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:
openEdit War on Midsommar Film
Recently, I deleted a batch of examples from Midsommar for misuse and/or shoehorning, and rewrote a few others, all with edit reasons given (edit history
).
Soon afterwards, phylos restored several of them
, just as they were before (no changes). They did give an edit reason—-technically; however it amounts to (I paraphrase) "You only deleted these examples because you think they are misuse and/or misrepresenting what is happening in the movie! You can't do that!", plus an invocation of Tropes Are Flexible.
Now how would I go about to resolve this? I don't think phylos has in any way refuted the reasons for which I deleted these examples; but deleting them again would be edit warring.
For some of these examples, the point of contention is that we have a different interpretation of what is even happening in the movie. Hence why I would like to get people who have watched the movie to weigh in. I don't think there is much use in bringing it to the discussion page, because very few tropers ever actually go there. Should I present my case here in ATT? Or should I make a dedicated thread on the forums?
Edit: Since phylos complained that I did not present his argument (while simultaneously declining to defend it himself), I figured I might mention the points of contention. (The following requires you to have seen the movie. For those that haven't, 'spoilers ahead).
- There is a scene in which Christian, who has earlier been given psychedelic drugs by the cultits of Hårga, has sex with a Hårgan girl, Maja (which a Hårgan elder had already tried to persuade him to previously). phylos believes that since Christian was drugged, he was not able to give consent, therefore (and because the Hårgans kind of pestered him to do it) the act was non-consensual, ergo constitutes rape of Christian by Maja. Therefore rape tropes like Double Standard: Rape, Female on Male apply.
- At the end of the movie, the Hårgans request Dani, Christian's girlfriend, to select the last human sacrifice from among all people present. She choses Christian. Because Dani had earlier seen Christian having sex mit Maja (see above) by peeking through a keyhole (and which she obviously experienced as traumatizing), phylos feels certain that Dani choses Christian as a punishment for, or in revenge of, him having cheated on her with Maja. But as (see above) Christian was really raped, he was not cheating on her, Dani watching the scene was a case of Not What It Looks Like, and her dooming him to death is Victim-Blaming.
I could explain why I think phylos' interpretations are distorted, but as phylos has already declined to engage in discussion, I'll just wait whether anyone else wants to voice an opinion.
Edited by LordGroopenMarking tropes as spoilers: a question
Somewhat new troper here. I was curious if someone with more experience could clarify the "don't mark tropes as spoilers" question. I had a scenario where marking the trope as a spoiler seemed like a good idea.
There's an RPG Maker game called [1] that establishes early on (as in the game's description on the Steam/itch.io page) that the game takes place in the dreams of the 8-year old protagonist. Early on the game's page is the trope Adventures in Comaland. A late-game twist establishes that Jimmy has terminal cancer and the game is basically his final coma dream where he's trying to overcome his weakness and forgive himself so he can die peacefully. Having that trope sitting out there unspoiled seems like a big spoiler because it establishes the true nature of Jimmy's dream.
So why would I not be allowed to mark it as a spoiler in that case? It's a case where it seems like it should be marked, but I wanted a Tv Tropes veteran's explanation/opinion.
openLimiting vitriol/harsh edits on a YMMV page. Web Original
I’m the creator of a web original project, Diamond In The Rough, a Touhou self-insert fic part-deconstruction part-satire, and I also overlook the trope pages for it.
Recently, there’ve been some patronizing edits, but I’m not sure how to go about it. The edits have some legit complaints, but the wording feels hostile. If I’m not mistaken, the rules for creators on their own YMMV pages are stricter, but at the same time, what if an edit broke TV Tropes’ guidelines, but the creator wanted to clean up said edits while maintaining the essence of the complaints?
Here is the page in question: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/DiamondInTheRoughTouhou
As you can tell by the recent edit history (in addition to me hitting enter too quickly and having to redo my edit reason separately), some of the edits were either less-than-flattering or just outright broke the rules. If it’s against the rules for me to edit this, I guess let me know and revert the page, though somebody else will have to clean it all up.
I’d rather leave the person who made the edits out of this since, again, they had common complaints, plus it seems by the fast edits it was done in the heat of passion. I just mainly wanna know what I, as the creator, can do to clean up the language/what I can do in general within the creator’s guidelines.
