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 Character reversion for The Pitt Live Action TV
Regarding an edit on characters for The Pitt ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ThePitt2025
) . I wish to revert or if possible modify a character edit. Regarding characters tropes I believe we post both strengths and weaknesses of character to paint a full picture of said character. But feel the current edits for Doctor Landon tend to seem to attempt to protect the character from any negative aspects. To note , I am not seeking to bash said character.
Original version
- Believing Their Own Lies: Tries to convince Robby that the pain-meds his stolen does not impair his judgement or reasoning at all. However during his shift he did try to throw an attending under the bus to protect himself and was stealing and diluting much needed hospital supplies before the shift. At the end of the shift, he desperately tried to manipulate two colleagues Robby and Dana who respect him, to ignore his condition
Revised version
- Believing Their Own Lies: Tries to convince Robby that the Librium he stole does not impair his judgement or reasoning at all and that he only needs them to wean off his addiction. Robby immediately calls him out for not taking the proper steps to treat his withdrawal symptoms, bluntly laying out that he could be facing felony charges for his diversion.
The second version seemingly softens Langdon actions and ramifications of his actions. As well as the problems with the actions that he took and the consequences of them. As in the lie he tells himself is not that he needs to wean himself off the pills, but the lie is the pill affect his behaviour , ie stealing needed medication to feed his need.
Original version
- Never My Fault: Unfortunately as an addict he views his thefts as necessary. Refuses to accept he may have a problem and when forced to go into rehab and face being reported as having a drug problem tries to paint it as Robby over-reacting instead of a genuine issue due to his addiction.
Revised version
- Never My Fault: Unfortunately Langdon refuses to take responsibility over his addiction, believing that he only needs the benzos to wean off his dependence on pain meds.
Removes how Langdon acts as its NeverMyFault by removing what he is refusing to accept fault for. Seemingly makes it about his addiction and not a) the thefts he committed to feed the addiction or b) is refusal to accept fault for his actions and having a blowout over it.
Original version
- Kick the Dog: When Robby refuses to ignore Langdon's addiction and thefts. Decides to report the incident and offer to get Landon into rehab. Langdon instead of being grateful, throws the gesture in his face stating that Robby has no right to judge claiming he is as messed up as he is bringing up Robby PTSD and breakdown earlier that night. Robby who is emotionally and physically raw from end of the shift , can only walk away disappointed in his former friend.
Revised version
- Kick the Dog: When Robby gives Langdon the ultimatum of going to rehab instead of losing his license, Langdon throws the gesture in his face by stating that Robby has no right to judge since he's claiming "as messed up as he is" because of his meltdown in Pedes from earlier. Robby pointedly tells Langdon that he's the one that screwed up massively.
Again , cuts away why the example exists in order to make the character less abrasive or damaged as is. In way to prevent the character from seeming unlikable.
Original version
- Functional Addict: Langdon is addicted to Librium, a benzodiazepine, to the point of filching pills from the prescription of one of the hospital's "frequent flyer" patients. When Robby finds out, he makes an extremely poor attempt at defending himself when confronted with Santos' suspicion that he's stealing other medications on top of it. Despite this, he is still an outstandingly competent doctor, a point which he himself brings up when confronted by Robby. Despite this , Robby correctly forces him to go into treatment as Langdon is in denial about his problem. As he is actively stealing medication from patients in pain, and his argument and his argument he just need the pain-meds to get off his pill-addiction is him ignoring the seriousness of his problem
Revised version
- Functional Addict: Langdon is addicted to Librium, a benzodiazepine, to the point of filching pills from the prescription of one of the hospital's "frequent flyer" patients. When Robby finds out, he makes an extremely poor attempt at defending himself when confronted with Santos' suspicion that he's stealing other medications on top of it. Despite this, he is still an outstandingly competent doctor, a point which he himself brings up when confronted by Robby. However, Robby has to give him an ultimatum of going to rehab or face losing his medical license.
