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:
openToo Bleak misuse
- The Joker is often criticized for being too bleak a villain. Many writers treat him as less a person and more of an unpredictable, seemingly unstoppable force of chaos who commits acts of gruesome torture (of both the physical and psychological formats) and mass murder, with an ever increasing body count that's often in the four to five digits, often forgetting the comedic angle that made him such a Love to Hate character in the first place. This renders Batman's no-kill policy absolutely pointless and a little Secretly Selfish, as it becomes less about him keeping Gotham safe and more about him staying true to his personal code no matter the consequences.
TBSC is about stories that cause such, so it seems misuse to apply to a specific character, especially one who's remained iconic and popular despite. I say cut as while this might apply to some specific stories it doesn't apply in general/overall as it's too successful to count. Any objections?
Asking here as TBSC cleanup hasn't had any activity in over a month.
openReporting a Misnamed Page?
If I see a page that's been moved to have the wrong name, with redirects now adding to the problem, where would I report that? For the case I'm seeing, it isn't obvious how I'd fix it myself.
open Contradicting entires/Mis-blamed misuse?
YMMV.Pokemon S 21 E 6 Mission Total Recall
- Designated Hero: Gladion is the brave older brother who went out of his way to protect Lillie by becoming strong enough to stop Nihilego...while also disregarding that since he knew everything that happened that night, that he could've prevented a lot of Lillie's traumas if he just told his mother sooner.
- Mis-blamed: Gladion's actions or lack thereof appear to have caused a rift in his overall view in the fandom for the anime, but an obvious roadblock pretty much shoots down any of the normal methods Gladion could've done to get the message through about Lillie's abuse to Lusamine; unless he dealt with Faba first and foremost, nothing was stopping Faba from continuing to enforce a fake status quo he had kept preserved for four years straight with help of his Hypno and other Psychic Type Pokémon altering and manipulating their memories in-order to save his own skin. If anything, Gladion should consider himself lucky he even managed to escape at all in any capacity, as Faba would've more than likely erased his memories too if he had managed to catch him sooner. By all accounts, Faba is the biggest obstacle for this entire arc, and even with Ash's help, Faba wasn't easy to bring down, and he still tried to make a counterattack in the following episode to make up for the misstep of being ganged up on by two trainers did to him.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The fact that Gladion kept everything quiet and never went to tell Lusamine about what happened to Lillie sooner makes him less altruistic and more selfish, especially since he chews her out for not paying attention yet he knew yet ran away from his sister.
These argue with themselves over Gladion. I'm inclined to cut Mis-blamed as the narrative never presented that aspect and it's about real life creators, not in-work characters, being such. But there's this from Misblamed.Anime And Manga:
- Porygon being the Pokémon that caused the infamous seizure-inducing imagery present in the banned episode "Electric Soldier Porygon"
. It wasn't. While Porygon and its evolutions have certainly never appeared in any anime adaptation ever since outside brief blink-and-you'll-miss cameos, this is purely due to the unfortunate association its name has with the incident. The imagery was actually caused by Pikachu, who was attacking incoming missiles being shot at Porygon and the rest of the group.
This was previously removed citing "About creators being mis-blamed. This is Common Knowledge." But was added back without explanation. Thoughts?
openRestoring a Deleted Entry Western Animation
When I found out a character in The Dragon Prince was inspired by C-3PO, I added an Expy entry to their folder which was deleted soon after by another troper.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Characters.TheDragonPrinceXadia#edit33992672
I messaged them with a link to the interview
that states C-3PO was an influence but they haven't replied or reversed the edit themselves. What should be done? Do I just restore it myself, or should another, since I'm unsure if that might qualify as an edit war?
open Tropers Policy Discussion
There's an ongoing discussion regarding contributors adding Fetish Fuel and other kink-related self-troping on their Tropers/ pages. Click here
if you want to join the discussion.
openWriter Conflicts With Canon misuse?
- The Rise of Skywalker establishes that Supreme Leader Snoke was actually a failed clone created by Palpatine, with several other Snokes visible in vats on Exegol. This directly contradicts previous declarations that Snoke had been around for many decades, and that Palpatine only learned about his existence shortly before his death at the end of Return of the Jedi.
WCWC is when Word of God conflicts with canon. I believe this was All There in the Manual material that was contradicted as opposed to out of work creator statements. (If WCWC allows prior material how's it different than Retcon?) Or if both statements and later material contradict does the latter supersede the former? What to do?
