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:
open Fridge Horror issue with Balrog-De-Morgoth Videogame
The other day I added an entry on Fridge.Hogwarts Legacy about the character Ominis Gaunt and how his family's history of inbreeding was likely the result of him being born blind. To me this seemed like a reasonable deduction considering that hereditary blindness from inbreeding has been scientifically observed, but the user Balrog-De-Morgoth removed my entry and asserted that Ominis' blindness had to be magical in nature because many other non-magic diseases and disabilities have magical cures. However, there have been no specific cases in the Wizarding World canon where healing eyes by magic to restore vision has been shown, as evidenced by the various characters that wear eyewear, including Harry Potter himself.
I re-added my entry again and explained my reasoning above, but Balrog-De-Morgoth removed it a second time, this time citing that Pottermore lists cures for non-magical diseases including cancer, but then claimed that because the character of Mad-Eye Moody has a magical replacement eye, that was also reason enough to remove my entry. This is ignoring the fact that Moody's eye is a replacement, not his original eye which was healed, and therefore completely irrelevant my point. While there is also the fact that Ominis' wand reacted specifically to him being blind, this still does not indicate that his blindness is caused by magic since the way wands work is left very mysterious, and Ominis himself states in-game that he was born blind.
Is it alright for me to put my Fridge entry back up? Plus I also feel that removing a Fridge entry because you disagree with it is bad etiquette.
Edited by ChipGoffOfRORopenContested entry
So on the page for hijacked destiny, there's this entry:
- Happens inadvertently in the Star Wars Continuity Reboot. The Skywalker bloodline ultimately ended having accomplished nothing and The Unchosen One Rey, descendant of the very person it was created to destroy, saves the day on her own and rubs salt in the wound by taking their name for herself in an attempt to honor their sacrifice.
It was originally added
by stankykong
, then removed
by DJones662
for being "A VERY Opinion-based example that honestly would be better fitted in a YMMV folder." It was restored
by gjjones
but was just deleted
again by WalkerBRiley
with the reason "Removed for being biased beyond all reason. Come up with a way to write it without sounding like a jilted lover and maybe I won't keep deleting it."
Technically this doesn't count as an edit war since it isn't the same Tropers doing the editing, but this is being contested by several Tropers and probably needs to be taken to a proper discussion page? (Also, I feel like the "jilted lover" comment was unnecessarily rude. Should a rudeness notifier be sent?)
openCould it have been worded better?
This was re-added to YMMV.Forspoken because according to the user who re-added it, it met the criteria:
- Hype Backlash: One of the biggest victims of the current generation. Forspoken started with an elaborate, multi-million dollar marketing campaign offering bombastic promises, only to be mired with constant production delays, Release Date Changes, cut content, broken promises, a controversial pricetag and eventual delivery of a game that, even if it wasn't flawed by itself, still couldn't hope to match the build-up done over three years.
Could it have been worded better, or it's just fine?
openAre there guidelines on how to organize "Voice By:"
Are there standard ways to organize voice actors/actresses?
I've noticed a few different styles, and I was wondering if it was up to the editors of the page(s) to make their best guess, or is there some policy they were supposed to follow.
Here's some different samplings I can find.
From Characters.One Piece Monkey D Luffy
Voiced by: Urara Takano [OVA], Mayumi Tanaka [TV series onwards] (Japanese); Colleen Clinkenbeard [Funimation dub], Erica Schroedernote (credited as Bella Hudson) [4Kids dub], Chuck Powers [Odex dub] (English)note Other languages: Diana Pérez [4Kids dub, first voice], Karina Altamirano [4Kids dub, second voice], Ayari Rivera [One Piece Film: Gold], Mireya Mendoza [Netflix dub, until 4 season], Desireé González (Netflix dub, season 5 onwards) (Latin American Spanish); Jaime Roca (European Spanish); Daniel Schlauch (German)
From Characters.Mega Man Classic Robot Masters NES, folder for DLN.003 Cut Man:
With Luffy, does the "(Japanese)" apply to the OVA and the TV series? or just the TV Series? (I'm aware I could look it up. I'm looking for the text to communicate the information without that for myself and others)
With Cut Man, it doesn't have the three exclamation points that many other characters has.
Edited by bud0011open Which way is better?
I may just be dumb here, but I looked through some Administrivia pages and didn't find an answer there, so I'm here now:
If you're on a trope list and you're troping a franchise where the franchise title is the same as the first entry in the series - so, for a hypothetical example, the franchise Franchise.Dead Rising has the same title as the first game, VideoGame.Dead Rising - I've seen the title of the first entry troped in two different ways, either just the title as is (so Dead Rising again, in this case), or I've also seen it potholed under the name "Original/First [whatever media]" - so in this case, it would look like "Original/First game". Basically, is one of those ways preferred over the other? Just linking the title as is or doing so in a manner that specifies it's the first entry in the franchise instead of the franchise itself? Can it go either way?
