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:
openDouble-checking a potential sinkhole
Is it acceptable to pothole to Running Gag when something gets repeated on TV Tropes for humor? I checked the In-Universe Examples Only page and Running Gag isn't there, but I still want to double-check that this isn't one of those "annoying misuse of a trope" types of sinkhole that could lead to Trope Decay or worse.
I ask most specifically about this portion of the Leeroy Jenkins subpage for Tabletop Games, where I just added a pothole after the same thing was said for the fifth time:
- The GURPS team seems to love Leeroying, inasmuch as there are so many Disadvantages that can produce it:
- Berserk: You must roll to avoid Leeroying any time you take 3 or more hits in one turn, or under "Other conditions of extreme stress (GM's option)" — i.e. pretty much in any combat.
- Bloodlust: You must roll to avoid Leeroying any time you have a chance to kill a "legitimate enemy" — i.e. pretty much in any combat.
- Impulsiveness: You must roll to avoid Leeroying any time the rest of the party are taking too long discussing something — i.e. pretty much before any combat.
- On the Edge: You must roll to avoid Leeroying any time you have a chance to deliberately put yourself in mortal danger — i.e. pretty much before or during (and possibly after) any combat.
- Overconfidence: You must roll to avoid Leeroying any time you feel yourself a match, or more than a match, for your opponent — i.e. pretty much in any combat.
openIn-universe YMMV moves?
YMMV.Overanalyzing Avatar is the review shows reaction to the work so objective rather than audiences to the review show, which should be moved to the main page, correct?
Question about these entries:
- Character Derailment: Often Discussed Is Flame Bait so question if viable to move. Note these don't meet this wikis standards for CD.
- He accuses "The Deserter '' of doing this to Zhao, whose introduction he praised for establishing him as a genuinely cunning and imposing villain. Here, he gets goaded into burning his own boats by a twelve year old hurling insults at him.
- He is similarly critical of Azula's Villainous Breakdown in the finale, critising the sheer speed at which it happens.
- Sacred Cow: Played With in regards to Azula, as while OA doesn't consider her (or any character really) to be above criticism, he found out the hard way when criticizing Azula's childhood behavior, take over of Ba Sing Se, and later expedited mental breakdown that her fans are very protective of her, to the point that in his "Overanalyzing Overanalyzing Avatar" video he adamantly refused to discuss Azula's characterization as clips from those scenes are played. This might be worth keeping as a YMMV to the review. But YMMV cannot be played with and this seem's more Avatar's SC status.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: In "Return To Omashu", he criticizes Bumi for surrendering without giving his people a chance to fight or even consulting them about it. Saying he understands what Bumi was trying to do, but still thinks it was a dick move of him to hand over the city and at least seemingly screwing over his people. Fails to explain why they were supposed to be sympathetic (Bumi was called out in-work), so would normally remove but if this is in-universe is it valid?
openUnexplained removal
On Let Us Never Speak of This Again, a since-inactive user removed the SpongeBob and Patrick Star Show entries without a reason.
Can these be added back?
openI'm worried
Normally, I wouldn't be doing this, since I'm not seeking for any attention, but I think I should break the silence now: I'm currently adding a lot of FNF mods' pages and putting them into the main game's fan works page (and also in other proper pages so they could get attention). During last year, I was getting some users helping me fill those pages. Sometimes the mod wasn't so famous, so tropers weren't appearing in those rare cases, but I didn't mind that at all, plus every person has their rights to choose what they want to do.
One day, now in 2024, I've created the page for Glitched Legends, a popular Pibby mod in the community. While I was thinking on other mods to add and working in other stuff at TV Tropes, I've been noticing the page hasn't been having anything new; no corrections, no examples, nothing. I wasn't thinking too much about it, then. "Maybe it's because it's a Pibby mod. Even if it's a high-quality mod, Pibby mods are oversaturated, so maybe not many people are into it". Then I've been created other pages: Vs Slenderman, Funkin In The Massacre Night, Friday Night Funkin VS Chara, and so on. None of them have been updated ever since.
