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 Cross-wicking required?
Endark Culi created a page for Tokyo Tattoo Girls, which itself has sufficient content. However, they only made 3 cross-wicks. Two of them are indexing and one trope was cross-wicked.
I was going to send a notifier, but realized I didn't know if this was actually against the rules.
openMisuse of Author Existence Failure on several pages?
A number of pages relating to Power Rangers has Author Existence Failure for actors that have passed away, but my issue is that while the show as a whole is ongoing the seasons they were a part of are long over and with seasons more or less self contained now, there's very little chance of their character coming back anyways so listing this trope seems pointless.
Another issue is the addition of The Character Died with Him too, with Power Rangers Never Say "Die" in place it's very unlikely any character (especially those from older seasons) would ever be revealed to have passed on so again it seems like an unnecessary trope to have.
So should these tropes be deleted, edited in some way, or just left alone?
Edited by AkibaPurpleopenMore YMMV/StevenUniverseFuture issues.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Garnet, Pearl, and Amethyst, even with the fact that Steven is growing up, continue to treat him like they did at the start of Steven Universe. At several different points, they are seen glossing over his emotions, such as during "Together Forever" when Garnet doesn't give Steven help when he asks (and claims that "there was no future where he didn't propose despite Ruby and Sapphire directly egging Steven on to propose to Connie), and Amethyst glossing over Steven's concerns in "Guidance" when he pointed out they were treating the newly-immigrated gems like they did on Homeworld (though she turned out to be mostly right, Both Sides Have a Point). And "Snow Day", when they repeatedly ignored the many signs that Steven did not want to play with them, as well as the fact that they never directly apologized to Steven while he was himself onscreen (like he did to Cactus Steven in "Prickly Pair") in "I Am My Monster" or "The Future" over their Parental Neglect or how he was their Living Emotional Crutch, instead just acknowledging it while he was in his Kaiju form. Or acting "tough" in "The Future", without considering how acting like they didn't care their child was leaving may have affected Steven emotionally. Steven may have not brought it up most of the time, but is it any wonder he's angry with them?
1. It fails to explain why they were supposed to be sympathetic despite the circumstances. 2. It outright states they realized they were in the wrong in "I Am My Monster", the point of the series was showing how they treated Steven hurt him. The "never directly apologized to Steven while he was himself onscreen" seems too minor and nitpicky to count when at least 90% of this was intentional. This is the second case of UU issue on the page
.
I also asked UU cleanup
but this seem an easy fix and bigger issue so I'm asking here as well.
openRecurring Fanon Character vs. O.C. Stand-in
- Very common in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic circles.
- The "Background Six" were all characters with absolutely no characterization beyond some slight gags, or maybe a bit line or two. The fandom went wild with them anyway. All of these turned into Ascended Fanon within the show itself in the episode "Slice of Life". These characterizations mostly still persist to this day within the fandom.
- Flufflepuff from Ask Fluffle Puff
- Gamer Princess Luna from Ask Princess Molestia and Ask Gaming Princess Luna
The first example sounds more like O.C. Stand-in they are not fan made characters. The second might count as a persona adopted after they got canon characterization but was commented out as I was posting this.
I’d say O.C. Stand-in should be a separate thing, as such characters aren’t OC’s. But there’s this description from Recurring Fanon Character:
- A reinterpretation of a canon character; these characters are known as the counterparts of the canon characters. The Tails Doll of Sonic R is a robotic doll meant to serve as Tails' Metal Sonic, but is an otherwise Flat Character. Due to its unintentional creepiness, the fans treat as an actual creature of nightmares, which has been the base for many fanworks and creepypasta.
How is O.C. Stand-in separate from RFC? Because OCSI is Depending on the Writer while RFC is a constituent characterization?
And why is O.C. Stand-in not Trivia like Fan Nickname or YMMV if it’s how audiences treat characters? If it is for characters intentionally written to be such do they need proof it’s intentional as opposed to incidental?
openWhere to file examples from a show within a show
So I'm crosswicking Card Force Infection and I'm wondering if the examples of tropes in the in-universe card game should go in the Literature folder or the Tabletop Games folder?
