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 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 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 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 For myself.
I have made an article on The Prince and the Pauper from 2007.
[1]
◊
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 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 general site forum
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?
resolved Edit-warring over which image version to use for a character
A couple days ago I did a batch image addition and upgrade to The Apothecary Diaries — Named Clans. After I was done, ~C Ray reverted the image for Lahan to the one they had previously uploaded.
- original
by C Ray
- quality upgrade
by myself
- CRay reverts to their version
resolved Help with page? Anime
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Funny/MyDeerFriendNokotan
It's been super long since last edit and i can't fill up the page myself. Can anyone help out?
resolved New spammer
New troper milobanana
is spamming various pages with gibberish in a way that reads like a spammer and not just a confused newbie troper:
- i AM REA
- the blue man is here
- And whatever this
is.
resolved Possibly old Cartoon Network show where a female character is burned alive in a bonfire Western Animation
Hey everyone! I’ve been trying for years to figure out if a scene I saw as a kid was real or just a fever dream. I hope someone here can help me identify it.
What I remember:
I watched this episode sometime between 2016 and 2018, but I’m pretty sure the cartoon itself was much older, probably from the early/mid-2000s era (Billy and Mandy, Cow and Chicken, Courage the Cowardly Dog, etc.).
Channel: I’m almost certain it aired on Cartoon Network, but there’s a slight chance it might have been Nickelodeon.
The episode had an extremely dark and disturbing tone. The most vivid memory I have is of a female character (probably human) being thrown into a large bonfire by a group of other characters.
It happened at night, and the fire had huge flames. I distinctly remember her screams — they were loud, desperate, and very unsettling.
After she was burned, the other characters acted like it was normal — they seemed to be celebrating or socializing, totally unbothered.
The visual style was odd — it had low saturation, almost grayish tones. It stood out from typical colorful cartoons.
Art style: I can’t recall exactly, but it felt like something in between the smoother style of Teen Titans (2003) and more exaggerated cartoony animation.
I vaguely recall the girl begging or pleading before being thrown in, but nobody helped her.
What it wasn’t:
I’ve already checked and it’s definitely not: Billy and Mandy, Happy Tree Friends, Superjail!, or Courage the Cowardly Dog.
If this rings any bells, or if anyone remembers something similar, I’d really appreciate any leads — even if it turns out to be a lost episode, a banned scene, or just something obscure.
Thank you guys so much in advance!
Edited by ReconditeBoil434resolved Monster Strike needs a lot of help. Videogame
Monster Strike needs help for these reasons:
- Lacks tropes: Monster Strike has tons of characters, and thus a lot of tropes. The problem is there's TOO MANY of them. Just for reference, there's over 140 non-copied impossible+ characters (Impossible/Bakuzetsu/Gouzetsu/Reizetsu), assuming 1 trope for each character, that's still 140 tropes, and that's assuming only 1 trope for each characters and JUST these characters.
- Almost no one's contributing: for examples, the only contribution I have seen is from myself. Though this isn't much of a surprise because the game's very obscure outside of Japan, and I don't really see any Japanese tropers.
- Needs a split: Monster Strike is a multi media franchise with anime and video game. The problem is there's only the Video game namespace and not the anime.
- Needs extra namespaces: Currently there's only Tear Jerker, Wild Mass Guessing and Laconic namespaces.
- Monst Dictionary (provides backstory and lore for a good chunk of characters): https://dic.xflag.com/monsterstrike/
- Game official YouTube channel (could provide some Words of God and a few tropes): https://youtube.com/@monsterstrike
- Anime official YouTube channel (provides lore and tropes): https://youtube.com/@monst_animation
- Monster Strike wiki (English names and characters without Monst Dic profile): https://monster-strike-enjp.fandom.com/wiki/Monster_Strike_Wiki
resolved Page attracting drama importation
Due to recent allegations of rape against the content creator in question, the YMMV page for animation reviewer Saberspark has been attracting drama importation and edit disputes between multiple users. The edit history
has the details, but here's a quick summary:
- Jibanyan 641 added the following under Harsher in Hindsight:
- The Jayman 49 rewrote it to this:
- Corporal Pig 22 then added "(falsely)" before "accused" in the previous sentence.
- Blue Blazes then removed "(falsely)" and added "(though he denies the allegations), along with the fact Saber has come under scrutiny for his continued association with Black Gryph0n despite Gabriel currently having several allegations of grooming and child predation against him." after "2025".
- Rise from Your Grave then appended "and says in a response video that he is looking into legal avenues to deal with the situation" after "allegations".
Given all the drama, should this page be temporarily locked? Or is there another path that can be taken?
Edited by themayorofsimpletonresolved Somebody turned a proper wick into a disambig wick
Few days ago on WhatCouldHaveBeen.Hololive (as seen on this edit
), a troper somehow changed the Franchise.Devil May Cry wick into VideoGame.Devil May Cry... which doesn't make sense because the Franchise one is already the proper wick that doesn't need fixing or changing at all, while the VideoGame one creates a green wick that leads to a disambig page.
