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:
openEdit war on Condemned by History
The following entry:
- The "angry reviewer" style was a popular style of reviewing in the late 2000s and early 2010s. It was popularized around 2006-2007 by The Angry Video Game Nerd and The Nostalgia Critic, who made a name for themselves deliberately reviewing bad video games and movies with comedically exaggerated anger. They often interspersed their "reviews" with skits, foul language, and Vulgar Humor, alongside giving background information about what they reviewed. The genre also spread outside of reviewing video games and movies, with many critics reviewing comics or animated works.
However, in the mid-2010s, the genre saw a massive decline in popularity. Once AVGN and The Nostalgia Critic blew up, Sturgeon's Law kicked in: a large number of inferior copycats tried to ape their style by simply ramping up the vitriol and Vulgar Humor, while ignoring the wit and research they had in their videos of the two aforementioned review shows. Several of these videos also contained personal attacks against the creators, as well as against fans of the works being reviewed, which were not always done humorously. By the late 2010s, viewers began to see such reviews as too mean-spirited and often done in bad faith, gravitating towards straightforward video essays with less vitriolic humour. Perhaps the final blow was a series of scandals involving Channel Awesome, and The Nostalgia Critic's poorly received review of The Wall, which showcased all of the problems of this format.
Nowadays, the only truly successful shows that survive with this style are the aforementioned AVGNnote Largely due to the Grandfather Clause, James Rolfe's tendency to stay out of Internet drama, the formula often being changed around to work with the original style on top of being more informative and extensively researched, and Rolfe being as respectful as can be to both fans and the creators of the content he reviews when not in character, Angry Joenote Mainly because he regularly does positive reviews as well and his criticisms are more often than not actual criticisms instead of anger for the sake of anger and JonTronnote Who phased out the style for more surreal, zany humor over time. Even Doug Walker himself, despite being the main inspiration and source of criticism for the genre, significantly toned down the anger in his Nostalgia Critic persona when the show was Un-Cancelled and incorporated film re-enactments and surreal comedy. Most of the critics known for the genre have either retired from reviewing, suffered from declining viewership for sticking with the old formula, or have transitioned into a more professional style, with some, like Quinton Reviews and Lindsay Ellis, going so far as to publicly disavow their older videos.
had the bolded portion added
by Cavery 210.
Neverwood recently removed it
with the following edit reason:
Cavery 210 then added it back
with the following edit reason:
openSilverlady
I have a few concerns about Silverlady's edits, especially where the TLP is concerned. I'll start off with their wiki contributions, though.
- Back in August, I sent a grammar notifier for this edit
. Notably, while they made other edits there, those two were never even touched. Grammar issues are still an issue with them
even now.
- They have a very
consistent
issue
with
context
, though IDK if any notifiers have been sent for those yet. However, let's put a pin in this.
- They also have an issue with trope misuse. For example, this
Crapsaccharine World example massively exaggerates both how idyllic and how awful the town is for Belle and her father. This Too Dumb to Live example doesn't make clear what's happening
, as it implies Belle attacks the fake beast after he was impaled, at which point... where's the danger? Etc.
All of these issues can be seen on the TLP, and while there, they've been told about these issues and yet haven't made an effort to fix them. Additionally, they're one of the tropers who keep posting new examples in the middle of discussion, which means they're ignoring everything that says there might be an issue here... something proven by their voting history
, which proves they hat just about anything (save for three random drafts that, ironically, everyone else liked, and no they didn't explain it). note and if you're wondering how I'm getting this info, TLP history is public, you just have to add "?for=username" to the URL
Here's some of their recent TLP post history:
- Serious Hero, Comical Sidekick
has them posting a bunch of examples that, as Amatheiu pointed out, don't fit the description. Additionally, this came in the middle of a discussion over if the trope was covered.
- Diabolical Deer
: Poor grammar/spelling in their example, low context as to what the Moose's plan is and how evil they actually are, and using the trope as "evil deer character" when the trope at that point was specifically about subverted innocence and not just '"evil deer".
- Involuntary Servitude
: Multiple examples starting at the linked post, many with poor grammar and others that don't describe the servitude itself, instead of just saying "they were made a slave".
