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:
openTwo similar tropes
What's the difference between Swap Teleportation and Switch-Out Move? On one hand they appear to feel distinct, and on the other they feel like a case of one of them being The Same, but More Specific. I would like some clarification as I've found myself getting confused over these two tropes.
openWiki Word for VideoGame.LostSmileAndStrangeCircus in lowercase (RESOLVED)
It reads like this: Lost Smile and Strange Circus, as a custom Wiki Word.
I've never played the games, but I stumbled upon this title while editing MonsterClown.Video Games. The game's title is written this way on its page, but the page image seems to use normal capitalization. I searched it up, and the title seems to be capitalized normally. I'd ask for a Wiki Word change myself, but I'm afraid of jumping the gun. Anyone more familiar with the work, is there any good reason for this odd capitalization? (I'm not sure if this would be good for here or Wiki Talk, but I thought it would be safe to post here.)
Edited by antenna_earsopenTrope Repair Shop? Videogame
Can someone tell me what constitutes trope misuse?
I noticed irregularities on the Stance System and took it to the repair shop. But unbeknowst to me, misuse is a very loaded term on this site and I didn't have a firm enough case.
When is it serious enough to warrant a new thread, and if it isn't that serious, should I just open a discussion tab on the trope itself, or is there some other forum thread?
open Something concerns me
Edit: Ugh, I'm sorry this is such a wall of text, but I think all the information is important, so I can't trim it too much :(
That something is related to Tropers/{{4tell0life4}}. Now, I want to preface this by saying that I'm not doing this to try and get them suspended, as I think their actual editing is fine, and no big issues have been caused by this so far. I just think it's something that needs to be resolved, as it's been grating on my nerves for a while now, and is a recurring pattern of behavior with them.
They seem to have an issue with the whole... "Consensus" thing. You don't need to take my word for it- their new signature even confirms this; but their actions do, too. Take, for instance, their old TLP record- at least twice, they'd attempted to overrule draft consensus and push their own feelings forward, once where they tried to ignore a crowner going against their opinion
, and of course, that time they threatened to change examples on a draft because they didn't want them to be there.
They were already banned for being rude on the TLP, but this isn't to do with that- it's to do with their unwillingness to accept that the wiki has to work by consensus, and that big changes need proper discussion.
Why am I bringing this up now? Well, there's been a specific trend on Trope Finder where he'll suggest an unfitting trope, myself or someone else will point out they're using that trope incorrectly, and then they'll insist that the trope itself needs to be changed. This in and of itself isn't a big deal- but they always seem to want to make these changes on the Trope Description Improvement Drive, despite that changes like this actually change the meaning of the trope, and require Trope Repair Shop.
Here's
one debate I had with them over how to fix Assumed Win, and the ensuing TDID post
where they did in fact attempt to change the trope's meaning there. Just recently, the same thing is happening with Relative Button: They're declaring the trope not broad enough
and taking it to TDID, rather than TRS
, because they think changing the description like this doesn't change the meaning of the trope, I assume because they already believe the trope's description is "wrong"- rather than that it just doesn't trope what they think it should. There are a lot of similar Trope Finder debates we've had that weren't immediately taken to the forums, and we also had similar arguments on TLP and the forums itself, where it just felt like I was arguing with a wall, who seemed to think that wiki-consensus on things like cut tropes and appearance tropes
is just bureaucracy and that the solution is more cleanup, not fixing the problem at it's source.
All in all, this just really worries me, not to mention that their new sig may actually be a shot at me; I don't want to make accusations, but I've used the term "consensus" in a lot of conversations with them, so it makes me a little wary. It all just adds up to someone whose attitude about wiki-issues is at odd with the rest of the wiki's, and someone who doesn't seem to enjoy getting proper consensus before they change things (or, alternatively, dislike what consensus produces).
Edited by WarJay77openYMMV Nostalgia Critic Edit War?
During my cleanup for The Nostalgia Critic and its subpages, I deleted this Seasonal Rot entry on the basis that it doesn't describe why the whole season was bad, just focusing more on the show being Overshadowed by Controversy by an external scandal and two bad episodes out of a season of over fifty.
- In 2019, the decline has continued. Since the #ChangeTheChannel scandal, the Nostalgia Critic has increasingly become the target of ridicule in many internet circles. His review of The Wall was so widely hated that it became a meme in and of itself. The episode's lacking quality also lead viewers to start becoming more critical of future episodes, and even reflect on the flaws of past episodes initially given a free pass. The "Maybe he was transitioning" line from the Venom review wasn't received well in certain circles, either (though even in-universe, it was viewed as a dumb explanation). Even on This Very Wiki, there hasn't been as much activity regarding more recent episodes.
minikiss just re-added it
, but cut out the ChangeTheChannel and Venom mentions. However, the example still doesn't stand because it only refers to a single episode and the implication that the episode being bad made people more critical of other episodes, past and future, which doesn't indicate that particular season (or even the "recent" seasons, since it includes past episodes) being bad.