Relating:
- According to the Sonic 4 web site, Sonic and Knuckles' levels and stories take place at the exact same time in Sonic 3 & Knuckles. Fans noted that there was tons of evidence within the game itself that Knuckles' story is after Sonic's story. Examples include Angel Island Zone Act 1 showing only the sky in the background instead of the ocean, Eggman's Death Egg is missing in the background for Launch Base Zone and Lava Reef Zone Act 2, the ghosts in Sandopolis Zone Act 2 are already wandering around at the start (you later find the container that held them was already broken by Sonic), and Mecha Sonic appears to fight Knuckles at the end of the game since he didn't explode when Sonic defeated him previously. This was rectified by later material stating that it indeed took place after Sonic's campaign.
Would a official website be All There in the Manual as opposed to Word of God?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaughtopen Know Your Meme misuse/not fit to trope?
- Americans Hate Tingle: Both entries are about fans of other sites hating KYM, not other nations hating it which is what it's about. Cut?
- Creator's Pet: Donald Trump. It's certainly Not Hyperbole to say that a new page is created literally every time the man does something noteworthy, to the point where numerous Trump-related articles can pop up in a single day. Everyone, even the site's right-wing users, have grown exasperated about it. Only entry that might count as a character, others are disliked meme template. Even if non-characters count (doubt it) this and the others fail the Pet criteria of being "Put into big scenes for no reason" as KYM has no scenes or narrative.
- Ensemble Dark Horse:
- The Bad Luck Brian image macro has become the community's poster child for a legitimate meme that's been ignored by the mods in favor of fads or Forced Memes. The profile image of BLB itself lampshades it! Impressive, considering BLB was initially utterly hated by the community.
- Super Robo Jesus is considered to be the Memetic Badass of Deadpooled Memes because of how the article is So Bad, It's Good.
- Deadpool is treated by the community as the site's unofficial mascot.
- DON, so much so he himself became a meme. I believe Darkhorse only applies to characters and these straddle the line between them and templates. Suspect misuse as they're not minor getting disproportionate fan love as there's no narrative to be minor in. Brian might fit Unpopular Popular Character better.
- The Scrappy: In 2019, the Belle Delphine image gallery got this treatment, for refusing to disappear, even weeks after she herself has fallen out of relevance. Even those who initially found her attractive quickly got annoyed at seeing that aheago face wherever they go. Many users blame the popularity of the gallery on the poor taste of immature users, leading to the gallery staying relevant even though no-one is posting anything anymore. Only characters count so not sure if valid as it's less the character than their use, but I've seen other Scrappies hated for such.
Thoughts? Is KYM even a tropeable work given it's not a story/narrative but a creator/content channel which doesn't warrant a YMMV or other such pages?
open Disagreement on Marx page.
First of all, I understand that this topic might be sensitive to some people here, but I hope that we can maintain a sense of objectivity and base our conclusions on the facts.
Marxist economics is not considered scientifically credible by the economics establishment. It has zero or near zero presence in economics textbooks, and it has zero or near zero presence in economics university courses. To my knowledge, there is nowhere in the world where Marxism is included as a component of economics education. Maybe Cuba or North Korea or somewhere like that. This is something that, in my experience, Marxists completely concede and acknowledge. They concede and acknowledge it to try and demonstrate that modern economics is hopelessly corrupt, but they concede and acknowledge it nonetheless.
The Karl Marx page had a line noting that "As an economist, Marx remains heterodox, and nearly all modern economic institutions reject his work as scientifically incorrect. Nevertheless, Marxist economics retains a significant following and continues to be used as the foundation of socialist economic ideology." I believe this is incredibly important and relevant information. I think one of the most pertinent questions a layman would have about a field of study is "Is this considered credible and effective by the experts?"
05tele changed the line to "As an economist, Marx remains heterodox, and many modern economic institutions reject his work as scientifically incorrect." I sent him a message explaining that this edit was inappropriate. I explained that Marxist economics is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific establishment, and the article needs to reflect that.
He replied with the rebuttal that different schools of economic thought exist. I replied and conceded that yes, different schools of thought exist, but that is insufficient. I told him that it's not enough for schools to exist and for some people to believe in them, but he needs to demonstrate that they are considered credible on a significant scale. I asked if he could demonstrate this.
Rather than providing me with any indication whatsoever that Marxism was indeed considered credible, he replied to me, rather rudely, "I am not responsible for your ignorance of economics. I suggest you remedy it."
