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:
openListing every couch gag Western Animation
I don't really know where else to put this, but I'm wondering if CouchGag.Bobs Burgers is a proper use of the subpage. It lists every example (up to Season 10) of the show's Couch Gag (namely, the names on the store next door and the van), while most other examples of Couch Gag simply stop at a summary of the gag, and maybe give a few noteworthy (e.g. Lampshade Hanging) examples. For comparison, the reason CouchGag.The Simpsons is so lengthy is because the intro has multiple couch gags and their variants tend to be very self-referential and involved due to being an iconic Trope Namer.
So should we cut the Bob's Burgers page and just move it to a couple of examples?
openQuestion about a couple of Square Peg, Round Trope entries
I was unsure where exactly to ask this since a) it's something I'm unsure of but isn't exactly a trope example, and b) isn't something I want to do immediately regardless, so I'm taking it here.
I came across a couple SPRT entries about a month ago that I've been ruminating on, one that was added in 2011
and the other in 2019
, which respectively (in their current forms) are:
- Fridge Brilliance isn't "My favorite show is awesome and makes no mistakes". All series have plot holes and issues, even if insignificant, and trying to deny it with an "I Can Explain" won't change this. That'll just lead to invokedFan Dumb. A lot of people don't understand the line between Fridge Brilliance and Wild Mass Guessing. Fridge Brilliance is "Oh, X is Y because Z", Wild Mass Guessing is "Why is X Y?"
- Amazingly enough, the word Trope itself has undergone severe Trope Decay on this site. A trope is something that's objectively a part of the work. Audience Reactions and Trivia are specifically stated on these pages to not be tropes, since they occur either in the work's audience or other external materials, not the work itself. Despite this, it's hard to find a page for an Audience Reaction or Trivia item that DOESN'T refer to itself as a Trope (they even all have “trope” as the page type in the sidebar), and the YMMV and Trivia subpages for most works contain examples that say "This trope happens" or something similar. Even this very page, supposedly dedicated to correcting misused terminology, contains examples describing Audience Reactions and Trivia as "tropes"! And Playing with a Trope is something that can only be done to actual Tropes since Audience Reactions are very rarely "played" in the first place, so most examples on a YMMV page that are "Subverted" or "Downplayed" are inherently misuse.
The FB entry was originally natter according to the archive, but I don't necessarily think the phrasing/restructuring of the phrasing is related to the actual problem I'm personally seeing — that being that this sounds like its discussing another Audience Reaction entirely. Sacred Cow was the first thing that came to my mind, but that's not really speculation-related; the only thing I can gauge from the entry is that it's common for tropers to ask a question in the context of FB (like "X, perhaps?"), but I can't say that I've ever seen people use FB to justify plot holes. Mainly this entry is just really unclear.
The Trope entry...is a bit more complicated. I'm too lazy to fetch the exact archive dates now, but Subjective Tropes and (I think) Trivia Tropes used to be a thing for quite a while, before it was decided that neither were actually tropes. That aside, the page for the former says, and I quote, "this used to be the name for YMMV, tropes that objectively exist, but whose examples are subjective", something that the entry either ignores entirely, is simply written without the knowledge of, or is misinterpreted. The part about the sidebar was added a bit earlier this year, which I don't think is necessarily a bad addition—especially since the rest of the entry (particularly the last couple of sentences) are pretty complainy—but it makes the entry sound contradictory, even if it doesn't really "prove" anything one way or the other. "Inherently misuse" also sounds like Word Cruft.
So what should we do with these? Should they stay on the page or nah? Curious about what others think. Edited by Coachpill
openMisplaced IKnewIt Entry? Web Original
In Trivia.Cell Spex, I Knew It! is now YMMV, but it's about CellSpex herself accurately predicting a meme. Should it still be moved to the YMMV page?
openHow should I summarize this to make this a more concise example?
- Before and a bit during her Character Development set in, Amity Blight showed a bad habit of not practicing what she preaches.
