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:
openThe Lobo problem Print Comic
The page SelfDemonstrating.Lobo exists.
The page ComicBook.Lobo doesn't. Once upon a time, it was a redirect to the self-demonstrating page, but it was cutlisted with the following reason "Redirect to SelfDemonstrating.Lobo, causing people to treat the page as a legitimate work page rather than a Just For Fun page. [Anddrix]"
Beyond the fact that ComicBook.Lobo should exist as it is a genuine work, trope examples shouldn't be linking to a self-demonstrating page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that it was clearly stated by mods that any such link (like SelfDemonstrating.Deadpool or SelfDemonstrating.The Joker to only name common ones) should be corrected to the ComicBook/ namespace.
However, in the case of Lobo, the result would be a red link. (There is currently 259 wicks.) What shall we do? Re-creating the redirect would seem to me the absolute minimum, until someone knowledgeable and/or courageous enough create an actual work page...
Edited by StFanopen Cleaning up and Updating of the Red Hood related YMMV pages Print Comic
Hey everyone, I wanted to ask for help/feedback about what it should be done about the YMMV pages of both Red Hood and the Outlaws and Red Hood YMMV pages. The pages have been ignored for a long while with only a few tropers showing interest in keeping the entries up to date. One of the tropers that have, unfortunately, shows an obvious negative bias against the series and its writer, Scott Lobdell. I find the current state of the pages to be not only unhelpful for anyone interested in checking the series and/or the character and the personal views expressed to be somewhat out of place. I tried to fix the pages a little a while back, trying to be as objective as possible with my edits but I only succeeded in getting myself tangled in an Edit War with the aforementioned troper. Since I don't want the situation to repeat itself, and I'm still not satisfied with the pages' current status, I ask you for some help in improving those pages.
open Question about an obscure DC Character Print Comic
I was reading information pertaining to Grant Morrison recently and it was referencing all the forms he has taken in various comics written by both himself and others. I unexpectedly had the topic come up again today in a conversation and was looking up a piece of information I had noticed. There was reference to (if I remember correctly) a Silver Age DC Comics time traveler that looked like Grant Morrison in his signature look years before he had adopted it. This isn't the Invisibles or anything since it wasn't by Morrison. It was just a weird coincidence someone was noting. Now, I know most time travelling characters across various publishers and I just can't place who this might actually be. It was either someone stretching what they thought or something I just haven't found through any cursory searching. I have a set of links from the day I saw that but I'll dig through all of it to find the answer. Was just seeing if there was a more expedient way of digging this up however. Now, is there anyone who might have any idea what I may be talking about?
openRat-Man Print Comic
So I just stumbled upon Rat-Man. It and all of its subpages were created with a hyphen. I can't move them myself at the moment, so I figured I mention here so someone who has the time and wants to can do it.
openIs Chaos Princess Pinkie Pie in Issue 57 Pinkie Pie's One Winged Angel form? Print Comic
In Issue 57 of the MLP IDW comics, after getting a little too used to the chaos dimension, Pinkie Pie threaten to use her new chaos powers back in her home world (she never says what she'll do from there) then turns herself into an alicorn and calls herself the "Princess of Chaos" . Would this count as One Winged Angel?
Edited by HaloFlyer1122openWhy do changes I make not appear unless I am signed in? Print Comic
I can sign in and make changes, add tropes, etc., but those changes and the stuff I add are only visible to me when I sign in. Am I only writing for myself, or is there some sort of selection/review process that my changes have to undergo before they appear on the general, public website?
openComicBook/ to Characters/ cleanup Print Comic
As has been discussed many times here and on the forums, there are several character pages for the DC and Marvel universes masquerading as work pages in the Comic Book/ (or occasionally Self-Demonstrating/) namespace. Before I take this into the forums (most likely Short Term Projects), I'd like to address a few points from the last discussion and see if anyone has any major objections.
The last discussion was here
.
My official proposal is:
Change the ComicBook/ pages for characters without a series into Characters/ pages or entries on a Characters/ folder. If the character has a series, the page can remain, but it has to be about the series, not the character.
To give a few examples:
- ComicBook.Booster Gold becomes a page for his series, with his character tropes moved to Characters.Justice League International (currently a redirect to a Justice League of America subpage at the stupidly-long name of Justice League of America: Justice League International)
- Cyclops has had only a handful of title appearances: Two one-shots, a miniseries, and a solo series that we already trope at Cyclops (2014). Nothing particularly important happens in the one-shots or miniseries and every trope present is about the character and not the series, so the page can be moved outright to Characters.X Men Cyclops (with the stuff that doesn't belong on a Characters page removed.)