- Misplaced Mindfulness
: In this one I just can't see the trope at all tbh... It's just a character making a mistake and falling into guilt.
- Children's Covert Coterie
has them again adding something that doesn't fit.
- Comically Tiny Wings
had them learn what a ZCE was, but don't be fooled. They were told on the 17th, but these issues are still showing up in their edits and in the other examples, with the Recap.The Owl House S 3 E 1 Thanks To Them one being on the 18th and the Involuntary Servitude ones being on the 20th and 21st.
- Jumping backwards quite a bit, Diagnosis: Silence
is their first TLP post according to the history... and even back then they had trouble with following the definition and was called out for it.
Now, obviously not all of their posts and edits are bad, but these are some recurring patterns that they're falling into even after being called out. They're clearly going back to threads because they constantly notice when their examples weren't added, so there's no real justification for not learning yet to read the descriptions thoroughly and not stopping to engage with any ongoing discussions. This is, of course, without getting into their grammar and context issues, which, let's be clear...
openRule of Cautious Editing Judgement wicks
I've been involved with the currently-quiet cleanup effort
surrounding Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment sinkholes, and thus far, I've been adhering primarily to the idea that the "And that's all we'll say about that" and "overwritten euphemism for Broken Base" varieties of ROCEJ wick should be removed on sight.
Looking at the remaining ROCEJ sinkholes, I'm wondering if those could do with removing as well, considering the impetus behind the cleanup effort and the distinction of what is meant by "rule" in this context. Some of the remarks with ROCEJ sinkholes reference the ROCEJ as if it meant "rule" in the sense of something that everyone has to make sure to follow, but the ROCEJ page itself and some of the discussion in the ATT post that led to the cleanup effort
refer to ROCEJ as a rule in the sense of something that happens naturally, therefore tropers shouldn't need to be reminded of the ROCEJ every time something contentious comes up.
Would I be clear to remove any remaining ROCEJ sinkholes with that latter idea of the term "rule" and the subsequent fact that tropers don't need reminders of the rule in mind? It won't be a unilateral removal regardless, since there are some wicks on the related page where the example specifically talks about the rule itself instead of reminding people to follow it, or indexes that ROCEJ happens to be categorised on.
Edited by Akriloth2160openWhere do I go for help? Western Animation
Rainbow Phoenix is certain that The Simpsons S8 E15: "Homer's Phobia" was an N-Word Privileges-focused episode, and was arguing with me and trying to instigate an edit war which I refused to take part in.
Yes, they have a point since there is a subtle difference when certain people make jokes about subject and how audiences react to it, and odds are, a writer probably had this in mind. However, this isn't enough to make a fuss about who's right when describing it on a page which is being viewed by the public.
I pointed out, since I am pan, so I would be hypothetically be able to make jokes with lesser backlash if I ever got to be a creator of any work, but fighting with people because they think they're 100% right is so not ethical. That's what this user has been trying to do to me.
Now, this episode did cause a Mexicans Love Speedy Gonzales so this should speak for itself, and most of these viewers don't even know who the writer is, let alone would be aware of their sexual orientation.
Where do I discuss this problem? I hate resorting to Ask The Tropers but the cleanup thread hasn't been used in a very long time.
openEdit War?
So, um here's something weird. The following happened, in March, Lilybelle changed
an entry from this:
- In Wish, despite the fact the movie tries to make him seem narcissistic, Magnifico's reasons as to not grant certain wishes are seen as logical and help make sure his kingdom doesn't lose stability. Though him giving false hope in the process may be dubious.
To this:
- In Wish, despite the movie trying to make him seem like a narcissistic monster from the beginning, King Magnifico's reasoning for not granting vague wishes that could destabilize his kingdom — i.e. Asha's grandfather wants to "inspire future generations" but Magnifico can't scry what they will be inspired to do — is logical enough, especially given his backstory (he lost his family and homeland to brigands and became a Self-Made Man, and not wanting to lose what he's built with Rosas he's become a Control Freak). Though him giving false hope in the process (by not just returning ungranted wishes and the memories thereof) may be dubious, he's not a power-hungry Sorcerous Overlord who needs to be defeated until after he goes Jumping Off the Slippery Slope due to Asha's subsequent actions.
