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:
openNo Title
I'd like to ask if this was contested before. If only becuase I find the crachter in question to be too Flat for a Self Demostrating page
openNo Title
A new Self Demonstrating page under the name of Freakazoid! has been created by wyattte. Do you guys think both the character and the page itself is distinct and interesting enough to warrant a keep?
openNo Title
Literature.The Seven Basic Plots is a weird page, given that it is a work, but that it has examples of the titular plots, as though it were a trope.
It seems to be mostly used as a trope, too, on other work pages, so I'm wondering if a re-do of the page itself and a purge of it as a trope is needed.
openNo Title
Having a problem in Characters.Mental Omega. User HTD uncommented several commented-out Zero Context Examples. He added context to many of them, but left some of them as-is, with only something like "See [other entry]" for context. I recommented those and left an edit reason reminding him not to uncomment ZCEs without adding context, and that "See [other entry]" does not count as good context.
He went back and uncommented them again, again adding context to some, but restoring others (including most of those saying nothing other than "see [other entry]") with no change, and leaving as an edit reason "do not comment out examples with context and claim them to be ZCE."
I don't want to get the guy in trouble— I think his intentions are good, and he's done good work in adding context to many examples that I'm not familiar enough with the work to handle myself— but many more of them are still ZCEs with Word Cruft masquerading as context.
Normally I'd re-comment the examples and leave a note to bring it to Discussion, but since I've already done that once (forgetting to add the normal call to come to Discussion before reverting), I don't want this to turn into an Edit War.
Thanks!
Edited by HighCrateopenNo Title
Should this page just be cut? If the trope lists are removed there's not much left and I'm not interested in filling it out, myself.
openNo Title
Hello,
I have a question about Idiot Savant. I could be misreading, but there seemed to be a lot of bad examples on the page.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Idiot Savant means someone who is dumb or incompetent in all areas except one because of a mental disorder? I am asking because most characters listed on the page are not mentally disable or stupid, but are Book Dumb, naive, Raised by Wolves, or have a passion for just one thing in life and are extremely good at it. They maybe awkward in most situations because of these factors, but they can function well on their own, give good advice, or state the simple solution. An Idiot Savant is someone who can't take care of themselves because they are literally only good at one thing and one thing only, think Rain Man. So, even someone like Forrest Grump wouldn't fall under Idiot Savant, despite being mentally handicap, since he does have many skills, can function on his own, and take care of himself.
But I want to make sure that I am understanding this trope correctly so I can erase any abuses on the page.
openNo Title
Are the Deadpool pages supposed to be like that? I don't know enough about the character, but even I know about him and the fourth wall so I get it, I do, but should a works page and nearly all of its subpages really be all in first person? And the comic book namespace redirects to self demonstrating which just makes my teeth itch.
ETA: Can't get the link to work because I suck and am also a little pressed for time. Will fix when I get back.
Edited by VirodhiopenNo Title
Shouldn't Just Eat Gilligan be Audience Reaction? The trope is for when characters don't do something "obvious" to conclude, or at least challenge, a major problem within the work.
The problem is, "obvious" is not something people agree on. The trope itself states that the proposed solution doesn't even need to be something that works, but just something that would be worth doing at least once to see how things panned out.
I brought this up recently in discussion about Series.Jessica Jones (regarding a villain with Compelling Voice), as many arguments have surfaced on the internet as to why the protagonists don't take a number of methods to avoid being able to hear/understand the person's voice, as it's demonstrated that not being able to hear or understand him is a major weakness.
It was argued by another troper that any methods used to try to fight someone without hearing them could possibly be countered by the villain. My argument is that this isn't relevant to the trope; again, the trope doesn't state that the methods are flawless. Just that they might be useful. Indeed, when someone finally DOES try using headphones and loud music to cover their ears, it works. The problem is that this isn't tried until literally the LAST battle, and it's only tried by one person.
