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
Back in 2018, I added this to the YMMV page for Memoirs of a Geisha here
:
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Sayuri about three-quarters through the book. Though she starts off very sympathetic in her Trauma Conga Line and Break the Cutie moments, it becomes very clear that she's willing to do pretty much anything just to get with the Chairman. This includes screwing over her closest companions and showing no remorse for doing so. Values Dissonance also ensues once it's revealed that the Chairman was married the whole time.
The Lucky Cat added this subbullet to it:
- However, given the time period and constraints on women are the time, Sayuri is often forced into doing things she doesn't want to do, either by Mother or Mameha, it's somewhat understandable that she'd do anything she could to try and achieve some lasting happiness, as the only alternative is to be forced into a loveless relationship or spend the rest of her life as a maid. Her choices are to either suffer her entire life or screw over a couple of people to get what she wants, and it's shown she feels terrible about the way things broke down between her and Nobu, but she simply wanted to be with the man she loved and unfortunately couldn't pursue him freely until a lot of hardship is thrown her way.
Lucky Cat also added lines to the Unintentionally Sympathetic entry for Nobu. Originally the entry said that Nobu came off as justifiably angry because Sayuri led him on and betrayed him, while Lucky Cat's addition (which begins with "However") is that Nobu comes off as Entitled to Have You and tried to make Sayuri indebted to him.
Queen of Swords deleted the subbullet for Unintentionally Unsympathetic for being Natter and being a justifying edit.
Last December, Lucky Cat edited the Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry to this:
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Sayuri about three-quarters through the book. Though she starts off very sympathetic in her Trauma Conga Line and Break the Cutie moments, it becomes very clear that she's willing to do pretty much anything just to get with the Chairman, though like she herself points out, it's either that or be little more than an indentured servant to Mother for the rest of her life and much of her career was orchestrated by Mameha and The Chairman. Values Dissonance also ensues once it's revealed that the Chairman was married the whole time.
This seems like an edit war to me, and the new edit still seems justifying. Can I get some feedback from other Tropers?
Edited by iamconstantineopenDawalk86 is... worrisome
Dawalk 86 was released recently, and has some issues.
There's a bit of Zero Context:
- Eye Pop: Killer upon seeing Charlie and Itchy have returned.
- Black Face: "Little Dutch Mill" briefly features a black shoeshiner (or rather a shoe shaver-and-painter) who is designed in this manner.
The Black Face one also doubles as misuses, since it's a black character who looks like that. Racist old trope, but not this racist old trope.
Then there's Word Cruft (bolded part):
- Color Failure:In "Little Black Sambo", the titular character turns white with fright upon encountering a tiger, not noticing at first that there's a real one behind him as his dog tries to warn him.
- The Dorothy from ''Dorothy Meets Ozma of Oz". Dorothy's skirt billows from the front up to her thighs when there seems to be an earthquake in the cave.
Finally, there's a whole lot this kind of troping:
- Marilyn Maneuver: Dorothy's skirt billows from the front up to her thighs when there seems to be an earthquake in the cave. [This is a shoehorn, that seems to be here only so Dawalk can write about an underage child's thighs. The scene is HERE
and doesn't qualify, in my opinion.]
- Panty Shot: Dorothy, whose skirt billows up from behind and gives a white panty peek as she and Billina flee from the Wheelers.
(I forced myself to look this up. HERE
is the so-called panty-shot. It's not really a panty-shot as much as it's just panties being briefly visible, and it indicates that Dawalk just wanted to write about a child's panties.)
In itself not a problem that someone tropes those things as long as they're done correctly. Still, even disregarding that "Dorothy, whose skirt billows up" should read "Dorothy's skirt billows up", I'm just not sure that this is an intentional example of the trope. Also, Dawalks seems eager to trope panty shots, and again, it could just be an innocent interest so I don't want to assume. But it seems, well, one-handed. So to speak. And it seems as if he's looking for any reason to write about children's panties.
EDIT: Also, I've gone through all his post-release edits, and these are his basic trends:
- Posting Shes Got Legs every time a woman's legs are at all visible, regardless of whether it's meant to be sexy or just is a couple of legs existing.
- Posting Marilyn Maneuver every time a skirt lifts a bit for any reason.
- Calling every glimpse of visible panties a Panty Shot.
openNo Title
Troper Curiousice
edited Ambiguously Gay
to change the pronouns on the trope description and inserted some lines that imply deliberate lesbian erasure (when the first example, posted by myself as a queer woman, was clearly meant to be a hypothetical case not meant to speak for all instances of this trope, and the page itself has plenty of female examples). The edits strike me as Righting Great Wrongs. A bunch of their
other
edits
also have elements of editorializing when it comes to LGBT issues as well. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but not in line with troper etiquette on style conventions of neutrality, and the edit reasons are either lacking or quarrelsome.
openEdit war on YMMV.DigimonTamers
Link to the start of the edit chains
. lgcruz proceeded to downplay author's support for the conspiracies via rephrasing it to the tune of "he just talks about them", claiming to having posted "proof" in the forum thread
(with more posts on following pages).