I stress again, that the issue here should not be whether Marxism is right or wrong, but whether it's accepted as credible by current institutions. This is something 05tele himself seems to implicitly concede, given that he hasn't touched a later paragraph in the same article expanding on the point. I'd like to revert this edit.
I feel I might also note that 05tele failed to include an edit reason on his initial edit. So, essentially, he's made an edit with no justification, and when asked for some, responded by saying "I'm not responsible for you being ignorant."
Edited by HingabeSiebenopen Edit War on Fast-Killing Radiation + self-report
Er... I accidentally triggered an Edit War on Fast-Killing Radiation without realizing it so I deeply apologize, but figured I should get this out of the way. Courtesy link here
- August 24: I launched the trope with most of the content.
- August 25: St Fan added a dash
to "Video Game Examples" and changed it to "Video-Game Examples".
- Shortly after, I removed the dash
with this edit reason: "Improper use of the dash.", but to give more clarity, it's because I found St. Fan's use of the dash in this case odd since "Video Game" is two separate words and doesn't need to be connected with the dash. It was then I realized I triggered an Edit War by accident since I forgot I was the one who launched the trope.
I'll await further judgment from the mods, but do know that it wasn't my intention to start an Edit War in the first place. I simply had a brain fart and reverted St. Fan's edit without realizing it would trigger an Edit War.
openExample-less trope
So Numerological Motif currently has no listed examples on its page, but a decent number of crosswalks elsewhere on the site. There's nothing on the page itself saying why, so does anyone know if it was an intentional decision to keep it this way? I was thinking of crosswicking it, but I didn't want to go against a previous ruling by mistake.
open Trope for when a character becomes completely unimportant
Trope name for a character (or a group of characters) becomes less important and/or unimportant at all?
For instance, the Hole-Digging Club members in Shimeji Simulation were slightly important characters from Chapters 1 to 21, but the Hole-Digging Club itself becomes unimportant after the latter chapter.
openStaving off edit war
In February 2022, negatwenty
edited AwesomeMusic.Super Smash Bros (courtesy link to page history
) to put a redundant pothole around the spoiler warning at the top of the page, changing Administrivia/YouHaveBeenWarned. to [[Administrivia/{{YouHaveBeenWarned}} You have been warned.]] I removed it on the grounds of its redundancy; the double curly braces alone are unnecessary, but so is potholing the title to itself purely for the sake of only having the initial Y capitalised.
And a few days ago, they put it back again without an edit reason. This is a pointless hill to die on, so I'm reporting it here instead. Permission to re-remove it?
Edited by mlsmithcaopenQuestion About Old Shame
I'm a little confused about the Old Shame trope. It's categorized as trivia, yet the trope page itself also specifies that it can have in-universe examples, and there's an entire section for these non-trivia examples.
I do see that Old Shame is currently under discussion at the Trope Repair Shop, but I can't tell if this is what's being discussed or not. Basically, my question is, can we use Old Shame as a regular in-universe trope (not listing it as trivia) or not?
openA question about Edit War policies
Now, this question is strictly theoretical, but I can't find an answer in Administrivia and it's been bugging me for a while.
Let's say, I put up some example and another troper removed it. I messaged them, we civilly talked it out, and they agreed that my example was correct and should be reinstated. Would I be allowed to reinstate it myself?
I mean, going strictly by the rules: "If you add something, someone changes or removes it, and you change it back, you're edit warring." Does this mean that only the other troper is allowed to change it and if I do it, I'll be still edit warring, even though we have talked it out already? Should I bring it up in ATT and get mod permission first? Or is it okay to reinstate the example as long as I write something like "this example has been discussed with [troper], it is reinstated with their consent" in edit reasons?
open Word Cruft notifier
Okay, this is a bit of a weird situation, and I just wanted to send it out here to get the lay of the land and see what people think. I'm gonna admit up front that I might be in the wrong here, but I just want to be sure.
Yesterday, I made an edit to Characters.Better Call Saul Howard Hamlin. It was an edit to a Foil entry for him and Hank Schrader (which I admit in hindsight should probably actually be under Contrasting Sequel Main Character, but that's another issue). I wrote this:
- Their deaths are later used as part of a deception for Jimmy and Walt to help their loved ones; Walt claims responsibility for Hank's murder on the phone in order to confirm it to the authorities and play himself up as a monster for Skyler's benefit, while Jimmy lies about Kim's role in Howard's death in order to spare her prison time and take all the blame for himself.