I thought it was too focused on downplaying his evil and blaming Asha or trying to argue that she was in the wrong (plus stuff like his backstory is not relevent to him having a point on not granting wishes), so I restored the old one
.
Then Lilybelle changed it to this
without discussing it anywhere:
- In Wish, King Magnifico's reasoning as to why he won't grant certain wishes and won't return them to their makers to try achieving on their own (which they cannot do without the wish itself, owing to Laser-Guided Amnesia) is because vague ones such as "to inspire future generations [through music]" could lead to terrible things ("...inspire what?"). The thought of losing his control over the multicultural, peaceful, near-utopia of Rosas, which he established from the ground up after losing his family and home to bandits as a youth, underpins his self-serving but logical actions in the present. Asha's argument against this is that he's giving the residents false hope — everyone knows not every wish will be granted, just not why — that she's sure everybody in the kingdom is inherently good, and that Magnifico could just fix things if they do go wrong. The script has him Jumping Off the Slippery Slope from sometimes-petty monarch to narcissistic would-be Sorcerous Overlord to justify everybody else turning against him.
Which is so similar that I am unsure if this counts as an edit war. It should be noted that Lilybelle has had issues
with edit warring in regard to Wish before as well.
openEdit War on Sword Art Online Character Pages
Recently, a newer troper named Seport07
removed anything pertaining to All the Other Reindeer, the trope itself and anything that may allude to it, from Yuuki's folder in the Sword Art Online Major Characters page
, and Sinon's Character page
, under the reasoning that nothing in the story states or implies that they were isolated.
Me, having engaged with both the anime and light novels and knowing that they were in fact isolated during their Dark And Troubled Pasts, re-added the entries explaining this. However, today they re-removed the entries on Yuuki's folder
, and Sinon's page
without discussion under the claim of having re-watched the anime and seeing no evidence of such for either character.
Can I ask that this is sorted out soon?
Edited by AnimeGameropenHate Sink misuse/edit war.
Characters.Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Earth Alliance
- Hate Sink: Inverted, she wasn't originally meant or created to be hated, but considering his her time in SEED, he she became like that, How?; Firstly, she's intolerable, a jerk, arrogant, selfish, cheated on boyfriend Sai, and manipulated Kira into seducing him into having sex with her against his will, and tried to shoot Dearka while he was imprisoned, even if she had any redeeming qualities, she wouldn't have been able to save from her death at the hands of Rau. Even her Ocean Dub Actor hate her and when flay died, she feels happy.
New troper Neo Ghidorah 64 added this. I deleted as she wasn't ment to be such given she eventually gets remorse for it and her fate is played tragically, and PM'd them about it. They then added it back, the only notable change is adding the first sentence which is misuse of inversion. (Also, it was consensual even if he exploited Kira traumatized state of mind. Immoral, but exaggerating her heinousness.)
Flay is a textbook Jerks Are Worse Than Villains, but not a deliberate HS. Entry is just listing negative traits and reactions, ignoring mitigating context.
This is practically the only page and item they've edited, so bringing to attention.
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenEdit war on Starfield's YMMV page.
On November 15th, troper Mr Dark Man removed this entry from the Starfield's YMMV page with this edit reason
:
"removed misinformation, Heel's rant was taken out of context. His rant actually happens after the character Hadrian reveals herself to be a clone. Some youtubers just edited it so that his rant happens after discovering the pronoun choice."
- He Panned It Now He Sucks: YouTuber HeelvsBabyface went viral in a rant against the game for having the option to select body type and pronouns instead of sex and gender, claiming that such a thing injects "politics" in the game and destroys immersion into the game world. Some gamers were not particularly happy with the accusation and threw it back at him pointing out that the option is really just an option and that it defaults to the most common pronouns to the body type selected, meaning you don't even have to select anything and accuse him of being outraged for the sake of clicks. Fanning the flames is that there are other YouTubers and sizeable portion of gamers who feel similarly to HeelvsBabyface, and it led to a mess that's best left to another site to document.
A month later, troper Who Needs A Mango re-added it
with the edit reason: "Out of context" my ass, he literally screams about "gender" and "California shit""
Two days later, Mr Dark Man removed it for the second time
basically with the same edit reason.
