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:
openBile Fascination Writes The Plot????????
If an Audience Reaction is a factor in the creation of a work, should it be referenced in some way?
As an example: I could add mocking references to The Nutshack or The Big Bang Theory in a work, because I and others like to make fun of those works. So, you could say that me showing Bile Fascination towards The Nutshack is the justification for inserting The Nutshack references or even characters in a work.
In that case, how would that be classified? It wouldn't fit on a normal YMMV page because it's an Audience Reaction expressed by the creator towards a different work, and not directed to the work itself; it wouldn't fit on the Main page because it's still an out-of-universe example. Should it be listed as Trivia under Word of God if I officially say that I added references to The Nutshack out of Bile Fascination? Or is it not worth pointing out at all for this site?
Edited by TMH-Sir-Iron-VomitopenNeed helping fixing bullet points and folders on a page
Today, I finally begun a series of edits that I had long been planning to add on the Character pages for Identity V. However, in editing Identity V: Survivors (Part 1) I was shocked to find that the page had ended up bugging up, leading to folders being hidden and bullet points for tropes not being put in place. I tried to fix the issue myself, but nothing seems to work.
Does anyone know what has happened and how to fix it?
Edited by WiryAiluropodineopenIs Paris Jackson's page a little too prying?
The biography for Paris Jackson talks a lot about her mental health struggles and self-harm attempts, which seems a little bit too prying into her personal life, especially since she's still living, still pretty young, discusses things that happened before she started her actual career, and has talked about how much she doesn't like being a paparazzi magnet. Should this be edited?
openConcerns about the Destined Death folder claiming that it's an Outer God.
I mentioned this on the discussion page
a couple of days ago, but got no response, so I mentioned it here as well. Elden Ring: Outer Gods treats Destined Death and the unnamed Outer God of the Twinbird as if they were the same, causing that other pages describe Destined Death as an Outer God. This puzzles me because neither the fextralife wiki
nor the fandom wiki
do this.
The argument in favor is that, and I quote: "The power of the Prince of Death's Staff, derived from the Destined Death that Maliketh seized from the Gloam-Eyed Queen, empowers both the ghostflame and Death sorceries of the Deathbirds; in addition, the Mausoleum Knights who protect the bodies of slain demigods use the wings and eclipse symbols of Deathbirds, and the Eclipse Shotel associated with them can inflict Deathblight, an affliction born from the Prince of Death. All of these indicate they are most likely separate manifestations of the same power, who have intervened in the Lands Between ever since the arrival of the twinbird."
Although these connections are indeed mentioned in the game, I think it's a stretch to suggest that they come from the same source.
Deathblight is first and foremost an in-game mechanic, and it has its quirks. Both Wormfaces and Basilisks can give you Deathblight but aren't affected by incantations that kill Those Who Live in Death, and neither are Tibia Mariners which are strongly linked to Those Who Live in Death. So it's not a bulletproof argument.
The game said that Godwyn's current state is the result of a rite performed by Ranni, in which both were killed with a fragment of Destined Death at the same time, but Ranni died in flesh but her soul lived, while Godwyn died in soul but his body lived. Meaning that if not for this rite, Destined Death should have straight up killed Godwyn, both in soul and body, a "true death," very different from the ancient God of Twinbird, which is associated with an afterlife, and typical undead and necromancy stuff.
Keep in mind that the Frenzied Flame and the Fell God of the Giants also share themes like fire and eyes, and somehow you can use yourself as kindling in the forge of the giants to burn the Erdtree and SURVIVE if you inherit the Flame of Frenzy, but the game still mentions these two as separate entities, which means that just because the Prince of Death has some link to Destined Death doesn't guarantee that they are all products of the same God.