- The several pages for Batman villains become part of the Batman character index under Characters.Batman Rogues Gallery.
- In the interest of concision and not appearing overly unwieldy, those that get entire pages to themselves would be named something like Characters.DCU The Joker or Characters.Batman The Joker instead of some long name such as Characters.Batman Rogues Gallery The Joker.
Characters can only have one "primary" character entry, to avoid splitting their tropes across multiple pages.
- Example: Cassie Lang is a member of the Young Avengers and The Avengers, was a major character in Astonishing Ant-Man, and made a few supporting appearances in other comics. Her character tropes would go on Characters.Young Avengers, with the character pages for Avengers: 2000s Members and Astonishing Ant-Man (should it ever exist) linking there.
For Characters/ pages for specific series, the main characters can have separate entries for their appearances in only that series, but established side characters and cameos from the existing universe shouldn't have their own entries unless they have significant focus or Character Development.
- Example: Robin Series's main character is Tim/Robin, so he can have a unique entry for his characterization in only that series, separate from his entry on Characters.Robin.
If there are related series starring the same character under multiple titles and we are unwilling/unable to use either title, the ComicBook/ page can be named after the character.
This is just making what we already do official. I'm only mentioning this because of the complaints about ComicBook.Carol Danvers, which is that page's name because ComicBook.Ms Marvel and ComicBook.Captain Marvel (redirects to Main/) are both disambiguation pages and disambiguating by year would cause confusion.
Character tropes still have to move, however.
Establish pages/indexes at Characters.Marvel Villains and Characters.DCU Villains. This is a solution for the Rogues' Gallery Transplant problem, as well as introducing a place to put "universe-wide" villains such as Superboy-Prime, M.O.D.O.K., or Thanos.
openYMMV/Sinestro Print Comic
The YMMV page for Sinestro (the comic book) is currently occupied by YMMV from Sinestro (a self-demonstrating page). In a case where there is both a work page and a self-demonstrating page, which should get the YMMV?
Edited by StrixObscuroopenCreating Work Pages for Valiant Comic Series? Print Comic
I've been trying to create work pages for the various Valiant Comics series that have sprung up, but find myself stymied by those titles where the series was completely overhauled between its original 90's version and the modern version (for instance, Secret Weapons, where the original was about the company's heavy-hitters, but the modern version is the exact opposite, or Doctor Mirage, where the premise has changed considerably from the original.) Should I have both series on one work page, or separate them by some criteria?
openUltimate Nick Fury Print Comic
I have made some edits in The Ultimates at the entry on Nick Fury (for those unfamiliar, the Nick Fury of the MCU is a direct adaptation of this character). I removed some examples and shortened others. First, Nick Fury is not a villain, so "Adaptational Villainy" is completely out of place. Other tropes are filled with complaining, Alternative Character Interpretation and even actual lies (for example, a trope says "he's a self-serving asshole", but his actions, right or wrong, have always been motivated by national or worldwide security, not personal gain). tvtropersuser1 simply restored everything, without even an edit summary, and ignored my request to take things to the discussion page.
open616 Print Comic
In several pages, when people talk about comics from Marvel Comics, there's a usual need to set apart the stuff from alternate universes from the "main", non-alternate, universe. And so, they use "Earth-616" to make reference to the main universe. There are 2 problems with that. First, it is a terminology that is not self-evident in the meaning, and only hardcore fans would understand. And second, it is only used by the fandom, the actual creators despise it and very rarely use it. So even a devoted fan of Marvel Comics, who reads all the comics but does not go around forums and online discussions, would find the term "Earth 616" a bit weird. Tom Brevoort, who despises the term, even used the Secret Wars crossover to give creators some last months to use it if they wanted, and then established the term "The Prime Earth". See here
.