I don't want to make any publicity here, or force anything to anybody, since like I said, anyone can choose if they want to help or just see those pages, but I'm genuinely worried. I've been patient for two months now, and I'm not receiving any help from other users. Even Roastin' on a Cartoon Cartoon Friday, probably my most elaborated page during these months, only had one foreign edit, and it was only a little correction. Are my pages not causing any interests? Am I getting some bad reputation for something?
I'm sorry for creating this whole Wall of Text, but I wanted to explain myself clearly.
Edited by UzarNaimBer15openIs Paris Jackson's page a little too prying?
The biography for Paris Jackson talks a lot about her mental health struggles and self-harm attempts, which seems a little bit too prying into her personal life, especially since she's still living, still pretty young, discusses things that happened before she started her actual career, and has talked about how much she doesn't like being a paparazzi magnet. Should this be edited?
openNOPE discrepancy?
How come on Internet Backdraft it says that Fandom Heresy is No On-Page Examples, but there are on-page examples on Fandom Heresy itself?
Edited by moxedenopenMisuse(?) / more Ohvist issues
Ohvist added this to YMMV.My Little Pony A New Generation
- Spiritual Successor: Far too many comparisons to note within the general storyline, internal lore, character archetypes, and setting taking place sometime after the events of Friendship is Magic that the movie itself feels very much like a Kid-friendly adaptation of Fallout: Equestria.
- Best exemplified HERE
.
- Best exemplified HERE
- This is edit warring as they added it back after I removed it as they're too different in tone and content despite some similarities (FE is a R-rated war fic, ANG is family friendly). Cleanup
said to cut when they added it under YMMV.My Little Pony Generation 5.
- The video they linked is their own channel which seems problematic.
This is in addition to their other issues I I brought up prior
.
openSelf-reporting: Any evidence of an edit war here? Videogame
I'm self-reporting about if I started an Edit War in a Goddamned Bats entry of my own in the YMMV page of Diner Dash.
Back in the middle of July, I added the entry, which read as follows:
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're pretty quick eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly, in addition to being more patient.
Then at the end of the month, Shaker Troper 2002 corrected the entry in accordance to how the Goddamned Bats in question actually behaved (unlike what I initially thought about them).
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're pretty quick eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly. Like cellphone addicts, their own patience also drains fast as well.
A couple months later (just now), I noticed that the entry was edited, so I decided to rearrange it a bit so it looks clean and organized, without changing any of the context addressed. It currently reads like this:
- Similarly to the Cellphone Addicts, the Cavemen in Flo Through Time have a low patience of their own and make noise that drains other customers' patience, though they're also pretty fast eaters and leave in no time if attended quickly.
I know this self-report might be quite dumb, but I did it just in case there was some issue, since I didn't intend to do anything against ShakerTroper2002 nor start an Edit War in general.
Edited by Inky100openCharacter Perception possible misuse.
These Character Perception Evolution entries are possible misuse as they fail to explain if/how the popularity of their portrayals before that change was effected.
- Back when Kingdom Hearts II initially released, Roxas was a major Base-Breaking Character due to the games' infamous Prolonged Prologue at the beginning. Roxas was considered to be a less interesting and appealing character compared to Sora, his storyline was accused of being full of melodrama and wangst (the scene of him smashing DiZ's computer and later screaming at him were often cited as reasons to make fun of the game), and most players were unhappy that Roxas took the focus away from Sora or any of the Disney characters. These days, Roxas is considered to be one of the most beloved characters in the fandom (thanks in part to games like Kingdom Hearts II: Final Mix and 358/2 Days fleshing out his character more) due to his more mature and serious personality, in contrast to Sora. His backstory is also considered to be one of the most tragic in the fandom and fans are more likely to feel bad for the trauma that he had to endure. Word of God has even stated that the popularity of Roxas was the entire reason that he returned in Kingdom Hearts III and was finally given a happy ending. Sound like it's a valid retroactive shift, but not sure how to state it here.