On the page itself, after lgcruz' first softening edit, starjewel reverted it to what it was before and then lgcruz redid their changes.
openPossible cut
On The Wiz, There's this listed under Older Than They Think
- For one (fairly conservative) online reviewer, The Wiz Live! was apparently tainted with the violence of black culture, thus making it less family friendly from the "original 1939 version", due to Dorothy being prompted to murder the witch (as opposed to stealing her broomstick). Ironically, that only occurred in the 1939 film, which isn't the original Wizard Of Oz. In the original book, the Wizard really does tell Dorothy to straight up murder the Wicked Witch, who at that point wasn't even actively a threat to her. This act of violence wasn't added to the story of The Wiz Live! due to it being a black casted show. It was always there from when the story was originally written.
Would it really count as YMMV if the writeup itself states that it was only one person rather than a group of people and it doesn't even give any names as to who or what said it?
Edited by nwotyzalopenTroper edit-warring, declined to take disagreement to discussion page
Betoniarz and I are having a disagreement over an entry for the trope LOL, 69 on the Crusader Kings III page.
History:
- https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=VideoGame.CrusaderKingsIII#edit27876410
- Troper adds some extra content, that I felt was Natter. I sent a standard notifier for Natter.
- They asked for clarification since they edited the page several times (fair point).
- After clarifying to them, their response message included "In that time, you could fix it yourself."
- https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=VideoGame.CrusaderKingsIII#edit27922934
- So I did fix it myself.
- https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=VideoGame.CrusaderKingsIII#edit27923081
I don't want to extend the Edit War by making any more edits, so I'm coming here to get some feedback. I'm aware mods can see P Ms, so I'll let a mod decide either Betoniarz or myself have been unprofessional. I'll admit to not being a very friendly person, but I try to remain calm and collected when interacting with other tropers.
I sent a PM pointing them to this thread, so they can join in on discussing the entry.
Edit: They responded to my PM declining to join the discussion. I would ask that we respect that choice and not spam them with P Ms.
Edited by bitemytailopenEdit War
Troper.Accursed Fans has edit warred on Devil, but No God over the Warhammer 40,000 example.
As the history shows
they added a section to the middle of the example about the Emperor that I removed and they later put back. Now while I admit the edit reason I gave wasn't great (I was in a bit of a rush at the time) I did send a custom notifier to them explaining myself betternote and noting that I believe the entire 40k entry should be removed as the description of the trope seems to indicate that good has to exist for it to be an example and as the setting is black vs. grey to black vs. black depending on the edition and writer is shouldn't count, and stating that they edit warred, but they appear to have ignored it (they have edited since), as they have other edit notifiers I have sent them in the past.
I would also note that Troper.Accursed Fans was previously been suspended for edit warring in march over a similar issue involving Warhammer 40,000.
Edited by SebastianGrayopenTroper with oodles of problems
This troper here
has problems with examples not being self-contained
, referring to "the above mentioned" example; writing with awkward phrasing
("wasn't having to follow him repeatedly"?) and so on.
openWhy was the Wario thread locked?
This thread in particular : It's'a Wario Time!
The last post was thumped. Having read that post before it was thumped, I understand why it was thumped. I'm not disputing that. However the thread itself seems to be valid, it's about the Wario series, and as far as I know you are allowed to have general videogame series threads in the videogame subforum. I don't see why the thread needed to be locked. Again I am not contesting the thumping of the last post.
Edit: On the advice of Kevjro 7 I took it to the appeal to the dicussions about moderation
thread.
open Red Riding Hood Replica (repeated issue)
Courtesy link: Red Riding Hood Replica
This first cropped up on ATT
just after the trope first went live.
A troper mistakenly thought I was edit warring when the RWBY entry was removed (by me), added by another troper and then removed by that troper after PM discussion between us.
The problem at the time was that the character (Ruby Rose) was listed under the sub-trope Little Red Fighting Hood, and this wiki typically does not trope something under the super-trope if the sub-trope fits. The reason she was re-added was in good faith — the page image caused confusion, leading to the belief that the entry should be listed on the page if the image is there.
At the time, I did open an image picking thread
to resolve the image confusion, but there really isn't a better image of RRHR to be found, so there wasn't much consensus. So, the image was retained, but the image quote does pothole to Little Red Fighting Hood in a note.