It's never been published as a tabletop game, but the author does have a list of the full rules text for all the cards seen so far and enough of the game flow has been discussed in the story that one could put together and play the game, if one wanted to.
... For that matter, should tropes from the in-universe card game be separated out on the work page itself? I did it like that because I thought it looked nicer, but on reflection I'm not sure if it's the "correct" thing to do and I can't think of another game-within-a-story that's theoretically playable but not actually published like this one is to compare against.
Edited by wingedcatgirlopenQueer Romance: trope or index?
Queer Romance does indexing, but it's treated like a trope on the page itself, complete with commenting out of ZCEs (which, if it's supposed to be functioning as an index, should not actually be considered/treated as ZCEs)
openDefusing possible edit war.
Woodsy Grabass 2019 re-added this HateSink entry
on Characters.MCU Kilgrave after I first rewrote it, and then cut it when someone familiar with the show suggested In the Hate Sink thread that the author intent was too ambiguous to confirm that Kilgrave was meant to be despised above all else.
- Hate Sink: He's both the primary villain of the piece and this trope. The man is so despicable, and he destroys so many lives, that the main draw of the story is waiting for him to lose. This is drawn out by the existence of Hope as a Damsel in Distress that needs to be saved at the cost of sparing Kilgrave, but she specifically kills herself so that his destruction can become the sole motivation of our Main Characters. It doesn't help the fact that his entire character is a portrayal of Rape Culture, Toxic Masculinity and Male Entitlement.
Furthermore, the entry as reverted possibly violates the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement by using political buzzwords, instead of the straightforward and buzzword free entry that I rewrote before I cut it.
- Hate Sink: Kilgrave is presented as an immature, misogynistic, possessive creep and sexual predator, as well as a petty, entitled, hedonistic individual who regularly mistreats other people for his amusement. Any superficial charm Kilgrave has only serves to underscore his unpleasantness.
If Woodsy has proof that Kilgrave, above all else, was meant to be hated, I want them to discuss further. Evidently I forgot to link to the HS thread in my edit reason the last time.
Edited by SkyCat32openWillow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be listed as Unintentionally Unsympathetic Live Action TV
I know she's already listed as a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds but I think she should also be listed under UU.
For starters, she attempts to destroy the world and her friends just because some killed her girlfriend. To top it all off, she hocks herself up on dark magic despite knowing the implications. It's not for her to decide if the world needs to be destroyed or not yet the show paints her as a tragic figure despite her attacking her friends. To me, she comes off as petty and traitorous and the forgivenss and redemption she gets is completely undeserved
Edited by deathnoteFNBOI58openCan't link videos to media source Videogame
I realized that the page for Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers didn't have video examples linked to it, but videos for Ret-Gone and Player Personality Quiz had examples from that same game anyway. On closer inspection I noticed that the name of the media source given by the videos on each of the trope pages is not completely the same as the title given by the media page. Is there anyway for me to fix this myself?
Edited by TheGrayShadowopenNeed more voices
So the Trans To Cis Censorship
draft, spawned from the discussion over She's a Man in Japan, has only been up for about a day but is attracting a lot of controversy, as the hat-bomb ratio will let you know.
The issue is that, despite a lot of people voting on the draft, the actual discussion is going around in circles. I don't think we're going to get any resolution at the rate we're going, and we need more people to get involved in the debate. The debate itself is mostly over whether or not the trope should expand- I'm firmly on the "expand" side, but I don't care how this resolves as much as I care that it is resolved and that we don't just battle over hats and bombs without actually, properly, discussing the issue.