Edited by KingZealopenNo Title
I have a question regarding Audience-Alienating Premise. It is in regards to this entry on The Legend of Zelda: Tri Force Heroes:
- Even for Zelda fans who like the softer and comedic installments of the series, this game is causing a lot of people to be on the fence about getting it. While the Zelda series has its fair share of funny moments and some do admit the multiplayer looks rather fun, this game is really taking the comedy to its extreme. Naturally, those who prefer the darker and more serious games are up in arms, and those who like the lighter games are having a hard time getting used to the setting.
- The format is also vastly different from the standard Zelda game: In most of them, there's a heavy emphasis on exploration and many out of the way places have items and collectibles that Link can get that'll help with his journey. With Tri Force Heroes, there's none of that apart from items used to create new costumes.
This reads more like Base Breaker since my understanding of Audience-Alienating Premise is that the theme itself is too scary, too weird, or too controversial for a general audience. This entries is unappealing to a certain section of the fan base and not necessary the general audience.
openNo Title
I understand that this is where I'm supposed to report a user who I feel is vandalizing an article. I hope I'm in the right department.
I'm reporting a user named Worffan101 who I believe is crossing the line with his constant edits on the Star Trek Voyager page. He keeps shoe-horning in long rants against the show's protagonists, providing "examples" of her "villainy" that are at best extreme exaggerations, and against the consensus of most viewers (even those who dislike the show). It's a classic example of Ron the Death Eater, and it has no place in an article, IMO.
For this record, this person is not new to me. I first encountered him and his friend Star Sword on a different website, where they posted a fanfiction filled with similar rants (in "author's notes") against the same show. After recieving negative feedback from me and another reiever, they apparently left the site. Not long ago, Worffan101 began behaving similarly here, first shoe-horning rants against TV shows into places where they seemed... out of place. I didn't complain however until now, when I find myself in an Edit War with him over parts of the Star Trek Voyager page. His behavior constitutes as vandalizing and/or Trolling, in my opinion.
Obviously I do not expect any article on TV Tropes to contain only positive examples and opinions. There should be an amount of criticism. I myself have provided plenty of negative criticism to this show on the article, citing problems with the show's writings and characters. I am for criticism; the problem is that what this Troper's edits read far less like criticism than un-professional, and often incorrect, rants. I am tired of constantly trying to clean up the article after he's "edited" it. I would like this Edit War to end.
Edited by SallyShearsopenNo Title Live Action TV
This is a minor issue, but I'm questioning one of my own additions to the Jessica Jones (2015) page and wanted to have other tropers weigh in. I added Mundane Luxury to the page because the series villain, Kilgrave, in the backstory used his Compelling Voice powers for some minor and common things: He made a rich guy give him his very nice jacket, had a concert cellist perform for him, and had a woman follow him around smiling all the time. Another character, after hearing of these events, observes that Kilgrave was just obtaining clothing, good music and a pretty woman's smile, remarking that these items are so petty compared to what he can (And other times does) do with his powers.
However, I'm waffling on the trope because it's not only about when someone obtains or desires something mundane, it's thematically about when they want these things because they've been so deprived that even the mundane seems luxurious. Kilgrave doesn't limit himself to just the mundanities, at other times in the series he is shown using his powers for expensive food and housing, mountains of money, sex with women, and every other way you can think of for exploiting his Compelling Voice power.
So, he's not been deprived of the mundane luxuries of life, but he does still go out of his way to get them in a way that other characters actually comment on. Would this fit the trope, or not?
Edited by JBK405openNo Title
King Zeal and I seems to having a disagreement on Tropes A to G about An Aesop. To be blunt, I am not sure what King Zeal's problem is. It seems they have a problem with weather several aespos should be merged into one mega entry.
This is what I wrote:
- "Training and hard work are essential no matter what", is the overreaching lesson of the entire series. No matter how powerful or good at your craft you become, there is always someone better out there. So keep practicing and keep learning, otherwise you will fall behind. Pure talent will also only gets you so far. If you don't work to improve your gifts, you will find yourself lacking when you need to be sharp. Also, it's fine to give up and admit that you're not the best when you meet someone better than you. Take the lessons of losing and humility to heart and improve yourself. Every villain loses because they are the antithesis of this, but it's made especially clear in Resurrection "F", as the reasons for both of Frieza's defeats.
