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:
openEasily Forgiven playing withs/lack audience reaction part?
Easily Forgiven is now YMMV, which no longer allows playing withs. So I question these (otherwise valid given they got audience contention) MLP examples.
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 2 E 26 A Canterlot Wedding Part 2: Granted, they were tricked and all, but Twilight holds absolutely no resentment towards everypony for turning their backs on her. It must be the two seasons worth of friendship lessons. Just copied from the main page. Doesn't explain why audiences found the forgives too easy. (Also a whole rabbit hole of fans debate about matter.)
YMMV.My Little Pony Equestria Girls 1: Sunset Shimmer goes from attempting to murder the Mane Six to being accepted as their friend in the span of about three minutes. Previously removed
as played with (downplayed/played for laughs in first movie, subverted/deconstructed in sequel). If a character is no longer considered this (given how effectively sequel redeemed her), is it retroactively not an example? Does factually inaccurate reasons for the audience reaction disqualify it or not?
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 5 E 26 The Cutie Remark Part 2: Debatable, as Starlight did witness how her actions could've destroyed all of Equestria and has to live with that fact, which she clearly feels horrible about. She also had to travel to Our Town and seek their forgiveness. It is also discussed as Applejack points out that someone like Starlight can't be let to roam around free as powerful and unhinged as she is and Twilight pointing out how powerful friendship really is in Equestria. Not to mention that no-one seems to even mention all the serious crimes Starlight had committed in this episode, some of which (conspiring against and assaulting a crowned princess) could even be considered acts of treason against Equestria. Move just swapped "Played with" for "Debatable". Half arguing for/against applying as written.
Questions about reworking to be valid:
- Do they have to explain the audience reaction to the forgiveness to be valid EF?
- How to keep the Sunset and Starlight examples from being redundant with Unintentionally Unsympathetic which already covers the reasons audiences say them such? Should UU just not mention in-universe forgiveness?
- What to do with Broken Base examples? Should fan debate on such be included if applicable? Or does that make it too arguing against self and should go under BB or Base-Breaking Character entires instead?
Asking here because every time I asked the EF cleanup thread, I kept getting no feedback to my questions.
openSingle-issue wonk over a character's butt
A rather alarming amount of edits by WateverIdk
are about Nightwing/Dick Grayson's butt or sex scenes. This character is a Mr. Fanservice whose nudity is milked by DC Comics all the time, so it's understandable that he would fit a lot of sex tropes, but the user in question still appears to be way too enthusiastic about this topic. Some of their noticeable additions include:
- Harley Quinn page
: "Of course, many scenes show off his ass in its full glory, like the photo shoot where we get close-ups to it completely bare in some nice poses, or that one time he covered himself with a towel with two giant holes that perfectly framed his buttocks."
- Gotham Knights
:
- "Both gameplay and cutscenes make it almost impossible to avoid noticing Nightwing's rather glorious ass."
- "Similarly to Barbara, it's pretty much unavoidable during his gameplay that you'll be starring at Dick's famous buttocks in Sensual Spandex. Many cutscenes play with the trope as well, an example being when he meets Harley and the perspective changes to give us quite the close-up shot of his ass. It has to be said that the developers have admitted to feel very comfortable with the size of Nightwing's backside, with some skins making his suit more noticeably skintight to showcase it in full glory."
- Mr Fanservice
: "Nightwing (2016) has issue #26, which opens up on Dick taking a shower, and issue #35, which shows him entering a cold bath; both instances going as far as showing his bare buttocks in their full glory."
Wondering how the examples in question should be modified, if necessary.
Edit: Actually, scratch that. Took another look at this troper's edit history and virtually all their edits are about men's butts, either animated or live-action. Looks like some serious one-handed troping...
Edited by TantaMontyopenMagazines
I want to write pages for a few comic magazines (think EC's stuff, Out of the Night, and Dark Mysteries), but the main thing I keep tripping over is that I don't know whether to put them under Magazine or Comic Book.