I'm not going to bring the debate here so I won't go through all the points, it's all on the draft itself, I'm just asking for more people to get involved and give their opinions rather than just tossing a hat or bomb.
openOverly Long Notes In Quotes
These are from Quotes.Game Breaker. Should the notes be trimmed down, since they're hard to read even if they do prevent a Zero Context Example?
openFranchise Original Sin for Harry Potter Literature
The Harry Potter saga has acquired enough space to fit its own page for the Franchise Original Sin trope. While some entries are understandable, this one feels kinda odd.
- One of the more common critiques of Crimes of Grindelwald was the titular villain's plan, where he wants To Unmasque the World with the purpose of taking it over and stopping the atrocities of the 1930s-40s. While his imperialist ambitions are undeniably bad, the invoking of Holocaust and Nazi imagery and Grindelwald's legitimate argument about how the Statute of Secrecy ultimately does a lot more harm than good for both Muggles and Wizards ended up striking a chord with a lot of audiences. As a result, it made the "good guys" seem extremely selfish, because when you read between the lines, it acknowledged that wizards could have stopped World War II, the Holocaust, etc., but considered staying isolated and segregated to be more important than saving millions of lives. To an extent, the implication that wizards value their secrecy and privilege over Muggle lives was always there in the original series. Even when Voldemort's supporters were pretty much declaring open season on Muggles during the final two books, none of the good-guy wizards ever considered informing them of the truth despite them finding out what's going on being the best way for Muggles to protect themselvesnote For one thing, the Muggle government could have coordinated with the Order of the Phoenix by combining their resources, and the Muggle Military and the Aurors and/or the Order of the Phoenix could have worked together to track down and kill/capture as many Death Eaters as possible. This could have given the good guys a major advantage over the Death Eaters; even if they don't have magic, Muggles can still fight and kill wizards (and given wizards' general ignorance of Muggle technology, it being used to combat the Death Eaters and Voldemort could have totally blindsided them), and the Muggle population outnumbers the Wizard population. Notably, Dumbledore reaches out diplomatically to a tiny enclave of murderous giants who hate wizards and kill each other for fun, but never considers reaching out to Muggles despite knowing full-well that the Death Eaters want to wipe all of them out. In fact, the only explanation we ever get for why wizards even maintain The Masquerade in the first place is Hagrid briefly claiming that they don't want to use their magic to solve Muggle problems in the first book. While the apparent moral was pretty ugly, the story never really dwelt much on the relationship between wizards and Muggles, which made it easy to ignore or handwave. Crimes of Grindelwald just made it explicit how far their callous indifference went and made it part of the central conflict, rather than a mere implication. It also didn't help that the 1990s were generally seen as a pretty stable era, which made a noninterventionist policy feel somewhat defensible to readers, while the '30s and '40s (and, adding in Reality Subtext, The New '10s) were not.
What exactly is the complaint here? Is the writer complaining that the wizards (and by extension, Rowling herself) chose not to reveal the existence of the wizarding world, even though that was never on Rowling's plans for the series? I'm no Harry Potter expert, but I'm sure the characters and Rowling have explained plenty of times why revealing the existence of the wizarding world to Muggles would be a bad idea. What should we do about this?
openTrope or index
Is Exotic Weapon Supremacy a trope or an index? Its description seems like a trope, similar to Heroes Prefer Swords, but one that places the Improbable Weapon User above all the rest. However, the itself page have no examples, and only lists a bunch of "related tropes" that doesn't seem to be actual subtropes.
Edited by AdeptopenArguing-against-self Narm entries?
I've noticed on entries for Narm across the wiki (I may even be guilty of it myself, not sure) that they occasionally include lines of explanation. For example, "It's hard to take (insert scene here) seriously when Alice's face is so goofy-looking. Though considering she was just drugged, this might explain why."
Would this be considered arguing against a listed trope? I usually see them added by the original editor, and it seems to have less to do with arguing that "Alice's face" is unintentionally funny and more about it being Justified.
Edited by iamconstantineopenUnintentionally Unsympathetic misuse?