Edited by SpaztiqueopenCreator complaining
From Creator.Bio Ware:
As of early 2020, BioWare faces a very uncertain future. Once near-universally considered the top studio for Western RPGs, BioWare's releases throughout the 2010s have been met with very serious controversy and criticism, with their last unqualified AAA hit being Mass Effect 2 in early 2010. In addition to a greatly diminished reputation for quality writing, modern BioWare has struggled to find a place for itself among modern industry trends. What was once BioWare's fairly unique signature mechanic of 'Give the player a team of companions to lead, fight alongside, talk to, and fall in love with' has been successfully adapted by other studios. Meanwhile, BioWare's attempts to reinvent its franchises as Wide Open Sandboxes have had poor results: Dragon Age: Inquisition, Mass Effect: Andromeda, and Anthem have all been derided for having shallow open worlds filled with fetch quests with very weak or nonexistent story content attached. In the wake of the disappointing Mass Effect: Andromeda and Anthem, reports have emerged of a studio plagued with weak and ineffective leadership and extremely high staff turnover. It remains to be seen if BioWare will be able to restore its reputation as a creator of great games with great stories.
This entry makes up half the length of the page now. This seems unfair for an entry that complaining and spectating about their future. Cut?
openA pet peeve regarding quotes
So, what's the correct way to use punctuation marks inside quotes?
This: Alice said, "Hello world."
Or this: Alice said, "Hello world".
Some use the former (I think it's the American style), while others, myself included, use the latter (European style).
Is there a wiki-wide rule about quotes, or if it's "first come first served", like spelling? Furthermore, is it okay to change one form for the other?
Edited by RoundRobinopenGroups of characters as Ensemble Darkhorses?
A few months ago, I deleted a couple of Ensemble Dark Horse entries in the The Powerpuff Girls page because they listed teams of characters as examples of the trope. My understanding is that this trope, as the name would suggest, only applies to specific, individual characters within each group, not to multiple members at once.
A troper has re-added the deleted entries, reasoning that "nothing on the Ensemble Dark Horse states that it has to be individual character". However, the page actually states the exact opposite: "Although this applies to individual characters, as a YMMV item, it should not be listed on character pages."
I also took a look at the cleanup thread and found a couple
of posts
that confirm that groups should not be listed as examples. However, the messages are kind of old, and the thread itself seems to not be active, so I don't know whether the rule still stands.
So, tropers, are those valid entries? And if not, should I cut them again?
openHow to use the "Freemium" trope? Literature
Should it be under the trivia tab or on the main page of a work? Or, since it's Literature and not a video game or referencing a video game, is there a better trope to use?
The context is that the work is free to read online, but people who pay for VIP memberships to the site it's hosted on get early access to chapters/are ad-free/etc. It wouldn't be used as a trope that pertains to the story itself or to storytelling, so I feel like it should be under trivia. However I've seen it on the main page of other works and it isn't on the list of tropes on the main Trivia page.
openOutdated Information
Not sure if this is the place.
Is there a thread or something for "reporting" (for lack of a better word) outdated information on pages?
I have found at least two pages with information that I know is outdated, but I don't consider myself knowledgable enough to change.
openFanfic on main page Western Animation
On the YMMV page
for Miraculous Ladybug, somebody added a Broken Base entry that's specifically about a popular kind of Revenge Fic. In other words, it's not about the series Miraculous Ladybug itself. On the other hand, it can't be listed on a fanfic's work page since it's not about one specific fanfic but rather a popular subgenre.
So is it kosher to list an entry about a subgenre on the main work's page?
openToo soon to call?
Digimon Adventure: Last Evolution Kizuna:
- Retcon: There was never any indication in any of the previous installments in the Adventure continuity that suggests only kids can be DigiDestined and have to part ways with their partners as they grow up. While this is somewhat justified in that the only ones ever seen were kids themselves, it still goes against how Maki Himekawa was considered one despite being a young adult, and that the 02 Epilogue depicted all of the DigiDestined as adults and still with their partners.
- What Happened to the Mouse?: The promotional material has so far made little mention of anything directly related to tri. outside of taking place after a five-year timeskip. As such its still unknown where Meiko is in all this, and what happened to Maki Himekawa, Alphamon, the Mysterious Man, and Jesmon after the former two just vanished in Coexistence, the Mysterious Man went to claim Diablomon and Demon's data, and Jesmon vanished in Our Future.
- Author's Saving Throw: After the infamous treatment of the Digimon Adventure 02 cast in tri., this movie puts them in a far more active and helpful role. The very first trailer even focuses on them specifically.
- Family-Unfriendly Aesop: The reasoning behind why the Digimon partners have to leave upon the humans growing up, which is the loss of idealism and potential to shape the future is seen to imply this for some.
- It enforces a message of Growing Up Sucks, which is more likely to make people be more fearful of their incoming adulthood despite it taking majority of their lives therefore ensuring that they will have a crappy adult life.
