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:
openReferences in laconics
I know there's a cleanup thread about laconics, but I'm still waiting for a question I asked there ages ago to be answered and I'm worried that if I ask another question before then, it'd be "spamming".
I'm not talking about the "unabridged version" gags. Those are hilarious IMO and can stay. What I'm talking about is when works that aren't spinoffs have laconics that are basically just "Work X, but with Y".
This, I think, is a bit unclear because what if no one's ever seen the work being referenced?
A particularly blatant example is Laconic.Airplane is "Zero Hour played for laughs." I'd never heard of Zero Hour so I went to look at Laconic.Zero Hour (because I didn't want to spend ages reading about a work I wasn't interested in) and it was "Airplane! without the jokes.", which, to make a joke myself, doesn't fly in my opinion.
Edited by UnicorndanceopenAbout Fan Works Web Original
What's the stance on indexing Fan Works examples by work on the main page (instead of a sub-page)? For example, this example from a TLP:
Fan Works Batman
- Angel of the Bat: As in canon, Dick Grayson/Nightwing is of Roma descent. He considers himself a Christian, but mentions traveling with the circus never permitted him much time to study his faith. His first scene also shows him to be a trickster, playing off the stereotypes of Roma being superstitious to grill an enemy which ironically is a Double Subversion, considering Roma are also stereotypically connected to deceit.
openCan Creator pages be redlinks, for the future, or must they be blue?
Thanks for the thoughts of agreement, ya'll. Mods, can I get a revert on those work pages?
Or should I just do it myself?
I'll do it myself...
Can Creator pages be redlinks, for the future, or must they be blue?
Administrivia.Creator Page Guidelines says, in a Note:
Any reason not to apply this policy to Creators with more than one work, themselves?
WebAnimation.Overly Sarcastic Productions, and Webcomic.Aurora 2019, share a creator, Creator.Red.
However, I dunno much about them, other than they do art on the internet, which seems very stubby to say.
I just made the redlinks, because mentioning a Creator's unrelated, other works on a page about one of their works, is mentioning irrelevance.
But, having more than one work, means that they should have a Creator page which indexes their works.
Edited by MaladyopenMisuse of Author Existence Failure on several pages?
A number of pages relating to Power Rangers has Author Existence Failure for actors that have passed away, but my issue is that while the show as a whole is ongoing the seasons they were a part of are long over and with seasons more or less self contained now, there's very little chance of their character coming back anyways so listing this trope seems pointless.
Another issue is the addition of The Character Died with Him too, with Power Rangers Never Say "Die" in place it's very unlikely any character (especially those from older seasons) would ever be revealed to have passed on so again it seems like an unnecessary trope to have.
So should these tropes be deleted, edited in some way, or just left alone?
Edited by AkibaPurpleopen(Accidental?) Incentive to Suicide in the "Serious Business" page
So, i was looking through the Real Life section of the Serious Business page and stumbled upon this paragraph.
"Life itself. It's so much serious business because there are people who strive to give it meaning, even during hard times. It's even more serious when people will shame those who hate how their lives are and are seeking to end it for their misfortunes, whether serious or not."
Now, i THINK this is accidental, but the wording made it sound like people who want to end their lives because they hate it and/or are going through hard times are making the correct choice. Again, this might be a mistake since it specified those who are doing Suicide Shaming, and it could just be a critique to those who do that, but i still think it should be changed since one could interpret it as an outright incentive to suicide as a solution (Like i did).
Edited by LalapolpolpolopenRequesting a revert
A while ago, jto5334t
added several Zero-Context Examples to Elite Beat Agents. I hid them, and in the edit reason I left a link to the Administrivia page. Today, they started an Edit War by restoring all of the hidden entries without any adjustments, on top of adding a few others. I'm requesting a revert on that page, as I cannot edit it without engaging in an Edit War myself.
openIs it okay for me to split this character subpage?
Hi. I happen to have noticed that Characters.Skyrim Other Characters was on the Overly Long Pages list.
Having gotten into the relevant game recently, I posted a few ideas to split on the thread concerning too long pages
, from the perspective of my time zone, a couple days ago, and I have yet to get an answer. When something explicitly needs a consensus, I'm the type who'd rather drop the possible modification entirely rather than do the thing unilaterally if I don't get any feedback.
