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 Tux1
Tux 1
's edits are...kind of odd.
resolved Do self-demonstrating pages get Laconics? Print Comic
Laconic.The Joker is a laconic for SelfDemonstrating.The Joker. Is this allowed?
resolved Potential edit war over the same example
In this query
, I reported Stellavore for removing an example with a rude edit reason
that had more to do with the trope name being changed than the example itself. The example was restored
, and Stellavore has removed it again
.
resolved Possible ROCEJ pattern
nm3youtube has made a few edits lately that may be worth looking into for their potential ROCEJ-ness.
- On this page
, they turned this paragraph:
- While Belos was already feared as an authoritarian dictator his motives of being an anti-witch zealot and his abuse of Hunter make him far more terrifying, due to the abuse the real people face under religious households, and the atrocities committed in their name.
- into this (a lot more religiously/politically charged):
- While Belos was already feared as an authoritarian dictator his motives of being an anti-witch zealot and his abuse of Hunter make him far more terrifying, due to the abuse real people—especially LGBT people, who are readily accepted in the Boiling Isles, and people with interests their family considers "Satanic"—which is potentially everything even alluding to the concept of magic—face under fundamentalist religious households, and the atrocities both historical and modern religious zealots have committed in their God's name.
- Here
, as part of a Values Dissonance page, they changed a simple "...especially in The New '10s" to "...especially in The New '10s when J. K. Rowling's increasingly outspoken transphobia caused people to start paying attention to the series' politics".
- Then there's this (rather irrelevant) note they added to an entry on a SBIH page
:
- which became Hilarious in Hindsight when Russian dictator Vladimir Putin compared the shunning of Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine to the controversy surrounding J. K. Rowling's outspoken transphobia, forcing Rowling to explicitly distance herself from him
resolved digeraddd
Spinning off from this ATT thread
, digeraddd
has several glaring editing problems dating back to when they first started editing in 2018 and continuing to this day. The linked thread mentions that the page they created is full of Shameless Self-Promotion, unlinked tropes, non-tropes, and trope misuse (and that they have added their self-promotion to other pages (at least one of which has been cut), but it doesn't end there. There's also:
- Several cases of natter/justifying edits (such as on this page
.
- Changing somebody's pronouns from they to he (after it was stated that they go by they/them pronouns)
.
- Their Shameless Self-Promotion reaching pages that don't even have anything to do with Youtube, podcasts, or gaming
.
- Their habit of adding non-tropes and/or with no link (and potential trope misuse) is not limited to the page they created that's mentioned in the ATT thread.
- Some edits that are just
...what (even ones that are made and then immediately undone still exist in the page history)?
resolved Fanfic Recs self removal
On FanficRecs.Total Drama, one poster removed the recommendations they previously made for fics due to issues they have with the original work’s production company. Is this allowed?
resolved Fan-made novelisation shares the name with source material
If there's a fan-made novelisation for video game (which shares the name with source material), how to name the page for it to prevent if from showing up as subpage for the game itself?
Or just add either "fanfic" or author's nick in the link, and then use WikiWord?
resolved Collaborative Works and Auto-Erotic Troping
I think it's time for me to finally face the music on this one.
About ten years ago, my fellow Dino Attack RPG players and I created the RPG's page here on TV Tropes. In addition to cataloging many tropes from the RPG itself (across four trope pages and multiple character pages), we also created YMMV pages (including awesome, heartwarming, tearjerker, and nightmare fuel subpages) and a Trivia page. Back then, most of us had simply browsed TV Tropes for fun and weren't aware of all the rules and policies.
Recently, I've had to take more time to better familiarize myself with TV Tropes' rules. One such policy that I've seen brought up here in Ask The Tropers is Auto-Erotic Troping for works that you've created. Basically, the key point here is "No Audience Reactions" and "No Trivia that can't be individually researched". The latter seems easy enough; just make sure there's a public source that can verify whatever is added to the Trivia page. But the former... where does it stand with a collaborative work, such as an RPG with Loads and Loads of Writers?
Even before seeing this policy, I tended to be mindful of any YMMV entries that I'd add. Essentially, I would only add my own reactions to things other players had written, or other players' reactions to things I had written. For example, Dr. Michelle Glados is a character I wrote, but her entry under Complete Monster is based directly upon a comment
from another player. Meanwhile, I added entries for Kotua as That One Boss and Plastic Serpent as Unintentionally Sympathetic, which are my own personal reactions to characters written by other players. However, this is not always the case, especially in older YMMV entries from ten years ago, or with Hilarious in Hindsight (where I confess that I've been adding some entries based on my own writings without other peoples' reactions, largely because the actual "audience reaction" aspect of the trope is loosely applied at best).
