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:
openAbsentee Actor question
Question about Absentee Actor, which is about unexplained character absences. If Word of God or supplementary material explains the absence, is it still Absentee Actor if it's not explained in the work itself? What about explanations released after the fact?
Pls stop calling everything Harsher In Hindsight
openMinmaxersDelight and SuperWeight have issues
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MinmaxersDelight
I'm not sure 100% what's wrong with the ordering, but D&D is mentioned about 4 different times in the 'Tabletop games' folder at random points, and a few 5e things are mushed in with the 3.5e section. I'd fix it myself but I'm not sure how to sort them since I only play 5e (and even then not much)
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuperWeight
The table is incredibly messed up, no idea how to fix this.
openSelf Review
On Shinobi: The RPG, somebody calming to be the author of the fanfic has posted a review
saying that it was an Old Shame and warns others to not repeat the same mistake. Are self reviews allowed?
openBad Example of Base-Breaking Character? Print Comic
I was looking at Batgirl (2011), and came across this:
- Base-Breaking Character: Alysia Yeoh. Less about the character herself, and more about whether her being transgender is handled well or is being shoved into the reader's face to make the comic look progressive. Her getting Demoted to Extra when Cameron Stewart, Brenden Fletcher and Babs Tarr took over made this worse. It doesn't help that when she was brought back, many felt that the writers are treating her less like a full character, and more like a PR stunt.
- Wouldn't this be a case of Broken Base, rather than Base-Breaking Character, if the divide is "less about the character herself"?
- Is she even a base-breaking character? I'm not in the Batgirl fandom, so I have no idea what the general mood is, but in my experience, when someone uses the "shoved in the reader's face", it suggests someone's been analyzing things in bad faith.
openNightmare Face Web Original
Nightmare Face has a lot of examples from TV Tropes itself, which lists pages whose images fit the trope. The thing is, examples are not supposed to mention that they provide the page image. I already cleaned up a bunch of examples that had unnecessary "This example illustrates the show's Nightmare Fuel page", so do I delete all of the TV Tropes examples?
openOverlapping character pages due to misnamed work Web Original
Transformers: War for Cybertron is sharing its character page with the unrelated Transformers: War for Cybertron because someone misnamed the former. The show is actually called Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy (also, I'm not sure if it counts as Web Animation if it's a Netflix original, since Castlevania isn't considered web animation, and War for Cybertron calls itself an anime).
Can I move it? And if yes, should it be to Transformers War For Cybertron Trilogy, Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy or Transformers War For Cybertron Trilogy?
openHelstrom editing conflict. Live Action TV
Alright, so there's a bit of an editing conflict going on with the Series.Helstrom page involving myself and a troper by the handle of alliterator. As of right now, Marvel TV is basically on its way out while Marvel Studios prepares their own series, and Helstrom is one of the last shows that the former group made. It's basically DOA with the showrunner gone, and Marvel noticeably have used absolutely no branding on their project, the latter of which is something that I pointed out. (The reasoning for this seems to be that they want to not associate Helstrom with their future shows and movies, but I don't think that that needs to be in the article.) I also pointed out that the series lacked this labeling supposedly due to horror themes, despite three Marvel projects based around horror (Moon Knight, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, and Blade) being actively developed with the Marvel Studios banner intact.
However, alliterator disagreed with that last part of the edit and excised it, saying that it had to do with a TV-MA rating which we don't even know that the show has — not that TV-MA stopped any of the Netflix shows from getting the Marvel label. I initially reinstated the edit with an explanation. Here's how it read before the bold part was cut out:
"Curiously, the series has absolutely no Marvel branding associated with it in any advertising, whereas the same was not true for any prior Marvel TV productions — or film productions without any association with Marvel Studios, for that matter. According to Marvel, this was due to the show's "horror-based content". However, this decision is in contrast to how the Marvel branding is kept on Marvel Studios-produced projects with supernatural themes, such as the television series Moon Knight, or the films Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Blade."
