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:
resolved Nostalgia Critic Awesome Moments Web Original
On the Nostalgia Critic Awesome Moments page, there is a bit of conflict over whether this example from the Blues Brothers 2000 review should be included: "The Critic's constant tearing into Blues Brothers 2000 for being a severe downgrade of the original. He even goes out of character at a few points, one in which he interrupts his "Fuckital" ad to show the statue of The Blues Brothers atop the Hollywood Blvd. Theater to show how the original movie is such a symbol of Chicago." Some people said this shouldn't be included because in the skit, there was a Black Comedy bit where one of the characters overdoses on the "Fuckital" and is implied to have died, with them saying that it shouldn't be an awesome moment because the Critic was more concerned with a bad movie than someone else's life. While in-universe, it may be the Critic being selfish, from a meta perspective, the creator, Doug Walker was making a statement about the movie's poor quality and calls out how it fails to live up to the original film. So should it be included?
Edited by costanton11resolved Christian Potter Chandler. Web Original
Hoo boy. Fanfic.Christian Potter Chandler is a Harry Potter fanfic that replaces the title character with... well, you can guess. The fic proceeds to imply that preteen Chris-chan touches himself at night, among other things.
Anyone else think this one should get the Asperchu treatment?
Edited by bwburke94resolved Serious Business in SCP Foundation Web Original
Yesterday, Doctor Nemesis added following as example of Serious Business.
I removed as being too generic. They add modified version today
And claims that it's no worse than the first entry.
Should it be removed again, and if so, should the first one removed as well?
Note that its entry in SeriousBusiness.Web Original has none of that. It has only one In-Universe example (there were two, but I've just removed the first one).
resolved Edit War ...Death Battle again Web Original
In Jul 23rd 2019, qwigly added this to DeathBattle.Tropes A To C as an example of Bloodless Carnage.
- In the span of Weiss Vs Mitsuru, Mitsuru actually manages to draw more blood from herself (via the Evoker) than she does from Weiss
In Jul 27th 2019, ironcommando edit the entry to following, with "Evokers don't draw blood." as edit reason.
- In the span of Weiss Vs Mitsuru, nobody lands any bloodletting hits despite both combatants being impaled at two different points of the battle.
Today, qwigly edit it back with "Someone probably should have told Torrian that, as there is very clearly a blood effect when she fires her Evoker." as edit reason.
- In the span of Weiss Vs Mitsuru, Mitsuru actually manages to draw more of her own blood than she does of Weiss's, via the Evoker..
As someone who played Persona 3, I can confirm that it doesn't draw blood. And rewatching that episode of Death Battle, it's not really look like blood either.
resolved Kill Count and Dead Meat are separate pages Web Original
As the title says, I've noticed that The Kill Count and Dead Meat (the latter of which refers to the channel that the former series is hosted on) are separate pages, but most of the Dead Meat page and its subpages focusses on Kill Count, with hardly anything talking about the rest of the channel's content. What should we do about this (besides possibly renaming the page for Kill Count to remove the "The" if we're keeping the page, since that's not in the title of the show itself outside of James' signing on/off phrases)?
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Bloated-if-not-questionable Cowboy Bebop At His Computer example Web Original
On the Trivia page for Jimquisition, there's a Cowboy BeBop at His Computer example that was added and serial tweaked across last November, and while I already take issue with the unwieldy length of the example, I watched the episode it's referring to, and I'm not sure it's accurate. Here's what it is:
- In "Why Emulating Nintendo Games Is Good, Probably"
, Jim kept equating Piracy and Emulation as one in the same throughout the video; which it is not. Piracy would be stealing a game rom to play on an emulator, whereas emulators themselves is the means to play said game. While they can be used to play pirated games, if one is prepared enough, you can just dump the games yourself (something all emulators suggest you do specifically to avoid lawsuits and copyright infringement). Jim doesn't seem to realise that emulators can also do a lot more than just play games. You can outright make homebrew games for that system, mod the game to make it look better with texture packs and custom levels, or use cheat codes to enhance the experience. None of this was mentioned by them, despite being perfectly legal activities to do, and also a draw to emulator enthusiasts. If emulators were the driving issue, Nintendo and other game companies would've attempted to sue them all years agonote and there is a reason most emulators are open source; to prove to the companies and their users that their code is not stolen from outside sources or was made with a leaked companies' data. The premise of the video is also flawed because they claim games media doesn't talk about emulation because it's a taboo subject, and goes off on a tangent about how the media relies too much on connections to get news and review copies. While the observation is mostly true, It doesn't occur to them that a press outlet featuring emulators semi-frequently will inevitably lead to the Streisand Effect; more people pirating games to try out the emulator because they heard it in an article that would otherwise not feature it (something Jim themselves is an example of; Jim went out and bought a handheld game emulator loaded with what they imply are illegitimately obtained roms because they wanted to use an emulator to protest against Nintendo's online service that they found out via a news article via Kotaku).
