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:
openNot kosher entry. Film
Found this on the Solo YMMV page by Troper Pren
:
- Fandom Berserk Button: Even with the film being an undeniable Box-Office Bomb, unlike when The Last Jedi was hit with the claim against all sanity, it's still a sore point when the alt-right conspirators trying to destroy the franchise claim this as their doing. In particular, it's often rebutted with how the only film in the revived franchise to date to lose money is also the only one with a white male lead.
This is....yeah no, this needs to go. No valid claims about "alt-right conspirators", and the troper seems to be shoehorning a political Take That! against people who seem to disagree about the film not making a lot of money. Also, white male lead isn't the issue, if anything its that the movie exists at all that some dislike.
Edit: This troper has been going around and making some very political laced claims across several other pages it seems. For example they added this on One Day at a Time (2017).
- Counterpart Comparison: One brought up by Netflix itself, as after the Roseanne revival was cancelled due to Roseanne Barr's racist Tweets, Netflix made their own Tweet about how they also currently have a reboot of a classic sitcom about a working class family that deals with a bunch of political issues, twisting the knife by pointing out how theirs is still going.
Might need to talk to them about them pushing political based opinions in areas that don't seem to be there. Trying to find a good way to word it so apologies.
Edited by keyblade333openExcessive spoilering. Film
The page for Self/Less is very heavily spoilered, covering entire examples.
This movie does have twists, sure, but it looks excessive. Is there a standard procedure for such a case?
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 LordGroopenWeDidntStartTheFuhrer Film
I have recently seen a film set in a historical war (which is not World War II), where the main character is sure that the whole conflict was caused by a supernatural influence over humanity, and it turns out that no, the war was something that humanity started all by itself, with no supernatural forces at work. I thought about We Didn't Start the Führer, but that trope clarifies that it is specifically for Hitler and WWII. Is there some parent trope, then? Or should I use it anyway, taking into account that Tropes are flexible? If it is the second, shouldn't we rewrite the trope a bit, to clarify that WWII is simply a major location of this trope, but not the exclusive one?
Note: The very question I'm making may give a spoiler about the plot of the film, so the best way I could thought about to avoid that was to speak in general terms, without mentioning the film (and, just in case, not even the actual war). If someone else here does realize the film that made me ask this question, please do not mention it, for the sake of those who did not saw it.
openchickenpie999 Film
chickenpie999
has deleted several examples
from YMMV.Return Of The Jedi without providing any edit reasons.
They've also changed an example from this:
To this:
openCowboy Wizard In Space Film
I recently deleted a Small Reference Pools example from YMMV.Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them, since Small Reference Pools is not a YMMV items. And I left behind an edit-reason explaining so.
Cowboy Wizard in Space
has re-added the example leaving this as his edit-reason:
"Although the trope itself is not specifically coded as YMMV, the entries are too subjective for the main page. I went through the entire YMMV index and was unable to find a YMMV trope that fit the opinions described, and so have added Small Reference Pools back in. If anyone finds a YMMV trope that fits the opinions below, feel free to change it; but for the time being, deleting opinions is against YMMV policy."
Edited by AnddrixopenFlypaper (2011) not on TvTropes Film
Note: I don't fully know how Tv Tropes works, so I am not 100% sure if I am at the correct location for this question.
One of my favorite movies of all time is Flypaper from 2011; It's about a bank being robbed by 2 separate groups, and everything goes wrong.
I cannot find this movie on the website, but I am sure that it contains a lot of tropes, seeing as the movie is heavily comedy based and doesn't take itself seriously.
How can I [or, preferably, with the help of other people] create a page for the movie on this website?
openVague edit reason Film
The YMMV page for Die Hard had this entry under Misaimed Fandom:
- John McClane is often seen as an example by gun rights activists of how "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun." However, this completely ignores how John spends almost the entire film on the defensive, with his very first move being to run away and try to get help. He also spends a good chunk of the second act simply hiding in a remote part of the building and not confronting the terrorists at all apart from dropping C4 on them.
This was deleted by Miracle@St Olaf with the edit reason merely stating "There's plenty someone can say to argue this, which means it probably doesn't need to be here," but it doesn't make any such argument itself. Should the entry be restored?
Edited by Javertshark13openGlass Onion Author Tract example Film
Recently, I added this particular example on Glass Onion YMMV page because I personally thought it's fitting, but not everyone may think so as well, so I thought it should be a YMMV example:
- Author Tract: Miles Bron's description of his fellow "Disruptors" as the ones who influence society by constantly breaking status quos, starting from things people wanted to break all along to things so beloved that nobody wants them to break, could be interpreted as Johnson's tract on his own filmmaking style, which has a tendency to subvert traditional narrative conventions in favor of something new even if it generates controversy in the process. This is especially more relevant when one considers the case of Star Wars: Episode VIII — The Last Jedi, a film directed by Johnson that subverts many expectations and conventions of the Star Wars universe to the point that it created an uproar among the fanbase, which still has lasting effects to the series and Johnson's own reputation to this day.