Leaves out the serious issue that Langdon is stealing pain meds from patients in pain and causing risks to other patients. Another issue it attempts to downplay the act and his issues via the statement “Despite this, he is still an outstandingly competent doctor, a point which he himself brings up when confronted by Robby.” Seemingly excusing his 'filching' because he hasn't screwed up medically , yet.
Original version
- Took a Level in Jerkass: An unfortunate side effect of addiction is the inability to accept that he has a problem and take to desperate measures to protect himself from consequence. From trying to paint Santos genuine concerns as false accusations from a new resident that most people don't like. To desperately trying to compare his pill -addiction to Robby's PTSD in order to gain sympathy , which forces Robby to walk away from him in disbelief. To trying to convince Dana who is having her own traumatic day that Robby judgement is in question and needs her to have his back despite his own erratic behavior.
New Version
- Took a Level in Jerkass: An unfortunate side effect of Langdon's addiction is his inability to accept that he has a problem, taking desperate measures to protect himself from consequences. The peak of this comes when Langdon tries to tell Robby to ignore his addiction since the latter is "just as screwed up" as he is because of his breakdown towards the end of "7:00 PM". Clearly, this does not go over well with Robby.
'The second version leaves out what desperate measures Langdon took making it a ZCE and again unnecessarily saving the character from any sort of criticism. Not looking to bash said character but the second example says they took a level without explaining ‘’how’’ they Took a Level in Jerkass. As well as neutering the confrontation he had with Robby
Again I am not attempting to bash the character. Have noted that a character should express both negative and positive aspects of a character. I just feel that the new edits seemingly go out of its way to “clean” up the character. Which doesn’t seem an issue when less popular characters like Santos is concerned. If reversion to its original version is not advised is there any suggestion to make the examples more nuanced?
resolved How do you put new funny moments into an index? Web Original
I just made a new list of funny moments for Matt Rose, because it's new it hasn't been adding to the web video funny moments index. How do I do that? I tried to search TV Tropes for the answer and got nothing and there isn't an option on that page itself to simply click on or select something then add the hyperlink.
Edited by NKgamerresolved Troper with persist ZCE issue
They first come to my attention with this edit
, which they added several empty folders and one pure ZCE (trope without example}.
The next day, they uncommented
several Palette Swap without adding proper context, talking about the origin of enteies instead of explaning why they are examples of the trope (which, I think most are misused considered how different they were in said origins).
The next, they uncommented another ZCE
, with the context relies on other works and not how it is applies to the subject work. Another edit before that one
, they uncommented The Rival while listed several similarities between two characters, but not mentioned the characters rivalry at all.
I sent three notifiers, one for each of these edit.
Today, they added another
, preemptive commented out. Which seems to be their current pattern
.
resolved Neglectful Precursor Trope Quesiton
I noticed that the trope description for Neglectful Precursors is formatted as a court trial. In addition, I also noticed that about 99% of the examples are also written as court cases. Does this trope actually require that examples be written that way? I wanted to ask because I couldn't find anything on the page itself indicating that.
resolved For myself.
I have made an article on The Prince and the Pauper from 2007.
[1]
◊
resolved Misclassified as American series
@SpongeBobFan2005 keeps adding Strawberry Shortcake: Berry in the Big City to AmericanSeries.Animation, even though BITBC is exclusively made in Canada. I tried explaining this to him multiple times, but he keeps adding it with the flimsy excuse of “it was put on Youtube/Netflix which are American”. I already let myself get dragged into an edit war with him and I’m not doing it again, so can someone tell me what to do about this?
Edited by BlueBlazesresolved Another post by me!
Hey gamers, I want you to make self demonstrating pages for: Mario, Metal Mario, Four (BFB), Two (TPOT), Animatic (Animatic Battle), Emmet Brickowski
Edited by Realnameresolved Possible Edit War on YMMV Watson(2025) Live Action TV
Regarding this page, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/Watson
there was an UnintentionallyUnsympathetic example I removed as audiences and critics noted that Ingrid seemingly set Isaac up to take his spot. I did add reasons for the removal, as Ingrid did not deny her actions and deflected his accusations. In episode she seemed knowingly let him drive while (mildly) intoxicated then turned him in not out of morality but out of benefit to herself.
