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:
openPotentially inappropriate Troper page?
So, a troper by the name of MissRoboto edited a page I followed, and, checking their page, I found a single folder on it labelled "some of my pet peeve tropes", and its only contents are "none. because i know how to not make a fool of myself on the internet by not whining about stupid gay bullshit." Before this, they also appear to have changed their page to only read "wow this place is a freakshow. i dont respect literally any of you people —Anonymous Neopets forum poster" (link)
. I will be brutally honest and admit I do have my share of qualms regarding certain aspects of this site, but surely this has to be a violation of some policy?
openProblematic edits
So troper Shadowking 5423 recently made the page for Vampires, Trolls and Witches OH MY!!. Myself and another troper made some edits related to their work and sent them notifiers to help improve their formatting and grammar. However, when I checked back earlier, I found that they reverted an edit the other troper had made in favor of an edit that had both grammar and indentation issues. This shows that they are either not understanding or not getting the edit notes myself and the other troper have sent. I don't want this to break into an edit war, but I also would like some help on how to get through to this guy/
Shadowking 5423's edit history for the fic: Here
My edit history: Here
Other troper's edit history: Here
openDisagreement on Natter
obsidiandice has been removing references to individual chapters in Worm and its subpages out of the belief that it's natter, which I think doesn't track because they serve to contextualize when something happens and doesn't take the form of commentary on the work itself.
openIs this an okay BrokenBase entry?
I was looking at the YMMV page for Monty Python's Life of Brian here
and after reading the Broken Base entry, I can't help but feel that there's something just a little off about it.
- Broken Base: This is a film that still remains controversial. Some people assume it's a parody of Jesus, who is actually just a very minor character in the film (and himself played completely straight). Others claim the film mocks Christianity, while it can also be interpreted as mocking religion or blindly fanatical followers in general, for that matter. In a sense it also spoofs the typically heavy handed and deadly serious Bible epics. Some very devout religious people condemn the film for being blasphemous without having seen it. Some religious people who did watch it act as if this movie doesn't mock Jesus, Christianity or religion at all, which is again not totally true either. There are several very outrageous heretical scenes that could easily offend people who take their faith too seriously, but religious people with a sense of humour can enjoy the film just fine. The movie is also more than just a shocking comedy. It raises excellent points about blindly following leaders, misinterpreting so-called signs and messages and not thinking for yourself.
I don't know, but it seems like the entry is going off-topic a little bit in trying to talk about every stance on the film, and the last two sentences don't seem relevant. Also, this:
- easily offend people who take their faith too seriously, but religious people with a sense of humour can enjoy the film just fine.
Seems needlessly insulting, bordering on breaking the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.
openDr Adler and Master Org are two different characters Live Action TV
Okay, this is the first time I've done this and I wasn't sure at first and though just speaking with the troper who kept doing it. However, doing some research I found this troper has a history of changing or altering things based more on their perception rather than what actually happens and wanted other to know of this.
It regards the characters section of Power Rangers Wild Force. There are spoilers for this season so if you hadn't watched it, be warned.
The Big Bad of the series is not the original Master Org by Dr. Victor Adler. He was friends with the Red Rangers parents and fell for his mother, but she was unaware of his feelings and she married who became Cole's father. Resentment turned to hatred, when they discovered seeds that were the remains of the original Master Org, and this is important to note, he swallowed them.
Now, the troper in question, TV Lubber, insists Adler was possessed by Master Org from the start and made him do terrible things. However, as someone who watches Wild Force once in a while, I can tell you this is not true in the slightest.
Adler has full agency over his actions, it's one of the reasons why in the YMMV section he, not Master Org, is given the Complete Monster entry. Until the episode The Master's Last Stand, it's repeatedly stated by himself that he's not the original or at least the original isn't in the driver's seat.
For example, one episode has him send his henchmen steal his tombstone built for his supposedly lost body. Upon reading it, how he supposedly died, he laughs about "So that's where they think I am..." Note that the wording clearly shows this is Adler, not the original, who is in full control of his actions.
This is why the original Master Org was given his own, albeit short, character entry to show he's the Greater-Scope Villain and could be influencing Adler, or influencing him.
Even to give TV Lubber the benefit of the doubt and assume Master Org has been in control of Adler the whole time, he still has full agency over all of his actions, including murdering Cole's parents, outright rejects his one chance at redemption towards the end of the series and clearly enjoys committing his evil deeds.
Anyway, I just wanted to ask what should I do about this? I don't want this to be an edit war, especially when the show itself makes it clear Adler isn't a good man under evil's control but genuinely evil himself.
openCouldn't we have talked about this some first?
I have issues with the fact that Brainulator9 and Piterpicher have been mass-deleting potholes from "The Reason You Suck" Speech without discussing it first. No visit to the dedicated quotes thread, no use of the page's discussion page, no visit to ATT, not even personal messages to anyone who's been editing that page on and off such as myself asking us to dial back on the potholes, just a purge of the square brackets. I've had these issues for a while, but I've waited this long because I didn't want to talk about it in a knee-jerk, angry shouting match way. I've let the initial reactions fade out and am prepared to talk about them politely and courteously now.
I'm not saying they're wrong, but sweeping, zero-tolerance edits like this have massive impacts on how a page appears and this isn't the right way to compress an overly-long page. I already suggested breaking the page down into smaller, dedicated quotes pages on the thread and didn't get a lot of objections. Wouldn't that be better?
In any case, I'm paging both to come here at their nearest convenience. Let's all keep this civil.
openNever Life it Down misuse?
- Among critics of the trilogy, that Disney didn't have a set plan for how the trilogy would go and that the directors basically had a blank slate to do whatever they wanted lead to a lot of the major problems beginning in Force Awakens that would go on to haunt the series going onward for years.
- The movie as a whole will likely never live down it's "subverting viewer expectations" approach. While subverting expectations isn't bad in itself, the fact that a number of things fans speculated about were given wildly unexpected results contributed to making TLJ a very divisive Star Wars movie. Whats more, the subverted plotlines would go on to create issues that would affect the franchise in the years following the movies' release, issues mostly fixed through supplementary material.
- This film is also notorious for many fans as the entry which confirmed and reinforced what TFA strongly implied: nothing the Original Trilogy heroes did mattered in the long run since their accomplishments were nipped in the bud or undone, and Luke dies anticlimactically this time. Even Mark Hamill voiced his misgivings until he issued a retraction, the sincerity of which some of these fans doubt.
- Fans will never live down The Reveal that Luke Skywalker almost went through with killing his nephew just because he had bad dreams about him turning evil, when he was willing to save his already evil father despite him killing or trying to kill Luke's loved ones and chopping his arm off. Following on that, said fans especially won't let live down that when Kylo did go evil partially as a result, Luke decided to go into exile as a grumpy hermit drinking milk out of animals instead of confronting the First Order.
- Fans will never live down that Rose stopped Finn from doing a Heroic Sacrifice which he thought would've saved the Resistance. Rose's kiss with Finn at the end did not help at all.
The first two I think cross into RL example which need 25 years, the claim "will likely never live" sounds like major Weasel Words and a red flag for cutting. The rest I find suspect per prior ATT
which state NLIP requires explaining how fans are exaggerating that aspect, otherwise it's just complaining about something that objectively happened as opposed to how it's this trope. I don't desire the latter one are valid, just not as written. Thoughts?
openCharacter Criticism / Negativity on a Trope Page
The Deconstructed Character Archetype page has an entry for Doki Doki Literature Club!. I haven't read it and so don't have any personal opinions on either it or any of its characters. There's a troper who clearly does, though, and added "The Protagonist can't be blamed fornit because he didn't know. She's a dumb bitch for hiding it." to the end of a subentry. (The subentry only mentions the protagonist in passing. I think the troper was concerned that the subentry mentioning that the protagonist "berates" the character being discussed might make the protagonist look bad.)
I removed the addition with an explanation that Conversation in the Main Page is discouraged and that complaints/reviews should be avoided in examples. The troper didn't re-add it, but they did change the phrase "spacey demeanor" to "idiocy," which sounds like they really want to show their dislike for the character. It's not as much Flame Bait as the previous edit, but given that the subentry discusses how that character appears to be suffering from depression and that fandoms are often sensitive about that in my experience, I'm worried that could still be inflammatory. But I'm also worried about engaging in an Edit War myself by changing it back with Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.
openPro Jared RoleEndingMisdemeanor addition Web Original
On Nov 22nd, Ozwald Edswald added the following entry:
"Heidi herself would not escape this trope either. During the controversy many were suspicious of her accusations towards Jerad, feeling that some were baseless or contradicted already existing information. Later on these suspicions proved true and many of Heidi's tweets were revealed to be exaggerations and even outright lies. Then when it was revealed that Heidi had been abusing her husband, her reputation sank even farther than Jared's."
I removed this on the 25th, citing a lack of evidence. I then received a PM from Ozwald with a link to a reddit thread
discussing it, but I do not feel this is enough to warrant the entry since it is very circumstantial points and is saying Heidi's reputation is tanked even though there is no evidence to that. Ozwald readded the entry earlier today.
Just wanted to bring it up here for review since I don't agree it counts.
Edit: I responded to him with a link to this ATT.
Edited by keyblade333openSpeculative Troping on Peter Rabbit?
Dreamkwami19
added a lot of commented out examples on the character subpages for the Peter Rabbit movie. What's bizarre is that they seem to troping characters from the upcoming 2020 sequel and listing stuff that has not been confirmed yet.
And these aren't little things. These are entries that are either entirely made-up, or had to have come from a leaked source. Here's some examples from Peter Rabbit Film Villains regarding Barnabas, a character who hasn't even had a voice actor confirmed yet:
- Abusive Parents: He is Myles’ father and, considering he used Myles as leverage against Cottontail, it is unlikely he would be earning any father of the year awards any time soon or ever.
- Asshole Victim: He is killed off and no one mourns it.
- Big Bad: He is the true main antagonist of the sequel and one of the, if not THE, most evil and depraved villains in Sony Pictures Animation.
- Complete Monster: If the fact that he is trying to stain the Rabbits’ name is anything to fit the trope to a T then the fact that he had a hand in Peter Rabbit’s father’s death tops the cake.
- Disney Villain Death: He is thrown off the train by Cottontail to his death to which everyone takes in a satisfied manner given his crimes.
- False Friend: He is only using Peter Rabbit to get closer to Cottontail and his own son.
- Knight of Cerebus: He is the most manipulative and evil villain yet and is willing to use his own son as leverage against the Rabbits.
- Manipulative Bastard: He is willing to use the Rabbits and his son for his own selfish benefits.
- The Quisling: Betrayed Peter Rabbit’s father and had him killed by Old Man Mc Gregor.
- Would Hurt a Child: Sends Snarl in his Gregory Rouge disguise to a store loaded with children.
I think their examples should be deleted on principle, but I wanted second thoughts before I do so.
openWicks to a Main redirect as if it were a trope
Today, I discovered Main.Rebel Without A Cause. The page itself is actually just a redirect to the film Rebel Without a Cause. Since we don’t want Main redirect like this, I thought that I should clean out the wicks and cutlist the redirect.
However, looking through the Main.Rebel Without A Cause wicks, I discovered something really strange: most of the wicks used the redirect as if it were a trope page for some reason.
Do we have an actual trope like this? If not, then maybe the redirect could become an actual trope (although it would still have to be cut and launched through the TLP)?
openDo we have a cleanup thread for Auto Erotic Troping?
Self-explanatory title. I tried looking in both the long- and short-term forums, but couldn't find anything.
open Edit War, Justifying Edit, no Edit Reason
Troper Lucky-Seven-Leaf-Clover just did three offenses on Faux Action Girl: they Edit Warred, they inserted a Justifying Edit, and they deleted a large chunk of information with no Edit Reason.
- They added some Justified and Averted examples to the Sakura entry on Faux Action Girl, despite the entry already establishing that she is one, with quotes even taken from both the manga and Word of God himself stating that she is, and thus official sources were cited (as per "State the Source" in How to Write an Example). Also, the fact that they inserted a Justifying Edit to try and prove that Sakura's an Aversion with more bullets not only makes the entry too long, but it also shows character bias towards her, and I know for a fact that any bias of any kind is not allowed here. As a result, I deleted the troper's entries and explained myself.
- Unfortunately, they re-added their examples. Because they re-added their examples, that's an Edit War (Add -> Delete -> Re-add). In the same edit, they also deleted a large chunk of information from the Yu-Gi-Oh examples. This troper's edits on the page have no Edit Reason.
Here's their Edit History: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=Lucky-Seven-Leaf-Clover
openIs This Allowed? Anime
The quote page for Neon Genesis Evangelion includes several quotes from influential figures such as Kurt Vonnegut and Jean-Paul Sartre. It seems to me that these quotes are here primarily to comment on the main themes and philosophies of Evangelion, but of course, the quotes do not directly mention Evangelion itself.
Please note that I only have basic knowledge of Evangelion, as I have not watched the anime. If these quotes are directly referenced within the anime, forgive me. But the quote page does not clarify this, so if this is indeed not the case, would this be breaking the rules?
openIssue with HairDecorations on Characters.HopeOfTheShieldHero
So, on Characters.Hope Of The Shield Hero, Hair Decorations was removed by a troper doing cleanup (although to be fair that person didn't use an edit reason) and was added back by Allen Blaster and then the same trope/disambig was removed by another troper doing clean up and then Allen Blaster added it back again.
Granted he just changed it to Never Bare Headed a second after I posted this but he didnt rewrite the entry to fit that trope so it's technically still a ZCE but I dont want to edit it without feedback since I would be participating in an Edit war at this point.
The former Hair decs entry in question that now links to Never Bareheaded:
- Never Bareheaded: The two blue ribbons she uses to tie up her Girlish Pigtails.
EDIT: Also the same troper added back Lolicon on the same page after it was removed for not being a trope stating even if it isnt one it still belongs on the character page and that basically someone who hasnt read the fic has no right to remove it.
I guess he is taking these clean ups personally since he wrote the fic itself.
Edited by MacronNotesopenBan evader DisneyAnimefan95 back again
I'm quite certain that persistent ban evader Disney Animefan 95 who has been bounced several times before, including just last week
, is back once again as ThePhantomPimpernel78
. They reinstated several edits that the previously bounced account COkamaAnime85
did, and the account itself popped up shortly after C Okama Anime 85 was bounced.
openmercutiyo2003
Here are two of mercutiyo2003's edits.
A poorly done yamato nadeshiko, however, will turn out like an Extreme Doormat. They are silent and submissive without the inner strength of a true yamato nadeshiko. This is a common stereotype of East Asian women in Western fiction and is often referred to derisively as the China Doll
stereotype.
With some notable exceptions, yamato nadeshiko will be of medium height, willowy, modestly endowed, and good-looking without being too beautiful or too cute; they will have pale skin and long dark hair with full, straight bangs and sidelocks. They'll dress in feminine fashions: skirts, blouses, low-heeled shoes, lace, ribbons and simple hair ornaments. The other option is the impeccable ladylike style for adults. A kimono is likely to be worn by a nadeshiko brought up in the good old Kyoto style. Some may wear jewelry and make-up, but not too much. Their voices will often be as gentle, calm, and warm as melted butter. Large, rounded eyes are always a good bet. It is not unusual for geisha to be a yamato nadeshiko.
Sometimes, these ladies will also know self-defense, even if they would rather not fight if it can be avoided. This makes sense as many nadeshiko came from samurai clans and thus were trained in fighting, so they could defend their homes whenever the males were absent. If that's the case, they'll be very graceful and effective in the battlefield, and they're likely to be White Magician Girls or Barrier Warriors. If they're neither, they'll likely use polearms, lances (specifically naginata which daughters of samurai families were traditionally trained in and included in their dowry) or bow/arrows, and maybe even small tantou daggers that may be hidden in their clothes.
These characters pop up a lot in Magical Girlfriend series (usually as the one who will win the male lead's heart) and as the "Betty" in Betty and Veronica Love Triangles. They tend to be very sympathetic, but their passive, reactionary nature puts them in danger of becoming Satellite Characters for more "interesting" people, as well as a target of bashing from fans who prefer more active love interests such as Tsundere. Obviously, this trope is most popular in Japan.
to:
Sometimes a Nadeshiko would drop all subtlety and nuance and would be an Extreme Doormat. They are silent and submissive without the inner strength of a true yamato nadeshiko. This is a common stereotype of East Asian women in Western fiction and is often referred to derisively as the China Doll
stereotype, possibly because of the East’s restrictive standards.
With some notable exceptions, yamato nadeshiko will be of medium height, willowy, modestly endowed, and good-looking without being too beautiful or too cute (whatever that means); they will have pale skin and long dark hair with full, straight bangs and sidelocks. They're restricted to feminine fashions: skirts, blouses, low-heeled shoes, lace, ribbons and simple hair ornaments. The other option is the impeccable ladylike style for adults. A kimono is likely to be worn by a nadeshiko brought up in the good old Kyoto style. Some may wear jewelry and make-up, but not “too much” (again, whatever that means). Their voices will often be as gentle, calm, and saccharinely high. Large, rounded eyes are always a good bet. It is not unusual for geisha to be a yamato nadeshiko.
Sometimes, these ladies will also know self-defense, even if they would rather not fight if it can be avoided. This makes sense as many nadeshiko came from samurai clans and thus were trained in fighting, so they could defend their homes whenever the males were absent, because in Feudal Japan they were never expected to fight in other situations. If that's the case, they'll be very graceful and effective in the battlefield, and they're likely to be White Magician Girls or Barrier Warriors. If they're neither, they'll likely use polearms, lances (specifically naginata which daughters of samurai families were traditionally trained in and included in their dowry) or bow/arrows, and maybe even small tantou daggers that may be hidden in their clothes.
These characters pop up a lot in Magical Girlfriend series (usually as the one who will win the male lead's heart) and as the "Betty" in Betty and Veronica Love Triangles. They tend to be very sympathetic, but their passive, reactionary nature puts them in danger of becoming Satellite Characters for more interesting people, as well as a target of bashing from fans who prefer more active love interests such as Tsundere. Obviously, this trope is most popular in the East, where restrictive gender roles are the norm.
Speaking of that, these character types are usually more unpopular in Europe, Australia, and even America. In those countries this kind of gender role-where women might have a certain amount of power, but only in a domestic sphere-are considered passé. Though sometimes they get a pass since these characters are East Asian. It used to be because of racial stereotypes/the fact that all women were treated this way.
to this:
Thoughts? I'm a Japanese troper, and I sense something in their edits, though I don't know what is.
Edited by IukaSylvieopenUndermined By Reality misuse?
Trivia.Star Wars The Clone Wars
- Undermined By Reality: The slogan Clone Wars Saved, shown at the end of the 2018 SDCC trailer and used frequently afterwards, is undermined by the fact that the show only needed 'saving' because Disney itself unceremoniously canceled the series mid-production shortly after acquiring Star Wars.
Undermined By Reality Is when the Aesop/messages of the work is contradicted by the real life happenings of the creators. I don’t think an advertising campaign is an Aesop/message of the work and it looks like complaining when Disney is reversing what the entry is criticizing them for. Thoughts?
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenSelf edit-war?
I'm not sure whether to ask about this here or on the Scrappy cleanup thread, but I'm trying here because it's an odd behavior from a specific troper.
Basically, Brian KT removed Devon and Cornwall from The Scrappy entry on YMMV.Quest For Camelot saying "What about when they Took a Level in Badass at the end of the movie?" Then they re-added the example, before removing it again with the exact same edit reason.

On Characters.Celeste, there's a commented out note
added by scoooool with the following:
This states that Straight Gay only applies to gay men, which is also suggested by the laconic page.
A gay male with no stereotypical gay traits or mannerisms.
However, on the actual page itself, it makes it clear that Straight Gay applies to men and women, with the first paragraph being:
Originally treated as a subversion of the standard gay stereotypes, the Straight Gay is a homosexual male or female character who has no camp mannerisms, Butch Lesbian tendencies, or obviously "gay" affectations.
So which is it? Is Straight Gay supposed to be an Always Male trope or are women included as well?
It's worth noting that the addition of female characters/lesbians to the description was retroactively added
by Emie K 88 in 2023 with no edit reason.