Then another troper AyyItsMidnight
deleted it by reasoning that it's not a YMMV trope, so I was wondering if this example could be added somewhere else? Or is it not applicable at all? I personally thought that the whole scene with Miles Bron explaining about "Disruptors" is quite reflective of Rian Johnson himself and his directing style, even if it's not the intended effect. Rian often breaks trends and conventions simply because he could, and that one time he caused a large rift in the Star Wars fandom with The Last Jedi that still has lasting effects today, so I thought the example applies in this case.
openCharacter 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?
openEdit War in Homeward Bound II Film
So in Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, Valinante added edits that claimed that Chance didn't forgive Sassy and Shadow at all after Delilah leaves him.
Hero Gal 2347 removes and/or alters them with this reason:
- A lot of the segments in Broken Pedestal, This Is Unforgivable! and Laser-Guided Karma seem to be a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, Chance understandably loses his temper over the incident with Shadow and Riley interfering in his relationship with Delilah, but he acts the same way he has for the past two movies when he reveals himself to Shadow and Sassy after the incident with Ashcan and Pete. There's no sign of a permanent grudge.
Valinante readds the This Is Unforgivable! entry.
I removed it with an admittedly rude reason (which i apologize for) and sent them a notifier quoting the Hero Gal's reason (if that's not okay I also apologize.
Valinante sent me a rather rude message that basically amounts to "Chance didn't say he forgave them, so he didn't." and disregards him saving them proving otherwise. And regardless I don't think an optimistic and upbeat movie would have such a pessimistic quality like "no forgiveness between friends".
Is it alright if I take this here? Does something further need to be done?
Edited by RedBerryBlueCherryopenSPUMC Venom's gender pronouns Film
In light of the release of the second trailer
for Venom: Let There Be Carnage, I want to put to rest a seemingly unresolved query as to what pronouns should be used when referring to the Venom symbiote. Being a symbiote, it has no defined gender or sex, choosing to assume the form of its host and never refers to itself by any pronouns but "we" across all continuities. Same goes for the SPUMC (Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters) version of the character where it briefly possesses Anne and then morphs into a female form. In the same universe, however, Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock refers to Venom with male pronouns (which his comic book counterpart never really does so), which Venom never objects to, so while there might not be a biological sex, the symbiote seems to identify as male. Gernerally speaking though, the entity formed when Eddie and the symbiote merge together is also called Venom and the combined form is referred to with male pronouns. I just want to know what the consensus is though about what pronouns pertain to the SPUMC symbiote itself before officially altering any associated work pages.
openEncanto Film
I know Tearjeaker is based on opinion, but there are a few entries on TearJerker.Encanto that I feel are a bit too opinionated.
For example: *** After explaining her backstory, one couldn't help but think that she must feel that her husband would be ashamed of her.
Then there is this which was deleted and then readded: * Mirabel's "you're perfect as you are!" conversation with her mother when her hand is healed is sweet and funny...but there's also a bit of justified bitterness in Mirabel's tone when she points out that Julieta has just healed her hand with magic. Julieta is correct — but Julieta is also the Madrigal with the most manageable and most obviously beneficial power. From her daughter's perspective, it's a bit like a supermodel lecturing you on why looks aren't everything. It also doesn't help that Julieta still thinks that Mirabel was (possibly unconsciously) acting out because of envy at Antonio's successful ceremony — she's one of Mirabel's strongest supporters, and even she doubts her.
Even more heartwrenching is that this moment also makes Julieta unknowingly insensitive in another layer - as stated earlier, the Madrigal family took a family picture without Mirabel. And even Julieta didn't notice. So, when Julieta makes that line, it rings even hollower. Her mother essentially expects Mirabel to see herself as 'perfect' as she is while she's stuck in an environment that singles her out near constantly. There's no escaping how different she is from the rest of her family — she lives in the nursery of a magic house (because she was "unworthy" of her own special room), in a town shaped by her family's powers, in a community where she's known as the "not-special one". And that's not counting the times where she's actively treated as the family screw-up. Good luck accepting yourself in those circumstances.
I might be overreacting, but some of this is more alternate character interpretation.
Edited by LadyErinNYopenNew DC Universe Franchise Page Film
So Franchise.The DC Universe Film Universe has been launched, and I'm not sure if that was the agreed upon name that should be used. It feels clunky to me, and very easy to missearch, on top of the fact that there is no "The" used, and it's going to confuse alot of people. Myself and others were already working on Sandbox.DC Universe 2024, and while I don't want to use a year disambiguator, idk what else to do.