A few hours later, Who Needs A Mango re-added it for the second time
with the edit reason: "Re-adding since he literally shouts "FUCKING PRONOUNS!""
openSpeculative troping on the voice cast
Troper SutairuMasuta has made some edits
on Characters.Final Fantasy Tactics Characters regarding the voice cast, in particular that Jennifer English voiced a character named Ovelia Atkascha. However, I couldn't find any official source that English voiced Ovelia, whether it's on the official announcement
or the game's BTVA page
.
I sent them a notifier about the source and they sent me the announcement trailer
but there still isn't any confirmation that English voiced the character. When I told them about this, they just told me to delete it myself and ask English on social media. This immediately set off alarm bells in my brain so I'm asking here on what should be the best course of action.
openEdit warring over nattery subbullet.
This is a follow-up to another ATT
alerting of a nattery edit in YMMV.The 100 Girlfriends Who Really Really Really Really Really Love You because today I noticed the example is being edit warred.
- [1]
: Huniepop Completionist adds a lone subbullet to the Vanilla Protagonist example that looks like it's arguing with itself.
- digdis makes the ATT
, which is inconclusive aside from reminding that YMMV has no exceptions for the natter and indentation rules.
- [2]
: Rebel Falcon removes the subbullet because examples are not arguable.
- [3]
: Huniepop Completionist adds it back again.
I've sent them a notifier, but what else should be done? I'd also like to reach a conclusion on if Rentarou Aijou counts as a Vanilla Protagonist in the first place.
Edited by animuacidopenTroper keeps making unilateral and speculative edits without any consensus whatsoever
Maniacal Dove 902 has a tendency to make a lot of unilateral edits that are huge changes to the page's format and are very speculative. They seem particularly obsessed with multiverse-related content too. They've gotten a couple of notifiers in the past but they still haven't changed their ways. I don't think I need to give any examples here myself because if you just look at any of their edits in their edit history, you would see it.
Edited by MaxyGregoryyyyopenWMG Entry regarding women
I was browsing the WMG page for Mobile Suit Gundam 00 and saw this
Spelling errors aside, does this read to anyone else that whoever added this is uh....projecting somewhat? It does read like an attack driven from personal bias. Then again, I'm autistic, maybe it's just me being sensitive. I apologize if this is a waste of time.
openLarge Scale Edits and no response Live Action TV
So troper Metal Shadow X is one of the most active editors of the Arrowverse. And I want to make it clear that I do not wish to diminish him or his contributions which, for the most part, have been pretty good. However, as of late he keeps making
tons of large-scale adjustments to all pages, constantly moving stuff and never discussing any of it.
While that by itself might not warrant any action, what tipped me off was him moving the Star Labs Page
to Team Flash
.
The biggest problem here is that he outright deleted some character folders and hasn't put them up anywhere else. I have messaged him this morning, but haven't received anything back. He did make 1 edit afterwards though.
What would be the best course of action?
Edited by ForenperseropenWhat Do I Call This? Print Comic
I want to make a page for the current Iron Man comic. The problem is, with current naming convention (I was recently told we're moving away from using the writer's name in the work name), the only thing to really name it is Iron Man 2020 because it started last year and isn't part of some publishing initiative or anything.
Except... there already is an Iron Man 2020. Two, in fact. The Iron Man 2020 page is used by a series that is legitimately called Iron Man 2020, which is itself reusing a name from a graphic novel also called Iron Man 2020.
What should I call the page for Iron Man Comic That Started In 2020? And should we make Iron Man 2020 a disambiguation page for both Iron Man Comic That Started in 2020 and Comic Called Iron Man 2020 From the Year 2020?
Edited by FuzzyBarbarianopenUrban Hellscape description edit concern
On the description for the Urban Hellscape trope, Tropers.Shadowgazer removed a link to Lower-Class Lout.
Their reason was: "Unfortunately there is too much truth in the Lower Class Lout trope to be dismissed as just a lie used for the persecution of innocents."
The problem with this is that within the context of the crack epidemic (which was the IRL impetus for the Urban Hellscape trope), it was used as an excuse. This isn't even being political: it was the entire point of the trope.