PS: please put anything directly concerning the page split itself on the "too-long page repair" thread.
Edited by Nazetrimeopen The Deadpool pages are way to difficult to understand for people note well-versed with the comics. Print Comic
I get it, Deadpool is 4th Wall breaking, but does really need to be applied to Deadpool's T Vtropes and all associated pages, especially the tropes themselves? It's actually hard to understand some of it, especially when it's discussing specific events which A. Aren't clearly stated and B. assumes you already are well-versed with all of Deadpool's appearances. The one I have serious trouble reading in Deadpool/YMMV page for Seasonal Rot, not only is the entry needlessly long winded, but poorly explained on what events or comics it's even talking about and just isn't all the useful.
What's worse is that on the Characters / Marvel Comics aka: Marvel Universe page, next to link for the Deadpool page their's a note that says "(And if you're asking why there's no Comic Book sub-page for me, too bad! My page is always permanently on Self-Demonstrating mode, cuz I'm frickin' Deadpool.)"
Like really? Is this what T Vtropes has come to where we say screw making the site actually anyway useful or informative and just make entire sections useless for a cheap overdrawn joke that just simply isn't funny unless your a hardcore fan of the character and make fun of people for it?
I'm sorry but I really do feel the Deadpool really needs to heavily revised to at least make it understandable for people who aren't well-versed with the comics and the character and make it more clear what is even being discussed.
openManchild or Psychopathic Manchild Videogame
Over the past year, there's been a minor edit war over whether Bowser is a Manchild or a Psychopathic Manchild.
This is his entry:
Bowser is a rich and powerful king, but still shows obvious signs of immaturity on a regular basis; he has nasty mood swings that scare even his most loyal servants, he never feels responsible for his failures, always looking for someone else to blame, and is never satisfied with what he already has, always wanting more. The best showcase of this is when he meets his younger self in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time: barely anything differentiates them in personality, showing that Bowser has barely evolved mentally since infancy.
Which trope is more appropriate?
openRemnant Inferis: DOOM Awesome page
About a year ago, Remnant Inferis: DOOM had an awesome moments page, but it was cut since it was created by the author. Somewhere in mid to late last year, I made a sandbox page for moments pages for the fic, and the sandbox entries (added by Troper/Marvyn and myself) seem to be enough to add a new awesome page. These entries had no authorial input whatsoever and have been edited to be grammatically correct. Do I have the go ahead to re-create the awesome moments page?
openMinecraft YMMV Videogame
A big majority of the YMMV subpages for Minecraft such as Awesome, Funny, and Heartwarming, are mainly just stories about things other players did and put online and have nothing to actually do with the game itself. Is that allowed?
openMore YMMV/StevenUniverseFuture issues.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Garnet, Pearl, and Amethyst, even with the fact that Steven is growing up, continue to treat him like they did at the start of Steven Universe. At several different points, they are seen glossing over his emotions, such as during "Together Forever" when Garnet doesn't give Steven help when he asks (and claims that "there was no future where he didn't propose despite Ruby and Sapphire directly egging Steven on to propose to Connie), and Amethyst glossing over Steven's concerns in "Guidance" when he pointed out they were treating the newly-immigrated gems like they did on Homeworld (though she turned out to be mostly right, Both Sides Have a Point). And "Snow Day", when they repeatedly ignored the many signs that Steven did not want to play with them, as well as the fact that they never directly apologized to Steven while he was himself onscreen (like he did to Cactus Steven in "Prickly Pair") in "I Am My Monster" or "The Future" over their Parental Neglect or how he was their Living Emotional Crutch, instead just acknowledging it while he was in his Kaiju form. Or acting "tough" in "The Future", without considering how acting like they didn't care their child was leaving may have affected Steven emotionally. Steven may have not brought it up most of the time, but is it any wonder he's angry with them?
1. It fails to explain why they were supposed to be sympathetic despite the circumstances. 2. It outright states they realized they were in the wrong in "I Am My Monster", the point of the series was showing how they treated Steven hurt him. The "never directly apologized to Steven while he was himself onscreen" seems too minor and nitpicky to count when at least 90% of this was intentional. This is the second case of UU issue on the page
.
