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:
openQuestionable Entry
On Breast Expansion, in the Web Originals tab, there's an entire section for the Breast Expansion Archive, which is... almost certainly a fetish website. I'm a bit unsure of whether or not to remove the entry because some of the stories do seem to be more than just the fetish (one of them even has its own page), but on the other hand, it feels a bit weird to have a huge entry be solely from a fetish site with only one story having its own page. What do you guys think?
Edit: The stories themselves are listed as separate sub-entries, so it appears to be listing the stories as the actual entries, not the site itself.
Edited by idonomopenFridge pages
On Fridge pages, I sometimes notice users treating them like Headscratchers 2.0 and putting in questions in their bullet points, even if they're to answer them in the following sentence. Is this allowed? I'd assume that Fridge should refrain from asking questions within the entries and only call attention to things about the work that make sense in context which the series itself never lampshades.
openThis Wiki as audience reaction proof?
I will be adding this to TooBleakStoppedCaring.Fan Works per Cleanup
.
- The Dear Sweetie Belle Continuity shifting to foreshadowing/setting up an apocalyptic conflict has put off many who enjoyed the series character-driven Slice of Life, especially since the characters it made them so attached to are now at high risk of getting unhappy endings. Not helping is said conflict is being caused in part by the controversial actions of the series more controversial characters while likable characters are denied agency, most notoriously Pinkie Pie dying of unspecified causes prior. The first story fully set in this darker direction, The Changelings Have a King, had a high body count and higher ratio of dislikes to likes than any other work in the seres. While later works were much better received, their having only one-fifth the likes shows a large majority, all save the most dedicated fans, stopped caring about the series to the point its cancelation went largely without notice.
I was thinking of adding that, despite having a tropes page, it took nearly a year for this wiki to acknowledge its cancelation as more evidence its fans/readers have stopped caring. Would that be OK to add if it is only secondary evidence to the primary out of wiki proof? Or should such be avoided if unnecessary (there's other proof enough) and/or overly myopic/self-referential? (I asked the cleanup but they seemed mixed on it.)
openSubpages for episodes
What If…? (2021) has two episodes so far, each one with a page in the recap namespace. Those episodes have their own YMMV and Trivia subpages. Is it correct, or should those items be moved to the YMMV and Trivia sections of the series itself?
openOdd edits for a story
I found Fanfic.The Little Lock That Could, and while the page itself was alright, I noticed that the subpages were in... rough shape, to say the least. Some issues include:
- Entries that are just blank bullet points (see here
and here
)
- A page that initially was just framework
(and it still has the templates).
- Pages that don't specify a franchise (Characters.Minor Characters and Characters.Major Characters - probably not an issue, but it's still irritating)
- Pages being updated in real time
(not really sure how to phrase it, but the page description itself gives updates on the story that would be more suited for a trivia page)
- And the subpage that convinced me to make this post, Memes.The Little Lock That Could. Not only is it very short for a subpage (only four entries), but it also has a total of seven images on it (the character pages also have some issues with multiple images in one folder, but this is the most extreme example I saw).
I noticed that most of this was done by one person (Tropers.Divoratore), but they haven't edited since October 2020.
Edited by idonomopenHow do we refer to characters with multiple pronouns?
I recently came across our page for Friday Night Fever, which has a bigender character, Taki. Nearly all of the examples regarding her constantly switch from using she/her and he/him in the same example, and it's honestly confusing. So that got me thinking: how do we refer to characters with multiple pronouns? Do we stick to one set page wide or just keep it consistent in an example itself (like referring to a character with they/he pronouns as he in one example for a trope, and they in an example for another trope)?
openThis Troper talk on Headcsratchers and WMG
Are we allowed to use "I", "me", or "myself" on Headscratchers and WMG pages? I always thought that was the norm since these pages are more subjective in nature than those with trope examples.
openPossible cut
On The Wiz, There's this listed under Older Than They Think
- For one (fairly conservative) online reviewer, The Wiz Live! was apparently tainted with the violence of black culture, thus making it less family friendly from the "original 1939 version", due to Dorothy being prompted to murder the witch (as opposed to stealing her broomstick). Ironically, that only occurred in the 1939 film, which isn't the original Wizard Of Oz. In the original book, the Wizard really does tell Dorothy to straight up murder the Wicked Witch, who at that point wasn't even actively a threat to her. This act of violence wasn't added to the story of The Wiz Live! due to it being a black casted show. It was always there from when the story was originally written.
Would it really count as YMMV if the writeup itself states that it was only one person rather than a group of people and it doesn't even give any names as to who or what said it?
Edited by nwotyzalopenContemplating Cut Lit for this page
The Headscratchers page for ''The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack'' questions nothing about the show itself and rather focuses on its supposed cancellation/ending, in a complaining matter. I'm not sure though if it's completely justified to send to the Cut List, as it does ask questions related to the show, albeit not its in-universe content.
Edited by TVGuy2001openWhat if an AlternateUniverse had an AlternateSelf?
The MCU animated series What If…? (2021) has stories set in alternate universes than the MCU main one. There is an entry for Alternate Self, listing characters with divergences from the originals. I removed it saying "Trope misuse. Original and alternate must meet.", but then it was restored by Asherinka, who said "There is no such requirement according to the trope page. All variants in the MCU are valid examples of Alternate Self."
