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:
openTalkingToHimself or ActingForTwo?
I'm not sure this is the right place, but I'm wondering: If an animated work has one person voicing multiple characters who don't meet, does that fall under Acting for Two or Talking To Himself? Because one of the latter's alternate titles is Voice Acting For Two but the Laconic says that the characters have to meet each other.
openFirst timer. My trope has launched, but... what now?
Pertaining to my trope, Social Cyberpunk (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=rt2kqzxnd1y763vryix0znms):
It says "troped," and apparently it has been launched. Yet I can't find its page. If I need to put it up myself, I don't know where to put it, or what to do. I do not think I was the one who launched it! I am stuck here and don't know where to go next with this.
Edited by GMDreiaopenMedia type issue
The ending theme of New Game! Title Drops both the song itself and the series. It should be categorized under Anime, or Music?
openRL examples in Crowning Moments? Live Action TV
What's the policy for real life examples in Crowning Moments of Awesome/Funny/Heartwarming/etc? I was reading the Columbo page and came across this example:
"Real life example- after Falk's death, his estranged daughter from his first marriage, Catherine Falk, tried to sue for control of his estate. The judge denied her request and left Shera Danese as executor. This is awesome as Catherine Falk had not even spoken to her father or showed him any attention while he was alive and especially not in the years when he was dying, whereas Shera Danese had been with him since they met on set to the day he died."
It really feels like a backdoor to troping real life and/or real people. Not only does it not have to do with the show itself, which I know is probably good enough reason to remove it, it's not really something that feels right to be well... celebrating especially as the public isn't exactly privy to all the details of the relationships involved to know why Peter Falk and his daughter were estranged. But this is YMMV territory and I don't want to remove examples just because I don't agree with them, whether it be this one or any other RL examples I might come across.
Thoughts?
openJerkass Woobie Anime
Hello,
There seems to be a disagreement between me and another trope in regard to Jerkass Woobie.
I wrote this entry:
- To an extent, Frieza. His life was completely destroyed after his defeat to Goku on Namek, which was Goku's intention when he spared his life. He devotes his life in getting revenge on Goku, which causes him to be killed by Future Trunks on Earth. He then spends almost twenty years in Hell, being tormented by stuff toys and fairies who have parades around him, while he's trapped in a cocoon hanging from a cherry tree in a field full of flowers, with all his great power stripped away. When he's revived by the Earth's Dragon Balls, all he can think about is revenge, abandoning his failing empire, and decides to train for the first time in his life to unleashed all of his latent power. He successes and becomes powerful enough to overwhelm Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan Goku thanks to his golden transformation. However, since he never mastered his ultimate form, his energy burns out before he can kill Goku and he's humiliated by Vegeta who beats him out of his golden form. Even when he seemingly gets the last laugh by blowing up the Earth, Whis rewinds time on him and gives Goku the opportunity to kill him. He's then sent straight back to Hell, where he will remained forever until he's reborn and lose all of his memories of his past life. Despite being an irredeemable monster, you can't help feel a little sorry for him.
A troper erased it with this edit, Frieza brought all of that on himself, no one feels sorry for him in the least.
I put back the entry and explained that I have seen fans hold this opinion about Frieza's fate, despite agreeing that he is a Complete Monster. And since Jerkass Woobie is an YMMV trope, it fits since there are fans that think, 'he's a bastard, but harsh'.
The entry was erased again wit this reason: This may be your opinion but 99% of the fanbase agrees Frieza got what was coming to him and he's long, long past sympathy. He's the most evil character in the entire franchise and his fans like him for how demented, cruel and genocidial he is.
Again, this isn't really my opinion. This is opinions I have seen among the fandom. I admit, I am not sure if someone who falls under Complete Monster can also be a Jerkass Woobie and I don't want to edit war, so I will bring it here.
openVoiceInTheWasteland
This troper added this to Lauren Faust (his addition in italics):
- Animesque: As evident in her DeviantArt account. And for that matter, the woman herself.
