Title Live Action TV
Over at the Game of Thrones S4E9: "The Watchers on the Wall" recap page we have troper mfarah ignoring a request to bring a contentious example to the discussion page and continuing to edit war. To give history to this; I thought the Idiot Ball examples were wrong for a variety of reasons listed in the edit reason and deleted them initially, mfarah added them back in with an edit reason responding with some arguments that weren't convincing. I commented them all out and pulled it to the discussion page, where the verdict was universally to cut them. mfarah just uncommented them without even looking at the discussion page.
Can a mod step in so this doesn't devolve into a full-out edit war? As it stands myself, Troll Brutal, Larkman and Hodor all weighed in on the discussion page and supported cutting it, mfarah is the only one pushing to keep them and can't be bothered to bring it to discussion.
openNo Title Live Action TV
Hm... While he does prove a point in Go-Busters being labeled the Black Sheep of Tokusatsu, do you think May Incon's edits
are... good?
I ask because I'm not sure myself.
Edited by Psyga315openNo Title Live Action TV
I moved a Boardwalk Empire
character from one category to another because his change of "camp" constitutes a season 4 spoiler by itself and is generally agreed not to do that for the current/last aired season out of courtesy in the indexes (like with the houses in Game of Thrones, where allegiances are spoilers and it was discussed that moving them around under their master houses defeats the purpose of the categories in the first place), so anyway I put the character in another
factually correct and less revealing category. All with edit reasons and all, but editor Mickey Doyle
, who moved the character there
in the first place, has reverted the correction without any edit reason or discussion whatsoever.
So It's up to me to sort it out? (It's a bit painful to articulate P Ms with people who don't use edit reasons, he should be the one justifying the changes, perhaps you can help me out here) Maybe this informal courtesy is not really sanctioned and characters pages can be spoilers-off.
edit : PM sent
Edited by TrollBrutalopenNo Title Live Action TV
Not sure if this is the best place to ask this, but how do you redirect a work page located in Main to a proper namespace? El Chavo Del Ocho would go under Live Action TV (it's a Mexican sitcom), but I never made a redirect myself so I'm dubious about how to do it here. Thanks in advance.
openNo Title Live Action TV
Since the previous thread I put up as a premptive measure has gone, I'll repeat this here.
Moderators really need to talk to JIKTV
about his Single-Issue Wonk with Trish Stratus. He bordered on personal attacks in that page's discussion thread, accussing anyone who was against his edits of being either Trish's personal publists or working for the WWE (and when I removed one of his bad entries on another page he sent a PM to me accussing me of being put up to it by two of the people he had been arguing with on Trish's discussion page), made edits that were venturing into Real Life territory against the actress behind the character, and added this to a seperate character page and filled it with entirely negative tropes (as well as insulting those who had been reverting his bad edits):
- Adored by the Network/Creator's Pet: WWE basically hyped her as the greatest thing to ever happen to the Women's Division or to the Women's Title or to humanity in general. According to WWE, she's the only one who was ever even IN the division (Lita was involved here and there), and that she carried it all by herself or some nonsense. All the other wrestlers who got jobbed out to her, demoted, buried and thrown out the door like yesterday's garbage aren't important and no one should waste his or her time thinking about them. She got to retire as Champion, violating wrestling tradition which says that you are supposed to lose your last match. She had the head of "Creative" induct her into the WWE Hall of Fame.
- Protection from Editors: She even has that on this site.
- Boring Invincible Heroine
- Designated Heroine: Her first title win, over Jacqueline, Ivory, Lita, Molly and the debuting Jazz in the six-pack challenge at Survivor Series 2001, really came out of nowhere. She hadn't been competing much on TV and hadn't even had a PPV match since InVasion in July.
- God-Mode Sue
- Karma Houdini/Protagonist-Centered Morality: Apparently, she only felt that the whole Molly Holly "big ass" garbage was a bad thing to do was because she was a Face at the time. That's right, it might have reflected negatively on her. Never mind that it was a terrible idea and they never should have done it in the first place.
- Sacred Cow: Look what happened to Melina and John Morrison for daring to say anything negative about her.
- The Scrappy/Hype Backlash: It's out there if you know where to look. Do a Google search for her name and "overrated" and see the results.
- Screw the Rules, I'm Beautiful!: She may not have said this herself, but, there are fans who will use "she was hot" as a defense against any criticism of her.
- Viewers Are Morons
A moderatator really does need to get involved at this point because while he's not edit-warring on any page that his examples are getting taken off of, he is finding as many ways as possible to get around that.
EDIT: To give some more evidence towards his obsession, he edited Designated Hero, Jobber, and Girls Need Role Models to reflect negatively towards Trish to the detriment of the article. For the last one, here's what he wrote about her in the trope:
"Trish Stratus was there because the company really loved her. She basically established the template that led to WWE purging the talented WRESTLERS (Jacqueline, Ivory, Molly Holly, Jazz, etc.) in order to make room for the Diva Search Idiots and the Catalog Idiots (John Laurinaitis found Kelly Kelly and Alicia Fox in the same swimsuit catalog, which is apparently what he considered "scouting talent.")" (If you're interested, the original line before he added all of that in was "Trish proved that beautiful women could become talented wrestlers", which fits with his discussion and PM rethoric to always bring up that she was a model before she became a wrestler)
He also takes every chance he gets on any wrestling page that is mildly appropriate to bring up that Trish Stratus won her retirement match and that it was violating wrestling tradition, while anyone who has followed Professional Wrestling for awhile could list off more than a few names who have all done the same.