- It also means that as adults, you will be nothing more than cogs in a machine and be unable to bring change to the world. Despite the fact unless you are one of the exceptions, you need to be an adult to actually realize your childhood dreams. Leaving them stuck in your head isn't exactly better. That's how progress as a whole is made in the first place.
- It's essentially saying that Digimon and what you liked in your youth as a whole can only be best enjoyed by their corresponding age group. Just the act of liking it makes you a Manchild.
The first two should wait as it might be explained in work. Author's Saving Throw I'd be inclined to cut as they Might be Advertised Extras (thought on formalizing a AST ban on pre-release?). Family-Unfriendly Aesop sounds way to soon to judge and like the complaint there's a cleanup thread on the trope over. Cut?
openNeed more voices
So the Trans To Cis Censorship
draft, spawned from the discussion over She's a Man in Japan, has only been up for about a day but is attracting a lot of controversy, as the hat-bomb ratio will let you know.
The issue is that, despite a lot of people voting on the draft, the actual discussion is going around in circles. I don't think we're going to get any resolution at the rate we're going, and we need more people to get involved in the debate. The debate itself is mostly over whether or not the trope should expand- I'm firmly on the "expand" side, but I don't care how this resolves as much as I care that it is resolved and that we don't just battle over hats and bombs without actually, properly, discussing the issue.
I'm not going to bring the debate here so I won't go through all the points, it's all on the draft itself, I'm just asking for more people to get involved and give their opinions rather than just tossing a hat or bomb.
openTrope or index
Is Exotic Weapon Supremacy a trope or an index? Its description seems like a trope, similar to Heroes Prefer Swords, but one that places the Improbable Weapon User above all the rest. However, the itself page have no examples, and only lists a bunch of "related tropes" that doesn't seem to be actual subtropes.
Edited by Adeptopen 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 WarJay77openquick questions
1.what is the fastest/easiest method to identify what shade of conflict a story uses
2.is there anything wrong with trying to apply tropes to myself (i've taken a test to see which character aligment describes me better,multiple times, and i always get chaotic neutral...)
openRedlinking on a bluelinked page
There's some weird redlinking thing going on when I type Administrivia.Tropes Needing Examples. Is that something the mods can fix? If they don't have to, how do I fix it myself?
openCaptain Marvel Film
Just a heads up, a troper has added a lot of entries for Hypocritical Fandom to Captain Marvel (2019). I'm not taking action myself, but I feel like a lot of the entries are distortions of the context for the film's criticisms (poor use of flashbacks, retcons to the timeline of the series) or bring up criticisms I haven't seen made about the movie (bad villains, use of 90s music, boycotting the military).
Given this film's "controversial" nature, and the controversial nature of the trope itself, would anyone else like to weigh in?
openUh... Two things Videogame
On the Pyramid Head section on Silent Hill
, The Anti-Villain section has a point of "He's still plenty hostile towards him, though, and if one is to follow the interpretation of him found here, he's certainly malicious as well." This reads like 'this theory is canon', which is generally looked down upon, and I still want to remove the intrerpretation bit since it feel like it doesn't belong. Should I remove? I'm not sure that he's totally malicious, since he's a manifestation of James' guilt and sense for justice and guides him along throughout the game, this is even furthered at how you can just ignore PH on his boss fights for a few minutes then he leaves or kill himself.
On the Humans are White section on Frost Punk
: "Not only is every human in the game white, but almost all of them are British. The only exceptions are the handful of Americans who survived the fall of Tesla City and the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen. Perhaps justified because all but one of the Generators was built by the British Empire, which in real life was quite racist and willing to sacrifice its non-white subjects when expedient. " The bolded section isn't about the game, like it's trying to bring up sensitive subjects just because. Should I remove?
openProofreading
Can anyone proofread the pages for these two works?
I wrote those entirely by myself - the second is my own work - so I want to check if the tropes and/or the examples are appropriate.
openSeemingly Excessive SelfDemonstratingCharacter pages
Mentioned this in the fairlydead SD Character cleanup thread
and the TLP thread
, where someone suggested I bring it up here.
Basically, Roku Alhazared more or less makes a new SD page a day
, almost none of which really seem to have anything resembling a unique voice and while he clearly puts in a lot of work to them, they're little more than a first-person recap of a character. This seems excessive to me.
I haven't messaged him short of trying to ping him to the SD cleanup thread, but that might not have worked.
Edited by Larkmarn

I took down Ambiguous Situation entries in Characters.Kingdom Hearts Supporting Originals (and a few other non-character trope entries), but Sir Adamus readded one and without leaving an edit reason (under the Subject X folder, to be exact)
.
Just thought I'd bring it up here as I didn't want to risk an Edit War even if there's no issue with taking down non-character tropes from character pages itself.