“I can tell you for sure that those of us actually working on the books virtually never use the term — and I kind of wince inside whenever I hear somebody use it. It just sounds so stupid to my ear, and so counter to the kind of mindset we try to foster in regard to the stories we create and the thinking we try to employ.” – Marvel Executive Editor, Tom Brevoort
“I never use it, I hate the term pure and simple and agree with Tom’s assessment of it. I can’t remember ever hearing it in the office and only really see it used online for the most part. I think the term really came into vogue when the Ultimate Universe came into prominence, but in my world, the language and distinctions are simple, there is the Marvel Universe and the Ultimate Universe. Anything other than that reeks of all that DC Earth 1, Earth 2, Earth Prime stuff which I’ve never really taken to, but then again, I got into DC when they got rid of all that stuff so it was from and for a different era than my own.” – Marvel Chief Creative Officer, Joe Quesada
So, what if we remove the references to "Earth-616" and replace them with more natural terms?
Migrated to Chloe Jessica!
openSelfDemonstrating.SuperboyPrime Print Comic
ComicBook.Superboy Prime redirects to SelfDemonstrating.Superboy Prime. First off, I'm not even sure if the character has a distinct enough voice to qualify for a SD page. Secondly, SD pages aren't supposed to be linked to, they're Just for Fun, correct? I feel like this should be cutlisted, or at least the redirect removed.
Edited by razorrozar7open2 Jean Grey examples straight form the DepeartmentOfRedundancyDepartment Print Comic
The comics folder on the First Law of Resurrection page has the following two examples
- Jean Grey wasn't actually meant to die at the end of the Dark Phoenix Saga (as stated by Claremont and others), and it was the intention from the beginning to bring her back, just not as a super hero who committed genocide. She has yet to return only because Joe Quesada demanded her death and enforced a "dead means dead" policy concerning her, out of his "characters are 'more interesting' without their Love Interest" beliefs. They got around this by eventually bringing in a teenage, time-displaced Jean in All-New X-Men.
- Jean is remembered as doing this more than she actually has; the Never Live It Down trope was originally named for her. She died at the end of The Dark Phoenix Saga, returned at the beginning of X-Factor, and was an A-list X-Man for decades until a certain cheesy quesadilla decided she had to die to make Cyclops "more interesting." The current comics version of Jean is a younger one from the past. Exactly where the idea that she dies over and over and over comes from isn't quite clear; it could be the various adaptations of the ending of the Phoenix saganote We've seen her return by way of her real body being in a healing cocoon and no two writers having the same idea on if it was her real mind/soul and how it all works, her getting a life force transfusion from the other X-Men, proving to have not actually died but merely lost her memory, continuing to exist as a non-corporeal entit,, and time alterations resulting in her not having gone nuts. However, those are all from comics, shows, and movies who do not share a continuity, each describing her return after the Dark Phoenix ending in a different manner., or it could be the fact that hosts not staying dead is an official power of the Phoenix, so she has to have used it a bunch, right, right? But actually, she hasn't.
while the 2nd one goes into detail about how many times Jean "Phoenix" Grey has actually been brought back from the dead, the first part of it covers the exact same thing as the preceding example, which explains her death at the end of the dark Phoenix saga, Joe Quesada wanting her gone for reasons and that a time-displaced version was used to circumvent that dessication (the only difference being Jean's appearance in X-Factor)
I'm debating with myself what do to do with these entries. The first bullet could be cur or merged with the 2nd, but I feel like that the 2nd example is might have natter problems.
Edited by MorningStar1337open Is there a reason that "Variant Cover" does not seem to have an article? Print Comic
Okay, so, while by necessity discussing the ridiculously confusing labeling of the covers of the Green Lanterns series it became necessary to reference the fact that part of the problem is that with fans knowing that there are Variant Covers for the issues in this comic event, it's even harder for them to automatically notice that there's more than one issue that is a different chapter of the story but numbered the same and named/labeled so closely as to be easily confused with another one (yes, I know it's confusing when tldr'd. I think I managed to give an accurate enough summation on the page itself if you need clarification on what the heck I'm talking about, though. That part doesn't really matter though, because...).
Thing is, I assumed (though yes as always I would have double-checked my link to make sure) that Variant Cover would lead to a page describing the trope. But...nope, it's a red link. "Perhaps it has an article, but just under a different name" I figured, so I searched and...
...surprisingly, there are a LOT of uses of the term "variant cover", in the correct context, all over the site. A notable example being The Great Comics Crash Of 1996 which explains the logic behind the practice. What there apparently isn't, though, is an actual article telling you what it is...?