Also, it is really telling that the folder ignores all the connections that exist between the Destined Death and the Elden Ring. The other name for Destined Death is the Rune of Death, and the Elden Ring is composed of runes. The Godskin Nobles have a similar physiology to those close to the crucible, which is "the Erdtree in its primordial form", and, according to Enia, the Golden Order was created by "plucked" the Rune of Death, suggesting that the concept of death was once part of the Elden Ring (something Miyazaki himself mentions
).
In the end, the game is very vague and ambiguous on this subject, but our current page is anything but ambiguous, it's basically a fan theory presented as facts, and I think we should cut the folder out completely.
Edited by SoyValdo7openPossible Troll
So a user by the name of bradyreino recently added some blatantly untrue things to the Total Drama main page (edits found here
) and while myself and another user removed them, is this something we should keep an eye on?
open2 Strange discussion posts on Kingdom of Heaven
Chet120 did something weird on Kingdom of Heaven 's page. (EDIT: Its Discussion page)
For context: this is a film set in Jerusalem during the Crusades. It was also controversial at the time it came out, because it portrays the Muslims mostly as good guys and the Christians, except for the main character, as bad(der) guys; and this came out relatively soon after 9-11.
Chet 120's first post was an insanely long list of what they claim is history. Their 2nd post is even more bizarre, and seems to consist of conspiracy theories, and to be politics-based. Also to maybe attract visitors to his website? (because he also states his, I assume Real-Life, name).
None of this has anything to do with the movie itself, or tropes. The user also is quite new, and has made 0 edits of the Wiki.
I sent them a PM, but it seemed serious enough to also mention here.
Edited by LB7979openHypothetical Casting Literature
I'm wondering if I could make a Hypothetical Casting page for Once Upon a Studio: Version 2.0, with it being a full-scale reimagining of Disney's 100th anniversary short film, but I think I should ask how many credits, roughly, would be needed to accommodate that page. The credits are already listed under Fan Works, but I'm hoping to move them to a dedicated Hypothetical Casting page for the fanfic itself.
Edited by IronSpider24openAbout the Elden Ring cut content
I've noticed that the Elden Ring pages make liberal use of the cut content that was data mined from the game files, there's even a section on the character page dedicated to the cut characters.
This makes some sense, as some of them help to understand the characters and mysteries of the game, and there is the possibility that they were cut out to save them for later content, such as St. Trina's questline. However, other information seems to contradict what is known, such as a cut dialogue in which Morgott refers to himself as Elden Lord, something that is impossible.
Furthermore, this information is presented as factually correct, although we do not know if this is the case. Bernahl's maiden is mentioned in his folder but is never mentioned in the base game and was apparently cut very early in development, as she was only mentioned in the Japanese version. It's commonly agreed that it was the merchants who summoned the Frenzied Flame in retaliation for being persecuted by the Golden Order, but this is only known thanks to Kalé's questline, which was cut and is not mentioned anywhere else in the game, in fact, Shabriri's Woe suggests that it was Shabriri himself who summoned the Frenzied Flame.
My point with this is not to argue whether everything I mentioned is true or not, what I want to discuss is whether it is right to use content that the creator has decided not to include in the final product and present it as valid, even if we don't know if it is still canon.
I think we should treat all information that is not in the final game as non-canon until the creator releases more content.
Edited by SoyValdo7openTrying to avoid an Edit War
A while ago I added the following example to Family Guy S7E12: "Episode 420":
- Broken Aesop: The episode advocates for the legalization of marijuana by having Brian specifically say that the town's productivity has gone up since everyone started smoking. However, this is contradicted by some scenes that show how those who have used the substance have become almost completely unable to function properly. Tom and Diane can barely form cohesive sentences while reporting the news, and Peter himself struggles to set up one of his trademark Cutaway Gags.
Noob Master later changed
"Broken Aesop" into "Don't Shoot the Message", without making any other modifications. The problem is that, in doing so, this became a Zero-Context Example. The entry is about how events within the work contradict the presented viewpoint, which is the definition of Broken Aesop. Don't Shoot the Message should specifically describe how viewers agree with the message, but dislike the execution.
