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 Someone is edit warring on UnintentionallyUnsympathetic/TheSimpsons
On the Unintentionally Unsympathetic page for The Simpsons, there is a header for the examples that belong to the members of the Simpsons family, that would read 'Pretty much every member of the Simpsons family (except Bart and Maggie) has come across as this at some point or another.'.
Two days ago, I noticed that the user Brian KT had removed the mention of Bart that excludes him from being counted as Unintentionally Unsympathetic, claiming that there must have been some episodes where Bart came off as such without even adding any examples of him being so.
I then added the mention of Bart back, pointing out that there aren't currently any examples of him being Unintentionally Unsympathetic listed on the page, hence why he's being excluded.
Earlier today, I discovered that Brian KT has once again removed the mention of Bart, still without adding any examples of him being Unintentionally Unsympathetic and has thus started an edit war. Since I can't change it back again, as that would also count as edit warring, I've decided to bring this here.
P.S. Just wondering, after this gets resolved, will I be able to add the mention of Bart back myself or would it still count as me edit warring?
Edited by CorvusIXresolved Removing a re-added MemeticLoser entry
I’ve already brought this to the ‘Memetic X Cleanup’ thread, but since that thread hasn’t seen much use in the past month, I’ve decided to also bring this here in the hopes that this can get resolved quicker.
Yesterday I found this Memetic Loser entry on the YMMV Mortal Kombat 1 page:
- Kotal continues this trend too. His sole mention in the game's story mode is a line where he lost to Raiden offscreen.
I had previously removed this entry as, while he may have been a Memetic Loser in the previous game, not only was Kotal not the only character Raiden defeated offscreen (two other characters, Sheeva and Motaro, were also listed among those that Raiden had defeated offscreen and even then it’s stated that Raiden had also defeated many others besides them, those three were just the only ones to get name-dropped) but the fanbase itself has not singled out Kotal’s loss specifically, in fact this throwaway line has barely even been talked about by the fanbase at all thus far.
However I saw that someone has recently re-added and reworded the entry without an edit reason. As the person who removed it initially, I obviously think that the entry should be removed again for the reasons that I’ve described, especially since no reason was given for adding it back.
Edited by CorvusIXresolved YouAreNotAlone page
Self-Demonstrating content on You Are Not Alone was added back after previously being removed.
resolved A troper added information that is irrelevant / too early to tell Film
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 mouschilightresolved Author's saving throw misuse/concern
So, after talking about it
on "Is this an example?", on the advice of a mod I decided to come here. I'm pretty much echoing what I write over on "Is this an example?" but...here's what's up.
I'm a bit concerned about a trope under the category of Author's Saving Throw. As I was going through the trope page a few months ago, I noticed Misterian wrote the following a while ago:
- The first two chapters of RayFox faced some criticism 4 years later for its narrative expecting readers to sympathize with the citizens and authorities of Meva City for persecuting and vilifying Ray as an arsonist and terrorist despite not knowing (or seemingly not trying to look into) the full story of Ray's vigilante exploits simply on the basis of "he broke the law and destroyed property, so it warrants consequences" with little to no nuance, especially regarding why he did. Chapter 4 shifts the narrative from Ray joining S.O.S. to atone to the authorities extending the offer to him out of recognition for the lives he's saved and sees his help as something desperately needed, with implications that the public have grown suspicious of the accusations against Ray. The S.O.S. is friendlier and open-minded toward Ray in contrast to previous chapters, with some seeking further details from Ray about the Meva Arsenal incident. The end of Chapter 4 fully cemented this with Rayfox upstaging a public speech held by Morales to fully explain who he is, the powers he possesses, and what he's been doing, Making clear his goals to improve himself as a crime fighter he's forming at own request rather than anyone shaming him for his apparent disregard for the law, as if the author has taken to fully embracing the viewing of Ray as an earnest aspiring hero rather than the young careless vigilante the previous chapters tried to portray him as.