This edit was reverted for being "speculation"... Which doesn't make any sense to me, as Helstrom has objectively no Marvel branding while all three
projects that
I listed
have the Marvel Studios logo attached to them (and not just the generic Marvel logo). I figure that this discrepancy is noteworthy enough to be mentioned and I wanted to say my piece before I asked to have it reinstated.
openCommon Knowledge and Misaimed Fandom examples?
I was thinking about adding the following tropes, but have doubts about their validity so I'm running them by here first.
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 2 E 25 A Canterlot Wedding Part 1
- Common Knowledge: Many criticize Twilight's friends, Shining Armor and Celestia for ignoring Twilight's warnings of Cadance being evil, especially while Canterlot was under threat. They did hear out her warning but Cadance had an alibi or rational for all the accusations Twilight made. Shining Armor stated they didn't know who was threatening Canterlot and changelings were so unknown "Part 2" had to explain what they were to the characters, meaning there was no reason to assume Cadance's behavior was suspicious or connected. They're also accused of disowning Twilight when Shining merely told her not to attend the wedding due to her behavior, everyones walking out on Twilight was to go after the "distraught" Cadance who'd ran off and seemingly needed them more at the time.
- Misaimed Fandom: Given all the Accusation Fics calling everyone out for dismissing Twilight's warning's, one might assume she was meant to be 100% in the right for her actions. In the episode proper she's portrayed a making at least as many bad decisionsexamples Everyone's Aesop Amnesia about taking your friends worries seriously, Twilight also forgot the far more recent not to make conclusions without proof. Everyone being quick to condemn Twilight, Twilight was just a quick to condemn Cadance never conserving she might not be herself. Everyone ignoring the threat to Canterlot, Twilight also did never considering it might be connected. and was only "right" due to exceptional circumstance, hence "Part 2" putting equal emphasis on Twilight admitting she was fooled to as everyone apologizing for doubting her. There’s many fans who wanted Twilight to blow up on everyone and call them out for dismissing her despite her doing so this episode being shown as what caused them to dismiss her.
Previous Common Knowledge cleanup left me the impression it’s only for misconceptions that arise from those who didn’t watch the actual source material. This may be given the prevalence in the fanon that can be confused with canon, or is it not common enough if the incident is unknown outside the fandom? Is this unknown outside fandom? Fan Myopia seems a problem for this trope.
Does Misaimed Fandom apply for situations where both sides were equally wrong? Or does that imply a level of writing nuance that the episode lacked?
I can put these points under Fourth Wall Myopia if nothing else. Any other tropes these may fit better?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenDo I need to do anything about a flame-bait flag?
SPOTLIGHTSTEALINGSQUAD: Originally intended as a deconstruction of a [This example contains a Flame Bait entry. It should be moved to the Flame Bait tab.Mary Sue], Sarah became this to Kain and Raziel before Timestreamer Archimedes stole the spotlight from her.
I really don't want to call the character a self-insert. I'm willing to take other suggestions.
openNeed assistance with troublesome situation on Characters. Street Fighter V
Yesterday, Tropers.Darth Walrus added Glass Cannon to Characters.Street Fighter V in relation to the character Abigail
. The problem is, this was his SECOND time adding said trope to the page; the first time was almost 3 years ago in August 2017
, which was then removed less than a month later
by Tropers.Red Rover Red Rover.
Red Rover's reason for removing it at the time was "This trope is about not being able to take many hits. Abigail can take plenty". When Darth Walrus readded it recently, his edit reason was "You can check up any guide that talks about Abigail's weaknesses, and all of them put his vulnerability to pressure and poor defensive options on the top of the list."
Based on Darth Walrus's edit reason, it seemed probable to me that he re-added the example deliberately, and thus ignited an Edit War albeit with a 3 year gap. I attempted to bring the matter to the Discussion page
in order to explain that this was Edit Warring and to argue why I agreed with Red Rover's position that the character did not count as a Glass Cannon (more on this later).