Edited by STARCRUSHER99openTroper removing page images without discussion
I notice the image for Self-Demonstrating Article to be missing, but there's no Image Pickin thread in the history, just Michael 108 tweaking the caption several times before deleting it and the image outright.
From the troper's edit history, they've done the same to Fourth Wall Greeting. Michael 108 has no forum history so I assume these were changed without discussion.
There appears to be a pattern of tweaking captions note (and laconics, but they don't seem as severe), which aren't all bad, but a few stick out over the others. Examples:
- Adding and deleting a caption for Advertising.The Simpsons
- Adding a ":p" to NightmareFuel.The Simpsons (which another deleted)
- WesternAnimation.Animaniacs no longer has its theme lyrics(?) in the caption, what replaces it now isn't even formatted properly.
- Replacing Creator.Tress Mac Neille's caption to one (arguably) more Fan Myopic compared to its initial "The woman of a thousand voices."
Which notifiers would be suitable, if Michael 108 hasn't received any already?
openMaybe check in case of a possibly edit war...
Well, this is most likely something that people rarely notice due to being one on the page that isn't viewed as much due to the work being more vague to the non-guest visitors of this site compared to others, but unfortunately for the person below who did this, I do stumble into the page on occasions. But anyways;
Thrilling One Way did uncomment Color-Coded Characters without changing the description (it was commented out by Hello83433, who thought it was ZCE), while adding information to Four Temperament Enesemble and also uncommenting it. This applies to not one, but two pages; Characters page D4DJ Happy Around
and Characters page D4DJ Peaky P-Key
.
I have no idea either about how to do about how much description the trope Color-Coded Characters needs to be valid and usable in the page information though. It isn't a solid claim myself, but it exists because of the "uncommenting" rule after someone comments it out as "ZCE".
Edited by JustNormalMusicLoveropen Are these long quotes really necessary?
I have a question about these entries from The Critical Drinker:
- Writer on Board: He often accuses movies of being a "personal therapy session" for writers:
- One such example is when he simply compares the appearance of the misunderstood outcast teen daughter protagonist in I Am Not Starfire to her writer, and bursts out laughing at the similarities between them.
- He harshly criticizes Velma for this, accusing it as being nothing more than a Revenge Fic of sorts for the creators who he believes used the main characters as self-inserts:
"The thing that really struck me about Velma is the sheer bitterness and hatred that seems to radiate from it. You really get the sense that this is some kind of emotional colonic irrigation for the writers, like you're witnessing a whole liketime's worth of petty resentments, jealousy, personal grudges, and bitter regrets being vomited up onto the screen in front of you. I dunno if they had a really tough time in high school or something, but I can't shake the feeling that the whole thing is some kind of coping session against anyone who was more rich, more successful, more popular, or more attractive than them. Either way, the attempted humor in Velma just comes across as hateful and nasty instead of funny and insightful."
- He similarly describes Rey of the Disney Star Wars trilogy as being such a thing for Kathleen Kennedy.
"It's no secret at this point that Rey was very much Kathleen Kennedy's baby. Her ultimate vindication for all those coffees she had to make and all those notes she had to take down as a humble secretary in the early days. All those years of slowly working her way upwards, climbing the corporate ladder, being a woman in a man's world. Rey was the culmination of her own life experiences and world view. The perfect idealized vision of how she saw herself: strong, capable, resourceful, independent, supremely talented, and lacking all the flaws and weaknesses of her male counterparts, better than them in every measurable way, and the fact that the character was met with almost universal scorn and derision from the Star Wars fanbase was a thorn in her side that she was determined to pull out no matter how many movies and how much money it requires. You know it's kind of funny when you realize just how petty and immature these 'titans of the movie industry' actually are."
- He accuses Kathleen Kennedy of this again for with Helena from Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny describing the character as "yet another addition to the growing lineup of brunette, British, flawless, idealized Kathleen Kennedy self-inserts that are better than their aging male counterparts in every possible way".
"Jesus Christ, and they talk about the male ego!
Are the quotes necessary? Like if we removed them they would be fine expect them Star Wars one which doesn't really explain this trope in my opinion.
Edited by Bullmanopen TooBleakStoppedCaring deletions
Kamon The Skunk has been deleting lots of examples this trope under the rational that the work was financially successful therefore people liked it. I feel like this should be obvious, but just because a work is financially successful doesn't mean people liked it. You can complain about something you paid for, and something can be financially successful for other reasons (you really like the director; it wasn't as despair inducing in the beginning and has a huge built in fanbase as a result of the goodwill).
Now some of them probably should be edited or deleted for other reasons anyway, but the edit reason itself is suspect.
