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 Unusual film title plus a bracket question?
I found the film called Wolf and for some reason its called "Film » Wolf (Mike Nichols)" rather than the "Film » Wolf (1994)", when usually other films/or series have "year" within their brackets. I don't exactly have any issues or problems with that movie title namespace, I'm just merely curious why the title "Film » Wolf (Mike Nichols)" itself was allowed, due to how it seems unusual having a real-life director's name in a bracket instead of using a existing year "1994"?
Putting aside from my admittedly a silly question from above, how do I precisely create a film title with a year in it, for example like this type of film Double Dragon, which has a year "1994" in that bracket? Assuming if I manage to successfully launch any film tropes with their approval and permission from the "New Work Page Workshop Thread
" in a probable future?
resolved Quotes misuse?
On this page
, Brendan Rizzo added
a quote from himself, with its source being from one of his own edit reasons on this very wiki.
Though quotes from Youtube comments and other websites are allowed (as far as I know), I wasn't aware that you could use your own edit reasons as quotes on a Quotes subpage. Or am I reading this wrong?
resolved Agenda Based Editing on pages for Code Geass. Anime
Reddish Guy 1 is once again
conducting agenda based editing
for Code Geass, depicting the Britannian Characters as if they were solely black in terms of morality and changing things to reflect that including removing sympathetic tropes from several characters, while adding YMMV entries suggesting opinion for Noble Demon characters being unsympathetic is widespread despite there be little indication of this outside of the Base-Breaking Character Cornelia. What's more, they attempt to justify this by claiming this site thinks the series is Black-and-Gray Morality, but if the series itself is said to be Grey-and-Gray Morality, then that is what is supposed to be troped, with the idea its not that falling under Unintentionally tropes and Misaimed Fandom. And yes, it is meant to be seen as Grey-and-Gray Morality since the showrunners and even the actors have said as much, with them going on record as stating Cornelia and Suzaku are two of the most moral characters in the show, and they consider Lelouch to be irredeemable. For objective troping, authorial intent is important to note. Whether it worked or not would be covered in YMMV. I've sent them a notifier directing them to this thread, but this needs to be addressed as this is the second time now this situation has needed to be brought up to ATT.
resolved Rules Check: Can FlameBait be potholed in trope descriptions referencing the concept?
From Drama Bomb:
This sentence is problematic, because it brings up a controversial issue unnecessarily and without warning. I think it can be fixed by making the sentence pothole to Flame Bait instead of referencing any specific inflammatory topic.
I would have done this myself, but I know there's rules against potholing to sensitive tropes. I brought this to the ROCEJ thread [1]
. ~Azorius 24 responded with a specific suggestion on how to fix this sentence, which looks good to me, but they don't know if potholing to Flame Bait is allowed either.
resolved Wrong namespace? Web Original
I was looking through the videos on the VideoExamples.Super Mario Bros page for potential videos that could be kept there, when I came across JustForFun.SMB Plumbing page.
At first I thought, "okay, this is a troper trying to have fun with that Advertising Campaign / ARG website where it's like it's going to the in-universe website where Mario and Luigi are running it"
But then I looked at it and saw it cataloged the actual thing the website was and how it worked both in and out of universe (the page itself might need some cleanup).
I couldn't find a forum thread immediately for a problem like this, but am I correct in thinking this shouldn't be a Just for Fun page, and should go to a different namespace like a Website?
resolved Misuse of Archive namespace.
Today, miwaco has created Archive.Kaiserreich Legacy Of The Weltkrieg, which is associated with VideoGame.Kaiserreich Legacy Of The Weltkrieg. The edit reasons and the page itself claim that it's there to "hold the various tropes on Kaiserreich that are no longer true in the current versions of the mod", which is not what the Archive/ namespace is for. It should be for stuff that mods create never to be edited again.