Yesterday, Random Troper 123 removed the "in order"
that I bolded in the entry citing Word Cruft - and sure, I guess the entry still makes grammatical sense without it even if I think it added to the grammar of the sentence and don't think it was worth deleting, so nothing wrong there - but then they went the extra mile and sent me a Word Cruft notifier about it. I might be overreacting myself taking it here, but that seems like a bit of an overreaction, and looking through their recent history, they seem to be on a bit of a Word Cruft binge today (among other things that seem perfectly legitimate) and making some edits that seem unnecessary:
- Changing "quite a few" to "several"
- Removing the word "also" from the sentence "There's also grenadiers"
.
- Turning the sentence "breaking heads in" into just "breaking heads"
- Changing "pretty much" to "well-nigh"
and "That said" to "Still", even though it didn't change the meaning of the sentence.
- Trimming an entry
by removing the word "that" in the phrase "She claims that", changing "tend to" to "often", "such as" to "like", removing the qualifier "a bit", and changing "the girl" to "someone".
Like, maybe I'm reading too much into things, and if I am, please don't hesitate to tell me, but there's worrying about word cruft and then there's taking the time to change two words to one seemingly just because. It just seems a bit unnecessary, plus a look at ATT shows that this has come up before
, and if I'm getting a notifier over this, then other editors probably are too, so I want to see what people think.
openCalebSu
CalebSu's
only edit was vandalizing the Self Demonstrating Thanos article
.
I already reverted it back. Their edit reason ("Reduce cost of hosting TV tropes") smells like a troll.
openSingle Issue Wonk
Rift Witch appears to have a Single-Issue Wonk with a YMMV.RWBY entry (Values Dissonance for Blake's Declaration of Protection to Yang), and historically has not been willing to engage in discussion about building consensus to address their concerns, thereby edit warring in the process. The timeline is as follows (I hope my links work):
- 4th February 2021: Rift Witch deleted
several entries, including the Values Dissonance entry, complaining that they're misogynistic.
- A few hours later, Psyga315 restores
all the entries back, stating they're not misogynistic, and it's about them acting "American" not "ladylike".
- A few hours later, Psyga315 restores
- 13th September 2021: Rift Witch again deleted
the Values Dissonance entry (but none of the others), this time stating that the entry is sexism and that they think it's unreasonable to expect Yang to stop being angry.
- 14th September 2021: I restored
the entry, stating that disliking an entry isn't a valid reason for deleting YMMV items, sent them a notification about deleting YMMV on the basis of disliking someone's opinion, and spotted that Nubian Satyress had also started
a discussion on the discussion page, arguing that Rift Witch's deletion does not address the audience reaction itself. I therefore also joined in the discussion page thread.
- A few hours later, Rift Witch deleted
it again, stating that it's not an example of values dissonance. They also responded to my notifier, accusing me of not reading their edit reason and declaring that the entry isn't Values Dissonance. Although I tried to get them to engage in a discussion they weren't interested (I have no problem with the mods reading the PM exchange between us). They also never joined in the discussion Nubian Satyress started either.
- A few hours further on, Zaptech restored
the entry telling Rift Witch that if they want to discuss removing it, they need to take it to the discussion page.
- A few hours later, Rift Witch deleted
- 20th August 2022: Rift Witch rewrote
the entry, stating that the entry doesn't belong there at all, but since people insist on it being there, they're going to rewrite it to remove the implication that Japanese men don't understand women.
For full disclosure, I have edited the entry on two occasions that were unrelated to these events (removing a parabomb note in September 2020 and a natter note in July 2022, different tropers involved each time). I don't know if that means I've also Edit Warred because the reasons were Administrivia-related rather than the entry itself, but I will accept the consequences if that is the case.
Edited by Wyldchyld

So on YMMV.She Hulk Attorney At Law there was this entry
It was decided by the Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup
. That is was a bad faith argument that misinterpreted the scene as she wasn't actually comparing tramas with Bruce like it said and bias attempting to Jen as petty when she wasn't. So I removed
it. Well General Horseradish re-added
with this incredibly rude Edit Reason, "what the hell do you mean "bad faith argument", it's literally how the scene plays out lmao" I also feel that they might be bias. As they also removed
a Nightmare Fuel entry that mentions the speech in a positive light. However, I could be very wrong there.
Now I don't care one way or another about the entry, but would like some opinions.
Edited by Bullman