Edited by jjjj2openSuggestion of the replacement of Page Quote on "Nuclear Weapons Taboo"
I've already posted on the discussion page a month ago,
but there's no response, so I'll ask here: Can I replace the Page Quote on the nuclear weapons taboo page?
The current Page Quote is:
For me, this page quote puts too much emphasis on Japanese people's "victimizing" attitude about the WW 2, as well as the article itself. As a Japanese person, I should admit that this is basically true, but the page quote seems to give us the false impression that it is the SOLE reason that the Japanese raging against the Atomic Bombings (especially the line "guilt them over it". Isn't it rational to condemn the cruelty of the bombing toward the civilians, which killed them in a brutal way? "There are part of the war machine, so they're not 'civilians'" won't be an excuse).It's like you only focus on the opinion about Holocaust by the Arabs, who think the Jews are "playing the victim" and deflect people from the oppression of Palestinians. The main reason why the Japanese people making the depiction of the nuclear bombings "taboo" is not victimizing themselves in the war, but to condemn the actual cruelty of the nuclear bombings, which was horrible compared with the usual air-raids. This article mentions it too (very briefly though), so I wondered if there's more appropriate page quote. And I've found one
. Here's the translation made by me:
I personally think this is more fitting to the article and the actual taboo in Japan. Not only the statement mentions the cruelty of the nuclear bombings, but also the Japanese people's victimizing attitude on the war. The current one by Sawyer Wallace only mentions the latter one, so I think it's more appropriate in the "Quotes" page (Honestly, I wanted to remove it entirely, but I decided not to do it because it's a violation of the freedom of speech). Of course I can do it myself, but I felt like changing the content without asking anyone would cause trouble (and I'm not an historical expert. My Japanese viewpoint can also be biased too), so I ask here whether I can do it or not.
open Potential complaining in YMMV of Do You Love Your Mom and Her Two-Hit Multi-Target Attacks? Literature
I had a look at the YMMV section of Do You Love Your Mom and Her Two-Hit Multi-Target Attacks? and the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot entry seems more complaining about the premise than any neglected plot points.
* They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: The very idea of exploring an Isekai setting based in an MMORPG is nothing new, but has the potential to be extremely deep and rich if the lore and write-up is done right. The actual novel itself, though, only seems to rely on the game as an excuse as to why the players are there fighting the monsters as they are. There is no exploration of the game mechanics, how players interact with them and the bearings they have on the plot at large à la Sword Art Online, and actual story content is threadbare and disjointed. It doesn't even really work as a game setting, as games have to have rules and balancing if they're to be fair and believable, while gameplay in the story is deliberately designed poorly to favor a subset of players for no discernible reason than a gag, which is the deconstruction of isekai protagonists being The Ace. Nothing would have changed plot-wise had all of the game-related aspects been removed, as their presence in the story is just fluff. In fact, removing the constraints of a game setting would give the author even more leg room to wiggle without breaking the audience's Willing Suspension of Disbelief, since it still has the makings of a standard isekai plot.Wanted input on what to do rather than get gung ho about deleting the example.
EDIT: Noticed the appropriate thread. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16509479720A72263400&page=1
Best just close this already.
openIs It Okay to Create a Page About ChatGPT? Web Original
The year 2023 is now the year of A.I., especially ChatGPT and AI Generated Artwork.
If it's okay to make, we could make it self-demonstrative, like so:
TropeGPT: Sure! Here's a page about ChatGPT on TV Tropes.
The Laconic page can also be self-demonstrative too:
A chatbot developed by OpenAI that can write whatever the user asks.
- Troper: How do I go back to the unabridged version?
TropeGPT: Here's a link that will take you back to the unabridged version.
Edited by Oxyrhynchus
openNot example/complaining?
- CoriFalls's work tries to be a deconstruction of Ash's dealings with Team Rocket only to fail by swinging the perceived unfair treatment the other way around: instead, Ash becomes the highly abused villain who's just trying to live his life while Jessie, James and Meowth become the self-centered "heroes" who believe everything they do is good and right because they're them and they're Such Good People.
I intend to delete this as misuse and complain as:
- Deconstruction is a Playing With which can't by played with so unsuccessful attempts are just not examples. (Not sure if this applies to Deconstution or Genre sub-tropes so asking here first.)
- Complaining/YMMV for non-YMMV items which is not allowed
- It doesn't even say what about it it's supposed to deconstructing. (If it did I we could cut the plaining parts and it would be valid.)
Thoughts?
openNattery additions
maxreid had added natter to one of their own examples in Absurdly Spacious Sewer. I sent them a PM over it and then removed the natter (while fixing many other issues in that page). Shortly afterwards, maxreid added another piece of natter in their next edit. I think that one can be salvaged by simply merging it with the example it's put under, but honestly I don't feel like doing it myself. Mostly because maxreid clearly doesn't take the hint, and sending them another PM feels like talking to a wall by this point.
openEdit War Over Misused Trope
(Spoilers for Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Trials and Tribulations.)