As such, I would like to ask for permission to revert the trope to what it originally was.
openFanwork-Only Fans questions
I have several questions about Fanwork-Only Fans:
- YMMV.Yu Gi Oh Forbidden Memories has one regarding fan mods (covered by Come for the Game, Stay for the Mods). Practically every other FOF entry I've seen is about the series/franchise in its entirety, not just individual episodes/installments (I assume because being fans of the rest is Fanon Discontinuity instead). Does or should that limit in scope apply to FOF? Or is it just not this game that qualifies as it has a more fitting item covering it?
- YMMV.My Immortal "The fic has reached such huge infamy that many are fans of it without having read or watched the Harry Potter series." I believe this misuse as something that should go under the Harry Potter page as the works subject to such, and that fanworks are exempt as examples are instead Recursive Fanfiction (I might have asked but can't recall). Thoughts about these?
- Sandbox.Enjoy The Setting Ignore The Story was made, then given to me once the creator lost interest. I'm wondering if that's too redundant with FOF (maybe make it a redirect), or worth keeping separate. Thoughts?
- YMMV.RWBY "The series has a vocal amount of fans (and even haters) who adore the setting and characters, but not the show itself. As such, many of them are drawn towards fan works, with some of the most well-known ones even promoting themselves as being improved retellings of the show's narrative." My impression was was FOF requires they never even check out the work, but how can they know enough about it do dislike the canon handling unless they follow/watch enough about it Fanon Discontinuity is a better fit? And/or is this were Enjoy the Setting, Ignore the Story might be a better fit?
While Trope Talk seems the best place to ask, I'm concerned this might be too broad/too many separate questions for a single thread, so I'm being here first to sort out/see if other thread might be the better place to ask some of these questions.
openFranchise Question
Recently, I created a range for the BBC Books releases of the series Torchwood. With this, the parent show, and Torchwood: The Lost Files, there's enough there to warrant a Franchise page which I am thinking of making as well. However, what makes this case a bit murky to me is that Torchwood is a Spin-Off of Doctor Who, which in of itself is a franchise. Additionally, Torchwood material is already covered by the Doctor Who Expanded Universe. Could the franchise page still be created or what would the protocol be here?
Edited by HoloMew151openLinking to Character pages in trope examples
I was asked about this in a PM but since I didn't have an answer and I've been curious about it myself lately I'll ask it here.
Over the past several months I've noticed people embedding links to Character pages in trope examples (Especially Character Specific Page) and while it doesn't feel right to me I'm not sure if that's actually against the rules or not.
Edited by rmctagg09openTBSC misuse/argues with itself?
YMMV.Carol And The End Of The World
- Too Bleak, Stopped Caring: The world and everything on it is doomed to be destroyed when the planets collide and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. As such, it's hard to get invested in this world and the plot lines when you know how it will all ultimately end in a few months.
- An averted example could be seen from the show as well. Despite the end of the world, people still try to live their lives throughout the show. Rather than despair about their deaths, they live their lives to the fullest and find satisfaction with even trying to do so.
YMMV cannot be played with so the last part is misuse.
My question is does the main entry not apply as it's optimistic despite the bleak premise and/or it fails to give say audiences were turned off by the story? (This sounds more like Audience-Alienating Premise without the required proof given it's the premise so those who wouldn't like it avoided it as opposed to having their interest worn out by the bleakness.)
I asked Is this an example?
but was ignored. The TBSC cleanup has been inactive for several weeks so I'm asking here first.
openEdit War?