I am willing to cull the RPG's YMMV pages if they aren't outright cut in order to meet TV Tropes policy. But first, I just want to know whether my "only trope writer reactions to other writers" rule of thumb is kosher under Auto-Erotic Troping collaborative works, or if I've been doing this all wrong for the past ten years. Please advise.
resolved AuthorAppeal - reusing characters? Print Comic
I'm seeing a few examples where tropers have added the Author Appeal trope because writers have reused familiar / favourite characters in shared-universe comics. For example, from the new ComicBook.Defenders Beyond works page:
- Author Appeal: The new Defenders roster is comprised almost entirely of characters Ewing's either created (Taaia) or written before, from Mighty Avengers and The Ultimates to Loki: Agent of Asgard.
As per the trope page, Author Appeal is "a particular gimmick or kink is so widespread and prominent that it is interpreted as a specific reason the creator actually produced the work".
I can see how that might be applied to an attribute of the characters - although that seems to veer closer to Creator Thumbprint unless it goes into kink territory.
But simply reusing existing characters, whether or not the writer created them, doesn't feel like it fits.
I'd originally asked the same question on the discussion page for the trope itself, but didn't get an answer - flagging it here just to ensure I'm not misunderstanding before I delete someone's work (I don't see a more appropriate trope to move it to?).
Thanks!
Edited by Mrph1resolved Bad Sequelitis Entry on YMMV Total War Warhammer III Videogame
A while back, there was an Edit War ATT concerning the Sequelitis entry on Total War: Warhammer III. See here
. I don't disagree that it was Edit Warring, but what got lost in that discussion is that the offending entry is genuinely bad, violates a number of rules and is very outdated compared to the current state of the game. For context here is the current entry as it stands on that page.
- Sequelitis: It was very clear that the team developing this game and the team maintaining the previous game either disagreed heavily or just weren't coordinating as much of the fixes, patches, updates, and design evolutions that made the previous game so popular were not present at the launch of this one. The game shifted back in favor of things that were either patched out of or specifically avoided in the previous game resulting in a launch that many fans agree was a major step backwards.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
. It's widely theorized that the core of the game was forked off an older build of the previous game before the big Potion of Speed update and thus never received most of the multitude of fixes, patches, and updates present in that patch and subsequent ones.
- The skill and tech trees for many factions are poorly-executed, with many technologies or skills that range from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). Several skills and technologies also don't do what the description says they do, making it hard to know what bonus you're actually getting. On top of this, some factions have their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies (such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology), something that was specifically hated about the Greenskins in the first game and removed from them with a series of reworks in the second. Patch 1.2 focused heavily on beefing up factions' tech trees, mitigating this.
- While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords to level 50 they didn't necessarily give them any more skills, meaning some heroes can get more skill points than they can spend; Iridescent Horrors with the Lore of Tzeentch, for example, can only spend 47 due to having mutually-exclusive skills, and even if they didn't would only have 49. This was previously only a problem with mods and those modders had solved the problem early in the first game's lifecycle.
- Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI is both less appealing and harder to read due to the overemphasis on the color red compared to the previous game's more vibrant interface. A common source of frustration is that the colors for many different functions are effectively the same, making it impossible to quickly distinguish if a settlement is, for example, building a structure or demolishing it.
- The campaign that launched with the game, Realm of Chaos, doubled down on the elements players hated about the second game's Vortex campaign (particularly the time pressure and the random invasions) without making many improvements, ignoring well-received diversification of faction objectives and stories from the previous game's DLC packs. See Scrappy Mechanic for more details on why the Reign of Chaos campaign mechanics are especially loathed. The reception of this campaign was so bad Creative Assembly had to delay their first planned update and rush out Patch 1.1 specifically to address it.
- The series has long had a reputation for amazing mods that expand and improve on the game in a myriad of ways. This game did not launch with Steam Workshop support and went without for two months until the 1.1 update.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
And here is my critique of this entry and its sub-bullets, breaking it down by the elements.
1. For starters this entry really shouldn't be broken down into multiple sub-bullets. They give the appearance of a Wall of Text. A single bullet that's Clear, Concise, Witty is preferable.