Darth Walrus's reaction, however, seemed to imply that he didn't remember the older edit (which conflicts with his reaction in the edit reason). In addition, he immediately became hostile and stated that pointing out that this was an Edit War was "accusing" him. Over the next several replies, I attempt to once again affirm that what he did was an Edit War (even if it wasn't intentional), and as I told him there, I am 90% certain that he knew he was Edit Warring based on his edit reason but decided to at least talk things out before I brought things here. Walrus, however, continued to attack me for calling what he did an Edit War and also accused me of not arguing in "good faith", despite my attempts to do just that before resorting to this very query.
P.S.: On top of that, Walrus also added a very questionable "Long-Range Fighter" example to the same page, and also added this
nattery and incorrectly-bulleted example to Informed Ability. Even in the example itself he admits that it's pedantic and sinkholes Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.
Anyway, that leaves the site editing policy issues out of the way. Now to get down to the Glass Cannon debate itself.
In Street Fighter V, Abigail is the largest (over 8 feet tall) and most resilient character (1100 health, more the 1000 HP average) in the entire game. He also hits like a mac truck, destroying up to 80% of an opponent's health with one combo if he has the resources. His main weakness (as Walrus pointed out) is that if he's knocked down or cornered, Abigail has no Counter-Attack or reversal abilities. His only option is to sit back and block and hope that his opponent eventually makes a mistake. Walrus argues that this makes him a Glass Cannon. He has no Dragon Punch or invincible Spinning Piledriver to fight back if he's cornered.
As I pointed out, hoever, Abigail not having other options besides blocking only makes his defense bad relative to characters that have those abilities (and not everyone does). Sure, he might end up taking a lot of damage as he waits for the opponent to mess up, but that doesn't change the fact that he has more health than the other characters and that if they took the exact same hits, they would be even more damaged than he is.
I also pointed out that tanking damage to wait for his chance is specifically how Abigail's gameplay work. Abigail has Super Armor attacks that are intended to let him take damage while either getting closer or starting one of those INSANELY damaging combos I mentioned before. As Walrus says Abigail may not "want" to get hit, and he may not "want" to be on the defensive, but his entire gameplay rests upon waiting out an opponent while they damage him so that when he gets his hands on them, he can absolutely demolish them.
My apologies for the length of this query, but I wanted to bring everything to attention before anyone responded. I'm about to go to bed in a few moments, so if anyone needs me to chime in, I'll be back in a few hours.
Also, both Darth Walrus and Red Rover Red Rover have been invited to participate.
Thank you.
Edited by NubianSatyressopen Long list of ways to spot a FakeCharity
Fake Charity has a long series of bullets about Real Life fake charities, added by a mix of tropers rather than a single person. It reads to me like beyond the scope of the site, plus it's not about examples of the trope but instead in general. Checking to see if that's the read other people have before bringing out the ax and fire.
- Ways you can spot a fake (or potentially fake) charity:
- It is not registered with your local/state/provincial/federal government.
- Charity watchdog sites either do not list it, or have listed it as suspicious.
- A representative who is collecting for the charity either cannot or will not answer any questions you have.
- They ask for donations using wire transfers, cash, money orders, prepaid cards and the like.
- They don't provide either a mailing address or a physical address, or they do, but it's fake.
- They don't provide a phone number, or they do, but it's fake, or no one ever answers.
- You're made to feel guilty, or like you're selfish/a bad person/etc. if you don't want to donate, or don't want to donate now.
- A collector either cannot or will not supply identification, or their identification is bogus.
- They keep hounding you for donations, even after you've told them to stop calling or sending you mail.
- Their website looks almost exactly like that of a legitimate website, but the details concerning where to donate and whom to donate to are different.
- It purports to help a local fire or police department or hospital, but the actual fire department/police department/hospital has no knowledge of this charity or fundraiser.