I also asked UU cleanup
but this seem an easy fix and bigger issue so I'm asking here as well.
openYMMV.Catherine UnfortunateImplications edit war Videogame
Hey, troper metaverse keeps deleting an Unfortunate Implications entry on the YMMV.Catherine page about some fans being unhappy with Unsettling Gender-Reveal jokes (the scene in question involves a transwoman appearing before coming out in an Alternate Timeline so they can make a joke about another character she is attracted to being unaware she is a transwoman or attracted to him, basically), despite 3 sources to said reactions being provided (per the guidelines), with a Strawman Fallacy edit reason that these are "misunderstandings" about a Transgender character no longer wanting to transition, rather than about the actual content of the entry. Entry:
- Unfortunate Implications: In one of the new endings for Full Body, Catherine goes back in time so she can place herself in Vincent's high school and the two end up dating. An unclear number of years later, at Vincent and Catherine's wedding, Erica is then seen pre-transition with Toby, who previously only became friends with the rest of the cast after Erica's transition, in order to make another joke about Erica's attraction to Toby. Outside potentially inadvertently removing Erica's identity and agency, this was mainly seen as Atlus doubling down on problematic Unsettling Gender-Reveal jokes in the story by a number of fans, especially in the trans community in both the West and Japan. It even got to the point where several people refused to buy the game or support Atlus in the future. The English voice actress for Erica, Erin Fitzgerald, explained shortly afterwards that the localization team would try to adjust the ending for the Western release. (Sources: Kotaku
, Daily Dot
, Dualshockers
)
I'm not really sure what to do at this point because the edit reasons for removing don't seem to have anything to do with the actual entry? Honestly, if the entry should go for the sake of Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment, I understand, but feel like their strawman Mis-blamed and Overshadowed by Controversy should go too then.
Edited by ashlayopenNo Title
So since Examples Aren't General, should everything under the "General" folder on ContemptibleCover.Literature be allowed there:
- Twilight's popularity (and its habitual referencing of literary classics) has led to a series of "Twilight-ized" covers of the books mentioned in the series — including Wuthering Heights
, Pride and Prejudice
◊, and Romeo and Juliet
◊. Yes, now you too can be reminded of trashy vampire romance while reading Shakespeare. And that sticker on the Wuthering Heights cover? Yes, that does in fact read, "Bella and Edward's favorite book!"
- Jane Eyre
and again
- Wuthering Heights
◊ again.
- Jane Eyre
- Twilight's popularity (and its habitual referencing of literary classics) has led to a series of "Twilight-ized" covers of the books mentioned in the series — including Wuthering Heights
- A lot of Pulp Magazines, naturally. For instance, the issue of Planet Stories that introduced Eric John Stark has Queen Berild riding a steed that resembles a giant purple googly-eyed seahorse, although she actually wears more clothing than she does in the text.
- Although a few specific series are mentioned here, it's safe to assume that EVERY Urban Fantasy or Paranormal Romance book will have a hideously embarrassing cover. Because they all do.
- Averted to an extreme by many Canadian publishers who not only manage to (usually) avoid putting any objectionable cover onto their books, but due perhaps to a desire (or a requirement) to double up on promoting Canadian culture, it's very common to find works of Canadian art gracing the cover of CanLit books that rarely correspond to the subject matter of the book. For example, a novel about urban life might have a painting of a prairie countryside on the cover. In other words, if you're a CanLit author, you can't always rely on the covers to sell your books.
- Not even self-published works are completely immune to this. Smashwords maintains a helpful list of cover designers for the aspiring writer, many of whom offer... drumroll please... "premade covers". They're cheaper than having one designed to order, but are inevitably the blandest and most generic combination of Photoshopped-together stock images imaginable. They're probably slightly better than nothing, but if you've ever wondered why a lot of ebooks seem to have such bland and forgettable covers, now you know.
- This site
is completely devoted to showcasing the most contemptible cover art on the planet.
openOdd "Self Demonstrating" Page
Wild Teen Party (the self demonstrating one) doesn't seem to be particularly different from Wild Teen Party. Is there any particular reason why it's considered one?
Edited by Florien

YMMV.Fate Apocrypha contains the following entry:
I can see a perfectly-valid argument to be made for why people would want to root for the Red Faction, despite my own opinions on the matter. It's just... this feels too damn long with several long bullets being devoted to building up the same point, which is probably in defiance of Administrivia.Clear Concise Witty. Should I shorten this, and if yes, how?