The point of Urban Hellscape was to portray lowlife criminals as savage animals that needed to be put down by violent police or vigilantes. Even the description of Lower-Class Lout itself states: "While these stereotypes are Truth in Television to some degree, it's debatable whether the stereotype comes from Real Life, or said real-life examples are imitating the stereotype." This makes it even more weird that they would use Truth in Television as a justification for removing mention of the trope in the UH description. Lower-Class Lout is exactly the proper trope to use in the description within that context.
At the very least, that aspect in the description of the trope just feels extremely disingenuous, IMO, but I've invited Shadowgazer here to give their perspective.
Edited by NubianSatyressopenEdit War involving Flame Bait
Today, I was going through and removing Flame Bait from various YMMV pages (and a couple of others). When I found this page
, I saw it had a So Bad, It's Horrible entry (which was apparently an intended reaction). I promptly removed it; no other YMMV page has a SBIH entry, and hasn't in a long time. But then, I looked at the edit history (probably should have done that to begin with) to see who added it. Somebody had added it only a few days ago...
And they had also added it back in November of last year. And I had removed it a few months later (which I forgot about). It's an edit war. Which I've (unknowingly) got myself into.
So, what should I do? If I revert my own edit, will that push me out of Edit War territory? Or will it not make a difference?
Edited by Shadow8411openBad history in OlderThanDirt
I believe I asked about this a year or two ago, but can't find the old thread.
Someone has added highly contentious statements about the oral traditions of certain cultures to Older Than Dirt - claiming without any hedging that they accurately record memories of events from tens of thousands of years ago. While of course this is possible, the truth of these claims is fundamentally unknowable, and for this reason the vast majority of relevant scholars don't take these ideas terribly seriously. As Older Than Dirt itself notes:
"Note: Tropes originating in mythologies/religions that aren't Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Anatolian, Vedic, or Chinese are never indexed here, as we have no idea whether those stories even existed in 800 BC, or what form they had, centuries or millennia before they were first written down. [...] Early folklorists often started with the assumption that folktales and myths were primordial; more research has shown that people can and do modify all sorts of tales for any purpose."
I think we should generalize the above statement to cover oral traditions as well. Otherwise, we'd need to list every single culture with a flood myth, as it's at least conceivable that such myths retain a memory of some Ice Age-era deluge.
openBlank Recap Pages
So when checking the "new page" edits for today, I stumbled upon a troper named Sabrinamichelle4ever and their apparent hobby...of just creating dozens upon dozens of blank recap pages for the show 6teen.
I'd list them all, but that'd be an exercise in insanity. I sent a stub notifier for a random one of them, but it's probably best if you just see for yourself.
openUndoing edits without discussion
I originally raised this on the Moments clean-up thread, but it was suggested I flag it in ATT as well. The full clean-up thread post is here
.
The summary for ATT purposes is this:
The troper Bellaboo2 has added back two Tear Jerker entries (removed from YMMV.RWBY Chibi), with original wording intact. The edit reason
is long, but basically makes it clear that:
- They're aware of the Moments clean-up thread and have read the reasons for the removal (since they're twisting one of the reasons).
- They have zero intention of engaging in a discussion about it.
- They seem to be confused about the difference between a summary of a scene and a summary of an audience reaction to a scene.
- They can't be bothered to rewrite the entries as legitimate audience reactions to get them added back to the page in a legitimate way... despite being willing to write audience reactions into the edit reason itself. This baffles me: if you're making the effort to write a legitimate audience reaction, why not do it to the entry itself instead of the edit reason?
Edited to add a link to the YMMV page the edit occurred on.
Edited by Wyldchyld

This time, it's impracticaltroper for unilateral moves.
Basically, back in May, they moved the page for Jill Roberts from Scream IV
to a different page while we were in the middle of discussing what to do with it. They came to the CSP thread
, explained their reasoning, and admitted they should have left an edit reason. Today, I noticed they created Breaking Bad: Hector Salamanca without discussion or leaving an edit reason again, they merged characters from Better Call Saul into Breaking Bad character pages (I don't disagree with it, but again, no discussion occurred), and created The Walking Dead (2010): Gregory. I've pinged them to the CSP thread to explain themself but I figured I should bring it here too.