- They solicit donations from you via email campaigns. Generally speaking, real charities don't solicit donations through email. (This could be a variation of the classic 419 Scam.)
- They ask for donations via store or online gift cards or online currencies such as iTunes. Once again real charities don't solicit donations in this way.
- They ask for wiring of money through a wiring service like Western Union. Once again this is also not typically a way that a real charity would solicit money.
- You get an email asking for financial help for a sick child (or occasionally adult), often sent as a Chain Letter, and (more importantly) with no information (such as an address, whether the child in question is being tended to at a hospital or at home, a diagnosis, a prognosis, perhaps the name of a doctor or hospital, etc.), but what is included is information on where to donate money to, usually via wire transfer.
- They don't accept material donations like food, razor blades, or clothing even when they say they intend to use the money on such items. note While many real charities also don't accept material donations, the legit ones will usually provide helpful information to other charities that do.
- Of course, what can muddy the waters here is that even legitimate charities have been officially censured for the "hard sell" tactics used by paid agents; one of the most respectable names in the business, Oxfam, and several other big names, were publicly exposed by the UK's Charity Commission (the overseeing body) for their use of "chuggers" note the disparaging term "charity mugger", used for paid agents soliciting donations and for their use of third-party call centres and agents who were paid by commission and were not too scrupulous over making sales. The results were horrendous
. the chuggers used both the inculcating-guilt scam and the persistent nuisance calling of people who had already told them not to.
- Various "watchdog" sites such as Charity Navigator
, CharityWatch
, and BBB Wise Giving Alliance
rate real-life nonprofits on their transparency, accountability, and efficient use of funds.
- One common complaint about crowdfunding websites such as GoFundMe
is that it's very easy for any scammer to post a sob story and receive donations. The sites do have fraud reporting tools, but they also can be lax about following up on how people use the donations they receive.
- Of course, this is every bit as illegal as conning people out of their money by any other means, and people have gotten jail time for it
when they've been caught.
- Of course, this is every bit as illegal as conning people out of their money by any other means, and people have gotten jail time for it
- Be wary of charities or fundraisers you've never heard of that pop up all of a sudden in the wake of a natural disaster or some other type of humanitarian crisis. While some of them are legitimate, at least an equal number of them are the result of Con Artists looking to take advantage of the chaos, and take advantage of the generosity of people who want to help. And you might not be able to tell which is which until it's too late. If you want to make donations towards disaster relief organizations, your best bet is to find a reputable charity through one of the aforementioned "watchdog" sites.
openLost Aesop questions
I looked over Lost Aesop and found many examples that make me question the trope.
- "One Bad Apple" is so clumsy with its intended messages of "standing up to a bully makes you a bully as well" and "telling an adult is the solution to being bullied" that it makes one wonder if some of the cast or crew secretly disagreed with them. In the climax of the episode, almost immediately after the Crusader's epiphany that they should have told an adult, Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon pop up and begin bullying them right in front of Applejack who does nothing other than frown, effectively negating aesop number one. Then Babs Seed gets in their faces and intimidates them into leaping back in fear and landing in the mud, effectively solving the current bullying issue by standing up to them and negating aesop number two.
This is redundant with Broken Aesop, which applies to many other examples (also redundant with Clueless Aesop).
- "Lesson Zero": While the other ponies learn that they should take their friends' worries seriously even if they think the concern is trivial, Twilight Sparkle doesn't seem to have learned (or at least doesn't say she has learned) not to let trivial concerns get the better of her. On the other hand, the Aesop is mentioned alongside the former in their letter to Celestia, while not by Twilight herself, she is among those making it at the time, implying she agrees with it. It would explain however why the Aesop was repeated in Twilight's next spotlight episode, which she definitely gets the jist of that time.
Besides arguing with itself, the episode never intended that to be the episodes Aesop. "Indecisive Deconstruction" was cut in part for the same issue as it assumed a work was trying for X which isn't valid for non-YMMV.
