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 Condemned by History
The following entry:
- The "angry reviewer" style was a popular style of reviewing in the late 2000s and early 2010s. It was popularized around 2006-2007 by The Angry Video Game Nerd and The Nostalgia Critic, who made a name for themselves deliberately reviewing bad video games and movies with comedically exaggerated anger. They often interspersed their "reviews" with skits, foul language, and Vulgar Humor, alongside giving background information about what they reviewed. The genre also spread outside of reviewing video games and movies, with many critics reviewing comics or animated works.
However, in the mid-2010s, the genre saw a massive decline in popularity. Once AVGN and The Nostalgia Critic blew up, Sturgeon's Law kicked in: a large number of inferior copycats tried to ape their style by simply ramping up the vitriol and Vulgar Humor, while ignoring the wit and research they had in their videos of the two aforementioned review shows. Several of these videos also contained personal attacks against the creators, as well as against fans of the works being reviewed, which were not always done humorously. By the late 2010s, viewers began to see such reviews as too mean-spirited and often done in bad faith, gravitating towards straightforward video essays with less vitriolic humour. Perhaps the final blow was a series of scandals involving Channel Awesome, and The Nostalgia Critic's poorly received review of The Wall, which showcased all of the problems of this format.
Nowadays, the only truly successful shows that survive with this style are the aforementioned AVGNnote Largely due to the Grandfather Clause, James Rolfe's tendency to stay out of Internet drama, the formula often being changed around to work with the original style on top of being more informative and extensively researched, and Rolfe being as respectful as can be to both fans and the creators of the content he reviews when not in character, Angry Joenote Mainly because he regularly does positive reviews as well and his criticisms are more often than not actual criticisms instead of anger for the sake of anger and JonTronnote Who phased out the style for more surreal, zany humor over time. Even Doug Walker himself, despite being the main inspiration and source of criticism for the genre, significantly toned down the anger in his Nostalgia Critic persona when the show was Un-Cancelled and incorporated film re-enactments and surreal comedy. Most of the critics known for the genre have either retired from reviewing, suffered from declining viewership for sticking with the old formula, or have transitioned into a more professional style, with some, like Quinton Reviews and Lindsay Ellis, going so far as to publicly disavow their older videos.
had the bolded portion added
by Cavery 210.
Neverwood recently removed it
with the following edit reason:
Cavery 210 then added it back
with the following edit reason:
openCan edit history be cleared?
A while ago I added the author's name on the pages Frollo Freak and Back to the Frollo, as the author herself gave the info on her official sites where the fics are hosted, and her social media sites, which the aforementioned official sites link to. After learning that this action still counts as doxing, I removed the name from both pages, but they remain in the edit history. Is there a way to clear edit histories or remove those specific edits?
I am also aware that doxing is a bannable offense, and I will take any punishment as warranted.
Edited by FuyumotoopenFetishFuel EditWar
I'm self-reporting a slip-up on my part.
On Headscratchers.The Boys 2019, Flash Steps added an entry that troped Fetish Fuel, but it was talking about characters having "in-universe Fetish Fuel". Since in-universe examples are supposed to refer to Fetish, I corrected the link on the 18th with an edit reason explaining that in-universe examples refer to fetish.
I was page surfing today when I noticed the Fetish Fuel pothole, corrected it, and sent a notifier to Flash Steps about which one to use when it's in-universe before recognising which page I was on. I scrolled too fast through the history page and missed both of our previous edits. That carelessness is entirely my fault. On a second look at the history page, I found the previous edits, realised they'd undone my edit and that I'd made things worse by undoing that one.
I've therefore reverted the entry back to Flash Steps' most recent edit and am reporting the pair of us here.
Edited by WyldchyldopenEdit warring and removals without a reason
I'm well aware that reverting an edit that is a clear rule violation does not count as edit warring. But lately, I've seen this rule applied to when an example is removed without an edit reason.
For example:
A adds an example (which is not obviously invalid and does not violate any rules). B removes the example without an edit reason. A adds the example back, citing "removal without a reason" as the edit reason.
Is it true that A is not edit warring in this case? I think the case isn't quite obvious, since A may be wrong about the example being valid (for example, A could have misunderstood what the trope is about).
I'm asking because I find myself in A's position here. I could of course post the example here and ask if it's OK to put it back (and I'll be happy to do so), but I don't want to waste people's time if it's explicitly allowed to do this.