At the time, I had tried to trim it down so that it was more laconic, but he added a whole lot more while putting it on the comic page via edit requests, and now I'm beginning to wonder if it actually is valid; almost feels as if it's a bit "braggy" on the troper's part, as if he feels the author suddenly changed the narrative of the story because of 3 reviews on the Tropes page.
Regardless of my gripes with the comic, this seems like a rather inaccurate use of the trope. Unlike with stuff like Unintentionally Sympathetic/Unsympathetic, it would have taken a good chunk of the audience vocally criticizing it for this particular trope in question to count, and given that the audience isn't really that big or publicly vocal in general (with the exception of his fans, and even then, they aren't 100% present from what I've seen), it doesn't feel like it applies. I'm very tempted to remove from both the trope page and the comic page via edit requests, but I dunno.
I can confirm that there is no ill-intent behind this, only a simple misunderstanding of the trope and what it really means. But still, I would like to get this taken down.
EDIT: After speaking with the original writer of the entry, it seems we agree that the entry doesn't fit the trope. As for the comic page, I still have to get a consensus for that to actually be removed.
Edited by Stardust5099resolved Characterization tag removal plugin
On 11 September, NES Boy ran a plugin on the Ret-Gone page which erased all characterization tags... by removing everything after the tag, which certainly wasn't their intent. Oddly enough, this edit also changed the past-tense "retgonned" to "retgonne", which itself indicates use of a plugin.
resolved Edit requests from Web Creators:
A while ago, Adam Buckley himself requested that this particular edit be made to the Berserk Button entry on his page:
- ENTITLED IDIOTS note Bolded and enlarged as per his request here
- ENTITLED IDIOTS note Bolded and enlarged as per his request here
How do I expand this particular zero context example without breaking "The Fic May Be Yours, but the Trope Page Is Ours"?
I'm thinking something like:
- Buckley has no patience for ENTITLED IDIOTS who believe that they should get whatever they want whenever they demand it.
resolved Nostalgia Critic Awesome Moments Web Original
On the Nostalgia Critic Awesome Moments page, there is a bit of conflict over whether this example from the Blues Brothers 2000 review should be included: "The Critic's constant tearing into Blues Brothers 2000 for being a severe downgrade of the original. He even goes out of character at a few points, one in which he interrupts his "Fuckital" ad to show the statue of The Blues Brothers atop the Hollywood Blvd. Theater to show how the original movie is such a symbol of Chicago." Some people said this shouldn't be included because in the skit, there was a Black Comedy bit where one of the characters overdoses on the "Fuckital" and is implied to have died, with them saying that it shouldn't be an awesome moment because the Critic was more concerned with a bad movie than someone else's life. While in-universe, it may be the Critic being selfish, from a meta perspective, the creator, Doug Walker was making a statement about the movie's poor quality and calls out how it fails to live up to the original film. So should it be included?
Edited by costanton11resolved A strangely added YMMV trope question?
Recently found this trope from the YMMV for the western animation movie Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole.
- Complete Monster: Metal Beak, real name Surtr, is a savage owl and the leader of the Pure Ones. Embarking on a war of conquest to kill all who oppose him, Metal Beak is fond of "moonblinking" victims, turning them into mindless slaves and robbing them of their identities, with even children subjected to the process. His intention behind enslaving them is to use magical flecks to set up a trap to kill all of the Guardians and moonblinked owls by draining their blood with bats after their gizzards are severely weakened, using his traitorous spy Allomere to lead them to certain death. When Allomere is no longer needed, Metal Beak leaves him to be devoured by the bats after falsely promising to make him King of the Great Tree, and later on attempts to kill the hero Soren in front of his sworn nemesis and Soren's teacher, Lyze of Kiel, out of little more than savage spite.