My impression is that Lost Aesop is for when the Aesop is ignored or contradicted in later installments, but the Lost Aesop page is unclear and convoluted noting the trope is about the Aesop being unclear and convoluted which is not the case for this and many other examples. I was planning a cleanup because it looks like a catch all for complaining about mishandling of Aesops such the intended definition is unclear. Thoughts?
I also asked Aesop Cleanup
but was ignored.
openMisused: Villain Has a Point Example Videogame
So, the idea behind the "X has a point" tropes is when a character with negative connotations is mentioned to have a point In-Universe. So in this entry in the Visual Novel folder, we have:
- Fate/stay night: An All There in the Manual example. Gilgamesh plans to use the corrupted Grail to unleash all of humanity's sins upon the world, which will kill off ninety percent of the population, and then rule over what remains. The heroes never discuss this plan; he obviously needs to be stopped, there is no need to talk about it. But due to the way magic works, there's nothing inherently wrong with his plan. The people of Uruk were practically a Precursor race, part of the reason for humanity's decline is because magic has been spread out among too many people, and as humanity's first king Gilgamesh does have the divine right to make this sort of decision. But it never gets brought up in text because obviously he can't be allowed to kill billions of people.
Given that in the visual novel itself this never gets brought up as a good point and all characters react with disgust towards this idea, is this really a case of Villain Has a Point? From what i've observed this seems to be more of an out of universe interpretation from the user. (Specially since, again, all characters dismiss his Divine Right of Kings as a cheap excuse towards his actions)
openmercutiyo2003
Here are two of mercutiyo2003's edits.
A poorly done yamato nadeshiko, however, will turn out like an Extreme Doormat. They are silent and submissive without the inner strength of a true yamato nadeshiko. This is a common stereotype of East Asian women in Western fiction and is often referred to derisively as the China Doll
stereotype.
With some notable exceptions, yamato nadeshiko will be of medium height, willowy, modestly endowed, and good-looking without being too beautiful or too cute; they will have pale skin and long dark hair with full, straight bangs and sidelocks. They'll dress in feminine fashions: skirts, blouses, low-heeled shoes, lace, ribbons and simple hair ornaments. The other option is the impeccable ladylike style for adults. A kimono is likely to be worn by a nadeshiko brought up in the good old Kyoto style. Some may wear jewelry and make-up, but not too much. Their voices will often be as gentle, calm, and warm as melted butter. Large, rounded eyes are always a good bet. It is not unusual for geisha to be a yamato nadeshiko.
Sometimes, these ladies will also know self-defense, even if they would rather not fight if it can be avoided. This makes sense as many nadeshiko came from samurai clans and thus were trained in fighting, so they could defend their homes whenever the males were absent. If that's the case, they'll be very graceful and effective in the battlefield, and they're likely to be White Magician Girls or Barrier Warriors. If they're neither, they'll likely use polearms, lances (specifically naginata which daughters of samurai families were traditionally trained in and included in their dowry) or bow/arrows, and maybe even small tantou daggers that may be hidden in their clothes.
These characters pop up a lot in Magical Girlfriend series (usually as the one who will win the male lead's heart) and as the "Betty" in Betty and Veronica Love Triangles. They tend to be very sympathetic, but their passive, reactionary nature puts them in danger of becoming Satellite Characters for more "interesting" people, as well as a target of bashing from fans who prefer more active love interests such as Tsundere. Obviously, this trope is most popular in Japan.
to:
Sometimes a Nadeshiko would drop all subtlety and nuance and would be an Extreme Doormat. They are silent and submissive without the inner strength of a true yamato nadeshiko. This is a common stereotype of East Asian women in Western fiction and is often referred to derisively as the China Doll
stereotype, possibly because of the East’s restrictive standards.