- Administrivia.Namespace gives no specifics on what does or does not fall under Magazine and Comic Book.
- Looking through the list at Anthology Comic, most entries are Comic Book, but a few are Magazine and some that use Comic Book as namespace are described as magazines. I can't figure out what the (general; I do know about Creepy specifically) deciding factor is, if there is one to begin with. The list at Magazines does not make things any clearer either.
- Taking a step back and going purely with my own thought process, if something like Weird Tales is a "magazine" that contains "literature", then something like Strange Tales is a "magazine" that contains "comic( book)s" and should not itself be under Comic Book. Furthering that sentiment on my end is that there's a few of these magazines that have a feature comic under the same name, such as Supernaturals, and they could have separate pages. If they were both under Comic Book, you'd have something like "ComicBook/SupernaturalsMagazine" and "ComicBook/SupernaturalsComic" and that looks infuriating.
My guess is that TVT does not have any guidelines/rules yet on this matter and that the use of "Comic Book" for what seem to me magazines flowed over from the (super)hero side of it, where magazine and comic book are roughly the same thing. If that's correct, then I take it this is not the right place to ask. I'm not opposed to seeing if I can get a discussion started; which forum would be best for that?
Relatedly, I can't find anything about whether magazines (and similar anthology works) are exempt from needing tropes. A number of magazine pages have no tropes, while for instance four out of five of Weird Tales tropes seem ZCE and not really applicable to the magazine to me. I would guess magazines are exempt because they are a variation of creator pages and come with the same difficulties in trope gathering, but creator pages explicitly don't need tropes and I can't find anything like that for magazines.
Edited by Pfff133openPotential spoiler issues for an image caption
The page Characters.Mobile Suit Gundam G Quuuuuu X had a "click to show" image added by user DinoCam1795 to the folder for the character Nyaan where the caption to click to see the image was labelled "Zeon Uniform (spoilers)". While it does warn people viewing the page that spoilers are shown if you click the image, the caption itself was self-defeating since her joining Zeon is a spoiler in of itself (for reference, every mention of Nyaan's role in Zeon is under a spoiler tag). I made an edit to the page changing the caption to read "click to see spoilers" in line with similar instances I've seen on other pages where an image depicting certain appearances is a spoiler with the edit reason "I feel like mentioning it's a Zeon uniform in the caption makes the spoiler warning a moot point.". However, user Kuruni changed the caption back (minus the "(spoilers)" portion) with the edit reason "How can anyone know if they will be spoiled or not without clicking its first? If it bother people so much, why put the image here at all?". In the interest of not starting an editing war, is this fine or should the caption be adjusted in some other way to avoid spoilers?
Edited by Kirby0189openTrope misuse Literature
Beastpower 87 has repeatedly added Moral Event Horizon entries to the Harry Potter page that aren't accurate, such as saying Snape crossed it in Book 5 by not teaching Occlumency properly despite the fact he's portrayed as redeeming himself, and claiming Hermione crossed it despite her being one of the heroes which means it wasn't intended by the author (and she's claimed to have crossed it by wiping her parents' memories despite this being to protect them).
Edited by Javertshark13openConsidering making a page spoilers-off
There are several folders on Characters.Iris Hawthorne Ace Attorney where almost all of the entries are spoiler-tagged, to the point that I've made several of them spoilers-off. I'm considering doing this to the whole page because others folders still have self-fulfilling spoilers, but I think I should get a consensus first.
openExample with unnecessary mention of Rule 34? Videogame
So, regarding this example from the Unnecessary Makeover page:
- Midna in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess thinks little of the form in which she's trapped for most of the game; she refers to herself as a "hideous little imp" and jokes with Link that her true form is so beautiful that it leaves him speechless when he first sees it. However, many players find her initial implike design cuter, more unique, and conveying more of her sassy appeal. It's not uncommon for people to joke that Midna's imp form essentially proved the codifier for "shortstack" designs (i.e. a short, busty female character with curves), and artwork of Midna's imp form far outweighs her true form, even—hell, especially on porn sites.