Edited by GateStarXopenYMMV trope misuse question? Film
Recently someone added the Catharsis Factor regarding the 1990 American biographical crime film GoodFellas as seen here (click here)
, I'll cover it with spoilers just in case if anyone does not want to know the plot yet?
- Catharsis Factor: After a long time of bullying, sadism, murder and many other crimes, Tommy is unceremoniously executed during the trap that he believed to be his making ceremony.
I believe this is a misuse because Tommy was unexpectedly gets whacked from behind by an individual and he seems helpless to do anything to save himself. While I know and aware for sure that Tommy DeVito is a terrible (for the lack of a better term) villain himself and it seems like a textbook example of Tommy's well-deserved comeuppance but for some reason it doesn't feel very gratifying. I admit to not have much good reasons to defend Tommy or to protest against the YMMV trope in someway/or form but it somehow just does not felt right at all and I think this is probably an example of the Catharsis Factor has gone too far. In short, it just seems wrong to add Catharsis Factor on Tommy DeVito.
Side note: This is my personal opinion and I fully acknowledge that YMMV is an opinionated based trope page. And most if not all Catharsis Factor makes sense when it comes to Audience Reactions to the villains in fictional stories but still I think this seems worthy of attention. Any thoughts, suggestions and opinions on this?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpaiopenFormatting error on the Deadpool and Wolverine page - anyone know how to fix this? Film
Recently some trivia linked under spoiler tags are listed as invoked on the Deadpool & Wolverine page, but with the way it's formatted it breaks some of the example's spoiler tags (specifically under All for Nothing, Ambiguous Situation, and Self-Deprecation) - I've tried fixing it through editing previews, but nothing short of removing the invoked tags seems to be working.
openCan overriding other tropers' entries in favor of your own entries count as an Edit War? Film
About a couple years ago, I added this example of Numerological Motif to Saw VI:
- Numerological Motif: Being the sixth Saw film, there are several allusions to the number six throughout Saw VI.
- Overall, there are six traps in the film, including the opening trap and all the five traps in William's trial. This is further cemented by one of the film's taglines: "6 chances. 6 lessons. 6 choices."
- One of the traps in itself, the Carousel Trap, has six victims.
- Jill is seen holding an instruction envelope from the box with the number six written on it, likely implying that there were six of them inside the box.
- The film's "Hello Zepp" rendition, "Zepp Six", clocks at six minutes within the six-minute climax.
Later, on January of this year, Ze Trope Guy 999 added
the following example of Arc Number in the same page, the sub-bullets of which, while fewer and less elaborate, are similar to those of my example.
- Arc Number: Six, as befitting the sixth entry.
- There are six victims on the Shotgun Carousel.
- Jill Tuck’s box is revealed to have six envelopes in it - the sixth one containing a photograph of Hoffman.
I'm planning to combine the two entries, mostly using my descriptions but also including some minor facts mentioned in ZeTropesGuy's entry, into a single example of Arc Number, as I had noticed the latter entry today and realized that Arc Number fits better for the film's symbolism of the number six than Numerological Motif. The end result would look like this:
- Arc Number: Befitting its status as the sixth Saw film, there are several allusions to the number six throughout Saw VI.
- Overall (without counting the Reverse Bear Trap 2.0, an updated version of the first film's Reverse Bear Trap that has considerably less screentime than the other traps), there are six traps in the film, including the opening trap and all the five traps in William's trial. This is further cemented by one of the film's taglines: "6 chances. 6 lessons. 6 choices."
- One of the traps in itself, the Shotgun Carousel, has six victims.
- Aside from the five envelopes she gives to Hoffman, Jill is seen holding another instruction envelope from the box with the number six written on it (revealed in the climax to contain instructions on how she has to set up the Reverse Bear Trap 2.0 on Hoffman, likely implying that there were six of them inside the box.
- The film's "Hello Zepp" rendition, "Zepp Six", clocks at six minutes within the six-minute climax.
However, I'm worried that the fact that I'm overriding much of ZeTropeGuy's entry with mine could lead to an Edit War if I don't address my planned edit properly. Can this edit really be considered Edit Warring, or is it completely fine to do?
Edited by Inky100openOnly real content of ''Film/BrightOnes'' is plagiarism Film
I stumbled across Bright Ones and DM'd the creator, Murphy Trope to suggest he add some tropes as it had none. Digging a little deeper, all the text apart from the opening line is taken directly from the film's official synopsis
. If you remove the plagiarised text you're left with a promotional image and the text "Bright Ones is a 2019 Christian musical film that is based on Bethel Music."
What's the best way to tackle this? I've not seen the film so I can't fix it myself.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but if a novelization of a film explains something in detail that went missing, was only implied in the film or something else entirely, should that be added to the film page itself in some way?