- Amity said that it was her job as a top student to "encourage" those struggling, such as her former friend Willow, to keep trying (condescendingly), but when she lost her badge, she made a terrible example by acting out at the school cafeteria in an attempt to expose Luz and Willow's deception. It seemed that she cared more about her status than how she should present herself to her peers as a role model.
- In the same episode, as stated above, she was very demeaning to Willow for struggling in her abomination class honestly, yet she was very upset when Willow decided to cheat to pass, apparently not thinking that her treatment of her was partly the reason why she decided to do so.
- Amity was fine with nearly ruining Luz's dream of becoming a witch, but when she was unknowingly cheating on Lilith's part during the witches' duel in front of the Emperor's Coven and that it might jeopardize her future in joining them, it was considered an atrocity. Additionally, in "Reaching Out", it is revealed that she never wanted to join any coven and that her enlisting in the Emperor's Coven was her mom's dream, suggesting that Amity went along with it to minimize her misery, but it also shows that Amity got worked up over something she never actually wanted in the first place.
- Amity also told Boscha to leave Willow alone in "Hooty's Moving Hassle" since she was "born without talent", but she had no problem patronizing Willow herself in her debut.
- The same episode also showed that she was Lonely Among People and didn't like her Girl Posse, suggesting that she longed for real companionship, but when Luz offers her a chance at a true friendship, Amity rebuffs her and treats her with hostility and contempt, for a while at least.
- Part of the reason why she has an estranged relationship with her siblings is because they get away with everything and believe that as Blights, they need to uphold a higher standard, which was the exact opposite of what she did during her interactions with Luz, Willow, and others in general because of her unapologetic, unaccountable, and entitled behavior.
- She called Luz a bully over a series of misunderstandings despite her own hostile and antagonistic behavior toward Luz and Willow. While Luz was trying to make up and befriend her the whole time, she also has an Immediate Self-Contradiction when she says she doesn't get Luz, further showing that Amity isn't even putting in the minimum effort to get to know her despite "figuring out Luz's deal."
- She also accused Luz of prying into her friends' lives when Amity herself was the one who accidentally set Willow's mind ablaze to hide her past friendship out of pride, fear, and a refusal to face her problems.
- Before and a bit during her Character Development set in, Amity Blight showed a bad habit of not practicing what she preaches.
openAutoEroticTroping
Hi, I recently made a previous thread on Thorion(aka jet556, aka Donner)
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=132277&type=att
However this thread concerns some contributions Thorion made prior to deleting that account.
As mentioned in the previous thread, Thorion promoted jet556’s work by creating pages about them:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/TheEvabonSaga
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/EnterKenFinlayson
They also made a fanfic recommendation:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/Detentionaire
However there is also this page:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/LetsPlay/BryanCroiDragon
Like the first two pages, Thorion created this page(and the pages attached to it) and was the main contributor, with contributions by other users primarily being to make corrections/fix errors.
What makes this page also Auto Erotic Troping is that the page mentions that Bryan Croi Dragon’s birthday is September 17, 1992. That is the same birthday as jet556 according to the latter’s profile that The Evabon Saga page has a link to. So Bryan Croi Dragon seems to be the person behind the jet556, Thorion, and Donner accounts, making this is another case of self-promotion.
There’s also the fact that these pages were created by an ban evading account(Thorion) and he’s been caught ban evading again as Donner.
Edited by ClownishchimpopenMichael Eisner's Creator Page
Last month, Tylerbear 12 made a case
for Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg to not have Creator pages under the pretense that they're merely CEOs rather than creators. While I agree with their argument for Katzenberg to not have a page, I'd like to make a counter in regards to Eisner, as he's published three separate nonfiction books during and after his tenure at Disney, was the host of his own talk show entitled Conversations with Michael Eisner, and after his ousting from Disney, he created his own show in the form of Glenn Martin, DDS, which he self-funded.
open New/Different Category for manhua Webtoons?