2. ""Poorly Optimized" is an understatement" etc.: The video link can stay but the words inside it should be rewritten and the rest of the paragraph should be cut. One half is hyperbolic Word Cruft with unnecessary italics, the other is pure speculation.
3. "The skill and tech trees for many factions" etc.: The points can stand but the bracketed text should be moved into Notes to make the paragraph more concise. Also, the text may need to be put into past tense as the subbullet itself admits CA have been working on this, though I think it should go as I would rather keep that element for last.
4. "While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords" etc.: The point is valid, but IMO we can reduce this to a single sentence or even a fragment of one. e.g. CA raised the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50, but some characters don't have enough room for that many skill points.
5. "Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI" etc.: Can delete. The point is valid but they directly addressed it in a later patch which means it should go under Author's Saving Throw. At most a fragment of a sentence like "issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red".
6. "The campaign that launched with the game" etc.: Valid but needs compression and to remove the reference to Scrappy Mechanic which is considered bad form. A single sentence should do it.
7. "The series has long had a reputation" etc.: Delete. Yes it was frustrating but it's been addessed.
So with all these in mind, a revised version of the entry as I see it would go something like this:
- Sequelitis: At launch, the game was very divisively and even negatively received for feeling like a step backwards after the much-lauded final state of Total War: Warhammer II. Reasons for this include a large host of glitches, bugs and programming errors
that made it feel unpolished, complaints about poor choices for skillnote Ranging from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). and technology treesnote Some factions had their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies, such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology. for certain races, CA raising the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50 but not accounting for characters who didn't have enough skills to accommodate 49 skill points, issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red, not launching with built-in support for Game Mods like its predecessors did, which might have mitigated some people's complaints about it, and worst of all, a base game campaign that was almost universally derided for loathsome mechanics, an irritating amount of time pressure and homogenising the storylines and campaign goals of the factions featured, making people who hated the how the Vortex campaign in the second game started out before DLC packs brought diversification of faction objectives and stories cry, "Oh, No... Not Again!" Fortunately, CA have since worked hard to address all these issues throught game patches and their first DLC pack, which has led to the game getting a much more positive reception.
Note this is not the final form I would put it in, I just needed to make something for this, but I also wanted to achieve consensus before I posted it. Thoughts?
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved Questionable cut reason for CowboyBebopAtHisComputer/ZeroPunctuation
A while back, I restored the cut Critical Research Failure page for Zero Punctuation under Cowboy BeBop at His Computer, since the former ended up being disambiguated.
Since then however, the page got cut with a reason that I really don't think adds up, nor do I think received much in the way of consensus from the discussion page linked in the cut reason. I grant you, I was initially not going to raise this, since unlike the time when the CRF variant was cut, it tried to explain why it was misuse. But the explanation doesn't add up to me:
"Page is all misuse as CBAHC is about/goes under the works errors are made of, not the works making the errors."
The wording on this explanation is rather poor in and of itself (as the one reply in the cut reason's cited discussion thread alludes to) but on top of that, I've no idea what it's trying to get at after reading it carefully. Fundamentally, Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is, as the laconic page says, "when a source gets basic facts wrong about a work", and nowhere on the page does it mention anything resembling what the cut reason mentions.
On close examination, maybe the cut reason is saying that the error example should go on the page for the work rather than the work talking about the work, but not only does nothing on the CBAHC page specify this, but that's honestly a rather poor way of doing things if we trope reviewers and if it's the only option. Another part of me thinks that the key phrase is "facts about works", but that puts into question the idea that "all" the examples were misuse, considering what was on that page.
Based on the above and the minimal feedback in the discussion thread cited in the cut reason, I believe the page's cutting was unjustified, but I'd like other thoughts on this just in case I'm reading into the wrong thing.
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved LGBT Fanbase example concerns
i am once again bothering tvt about hideri /s
so the LGBT Fanbase example on YMMV.Blend S lists that gender-nonconforming and transfem fans really like hideri (after a bit of tweaking from me, since the entry used to only list that GNC fans like them), but as far as i'm aware the common consensus on the wiki is that crossdressing and gender-nonconformity in general doesn't automatically equal LGBTQ+, and i feel like that part of the entry could be trimmed off considering that.
however, i'm a bit worried about doing so myself since it could come off as agenda-based, seeing that it's. not really a secret that i'm very much in the "transfem hideri" camp when it comes to the character in question, so i'm coming here for consensus. what do
Edited by worldwidewoomyresolved Character pages - navbox 'index' links and crossreferencing? Print Comic
Are there any guidelines for start of page navbox 'indexing' (the cross-referencing wikilink kind, rather than [[index]] tagging) on Character pages, for the cases where a work or franchise has a huge number of characters across a large number of sub-pages?