UnintentionallyUnsympathetic.Western Animation
- Jesus christ, the Diamond Authority, especially White Diamond They had been set up as purely sociopathic villains with no redeeming qualities with the exception of Blue, with White Diamond in particular draining the life force of her OWN children in an attempt to fight Steven. While they were clearly intended to be villains, that alone doesn't put up the fact that they murdered millions of their own citizens, corrupted their minds, and used their OWN corpses in order to destroy one of thousands of planets they had already annihilated for resources. During the Human Zoo arc, they are depicted as being torn up for their sisters's (faked) death, and somehow depicted as sympathetic by the show, including Yellow Diamond, who is still a completely and utterly emotionally dead psychopath. It gets worse with White Diamond, who was advertised up to this point as being a Complete Monster in tier with Ragyo Kuryuin, who is explicitly meant to draw up comparisons to nazi white supremacy, and imprisoned her youngest daughter for decades at a time. Then, after nearly killing him, Steven convinces her to drop all the horrible, repulsive things she's done because she blushed a different color, revealing herself to be a hypocrite. She goes completely back on her word and willingly turns Homeworld into a republic solely because of this, and is depicted as an adorably doting grandmother for Steven in the movie. Needless to say, a lot of fans were absolutely outraged at how easily the show had rehabilitated a horrible dictator, since Jasper and Lars had been depicted as being far more realistically in that regard.
I toned down some of complaining, but I question if it's an example given it's a notoriously controversial issue. I believe it's misused (at least as written) as this trope must explain why they were supposed to be seen as sympathetic despite the circumstances . Those traits are why they were supposed be be unsympathetic as villain until they begin to redeem themselves. It's just complaining about being Easily Forgiven. From my limited understanding of the series it sounds like it exaggerating their negative personality traits.
I've asked
Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup but it's been inactive for the last few days and this looks like a big contentious issue.
openChristopher Priest
Found this when cleaning Boring Invincible Hero off the wiki:
Christopher Priest (comics) has a really weird example section that just flat out tropes his works as if the page itself is a work's page; it's not common tropes he uses or anything, just tropes that appear in at least one work he's written ever.
I know Creators Pages can sort of do this if the works don't have their own pages... but these works have their own pages.
Edited by WarJay77openNot sure where to ask about pages with weird grammar
I've noticed that this page
contains some grammatical errors.
I was wondering if there is some sort of place specifically for reporting pages with odd grammar.
I thought about trying to fix it myself, but there are quite a lot of mistakes, my own grammar isn't all that great, and there are some sentences which I found... confusing (For example: Is he a person who secretly works as a CIA operative and pretends to be a tourist or simply as a result of being delusional from his experience in war?).
Edited by Powoga
The Quiet One (he/him)
openMoving a page to Useful Notes Videogame
A while back (maybe around two or so years ago), in the TLP crash rescue thread, I brought up VideoGame.Game Genie since it lacks trope examples. I said I thought it should be moved to UsefulNotes.Game Genie, since it's a way to tinker with games' code, rather than being a game itself. Only one person responded; Fighteer said he agreed with that idea, but that post wasn't marked as a mod statement (i.e., the post wasn't highlighted in red/pink), so I wasn't sure if I had permission.
Would moving the page to Useful Notes require a TRS thread, or is posting this on ATT enough? VideoGame.Mii was moved to UsefulNotes.Mii earlier this year without TRS, but I don't know if the consensus was gathered on ATT or the forums, so I wasn't sure.
Edit: It looks like VideoGame.Game Shark is in the same boat as VideoGame.Game Genie.
Edited by GastonRabbit

So I was reading the playing with page for Good Old Fisticuffs and most of it was about a Boxing Battler or a person who incorporates boxing in their fighting against a karateka to illustrate the trope and how it can be played with. The problem is that the Good Old Fisticuffs trope is specifically about a brawler with no established fighting style being better than those who trained in a fighting style or martial art, and boxing is technically a fighting style if not a martial art itself. Normally I'd just edit it myself but it makes up so much of the page that I'm at a loss at what to do.