That last part really seems to me like a case of Too Much Information, especially with the way it's worded. I was going to remove it, but I thought I should ask first, because maybe I'm just being too prudish.
Edited by BluethornopenUser with issues with drama importation and grammar
So this is discussing about Pc 98 Fan, who in spite of their username, is actually more involved with Forsaken (Roblox) rather than the PC-98. Unfortunately, when it comes to the game itself, that has attracted quite the attention due to the actions of its creator Souldrivenlove, who due to the massive amounting controversies, had to transfer ownership of the game to others. And when it comes to discussing it, Pc98Fan seems to be obsessed with discussing everything about it, and I mean everything- including the drama. While a stern warning from both YMMV and the Memes pages to not import drama seems to be enough, the Trivia page seems to be an exception, albeit because it's mostly discussing the real life actions. Even then, it's riddled with errors. Here's one example of the page that was mostly edited by them, since they have done so many edits to the page:
- Role-Ending Misdemeanor:
- Soul himself heavily felt into this after being exposed by big Youtubers like Parlo and Ruben Sim, eventually resulting in him making two documents going over his past controversies in order to make himself clear. Thankfully, he was able to spin everything around by the end, resulting in his reputation getting cleaned up for the most part and many apologizing to him. Eventually the controversies were too damning for Soul to continue working on the game, resulting in the ownership of the game being transferred to Hytoko and Basil on May.
Already I can see multiple issues, such as the usage of the Overshadowed by Controversy even though it hasn't been a year since the controversy passed (and it's still ongoing today), several grammar issues, etc. I feel like discussing some part of the drama if affects development is ok, but discussing every single part of it is what grinds my absolute gears. Something should be done about this.
openCall-Back vs. Continuity Nod Live Action TV
I came very often upon examples of Call-Back that don't fit for not being plot-significant, and move them to Continuity Nod. As the description of the trope specifies:
- [A Call-Back is m]ore or less a Shout-Out to itself — but if that's all that it's doing, then it's a Continuity Nod; a Call-Back brings back an element that is actually relevant again.
However, on Andor S2E10 "Make It Stop", one such move of mine was reverted by palm529sw, despite the two concerned examples being pure flavor with no relevance at all to the episode. I did PM this editor, but got no response yet.
I'd like to have confirmation that my interpretation of Call-Back is correct, and that I can move the two examples back to Continuity Nod without being accused of edit warring.
Edited by StFanopenAgenda-based editing Live Action TV
A large portion of regularmordecai’s
edits here center around the Stranger Things scene where Eleven hits Angela with a skate for bullying her (most of them are on the show’s YMMV page) and it definitely seems agenda-based as they keep pushing the message that fans shouldn’t have enjoyed that scene and exaggerating Eleven’s actions (such as calling her a school shooter despite the fact that she didn’t kill anyone). This has been going on for about ten months now and on several occasions I tried making these entries more neutral but they promptly edited them again to add additional complaints, often using weasel words to make it sound like much of the fandom agrees with them when it’s likely just their personal opinion. They recently added an entry
under the Nightmare Fuel page bashing real-life fans for thinking Angela had it coming and calling them “foolhardy”
for allegedly saying they wished they could have done the same to their bullies (and the entry is improper at any rate since the page is about the show itself, not real-life events).
openSentences comparing Work A and Work B, even if the comparisons are questionable
What to do if a work's description or intro paragraph claims that it's similar to one or more works that are more well-known in pop culture, but such claims are questionable or dubious?
For example, the intro paragraph of Bloody Spell begins with this, which was originally written by other troper(s):
- Dark Souls in ancient China. With ALL the extra fanservice.
Bloody Spell, a.k.a 嗜血印, is a wuxia-themed action game developed by Yilong Games, one based on Wide-Open Sandbox Action RPG games made popular in recent years, with Elden Ring, Dark Souls and Bayonetta as it's most distinct inspiration... except recycled in the Ming Dynasty.