They also added a Hype Backlash entry which may or may not fit. Personally I don't think it does because the show's reputation has plummeted in recent years, so thinking it's bad now isn't really Hype Backlash - that's the common consensus.
Edited by mightymewtronopen A cleanup thread for No Lewdness No Prudishness
Do we have a cleanup thread for lewdness? Specifically, I'm working on my The Nostalgia Critic cleanup and a lot of examples on- and off-page seem unnecessarily focused on fetish crap, which unfortunately extends to some wicks for Doug Walker himself. I'm sure some other pages have this issue as well.
I don't want to jump right into making a thread if we don't have one already, especially since collecting bad NSFW examples might be a content violation in itself, but sometimes I can't tell whether I'm being too prudish wanting to delete certain examples or if keeping them there is just bringing the page quality down.
openStrawman Has a Point query
Recently, I noticed that an instance of Strawman Has a Point in Calvin and Hobbes was deleted, with this being the stated edit reason:
I personally disagree with this removal. For context, the entry was about a Story Arc where Calvin is presented as wholly in the wrong for not reacting well to an assignment; but while he does handle it in about the worst way possible, the narrative never addresses that the assignment itself (gathering fifty leaves, each from a different species of tree, then putting them in a collection and labeling each one with both its tree's common and scientific names) is downright unreasonable to expect a first-grader to do, which vindicates at least some of Calvin's resentment at having to do it.
openInformed Wrongness/Strawman Has a Point duplicate?
- Informed Wrongness: Danny using his powers to not only defend himself from Dash (like turning his chin intangible when Dash tries to punch him in the face) but openly fight back after Dash refuses to leave him alone, are explicitly stated by Sam and Vlad to be Danny going down a dark path, using his powers selfishly, and becoming more like Vlad, even though Danny has every right to not get bullied anymore. Asking Dash nicely never worked, so if using his ghost powers is what it takes to make Dash back off, Danny has every right to do so.
- Strawman Has a Point: Raise your hand if you agree with Danny that by now it's ridiculous that he keeps letting Dash pick on him when he has ghost powers and can use it to fight back, and finally get Dash to leave him alone.
They're saying the same thing, so which one is the better fit? It was asked what was the diffence between Informed Wrongness and Strawman Has a Point but if fizzled out without results.
If Strawaman is a sub-trope of Informed Wrongness, what makes is different/more specific?
I lean to cutting Strawaman as Danny is a normal character holding the Jerkass Ball as opposed to a strawman, who is created/exists entirely to be wrong. That a good distinction?
Or is Designated Evil a better fit as such retaliation is morally wrong but it fails to present a viable morally better alternative.
How is this for a distinction between the three?
- Informed Wrongness: A hero does somthing that's treaded as morally undesirable (like giving away free food) without showing how it is.
- Designated Evil: A hero does somthing that's morally undesirable (like Killing in Self-Defense) without showing viable alternatives.
- Strawman Has a Point: A character created to be morally wrong does somthing that's morally undesirable but has untintentionally valid reasons/argments for such.
openIs it appropriate to add a relevant reference to one's self to a work's page?
So, in effect, I am a Promoted Fanboy who has gone on to also become a variation of Teasing Creator for a web original. I'm certainly not the only Promoted Fanboy, so I can be pretty vague on that one, but the Teasing Creator part is unique to me and one other person involved in the work. I want to avoid accidentally adding anything to the page that could be read as self-promotion, since I know that is against the rules, but I also seem to be the only person maintaining the work's page. Would it be appropriate for me to add these facts to the work's trivia page?
openWhy are people just arbitrarily removing red links for work pages?
I've been noticing this happening lately in pages I made. Even though the Red Link page says to leave red links for works in so that it's easier to crosswick later, people keep editing them out.
For instance, in the Spiritual Crossover page, a Red Link for Hawkgirl was removed, and then in the Split-Personality Switch Trigger page, two links for Outlaw Kid - a character with 45 issues to his name - were removed, with the only justification being that it was a red link. One of them even linked to the Red Link page itself in the edit reason, despite the fact that this action would seem to indicate they didn't actually read said page.
Either that, or the policy changed and no one bothered to update the Red Link page.
Edited by DBZfan102openWeird sandbox
Imperial Majesty XO created Sandbox.Gay Draft Sandbox on October 8th. It doesn't appear to be that discussion happened to result in its creation, and the sandbox itself doesn't seem to serve any real purpose. That, and it's related to the TLP incident.
Edited by GoldenCityBirdopen Was Donald Trump tempting fate?
OK, so I realize that just about any discussion related to Donald Trump is a ROCEJ land-mine, and should be approached with extreme caution. But I wanted to bring this up because it seemed fairly straightforward.