Looking at Characters.X Men Arakko (and the other X-Men Characters pages), I count 19 lines of links in the navbox before the page itself starts, mapping out approximately 50 different X-Men character pages. Presumably that also needs to be updated on all 50(ish) of the character pages any time it changes.
That's not an exhaustive list either, as it doesn't directly link to some of the single-character pages or the works-specific pages for particular comic books.
Most of these characters range across the wider franchise, appearing in multiple Marvel Universe comics and webcomics, so are not specific to any one comic series and their Characters page names don't mirror a particular works page.
(It's also using WMG tagging, which I’m not used to seeing outside of WMG pages, but I’m assuming that's not a problem?)
Looking at other sprawling franchises -
- Characters.Star Wars takes a different approach, with a single link back to the top-level page - e.g. as seen on Characters.Star Wars High Republic Era Jedi.
- Characters.Star Trek uses a much shorter list of links on subpages, mapping back to the relevant series (e.g. on Characters.Star Trek Deep Space Nine Federation And Bajor)- but its characters tend to be series-specific so it doesn't have quite the same structural challenge.
Is this approach fine 'as is', should it be condensed/removed in a similar way to Star Trek & Star Wars, or can it be streamlined in a different way (e.g. hide it in a folder to save space)?
Thanks!
EDIT: Edited to fix terminology and make navbox references clearer.
Edited by Mrph1resolved Should we prioritize Canon Names for protagonists that can be named anything by the player? Videogame
What's the standard here? In I Was a Teenage Exocolonist, the game suggests naming your character Solane/Solana/Solanaceae, implying that either of the three's their Canon Name if you don't name them yourself. However, in all its pages, they have been referred to as either "Sol", "the protagonist", "the MC", or "you". Do we stick to one name/identifier for them, or are all of them "correct"?
resolved Regarding conflicting external sources... Web Original
Hello. It took me a while to get my mind on about this, but I would like to politely ask question to get help.
It's about Fire Emblem on Forums - I was trying to do a little editting as can be shown here.
However, after than there is this edit, which says that the GM actually said that the game has not been completed.
After a bit of reviewing, I would assume they're right, I just realize that there are two contradicting possible external sources for this.
First, the source that came from the hub page
shows the game as completed, however, the actual game itself is indeed not yet marked as completed
. I think while it's external source and I can't help about it right now, I would like to mention the fact that a contradiction that has confused me was indeed present.
I'm sorry for having to point this, it might seem minor but it has mislead me into typing error. Forgive me for the incorrect edit, but the troper "IcyTea" and the person who told them are actually correct, so I'll just respect and accept their edit decision for now.
So the only problem here is trying to confirm. The latter edit is more preferable, right? I'm aware that I cannot re-edit it back because that would been an edit war that can be punished. I'm just unsure, and apologizes if this case wasn't that simple. I promise that the intent is to clarify and help. Thank you for understanding.
resolved An assortment of editing issues and potential rape apologia
Marianabelle is more-or-less solely responsible for creating and editing Without Her Consent and its associated subpages. They have also displayed quite a few issues when editing the subpages of this work alone, including poor spelling and grammar, trope misuse, putting non-YMMV tropes on the YMMV page, and more.
What changed my train of thought from "They really need notifiers sent to them" to "This really should be reported on ATT" was the content of their edits, particularly on the YMMV page. A (likely unapproved) Complete Monster entry that is somehow combined with Freudian Excuse (which they even made a separate entry for), a Jerks Are Worse Than Villains entry that suggests that a selfish Manchild is more loathed by the audience than a Serial Rapist, and more (and this is just on the YMMV page). I felt the need to bring this up because things like a Complete Monster entry for a Serial Rapist that starts with "Doubles as Freudian Excuse" pushes the page too far into rape apologia territory.