- Having a lot of pride in yourself is not necessarily a bad thing. It's when you are unable to put it aside that it becomes a detriment. Vegeta learns this lesson over and over again until it finally sticks at the end of the Kid Buu fight. Frieza being unable to let go of his pride led him to ruined and death, twice.
This is King Zeal's entry:
- "Training and hard work are essential no matter what" is the overreaching lesson of the entire series. No matter how powerful or good at your craft you become, there is always someone better out there. So keep practicing and keep learning, otherwise you will fall behind. Pure talent will also only gets you so far. If you don't work to improve your gifts, you will find yourself lacking when you need to be sharp. Also, it's fine to admit being inferior, because someone who's less talented, but works harder can still surpass their limits. Every villain loses because they are the antithesis of this, but it's made especially clear in Resurrection "F", as the reasons for both of Frieza's defeats.
Seriously, it is basically the same thing, except I think the entry about pride is its on aesop and doesn't need to be cram in one place.
But for the sake of everyone's sanity, what do you guys think?
Edited by Ramona122003openNo Title
Found this on a Trope Pantheon page (Pantheon.Court Of The Gods) while dewicking Mary Sue and deleted on the basis of being Flame Bait. I wanted to leave report that the mods would see, because this is hugely inappropriate.
Personae Non Gratae
Here's a list of the following Personae Non Gratae, for real-life people who are officially banned from entering the Pantheon forever, because of their bad behavior and for the fact that they have 5 keys to unlock the Disgraces from their unholy realm. If all five of the Personae Non Gratae enter the pantheon, the portal sealing the Disgraces from the Pantheon will be broken, the minefield around Mary Suetopia will mysteriously malfunction, causing the mines not to go off, releasing the seal on the Disgraces's items and the most dangerous items in the treasury (The Love Berry Rod, The Games of Divinity, The FATAL Sourcebook, the Chaos Heart, and the One Ring) and therefore causing the end of the Pantheon and fiction as we know it. Fortunetly, the Pantheon is still in order thanks to the Personae Non Gratae's non-inclusion into the pantheon:
- Bernie Stolar
- Crimes: Enforcing Executive Meddling to ridiculous levels and almost cancelling the North American port of the Magic Knight Rayearth RPG for Sega Saturn.
- Holds the Key Of Executive Meddling To Ridiculous Degrees
- Crimes: Enforcing Executive Meddling to ridiculous levels and almost cancelling the North American port of the Magic Knight Rayearth RPG for Sega Saturn.
- Christian Weston Chandler
- Crimes: Responsible for creating the horrible webcomic Sonichu, whose titular character is among the Disgraced Ones. His egotism and bad behaviour doesn't help it either.
- Holds the Key Of Egotism and Strange Behavior
- Crimes: Responsible for creating the horrible webcomic Sonichu, whose titular character is among the Disgraced Ones. His egotism and bad behaviour doesn't help it either.
- Dakari-King Mykan
- Crimes: Making the infamous My Little Unicorn, along with The End of Ends, which resulted in a lot Internet Backdraft, and having at least 6 of his creations (One of them being his Author Avatar, the other managing to redeem himself) banished to Disgraces. His behavior doesn't really help at all.
- Holds the Key of Suedom, Rooting for Evil, and Informed Heroism
- Crimes: Making the infamous My Little Unicorn, along with The End of Ends, which resulted in a lot Internet Backdraft, and having at least 6 of his creations (One of them being his Author Avatar, the other managing to redeem himself) banished to Disgraces. His behavior doesn't really help at all.
- Jimmy Saville and Bill Cosby
- Jimmy's Crimes: Sexually abusing many children everywhere during his entire life and manipulating the BBC to his own deeds.
- Bill's Crimes: Raping 26 women with date rape drugs, manipulating the media for years, and causing the biggest real life Orwellian Retcon in recent years as a a result of his crimes.
- Jimmy Holds the Key to Touching Kids Inappropriately
- Bill holds the Key to The Evils Of Rape.