- Video game: Allomere is a traitor to his people and the true villain of Shard's quest. Long ago having secretly aligned with the Pure Ones in the name of power, Allomere paved the way for the Pure Ones to slaughter the Glauxian monastery, which Allomere framed the innocent Grettir for. Allomere then hunted down and killed Grettir and his mate to silence all loose ends, narrowly prevented from claiming the life of Grettir's son Shard, too. Years later, Allomere continues to serve the Pure Ones' purposes and give them inside info that helps their wicked plans to enslave and moonblink all owlets. Allomere reveals himself as the traitor by trying to trap and murder a large group of heroic Guardians, and when confronted by Shard, Allomere smugly boasts of his hand in the deaths of Shard's parents.
Any thoughts or suggestions on this?
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 Fire Emblem edit war
- Dimitri from Fire Emblem: Three Houses. He is meant to be the closest to a traditional Fire Emblem lord. But even without his Sanity Slippage over the timeskip, some fans think that his heroic traits have setbacks that make him the very opposite of what those traits should make him. Even though his Ax-Crazy mindset for the first half of Part II is supposed to be wrong, many think that it is sloppily done because the cataclyst for it is him believing Edelgard caused the Tragedy of Duscur through small steps that come across as illogical, and that it happened when she was only 13 years old which is something he never thinks twice about until Cornelia drops some hints that leads him off from suspecting Edelgard. And even though he does eventually make attempts to better himself and atone for what he has done, it's seen as him being Easily Forgiven despite how mean he had been to his friends up until that point and that someone close to him such as Rodrigue had to die for it to happen. His overall goals is probably the biggest point against him, which is to keep Fódlan as it was before the war started and make changes in a slow but steady pace to prevent unnecessary sacrifices or upsetting the people, since he thinks the nobility and crests still have values. Many find this to be in incredibly poor taste when so much about the game's story is about showing how the current system has made Fódlan into the Crapsack World it is that brings harm to both nobles and commoners and is the exact thing Edelgard started the war against. And even if Dimitri were to install changes, who's to say they won't just as easily be undone by a future ruler, setting the world back to what it was before the game started? Even if that might happen somewhere down the line in every lords' ending, it is the easiest for Dimitri's reforms to be undone since it was so easy for him to install them, as opposed to the other endings where radical reforms are introduced and therefore is gonna be harder.
Ruderruby added this, Jamesjamm deleted citing "As another troper explained when removing this from the YMMV page, this is misuse as the only truly villainous acts are the Sanity Slippage the entry acknowledges is portrayed as wrong, and since Three Houses runs on Grey And Gray Morality, none of the lords can be said to be designated heroes since they’re antagonists on routes that aren’t theirs", Ruderruby added it back without explanation.
Thoughts on the matter?
resolved Need help parsing "Crippling Overspecialization" Entries
This morning, a new user, ~amybranch posted a handful of Crippling Overspecialization entries on Characters.Dungeons And Dragons Classes Fifth Edition Classes, describing a few classes (namely the Barbarian and Monk) as suffering from this. I disputed them because to me, their descriptions seemed very misleading and off-base for what qualifies as Crippling Overspecialization: they're focused entirely on having nerfs between the 2024 and 2014 rules while ignoring their side buffs, as well as their holistic design — they're painted as "only" good as combat classes in ideal combat scenarios despite that being kind of the intent of their design.
I removed most of the entries
because these examples didn't illustrate being "crippling" or even "overspecialized" to the degree that the trope warrants, but they were added back just now
with this edit reason:
That doesn't sound right, right? I don't think a character being as equally weak to certain types of damage as other charactersRef."2024 Barbarians are resilient against enemies that only deal bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, and especially vulnerable to anything else." constitutes "crippling", or that a class explicitly about specializing in a particular form of combat is "overspecialization"Ref.While describing the Bare-Fisted Monk class, "The result is a class that's good at running up to enemies and punching them...and very bad at anything else.". The fact these character are — anecdotally speaking from my experiences in the community — generally seen as pretty strong, makes me really have to tilt my head as to where this is coming from, and so I'd like some extra eyes here to help judge these examples.