- Master Xehanort, who upon the release of Birth by Sleep, was praised as the best villain in the series due to his Affably Evil demeanor, his massive Xanatos Gambit pulled over the course of the game, having a The Chessmaster role that directly tied into the at the time widely anticipated Kingdom Hearts III, and amazing performances by both Chikao Ohtsuka and Leonard Nimoy. However, in recent years, it is easy to find fans calling him out for being indirectly responsible for the infamous Kudzu Plot, often criticized for being an Invincible Villain, and contributing to several Retcons and Ass Pulls. His reception was soured even further after the release of Kingdom Hearts III and Dark Road, both of which attempted to paint Xehanort in a sympathetic light to varying degrees. The former revealed that he was actually a Well-Intentioned Extremist who detested the darkness all along and was attempting to restore balance by wiping out the world and starting anew. Many fans called this out for being a large Motive Decay that largely contradicted his characterization in games prior. The latter game would reveal that Xehanort had been manipulated during his adolescence and was driven to becoming a villain due to the death of his friends pushing him down that path, which some fans found to be a poor Freudian Excuse that attempted to rationalize his actions and make him more sympathetic. Fairly certain this is misuse as just complaining about their later portrayals as opposed to prior ones being re-revaulated, but asking here to be sure.
- Steven Universe: When the late Rose Quartz was first introduced, the fanbase fell in love with her. This was thanks in part to her chemistry with Greg, her formation of the Crystal Gem Rebellion to save earth, and her encouraging Pearl and Garnet to be themselves, the former of whom she had a romantic subplot with. However, as the show went on, many both in-universe and out of universe learned about her character flaws. In particular, her views on humans were shown to be much more condescending than originally thought, she was implied to have left Pearl for Greg without considering her feelings, and she poofed Bismuth and left her trapped for eons in the bubble without telling anyone, a situation that was morally grey at best. But what really changed many people's opinion on her was the revelation that she was Pink Diamond the whole time, Pearl was her slave, and her faking her shattering lead to the corruption of all Gems on Earth and the creation of the Cluster in an attempt to destroy the planet outright. This caused many to turn on her, viewing her as a selfish individual whose irresponsibility, poor decisions and numerous mistakes overshadow any good she might have done. On the other hand, many defenders remained, pointing out her more positive traits, such as her genuine love of Steven despite never getting to meet him, as well as hints that she genuinely regretted some of her actions during the war. As a result, she became one of the most polarizing characters in the entire series; though even her die hard fans view her as a severely flawed individual at best. Fails to explain the retroactive change but it does seem likely the case. My question is does it count if the change was 100% intentional by the work? And is In-Universe Broken Pedestal instead as IU CPE would mean Show Within a Show?
openConsensus on Handling These Gargoyles Manhattan Clan Edits? Western Animation
Steven Alex 22 made an inaccurate change to the Characters page for the Manhattan Clan in Gargoyles, removing the reference in Antiope's entry to Antiope having been nicknamed that by the Captain of the Guard's daughter Alesand. Not only do we see it happen in the recent issue #4, it was already mentioned by Alesand back in issue #1. Therefore, it is not "All There in the Manual" since it derives from published stories and not just the script. I can't change it back myself without edit warring, since I wrote that part in the first place, so Steven Alex 22 or someone else will have to revert the change.
They also made two strange changes that turned correct grammar into incorrect grammar. In Lefty's entry, they changed "the older biological brother of Demona, whom he resembles" to "Demona's biological older brother, whom he resembles". Moving "whom he resembles" away from the name of the person Lefty resembles makes the sentence lose sense and sound awkward. In Katana's entry, they changed "she and others return from patrol moments before the sun comes up, and she immediately insists to Brooklyn on checking on their egg" to "she and others return from patrol moments before the sun comes up, she immediately insists to Brooklyn on checking on their egg". Removing the "and" makes it a run-on sentence for no apparent reason.
Edited by NOYBopen"Franchise Original Sin" or "Older Than They Think"?
I did some edits of the YMMV page of Metallica's St. Anger, and some people have been fudging around on an entry between Franchise Original Sin and Older Than They Think. The matter has to do with St. Anger's negative reputation among fans, and how the flaws of the album (namely sketchy audio mixing and James Hetfield's lyrics) were argued (particularly by Todd in the Shadows) to have been around to a less significant degree in previous Metallica albums. Timeline for context:
- Was originally coined
as Franchise Original Sin.
- I later removed it
because I argued the trope should be applied on the original work, not on the nadir.