Would this be an OK example for Tempting Fate?
- Over the course of the Coronavirus Pandemic, Donald Trump spent a significant amount of time claiming that COVID-19 was not a serious threat to the American People. He ignored it by holding in-person rallies and discouraged the use of masks. Ultimately, he caught it himself, and more than 200,000 American citizens died as a result of the virus.
openShould the "Giant's Dream" have spoiler tags? Western Animation
A recent ATT thread
discussed The Iron Giant which had been made "spoilers off" 2 years ago and the consensus was that should be "spoilers on" again.
There's a little debate over what story details should be spoiler tagged. The obvious consensus was the nuclear strike on Rockwell and the Giant's sacrifice to save it as well as the reveal that the Giant survived and was re-assembling itself in Iceland.
However, there's some contention about whether the contents of the "Giant's Dream" should be tagged as well. As a quick recap, after the encounter with the hunters, deer and rifle, the Giant has a dream that night that reveals glimpses about his origin... that he was created to be one of an army of robots who were designed to be a planetary invasion force and had the firepower to physically tear a planet apart.
The dream sequence was cut because of financial constraints due to WB Animation shutting down their animation department even as the production team was frantically trying to get The Iron Giant finished.
It was never included in the theatrical release nor in the early waves of dvds & bluray releases. It wasn't until the 2015 "Signature Edition" that the scene was completed and restored into the film.
As such, for a majority of readers who aren't big Iron Giant fans then this is a plot point that is not widely known and, in my opinion, worthy of spoiler tags.
If the majority of viewers aren't aware of the Giant's sacrifice at the end such that it warrants spoiler tags, then they surely aren't going to know about the Giant's Dream and I feel it deserves the same consideration.
Edited by rva98014openCommented-out notes on Dream. Web Original
Dream has a lot of commented-out notes at the top of the page. While commented-out notes are usually related to cleanups and image picking, these ones are not. For ease of access:
%%Thanks to all the people that contributed to LetsPlay.Dream! %% List of contributors here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/editors.php?entry=LetsPlay.Dream
%% Feel free to add yourself to this list
(List of some people who contributed to the page, currently at 13 editors)
%% THINGS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED ON: %% More examples (let's get to a thousand!)
%% ''[[LetsPlay/{{Dream}} Dream's]]'' %% ''LetsPlay/{{Dream}}:''
%% The two lines above are for easy copy and pasting when crosswicking
The commented-out notes have been discussed by two people at the page's discussion page
, but I feel like some other opinions are needed. Are these commented-out notes OK?
openProblematic Review Web Original
Kelekona
left a review for Protectors of the Plot Continuum
, which is basically them importing personal drama from their interactions with the authors and not actually reviewing the work itself.
I flagged the review for drama importation, and Very Melon left a couple comments criticizing the review for that. Kelekona then decided to make a YMMV page for them, accusing them of being "pro-bullying". So now, this has descended into personal attacks against other users on the site.
Edited by chasemaddiganopenIs there any restrictions on what can be considered as a character or not? (Vtuber/hololive) Web Original
So over at Characters/Hololive, we had a debate
on whether we should include a particular character in our Characters page, where each character we have there at the moment is a hololive member & a vtuber in their own right (with the exception of one), each having their own Youtube channel.
A while ago somebody added an entry for a non-vtuber character (Anemachi), who is the sister of one of the hololive vtubers (Suisei). Despite not being a vtuber herself, Anemachi has a character portrait and occasionally makes appearances in Suisei's livestream at an average rate of about "once every few months". So you can say she's a somewhat recurring character on Suisei's channel.
Now, a troper had a problem with the inclusion of Anemachi with their reasoning being that she's not a hololive member. What I would like to know is that if there are any rules on TV Tropes that state who should be "worthy" of having a Characters entry or not. Because otherwise I don't see any problem with adding what is essentially a Minor Character into the Characters/Hololive page (with the hololive members themselves being Main Characters), seeing as even one-off characters from all sort of works get entries deliciated to them on TV Tropes.
Edited by AsoktencheaopenComplaints Magnet? Film
The Critical Research Failure section under Mulan (2020) is getting quite long and nitpicky, in excess of even what the most flexible interpretations of the trope allow. While a lot of people have correctly called the film out for failing to get basic aspects of Chinese culture correct despite advertising itself as more authentic, a lot of these examples come off as less informed criticisms and more an excuse for certain users to kick the film while it's down by parroting criticisms they saw elsewhere, some of which may misunderstand the actual reason for why the mistake was such an issue in the first place, or introduce Critical Research Failure of their own.
This despite scholars of Chinese culture and people of Chinese descent themselves pointing out that these aspects of Chinese culture get subjected to Artistic License within Chinese-created media all the time, and are not as clear-cut or even the worst crimes the film commits.