And then there's the Fridge and WMG entries that push the narrative that the Serial Rapist will still get away in the end by somehow winning a court case despite being found guilty of rape, even going so far as to say that he will sue the police for negligence and somehow win. Further still, there's graphic detail in the Headscratchers section theorizing as to how the rape scene was "supposed" to play out and meta headscratchers that go way too far into ROCEJ territory.
Edited by UFOYeahresolved Problematic Wall of Text example Web Original
I originally raised this on the Wall of Text cleanup thread
, but it's had no reply for two weeks, so I decided to raise it here.
On the YMMV page for Crash Thompson, there's this lengthy sub-bullet listed under Broken Base:
- Crash's tendency to put certain albums at #1 on his "Worst of" lists that others felt weren't nearly as deserving of the spot as others. Many were surprised that Doug Walker's Wall parody album was even included on the list at all considering very few people even cared about it and many saw the segment as little more then an excuse for Crash to vent about his own disillusionment with Channel Awesome (which he applied to in the past), likewise in the "Worst of 2020" list some thought Crash was stretching by calling the "Living the Dream" music video for Five Finger Death Punch as being "anti-masker", and him trying to use a select few Youtube comments as an excuse to condemn the whole band as being rather unfair, not to mention Crash's repeated insults towards the band's own fans over the years in his reviews of their albums has led some to believe that he just wanted an excuse to rant about the band again and that accusing them of causing deaths was going too far, not to mention impossible to factually prove (plus seeing blaming a band for something that a few of their fans do as rather unfair), not to mention Crash slagging the band for their views (or at least what he thought they were) and penalizing them for it by putting them at #1 came off as hugely hypocritical to some considering he put Deftones "Ohms" on his "best" list despite one of their members (guitarist Stephen Carpenter) outright revealing himself to be not only an anti-vaxxer/anti-masker but a flat-earther as well (in addition to a whole bunch of other crazy conspiracy theory nonsense), yet Crash didn't penalize their album in the same way. For what it's worth, Crash himself later admitted in one of the "Rock Coliseum" videos that he regretted going as hard on both albums as he did, admitting that even if they were bad they weren't really worth all the anger he directed at them.
Originally, I was aiming to heavily gut this example due to its reliance on weasel words and what I initially interpreted as reaching for complaining via an appeal to hypocrisy (an appeal to hypocrisy which isn't even accurate even with the later context, considering that Crash actually did speak out against Carpenter in the same "best of" video). Other than maybe removing the attempt at drawing a double standard concerning Ohms, I'm wondering how exactly this can be trimmed to be easier on the eyes and less complain-y, if not cut completely.
Edited by Akriloth2160resolved Potential edit war
A Leaning on the Fourth Wall example was added to this page
that mentions that "a character considers himself to live in a story in which he's the main character". Because that sounds more like Medium Awareness than anything, I changed the trope name, while also cleaning up other mistakes on the page. The same troper who added the example changed the trope name back
to Leaning on the Fourth Wall because (paraphrased) "The character doesn't truly know he lives in a story. He just like to imagine he does."
Leaving aside how I was supposed to know the difference, would this be considered an edit war? The troper in question didn't PM me or add anything on the discussion page, they just changed the example back to how it was when they added it (even if it was just the name being changed).
Edited by UFOYeahresolved Potential citation edit war
Vindicator Wes added this example
to an upcoming work. When it was commented out under the "no citation" rule
. Vindicator Wes uncommented it out with no other change
to the example. They claimed "it was clarified in the press release" in the edit reason, but nothing in the example itself suggests this.

I was checking out the King Richard page, and noticed that Troper ovskii
added further information on Win Back the Crowd in the YMMV.King Richard page. The entry originally spoke solely about Will Smith's performance earning back respect from fans and critics after having a spotty filmography as of late. The information that was added earlier today by ovskii has entirely to do with the Oscars controversy.
Since (1) the Oscars just happened this past Sunday — not even a week has passed as of this original post — and I've seen various ATT posts and forum posts here on TVTropes discussing how the controversy is still too soon and recent to say anything about Smith's legacy, and (2) the added information is irrelevant to Smith's performance itself, should that added information still be there, or should it be deleted?
Here is the information added by ovskii: "[...] Sadly, and completely independent of his performance, his popularity dropped dramatically on the very night of his Oscar win, due to him assaulting Chris Rock on stage over a joke about his wife, which then led to Smith resigning from the Academy in shame a few days later."
UPDATE: To any moderator who sees this: request to close out this post as resolved?
Edited by mouschilight