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 Should I put this into TRS?
I've been reading through Animated Shock Comedy and noticed that many of the examples tend to comment on its quality. Whether if it's gushing about the inclusion of character development, or discussing about negative or divided viewer reactions.
Examples in the page that show this:
- "Sausage Party has plenty of Character Development and a solid plot, but it still sold itself on being the first 3D computer-animated feature to get an R-rating. Viewers are divided on its quality, with some feeling that it tried too hard to shove crude humor into every available place it could find."
- "Hoops, another Netflix cartoon. The main character is a completely unlikable Jerkass, and the humor is very crass, with lots of dick jokes and extreme amounts of F-bombs from its VERY foul-mouthed protagonist. While jerkass protagonists are hardly rare in this genre, this one's sheer obnoxiousness garnered the show many negative reviews, and likely led to its swift cancellation."
- "A lot of the humor in Rick and Morty is extremely sophomoric, with phallic imagery, burp/fart jokes, pop culture references and violence galore; however, much like Bojack Horseman, it plays the consequences of a lot of these jokes completely straight for the sake of furthering the story and developing the characters, who even at their flattest are much more fleshed out and three-dimensional than a good deal of the show's contemporaries..."
Basically, I think the trope tends to attract both complaining and gushing that I think examples should be rewritten to be less YMMV.
What do you think?
Edited by RuckusHeartsresolved something wrong with the Baldur's gate 3 Origin Characters page? Videogame
Specifically this one. Checking the history of the page or the edit page, i can clearly see there is content here. But when i try to look at the page itself... it's blank.
resolved Moving character to a different page Literature
I'd like to move Shen Jiu's character profile from Characters.The Scum Villains Self Saving System Demon Realm And Other Characters over to Characters.The Scum Villains Self Saving System Four Main Sects. Currently he's just under Other Characters, but I think he should really be under the Qing Jing Peak section as he was literally the leader of said peak before his (presumed) death, at which point he exits the story. (I'm explaining this to clarify that there are no conflicting affiliations or anything so I don't know why he's been placed under Other Characters.) Am I allowed to go ahead and move him?
Edited by Zaperexresolved Start of an Edit War/Possible Sockpuppet? Western Animation
Hello! So I recently posted this in the "Is this an Example?" thread, and haven't really got replies, though they have been leaning to my side.
I found something that screams shoehorning from a biased source.
From the YMMV page of The Owl House:
- Broken Aesop: The Series Finale has two major ones;
- Earlier in the series, the show railed against the concept of a Chosen One, and said that people should carve out their own paths. Just before the climax however, it's revealed that the remnants of the dead Titan has been actively helping Luz in learning Magic and has picked her to be the one to stand up against Belos. Guess what? That makes her a fucking CHOSEN ONE!!!
- After Belos is defeated and no longer a threat, he starts begging for Luz to save him from death, saying that is she doesn't, she'll be just as "evil" as the witches, and "We're Human, we're better than this!", only for Eda and friends to push Luz aside, smugly say to Belos "Well we ain't!" and then gleefully stomp him to death and laugh, proving that despite everything the show preached, in his final moments, they proved that everything Belos said had some merit of truth to it.
Two huge problems with this. First, it's very clearly overly hostile and biased against the show judging by it's language, and attempting to whitewash Belos by suggesting he has a point. Secondly, both examples are taken completely out of context to form a rhetorical strawman. The first one isn't an example because she wasn't born with any special destiny. She only got the Titan's approval due to being her kind and loving self, especially to his son. The second is just plainly absurd. It's attempting to play moral judgement on some of the people who have suffered the most under the genocidal psychopath, when he had just made his second attempt to commit genocide against their species.
I took the liberty of removing the example from the YMMV page. Now that would be fine on it's own, even if I heavily disagree with it... If it weren't for this entry literally being a copy paste of something that was posted on the main page of the show which the troper Gamermaster removed. The weird part is that it was copy pasted onto the YMMV page by an entirely different user, and the first user has a total of two edits on their entire edit history, both of which are super hostile to modern Disney properties. Later on the person who posted it on the main Owl House page posted it right back on the YMMV page exactly as is without going to the "Is this an Example?" thread, and added further shoehorning. I removed those too... but now I am wondering if this is some sort of sockpuppeting situation due to the reasons listed above. At the very least it could warp into an Edit War.
resolved Using ChatGPT to help answer Headscratcher questions
Is it ok to directly cite answers generated by this program in answer to a question posed on a Headscratchers page? In this case, I had searched the work's wiki pages for relevant information, but it had nothing more to offer than the work itself. Furthermore, as it can be hard to do a granular search using a search engine for a very specific question like the one (for the work) I have in mind, and in the absence of any other troper stepping up (to date) to answer the question, AND as the answer appears to hold up (doesn't show any typical AI-anomalies or peculiar interpretations of the content), I don't think there's any harm to this approach?