Unsurprisingly, a Ruby Rose entry was re-added to the page
two months after it was removed, and references the page image in the entry itself.
Now, I could ask for the entry to be removed. Again. But I think it is just going to get re-added again at a later date because the page image encourages it. Someone did suggest in the image picking thread that this could be handled by adding a commented-out note to the page warning people to not trope Ruby Rose there.
Can I go ahead and add a note to the page saying not to trope Ruby Rose there, and that it'll be removed if added?
Edited by WyldchyldopenNSFW Offsite Links on Work Page Webcomic
The page for The Perry Bible Fellowship has a section for tropes occurring in individual strips, several of which include NSFW links. I don't think it meets the criteria for pornography, as it's an adult humor comic and not used for titillation, but there's uncensored breasts and genitalia, depictions of sex, etc. I was under the impression that this was against the rules (or at least, other NSFW works like Oglaf have notices on their pages to not link directly to NSFW content).
The page itself is kind of messy to begin with, since I'm not sure if there really needs to be a divide between recurring tropes and ones that occur in just one or two strips, but the main thing that caught my attention was the links being on the page. Is this in need of cleanup?
openCommented-out notes on Dream. Web Original
Dream has a lot of commented-out notes at the top of the page. While commented-out notes are usually related to cleanups and image picking, these ones are not. For ease of access:
%%Thanks to all the people that contributed to LetsPlay.Dream! %% List of contributors here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/editors.php?entry=LetsPlay.Dream
%% Feel free to add yourself to this list
(List of some people who contributed to the page, currently at 13 editors)
%% THINGS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED ON: %% More examples (let's get to a thousand!)
%% ''[[LetsPlay/{{Dream}} Dream's]]'' %% ''LetsPlay/{{Dream}}:''
%% The two lines above are for easy copy and pasting when crosswicking
The commented-out notes have been discussed by two people at the page's discussion page
, but I feel like some other opinions are needed. Are these commented-out notes OK?
openReport New Troper
Okay, I don't normally jump to reporting a new troper for issues, but there's so many things going on here I don't know where to start. Basically, justSomeGuy1 seems to have joined the wiki to edit the page for Fanfic.Heroes Series, which I happen to follow. Having apparently began editing this morning, they have:
- Created a Fanfic Recs page for a fanfic (specifically, FanficRecs.Avengers Of The Ring), which they eventually blanked and ended up cut
- Tweaked the main page for the fanfic 49 times, including:
- Taking around six tries
to properly link to Ascended Meme (which is misuse anyway, since this is a fanfic that's just referencing the memes in question)
- Added multiple blue links which, while pointing to the right place, are incredibly excessive (it's basically every time they referenced a character, they added a link to the character's franchise or page)
- They clearly don't know how to wiki link single words, because every time they tried to link to Smallville, they'd just write Series/Smallville - they eventually just gave up and wrote around it instead of fixing the link
- Added multiple spoilers that either aren't formatted right (such as multiple single word spoilers here
and here
), aren't spoilers for the fic (such as spoiling out that Thanos gets the Infinity Stones and Snaps, even though that was in the third story of twenty-two in the series), or even just getting the markup wrong like here
- Taking around six tries
- This is more of a gripe than an actual complaint, but they add Main/ to all of their trope titles instead of just spelling them out
- Added an unapproved CM entry to the YMMV page
- In the process of tweaking, they kept adding information, making grammar mistakes, or just moving examples around in their lists seemingly randomly, so now the page history is clogged up with random tweaks
Like I said, I don't like jumping straight to reporting someone who is clearly new, but they're rushing so fast into editing that they didn't seem to actually realize how anything worked first, and now the page needs a reversion to before their first edit here
. I can add back in the stuff they got right, but while I would normally send notifiers myself, I don't even know where to start here, and I honestly think they'd benefit most from slowing down and reading the Administrivia pages before they edit again.
open Reporting an Edit War
So on TragicVillain.Live Action TV Charles 95 added
this entry for Supernatural's Lucifer.
- Lucifer himself is finally solidified as this. With the reveal of Chuck's true nature in the Season 14 finale and the entirety of the final season, it is revealed that God allowed Lucifer to become evil (likely pulling the strings himself) and then punished him with eternal misery just so the story would be more interesting for him. Despite all the horrible things Ol' Luci has done throughout the series, it turns out his spouting of God's machinations and his existence as a mere pawn wasn't wrong after all.
I removed it
after taking it to Is this an example thread
where it was decided that it wasn't an example due none of this being protrayed as Tragic or sympathetic. Charles 95 recently added
this near identical entry without discussing it anywhere.
