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:
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?
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Is there a thread or something for "reporting" (for lack of a better word) outdated information on pages?
I have found at least two pages with information that I know is outdated, but I don't consider myself knowledgable enough to change.
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.
openGroups 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?
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 RoundRobinopenCreator 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?
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 SpaztiqueopenMarking 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.
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 LordGroopenReadding of a non-character trope Videogame
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.
openUse of "we", "us", etc. on the wiki
I know that first person writing is not allowed on the wiki (because the articles are not about you), but what does that say for pronouns such as "we" (usually referring to TVTropes itself)?
openEdit War in YMMV/Super Smash Bros Ultimate Videogame
A while back I noticed this from YMMV.Super Smash Bros Ultimate:
- This would later be downplayed in Castlevania: Grimoire of Souls where Simon initially displays this attitude towards Alucard, commenting on the dark powers from within him are on-par with Dracula's, only for Alucard to remind Simon that he once fought alongside Trevor Belmont, and comments on both Maria, Shanoa, and Charlotte's impressive abilities in magic.
This was a lone third level bullet "reply" to another example under Memetic Psychopath, which was what first stood out as incorrect Example Indentation. Then looking at the text itself it was all about another game's characterization of Simon and nothing to with Simon in Smash Bros. Ultimate. So I removed
it citing both reasons in the Edit Reason.
Tailikku then put it back
showing misunderstanding of both reasons in their Edit Reason.
I PMed them telling them the reasons the entry is incorrect, but they did not respond. So I decided to bring it up here, and checking the Page History again I noticed Tailikku was the one that added the entry
in the first place, so they're also Edit Warring.
openUnintentionally Unsympathetic misuse?
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 5 E 12 Amending Fences
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Moondancer may come across as such to some who perceive that she held Twilight at fault simply for not being or staying friends with her, when they had moved apart. It doesn't help that she expected Twilight to show up to her party, yet never even invited her personally, nor cared that her other friends did attend, making her come off as petty and selfish. There's also the fact that she displays a rather blatant Entitled to Have You attitude towards Twilight as well.
It say she may, red-flag, be seen as unsympathetic to those who see her as unsympathetic, as opposed to why she was supposed to be sympathetic despite this. Other problems:
- If the flashback was to be believed, Moondancer was too busy setting the party up to invite Twilight in person.
- Given Twilight's character and circumstances at the time she would have declined even if Moondancer invited her in person.
- Moondancer's other friended reminding her she still had them was a key part in her getting over it, so that's not unintentional. The point was she was unfairly allowing that one moment to taint her view on friendship.
Moondancer and her episode is one of the more fondly remembered because of this, especially compared to Starlight Glimmer who had a similar backstory. This is the only place I've seen criticism agains her suggests it's a tropers personal opinion as opposed to common enough to be this trope. Thoughts?
I asked Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup but haven't heard back. I'm removing it on the 24th per 3-Day Rule unless I hear anything.
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenYMMV subheadings
I noticed this example while looking at pages in recent edit reasons. On YMMV.Mister Rogers Neighborhood, there's a section of tropes that says "Didn't contain, but was still related to examples of:". If they're not from the work itself, should it be removed?
Edited by costanton11openCharacter Criticism / Negativity on a Trope Page
The Deconstructed Character Archetype page has an entry for Doki Doki Literature Club!. I haven't read it and so don't have any personal opinions on either it or any of its characters. There's a troper who clearly does, though, and added "The Protagonist can't be blamed fornit because he didn't know. She's a dumb bitch for hiding it." to the end of a subentry. (The subentry only mentions the protagonist in passing. I think the troper was concerned that the subentry mentioning that the protagonist "berates" the character being discussed might make the protagonist look bad.)