This issue reminds me of a recent ATT
that reported another page created in Archive/.
resolved Auto Erotic Troping: Example Web Original
Recently stumbled upon this page which was blatantly and unashamedly made by the author in question, and it was recommended that I raise the issue here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/DarkFlameWolf
Is there any way we can tidy this up, or least make it a bit less...self-congratulatory? They've even included two completely unnecessary 'accomplishments' folders, and the entire article just reads like self-promotion. Someone has already deleted all the links to their social media pages, but it's still a very unprofessional article which I think deviates just a little too far from community standards.
resolved Original RayFox gone and a reboot present. Webcomic
So...I've noticed something, and I am treating this is a sensitive matter since this could be a case of Bury Your Art, so I want to handle this as carefully as possible and discuss with you guys.
Around early October of this year, the 9th I think, I noticed that the entirety of the original comic pages for RayFox are now gone and are not accessible except through archives on the author's website (which itself does not let you access the old comic), and even then, it is missing the 6th chapter. As far as I know the original pages are, for all intents-and-purposes, lost to the ages and don't seem to be anywhere else.
While I have read the original pages enough to be able to add more trope entries to the page if I wanted to, there's still one factor that needs to be acknowledged; The work has been made inaccessible to the public and may remain so for the foreseeable future. It might be accessible through a paywall and there are physical copies of the comics (particularly chapters 1 & 2) that have been sold as far as I know, but again, I'm not sure that entirely counts as publicly accessible.
I've not been keeping a close eye on this nor is developing a page for the reboot an interest of mine at the moment, as I'm busy on working on a TLP (and eyeing on adopting another after I finish my current one), but I am curious as to what happens next...What does that mean for the page itself? Does the page for the old comic still stay up until further notice?
And hypothetically speaking, if I were to cover the reboot, would a separate tab for the reboot being on the same page be more appropriate? Or would a separate page be better? (If the latter, I'll toy around in my sandbox with the idea someday)
Edited by Stardust5099resolved Is there a limit to the scope of a Crapsack World?
As in, if the setting is primarily limited to a city, can that city be both a Wretched Hive (the city itself) and a Crapsack World (the general setting)?
resolved Urbenmyth and ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity
Urbenmyth seems to have take it upon themself to make unilateral, large-scale edits to
Artistic License – Traditional Christianity, before making a discussion post
to complain about the trope, and then cutlisting the trope page entirely without any kind of permission
.
resolved Heavy-handed "badge of honor" troping Live Action TV
rr3elite appears to have a major Single-Issue Wonk focused on showing off the villainy of the character Zein from Kamen Rider Outsiders and their appearances in other Kamen Rider media, including this week's episode of Kamen Rider Gotchard. I initially reported them on ATT before
for shoehorning in Fan Myopia-laden comparisons to other works through misuse of various tropes, but it is now clear that was a symptom of a much bigger wonk, mostly afflicting Zein's sheet, the page for Outsiders itself, and various pages for Gotchard (YMMV, antagonists sheet, Nightmare Fuel, #33's recap) where Zein's appearance is concerned.
I haven't sent any notifiers because there's too many offending edits to comb through, but a lot of their edits consist of what they have previously been reported for, plus Bold Inflation, countless sentence structure and grammar errors, and "look at how horrible this person is" examples that stretch Zein's villainynote it is a sapient AI that has placed the world into an authoritarian surveillance state with the intent of mass genocide and has manipulated the heroes into giving it its resources, but I would hesitate to call a lot of its actions deliberately symbolic or nuanced beyond face value.. They also added Speculative Troping examples to Gotchard #33's recap suggesting Zein would have had a darker and more dramatic role in the episode, when in reality he only appears to kill one of the unambiguously-evil villains in the episode and leaves just as quickly to promote Outsiders.
I'm not sure if this is a policy violation in its own right, but I cannot deny in good faith that it is starting to compromise their writing and thus the quality of the pages they are editing.
EDIT: The issue has persisted despite previous mod notifiers and acknowledgement of behavior. More information in comments.
EDIT 2: There are still issues coming from this troper despite the above. As before, more information in comments.
Edited by TrocyteVresolved Real-life deaths on Tearjerker pages - yay or nay?
I was just checking out the Vinesauce Tearjerker page, and last year someone removed two entries saying that "real life deaths should not be included in Tearjerker pages".
