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 Not sure if it's an edit war, but...
DR34DN0UGHT has added an iffy piece of text to a Tainted by the Preview on this page, then added a similar-sounding paragraph after much of the entry was cut down for being a ROCEJ violation.
open2 Strange discussion posts on Kingdom of Heaven
Chet120 did something weird on Kingdom of Heaven 's page. (EDIT: Its Discussion page)
For context: this is a film set in Jerusalem during the Crusades. It was also controversial at the time it came out, because it portrays the Muslims mostly as good guys and the Christians, except for the main character, as bad(der) guys; and this came out relatively soon after 9-11.
Chet 120's first post was an insanely long list of what they claim is history. Their 2nd post is even more bizarre, and seems to consist of conspiracy theories, and to be politics-based. Also to maybe attract visitors to his website? (because he also states his, I assume Real-Life, name).
None of this has anything to do with the movie itself, or tropes. The user also is quite new, and has made 0 edits of the Wiki.
I sent them a PM, but it seemed serious enough to also mention here.
Edited by LB7979openDiscarded draft
Has this draft been rouge nuked? It has plenty of hats (almost twice as many as bombs), it wasn't discarded by the sponsor, and the person who discarded it didn't say anything nor has had any discussion in the draft before.
Skimming over it, I don't seem to see anything bad enough to warrant an immediate discard; perhaps some concerns about misuse and bringing up aesop tropes going to the TRS, but other than that based on the hats it may have been doing decently. Am I missing something?
openPage needs renaming
I noticed the page for Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea goes by a translation of the film's Japanese name, when in English it's known as just Ponyo. TV Tropes has a policy of going by a work's official English name whenever possible. The normal solution would of course be to manually change everything myself, but I don't know if I'll have the time or resources to do everything. Is it possible to tell a moderator to do this for me? Thanks in advance.
I should also mention the film has a bunch of subpages that go by Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea and need changing as well.
Edited by SparkPlugTheTroperopenMajor Real Life Troping on Dear Zachary
This is a documentary that while using some tropey (As when Zachary's death is announced and the screed turns red and an scream is heard) stuff to convey the horror of what happened, is pretty much just the Real Life case with absolutely ZERO narrative reframing. It's just the case being conveyed with no narrative re enactments.
And tropers naturally could not resist treating like a piece of fiction in really ghastly ways, most notably the "DONT READ BELOW IF YOU WANNA WATCH UNSPOILED" and commenting on factual footage from Real Life as if it was a horror movie.
I was going to bring this up in the thread but I dont know what thred we use for this.
EDIT: Guys I REALLY appreciate the thumbs up I got but I have to remind you it does absolutely nothing. Please just post here and help me figure out what to do here.
Edited by AegisPopenExamples Are Not Arguable clarification
It's always been my understanding that the intention behind Examples Are Not Arguable is to state that either something is an example of a trope, or it isn't an example, and that entries that read along the lines of "X/Y is arguably an example of this trope" should be clarified or deleted.
However, lately I've noticed several instances of users seemingly interpeting the policy to mean that the words "arguable", "arguably" and other variants thereof aren't allowed to be used on the site in any context short of directly quoting a work, even on YMMV or Darth Wiki pages. Is this a correct reading of the policy, especially given that YMMV tropes are by their very nature something that people are going to potentially argue over?
openEdit War Live Action TV
- On the YMMV page of Kamen Rider Gotchard
- ddyingle added a lot of Natter on various elements of the page.
- I removed all of them and sent them a notifier.
- Not only did they re-add one of them in a different place, but they added more instances despite the notifier I sent them.
openCut YMMV page for the Bluffers? Western Animation
The tropes page for The Bluffers used to have a YMMV page, but it's been cut, with the reason given being only "Sonic satam fan myopia". Can anyone tell me why the page was cut, and if maybe it should be brought back?
openIs this okay?
Hello! I am completely new to trying my own hand at adding to Trope and Fandom pages and wanted to ask, i have come across several instances of a Trope being linked on a fandom page, but not no link to the fandom exists on the page of the trope?
Like, for example, in the character section for The Magnus Protocol there is a character who is stated to fit the trope called "Parents as People" but the character is not listed on the Trope page for"Parents as People" and i wanted to ask if tgats intentional?
Does that mean that this character or Fandom does somehow not "count" as an occurrence of the Trope?
Or can i just add it to the Trope page in the same way that the others are?
Or am is that against the rules?
(Please dont yell at me over this, i am Very new to this and would never edit something like that without being completely sure its allowed)
Thanks in advance for your replies!
- Storyweaver
Edited by StoryweaveropenRough Overalls without shirts
I'd like to discuss recent changes on the Rough Overalls trope.
- During the TLP (an adoption I did and adapted from the original proposal, Active Youth Overalls, where overalls were more tied to "cute" girls wearing them) one of the things discussed was trying to move the trope away from fanservice. The conclusion was that "cute girls wear overalls" wasn't a trope and was more like fanservice. (The TLP is also where the idea to split kids in overalls off separately into Kiddy Coveralls was done, as well as the mention to take examples from the defunct "Workers Wear Overalls" TLP.)