On a surface reading, he's right, the trope does not explicitly demand original and variant to meet. However, it can be understood by context: the description is about the comparisons and identity conflicts between both, and all the examples are about meetings of original and variant. And besides, just common sense: if "alternate version of a character" was in itself a trope, with no meeting required, it would be completely redundant with Alternate Universe, as everybody in such a universe is a variant of someone from the main universe by definition (barring some limited exceptions, like canon foreigners).
I don't want to start an edit war over this, so I would like to hear someone else's opinion.
openShould "Quietly Cancelled" have a waiting period to prevent pre-mature misuse?
Self-explanatory, really. Since Quietly Cancelled got launched today, I'm concerned that there will be misuse of examples pre-maturally calling works on hiatus "cancelled". I think there should be a waiting period of sorts to make sure the works are actually cancelled before adding examples, but what do you think?
openAsking and answering questions in an example--bad formatting?
I realize the question itself might be phrased poorly, so I'll elaborate. Every once in a while I see examples where the writer chose to ask themselves a question then answer it, as seen in this example from What If…? (2021) (spoilered because it's a new show)
The final battle has Captain Carter and her Howling Commandoes assaulting the HYDRA fortress Castle de krake in order to defeat the Red Skull and save the world. Red Skull is able to use the regained Tesseract to open a portal and summon a Kraken to destroy the Earth. The Kraken's first action? Kill the Red Skull!
Is this kind of phrasing okay, or is it Natter? I know it annoys me personally, but I don't wanna go deleting or editing things willy-nilly just because I have a pet peeve.
Edited by AfterwordopenAkiba's Trip H&D trope page editing please Videogame
Hey Y'all,
So Akiba's Trip H&D has been released after a few weeks now and I think its about time someone a bit more capable than me(I am but a measly and lazy troper who is both a little shitty at describing and getting myself to actually do something) can actually try to take a look and update the page a little more if possible. That being said, kindly also take a look at my edits(especially in the character page) and edit them as required because I'm pretty sure I didn't get them entirely right.
Let me know when any one of you who have actually played the game and take a look at it!
I'm also currently collecting Akiba's Trip extra materials to add in extra information that's All in the Manual stuff that elaborates more on the characters themselves and designer stuff(along with a few bits of Word of Saint Paul). When I get that stuff translated(...eventually, I'm having a hard time looking for someone to translate them), I'll prolly let those who help out with editing know.
openEdit war on YMMV.DigimonTamers
Link to the start of the edit chains
. lgcruz proceeded to downplay author's support for the conspiracies via rephrasing it to the tune of "he just talks about them", claiming to having posted "proof" in the forum thread
(with more posts on following pages).
On the page itself, after lgcruz' first softening edit, starjewel reverted it to what it was before and then lgcruz redid their changes.
openA note encouraging use of zero context examples
Spotted this note on Close on Title —
Looks like it was added back in 2015 by someone who was not a mod. Since this obviously flies in the face of Zero-Context Example, would it be cool if I removed it?
open Is there such a thing as a "Trusted Editor"? Western Animation
I've noticed that a troper, in their profile, listed themselves as a Trusted Editor of a specific set of pages here on tvtropes.
I hadn't ever come across that term before. If this a real thing, I'd be curious to know how that role works?
Or is it just a self-proclaimed title chosen by the troper that has no real meaning?
Edited by rva98014openWarning to NOT add context to examples?
Abraxas (Hrodvitnon) has a huge commented out header (takes up almost the entire screen on desktop, which has the instructions "Be aware, trope entries listed on these pages are deliberately shortened, to both keep spoilers to a minimal and actively encourage page viewers to read the actual fanfiction. Please do not extend entries, and try to avoid going into unnecessary details."
Is this kind of thing allowed? It seems like this encourages Zero-Context Examples- the page itself has a number of them, which I've commented out.
openRewrite vs Retcon
Characters.Kingdom Hearts Vanitas Characters.Kingdom Hearts Vanitas
- Re Write: It happens with Vanitas in Re:Mind. He is established in his debut game Birth By Sleep to be the living embodiment of Ven's darkness, extracted from his heart. Ten years later, in III's Re:Mind DLC, he suddenly reveals to Ven and Aqua in a new scene that he is actually a separate being who was merely hidden inside Ven's heart and ripped out by Xehanort (though the line from III referencing himself as a piece of Ven is still left in when he dies, suggesting that he still views himself as a part of Ven). Ven and Aqua don't care enough to get more information before he fades back into darkness. Union Cross supports this with the reveal that one of the 13 pieces of Darkness sealed itself inside Ven to escape on the ark.
I'm having trouble understanding how this is different than Retcon. The Re Write page states it's "A Retcon which directly ignores, contradicts or alters information in the Backstory." So is it a sub-trope of Retcon or The Same, but More Specific? The Re Write page also has examples from Alternate Continuity or changes things that were assumed as opposed to outright shown/stated which seems misuse, so the trope might need cleanup.

Tavernier just added several examples of Ass Pull to Digimon Adventure tri., all of which beginning with "Man, it sure is lucky that..." I don't think any of these are valid, since Ass Pull is for twists that are not properly foreshadowed; yet these entries are mostly complaining about certain events, as you can see below.
Should something be done?
Edited by TantaMonty