EDITED: I will send a notifier and ask why they deleted it, but even if they answer and this can be "peacefully" resolved, I'm interested to know what the policy actually is.
Edited by GnomeTitanopenMedium question for an example. Videogame
I want to add this example to either Multi-Disc Work or its Video Games subpage. However, I'm not sure whether it could fall under "Music" (which is on a folder in the trope's main page) or "Video Games", since while the source work is a video game, the disc work in itself is a soundtrack release (which is quite common for popular video games).
- Hotline Miami:
- In 2017, game publisher Devolver Digital and record label Laced Records teamed up to release a pair of official albums for the soundtracks of the first and second games (respectively) on vinyl, with each album consisting of three LPs and featuring original artwork from El Huervo, one of the soundtracks' artists.
- The 2022 reissue album made for the first game's tenth anniversary has eight LPs (two more than the first two albums combined) alongside Feelies like a disc slipmat, art prints and stickers.
Should I put on "Music", "Video Games" or the "Other" folder?
Edited by Inky100openNarm - flame bait status?
Narm is marked as a YMMV trope, but not Flame Bait.
However, the medium-specific subpages for Narm are marked as Flame Bait.
Shouldn't Narm itself be marked that way?
Or is the intent really that mediums with no subpage (E.g. Tabletop Game) can continue to add Narm to their works' ymmv pages, and can crosswick to the main Narm page without ever seeing those flamebait warnings?
Thanks!
openMore Auto-Erotic Troping...
... as said.
Troper VicGeorge2011's
account proudly proclaims himself to be writer of Fanfic.Empath The Luckiest Smurf.
Said troper also made the fic's YMMV page
, under Ron the Death Eater
openHow can I ask if my fanfic can be added to the Fanfic Recs?
Currently, there are just 2 methods I know to have your fanfic added to the "Fanfic Recs" on Tv tropes: wait for someone to like it and add it, or add it yourself (the most incorrect one).
Isn't there a way to link it somewhere, maybe on a list, so people can check it and decide if your story is good enough? A way to avoid having a long wait but without also doing low-level things like add it on your own?
openMiraculous Ladybug - Lila Rossi page
Someone removed the Stalker Without a Crush Trope from her page even tho I think the new released episode Perfection makes it obvious that she's this to Marinette (the main protagonist), as she's shown cutting her head off from pictures she has of her at her home with her family or casually walking down the streets with her friends, pictures she couldn't possibly had if she wasn't either stalking her herself or paying someone else to do it.
openAvoiding Edit War/RoCEJ Web Original
A while back I made this entry on the Forgotten Weapons YMMV Page putting in folder for length.
- Broken Base: Forgotten Weapons is associated with Headstamp Publishing, which publishes in-depth books about firearms history. In February 2022, they announced their latest book, a memoir by a foreign volunteer who fought in Ukraine in 2014/15 in the Azov Battalion. Unfortunately the Azov Battalion is controversial and the author was found to frequently post far right and neo-Nazi views, Ian insisted this book itself was non-political and his audience was sharply divided between those who wanted it published for the sake of the information and those who found financially supporting the author to be morally unacceptable. Ultimately the book was cancelled when the site used to run the funding campaign pulled out of the project and Headstamp decided not to find another funding site for it.
And a few days ago I noticed another user had made an edit to change it to this:
- Broken Base: Forgotten Weapons is associated with Headstamp Publishing, which publishes in-depth books about firearms history. In February 2022, they announced their latest book, a memoir by a foreign volunteer who fought in Ukraine in 2014/15 in the Azov Battalion. Unfortunately, author was found to frequently post far right and neo-Nazi views. Ian insisted this book itself was non-political and his audience was sharply divided between those who wanted it published for the sake of the information and those who found financially supporting the author to be morally unacceptable. Ultimately the book was cancelled when the site used to run the funding campaign pulled out of the project and Headstamp decided not to find another funding site for it.
Removing the section stating 'the Azov battalion is controversial' with the edit reason: "I guess that by now only chosen ones can view Azov as controversial."
Now I PMed them and they said they were okay if I reverted the change.