I'm making this ATT just to be safe, because I originally used the Franchise wick before on that example, and changing it back myself might somehow make others think it's an edit war. Also, this is the first time I've ever seen a troper turn a blue wick into a green disambig wick, and I'm not sure if it was intentional or accidental.
resolved Galthran Etruk's Voice Actor Videogame
A while ago the troper Recon Decon listed Lex Lang as the voice actor of Galthran Etruk from Dragon Rage. The problem with this is that all of the voice actors including Lex Lang are of the Unspecified Role Credit variety in the game. I have asked him to provide some sort of evidence to support this claim, but he's provided me with little than a link to a site that requires a membership to see
(I myself can't see it.) and Recon Decon hasn't responded to my messages since the 6th. Can a member to this site check this link and share what evidence is provided to support this claim?
P.S. I have since created a WMG page section dedicated to trying to figure out which voice actor voices which character.
Edited by RonnieR15resolved What's the "different things, different rules" trope called?
What's the trope called where different powers are subject to different rules, thus allowing the writers to make up whatever they want without creating inconsistencies?
For example, at 2:48 - 4:07 of this video: https://youtu.be/dWAkcrplBJ0?t=168
you can see Goku giving an overly-detailed explanation about how the Fusion Dance and Potara Earrings are two completely different things, and thus, we don't need a justification for why one works inside Majin Buu's body but the other doesn't. It's justified *because they're different,* and because they're both made up magical items, Toriyama can make up whatever rules he wants for each without contradicting himself, no matter how arbitrary those differences may seem otherwise.
Another example of this trope comes at 2:22 - 2:47 of this video: https://youtu.be/a_b8O4HMXTk?t=142
. In that episode, it was explained that the device Billy used last season to undo his de-aging had a belated side effect. This doesn't create an inconsistency with the other power rangers. Why aren't they also rapidly aging? Easy: Because they used the Zeo Crystal to reverse their de-aging, not the device powered by the old power coins. Different macguffin, therefore, different rules apply. No further explanation necessary.
An example where this DOESN'T apply can be found at 19:05 - 19:25 of this video: https://youtu.be/gcSRUZ0oNq0?t=1145
. Billy explains he can't become the Gold Ranger because, when the Command Center blew up, he absorbed a large amount of [insert random technobabble here], causing his body to resist the Gold Ranger powers.
But that doesn't make one bit of sense. At 7:07 - 7:17 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cynLGdMWoVs&t=427s
, Billy explains that the Gold Ranger powers are identical to the Zeo powers the other rangers already had. They were standing in the exact same spot when the Command Center blew up, and yet they were able to accept the Zeo Powers at the start of the series without any problems.
So, this is a case where it's NOT "different things," and therefore, it should follow that you can't just make up an explanation for one character that doesn't also apply to the others. It's the same powers, and the same explanation for why Billy couldn't take them should also apply to the other rangers. So the writers really dropped the ball in that little exchange.
So what is this writing trope called, where you can quickly and easily explain away seemingly arbitrary treatment on the grounds that different mystical and/or sci-fi macguffins were used?
resolved How to not turn this accidentally into an edit war
This will be a complex one, so bear with me for a moment.
Tief Blau cut from YMMV.Roadwarden entry describing Serial Numbers Filed Off. No edit reason, no nothing, just slashed it. That was my own entry, so re-instating it would be an edit war.
I started discussion, asking for reason. No answer. I can't PM them (don't ask) to summon them, either. And on top of that, TiefBlau did a grand total of 4 edits across past 7 years, so I sincerely doubt they will show up any time soon anyway.
What to do then? I don't know why the entry was cut, I can't put it back as it was and I don't know what to change in it to make it valid (assuming it was invalid in the first place and not cut on a whim).
So what's the procedure here?
.
PS
If there is something at fault with the entry itself
, then help a bloke fix it and thus it will be a non-issue for potential edit-warring
resolved Preventing edit war from continuing Film
The troper ~Remnant 43 has been repeatedly adding Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist to the villain Remmick's character sheet on Sinners (2025). They first did so here
, giving an edit reason. I disagree with the use of the trope and others did too as another troper, ~Wet Flannels altered the trope back to Well-Intentioned Extremist here
. Remnant altered it back once again here
with a frankly rude and accusatory edit reason this time.
This feels rather like the issue we ran into with one troper insisting Charles zi Britannia from Code Geass was a Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist based on the work's protagonist's line about him being selfish. A villain can be selfish and have a god complex. Well-Intentioned Extremist just requires they believe in what they're saying and this applies to Remmick. He's absorbing people in his vampire Hive Mind and wants to recreate his lost culture but he repeatedly states it will be a happy world, he believes in equality and Remnant's arguments hit of trying to play up the fact he has negative traits to allege his good intentions are wholly shut down, which isn't the case.
That's my stance at least, the much bigger problem is Remnant continually re-adding the trope and their attitude given in their latest edit reason.
Thoughts?
Edited by PassingThrough

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.