Edited by AlleyOopopenPage split: Characters.SentinelsOfTheMultiverseVillains feedback
- Link: Characters.Sentinels Of The Multiverse Villains
- Discussion: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Characters.SentinelsOfTheMultiverseVillains#comment-121611
So there's a bit of dispute over how this page split should be done, you can see the debate between Spectral Time and myself on the Discussion page. It's currently listed alphabetically, and I just feel like there should be subcategorization, because there's 30+ folders, and depending on how the franchise develops beyond the original card game, there could potentially be more to come.
I think there are a few somewhat natural break points — the original game was divided into expansions, and in the mechanics of the card game some of the villains are fought on their own with their own minions while others are fought as part of a team of other villains. Some villains have decks for both, but the latter only appear in the second-to-last two expansions. Similarly, OblivAeon and his Scions are fought as a kind of massive Final Boss for the game as a whole, and have some very different rules as well. And then there are Nemeses, which are one-off cards which appear in other team villains' decks but don't have decks of their own so far (and aren't likely to get them, as the card game is officially complete at this time).
Spectral Time doesn't like the above ideas, as he thinks they require readers to possess additional information. I feel like it's just the opposite, though — it's information we're giving them, not information they need to have in advance. There were two other editors who had voted to split by expansion, but I felt like maybe it would be better to put this to ATT and get some more opinions/suggestions and then put it to a vote of sorts.
So the suggestions so far:
- Leave the page in alphabetical order
- Reorganize the page by expansion
- Move the team villains, nemeses, and OblivAeon to their own page, leaving the solo villains sorted alphabetically
- Some combination/variation of the above
Spectral is not necessarily in favour of alphabetical order but hasn't liked any of the other ideas so far. Any other suggestions or ideas based on how other Characters pages do it are welcome. Thanks for your help. Please feel free to ask for clarification.
Edited by Unsungopen Edit warring over including Deadpool on the MCU franchise page. Film
Alright, I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but here it goes... There's been some controversy on the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise page regarding the addition of one untitled Deadpool film, which has been confirmed to be in early development by trades and anyone worth a damn. The problem is that Deadpool co-creator Rob Liefeld has recently stated something to the contrary, and that's spawned a ton of clickbait headlines and the spread of misinformation.
Here's the thing - the only person who says that nothing is happening with a character that brought in $1.5B in global ticket sales is Rob Liefeld, who is not part of the Marvel Studios picture at all. He is not being included in conversations about the next movie in spite of being a consultant on the Fox movies, and he recently shared some fan art of Deadpool killing Mickey Mouse on his social media page, so he is clearly not an impartial source of information here.
Another big problem with his statement is that allegedly, production grids for the next film in the series are out there, seen by a select few (including some industry insiders). Disney CEO Bob Iger also has an image of Deadpool on his Twitter banner, and previously noted that he's open to the idea of there being an R-rated Marvel Studios label for a third Deadpool movie and potentially other films. Marvel are currently in the process of making an omnibus of Deadpool stories from Joe Kelly, who gave the character the personality that fans of the character love. But most importantly, not only have Deadpool 1 and Deadpool 2 writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick officially met with Marvel Studios about the future of the franchise, but Ryan Reynolds, who is the only "FoX-Men" actor likely to make the jump into the MCU, has as well.
This was the original entry on the page before it got reverted:
- Untitled Deadpool film (TBA) note Confirmed by Ryan Reynolds to be in development. Reynolds will be returning as Deadpool, with writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick returning. Emma Watts and Simon Kinberg, who were involved with the previous films, will not be returning. The film will be the first R-rated entry in the MCU, and is expected to be distributed by 20th Century Studios instead of by Disney. Whether or not the film is a complete reboot or a Broad Strokes continuation of the franchise as it was prior to Disney's acquisition of Fox remains to be seen.
I tried relaying some of this information into the commented-out notes of article itself, but a Troper has recently accused me of being "biased" and is threatening to report me for vandalism... In spite of my simple relaying of crucial information like what I've shared above that debunks the speculation that Disney wants nothing to do with Deadpool. I am requesting that the Deadpool entry be reinstated into the article.
Edited by KingClark

On DethroningMoment.Advertising, there are several different entries made by the same tropers (myself included, admittedly), but about advertising from different products. Other genre works allow repeated examples as long as they're not repeating the same moment from the same show/movie/etc, so what's the standard for DMOS on advertising? Is it a DMOS for all advertising, in which the repeated entries wouldn't be allowed, or just a DMOS for those specific brands' advertising campaigns, in which the repeated examples are okay if they're for different franchises? (This would also make it clearer whether examples that refer to entire campaigns can be cut, since they may be the nadir of advertisement in general, but too general for a specific campaign.)
Edited by mightymewtron