To a point, I can agree. Like if Max Von Sydow was in a movie back in 1978, and someone added his death to the Tearjerker page for that movie when he passed away decades later - yeah, that'd be a major stretch. But this particular instance has me scratching my head.
The entries that were removed pertained to a dog named Molly, who was euthanized due to her health failing, and a community member named Vappyvap 88, who passed away in 2020 due to complications from COVID.
I'm not going to go into elaborate detail about Molly - I don't agree with cutting the entry, since the decision to have her put down was discussed during a stream and clearly had a lot of emotional weight attached to it - making it eligible as a Tearjerker moment for the Vinesauce stream imo - but I'll leave the issue be.
But I do want to talk about Vappyvap 88, because he collaborated with Vinny (one of the Vinesauce streamers) for years. He spent time archiving Vinny's stream VO Ds on his own time, which led to the creation of an official VOD channel on You Tube that Vappy ran in collaboration with Vinny. He eventually stepped down, with Vinny hiring a replacement manager to run the channel, but to a point he was an official collaborator - down to being listed on the Vinesauce characters page alongside the main streamers and other collaborators.
People knew who he was. He was a community member, and his contributions helped to grow the stream and offer more content to the community. And while it was mentioned briefly in passing on the stream - it was extremely upsetting to learn that he had passed away, as a longtime community member.
The reason I feel so strongly about this is because streaming tends to blur the lines between "the stream" as a consumable media product, and real life. Streamers are characters up to a point, but real life hardships do occur and can affect the emotional tone of a stream.
And while I can understand the logic behind keeping real life deaths out of a work's tearjerker page, Vappyvap 88 was involved in one facet of the broader Vinesauce operation. To a point, he was a part of the stream. And it seems callous to remove an entry talking about his death, though I'm clearly biased.
So that's why I'm bringing it to Ask the Tropers. Personally, I see the sense in discouraging real-life entries on a work's Tearjerker pages; point out the tribute in Star Trek Beyond to Anton Yelchin, rather than describing the young star's untimely death which was removed from the media itself, that sort of thing. But streaming, as a form of web video, has a bit more of a connection to the real world - and real world tragedies, like the death of a pet that the audience has heard about for years, or the death of a prominent community member and long-term stream collaborator, will matter to the audience and likely come up during the course of the stream itself.
What do you guys think? And if push comes to shove, and the actual stream clip can be tracked down and linked as an emotional moment - does that qualify an event like this to be included on a page like the stream's Tearjerker page? At that point it would be discussing a moment that occurs during the stream, though the general tone and context of the clip would have to factor in, of course.
resolved Requesting list cuts on Survival Horror
Hello,
The Survival Horror description is lots of words yet little and contradictory content. This is generally not a problem for me because I can get definitions for survival horror off-site, but then there are four lists on the page that create extra confusion. I was wondering if I could get permission here to cut out some entries and move others.
I would like permission to delete the entire list except for the following entries that I believe to be specific (enough) to survival horror:
- Ammunition Conservation
- Apocalyptic Log
- Booby Trap
- Closed Circle
- Controllable Helplessness
- Cower Power
- Drought Level of Doom
- Early Game Hell
- Emergency Weapon
- Injured Self-Drag
- Inventory Management Puzzle
- Resources Management Gameplay
- Stealth-Based Mission
- Story Bread Crumbs
- Tank Controls
Obviously more can be kept, but I believe that the list as is serves no purpose.
Others on the list are as curious to me as some entries on in the survival horror list proper. Batman: Arkham Asylum is a Beat 'em Up and most of the description is how Batman is the horror that the mooks need to survive. This has nothing to do with survival horror as a theme-gameplay hybrid genre. Subnautica and The Stomping Land are survival games with a horror element, but they're not survival horror. Is Tomb Raider on the list because of Atlantis? True, creepy level, but that alone doesn't even make it action horror. And with Homeworld: Cataclysm, Total War: Attila, and XCOM, the horror element is doubtful and otherwise they're just strategy games. Can these at least be removed?
resolved Misinformed trope question?