This sounds like cases of X Meets Y and Recycled In Space examples, but some of the comparisons sound like they're stretching it. Specifically, it's rather odd for the description to say it's "Dark Souls", but then lists a game comparison (Bayonetta) that is not based on Dark Souls. There are several reasons why I'm questioning the game's intro having to compare itself to several other games:
- I've played the game itself (hence why I'm troping it), and comparisons on other online forums/websites such as Steam simply call it a traditional Hack and Slash or an action game with very few Soulslike elements. It's true that you can drink a potion to restore health, and Money Is Experience Points applies just like a Dark Souls game, but you can also relentlessly or aggressively attack enemies, and a dodging mechanic makes it closer to a Bayonetta game instead. There's no such thing as a Stamina meter in this game (it's a Mana Meter instead). It's also easy to overpower enemies, so it isn't known for being Nintendo Hard. The game is also extremely fast-paced, there's a bit of mid-air combat or combos, and you don't exactly have to wait for your enemies' attack patterns all the time, so it also takes cues from games like Devil May Cry than just Dark Souls.
- Bloody Spell is not a Wide-Open Sandbox, The main story mode is made out of linear stages; it's not an open world, while the other modes are in enclosed or limited spaces, so the Elden Ring comparison is questionable.
- The game does intentionally compare itself to another IP, as one difficulty mode's description outright mentions it would play like Ninja Gaiden. There's even an alternate gameplay mode that blatantly imitates a mode from Devil May Cry.
- The game likely changed a lot, as it took a while for it to be released in Version 1.0, so the Soulslike similarities may have been diluted, and the game became more similar to traditional hack-and-slash games instead. Worse, some planned features, modes and gameplay mechanics from previous versions might have been excised or cut, creating some left-over misinformation in its description from both its TV Tropes page and the index pages where it's listed.
I'm really thinking of either deleting the paragraphs or sentences that compare it to other games, or at best, trim or rewrite them instead and just leave fewer comparisons... But I also want to ask if there's an existing clean-up thread for these kinds of things, like a "Comparison Clean-Up Thread" or something.
Alternatively, is there an existing Administrivia guideline that says comparisons between works should be placed somewhere else (like Follow the Leader and Spiritual Successor on the Trivia or YMMV pages) instead of the main work page's intro paragraph?
Heck, I could've sworn there was a similar topic back then, as when Black Myth: Wukong was released, there was a huge online discourse/debate on whether it's a Soulsborne or just a traditional action game like God of War. The Discussion tab
openTroper with linking issues and a shipping bias Videogame
Mysticalmagic 483 often edits on the Sonic the Hedgehog pages, and I've found myself having to correct their edits from time to time.
- Here
they don't properly link an example.
- Another
example of not using link brackets.
- Word cruft
In addition, they have such an obvious shipping bias. They are a fan of the Sonic/Blaze pairing. They are entitled to that opinion, because this is the internet, and everyone is allowed to have their own opinion even if I don't agree with it.
What they AREN'T entitled to is deleting mentions of the Silver/Blaze pairing because it goes against their preferred ship.
- Here
they take off details of Blaze's Ship Tease entry.
- Here
they delete a point saying Sonic is a Shipper on Deck for Silver/Blaze.
- Here
they remove a segment where both Silver and Blaze blush at being called a cute couple.
- Here
they insist that the pairing Silver and Amy "makes more sense" (no hate to anyone who ships this, but in canon Amy has a Single-Target Sexuality for Sonic).
- Here
they remove another point about her being close to Silver.
Permission to revert these edits?
Edited by deerhornsaresoprettyopenCharacter folder using another character's quote instead of the folder subject's own. Film
Over a year ago from now sapphyblue changed the character quote
at the beginning of Mark Hoffman's folder on Saw: Jigsaw and Accomplices (which I was a regular editor at back then).