- Recently, Gofastmike added a third "not as often" example of wearing overalls for messy jobs while wearing nothing else but the overalls.
- I (after a correction that the top of overalls are called the bib) moved the talk to be under "blue collar work" since it was already discussed there and didn't need to be separate, and added data about people wearing shirts or not, to cover that not all wearing overalls in messy jobs is without the undershirt for practicality.
- Gofastmike has recently re-added the shirtless parts of wearing the overalls for messy jobs without noting that people can wear shirts for these messy jobs, not just overalls.
I'd like to discuss this with said editor and the community. I think it doesn't do the trope any good to mention the shirtlessness so prominently under messy jobs when it's mentioned in the fanservice "not as prominent" trope already, and the part about blue collar/messy jobs should be more about the labor side of things.
Edited for typos and clarifications.
Edited by NethiliaopenHazbin hotel fan works page move Western Animation
The page is detailed since it was a leftover redict it said but where does it redirect to?
openImage Pickin issue
I'm trying to propose a couple of image changes, but the forum has been full for the past week. Is there a que list, or do you just have to get lucky and view it at the right time?
resolved Which folder
I'm trying to figure out where to crosswick an entry for The Scum Villain's Self-Saving System: Ren Zha Fanpai Zijiu Xitong to when it pertains specifically to the donghua. Should it still go under the Literature folder on the trope page or under Asian Animation?
Edited by ZaperexopenEdit war
So @Xvrprkm added a really complainy entry on Arthur that I removed and cited the complaining thread, but he added it back completely.
- Designated Hero: D.W. can be this sometimes due to her whiny, bratty, and occasional Smug Snake behavior and the fact that she almost never faces any consequences for such behavior. And yet the show often treats her like a good guy or a victim. She's often seen as the female Funny Animal version of Caillou.
openEdit War?
So, on YMMV.Fallout 2024 the following happened:
- Barth Vader added an Ass Pull entry.
- D Jones 662 removed it citing "Not really an "Ass Pull", in fact, its still consistent with the games. Even before the series, nuclear weapons have appeared practically EVERYWERE in games, and have been relatively easy for factions to get their hands on. Hell, in 3, the main town of Megaton was built around an unexploded nuclear bomb. So it really wouldn't be unbelievable for Vault-Tec to have access to a bomb. Also, Vault-Tec specializes in building underground vaults, so they'd definitely have the means to survive the nuclear holocaust."
- Barth Vader readded a tweaked entry citing "I concede the point about nuclear weapons, but considering the level of insanity and card-carrying villainy on display both in this series and in previous entries of the franchise, "Vault-Tec could've been around because they know how to build vaults" isn't enough to make it not come out of left field. Re-added the entry with elaboration."
Now I don't know if the entry actually counts, but this was not discussed anywhere. So, is this an edit war?
openPage for an Abandoned Project
I found this page, Rebuild of Pocket Monsters: The Animation, which seems to be about a webcomic that only had two or three pages drawn before it got abandoned. I noticed that the page was made in May 2020 and that the Tumblr that page links to was last updated in June 2020, meaning that it was made by a troper who got hyped up by an ambitious project that quickly got cancelled before it actually went anywhere. This means that the page is almost exclusively troping Word of God tumblr posts about future ideas and plans that were never drawn.
My question is that do we keep a page for an abandoned project? Do tumblr asks and some page sketches and character drawings give enough tropable material for a page?
openDarkhorse misuse, re-delete?
- Ensemble Dark Horse: Violette Rainbow proved popular enough with fans that she wound up being introduced to Tell Your Tale in season 2.
I previously deleted this as it was added before the one month waiting period. A separate troper added this back after said wait, but I believe this is still misuse as the character was heavily (by the standards of the work) promoted and publicized before debut, and Darkhorse only applies to minor/unexpectedly popular characters, Breakout Character covering this better.
Permission to re-remove? Would it be edit warring if removed over two separate misuses from separate tropers? Or any thoughts on if she qualifies as Darkhorse or not?
I think an edit war happened on Characters.The Amazing Digital Circus over the terms "performer" and "player" when refering to the main protagonists:
On 16 October 2023, immblueversion changed the main protagonists' section header from "The Performers" to "Players".
On 18 October 2023, RandomInformation changed it to just "Performers", as "[they] believe they're more often described as this".
On 26 April 2024, immblueversion changed said section header, and every instance of the word "performer" on the page, to "player", with the reasoning that "[t]he "performers" don't actually perform at the circus, so it's an obsolete term".
So, which term should be used for the main protagonists? "Performer" or "player"? "Performer" is the term used more often by the fans, but it's a misnomer, given that they don't perform in the Circus. "Player" would be a more accurate term, but it isn't used as much.