It was originally added by {{6 »Tropers}} , then re-added again after removal, not sure if that counts as EditWar or not.
As pointed out by the reasoning stated she didn't deter him from driving, she didn't call for an UBER. She waited till he was on the road then called the Police to advise of a drunk driver, including his car model essentially setting him up. As critics and other audiences pointed out she set him up to take his spot, ruining his life and deflecting blame. Making his character sympathetic.
As the example was re-added without reasoning am I able to remove it again.
Edited by Tuvokresolved Typo in the title: Recap/TheChicagoCodeS1E13MikeRyokosRevenge Live Action TV
The Chicago Code S 1 E 13 Mike Ryokos Revenge
The episode title should be "Mike Royko's Revenge," not Ryoko— the reference is to a Chicago Tribune columnist, not a J-Pop singer. But I'm not sure how to fix it as it's in the page title itself.
resolved Roman Numerals in work titles
Just a quick question - I was wanting to launch a new works page for Schedule I, the silly black comedy drug dealer game that came out. The game's title and steam listing using Roman Numeral I, I was wanting to double check if we'd still use the I, use 1, or typed out One for it, since I'm not sure myself.
resolved Velma YMMV and the Alt-Right Accusation
Hello, everyone. I was browsing through "Ask the Tropers," and I see that a troper called "Neverwood" tried to report me for spreading "Alt-right" messages on the Velma YMMV page
, and I'm having trouble moving forward from the accusation. I know this accusation was 2 years ago, but it's still a jarring thing to see considering it's visible to the public. Because I wasn't tagged in the conversation or notified of it when it came out, I wasn't given a chance to explain myself. I am aware of the misfortune and ramifications of posting this on April Fool's Day. I assure you, this is not a joke; I truly wanted to address this with sincerity.
I know it's pointless talking about it now, considering it's been almost two years since the accusation, and this post would only bring attention to it. I want to get this off my chest and clear things up, even if it doesn't matter anymore, because this is a serious accusation from my point of view. The edits I made on Velma YMMV page were caused by a lot of anxiety and stress. For clarity, I was never trying to spread an "alt-right" agenda, and I would never endorse those beliefs.
- In Neverwood's complaint, they accused me of posting "alt-right nonsense" and that I was claiming how "Velma is racist against whites". Although I did describe Velma's behavior as racially motivated in previous entries, it's too strong a description, and I should have used the terms "biased" or "wary" because they align more with the creator's intent behind these remarks. To explain the difference, "bias" is used to describe a mistrust or wariness, whereas racism implies the speaker believes in superiority over another race or ethnicity. I interpreted these actions as racist or racially motivated because I have read reviews and seen reaction videos that called Velma's actions bigoted, hypocritical, and racist for her comments about Fred's race. I understand that Velma was referring to the system, not Fred's race. Because of these reviews, I mistakenly thought it was the consensus towards the character. I was being literal-minded when I interpreted her comments, not that it excuses my actions. This misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Velma's comments are what led to these statements. That said, I'm aware this isn't the place to discuss what constitutes racism.
- Regarding my comments on the "social commentary", I sincerely believed that was the creator's intent when they made the show. Despite Neverwood's accusations that I claimed "it's the reason why most people hate the show", I never said social commentary was the thing that ruined the show or the reason why so many people hated it; all I said was that the social commentary could have been done better. I wasn't complaining or criticizing the message; I was criticizing and referring to the methods used by Velma, which were over-aggressive and heavy-handed. I never said she was right or wrong either; that isn't my place to say, I just said these themes and messages were done better in other movies and shows. The point of my argument was that bringing identity politics into the story doesn't automatically make a character compelling or deep. I believe in Show, Don't Tell. Social commentary is a delicate and complex topic that must be done in an engaging, entertaining, and thought-provoking way. To reiterate, I was not trying to spread or push an alt-right agenda by criticising the show's methods in providing social commentary. I supported the message the series tried to convey, even if I doubted and disliked its presentation and heavy-handed, over-aggressive approach.