I removed that bit, but he added it back. Not wanting to start an edit war over it, I'd like a second opinion on whether it should stay or not (I personally don't want it there).
Edited by PDLopenPastimes Prove Personality
Why does Pastimes Prove Personality have no examples listed on the page itself?
openalteration in Karma Houdini example
Recently, the following example was altered of "* Lelouch's Zero-Approval Gambit at the end of Code Geass saves quite a few characters from karmic retribution for their actions. Notably, various surviving Britannian soldiers, including Princess Cornelia li Britannia, might have been tried for their war crimes if the circumstances had been any different. And the newly married Ohgi, who had earlier betrayed Lelouch in favor of Schneizel and his slanted accounts in an under the table deal for Japan that would have also left other UFN nations out to dry, and also used Kallen as bait and threatens to kill her under suspicion of Geass without hearing her out, not only receives no punishment for said actions and hypocritical reasoning, but instead gets a good-old Happy Ending as he becomes Prime Minister of Japan. He also gets Happily Married to Villetta, a major Spanner in the Works who is no stranger to screwing over Lelouch for her own ignoble reasons over the course of the entire series, including using a traumatized Shirley to capture him, shooting Ohgi during the Black Rebellion which partly led to its failure, watching over Lelouch during the year while he is amnesiac for the sake of nobility because of her knowledge of his Geass, and convincing Ohgi to betray him as she changes sides; even in spite of her part in Lelouch getting captured following the rebellion, or that even so, Ohgi has the audacity to fully blame him for it, even though it was this as well as his own carelessness that made it happen. To rub it in, the newly wedded couple have a baby on the way. Compare and contrast to the self-sacrifices of Lelouch and Suzaku, who alienated from and made themselves dead to the world, literally in the case of the former and figuratively in the case of the latter, who also became the new Zero as per the Zero Requiem, which made the new peace possible for everyone else. Consider also that the two may not have went with such a plan, which also had a high degree of inferred destruction, if not for the aforementioned betrayal. They pretty much made the ultimate sacrifice for the good of everyone else, including those who had manipulated and wronged them." to " Code Geass gets a lot of anger aimed at it over this. The main characters die - figuratively for one, literally for the other. Meanwhile, many of their enemies are allowed to live on and enjoy the peaceful world they've created. They made the ultimate sacrifice for the good of everyone else, including those who had manipulated and wronged them. However, this is not a bad thing - their ability to forgive is what makes them heroic, even in light of all of the questionable things they themselves have done. The series doesn't cast the characters in question in a bad light either - they've learned their lesson over the course of the story - that war is bad and not worth it, and that all people deserve respect - and the ending invites the viewer to celebrate with them and be happy for them, as Lelouch is (from wherever he is), and as Kallen, Lloyd, Cecile, Nunnally, and many of the other survivors who know the full story are. You can hardly say they'd be better off losing even more of their friends and family - some peaceful world that would be. Really, it's not this trope so much as an aversion of Protagonist-Centered Morality - nonetheless, it has many fans up in arms crying for vengeance."
Link: Karma Houdini/Anime . Opinions?
Edited by MagBasopenDon't Understand the Difference: In Love with Love; Playing Straight and Deconstructed
I'm confused about the difference between playing In Love with Love straight with deconstructing it. It sounds like the two are one and the same, particularly with the example given in Western Animation about Vlad Plasmius: The basic trope is that a character wants a romantic relationship just for the sake of one while the deconstruction is that Vlad wants Maddie as a wife rather than actually being in love with Maddie herself. Those two sound very much alike to me, and are hard to distinguish. Could someone please enlighten me? Thank you in advance for your time and for whatever help you can provide.
open Edit War on WesternAnimation.TheKillingJoke
In WesternAnimation.The Killing Joke, user Austin added a Rape Discretion Shot entry:
- Rape Discretion Shot: In the original book, Joker strips Barbara of her clothing before photographing her, although Alan Moore later clarified that he didn't rape her. The film adds a scene where Batman questions a group of prostitutes about the Joker's whereabouts, and they inform him that Joker usually visits them as soon as he breaks out. When Batman asks why he might not have visited them, one suggests that he found himself another girl, leaving a heavier implication that he actually did rape Barbara.