- A different user swooped in
and reinstated it as Older Than They Think because "Indeed, not Franchise Original Sin but another trope." I mostly agreed that this was probably more correct and could be left be, though I still did a bit of tweaking on the entry
to give clearer context, be less complain-y, and remove the egregious Todd in the Shadows reference.
- Several months later, an entirely different user switches it back
to Franchise Original Sin without giving an edit reason.
I don't want to risk an edit war by switching it back after we'd already gone through this, but I just wanna make sure if it's actually correct to do so or not. There's a chance this topic might not even fit for either trope in the way they're meant to be used, but I think it's supposed to be more Older Than They Think (referring to present issues being, in fact, older than believed), not indicating that St. Anger is itself the "franchise original sin". Thoughts?
openAdvice on how to proceed with a Bumblekast Page. Videogame
So, for those who don't know, The BumbleKast is a podcast run by semi-famed Sonic the Hedgehog writer Ian Flynn and a close friend of his. From its humble beginnings as a rather standard podcast, it's more recent incarnations have become more frequently about for fun questions from various Sonic fans (myself included). The sticky thing is that it also does occasionally get serious questions pertaining to Sonic lore and due to his increasingly prominent role in the franchise, his answers are frequently treated as Word of God and regularly gets cited on various Sonic trivia pages, even when he makes clear his word only goes so far. And they've had incidents with hostile tropers in the past.
For these reasons, the page would obviously get a huge disclaimer relating to how seriously it is to be taken. I'm wondering if a stricter citation rule would be warranted too. Any other advice before I go forward with it (or if I shouldn't) would be welcome.
Edited by DDRMASTERMopenComments As Moments on Webvideo pages Web Original
I've noticed that there are a few moments pages for youtube series (mostly funny moments) where some of the moments listed are comments on one of their videos instead of anything from the video itself. Wouldn't those technically count as meta moments, or at least not count as actual content from the show itself?
Edited by AfterwordopenPage Revert for Lobo
Recently, the page for Characters.DC Comics Lobo (which used to focus just on Lobo) has been turned into a redirect for Characters.Lobo (which is for Lobo's supporting cast), presumably as part of the new policy regarding Character-Specific Pages.
However, it seems like the actual content for the former page was not moved at all, meaning there are absolutely no tropes listed for Lobo. His character folder links to his character page, but because of the redirect it now just links to itself.
Can I either a) get a page revert for Characters.DC Comics Lobo or b) just have the content that used to be on Characters.DC Comics Lobo moved to Characters.Lobo?
Edited by chasemaddiganopenIs this an Edit War?
Awhile back I reported Samazing 91 for edit warring
by re-adding a second bullet to an Unintentionally Sympathetic on YMMV.Landry Series here
. Here was said entry:
- Subverted as Giselle does have some Jerkass moments. One notable example is in Pearl In The Mist where she throws a classmate’s homework (that the girl had been studying religiously for) in the toilet just to prove a point that she shouldn’t work so hard on something that she doesn’t pay as much attention to her personal hygiene, never mind that there was a nicer way to tell someone this. In the same book she also outs Ruby’s friend Abby as biracial to the entire school (keep in mind this was an all white school in the sixties!) and she also got Miss Stevens fired by spreading the false rumour that she was a lesbian! So yeah…
It was removed again by a third troper here
.
However, Samazing 91 re-added
it, if slightly tweaked, not as a second bullet but to the main entry.
Here it was before:
- Unintentionally Sympathetic: Giselle. Yes, she has her flirtatious behaviors but her world was literally turned upside down with the discovery that not only does she have a twin sister but her mother isn't really her mother and Daphne starts becoming frostier toward Giselle as a result of the reveal when they were previously quite close. Punishment seems adamant to get her for the "sin" of not openly accepting her saintly twin sister by making her paralyzed for a time after a car accident, sent off to a boarding school (which she tries to get both Ruby and herself out of by pretending to be her sister), and nails her coffin shut by having her contract encephalitis. In hindsight, much of Giselle's punishments don't manage the wrongs (mostly putting her sister in an unflattering light) yet the reader is told how much of a "bad girl" she is compared to Ruby who is talked up heavily but has her own share of flaws that are desperately glossed over.