- Justin Bieber
- Crimes: Having a very huge Hatedom, acting as a Jerk in real life, infringing the law too many times, singing the worst love songs that nobody wants to listen, insulting his own fanbase, cheating Selena Gomez without noticing her, and too many to list.
- Holds the Key of The Hatred That Powers the House of Hatred, Child Stars Gone Wrong and Crappy Music
- Crimes: Having a very huge Hatedom, acting as a Jerk in real life, infringing the law too many times, singing the worst love songs that nobody wants to listen, insulting his own fanbase, cheating Selena Gomez without noticing her, and too many to list.
openNo Title
So what happens when you combine The Slow Path with My Own Grampa? (Like, you get sent into the past, become your own grandpa, pass on your knowledge to your grandson/yourself, die from old age, and then your grandson/yourself rejoins your group, and everything continues like normal.
I think this is too specific for a trope, but if someone has an example of this happening, I think that would be fun (maybe a webcomic or something.)
Edited by TheKing42openNo Title Film
On the YMMV page
for God's Not Dead, Sympathetic Sue was removed due to most of the Mary Sue tropes being made Flame Bait. Hailfire 25
re-added it with the edit reason: "Flame Bait as itself is not a credible reason to delete. Anyone can claim anything is Flame Bait" .
openNo Title Music
DJ Jazzy Jeff and The Fresh Prince
I'm fully aware there's a page for Will Smith, and it does mention his his 1987-93 musical discography with Jazzy Jeff, which is partially the reason I'm here. Where would the tropes for the Jazzy Jeff and Fresh Prince era go? Will Smith's main page page is largely centered around his films and his post-1993 music career.
I was thinking about making a standalone DJ Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince page for a few reasons:
A) The songs are Troperrific enough to warrant their own page. B) It would save the main Will Smith page from being cluttered with JJ/FP tropes, and C) Allows us to dig into the history of the group itself (Ready Rock C's involvement, New Line Cinema lawsuit, ect.)
But I have a feeling there would be a few here who would find it redundant to have a "second" Will Smith page just for those works with Jazzy Jeff. So I ask: Should I go ahead with making the page, or just leave it be?
open No Title
I had a question about example indentation. I recently made an edit to Declining Promotion to fix some indentation in the One-Punch Man entry but i did one thing I'm not 100% sure breaks the rule.
What i did was use the first bullet to note that there are 3 separate instances of the trope occurring for reasons unique to each character. A bit general, but each 2nd level bullet goes into more detail.
On the one hand I know that it's supposed to just be the title itself in the first bullet, but i thought the general note added a bit to it as an introduction to the main entries. Yet that note isn't really worthy of its own sub bullet.
Should I take that extra text off altogether, or is it all right as is
openNo Title
Laconic.Opposite Day and Opposite Day.
Okay, seriously?
I get that it's a (very lame and unfunny) attempt at being funny and self-demonstrating, but when all it inspires is confusion, then it's a fail.
If there's actually a trope to salvage here, we should move it back to Main/; this has nothing to do on a Laconic entry.
Edited by StFanopenNo Title
Something of an odd question: I'm aware that you're not allowed to add personal experiences even to the YMMV pages (No "This Troper feels..."), but many pages (YMMV and otherwise) refer to fan-works (Fanart, memes, reviews, etc.) as examples when discussing YMMV notes; are you allowed to add your own such things to those notes?
I ask because, going on two years ago now (Wow, time flies) I made a video of myself burning an issue of a comicbook due to my dissatisfaction, and it just occurred to me that it would fit on the YMMV page as an "This got so much of a reaction that one guy actually burned the comic" entry. If I had found somebody else had made such a video I wouldn't think twice before adding it as a note, but as my own thing I'm not sure.
Would this be verboten?

So, way back in May of this year, user notahandle
blanked Funny.The Final Sacrifice.
His reason was technically correct (all of the examples were from the MST treatment of the film, not the film itself) but still reporting it.
Also cutlisting the page since it's empty now.
EDIT: It seems I already reported him for cutlisting Funny.Invasion Of The Neptune Men actually, so he's probably been talked to, so I guess this isn't super necessary. ^^;;
Edited by wrm5