Edited by number9roboticresolved Is spoilering out an entire example fine with the spoiler policy? Western Animation
So I noticed on both WesternAnimation.K Pop Demon Hunters and YMMV.K Pop Demon Hunters that the same troper, ReginaldOgron5, edited two separate entries for the same reason: they're both completely
spoilered out
(though for the YMMV example I can at least understand a little more, with the Fan Wank explanation).
My concern is... there's multiple other completely spoilered out examples on both of those pages? And the thing is, not only are both of those examples not Self Fulfilling Spoilers, but they're also... actual spoilers that should be spoilered?
So I'm just wondering... is this correct? Is a completely spoilered out example fine?
Edited by Eisnerresolved I'm not sure if Visions of Mana counts as an example of Screwed by the Network...
I saw someone added the trivia to the game
in light of the studio that developed it getting shut down upon release. From my understanding, SbtN is for works that have been negatively affected as a result of Executive Meddling and such. Thus, Visions can only work as an example if Studio Ouka's closing will have a direct negative impact on its sales, marketing, etc. which is too early to tell. Because as far as everyone knows at this point, the game itself has been completed and polished before the studio's closure. Is there a more appropriate trivia for this? I don't think Creator Killer works either, because from the information gathered, the reason NetEase closed Studio Ouka had no direct connection to the game, just another corporate cost cutting measure.
EDIT: Someone else deleted the entry shortly after I brought the subject here, citing no confirmation. That said, everything seems to point towards a forthcoming closure as noted by reports
.
resolved Interruption by (possible) Trojan
I'm browsing a page on the site, when suddenly, the tab I'm on changes from TV Tropes to what seems to be a page for Norton Antivirus Software. A popup then appears, showing that apparently, my computer has five computer viruses, and that my Norton contract has expired. But here's the rub; I'm from England, which doesn't have Norton available (as far as I know). So, I do what I always do against potential phishing: turn the computer off and on again with my keyboard, then open Windows Security and run a quick scan (better safe than sorry), before reopening my browser (Google Chrome), restoring my tabs, and quickly closing the "Antivirus" tab before it fully restores itself.
This has happened once in two consecutive days (as of writing). So, my question is: Please can anyone confirm that a) this isn't just a "me" thing, and b) the issue is being dealt with?
resolved Loud house memes Western Animation
Memes.The Loud House has some examples that come from fan works and not the show itself. Is this allowed?
resolved Work with no tropes found Film
Madras Cafe had no tropes listed when I stumbled upon it via Wiki Walk. I've added one from the trope I found it from but it needs more, I've not seen it myself so I'm in no position to add insight on it, and I don't know where else to bring this up (Needs More Wicks seems to be cases of trope pages needing listing, not works).
resolved Edit war report Live Action TV
In Kamen Rider.
On 20th Feb '17 5:55:07 AM, Ryulong remove fan-speak term from description with edit reason "don't use that it's stupid as shit".
On 21st Feb '17 5:40:54 AM, Wolf Thunder add it back and claim that Ryulong edit is rude.
Personally, I agree with Ryulong that the term doesn't make sense (I think Western fanbase of Kamen Rider is too small to worth noting their lingo). And while their edit reason is bad, it's direct at the term itself, not editor.
Too bad, checking history, this isn't the first time Ryulong remove it. So it is Edit War.
resolved Famous Last Words
I noticed some people have said that Famous Last Words is too broad and often includes numerous examples of "things people happened to say before they died." I admit, I myself have added such examples. Is there an official rule on what can be included?

Today, I stumbled on Peppermint Park while on a Wiki Walk through Bile Fascination. When I got to the WMG page
, I saw one entry that accused the show of being a Mafia laundering scheme. That's bad enough, but then there's the bullet point below it that says this:
I can only assume that the entry was previously removed for being too controversial. Since the page history only has one entry for February 2022, but the troper's edit history
shows an edit on the page in November 2020, the page was probably cutlisted after it was decided that the entry had to go. Regardless, by recreating a cut page with an entry that includes the line "I know I added this before, but it was deleted", the troper has basically admitted to edit warring.
Edited by UFOYeah