User BatmanKalEl deleted it saying that producer Bruce Timm has stated that this was not his intention. User flyingfishcake restored it claiming that Death of the Author makes this a valid reading. BatmanKalEl re-deleted it with only "I don't think this" as an edit reason.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with flyingfishcake on this one; whatever Mr. Timm's intention may have been, the original graphic novel already heavily implies a sexual component to Barbara Gordon's torture, and the added line in the adaptation only strengthens the implication. If a source can be found for Mr. Timm's statement, then a Word of God entry can and should be added under the film's Trivia page, but what's in the film proper is still what's in the film proper.
Edited by HighCrateopenOn changing Reviews and a related clearly disgusted Troper
Going to have ask this about reviews due to this rather inflammatory review
I've read.
Is it okay for users to change their reviews completely that the reviews don't resemble what they originally look like and express completely different opinions?
Dawn Velocity has changed their review of The Seven Deadly Sins for at least three times. I've not seen the first version but I've seen the second version and the apparent third.
The second version was simply titled more or less Pedo Bait and simply stated that people should forget their original review ever existed. It gave absolutely no context other than expressing their disgust over this series as a result of recent chapters. I kinda had it flagged since it was at best, useless as a review and at worse, Flame Bait.
The apparent third and current version expresses their views more in context but is still Flamebaity but is flagged for reasons related to the second version.
On a sidenote:
While Dawn Velocity has not expanded their angrier views to the rest of the pages, they have been kinda insistent that they be expressed in the review and YMMV sections. Based on their reviews; Unfortunate Implications and Squick related edits; PM discussions I've had with them; and a current heated argument
going on between us, they really seem hellbent on condemning certain aspects about the series to a point that they were willing to allow Unfortunate Implications rules to be broken; and delete at one line that would give more context and a neutral stance to a squicky subject.
They added Unfortunate Implications entries clearly of their own opinion rather than of an outside sources per the rules. They deleted one entry after I asked them to provide citations but insisted in our PM discussions to leave the others clearly on the basis that the related subject matter be outright condemned. We had our PM discussions, they got somewhat heated, and I decided to end the discussions to simply edit things following the Unfortunate Implications rules and modify others so that they give more contexxt and be more neutral.
Unfortunately however, we are in said heated argument and while I think I may be getting myself in trouble more than I can handle for somewhat reporting this, it seems worth reporting especially based on the tone I've gotten from things such as their review and our discussions together.
Edited by Elfkaiseropen looking forever for an older diy show..
I remember it was a female host..she started each show drinking a coffee in a real barn at least it looked real..she was thin with long dark hair...she always made mistakes on the show..she ended her show by laying in a hammock inside a house and dressed really fancy like from olden days...she always recited a small limerick or poem while in her hammock...the show was aired in the 80's or early 90s...can somebody help find this shows name...it's driving my son and myself crazy trying to remember it....
openMeta Unfortunate Implications?
I was reading through the YMMV page for Metroid: Other M, and I found this entry under Unfortunate Implications.
- Some have accused many of the harsher complaints of
Values Dissonance towards this game as veering dangerously close to racism, especially seeing as this game's attempts at appealing to Japanese players didn't fly well over there either.
Is this type of UI okay? It's not talking about the implications from the work itself, but about fan critiques on the game. I've never seen a UI entry applied to a fandom before, and I just want to reach some sort of consensus on it. Is any meta entry all right as long as it has a citation?