This was added
to YMMV.Komi Cant Communicate by OneBoiledPotato
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Wakai in Chapter 443. While it's a bit insensitive from Mangabi to let Wakai in the dark for months during a stressful period despite already deciding she's gonna turn him down. The fact that Wakai decides to respond to this by confessing again, but this time, publicly in front of a whole crowd that includes his close friends doesn't endear him much to viewers, given he's essentially peer pressuring her into accepting his confession after she already told him she needed time to think about it.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Wakai in Chapter 443. While it's a bit insensitive of Manbabi to leave Wakai in the dark for some time even after she's decided she'll turn him down (fearing telling him too soon could damage his sports performance), the fact that Wakai ends up confessing again, but this time, publicly in front of a whole crowd that includes his close friends doesn't endear him much to some viewers, given he could be seen as peer pressuring her into accepting his confession after she already told him she needed time to think about it (despite Manbagi herself having many more peers there who would take her side, and Manbagi giving no indication she felt any such peer pressure in her own account fo the second confession).
This was removed by skan123 for being contradictory.
Later, OneBoiledPotato adds this
saying the contradiction is fixed.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Wakai in Chapter 443. While it's a bit insensitive of Manbabi to leave Wakai in the dark for some time even after she's decided she'll turn him down (fearing telling him too soon could damage his sports performance), the fact that Wakai ends up confessing again, but this time, publicly in front of a whole crowd that includes his close friends doesn't endear him much to some viewers, given he could be seen as peer pressuring her into accepting his confession after she already told him she needed time to think about it.
Is it fine?
openHow to word this Live Action TV
Having just seen the show, I've started editing the page of Ripley (staring Andrew Scott as the titular Tom Ripley).
In it, there is an Actor Allusion as John Malkovich plays a character (and in the trailer even says he like Ripley's name, though the context is different in the show itself), having played the role of Tom Ripley in Ripley's Game (2002). This has already been added.
However, on top of this, it's revealed he plays the character of Reeves Minot, a character with a major role in the plot of Ripley's Game. Would this be playing the actor allusion trope straight further, exaggerating it, or something else?
openLiving Relic disappeared
Does the Living Relic page... exist for anyone else? I just made an edit to it, and as far as I can tell, the page just isn't there anymore. The history is still there, and I can see the changes I made there, but the page itself is empty. The problem seems to have started while I was editing the page; the preview function just showed a blank page.
openFanfic Self-Recommendation
Someone recommending their own fanfic
on Fanfic Recs (admittedly stating it upfront).
Do we have a standardized message for that?
openLinking external works? Web Original
If one were to add a quote or example from a fanfiction without a page on this site, is it ok to link the title to the fanfiction itself? Additionally, should the page of the original work be linked somewhere in the quote?
Eg.
as opposed to

This is a question that popped on my mind when I was doing some structuring on the The Amazing Digital Circus pages. Specifically, when I put the "General" section of the newly-created Alternative Character Interpretation in a folder (to go in tandem with the folders in the "Episodes" section) among some cleanup, I went to check if any other pages had some sections with folders and others without them, I found the Heartwarming page, which had its "Misc." section without a folder; I attempted to put it in a folder, only to notice upon looking in the page's history that Shanwoo 444 (the same troper who created the Alternative Character Interpretation) had already done that
before only to quickly remove it as they were creating folders for each episode under the "Episodes" header, at which I quickly reverted the changes (initially because I mis-read the entries for a moment and thought I added the "Misc." folder myself, meaning that I could have started an edit war, but I sticked to what I did anyway after seeing I didn't just in case).
What I'm asking is, in pages pertaining to examples of a trope in a specific work that use folders and headers at the same time, should folders only be used as further subsections for headers that have distinctive aspects separating the examples (e.g. the episode it takes place in), or is a single folder acceptable for any header regardless of how the distinction between its examples or even its length (as the Misc. section in the Heartwarming page is rather short with only two examples)? Shanwoo 444 and I seem to have rather different ways of organizing pages like these, given how I prefer to put everything in folders to keep things neat whereas they are fine with leaving headings without folders unless they address things such as episodes. I'm not really sure if there's any rule or recommendation addressed in the Administrivia pages on how to handle folders in this situation, and I'm asking this just to be safe on what to do.