- Finally, when I deleted the social commentary edit, I genuinely didn't know about Neverwood's complaint. It was already a point of contention on the page, and I thought I was doing the right thing to stop more complaints and edits. When I brought up the show's social commentary again, I tried to provide a calm and rational explanation to avoid causing more arguments, not knowing the matter was already resolved. I tried to explain how the show was full of identity politics and socio-political commentary, I felt it was something that had to be addressed because it was a component of the show. However, my edits had problems of their own: Firstly, whether you agree with the show or not, it's hard to talk about these issues without making the edits sound like a massive, over-aggressive rant. And secondly, despite my attempts at damage control, it unintentionally came across as flame bait. I stopped because it wasn't worth it in the end, and I haven't been on the YMMV page since 2023.
Anyway, I think I've explained everything. I am truly sorry for what happened and for causing this much drama. I can't apologise enough for my actions; it was foolish and a product of stress mismanagement. I have no excuse for my actions because I know I should have known better. I sincerely know now how my actions can upset others. I will be more careful and mindful in how I phrase my entries in the future.
Edited by Buckresolved Unsure of edit to Symbiotes page Print Comic
An editor made an addition to the Characters/MarvelComicsSymbiotes page that's got me scratching my head—stating that when the symbiotes were first introduced "it was said only very specific people can ever bond with [them], much less form an actual partnership with them".
I consider myself a big Venom fan, but the only time I remember that being a thing is in the Venom movies.
The closest I can remember to seeing something along the lines of that statement in the comics is a narration/thought box in 1996's Venom: The Hunger where Eddie Brock muses that symbiotes didn't evolve to be bonded to humans, and that whatever host they did evolve to naturally bond to would have supplied them with the phenethylamine levels they need to survive... but that was retconned a long time ago—even before Donny Cates introduced Knull.
I was equally curious and confused, so I did some digging to see if I could find anything, but all I've come up with are several instances where that's is shown not to be the case—even early on:
- In 1984's Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man #99, the symbiote that became Venom bonded to a man named Leonard Elkhart to get back to Peter Parker.
- In 1991's Fantastic Four (Vol. 1) #359-360, Dreadface bonds to a random gorilla before taking over the Thing and jumping to the Human Torch, and was where symbiotes were first established as being part of a marauding interstellar empire and prefering strong hosts suitable for facilitating planetary conquests.
- In 1993's Fantastic Four Annual #26, Dreadface takes over a woman named Carrie Burke and consumes her from the inside-out—marking the first time symbiotes are shown doing so to their hosts.
- In 1994's Venom: Seperation Anxiety (Vol. 1) the Venom symbiote bonds to Doctor Zwerling and an unnamed trucker to get back to Eddie Brock.
- In 1995's Venom: Sinner Takes All the Venom symbiote bonds to Anne Weying to save her life, later rebonding to her to save Eddie.
- In the 1995 Planet of the Symbiotes event, it's established that symbiotes are capable of bonding to any host they please, but have a modus operandi of draining their vitality / adrenaline / phenylethanolamine until they die and/or just straight-up consuming them from the inside-out before jumping to a new one—something later seen with the Venom symbiote in 2003's The Spectacular Spider-Man (Vol. 2) and the Mania symbiote in 2003's Venom (Vol. 1).
- In 1996's Venom: The Hunted, two symbiotes that survived the aftermath of the invasion were shown having bonded to otherwise ordinary civilians named George Strickland and Zeena Hodges.
- In 1996's The Amazing Spider-Man (Vol. 1) #410, the Carnage symbiote leaves Cletus Kasady to take over John Jameson without issue before jumping to Ben Reilly.
Am I missing something? I will admit it's possible—I haven't read every single Venom-related comic (yet) and it's been a long time since I've read some of them. But if this ever was said to be a thing in the comics, it both contradicts the earlier lore (what little there was, at least) and is completely ignored by the later lore—which wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened at Marvel.