So two questions: 1)If I did revert it is an edit reason saying 'discussed this via PM' enough to avoid it being an edit war? 2) Should I revert it? I guess the edit reason was saying that given the Ukraine War, it's no longer acceptable to call them that but it was at the time, and it was their reputation as well as the specific person's postings that caused the controversy (Alas all the videos and comments on them were deleted from youtube after the incident so proving anything is difficult)
open Obvious Beta misuse?
VideoGame.Pokemon Scarlet And Violet:
- Obvious Beta: The game launced in a very buggy state, with serious framerate issues and loads of glitches in the game quickly making rounds on social media.
It was deleted citing "the trope description itself says that the Obvious Beta trope is not meant for a game with bugs and it's only for games that are really unplayable. if it's really unplayable, there wouldn't have been players who finished the game earlier and share spoilers for the ending of scarlet and violet beforehand."
This was added back by a separate troper.
- Obvious Beta: While the game itself is technically still playable, there are numerous performance issues, ranging from frame drops, textures framing to load, models clipping through each other, and many other, more specific glitches, up and to including game crashes.
The first paragraph on the Obvious Beta page states "Attention: This trope is ONLY meant for games that are genuinely nigh unplayable at release. A few missing features, oversights and bugs do not count." Only the crashes part counts but I'm not sure if it's common enough to count.
What to do?
openUnintentionally Sympathetic entry that hits a wrong note.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UnintentionallySympathetic/AnimeAndManga
In My Hero Academia, Endeavour is shown isolating and roughhousing Shoto, for seemingly no other reason than besting All Might vicariously through his offspring. Shoto and Natsuo blamed their father for their loved ones' downfalls, even if he wasn't physically present at the tragedies. Though Touya's backstory recontextualized the Todoroki history. While Endeavour was still a major cause of conflict, all the family members contributed. Rei agreed to the quirk marriage and having more children after Fuyumi, thinking it could help her family. She could've of put her foot down more and pay closer attention to her older children, when she was wrapped up in her own fears. Besides from Shoto, who was too young at the time, the Todoroki children played their part as well: Touya would burn himself for his hero training and lash out against his loved ones' warnings. Fuyumi was aware of her family's unspoken tension, but kept silent for the sake of keeping the peace. Natsuo grew tired of Touya's ramblings and wasn't as supportive as he could've been.
This doesnt argue that Endeavor Is sympathetic but rather how unsympathetic everyone else is.
open CircularRedirect is Self-Demonstrating
not Administrivia.Circular Redirect, but the main Circular Redirect page is, well, a circular redirect. according to the history, it was made such by mod fiat going back to 2012. it says it's "to demonstrate what happens", but... do we really need that? the Administrivia page explains what happens, and someone forgetting to properly namespace the link would lead people to get the redirect error without the context of it. i don't think we need a page on the wiki that intentionally induces a browser error, demonstrative or not.
openHandmaid's Tale ROCEJ?
This is an example on the YMMV page
for The Handmaid's Tale, under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot. It was added added by drmeagher13:
- Simiarly, there are no vocally non-religious characters in the show. In spite of the show taking place in a religiously-derived dystopia, no one seems to suggest that maybe religion itself is the problem. The tenets of Gilead are indeed derived from lines of the Bible, and no one seems to suggest that maybe disregarding the whole thing might be a good idea. Instead, the heroes seem to all be cut from the cloth of more mild religion. A major example is June sympathetically baptizing her child in the Catholic Church, which in the real world has been implicated of routine systemic child abuse, much like Gilead in the show. It represents another failure of representation on the show.
While I can certainly see the TWAPGP part of having no vocally non-religious characters in a religion-dictated dystopia, parts of this example seem like they're pushing into ROCEJ territory, especially the bit about baptism and child abuse.
open Justifying edit on recent Unintentionally Unsympathetic edit
A while back, a troper argued that Atreus fell under the Unintentionally Unsympathetic trope in God of War Ragnarök. Recent add-ons to the edit seem to point to the idea that what is being described may not in fact be unintentional on the developer's part.
For further context:
- The lesson Kratos learns about trusting his son (and others) was very much needed for him to grow into the man he is by the end of the game. But for most of the story, Atreus is nothing but untrustworthy. He went behind his father's back to study Loki, continues to do so after coming clean and after unintentionally disappearing to Jotunheim for two days, all while refusing to elaborate on where he's been — even if Atreus was trying to protect Angrboda and Ironwood at her request by keeping his movements secret. The whole time, Atreus demands his father trust him in spite of the fact that Atreus has done nothing but lie and hide his intentions. The rest of the adults even agree with Kratos and rightfully call out Atreus for thinking he could fix everything all by himself. In the end, it's played realistically: Atreus lampshades himself that Kratos' lack of trust is entirely justified, but he's emotionally unequipped to resolve it.