The original quote was said by Hoffman himself:
For some reason, sapphyblue decided to choose a quote about him by another character instead:
I find this change pretty odd, because not only is it standard for character folders to have quotes said by the character themselves (unless they don't speak at all, at which I think it's acceptable to use a quote from another character describing them), in the current quote Hoffman is being described from the perspective of another character rather than his own, and as someone who knows the context of the films best, I think the original quote did a better job at summarizing Hoffman's own character and his moral conflict with John (that's the theme of both quotes).
I'd like to change the character folder quote back to what it originally was, with a link to this query to avoid making the change look like an Edit War; I was originally responsible for moving the original line from image caption to folder quote, but I didn't write it in the first place, and I don't think reverting a change from over a year ago can easily come off as edit warring (unless it's clear that one of the tropers is deliberately changing things back to their liking, as in a very slow-paced edit war). But what are your thoughts on this issue, and what would you suggest me to do if you don't think switching it back myself is the best option?
openHeavy case of AutoEroticTroping Webcomic
Nixvir is a webcomic created by Aeneas 1 with, to date, a whopping 1162 "related" pages
. Taking a look at them, so far, all the wicks I've seen have been created by the author. To give credit where it's due, the page itself has been edited by other tropers, but is still mainly the work of Aeneas 1. That includes the following very gushy sentence from the description: "What begins as a wacky, childish High Concept becomes an epic story to contend with the likes of Homer and Virgil, a tale of love, religious fanaticism, masculinity and good versus evil..."
Now, obviously there's nothing wrong with making a page for your own work and crosswicking it; however, of the wicks I've looked at, quite a few are shoehorn-y, with a tendency towards using Not a Subversion to get something that's plainly a non-example on the page:
- Subverted in Nixvir where Zanuba instead has a bird with the head of a gnome as her familiar. None of the other witches are depicted as using familiars, anyway.
- Subverted with Lady Metre in Nixvir who wears a sheaf of wheat in her hair, symbolising her role as the goddess of the harvest. In fact, none of the female characters are depicted as wearing flowers in their hair. I guess this might be a straight example, but it's definitely not a subversion, and the last sentence isn't needed.
- The actual year in which Nixvir takes place is never directly given. That is Ambiguous Time Period, not this trope.
Trademark Favorite Food.Webcomics:
- Subverted in Nixvir; Erik is unable to eat, being a snowman, and thus he can never have a favourite food. Mind you, he does have a tolerance for alcohol, but he is never seen favouring it above all other drinks. Justified, in that perhaps favourite food or drink, even if he were able to eat, would not be a priority for him. So... it's an aversion, then.
They also have some wicks that, while not factually inaccurate, are wildly gushy, for example the entry on ShownTheirWork.Web Comics (not going to quote it here for length, but it contains phrases like "is very well researched" and "The author studied Classical Studies and English Literature at King's College London [...], and it shows".) Remember, this entry was made by the comic's creator.
They have also been linking their comic in a bunch of Quotes pages, image links pages, and Referenced by….
They have two other webcomics on the wiki, Ragnar: The Prelude to Nixvir and Perekrin Penkrin A Day In The Life. The latter hardly has any wicks so far, but I checked a couple of the wicks of the first one, and it seems to have a similar problem of shoehorned examples.
Edited by DoktorvonEurotrashopenEdit war about a Plot Hole entry in Final Destination: Bloodies
Troper joaquinthehour removed the Plot Hole entry I put into Film.Final Destination Bloodlines yesterday with no edit reason:
- Plot Hole: As it turns out, Erik is not biologically related to Iris, meaning that he should be safe from being targeted by Death. This is seemingly confirmed when he survives the fire at the tattoo shop and Julia is instead the first of Howard's children to die. While it does makes sense that Death later targets Erik in the hospital for interfering with its design due to him trying to save Bobby, it doesn't explain Erik's incident at the tattoo shop if he wasn't originally on Death's list nor why the man with hooks wasn't added to the list after trying to help save Nora Carpenter from the second movie. This is made more glaring considering Death doesn't bother to go after any of the in-laws. One explanation could be that Erik's freak accident in the tattoo shop was just that; a genuine accident where Death wasn't actively trying to influence anything itself and the man with hooks was Killed Offscreen after Nora's death or was spared because he only interfered while being oblivious to Death's design. However, since the film never gives any concrete explanation, it's hard to overlook.