Except the video doesn't treat piracy and emulation as the same thing. In fact, going off of the way that Jim words themselves, the video acknowledges and understands that piracy is a mere facet of emulation more than it is the same thing. Jim's video treats it as part of the bigger issue of how Nintendo does nothing to make their service worth the money in the face of people being able to access their older games for free illegitimately, and it seems like that's the actual premise of the video more than the topic of gaming media being coy about emulation, especially since the early portion revolves around an article that's being anything but coy about it. More to the point, the video backs this distinction up further by explicitly pointing out that the Kotaku article in question isn't encouraging piracy so much as it's reporting on something that's proven to be possible on emulation software.
From what I can conclude from rewatching the video, this example seems to revolve around a lack of distinction that not only isn't visible anywhere in the video, but wouldn't have been important to the video's point even if it was. It can't just be me noticing this, right?
At the very least, the example looks like it could do with a trim and a tiny bit of grammar cleanup, if we were to keep it.
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Regarding conflicting external sources... Web Original
Hello. It took me a while to get my mind on about this, but I would like to politely ask question to get help.
It's about Fire Emblem on Forums - I was trying to do a little editting as can be shown here.
However, after than there is this edit, which says that the GM actually said that the game has not been completed.
After a bit of reviewing, I would assume they're right, I just realize that there are two contradicting possible external sources for this.
First, the source that came from the hub page
shows the game as completed, however, the actual game itself is indeed not yet marked as completed
. I think while it's external source and I can't help about it right now, I would like to mention the fact that a contradiction that has confused me was indeed present.
I'm sorry for having to point this, it might seem minor but it has mislead me into typing error. Forgive me for the incorrect edit, but the troper "IcyTea" and the person who told them are actually correct, so I'll just respect and accept their edit decision for now.
So the only problem here is trying to confirm. The latter edit is more preferable, right? I'm aware that I cannot re-edit it back because that would been an edit war that can be punished. I'm just unsure, and apologizes if this case wasn't that simple. I promise that the intent is to clarify and help. Thank you for understanding.
resolved Problematic Wall of Text example Web Original
I originally raised this on the Wall of Text cleanup thread
, but it's had no reply for two weeks, so I decided to raise it here.
On the YMMV page for Crash Thompson, there's this lengthy sub-bullet listed under Broken Base:
- Crash's tendency to put certain albums at #1 on his "Worst of" lists that others felt weren't nearly as deserving of the spot as others. Many were surprised that Doug Walker's Wall parody album was even included on the list at all considering very few people even cared about it and many saw the segment as little more then an excuse for Crash to vent about his own disillusionment with Channel Awesome (which he applied to in the past), likewise in the "Worst of 2020" list some thought Crash was stretching by calling the "Living the Dream" music video for Five Finger Death Punch as being "anti-masker", and him trying to use a select few Youtube comments as an excuse to condemn the whole band as being rather unfair, not to mention Crash's repeated insults towards the band's own fans over the years in his reviews of their albums has led some to believe that he just wanted an excuse to rant about the band again and that accusing them of causing deaths was going too far, not to mention impossible to factually prove (plus seeing blaming a band for something that a few of their fans do as rather unfair), not to mention Crash slagging the band for their views (or at least what he thought they were) and penalizing them for it by putting them at #1 came off as hugely hypocritical to some considering he put Deftones "Ohms" on his "best" list despite one of their members (guitarist Stephen Carpenter) outright revealing himself to be not only an anti-vaxxer/anti-masker but a flat-earther as well (in addition to a whole bunch of other crazy conspiracy theory nonsense), yet Crash didn't penalize their album in the same way. For what it's worth, Crash himself later admitted in one of the "Rock Coliseum" videos that he regretted going as hard on both albums as he did, admitting that even if they were bad they weren't really worth all the anger he directed at them.
Originally, I was aiming to heavily gut this example due to its reliance on weasel words and what I initially interpreted as reaching for complaining via an appeal to hypocrisy (an appeal to hypocrisy which isn't even accurate even with the later context, considering that Crash actually did speak out against Carpenter in the same "best of" video). Other than maybe removing the attempt at drawing a double standard concerning Ohms, I'm wondering how exactly this can be trimmed to be easier on the eyes and less complain-y, if not cut completely.
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Re-added Hilarious In Hindsight shoehorn in spite of cleanup Web Original
Near the end of April on the Hilarious in Hindsight page for Zero Punctuation, rundownforge50 added this sub-bullet
to an example that just happened to offhandedly mention Garry's Mod. I figured this seemed like a shoehorn since it didn't strike me as something which later context has made all that much more amusing or entirely relevant to the context given in the parent bullet, so I raised it to the Hindsight Cleanup thread
and was cleared to cut the example
.