Found and discovered this one year earlier from John Wick franchise's trope example and something that I want to point out from my experience:
- Men Are the Expendable Gender: Prevalent in the first three movies. In contrast to the 250+ men that John killed throughout the series, the number of female Mooks he has encountered could be literally counted on one hand: Ms. Perkins in the first film, Ares and the Violinist in the second, and the young assassin at Grand Central Station in the third. Of these characters, only the Grand Central assassin was a completely throwaway extra. John Wick: Chapter 4 tipped the balance and added many more female Mooks to go after John (and be gunned down in turn).
I think the Men Are the Expendable Gender trope itself being added as an example is fine but still as mentioned above I believe the balance isn't exactly been "tipped" within Chapter 4. I would like to rewrite it in someway or form, unfortunately I'm just simply not good with writing. I know there is a place called "Is This An Example" thread and should have visited that said thread myself but I'm not exactly sure when was the right time to ask this topic, so I honestly thought it would be better to ask here instead. I don't meant anything "bad" by it, I simply found this writing of "John Wick: Chapter 4 tipped the balance and added many more female Mooks to go after John (and be gunned down in turn)" part specifically questionable as well as pointing out the facts straight. Anyhow I want to hear another person's thoughts or opinion on this matter in regards to the Men Are the Expendable Gender trope?
Side note: I apologize in advance if I am wrong, or rather if this trope question being too trivial as this for a topic?
Edited by YatasumujiSenpairesolved Ultra Series - Found an eyebrow-raising YMMV post Live Action TV
The post in question goes like this here
:
- What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?: Some have criticized the franchise for supposedly having nationalistic anti-foreign sentiments, seeing the Japanese defense teams defending against various alien threats as paralleling Japan pushing away foreigners and foreign influence. Many point to the second episode of the original Ultraman as an example, where the Baltan aliens were fleeing refugees after they blew up their own planet.note Ignoring the fact that they were planning to enslave humanity and take the planet by force, and Science Patrol actually okayed the idea of the Baltans living on the planet so long as they abided Earth's laws (which the aliens refused). This is ignoring the many times that aliens were shown sympathetically (even as tragic victims of allegorical racismnote such as in episode 33 of Return of Ultraman, episode 25 of Ultraman Max, and many episodes of Ultraseven) and the main heroes, the Ultramen, are well... aliens. The Science Patrol is also shown to be an international organisation, the series just focuses on the Japanese branch.
The post ends up contradicting itself. Should it stay or be removed?
Edited by 9thOutworldsManresolved Replacing page image you put there yourself
Good day.
I was wondering: If you want to replace the page image of a page you launched that still has the page image you picked pre-launch, do you still have to start an Image Pickin' threat for it?
resolved Pre-show Debut Western Animation
What's the name for the Trope where a character first appears in some type of promotional picture or merchandise before their actual debut in the show itself?
resolved Question regarding Self Demonstrating Character Pages
Are there any rules I should know of before I start creating a Self Demonstrating Character Page from scratch?
Edited by Pikmin404resolved Alien: Romulus retcons Alien: Covenant? (Spoilers) Film
The page for Alien: Romulus says that it definitively retcons Ridley Scott's assertion that David-8 created the Xenomorphs in Alien: Covenant by revealing that the Xenomorphs contain the Engineers' black goo.
Fox has seen fit to largely ignore Ridley Scott's assertion that David created the Xenomorphs—at least in regards to the official TTRPG, which was written with the intent of integrating and streamlining all the "canon" material—but I'm not seeing anything in the film itself that contradicts what's shown in Alien: Covenant given that David very expressly used the Engineers' black goo to create the Xenomorphs shown there.
What should be done about those claims?

It's just a duplicate image on "Brave the Ride" Plot and Recap.Sponge Bob Square Pants S 5 E 6 Roller Cowards Bucket Sweet Bucket! And yet the mods keep locking my threads regarding that. That just screams misunderstanding!
I'll give everyone a choice here: Either you guys take care of the duplicate image, or I'll pull the "Brave the Ride" Plot image myself.