Edited by FlashStepsresolved The Flash AudienceAlienatingPremise Issue
I'd like to report an edit war that's occurred in the YMMV page for The Flash (2023) over whether it qualifies for Audience-Alienating Premise. On January 28, Link Mario Samus removed the entry on the grounds that he felt it came across more as a Tainted by the Preview (due to the details mentioned having primarily more to do with meta and behind the scenes stuff than the actual premise itself). On January 29, Estvyk added it back under the claim that it's simply a case of Audience-Alienating Premise overlapping with Tainted by the Preview. Finally, on February 14, Link Mario Samus removed it again with an edit reason that could be interpreted as rude despite not necessarily being wrong. While I'll concede that I don't know if any discussion occurred between them via PM before or after any of this, I'm nonetheless reporting this edit war so that they can have the chance to come here to present their case.
resolved There's something wrong with MagnificentBastard.WesternAnimation and MagnificentBastard.ComicBooks
Note: I already posted about this in the bug query
, but I didn't get any response, so I'm reposting it here in the hope that it will be noticed by someone and also made a few changes to the post.
A few days ago, the Sandboxes which are used to make changes MagnificentBastard.Western Animation and MagnificentBastard.Comic Books were swapped to their respective pages in order to make edits to them because they are locked.
However, it seems like something's wrong with the pages, as the changes shown within the edit history aren't reflected in the page source, causing there to be no changes to the pages themselves. For instance, an Error on MagnificentBastard.Western Animation that caused it's subpages to not be indexed is repeatedly
shown to
be fixed
in the edit history, but the Error is still on the main page itself.
From checking the history of these page, it seems like the issue started on December 17th, 2023 for the Comic Books page and on December 31st, 2023 for the Western Animation page.
If anybody notices other pages with the same problem, please leave them in the comment section. Furthermore, if somebody has an idea on what's causing the glitches to occur and/or how to solve this problem, please mention it in the comments so this issue can be resolved.
Edit: Moving this back to query bugs
Edited by jlvs200sresolved 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 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 Internet Backdraft/Marvel Cinematic Universe has a stupid entry Film
On Marvel Cinematic Universe there's this entry:
- A theory has been springing up that Marvel are sabotaging the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises in order to weaken Fox's success with their films, noting their reduced presence in the comicsnote which isn't true; the X-Men are currently one of the biggest lines they're producing, with more spin-offs than ever, Wolverine and Deadpool dying note which is no different than any other 'big shocking deaths', and is being used to launch several miniseries attracting tons of publicity to the X-Men line as it is, the Fantastic Four comic being cancellednote which has been underselling for a while, and while not the worst seller, it's still been pretty bad and doesn't have the cult following that their other books have, lack of merchandise produced for X-Men: Days of Future Pastnote which wasn't true; there weren't any children's toys produced, which is largely down to licensing issues; they still sold Hot Toys collectibles for them though, are still selling toys for the franchise in general, and sold toys for the film before that, their reduced appearances in recent animated seriesnote ignoring that Wolverine did get an animated movie and has appeared in their other cartoons, and a memo apparently sent out asking for artists to not send them Fantastic Four artworknote the validity of this memo is questionable at best. The theory itself makes little sense, but hasn't stopped people buying into it, including Rob Liefeld note Liefeld's creations are tied with Fox's licenses, so of course he'd be on their side over this.
- Disney's acquisition of Fox. Beyond the "Yay, X-Men and the Fantastic Four can be in the MCU!" cheering, fans were concerned about how Disney continued to acquire a huge amount of popular IPs to the point of becoming a near monopoly.
The first one is iffy in its own right, but the second bullet is my concern today. A couple of things:
1. This isn't about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's about Disney. The only connection the MCU really has to this is that Marvel Studios, the guys who oversee it, are owned by Disney. Unless the entry is alleging that Disney spent $71.3 billion acquiring the Fox film assets primarily to get the film rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises, in which case... yeah, I totally believe that. TOTALLY.
2. In all seriousness, Disney didn't do this because they thought Marvel Studios needed two more franchises. They did it because they want to bulk up their collective film library in preparation for going into the streaming market. Remember, Disney+ launches later this year, and Disney wants to leverage their majority control of Hulu to push for an international release around the same time, with the stated goal of being a place to put their adult-leaning content. That's why this happened.
3. For the record, this entry is heavily biased, mentioning the backlash to the decision to greenlight the acquisition while dismissing ANY praise or excitement as just people being excited for certain franchises; call me crazy but I don't think it's as bad as this entry makes it out to be.