Fast forward to today and I check the page's history since it's in my pinned pages list, and I notice that the same troper had added the same example back
the day before, with superficially altered wording that really doesn't help the example's case for being an example of Hilarious in Hindsight.
Speaking to the substance of the example itself, perhaps it would have been an example of Hilarious in Hindsight if the player model was one that Yahtzee himself created and/or frequently used, but a quick glance at the linked workshop page tells me that it isn't. So as far as I'm concerned, the example still seems like a shoehorn.
I won't say one way or another if the readding of the example is a breach of the Edit War policy, if only because the passage of time between the deletion and readding makes it unclear from my perspective. But I'm assuming, given the linked approval from the hindsight cleanup thread, that I'm still clear to cut the example?
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Would this count as an EditWar? Web Original
On Sep 5th 2021
, I removed the Trope Informed Wrongness from the YMMV page of the fifth episode of Helluva Boss, due to said entry being Trope Misuse as a result of misconstruing the events of the episode.
On Dec 30th 2022
, jOSEFdelaville added Informed Wrongness to the page again, but with a different entry. I believe this is also an example of misuse that misconstrues the events of the episode, as Millie wasn't the one who brought up the fact Moxxie had a gun, Moxxie himself did. Millie only said he didn't need to prove he was stronger physically after he lamented not being strong enough, saying basically to stick to his strengths when facing him this time. Moxxie was the one who said "I probably should have used this earlier, huh?" after remembering he had a gun on him, Millie's reaction being more exasperation when she sees him remember and make the comment. "I love ya hon, but for fucks sake."
Would it count as an Edit War if I removed the trope since I had already removed Informed Wrongness once before, even if it was a different entry?
Edited by RebelFalconresolved What's the line between Bad Boss and Mean Boss? Web Original
In response to a previous query
, I recently moved all the examples of Bad Boss on Not Always Working's page to Mean Boss due to trope misuse. Now I'm considering moving the Mean Boss examples to a new page, but I'm wondering now if some of the Mean Boss examples counted as Bad Boss examples after all.
For instance (text copied from the article itself),
- This boss
expects a worker to clean up an active biohazard without any sort of protective gear, because calling the city about it would cost too much, yet loaning the worker equipment they're not trained in, or letting them buy the equipment themselves, would be illegal. The worker quits on the spot.
- This boss
tries to send an employee out for carts in the middle of a severe thunderstorm, and then screams at and fires them when they (rightfully) object. Luckily, Laser-Guided Karma kicks in right away when her boss finds this out, and, thanks to an extensive history of screaming in front of customers, she is immediately fired the next day for intentionally putting the employee's life in danger, and later gets thrown behind bars for assaulting her ex-husband over a lost custody battle.
- The bar owner in this story
refuses to reschedule a mandatory meeting (which turns out to be just an hour of patting herself on the back for the bar's performance during a busy period, ignoring the staff's efforts) despite a two-foot blizzard being forecast, and threatens to fire anyone who doesn't attend. Despite their obvious reservations, the poster manages to get in just one minute late... and gets a write-up for it. The poster quits on the spot. Those who failed to attend — most of the staff — are indeed fired, but promptly sue for wrongful termination and win; it also comes up that the staff weren't paid for attending the meeting. The Department of Labor gets involved, and not only is the bar forced to close, but the owner ends up having to sell her home and many of her possessions to cover legal fees, damages, and back pay. At the end, the poster notes that none of this would have happened if she had just taken their advice in the first place and rescheduled.
- The grocery store manager in this story
won't allow the poster, a lot attendant, to come in for a drink of water, despite being in the middle of a July heatwave in Florida. After four hours of this, a passing gentleman convinces him to go inside, offering to speak to the manager in person and even buy some water. The manager immediately spots the poster and fires him. However, said gentleman, who turns out to be the regional director, steps in, angrily berates the manager for her reckless endangerment of an employee and gives her a fourteen-day suspension — which soon escalates to her dismissal, as it turns out that she has been forcing underage employees to work longer than labor laws allow and denying them mandatory breaks.
- This supervisor
refuses to let the OP, whose Psycho Ex-Boyfriend is always waiting for her by the door at closing time, leave through an alternate exit, laughing in her face when she has had enough and threatens to quit. She does (sending her resignation to the "big boss" who completely understands), and even goes through the unemployment process... but the supervisor refuses to accept this and treats it as her going AWOL, finally calling her up and threatening to fire her if she doesn't show up for work, and ignoring her protests that she doesn't work there any more; the poster finally agrees to come in just to shut her up (but doesn't do so, obviously). After her number gets blocked, the supervisor starts sending employees to the OP's house to demand that she come in to work, though all they do is "chill" at her house (and get paid for doing so). The poster eventually moves (and the ex is dealt with legally).