For those less familiar with publishing industries, particularly comic book publishing, where the practice is currently still very common, a Variant Cover is:
An alternate cover option - not an alternate edition that happens to have a different cover to differentiate it, that is, but in fact a "collectible", internally identical, alternate version of the same issue/book produced at the same time, but simply with a different cover. The idea being the actual comic book issue (again, usually it is comic books where you see this) is exactly the same on the inside but it has the option of an alternate and often rarer or more exclusive cover, usually with primary art done by a different artist than the "main" cover. Sub-types of Variant Cover include: a normal full-color cover that just happens to differ from the original "main" cover (often done by a different artist, who may or may not specialize in cover art); "sketch" or black and white covers meant to show the original pencils or ink drawing instead of a full-color version of the drawing; comedic/parody covers like the series of covers Marvel did with Deadpool; event-exclusive V Cs like for San Diego Comic Con; and even mostly-blank covers, where there's only the important logos and basic information like price and issue number (these are intended for bringing to artists at events like conventions and book signings, where they can sign or sketch on the front for you)
The practice became particularly popular in the early-mid 1990s Western comic book publishing industry as a way to boost sales among obsessive collectors, but it's still very common in the West today; so common in fact, that DC recently reassured readers kind of sick of the practice that there would be only "one variant cover each" for any given issue in the DC Rebirth relaunch! But it's not just DC that does it, or even just DC and Marvel: some "indie" publishers do as well, as well as prominent but non-Big Two companies, such as Dark Horse (I know for a fact that the Buffy Season 8 and 9 comics had V Cs for instance).
Again, there are a LOT of examples (like, literally everything DC is putting out right now, probably literally everything Marvel is putting out, at least a few LONG-running Dark Horse titles, etc), to the extent even that I might suggest using it as an explanatory-only article that notes you can link the trope from the individual work's page - but I definitely think the practice is specific enough, distinctive enough from simply "different edition/different cover", and widespread enough, to deserve an article to explain it to those not familiar with the practice?
Given all that, I'd like to know if there's ANY good reason why there is NOT already such an article, aside possibly from the fact that nobody's thought to/bothered to make one yet? I don't want, after all, to start an article that might not exist for a reason, but I can't imagine a reason why it shouldn't?
openYMMV/TheJoker Print Comic
I was looking at the The Joker page and I noticed that the entire thing is writing in the Joker's voice like a Self-Demonstrating page. Is it because the main page for the Joker and his Self-Demonstrating page share the same YMMV page?
openDeadpool Main page Print Comic
Hello, I'm a long time lurker here and on a whim after seeing the new deadpool movie i checked out the page and to my horror it has been replaced with unreadable gibberish of a "self demonstration page". Well fine I thought I will work my way to the main page only to have it redirect me every time no matter the link used. This is starting to really grate me that some fans are forcing their jokes on others by replacing things with SD material. But when I tried to find a way to reach the main page I noticed a couple mods and others mentioning that there was no main page ever made. Now of course that last time I looked at the deadpool page was awhile ago sure but it absolutely wasn't after this SD nonsense. And I was right, using the wayback machine to early 2010 there is a well made main page for deadpool with absolutely no self demonstrating. Now I'm wondering why people are trying to insist this page never existed and that the deadpool page was always self demonstrating even to the point mods will say it but the old main page apparently got canned sometime in 2010 in favor of self demonstrating article and seems to have never been changed back. The old page can be found on March 4, 2010 for the main page of deadpool.

I get it, Deadpool is 4th Wall breaking, but does really need to be applied to Deadpool's T Vtropes and all associated pages, especially the tropes themselves? It's actually hard to understand some of it, especially when it's discussing specific events which A. Aren't clearly stated and B. assumes you already are well-versed with all of Deadpool's appearances. The one I have serious trouble reading in Deadpool/YMMV page for Seasonal Rot, not only is the entry needlessly long winded, but poorly explained on what events or comics it's even talking about and just isn't all the useful.
What's worse is that on the Characters / Marvel Comics aka: Marvel Universe page, next to link for the Deadpool page their's a note that says "(And if you're asking why there's no Comic Book sub-page for me, too bad! My page is always permanently on Self-Demonstrating mode, cuz I'm frickin' Deadpool.)"
Like really? Is this what T Vtropes has come to where we say screw making the site actually anyway useful or informative and just make entire sections useless for a cheap overdrawn joke that just simply isn't funny unless your a hardcore fan of the character and make fun of people for it?
I'm sorry but I really do feel the Deadpool really needs to heavily revised to at least make it understandable for people who aren't well-versed with the comics and the character and make it more clear what is even being discussed.