I noticed how Sweet Home (the Korean Webtoon) is listed under "Webcomics" and I'm wondering if this is really the best designation for this or if there should be a subcategory for East Asian work. Technically it's a webcomic, but the "comic" section proper seems to lean more towards Western work and Webcomics seems to oftem fo the same. However, Manga and Anime have their own sections and subsections but Chinese and particularly Korean work (manhua) is really gaining momentum and it might make more sense to give those their own page? Or count manga/manhua posted on apps like Webtoons which are often professionally done, under the manga tab itself, etc.
I mostly say this because not just the manga/anime but J Horror Tropes has a page but there's in fact a huge amount of overlap with horror films from other Asian countries like South Korea and Thailand. Maybe there is a way to put these things together?
I'm sorry if this is rambling. I enjoy troping around if you will and while there's often great lists of subgenres for manga or light novels, I don't see many for the Korean/Thai/Chinese equivalents.
openPermission to cut a character page (due to citation issues) Videogame
In Characters.Death End Re Quest Code Z, there are a few entries that cite the official website
(the website has an 18+ warning due to graphic violence). However, in the upcoming works thread
, it was confirmed that official websites do not count (due to, to quote the post, "If something is present solely in commentary made by a work's creator or someone involved in its making, but is not present in the work itself, it cannot serve as the sole source for examples."). It's thanks to this that I also hid some tropes on the main page Death end re;Quest Code Z.
I've already made a sandbox for the characters so I'm asking if it is ok to cut the character and reinstate it once the game is released.
Edited by Ayumi-chanopenLiving Relic disappeared
Does the Living Relic page... exist for anyone else? I just made an edit to it, and as far as I can tell, the page just isn't there anymore. The history is still there, and I can see the changes I made there, but the page itself is empty. The problem seems to have started while I was editing the page; the preview function just showed a blank page.
openEdit War?
This was added
to YMMV.Komi Cant Communicate by OneBoiledPotato
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Wakai in Chapter 443. While it's a bit insensitive from Mangabi to let Wakai in the dark for months during a stressful period despite already deciding she's gonna turn him down. The fact that Wakai decides to respond to this by confessing again, but this time, publicly in front of a whole crowd that includes his close friends doesn't endear him much to viewers, given he's essentially peer pressuring her into accepting his confession after she already told him she needed time to think about it.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Wakai in Chapter 443. While it's a bit insensitive of Manbabi to leave Wakai in the dark for some time even after she's decided she'll turn him down (fearing telling him too soon could damage his sports performance), the fact that Wakai ends up confessing again, but this time, publicly in front of a whole crowd that includes his close friends doesn't endear him much to some viewers, given he could be seen as peer pressuring her into accepting his confession after she already told him she needed time to think about it (despite Manbagi herself having many more peers there who would take her side, and Manbagi giving no indication she felt any such peer pressure in her own account fo the second confession).
This was removed by skan123 for being contradictory.
Later, OneBoiledPotato adds this
saying the contradiction is fixed.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Wakai in Chapter 443. While it's a bit insensitive of Manbabi to leave Wakai in the dark for some time even after she's decided she'll turn him down (fearing telling him too soon could damage his sports performance), the fact that Wakai ends up confessing again, but this time, publicly in front of a whole crowd that includes his close friends doesn't endear him much to some viewers, given he could be seen as peer pressuring her into accepting his confession after she already told him she needed time to think about it.
Is it fine?
openLinking external works? Web Original
If one were to add a quote or example from a fanfiction without a page on this site, is it ok to link the title to the fanfiction itself? Additionally, should the page of the original work be linked somewhere in the quote?
Eg.
as opposed to
openLinking to Character pages in trope examples
I was asked about this in a PM but since I didn't have an answer and I've been curious about it myself lately I'll ask it here.
Over the past several months I've noticed people embedding links to Character pages in trope examples (Especially Character Specific Page) and while it doesn't feel right to me I'm not sure if that's actually against the rules or not.