The impression I get from Bad Boss in my last query was that BadBosses are willing to kill or let serious harm befall their underlings. Would you guys say these examples count?
Edited by DancouMaryuuresolved Should this be TRS'd: AmericaWonWorldWarII Web Original
The trope description meanders along far too many tangents to what should be a description of the trope in fiction itself...feels like most of this should be moved to an Analysis page?
Edited by DarthWalrusresolved Potential edit war? Web Original
On this page of this RWBY episode:
- Super N 9999 added a "Nice Job Fixing It Villain!" entry about Neo
.
- gjjones deemed it as potential misuse, so they took it down
.
- SuperN9999 re-adds it back, with the justification of the entry being present in Neo's character page
, despite reiterating that it was previously removed due to misuse.
Do we have a concrete Edit War here?
Edited by skan123resolved Can Hypocrite apply to the author of a work or just its characters? Web Original
For instance, say the author of a work clearly in an author's note expresses contempt for a certain trope or story beat, but then in the work itself they use that same trope or story beat straight without irony or deconstruction when necessary to suit the narrative.
EDIT: If not, is there a more appropriate trope to use?
Edited by Raxisresolved Is this a valid example of Playing Against Type? Web Original
So someone added this to Etra chan saw it!:
- Playing Against Type: In this episode
, Azami, who usually plays an Obnoxious In-Law, gets the role of the abused daughter-in-law and her usual role goes to Akane. Yuzuriha is also cast as a nerdy girl, which is usually Tsutsuji's role, and Tsutsuji herself gets Yuzuriha's usual role as a Crusading Lawyer.
As far as I know, the trope seems to cover only actors that play against what they're usually cast for, and don't include any in-universe examples. (For context, Etra chan saw it! has the characters as actors In-Universe).
Edited by mickey96resolved Super Mario Odyssey: Hide and Seek Web Original
So I made a page for Super Mario Odyssey: Hide and Seek the other day, and then I thought of something. I was going to put the series into the FanWorks.Super Mario Bros page... only to be confused for quite a while, because the series itself is based on a mod for the game, so do I put it in ROM hacks or Web Video?
I have no idea.
Edit: I just realise that I thought about it too much, please ignore this.
Edited by Narioresolved Entire Page Typo Web Original
I was looking on the Dethroning page for Web Orginal Others and noticed that there was a very obvious typo in the title and page url, with "Original" being spelled wrong.
Is this something for a mod or admin to fix? I'm hesitant on doing this myself, not only because of how big this change would be, but I just don't know how to do that properly.
Edited by MidnightRun99resolved Is this mf a Love To Hate villain? Web Original
https://hate-sink.fandom.com/wiki/Patrick_Star_(Paka)
This is Patrick Star, from Paka's Dark SpongeBob Parodies. It's more than obvious he's a Hate Sinknote while some people may not trust FANDOM much because of some mistakes they have from time to time, they clearly discuss
every character before adding pages related to the Moral Ranking Wiki, Heroes Wiki, and Villains Wiki, since the series itself presents him as an irredeemable and dislikable, violent and cold asshole who wants nothing more than to kill SpongeBob and Junior (a baby clam, btw) at all costs (and he also basically represents the abusive husband in a toxic relationship when the sponge took the clam to his house, doubling his hatable points), whether is by killing people, threatening them at gunpoint, and -spoilers if you didn't see the animatics- making SpongeBob digs his own grave in a graveyard while having Junior in a cage.
Yet even with all this hatable and unsympathetic traits, he also has some Evil Is Cool moments when he kills an entire gang all by himself, all of the things he does to get to Sponge and Junior actually shows him how much of a clever and manipulative son of a bitch he is that accompanies his brutality (and this is Patrick, by the way), and, after the events of Part 2, he's shown to have the regenerative and cloning powers like his The Bikini Bottom Horror counterpart, which he uses to beat the crap out of and kidnap Mr. Krabs and asphyxiate Bubble Bass by making him gulp one of his parts by force, killing him and latter making a clone of himself be created, also Paka does a really good job at voicing him.
Apparently, I also saw that Hate Sinks can indeed also be "Love to Hate" characters, so he may also count.
Also sorry for all this Wall of Text.
Edited by UzarNaimBer15

(Why do the RWBY pages get so much attention here?)
Skybrigadier, the author of The Reactsverse, recommended Weiss Reacts (the verse's first entry) on RWBY's Fanfic Recs page.
I've removed it from the page, under the assumption that any following recommendations are in reaction (heh) to the illicit self-rec. Allowing Weiss Reacts to stay on the page despite initially being self-recced would set a very bad precedent for fanfic recs pages.
Edited by bwburke94