With some notable exceptions, yamato nadeshiko will be of medium height, willowy, modestly endowed, and good-looking without being too beautiful or too cute (whatever that means); they will have pale skin and long dark hair with full, straight bangs and sidelocks. They're restricted to feminine fashions: skirts, blouses, low-heeled shoes, lace, ribbons and simple hair ornaments. The other option is the impeccable ladylike style for adults. A kimono is likely to be worn by a nadeshiko brought up in the good old Kyoto style. Some may wear jewelry and make-up, but not “too much” (again, whatever that means). Their voices will often be as gentle, calm, and saccharinely high. Large, rounded eyes are always a good bet. It is not unusual for geisha to be a yamato nadeshiko.
Sometimes, these ladies will also know self-defense, even if they would rather not fight if it can be avoided. This makes sense as many nadeshiko came from samurai clans and thus were trained in fighting, so they could defend their homes whenever the males were absent, because in Feudal Japan they were never expected to fight in other situations. If that's the case, they'll be very graceful and effective in the battlefield, and they're likely to be White Magician Girls or Barrier Warriors. If they're neither, they'll likely use polearms, lances (specifically naginata which daughters of samurai families were traditionally trained in and included in their dowry) or bow/arrows, and maybe even small tantou daggers that may be hidden in their clothes.
These characters pop up a lot in Magical Girlfriend series (usually as the one who will win the male lead's heart) and as the "Betty" in Betty and Veronica Love Triangles. They tend to be very sympathetic, but their passive, reactionary nature puts them in danger of becoming Satellite Characters for more interesting people, as well as a target of bashing from fans who prefer more active love interests such as Tsundere. Obviously, this trope is most popular in the East, where restrictive gender roles are the norm.
Speaking of that, these character types are usually more unpopular in Europe, Australia, and even America. In those countries this kind of gender role-where women might have a certain amount of power, but only in a domestic sphere-are considered passé. Though sometimes they get a pass since these characters are East Asian. It used to be because of racial stereotypes/the fact that all women were treated this way.
to this:
Thoughts? I'm a Japanese troper, and I sense something in their edits, though I don't know what is.
Edited by IukaSylvieopenUndermined By Reality misuse?
Trivia.Star Wars The Clone Wars
- Undermined By Reality: The slogan Clone Wars Saved, shown at the end of the 2018 SDCC trailer and used frequently afterwards, is undermined by the fact that the show only needed 'saving' because Disney itself unceremoniously canceled the series mid-production shortly after acquiring Star Wars.
Undermined By Reality Is when the Aesop/messages of the work is contradicted by the real life happenings of the creators. I don’t think an advertising campaign is an Aesop/message of the work and it looks like complaining when Disney is reversing what the entry is criticizing them for. Thoughts?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenA repository of spam
On a glance at the largely abandoned liveblogs section, specifically the last page, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/lbs.php?target_title=&target_group=&p=16
, It seems apparent that a good chunk of that particular page, at least half, seem to be comprised entirely of spambots posting and replying to one another. This is apparent just looking at the titles of some of these liveblogs, or looking briefly at their content. Notable among them include one apparently advertising some herbal scam labled "Vietnam medical material", as well as several from 2018 which are fairly self evident on looking at them.
openPlaying With Page
So I was reading the playing with page for Good Old Fisticuffs and most of it was about a Boxing Battler or a person who incorporates boxing in their fighting against a karateka to illustrate the trope and how it can be played with. The problem is that the Good Old Fisticuffs trope is specifically about a brawler with no established fighting style being better than those who trained in a fighting style or martial art, and boxing is technically a fighting style if not a martial art itself. Normally I'd just edit it myself but it makes up so much of the page that I'm at a loss at what to do.

Harpuia removed all redirects to Growing the Beard from YMMV Redirects, and also added Growing the Beard itself, even though Growing the Beard isn't a redirect (it's indexed on YMMV.Home Page). None of these edits gave an edit reason.
Edited by GastonRabbit