- Downplayed quite heavily, but Lucifer himself is ultimately proven to be this. While he's unquestionably evil, narcissistic, bigoted, sadistic and psychopathic, his claims that God made him this way is both Metaphorically True and properly true, as God is a Greater-Scope Villain who corrupted him (or rather allowed him to be corrupted) just so the world would have a true "villain" to face, seeing at as better entertainment. While it doesn't excuse his awful actions throughout the show, his cries about being punished and corrupted for thousands of years because of God's actions rather than his own don't ring so hollow anymore.
Now again not only is this not protrayed sympatheticly but he is still protrayed as having chosen to become evil of his own free will, along with happily working with God, and is simply revealed to be a monster with out an ounce of sympathy by the end. Plus this was not discussed anywhere. So this is an Edit War correct?
Edited by BullmanopenEdit war on Trivia.Deltarune
On Trivia.Deltarune, beanedtron has twice edited the Promoted Fanboy entry to read Promoted Fan, due to the creator it regards being nonbinary. This contradicts the recently-updated policy on gendered redirects
which restricts them to Character Sheets.
We've already sent them a message, but since we're getting Righting Great Wrongs vibes here, we're also putting up a report in case they decide to make a thing about it. and also as a reminder to ourself to actually edit the page once they respond if they don't
openAccidental edit war instigated by me
I was checking the history of Jekyll & Hyde and noticed that an entry on Pure Is Not Good where Hyde declares himself pure and Jekyll the true "Hyde" had been deleted 9 months ago: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit31680077
"He says "I am you", not "I am pure""
This is true of the Broadway recording, but in the 1994 version
◊ he does say
◊ "I am pure", which you can also hear
in the audio itself. Obviously this isn't true of every version (there's a lot) so I adjusted the deleted entry to clarify which recording it was while also adding more context to said entry, then re-added it when I was done. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit34301267
Unfortunately I forgot that I had added the original entry back in 2017, which I'm pretty sure means that I did an edit war: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Theatre.JekyllAndHyde#edit17931303
I apologize for the accidental edit war on my part and accept full responsibility for anything that may occur as a result.
Edited by lalalei2001openCouldHaveAvoidedThisPlot misuse/edit wars?
Quotes.Could Have Avoided This Plot
Ohvist first added the Suicide Squad quote. I deleted them as "Could Have Avoided This!" Plot is about in-universe characters acknowledging such (I believe I recall asking and being told reviewers doing it in their shows is misuse). Ohvist later added it back. Later Hotaru3 added the NIMH 2 quote. IchigoMontoya deleted both without edit reason. Hotaru3 added both back.
Besides the apparent edit warring, is this misuse if it's out of universe reviewers stating such even within their own shows universe?
openCharacter Derailment misuse
Luke Skywalker from The Last Jedi was added back to CharacterDerailment.Film despite it having a commented out note at top of the page not to add them.
I first deleted it and added the note per ATT
as it was objectively misused. Derailment is about unexplained, not unpopular changes and TLJ clearly showed and explained why he did such, so the complains around that fall under other items. Also Luke nearly killed Vader in a similar Moment of Weakness in ROTJ (why that was uncontroversial is a separate thing) so the the argument behind the Derailment entry is factually incorrect.
Have to ask here before re-removing. Derailment can still apply if fans see the reason as objectively insufficient to explain the change so might that apply here?
On the subject:
- Avengers: Endgame - or more specifically, the plot point of Steve Rogers staying in the past - is infamous for this among some critics and/or fanfic writers, saying it's selfish and him abandoning his best friend Bucky. Of course, there are also a number of people who say he deserved that ending.
Besides the last part arguing against, he got a sub-plot building up to/explaining why he did so. I'll cut this unless I hear anything.
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
openWeird fetishy edit
On a Wiki Walk, I stumbled across Characters.Thumbelina 1994, where I noticed that the folder for Mrs. Fieldmouse described her as "An insanely sexy mouse lady". This edit was made in March
by rastapopoulos.
While it's a different kind of wrong, they also blanked
Characters.Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, a page they created themself.
Not sure if this is needing mod action just yet, but I felt like bringing it up.

After seeing a Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist example removed I question this example:
I'm fairly sure she was supposed to genuinely well-intentioned, the issues being weak writing as opposed to intent, for the following:
This sounds more like Secretly Selfish which I believe is different from NSWIE in that the character is still presented sympathetically.
I'm also asking MLP cleanup
, but am asking here to as general question about how to separate genuine Well-Intentioned Extremist going too far and losing sight of their goals from Not-So in the event of ambiguity.
My impression is that if they're capable of regretting their actions if seeing they're more harmful than good, that's the difference between genuinely well-intention and not-so.
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught