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:
openIs this an insufficient edit reason for removal?
Hero The Brine removed an Ambiguously Bi entry I added to the character Kyoka Jiro, but their only edit reason was "The reasons provided of there being sings of her attraction/relationship with Momo were false.", yet they don't elaborate further nor do they provide any evidence.
Is that a sufficient enough edit reason for removal, or is it insufficient meaning I can restore it without enacting an Edit War?
The entry in question:
- Ambiguously Bi: While Jiro receives plenty of Ship Tease with Kaminari to the point Sero asks if they're dating in Chapter 431 which Jiro denies, her bond with Yaoyorozu at times comes across as romantic too. She is very defensive of Yaoyorozu and regularly expresses concern for when she exposes her body even if Yaoyorozu herself doesn't; plenty of supplementary material like promotional art, sketches from Horikoshi, and depictions in ED's cast the two of them together; and info released after the series conclusion all but says the two now live together, with Midoriya's photo of the two of them having them coming from grocery shopping, making it look like they're a sapphic couple living together.
openAm I having a Mandela Effect or was there a self-demonstrating page for Tommy Wiseau?
Okay so like I’m not sure how to explain it, but after I was done eating, an image popped into my head about a self demonstrating page for tommy wiseau, it seemed legit so I decided to log onto this site and search for the said page, first thing I did was search for "self-demonstrating tommy wiseau", nothing came up, i decided to double check, nothing, thn, it hit me, was there such thing as a Tommy Wiseau self-demonstrating page? maybe I’m just not look right but who knows.
openPotential spoiler issues for an image caption
The page Characters.Mobile Suit Gundam G Quuuuuu X had a "click to show" image added by user DinoCam1795 to the folder for the character Nyaan where the caption to click to see the image was labelled "Zeon Uniform (spoilers)". While it does warn people viewing the page that spoilers are shown if you click the image, the caption itself was self-defeating since her joining Zeon is a spoiler in of itself (for reference, every mention of Nyaan's role in Zeon is under a spoiler tag). I made an edit to the page changing the caption to read "click to see spoilers" in line with similar instances I've seen on other pages where an image depicting certain appearances is a spoiler with the edit reason "I feel like mentioning it's a Zeon uniform in the caption makes the spoiler warning a moot point.". However, user Kuruni changed the caption back (minus the "(spoilers)" portion) with the edit reason "How can anyone know if they will be spoiled or not without clicking its first? If it bother people so much, why put the image here at all?". In the interest of not starting an editing war, is this fine or should the caption be adjusted in some other way to avoid spoilers?
Edited by Kirby0189openCall-Back vs. Continuity Nod Live Action TV
I came very often upon examples of Call-Back that don't fit for not being plot-significant, and move them to Continuity Nod. As the description of the trope specifies:
- [A Call-Back is m]ore or less a Shout-Out to itself — but if that's all that it's doing, then it's a Continuity Nod; a Call-Back brings back an element that is actually relevant again.
However, on Andor S2E10 "Make It Stop", one such move of mine was reverted by palm529sw, despite the two concerned examples being pure flavor with no relevance at all to the episode. I did PM this editor, but got no response yet.
I'd like to have confirmation that my interpretation of Call-Back is correct, and that I can move the two examples back to Continuity Nod without being accused of edit warring.
Edited by StFanopenEdit war about a Plot Hole entry in Final Destination: Bloodies
Troper joaquinthehour removed the Plot Hole entry I put into Film.Final Destination Bloodlines yesterday with no edit reason:
- Plot Hole: As it turns out, Erik is not biologically related to Iris, meaning that he should be safe from being targeted by Death. This is seemingly confirmed when he survives the fire at the tattoo shop and Julia is instead the first of Howard's children to die. While it does makes sense that Death later targets Erik in the hospital for interfering with its design due to him trying to save Bobby, it doesn't explain Erik's incident at the tattoo shop if he wasn't originally on Death's list nor why the man with hooks wasn't added to the list after trying to help save Nora Carpenter from the second movie. This is made more glaring considering Death doesn't bother to go after any of the in-laws. One explanation could be that Erik's freak accident in the tattoo shop was just that; a genuine accident where Death wasn't actively trying to influence anything itself and the man with hooks was Killed Offscreen after Nora's death or was spared because he only interfered while being oblivious to Death's design. However, since the film never gives any concrete explanation, it's hard to overlook.
The entry fits because it is a small plot hole, but one nonetheless, and it has been expanded upon by other tropes. I placed it back yesterday, but today they removed the entry again with no edit reason. So, I'm taking it to Ask the Tropers.
Edited by MegaJopenStrange entries in Life is Strange
Life is Strange has three weird entries on the bottom. The first is a fangame, the second are spiritual successors. Can they be cut?
Unofficial but notable works related to this franchise:
- Love Is Strange, a visual novel with characters from the first game made by Team Rumblebee and released in 2016. It jettisons all the sci-fi and tragic elements to focus purely on the Queer Romance aspects.
- Tell Me Why, released in 2020, a non-series game also developed by DONTNOD, with invokedvery similar themes. Due to having a different publisher it officially takes place in a separate continuity to Life Is Strange... but that hasn't stopped fans of the series from adopting it unofficially as an LIS title.
- Lost Records: Bloom & Rage, expected in early 2025, another non-series game developed (and this time self-published) by Don't Nod. Intended as the start of a new independent IP that draws on the studio's experience of making Life is Strange, again with similar themes but officially unconnected to the LiS universe.
openEasily Forgiven playing withs/lack audience reaction part?
Easily Forgiven is now YMMV, which no longer allows playing withs. So I question these (otherwise valid given they got audience contention) MLP examples.
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 2 E 26 A Canterlot Wedding Part 2: Granted, they were tricked and all, but Twilight holds absolutely no resentment towards everypony for turning their backs on her. It must be the two seasons worth of friendship lessons. Just copied from the main page. Doesn't explain why audiences found the forgives too easy. (Also a whole rabbit hole of fans debate about matter.)
YMMV.My Little Pony Equestria Girls 1: Sunset Shimmer goes from attempting to murder the Mane Six to being accepted as their friend in the span of about three minutes. Previously removed
as played with (downplayed/played for laughs in first movie, subverted/deconstructed in sequel). If a character is no longer considered this (given how effectively sequel redeemed her), is it retroactively not an example? Does factually inaccurate reasons for the audience reaction disqualify it or not?
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 5 E 26 The Cutie Remark Part 2: Debatable, as Starlight did witness how her actions could've destroyed all of Equestria and has to live with that fact, which she clearly feels horrible about. She also had to travel to Our Town and seek their forgiveness. It is also discussed as Applejack points out that someone like Starlight can't be let to roam around free as powerful and unhinged as she is and Twilight pointing out how powerful friendship really is in Equestria. Not to mention that no-one seems to even mention all the serious crimes Starlight had committed in this episode, some of which (conspiring against and assaulting a crowned princess) could even be considered acts of treason against Equestria. Move just swapped "Played with" for "Debatable". Half arguing for/against applying as written.
Questions about reworking to be valid:
- Do they have to explain the audience reaction to the forgiveness to be valid EF?
- How to keep the Sunset and Starlight examples from being redundant with Unintentionally Unsympathetic which already covers the reasons audiences say them such? Should UU just not mention in-universe forgiveness?
- What to do with Broken Base examples? Should fan debate on such be included if applicable? Or does that make it too arguing against self and should go under BB or Base-Breaking Character entires instead?
Asking here because every time I asked the EF cleanup thread, I kept getting no feedback to my questions.
openSelf-Erotic Troping in Crossover War pages
A quick glance at the History of the Fridge page for The TV Tropes Character Crossover War reveals it was created and almost exclusively edited by contributors and writers of the work, including a Troper who was bounced for reasons tied to it. With what I believe to be the majority of edits (at best) coming from writers of the work, should the page be cutlisted or should it be dealt with by deleting the edits of the contributors to bring it back in line with the site's rules on Self-Erotic Troping?
(Forgive me for making an ATT for this, it seems we don't have a thread for Fridge Clean-up where I could've brought this up.)
openAre FlameBait tropes allowed on Dethroning Moments of Suck?
Dethroning Moment of Suck itself is Flame Bait, some moments include Flame Bait tropes, and none of the guidelines on the main page forbid examples from including Flame Bait tropes, so I'm not sure.
openNightmare Face Web Original
Nightmare Face has a lot of examples from TV Tropes itself, which lists pages whose images fit the trope. The thing is, examples are not supposed to mention that they provide the page image. I already cleaned up a bunch of examples that had unnecessary "This example illustrates the show's Nightmare Fuel page", so do I delete all of the TV Tropes examples?
openIssues with Franchise/Creator/Genre Killer
Alright I'm kind of new here (having made few edits and having not posted in the forums) and this is my first ATT query, so forgive me if this isn't the right place or I am not the right person to be asking this, or if I am using incorrect formatting.
I have been half-paying attention to some of the cleanup threads of problematic tropes and pages, both Short-Term and Long-Term. It was brought up [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15523303630A12937700&page=12#comment-283
here] that the Genre Killer trope may be in need of a cleanup effort.
Looking at the trope right now, I am somewhat inclined to agree. While the description does say that a genre can be brought back from the dead, I agree that some of the examples of killed-off "genres" are a bit narrow, such as "live-action Dr. Seuss movies" or ""kid uses super-science and gadgets to deal with everyday life" cartoons," and I also agree that some examples don't define which work, if any, is the Killer, with examples including non-work related Killers such as quiz shows being killed off by a major scandal and not a specific failure, or Gangsta Rap being killed off by the murders of Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G.. (I have admittedly made a questionable and possibly invalid edit myself to the Music page describing how an album's success killed off the success of a completely different genre, so I apologize for that.)
The reason I bring this up here rather than in the thread where this was originally brought up is because upon further inspection, I believe the other Killer tropes to have their own issues. Creator Killer has examples (such as Milli Vanilli) describing careers destroyed by scandals rather than works (I believe if I am correct that Role-Ending Misdemeanor covers that) or some examples that outright mention a Career Resurrection. Franchise Killer, meanwhile, has problems with examples describing multiple Killers despite the trope description and Laconic stating that only one film can be a Killer, along with some other questionable examples in general (such as one directly quoted as describing the death of "the whole idea of the "peace, love and music" late-'60s outdoor rock festival that Monterey had pioneered and Woodstock made legendary," which isn't a franchise at all.)
Am I correct in assuming that these tropes may be in need of a cleanup? Or are there bigger issues with the tropes that would require more serious action?
openFridge brilliance that isn't a fridge.
RafKen593
changed the first Fridge Brilliance on Animator vs. Animation to something that isn't really a fridge but a simple fact:
"Of course the Chosen One would defeat anyone who gets in his way."
It used to make sense before because it used to be an Harry Potter reference (Of course the Chosen One would eventually triumph over the Dark Lord) and I tried to tell him that what he put wasn't a Fridge but he wasn't intersted in changing it back or asking on Ask The Tropers to see if it is really a Fridge, so I'm asking myself now: Does the first Fridge of this page count as a Fridge ?
openHelstrom editing conflict. Live Action TV
Alright, so there's a bit of an editing conflict going on with the Series.Helstrom page involving myself and a troper by the handle of alliterator. As of right now, Marvel TV is basically on its way out while Marvel Studios prepares their own series, and Helstrom is one of the last shows that the former group made. It's basically DOA with the showrunner gone, and Marvel noticeably have used absolutely no branding on their project, the latter of which is something that I pointed out. (The reasoning for this seems to be that they want to not associate Helstrom with their future shows and movies, but I don't think that that needs to be in the article.) I also pointed out that the series lacked this labeling supposedly due to horror themes, despite three Marvel projects based around horror (Moon Knight, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, and Blade) being actively developed with the Marvel Studios banner intact.
However, alliterator disagreed with that last part of the edit and excised it, saying that it had to do with a TV-MA rating which we don't even know that the show has — not that TV-MA stopped any of the Netflix shows from getting the Marvel label. I initially reinstated the edit with an explanation. Here's how it read before the bold part was cut out:
"Curiously, the series has absolutely no Marvel branding associated with it in any advertising, whereas the same was not true for any prior Marvel TV productions — or film productions without any association with Marvel Studios, for that matter. According to Marvel, this was due to the show's "horror-based content". However, this decision is in contrast to how the Marvel branding is kept on Marvel Studios-produced projects with supernatural themes, such as the television series Moon Knight, or the films Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Blade."
This edit was reverted for being "speculation"... Which doesn't make any sense to me, as Helstrom has objectively no Marvel branding while all three
projects that
I listed
have the Marvel Studios logo attached to them (and not just the generic Marvel logo). I figure that this discrepancy is noteworthy enough to be mentioned and I wanted to say my piece before I asked to have it reinstated.
openPaper Mario Origami King Development Speculation Videogame
So in Paper Mario The Origami King's Trivia page, I wrote this.
Troubled Production: Based on what can be inferred from interviews and clues from the game itself, there's a case to be made that during the game's development, there was quite a bit of friction between Intelligent Systems and Kensuke Tanabe.
- As mentioned above in Executive Meddling, the development staff was not allowed to create original characters based on mainline races in the Mario cast, as was possible in the first two games. Kensuke Tanabe enforced this based off of Shigeru Miyamoto's one time expression that he thought that the Paper Mario series was deviating too far from his vision of what Super Mario Bros games should be like. Tanabe took this to heart... by shutting down any and all elements that deviated from standard Mario fare that weren't completely different in the first place. This is in spite of Miyamoto having since expressed that he doesn't want the Super Mario Bros. franchise to become stagnant by only using tropes and characters that audiences are familiar with.
- Intelligent Systems were vehemently opposed to Tanabe's extremely strict meddling on how characters were allowed to be presented in the game, despite not being able to challenge the ruling. So instead they resorted to walking around the rule as much as possible. Olivia insisting on referring to Bob-Omb as Bobby, along with the Legion of Stationery all having wildly exaggerated personalities to make up for any lack of visual detail beyond each being an Animate Inanimate Object are just a few examples of the developers trying to skirt past this rule.
It was shot down as Speculative Troping, and while I want to bring attention to some of the details that I found regarding Origami King's development, I also don't want to break any wiki rules. So I asked the person who erased it if I should put this in the game's WMG page instead. He told me that he thought it was frowned upon, and that I should ask here before doing anything else.
Should this be placed on the game's WMG page as a "meta" (theory outside of the game's lore) tab, somewhere else entirely, or does this sort of stuff have no place on TV Tropes?
Edited by MetroidPeteropenDarkhorse misuse?
I suspect these examples from EnsembleDarkhorse.Pokemon are to major characters/intended to be popular to count.
- Ash's Greninja. His species was already quite popular to begin with. But Ash's one gained further admiration. He has a die-hard attitude of being dedicated to his training, only choosing a trainer who could help him get stronger, the mysterious prophecy foretelling greatness for Greninja and Ash. He then went on to become the Breakout Character, where the XY&Z arc gave him the pseudo-Mega Evolution form as a result of synchronizing with Ash, and became Ash's most focused Pokémon for a while. That being said, his popularity took a critical hit following his infamous defeat at the hands of Alain's Charizard. Even so it is still one of the most often-requested Pokémon to make a comeback.
- Ash's Rowlet quickly earned a fan base due to it's Adorkable, dozy personality, along with avoiding the usual fate of comic relief Pokemon by being one of Ash's most effective in battle throughout early Alola.
- Ash's Torracat. It already got attention when it first appeared in the trailer as a Litten, before the series had even premiered. While Litten in general are already quite popular due to their grumpy attitudes, Ash's Litten had further appeal by adding in a Hot-Blooded nature and a tendency to burn Ash much like his past fire-types. Then its character got really fleshed out with it trying to look after the elderly Stoutland who ended up passing away. By the time Litten joins Ash's team it already had a special place in the fans' hearts.
- Ash's Meltan, for both being a cute little powerhouse, being Ash's first Mythical Pokemon, having a fun dynamic with Rowlet, and evolving into the gargantuan Melmetal.
- Just to complete the Alola team, Ash's Lycanroc fits the bill as well for not only being a big loveable mutt but serving as Ash's main powerhouse throughout Sun and Moon, so much it ultimately wins Ash his first ever games-based Pokemon league. Such a bone throw naturally rose Lycanroc up a good deal among Ash's roster.
- Ash's Dragonite and Gengar were both very unexpected catches, to say the least, both because they were long-requested Pokémon fans wanted on his roster and because they were caught at the start of the Journeys series despite being fully-evolved powerhouses. Dragonite is a total cuddlebug with enormous battle prowess while Gengar is Ash's first-ever Ghost-type, so naturally they enjoy a lot of popularity.
- Continuing Journeys ' trend of giving Ash long-requested teammates, his Riolu quickly became a fan-favorite too. Ash's bond with it brings back the plot element of Ash being able to wield aura, while Riolu itself is a very battle-oriented Pokémon that due to its' inexperience can be used to give Ash feasible challenges without underselling Ash's own prowess as a trainer.
Greninja was effectively main character of Ash's Kalos team that series, and fro m the species the creators correctly predicted would become a Breakout Character. This seems too major to count.
Rowlet, Torracat, Meltan, and Lycanroc are the near entity of Ash team witch seems too major to count. Meltan was specially to promote the new Mon in the games. Lycanroc might count.
Dragonite, Gengar, and Riolu were the entity of Ash team when they achieved their popularity. Gengar and Riolu "giving Ash long-requested teammates" means they were supposed to be popular for such. Dragonite might count.
I've long wonder if any of Ash's team (save Charizard who codified the darkhorse traits) are too major characters to count as the seem like main characters. I'd make an exception for any of them minor enough to be Out of Focus / Put on a Bus in-series as opposed to the end of the season per the norm. Thoughts?
I asked Ensemble Darkhorse Cleanup
but was ignored.
open Paper Mario the Horror King Videogame
Can someone tell me why Paper Mario: the Origami King DOESN'T have its own Nightmare Fuel page? The game has a bunch of horrifying things that by all means SHOULD warrant its own Nightmare Fuel page, but for some reason it doesn't. (I think for some time it actually DID have it's own Nightmare fuel page, but now I can't find it.) Am I able to add it myself, or does someone else have to do it?
Edit: Wait, why can't I reply anymore?
Edited by SpideyopenSelf Review
On Shinobi: The RPG, somebody calming to be the author of the fanfic has posted a review
saying that it was an Old Shame and warns others to not repeat the same mistake. Are self reviews allowed?
open Troper possibly adding YMMV to her own work
I noticed that PrincessPandaTrope added a trope entry
where she wrote about the art of GothNebula in the first person, saying "Most of my Amy Rose's and Blaze the Cat's alternate outfits" bare the midriff.
This indicates that she is GothNebula. Not a problem in itself, of course; adding tropes to your own creator page is allowed. But she's been adding YMMV tropes to the same creator's page, so we need an IP check, is what I'm saying.
EDIT: Pierpitcher pointed out, correctly, that since GothNebula has no account, an IP check won't help much. Ridiculous of me not to realize that myself, really...
Edited by MichaelKatsuroopenLost Aesop questions
I looked over Lost Aesop and found many examples that make me question the trope.
- "One Bad Apple" is so clumsy with its intended messages of "standing up to a bully makes you a bully as well" and "telling an adult is the solution to being bullied" that it makes one wonder if some of the cast or crew secretly disagreed with them. In the climax of the episode, almost immediately after the Crusader's epiphany that they should have told an adult, Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon pop up and begin bullying them right in front of Applejack who does nothing other than frown, effectively negating aesop number one. Then Babs Seed gets in their faces and intimidates them into leaping back in fear and landing in the mud, effectively solving the current bullying issue by standing up to them and negating aesop number two.
This is redundant with Broken Aesop, which applies to many other examples (also redundant with Clueless Aesop).
- "Lesson Zero": While the other ponies learn that they should take their friends' worries seriously even if they think the concern is trivial, Twilight Sparkle doesn't seem to have learned (or at least doesn't say she has learned) not to let trivial concerns get the better of her. On the other hand, the Aesop is mentioned alongside the former in their letter to Celestia, while not by Twilight herself, she is among those making it at the time, implying she agrees with it. It would explain however why the Aesop was repeated in Twilight's next spotlight episode, which she definitely gets the jist of that time.
Besides arguing with itself, the episode never intended that to be the episodes Aesop. "Indecisive Deconstruction" was cut in part for the same issue as it assumed a work was trying for X which isn't valid for non-YMMV.
My impression is that Lost Aesop is for when the Aesop is ignored or contradicted in later installments, but the Lost Aesop page is unclear and convoluted noting the trope is about the Aesop being unclear and convoluted which is not the case for this and many other examples. I was planning a cleanup because it looks like a catch all for complaining about mishandling of Aesops such the intended definition is unclear. Thoughts?
I also asked Aesop Cleanup
but was ignored.

I’m in need of assistance to determine which trope would best fit this highlight from my fanfic story “Face Off with Principal Mazur”:
PM: Ah yes. Mr. Goof. And the young man who incited that little riot at the assembly last year. G: Now see here. My Max is no juvenile delinquent and did not start a riot at all. PM: And how do you know that? (Roxanne then enters.) R: Because I saw what went on at that assembly. He wasn’t trying to incite any violence. All the other students were cheering for him and his Powerline performance because they loved it. And he and his dad also got to dance alongside the real Powerline himself at his concert in LA. My friends and I were watching, and they obviously impressed Powerline with their own dance moves, and he decided to make it part of his show without any objection. (Mazur just scoffs) PM: Another hijacking. Disrespect. That’s what’s wrong with today’s kids, don’t know when to stop making things miserable for others.
Basically, what this implies is that rather than acknowledge Max and Goofy’s talent and apologize for his misleading exaggeration to Goofy, he just flippantly disregards their dance as “another hijacking” and how today’s kids don’t know when to stop making others miserable.