Edited by ShaokenopenNo Title Live Action TV
On The Walking Dead TV Show Main Characters, gonzalo deleted the note about not allowing Zero Context Examples and un-commented ZCE entries, after being told explicitly that wiki policy prohibited them when he previously uncommented ZCE entries (saying that they were self-evident), including being given a pointer to the thread on the subject.
Edited by NohbodyopenNo Title Live Action TV
Not a long time ago I added several entries to the Germans Love David Hasselhoff page (Live-Action TV sub-page). My examples were deleted with edit reason that "None of the Czech examples qualify as being more popular there than in Britain, really."
I carefully tried to give reasons why they are considered insanely popular here. There are examples similar to that on the page, e.g. Friends were never considered unpopular in the States, right? Other examples with Monty Python and Red Dwarf were left on the page untouched and it simply feels unfair. (I know a lot about that page since I was fixing its Example Indentation.)
Also, for now it is a YMMV trope. Popularity of a show at home and abroad could be measured objectively, but I would like to have equal treatment.
I would revert that myself, but I don't want to start Edit War so I thought I'd ask first.
Edited by XFlloopenNo Title Live Action TV
This can apply to other mediums as well, but I'm editing the character entry for Antonio from the cast of Power Rangers Samurai. Specificially, I'm adding the Iaijutsu Practitioner trope. Reading the Iaijutsu Practitioner page, I just discovered the existence of the Blade Spam trope as well (a Sub-Trope of Spam Attack), all of which apply to the character. Would I just list the Blade Spam subtrope by itself alphabetically (in the "B" section), or would I use the following format (in the "S" section)?:
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Edited by fenyx4openNo Title Live Action TV
Okay, the WMG section for the TV horror-drama, Supernatural, is getting excessively crowded, with no order to any of the WMG.
I want to do folders (which I know how to make) or redirects to new pages (which I don't know how to do) for different categories, but I'm not kidding when I call that thing huge and disorganized. I don't have the time (in real life or in the short amount allowed for edit sessions) to do all that by myself, so I'm requesting backup/help/divine intervention from anybody willing.
Please?
P.S. I'd also like to know if I'm even allowed to do that.
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
openNo Title Live Action TV
Hey there, I was led to the No Nonsense Self Defense link on I Just Want to Be Badass and reading through the page I began thinking about Buffy The Vampire Slayer. You know how she goes out on patrol looking for demons and such? Well as many people would guess that would likely get someone killed. I have in my mind writing up a detailed prose on this. How would I go about doing it? Where would I post it? Or would it be better off to leave that to self defense experts?
openNo Title Live Action TV
I know the rule "fix it yourself" but since I've never seen Firefly, I have no idea what's true within the four-bulleted argument/natter on the Photographic Memory page:
- River Tam from Firefly exhibits this when she memorizes the exact locations and cover arrangements of three soldiers in a room and shoots all three in rapid succession, a bullet to each, with her eyes closed.
River: No power in the 'Verse can stop me.
- That only required her to memorize three points, and retain that memory for a few seconds.
- Remember them exactly and then unerringly hit them in an instantly fatal spot. She captured their exact location and stance in an instant. Let's see you try that - with a Nerf gun, though. Shooting people is generally frowned upon.
- Not only that, but she also spun her body around. She was facing them when she saw them, got shot at and ducked in behind cover, picked up Kaylee's gun, stood up and then spun her clockwise, extending her left arm, while her eyes were still closed. She would have had to not only remember exactly where the guys were, but also calculate the exact angle she turned her body, how high she should point her arm (and the gun) in relative position to how far clockwise she spun her body.
Kaylee: Not even the captain could make a shot like that!- This is more a case of perfect coordination than perfect memory. You could set up basketball goals all around someone with perfect memory, but that doesn't mean they'd make every shot with their eyes closed.
- Possibly photographic memory (for locking the position of the targets in her mind), perfect coordination (to be able to move and attack with the necessary precision to the image in her mind) AND perfect calculation (for the position, trajectory of the bullets, possibly deviations, etc; she can kill you with maths)
- That only required her to memorize three points, and retain that memory for a few seconds.
Could someone who knows Firefly better please help out? Again, I would love to do it myself but I have little knowledge of the show. Another question, is this the right thread to ask for this type of thing or should I have put this in the discussion section of Photographic Memory?

This is a minor issue, but I'm questioning one of my own additions to the Jessica Jones (2015) page and wanted to have other tropers weigh in. I added Mundane Luxury to the page because the series villain, Kilgrave, in the backstory used his Compelling Voice powers for some minor and common things: He made a rich guy give him his very nice jacket, had a concert cellist perform for him, and had a woman follow him around smiling all the time. Another character, after hearing of these events, observes that Kilgrave was just obtaining clothing, good music and a pretty woman's smile, remarking that these items are so petty compared to what he can (And other times does) do with his powers.
However, I'm waffling on the trope because it's not only about when someone obtains or desires something mundane, it's thematically about when they want these things because they've been so deprived that even the mundane seems luxurious. Kilgrave doesn't limit himself to just the mundanities, at other times in the series he is shown using his powers for expensive food and housing, mountains of money, sex with women, and every other way you can think of for exploiting his Compelling Voice power.
So, he's not been deprived of the mundane luxuries of life, but he does still go out of his way to get them in a way that other characters actually comment on. Would this fit the trope, or not?
Edited by JBK405