Edited by chasemaddiganopen Is there a reason that "Variant Cover" does not seem to have an article? Print Comic
Okay, so, while by necessity discussing the ridiculously confusing labeling of the covers of the Green Lanterns series it became necessary to reference the fact that part of the problem is that with fans knowing that there are Variant Covers for the issues in this comic event, it's even harder for them to automatically notice that there's more than one issue that is a different chapter of the story but numbered the same and named/labeled so closely as to be easily confused with another one (yes, I know it's confusing when tldr'd. I think I managed to give an accurate enough summation on the page itself if you need clarification on what the heck I'm talking about, though. That part doesn't really matter though, because...).
Thing is, I assumed (though yes as always I would have double-checked my link to make sure) that Variant Cover would lead to a page describing the trope. But...nope, it's a red link. "Perhaps it has an article, but just under a different name" I figured, so I searched and...
...surprisingly, there are a LOT of uses of the term "variant cover", in the correct context, all over the site. A notable example being The Great Comics Crash Of 1996 which explains the logic behind the practice. What there apparently isn't, though, is an actual article telling you what it is...?
For those less familiar with publishing industries, particularly comic book publishing, where the practice is currently still very common, a Variant Cover is:
An alternate cover option - not an alternate edition that happens to have a different cover to differentiate it, that is, but in fact a "collectible", internally identical, alternate version of the same issue/book produced at the same time, but simply with a different cover. The idea being the actual comic book issue (again, usually it is comic books where you see this) is exactly the same on the inside but it has the option of an alternate and often rarer or more exclusive cover, usually with primary art done by a different artist than the "main" cover. Sub-types of Variant Cover include: a normal full-color cover that just happens to differ from the original "main" cover (often done by a different artist, who may or may not specialize in cover art); "sketch" or black and white covers meant to show the original pencils or ink drawing instead of a full-color version of the drawing; comedic/parody covers like the series of covers Marvel did with Deadpool; event-exclusive V Cs like for San Diego Comic Con; and even mostly-blank covers, where there's only the important logos and basic information like price and issue number (these are intended for bringing to artists at events like conventions and book signings, where they can sign or sketch on the front for you)
The practice became particularly popular in the early-mid 1990s Western comic book publishing industry as a way to boost sales among obsessive collectors, but it's still very common in the West today; so common in fact, that DC recently reassured readers kind of sick of the practice that there would be only "one variant cover each" for any given issue in the DC Rebirth relaunch! But it's not just DC that does it, or even just DC and Marvel: some "indie" publishers do as well, as well as prominent but non-Big Two companies, such as Dark Horse (I know for a fact that the Buffy Season 8 and 9 comics had V Cs for instance).
Again, there are a LOT of examples (like, literally everything DC is putting out right now, probably literally everything Marvel is putting out, at least a few LONG-running Dark Horse titles, etc), to the extent even that I might suggest using it as an explanatory-only article that notes you can link the trope from the individual work's page - but I definitely think the practice is specific enough, distinctive enough from simply "different edition/different cover", and widespread enough, to deserve an article to explain it to those not familiar with the practice?
Given all that, I'd like to know if there's ANY good reason why there is NOT already such an article, aside possibly from the fact that nobody's thought to/bothered to make one yet? I don't want, after all, to start an article that might not exist for a reason, but I can't imagine a reason why it shouldn't?
open Can we please, please, please stop calling Evangelion a deconstruction? Anime
The concepts of "deconstruction" and "reconstruction" on this site are ludicrously vague to begin with, and Evangelion is one of those series that, while good, also ends up having people project a lot of assumptions on it that aren't necessarily true. And the whole "deconstruction" thing isn't the only bit either, tons of people were really anal retentive about the religious symbology until Anno or whoever just came out and said they were doing it because it was exotic and sounded cool.