Edited by rmctagg09openFanwork-Only Fans questions
I have several questions about Fanwork-Only Fans:
- YMMV.Yu Gi Oh Forbidden Memories has one regarding fan mods (covered by Come for the Game, Stay for the Mods). Practically every other FOF entry I've seen is about the series/franchise in its entirety, not just individual episodes/installments (I assume because being fans of the rest is Fanon Discontinuity instead). Does or should that limit in scope apply to FOF? Or is it just not this game that qualifies as it has a more fitting item covering it?
- YMMV.My Immortal "The fic has reached such huge infamy that many are fans of it without having read or watched the Harry Potter series." I believe this misuse as something that should go under the Harry Potter page as the works subject to such, and that fanworks are exempt as examples are instead Recursive Fanfiction (I might have asked but can't recall). Thoughts about these?
- Sandbox.Enjoy The Setting Ignore The Story was made, then given to me once the creator lost interest. I'm wondering if that's too redundant with FOF (maybe make it a redirect), or worth keeping separate. Thoughts?
- YMMV.RWBY "The series has a vocal amount of fans (and even haters) who adore the setting and characters, but not the show itself. As such, many of them are drawn towards fan works, with some of the most well-known ones even promoting themselves as being improved retellings of the show's narrative." My impression was was FOF requires they never even check out the work, but how can they know enough about it do dislike the canon handling unless they follow/watch enough about it Fanon Discontinuity is a better fit? And/or is this were Enjoy the Setting, Ignore the Story might be a better fit?
While Trope Talk seems the best place to ask, I'm concerned this might be too broad/too many separate questions for a single thread, so I'm being here first to sort out/see if other thread might be the better place to ask some of these questions.
openExample Indentation problem in YMMv page
I found two examples in YMMV page for The Gifted (2014) where two example indentation is probably used wrongly.
- Alternate Character Interpretation:
- The Stinger regarding the nature of The Gifted novel in the end portrays Marco in in a negative light. The novel portrays the unhealthy rivalry of Aica and Zoe who are actually based on in-universe real life people. In the reveal, the audience learns that the two novel characters are based on two of Marco's former classmates, Maica and Joey who are actually Fire-Forged Friends and are not okay with Marco's portrayal of their fictional counterparts in their books and mugged him in the end for it. They basically claim that the novel is an actual product of Marco's insecurities and envy of the two's academic aptitude and the embarassing incident of Aica's soiling herself and Zoe's revenge on their theology teacher was actually Marco's experience.
- Alternatively Maica's and Zoe's view on Marco's reputation as a friendless outcast maybe an exaggeration as well. Nevertheless the epilogue's possible Aesop against excessive escapism still stands.
- The Stinger regarding the nature of The Gifted novel in the end portrays Marco in in a negative light. The novel portrays the unhealthy rivalry of Aica and Zoe who are actually based on in-universe real life people. In the reveal, the audience learns that the two novel characters are based on two of Marco's former classmates, Maica and Joey who are actually Fire-Forged Friends and are not okay with Marco's portrayal of their fictional counterparts in their books and mugged him in the end for it. They basically claim that the novel is an actual product of Marco's insecurities and envy of the two's academic aptitude and the embarassing incident of Aica's soiling herself and Zoe's revenge on their theology teacher was actually Marco's experience.
- Broken Aesop
- Films and television series who features conventionally unattractive leads often implies a premise that Appearance Is in the Eye of the Beholder. However like in most films, the leads underwent cosmetic surgery. This was subverted in the ending where it was revealed that the events of the film is a loose adaptation of real events by The Gifted author Marco. Maica and Joey criticized Marco's book for making their fictional counterparts undergo surgery and insists they are contented with their appearances. They chastised the book as a escapist Fanservice meant to cater to men.
- However films such as The Gifted also heavily relies to the female demographic with Sam Milby as its male lead. Depending on your point of view the feminist message in the epilogue might not hold water..