I removed the addition with an explanation that Conversation in the Main Page is discouraged and that complaints/reviews should be avoided in examples. The troper didn't re-add it, but they did change the phrase "spacey demeanor" to "idiocy," which sounds like they really want to show their dislike for the character. It's not as much Flame Bait as the previous edit, but given that the subentry discusses how that character appears to be suffering from depression and that fandoms are often sensitive about that in my experience, I'm worried that could still be inflammatory. But I'm also worried about engaging in an Edit War myself by changing it back with Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.
openHelp creating an index for a Fan Rec page Anime
Can you help me make a Fan Rec Index for Ren Zha Fan Pai Zi Jiu Xi Tong or otherwise known as Scum Villain Self Saving System page? I noticed it didn't have one and I have no idea how to do it myself.
Edited by Gintama200openPutting tropes for adaptations of characters on comics character pages?
So I recently removed a bunch of tropes entries for adaptations of characters on the X-Men pages because those are comic pages and I haven't seen this done on any other character sheet (Venom, Naruto, Captain America, Batman or anything where the characters have a notable video game presence) and it just sort of looked weird when usually these entries are under the adaptations' own pages. E.g. "Teleport Spam: In [GAME] he does this" or something where it is explicitly said that the person isn't normally something, but in one specific adaptation they are, or Actually a Doombot in one instance for a videogame adaptation. This is in the comics character pages, not the character pages or trope entries for that specific adaptation. There's also their appearances in a videogame apparently warranting being in the main body of text above the examples, which I find questionable.
zealots re-added them without discussion saying there's no rule against it, but the main X-Men characters page itself says it's for the comics and some of the pages themselves state it's for the comics versions, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Thoughts?
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopenLuigi a SacredCow?
YMMV.Super Mario Bros recently had a Sacred Cow entry about the franchise itself deleted, while a sub-bullet about Mario being one was deleted in favor of Luigi. Luigi is generally well-liked, but so is Mario, and I think the franchise as a whole is definitely one even more than specific characters. (I've also seen more than a few fanfics where Luigi gets Ron the Death Eater treatment, like I HATE YOU, so his appeal isn't necessarily universal either.)
Here's the deleted entries:
"** The franchise in general is this, due to its incomparable level of success and recognition. Almost all gamers (let alone Nintendo fans) have had some exposure to Super Mario, often as a first childhood game; each major release has a lot of love put into it, and the franchise actively defies the Fleeting Demographic Rule so that fans can continue enjoying the series well into adulthood. Mario is held in such high regard that the series was able to redeem a franchise widely disliked in the gaming community (the Raving Rabbids) via a crossover game, something very few other franchises are able to pull off.
"** As Nintendo's mascot, Mario himself gets this treatment. While some people dismiss Mario for being a dopey, cartoonish everyman Vanilla Protagonist compared to characters like Link, he is near-universally loved and is almost never criticized outright, largely due to his universal appeal — something even Mickey Mouse couldn't sustain over the years. Some modifications of his character — such as portraying him as a Bishōnen or a villain, sexualizing him, or putting him in a CD-i game — are mostly frowned upon, unless it's done for humorous purposes."
And here's the added entry:
"** Luigi is The Woobie, having been pushed out of the spotlight enough In-Universe that just about everyone who isn't Mario or Peach cannot remember his name even though he's done just as much work as Mario and has been just as good at dealing with a threat, and also being branded a coward by Toads who rag on him even while he's trying to save them. Luigi's plight has thus elicited a lot of sympathy from the fans, to the point that it's hard to find anyone who has anything negative to say about the character. Weirdly enough, while a lot of the characters who are portrayed as more of a Jerkass in fanfics and fan parodies are the ones who have criticized Luigi, this also includes Mario, even though he has put himself through hardships because he didn't want to go on without Luigi, supported Luigi while others were abusing him, and even shown his respect for Luigi's heroics. However, the reason Luigi gets next to no credit for his actions is ultimately because Mario is so much more well-known, which means that he is, in a way, somewhat contributing to Luigi's pain and is thus usually characterized as a neglectful, controlling, and sociopathic Big Brother Bully with some of the most trivial offenses — like rubbing their shoes against each other after Luigi wins a trophy in Mario Power Tennis — being used as "evidence"."
Thoughts?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.SuperMarioBros

Digimon Adventure: Last Evolution Kizuna:
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?