Edited by Arawn999resolved Suspicious review thinly veiled as a personal attack.
Troper Biri made a rather suspicious review
of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood that comes off more as complaining than reviewing it. When other viewers asked about their hatred of Fred Rogers himself, they proceeded to go on a rant alleging that he was a homophobe/anti-LGBTQ, a phony, using a Christian agenda to condescend against children, referring to his fandom as "fanbrats" and, most disturbingly, hoping that someone urinates on his grave.
Now, I get that not everyone is going to like something or someone, regardless of popularity, and if all of that's true about him, so be it, but I don't think being so hostile towards someone's fanbase or hoping that their final resting place be desecrated is okay or complies with the site's rules, do you?
Edited by Erin582resolved First post Live Action TV
Hello,do you have any example of a live action tv show or movie where a mother involves herself in a sex for services situation to benefit her kid in some way?Other than those already present on this site i mean
resolved Spotted a problem that's beyond my powers as an editor
I've discovered that, back in July, someone named Tropers/TMH-Sir-Iron-Vomit made an edit that deleted huge swaths of the Scary Scarecrows page, without an edit reason and seemingly without permission to make such sweeping changes.
Being a good troper, I'd ordinarily try to fix the problem myself, but there's too much gone for me to restore. What should I do?
resolved Plot Hole page for Ranma 1/2? Anime
I love Ranma ½, but the series was clearly an episodic comedy that Takahashi was making it up as she goes along, and it shows, because there's quite a few times when the story doesn't make sense or contradicts itself - three major examples are how Ranma is perfectly happy to go back to China in the first 2 chapters, but Shampoo's intro reveals he left China partially to escape Shampoo; how Ranma goes from wanting to investigate potential cures in those same chapters, only for everybody to know that the Nanniichuan can cure Ranma and the other guys like him in the Instant Nanniichuan story; and of course the Instant Nanniichuan temporarily curing Ranma and Genma, but Taro being able to upgrade his curse with water from the Jusenkyo Spring of Drowned Octopus.
But... the Plot Hole page notes that it's a No Examples trope. Does that just mean no adding examples to that page, or does it mean that a Plot Hole page for Ranma 1/2 is forbidden as well?
resolved Am I Being Too Uptight About This? Anime
This question involves the final episode of one of those rather important older anime series, so if you're interested in Revolutionary Girl Utena and haven't seen it, this spoiler warning is for you.
Here's my question:
"Revolutionary Girl Utena E 39 Someday We Will Shine Together", has an example of Screw This, I'm Outta Here!. At two points in 2024 I deleted one of its two bullets on the basis that the event in question does not meet the trope's "unplanned departure" criteria (the character who leaves pays a visit to another character to say that she's leaving, and is then shown walking away with a suitcase). Now that I think about it, it's a better fit for Won't Do Your Dirty Work.
Recently another editor added this event under Screw This, I'm Outta Here! again. I don't want to be a wonk about this and I'm already uncomfortable with having deleted it twice. The event in question is a key moment in the story and as such, editors like to mention it in as many examples as possible. So if I delete it again the odds are good that someone else will add it back before long.
Am I interpreting this trope too strictly? I've been treating "unplanned" as something along the lines of "spontaneous"—maybe I'm setting the bar too high?
Or maybe I'm second guessing myself too much and what I need is a commented out message to discourage people from adding this to Screw This, I'm Outta Here!?
Edited by ShivaIndis
Local Odd Squad Connoisseur
resolved Troper that seems to be here just to complain
~katiepricesaunt joined the site last month, but their only contribution is this complainy self-hatted TLP draft
that seems to be taking a potshot at Put on a Bus and has the the troper be needlessly sarcastic in the comments to boot.
I'm not sure if they're just here to complain and be rude, if they're a bandodger of some kind, or what, but I figured I'd report them here and nip things in the bud before they potentially head over to other parts of the site.

I want to express my feelings about a grievance I have with a particular page (which I am in the process of fixing right now). Is there a forum where we talk about the site itself or something like that?