Should the edit be removed?
Edited by WiryAiluropodineopenNeptunia Characters page Videogame
The characters page is split based on each game. The first game has its own continuity, and the third game introduces some AU Counterparts, but the Hyperdimension characters appear repeatedly throughout the series, so they're often just getting the same tropes on each game's character page. Wouldn't it be better to have Character Specific Pages like Broly's with folders for different continuities as well as one for common traits?
Edited by KOmanopen Should Suletta and Ericht be listed as separate characters or as one?
Hello, Twisted Wanderland here, but please, call me “The Wanderer”. Why? Because it sounds cooler.
As for why I’m on here, last night I joined a discussion on the Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury character page about whether the main character, Suletta and the character from the prologue, Ericht, should be considered the same character or not: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Characters.MobileSuitGundamTheWitchFromMercury&id=140666#140666
Another user, Kuruni, thinks they should be treated as separate characters, but when asked why, they said that there’s no official source stating that they are, even though the same could be argued for there is no official source stating they aren’t. I’ve tried asking them if they had any evidence as to how Suletta isn’t Ericht after the timeskip between the prologue and the first episode, but they claim that Ericht being in the prologue is reason enough to count them as separate and that it’d be more convenient if they are separate, despite pointing out how if they are the same then it’d be counterproductive to go through Suletta’s examples and add in Ericht’s. This also seems to be a unilateral decision because I searched Ask The Tropers and Trope Talk to see if there was a discussion involved with this, but only found a self-report from them for edit warring with another user over this and when they keep skirting around the question whenever I ask for evidence to support their claim.
At this point, we’re just going back and forth with no resolution in sight, which brings me here to get a consensus on whether Suletta and Ericht should be considered the same character or not. I know that theories are going around on how Suletta may be a clone and that the real Ericht is Aerial herself but with nothing conclusive, saying they aren’t the same is purely speculation.
If an agreement can’t be made, then I may have an alternative solution: we treat Suletta and Ericht as the same character, but separate examples exclusive to Suletta from the series and Ericht from the prologue.
openProblem Making Troper Page
I'm trying to make a Troper page for myself, but because my name has an _ in it, the wiki shows an error message and doesn't have the Edit Page button. Since the name of the Troper page is what ties it to the edit history and PM buttons, I can't do a version without the _ or with a space because it won't link to me.
What are my options?
open Can we put some of our unused/discouraged practices of TV Tropes in Discredited Meme?
We've evolved for quite awhile. I still remember back then when TV Tropes still has A LOT of phrases accompanying either Tear Jerker or Heartwarming Moments: "If you do not tear up on this scene, then you're a horrible, heartless human being without a soul."
But of course, right now, we are not allowed to do it anymore. For good reasons and I agree with the sentiments of disallowance.
Still, here's a question... Is that an example of Discredited Meme? I thought the "have no soul" thing back then was quite widespread that it's a TV Tropes-ish meme. Now that it's extremely discouraged, does it look like an example of the trope Discredited Meme? Is it OK to add that in the page or I shouldn't?
Thank you very much. I would try to add that myself, but just so I don't step into a landmine, I might as well ask here first. Pretty sure there are other 'formerly OK, now discouraged' practices, but I'll just use that as an example first.
Edited by ChrisX

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask this question.
I'm trying to create a work page for The Magical Revolution Of The Reincarnated Princess And The Genius Young Lady. When I was working on an initial draft, the lock clock timed out and I got a warning when I tried to save my changes of someone apparently also editing the page. I saved the text that I had written and canceled editing the page.
When I canceled editing, I didn't see a lock sign indicating someone else was editing the page, so I tried going back in and was presented with the text box again. I tried copy-pasting my original text in and saving the changes, but the changes weren't saved and the work page remains uncreated. I made a second attempt later on and still got the same result.
The odd thing is that if you look at my edit history, you can see that I have two edits to that particular work page. However, going to the work page itself shows nothing in the history. I don't want to risk screwing up anything, so I'm asking here if someone knows what might be causing the issue.