A lot of the concepts in Evangelion that people seem to think are revolutionary and "deconstructive" were already thoroughly explored, warts and all, in the genre's infancy in the same way that people find so amazing in Evangelion itself. Astro Boy, Great Mazinger, Zambot 3, Ideon... Hell, even Combattler V which wasn't that much to write home about still could've been argued to "deconstruct" the combining mecha subgenre it set up in its first episode when the leads weren't able to actually combine and work together as a team because they had only just met and hadn't bonded in the slightest. I think the real cause for this is simply Evangelion was one of the highest-profile mecha series of the 90s and one of the ones most likely for people to see one way or another. And from it and its dark subject matter, assumptions were made about the old mecha shows of the 70s and 80s and somewhere along the line, bam. Deconstruction label got slapped on it and everyone just assumed it was true when, as far as I can tell, there's never been official recognition and confirmation of this idea. Same with people thinking Metal Gear Solid 2 was supposed to be some amazing masterpiece of Post-Modernism.
Granted there is still a mountain of analysis to it especially in the final third when Anno really got into the concept of psychology as he was coming out of his depression. But every time I see a page where something in Evangelion is marked as a deconstruction, or that Gao Gai Gar was meant to rebel against its trends and Gurren Lagann in turn was in turn Gainax recognizing that they got the message, what that's really telling me is someone is making a lot of claims about the genre with a lot of undeserved, unwarranted, and unfounded certainty.
Edited by SteamopenYMMV.PokemonRusty Edit war Web Original
On December 1st, 2015, The Jayman 49 added an Designated Hero to YMMV.Pokemon Rusty even though the trope cannot apply (Designated Hero requires the narrative and other characters to treat a character as an ideal hero even though said "ideal hero" is a jerkass or worse). I removed it on December 18th that same year on grounds of it being factually incorrect.
Then, on the 29th of April this year, The Jayman 49 re-added it, and is now trying to claim the audience reaction is deliberately invoked even though, from the context of the series itself, it isn't. Here is the extended edit history detailing it
.
[ETA] I checked the discussion page, and there was no discussion on the subject.
Edited by TheNerfGuyopen Undertale Fanfiction Videogame
That one guy self-pimping his Undertale fanfiction is back posting in the Undertale page under the name Chivalrous Craibou.
Edited by AlleyOopopen Time traveling Dumbledore army Literature
so as shown in Harry POA Hogwarts and by extension Dumbledore has at least one time turners and apparently when they use a time turner they duplicate themselves I should also note that it is an established fact he is the only one Voldemort fears so with that in mind why doesn't he just create an army of himself i know in stories they say you seeing your future self will create a problem but whatever problem that is can't be worse than wizard hitler

I seriously have never stopped asking myself if I'll ever find this show and it's killing me. The memory keeps replaying inside my head. Please help me find this! Oh and bare with me because this was a long time ago and my memory isn't very good.
So I think it starts off with the title that were the names of the two guys that were in the show. They were bestfriends I assume. So, then they were walking late at night together I think. And they got into a fight. So, this is where they probably thoughy the audience knew it was a comedy when I thought it was exactly the opposite. It was pure dumb and weird, but I'll admit it was silly. Anyways, one of them got the other weak and slumped up against the fence with blood on his face. And to finish it off, he does the weirdest action I have ever seen. He jabs his hand right into the other's chest and pulls out his once beating heart. And when I thought that it couldn't get any crazier, I was definitely wrong. He then puts the heart against his lips and takes a bite out of it! Then he throws it at the man below him who was looking at him in shock. Yes, somehow he was still alive. They even had a funeral afterwards and his "best friend" came too. The man that was now "dead" was in his coffin but he was sitting up. Whenever they switched the camera to him, he was showing a different emotion. So, his best friend was giving a speech and I think his phone rang or he played a song and it went completely wrong. His phone showed a cartoon alien dancing and singing about how it was happy that the man has died. I once was able to quote the song but now I can't. Well, I don't know maybe it said "You're dead! You're dead!".
Yes, I know this show is weird but I actually want to find it. I think this show came on in... 2009? Maybe even before that. If you find this then... Thank you!