The other day, Irodion added an entry
to Characters.Ace Attorney Dahlia Hawthorne which misused Ain't Too Proud to Beg. This is because, as stated on its main page, it applies to a hero and not a villain while Dahlia is the latter. Therefore, I removed it
and explained that in my edit reason. However, they later brought it back
anyway.
Can I have permission to remove this entry? If someone wants to do it yourself, you're free to, though I'd link this post somewhere in your edit reason.
openFanfic on main page Western Animation
On the YMMV page
for Miraculous Ladybug, somebody added a Broken Base entry that's specifically about a popular kind of Revenge Fic. In other words, it's not about the series Miraculous Ladybug itself. On the other hand, it can't be listed on a fanfic's work page since it's not about one specific fanfic but rather a popular subgenre.
So is it kosher to list an entry about a subgenre on the main work's page?
openUse of "we", "us", etc. on the wiki
I know that first person writing is not allowed on the wiki (because the articles are not about you), but what does that say for pronouns such as "we" (usually referring to TVTropes itself)?
openEdit War on Midsommar Film
Recently, I deleted a batch of examples from Midsommar for misuse and/or shoehorning, and rewrote a few others, all with edit reasons given (edit history
).
Soon afterwards, phylos restored several of them
, just as they were before (no changes). They did give an edit reason—-technically; however it amounts to (I paraphrase) "You only deleted these examples because you think they are misuse and/or misrepresenting what is happening in the movie! You can't do that!", plus an invocation of Tropes Are Flexible.
Now how would I go about to resolve this? I don't think phylos has in any way refuted the reasons for which I deleted these examples; but deleting them again would be edit warring.
For some of these examples, the point of contention is that we have a different interpretation of what is even happening in the movie. Hence why I would like to get people who have watched the movie to weigh in. I don't think there is much use in bringing it to the discussion page, because very few tropers ever actually go there. Should I present my case here in ATT? Or should I make a dedicated thread on the forums?
Edit: Since phylos complained that I did not present his argument (while simultaneously declining to defend it himself), I figured I might mention the points of contention. (The following requires you to have seen the movie. For those that haven't, 'spoilers ahead).
- There is a scene in which Christian, who has earlier been given psychedelic drugs by the cultits of Hårga, has sex with a Hårgan girl, Maja (which a Hårgan elder had already tried to persuade him to previously). phylos believes that since Christian was drugged, he was not able to give consent, therefore (and because the Hårgans kind of pestered him to do it) the act was non-consensual, ergo constitutes rape of Christian by Maja. Therefore rape tropes like Double Standard: Rape, Female on Male apply.
- At the end of the movie, the Hårgans request Dani, Christian's girlfriend, to select the last human sacrifice from among all people present. She choses Christian. Because Dani had earlier seen Christian having sex mit Maja (see above) by peeking through a keyhole (and which she obviously experienced as traumatizing), phylos feels certain that Dani choses Christian as a punishment for, or in revenge of, him having cheated on her with Maja. But as (see above) Christian was really raped, he was not cheating on her, Dani watching the scene was a case of Not What It Looks Like, and her dooming him to death is Victim-Blaming.
I could explain why I think phylos' interpretations are distorted, but as phylos has already declined to engage in discussion, I'll just wait whether anyone else wants to voice an opinion.
Edited by LordGroopenMarking tropes as spoilers: a question
Somewhat new troper here. I was curious if someone with more experience could clarify the "don't mark tropes as spoilers" question. I had a scenario where marking the trope as a spoiler seemed like a good idea.
There's an RPG Maker game called [1] that establishes early on (as in the game's description on the Steam/itch.io page) that the game takes place in the dreams of the 8-year old protagonist. Early on the game's page is the trope Adventures in Comaland. A late-game twist establishes that Jimmy has terminal cancer and the game is basically his final coma dream where he's trying to overcome his weakness and forgive himself so he can die peacefully. Having that trope sitting out there unspoiled seems like a big spoiler because it establishes the true nature of Jimmy's dream.
So why would I not be allowed to mark it as a spoiler in that case? It's a case where it seems like it should be marked, but I wanted a Tv Tropes veteran's explanation/opinion.

When checking the wicks for A Date with Rosie Palms (which was recently renamed to This Index Touches Itself), I noticed that a lot of the meaningless 'masturbation exists' type of potholes to it that I'd removed have been readded by Fatter Queens, just changed to the new name. This seems to run counter to the point of turning A Date with Rosie Palms into an index in the first place; is this allowed?
Edited by Orbiting