Here it is now (I bolded the re-added part):
- Unintentionally Sympathetic: Giselle. True she does have some Jerkass moments. One such example is in Pearl In The Mist where she throws a classmate’s homework (that the girl had been studying religiously for) in the toilet! In the same book she also outs Ruby’s friend Abby as biracial to the entire school (keep in mind this was an all white school in the sixties!) and she also got Miss Stevens fired by spreading the false rumour that she was a lesbian! But her world was literally turned upside down with the discovery that not only does she have a twin sister but her mother isn't really her mother and Daphne starts becoming frostier toward Giselle as a result of the reveal when they were previously quite close. Punishment seems adamant to get her for the "sin" of not openly accepting her saintly twin sister by making her paralyzed for a time after a car accident, sent off to a boarding school (which she tries to get both Ruby and herself out of by pretending to be her sister), and nails her coffin shut by having her contract encephalitis. In hindsight, much of Giselle's punishments don't manage the wrongs (mostly putting her sister in an unflattering light) yet the reader is told how much of a "bad girl" she is compared to Ruby who is talked up heavily but has her own share of flaws that are desperately glossed over.
Is this an Edit War? I know that this is not technically the same edit, but it is re-adding the same information for the third time in two and a half weeks from each other. They also didn't discuss it anywhere, despite me informing them the last time that they needed to discuss re-adding something before doing so. That said, due to not being the exact same edit and maybe fixing the mistake by it no longer being natter (I think), it might not be an Edit War. I am legit unsure.
Edited by BullmanopenI think I accidently Edit Warred. Sef reporting
So, on YMMV.Charlotte Flair, I removed
the following from her Base-Breaking Character entry:
- By the 2020s, her Invincible Villain booking has gotten so excessive that it would not be hyperbole to say that she has become unanimously disliked by fans. While her in-ring performances still receive high praise, Charlotte's years-long presence in the title picture and her frequent emasculation of the other women on the roster has exhausted the majority of audiences. Very few fans nowadays are likely to applaud her or think of her as a deserving champion considering the sheer number of more-popular opponents Charlotte has run through and humiliated (the most recent example being Toni Storm, whose booking was so mishandled during their feud that she straight up quit WWE shortly after it ended).
I removed it because it seemed to fit more in a The Scrappy entry then a Base-Breaking Character one and I knew that she wasn't that due to failing the consistently hated rule.
However, then I looked at it again and realized that it looked familiar. So, I looked through the history and realized that I had removed the exact same entry but under The Scrappy trope on the same page and had forgot about it here
and it was added back under her Base-Breaking Character entry here
by a different troper who didn't discuss it anywhere.
So, I think I Edit Warred unintentionally and would like to report myself if that is indeed the case. Does the fact that they are different trope's effect things at all?
Edited by BullmanopenFlypaper (2011) not on TvTropes Film
Note: I don't fully know how Tv Tropes works, so I am not 100% sure if I am at the correct location for this question.
One of my favorite movies of all time is Flypaper from 2011; It's about a bank being robbed by 2 separate groups, and everything goes wrong.
I cannot find this movie on the website, but I am sure that it contains a lot of tropes, seeing as the movie is heavily comedy based and doesn't take itself seriously.
How can I [or, preferably, with the help of other people] create a page for the movie on this website?
openVague edit reason Film
The YMMV page for Die Hard had this entry under Misaimed Fandom:
- John McClane is often seen as an example by gun rights activists of how "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun." However, this completely ignores how John spends almost the entire film on the defensive, with his very first move being to run away and try to get help. He also spends a good chunk of the second act simply hiding in a remote part of the building and not confronting the terrorists at all apart from dropping C4 on them.
This was deleted by Miracle@St Olaf with the edit reason merely stating "There's plenty someone can say to argue this, which means it probably doesn't need to be here," but it doesn't make any such argument itself. Should the entry be restored?
Edited by Javertshark13

In What If...? S3E3 "What If... The Red Guardian Stopped the Winter Soldier?":
I know this trope can be applied if a character dies sooner than in the source material as explained in the page itself. Can I get consensus to reapply it?
Edited by MaxyGregoryyyy