4. This is a minor complaint compared to the preceding three, but it's also an example of bad indentation. It's got nothing to do with the preceding entry other than that they both involve Fox. I mean, seriously?
Look, my vote is to just delete it, but I wanted to at least make sure I consulted the community to see if that's the only workable solution, because I get the feeling that SOMEONE is going to want to talk about it on the wiki SOMEWHERE and it's worth figuring out where, if anywhere, is an appropriate place to do so.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved A goof in the Mr. Robot page Live Action TV
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/MrRobot
There is a goof in the Disposing of a Body section:
Someone wrote that Mr. Robot and Elliot found Tyrell's dead body after he was shot and burned it with the white Dark Army van. That never happened. Tyrell walked away after he was shot and the last we see of him was looking at the blue light. The body that they burnt with the van was of the dead DA soldier who killed himself. We don't know till this day what happened to Tyrell.
resolved Possible NRELP violation?
I'm not a fan of Rooster Teeth or Achievement Hunter, but the Tear Jerker page for the latter work contains a lot of real-life examples that covers the personal issues or departures of its members, despite Tear Jerker itself prohibiting real-life examples on its work pages unless scripted (assuming that scripted RL examples are allowed in the first place). The example I want to bring up is the firing of Ryan Haywood.
- In October 2020, both Ryan and Funhaus personality Adam Kovic became involved in multiple scandals of inappropriate behavior towards fans, which ultimately resulted in both men leaving the company. This led to a lot of turmoil and nasty arguments among the RT community, and then crossed personal boundaries when Ryan's family—victims in their own right—became subject to death threats and harassment with one member of the community even doxxing his wife's practice.
- Amidst the scandal and Ryan's abruptly controversial exit from RT, that week's AHWU video was posted to YouTube with all of Ryan's footage erased and edited out. Unfortunately, this also had the effect of completely erasing community manager Steffie (who only appeared in group shots alongside Ryan) from the video, ironically in an AHWU that's supposed to be about announcing a Steffie Week of videos focusing on her.
- Even more heartbreaking are the Twitter responses from the various personalities within Achievement Hunter. They just weren't co-workers, they were friends and family and this was a major blindsiding betrayal for them.
- After Jack had been silent on the matter for several days, his wife Caiti came forward and revealed that he was silent because she had actually become borderline suicidal, and Jack had spent his time balancing taking care of her and his work life for nearly three weeks.
- It did not escape many people's notice that the game the group streamed that Friday was Dead by Daylight, one of Ryan's favorite games. The video constantly bounces between feeling like they're taking the game back for themselves and feeling like something is missing.
- It was later announced that all future videos involving Ryan that were recorded and ready to release will not be uploaded in the wake of the scandal, and the channel went silent throughout the timeframe they were supposed to come out. Even though it's understandable why, a lot of hard work and fun laughs that went into those videos will now be laid to waste due to reasons outside the rest of the group's control. In a double whammy to Steffie, not only did she get edited out of her own "Steffie Week" announcement, that week of videos is probably a casualty to affairs now.
- The first livestream
since the news broke. It opens with Jack looking utterly miserable, and it is very hard to blame him with recent developments regarding Ryan's conduct at the company. He makes it quite clear that he had no idea he was doing this, refers to him as “that monster.” He and Michael make it clear that all the AH Crew are all for removing as much content involving Ryan from all platforms as possible from their near decade-long video library, and stating that he will never be welcomed back. Not once during the entire video do they refer to Ryan by name. Seeing people as strong and energetic as Jack and Michael being near tears for twenty straight minutes is absolutely gut-wrenching from start to finish.
- In the stream, he goes out of his way to mention Geoff, saying that he's so overwhelmed that he has no intention of making a public statement and has asked to be alone. Geoff was one of the people who hired Ryan, so even if we haven't seen any public reaction to the news it's impossible to imagine it's anything other than complete shock and depression.
- Despite Jack saying he wouldn't, Geoff wrote a lengthy statement on the Rooster Teeth subreddit, refuting his old accusation allegations against him that he himself was sexting fans and may have known about Ryan's affairs. In it, he revealed some more heartbreaking details about his breakup with Griffon. For example, they realized their marriage was falling apart for far longer than they let on, and tried to go through a number of steps to salvage it, one of which was eventually polyamory. They attempted an open relationship (Geoff stresses that they had full communication during this time and had multiple therapists guiding them through it), but that eventually led to an allegation that he was cheating on his wife with a fan, which he has since refuted. He also mentions an unknown family incident that caused a nervous breakdown back in June, explaining why he has been absent from Rooster Teeth affairs for a while now.