The entry fits because it is a small plot hole, but one nonetheless, and it has been expanded upon by other tropes. I placed it back yesterday, but today they removed the entry again with no edit reason. So, I'm taking it to Ask the Tropers.
Edited by MegaJopenStrange entries in Life is Strange
Life is Strange has three weird entries on the bottom. The first is a fangame, the second are spiritual successors. Can they be cut?
Unofficial but notable works related to this franchise:
- Love Is Strange, a visual novel with characters from the first game made by Team Rumblebee and released in 2016. It jettisons all the sci-fi and tragic elements to focus purely on the Queer Romance aspects.
- Tell Me Why, released in 2020, a non-series game also developed by DONTNOD, with invokedvery similar themes. Due to having a different publisher it officially takes place in a separate continuity to Life Is Strange... but that hasn't stopped fans of the series from adopting it unofficially as an LIS title.
- Lost Records: Bloom & Rage, expected in early 2025, another non-series game developed (and this time self-published) by Don't Nod. Intended as the start of a new independent IP that draws on the studio's experience of making Life is Strange, again with similar themes but officially unconnected to the LiS universe.
openImage upload help
Does anyone know how to make images in captions not look too wide as demonstrated on the picture bellow (the picture bellow illustrates how I want to make images appear in captions, but I don’t know how, because each time I try myself it fails)

openYack Fest, "Post a random song (one per poster per day)"
On the forum "Post a random song (one per poster per day)". There's a rule that says, for good reason, anyone posting a submission can only make one post per day. this is clearly stated in the Forum rules
"Post one song per poster, per day. This is so the thread doesn't fill up too rapidly."
Now before I posted there I made sure anything I posted would be compliant with the forum rules and familiarised myself with them.
I've just received a PM from troper themayorofsimpleton which states that I did in fact break this forum rule by posting twice on the same day.
With respect, I do not think I did. One posting was made on Sunday evening. The second posting was made on the Monday morning. No previous or subsequent postings were made on either day. Therefore, I was in compliance with the rule copied above. The timestamps on the postings show one was on the 11/5/25 - May 11th - and the second one was on 12/5/25 - May 12th - made approximately 13 hours apart, but on two seperate days.
Could I ask:
Whose time zone are we using to delineate this rule? I work in GMT (well, British Summer time which is GMT +1). Is the forum perhaps using somebody else's time zone as the datum marker? If the default time zone is PST or something that's a long way behind GMT, then maybe it is the case that - inadvertently - I did post twice on the Sunday.
Perhaps the rule at the top of the forum should therefore be clarified -
"Post one song per poster, in any one twenty-four hour period. This is so the thread doesn't fill up too rapidly."
This makes it more objective and therefore less prone to ambiguity?
And yes - I will undertake not to post more than once in any given 24 hour period...
Edited by AgProvopenFolder adding in SongAssociation.
I noticed examples in Song Association are separated under AC's, but I thought folders would be better, and be easy to read. Do I need permission to do this or can I do it myself? I am being careful about what I edit and touch.
Edit: I forgot to state my other question, but are Creators limited? I want to add some record labels. The pages will obviously be within writing standards, but the reason I am asking if there are permissions in pages is due to the Useful Notes fiasco from three months ago, and I don't want to get suspended for doing anything incorrect, so I want to be extra careful of what pages I edit or start here.
Edited by surname4u

So, in the Image Pickin forum, if the image that you suggested is the same image on the trope page, but it's an upgrade in the quality of the image, is it okay to start a thread in the Image Pickin forum for upgrading the quality of the image or can you just edit the image in the trope page yourself?