- Films and television series who features conventionally unattractive leads often implies a premise that Appearance Is in the Eye of the Beholder. However like in most films, the leads underwent cosmetic surgery. This was subverted in the ending where it was revealed that the events of the film is a loose adaptation of real events by The Gifted author Marco. Maica and Joey criticized Marco's book for making their fictional counterparts undergo surgery and insists they are contented with their appearances. They chastised the book as a escapist Fanservice meant to cater to men.
How do I fix it?
openI would like to report myself
I would like to report myself for discussion in the edit reasons on
Trivia.Wednesday I honestly didn't realize what I was doing until I had clicked save. I thought I was simply putting an edit reason, but then I remembered that you aren't supposed to respond to previous edit reasons. It only happened once before I realized and decided to report myself. I apologize and will except punishment if necessary.
As a side note I am not even sure if the entry should be there but that is for another thread.
Edited by BullmanopenFranchise Question
Recently, I created a range for the BBC Books releases of the series Torchwood. With this, the parent show, and Torchwood: The Lost Files, there's enough there to warrant a Franchise page which I am thinking of making as well. However, what makes this case a bit murky to me is that Torchwood is a Spin-Off of Doctor Who, which in of itself is a franchise. Additionally, Torchwood material is already covered by the Doctor Who Expanded Universe. Could the franchise page still be created or what would the protocol be here?
Edited by HoloMew151openIs there any parameter for text under headers to be put in folders?
This is a question that popped on my mind when I was doing some structuring on the The Amazing Digital Circus pages. Specifically, when I put the "General" section of the newly-created Alternative Character Interpretation in a folder (to go in tandem with the folders in the "Episodes" section) among some cleanup, I went to check if any other pages had some sections with folders and others without them, I found the Heartwarming page, which had its "Misc." section without a folder; I attempted to put it in a folder, only to notice upon looking in the page's history that Shanwoo 444 (the same troper who created the Alternative Character Interpretation) had already done that
before only to quickly remove it as they were creating folders for each episode under the "Episodes" header, at which I quickly reverted the changes (initially because I mis-read the entries for a moment and thought I added the "Misc." folder myself, meaning that I could have started an edit war, but I sticked to what I did anyway after seeing I didn't just in case).
What I'm asking is, in pages pertaining to examples of a trope in a specific work that use folders and headers at the same time, should folders only be used as further subsections for headers that have distinctive aspects separating the examples (e.g. the episode it takes place in), or is a single folder acceptable for any header regardless of how the distinction between its examples or even its length (as the Misc. section in the Heartwarming page is rather short with only two examples)? Shanwoo 444 and I seem to have rather different ways of organizing pages like these, given how I prefer to put everything in folders to keep things neat whereas they are fine with leaving headings without folders unless they address things such as episodes. I'm not really sure if there's any rule or recommendation addressed in the Administrivia pages on how to handle folders in this situation, and I'm asking this just to be safe on what to do.
openSomething in Muppets (2015) That Never Actually Happened? Live Action TV
So I recall something in the page for The Muppets (2015) that's been there for a while now.
- Big Eater:
- Piggy gorges herself on a basket of cheeses after Fozzie manages to break through her emotional barriers by accident.
- Kermit is revealed to be a stress eater. He even asks for more food after eating so much that he can't move.
While I can confirm it's true Kermit is a stress eater, I can't find anywhere else that brings up a part where "He even asks for more food after eating so much that he can't move." and I've looked through the episodes and it doesn't seem to happen. Did I miss something, or did somebody put up misinfo for the sake of troping with one hand? (considering what 'eating so much they can't move' usually means.)
Edited by RedBerryBlueCherry

The previous Image Pickin' thread
for Hammy Villain, Serious Hero eventually held a crowner for both itself and Good Is Not Soft as they shared images eventually decided on pulling the image that was found there and await a new thread where a new image could be discussed.
The consensus was that the then-image was poor for Good Is Not Soft, and it was decided to remove it.
Alex Hoskins then Seemingly added in a new image
a few weeks ago without discussion on the matter. Am I correct in thinking that this is a no-no and the image should be pulled?
Or did I miss something?