- In the same week that Geoff wrote his statement, Trevor had to release a 10-page statement refuting abuse allegations against him, revealing that he was the victim of emotional abuse for the duration of his previous relationship. Even as he attempted to end the relationship with the support of his friends and moved on to a happier relationship with Barbara, his ex continued to stalk and harass him and kept spreading abuse allegations against him that he attempted to resolve privately until the scandals forced him to reveal such personal details.
As someone who knew Haywood AFTER the news broke out, and was more of a fan of RT's animated content than their Let's Plays, I didn't really have much of an attachment to Ryan as his former fans were. However, as serious and heartbreaking as the whole event is, I feel like this violates the No Real Life Examples, Please! policy by virtue of not only doing a breakdown of an unscripted event (the heartbroken reactions of Ryan's coworkers, the removing of Haywood's contributions to RT, Jack desperately trying to take of his wife in light of the incident) that had nothing to do with the LP's themselves outside of making Ryan's Comedic Sociopathy in those videos retroactively abhorrent and discomforting, but also having examples that skew uncomfortably to Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement territory (such as bringing up his family getting the brunt of online harassment after the news broke). And yet somehow this example managed to stay on that page for three years without anyone questioning if it should be allowed on there in the first place. It's like putting the widespread condemnation of Elliot Gindi after his misconduct allegations came to light on Genshin Impact's Tear Jerker page despite the controversy having no affect on the story itself.
I remember someone on the "Moments" thread mentioning that RL examples should be allowed on Tear Jerker pages for Let's Plays, but I'm not sure if they changed their mind on that idea or not. What should be done of this?
EDIT: Fixed grammar and spelling mistakes.
Edited by ToonAbbyresolved Question about pages of works that you authored.
I have written a book, it is currently in the process of being published.
Once it is published, there are the guidelines of The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours.
But one thing in particular struck me as odd about that policy: specifically, the trivia section:
"You may not add any examples marked as Trivia that contain information not known to the general public"
What exactly does this mean? That I need to write about it somewhere first before being allowed to put it on Tv Tropes? I do not have a public online presence, I am not a professional author, but I am here, a troper. By definition I am one of you. Would Tv Tropes itself not count as being "known to the general public"? Or do I have to make a twitter account that no one follows, write it there, and then link to it when writing a trivia entry?
resolved New Crowner - troping Reality Show contestants
A new Crowner has been created to resolve some queries about the way we trope Reality Show contestants as 'characters'.
As per Real Life Troping, it's acknowledged that these shows deliberately blur fact and fiction, and that examples must be "written in the context of the work, not describing the people with lives outside of it".
With that in mind, we have two proposals on the current Crowner:
- Breakout Character should only apply to someone who acquires a much larger role within the same reality show or its wider Series Franchise, not someone who uses a Reality Show appearance to launch or boost a much wider media career.
- As audience reaction tropes such as The Scrappy and Base-Breaking Character can be a mix of in-show behaviour and reaction to a contestant's real life (e.g. their social media presence and/or tabloid headlines), they should only be listed for Reality Show contestants if acknowledged within the work itself.
Please comment or vote here
resolved Vocabulary Conflict Anime
A little while ago now, Dentaku made this edit
on YMMV.Bocchi The Rock for the LGBT Fanbase example.
All instances of "Sapphic" were replaced with "Lesbian", saying the former is an "old-fashioned" form of the latter. I reverted the change with the reason that Sapphic is actually an umbrella term for any woman who loves woman (which does include lesbians, but also labels like bisexual, demi, etc.)
And then just today, someone reverted it again with no edit reason.
Edited by IkeaHanresolved 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 DarthWalrus

Minor spoilers for the movie ahoy.
On the Hard Candy Trivia page, it says:
"Technology Marches On: Hayley's inability to find porn in Jeff's apartment is seen as damning evidence. Today, she would just assume he watched it online."
Doesn't anyone reading this think "wait a minute?!". The movie is clearly set in the present day (2005 at the time). We see Hayley searching his unlocked computer. She then says to him (according to the shooting script and I remember her saying it in a very similar fashion in the movie itself):
So, obviously she thinks he can download his illicit material online, as anyone would logically presume he could in the well-into-the-internet-era of 2005. She finds a disc in the safe marked "Stuff" which highly implies that's precisely what he's hidden. There may also be physically printed photos of young girls which he took himself, but that's immaterial here. He also could have very well just "enjoyed" the material he found online without downloading it as a private stash. The point is, the second sentence of the example looks to be invalidated, thus invalidating the entire entry. There's no technology marching on here, it would play out exactly the same if the movie was to be released today (whether the safe's illegal material is stored on a CD, an SD card or whatever). Even if he wanted to encrypt it on his computer, that would have been about as feasible back then as today (read: pretty damn feasible), and the police (or Hayley) would still throw resources at it to decrypt it as actionable evidence.
Am I correct here? Or am I missing something?
Edited by FlashSteps