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:
openBile Fascination Writes The Plot????????
If an Audience Reaction is a factor in the creation of a work, should it be referenced in some way?
As an example: I could add mocking references to The Nutshack or The Big Bang Theory in a work, because I and others like to make fun of those works. So, you could say that me showing Bile Fascination towards The Nutshack is the justification for inserting The Nutshack references or even characters in a work.
In that case, how would that be classified? It wouldn't fit on a normal YMMV page because it's an Audience Reaction expressed by the creator towards a different work, and not directed to the work itself; it wouldn't fit on the Main page because it's still an out-of-universe example. Should it be listed as Trivia under Word of God if I officially say that I added references to The Nutshack out of Bile Fascination? Or is it not worth pointing out at all for this site?
Edited by TMH-Sir-Iron-VomitopenArch-Enemy shoehorning
Ever since they joined TV Tropes, dgenega5764 has been heavily focused on the Arch-Enemy page (and they have made tons of edits for nearly all of its subpages as well). There have been complaints about them shoehorning examples before, and I don't feel like things have really changed since then.
A lot of their examples simply boil down to two characters being enemies regardless of how personal or brief their enmity is. For example, they listed Buggy as an Arch-Enemy to Luffy, even though Luffy has openly stated that he simply sees Buggy as a moron.
Similarly, they listed Emperor Pilaf as an Arch-Enemy to Goku. While it may be true that Pilaf views Goku aa his greatest enemy, the same is definitely not true on Goku's end (especially considering that there are stronger, more personal, and more competent enemies to him; Pilaf is largely just comic relief).
They also listed Commander Red as one for Goku as well, which I think is even worse since the two never even met each other (and they only briefly interacted with each other in the anime over a radio).
I'm sure there are tons of other examples, but I feel like these illustrate my issues with their edits fairly well. They also have extensive history with pages like Greater-Scope Villain, Big Bad, etc.
Edited by PokemonMasterJamalopenQuestions about sandboxes
Is it considered okay if someone creates a work page by copying the content of a sandbox that a completely different user was working on?
I just saw that Literature.Demian was created by someone else using the contents I had written on Sandbox.Demian. I hadn't worked on the sandbox in a few months because I wanted to reread the book in order to write a good work's description (right now both the sandbox and Literature/ pages have almost no description).
I'm not upset about this, I'm rather kind of confused of what to do in this case.
I get if the user who created the page was tired of waiting for it to be an actual article, so I'm wondering if it's seen negatively if someone takes months on moving a sandbox to the correct namespace.
I'm curious about these things regarding sandbox etiquette.
resolved Gravity YMMV example
On YMMV.Gravity, Etrebamort added a Memetic Mutation example that didn't have any sort of context. I commented out the example and sent them a ZCE notifier. They responded by saying (I'm paraphrasing here) that adding context would lean into Don't Explain the Joke, and then made the example visible again while potholing it to From Bad to Worse.
I'm posting this query to ask for permission to comment out the example again. Without context, an example just shouldn't be visible at all, regardless of what kind of joke it would ruin with it.
openCelebrity gossip on Unfortunate Implications
I spotted two entries on Unfortunate Implications that I'm not sure belong there. Both entries, rather than discuss how the trope pertains to a certain work, instead discuss the personal lives of celebrities.
- Her [Taylor Swift's] decision to engage in a public romance with Matty Healy and released a collaboration with Ice Spice was widely derided as damage control for Matty's numerous racist behaviors and comments.
- Rihanna's continuous friendship and even collaboration to Chris Brown has been widely critized as sending messages of women accepting their abuser.
I feel like they should both be deleted, but I wanted to double check before doing so.
Edited by Storygirl000openMystic Force issue.
Meduini has made a few concerning edits on pages regarding Power Rangers Mystic Force. They added an Adaptational Attractiveness example on the YMMV page, added a Broken Aesop example that seems to be mostly natter with sub-bullets that continue off the previous example, added an example for Not Even Bothering with the Accent on the trivia page, and recently used first person writing while incorrectly adding a sub-bullet on the awesome moments page.
I've already deleted and sent misuse notifiers for the Adaptational Attractiveness and Not Even Bothering with the Accent examples, but what should be done about the Broken Aesop and Awesome Moment examples?
Edited by ejmenendezopenI am confused by this edit reason.
So, on Dry Docking Sabot Tori edited a bunch of entries to remove mentions of fans finding the actors attractive saying ""Played by the beautiful X" appears five times on this page with little variation, and four times in a row in one section. I've retained one example of this that mentions something more descriptive, but there needs to be more about why these actors are appealing to the fans, or it's just a subjective example without any sort of clarifying context or explanation." Which I find odd, as isn't saying that fans find the performers attractive mentioning why fans find them appealing? Is it necessary to describe in detail why they are attractive when the trope doesn't require it? I am not even trying to get them added back (I don't think the performers needed to be mentioned) but am just confused what the edit reason is going for.
Edited by Bullmanopen TRS crowner
There is an active crowner for Law of Alien Names at the Trope Repair Shop. Click here if you want to join the discussion.
resolved 'Related' page question.
What does "Since January 1, 2012, this article has brought X people to the wiki from non-search engine links" mean? I've seen people in the TRS referring to this number as the inbound count but my first impression is that it means how many people visited the page from in-wiki links.
openDead Boy Detectives Index Question Live Action TV
Dead Boy Detectives 2024 is listed on the Teen Drama Index. While the show is about teens, teens are not the target audience. It's rather disconcerting to see a show with a fairly unflinching gore factor listed between Dawson's Creek and Degrassi. I threw up a question on this listing on the discussion page, but have gotten no response there, so throwing the question out here. Does it belong there? Yea or Nay?
openRough 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 Nethiliaresolved Trope Link Redirection not working Anime
Hi, I'm trying to redirect to a trope page for a Yugioh Arc-V fanfiction, and am having an issue with it.
The trope is Fanfic/Yu-Gi-Oh Arc-V The Six Dimensions, and when I try to put that into the page editor, it's appearing as a red link for some reason.
[[Fanfic/Yu-Gi-Oh Arc-V The Six Dimensions Trope]] is how it's supposed to be entered right?
Does anyone know what might be the issue here? I'm trying to redirect this from the Yugioh Arc-V Fan Fic Recs page.
openExample to Trope: 'Working Class Anthem' Film
Hey Tropers,
I stumbled upon the trope 'Working Class Anthem' and thought it would be great to contribute an example to it.
- Example:** The song 'Jame Raho' from the movie 'Taare Zameen Par (2007)' could be a fitting addition. This song, featured in the IM Db top 250, encapsulates the daily grind of two brothers. The elder brother adheres to a rigid routine, waking up early, preparing for school, and conforming to societal expectations imposed by parents and the community. This portrayal mirrors the disciplined approach often associated with the working class, where adherence to norms and responsibilities is paramount.
Conversely, the younger sibling rebels against this conformity, refusing to conform to the societal mold imposed upon him. His struggle symbolizes the challenges and aspirations of those who seek to break free from the constraints of conventional expectations.
I believe 'Jame Raho' embodies the essence of the 'Working Class Anthem' trope, portraying both the adherence to tradition and the desire for individuality within the working-class context.
Best regards, Sumit
openUnsure How to Categorize a Trope
I can't decide if this trope should be considered downplayed, zig-zagged, or something else.
The trope in question is Now Allowed to Hug and the example I want to add involves a character who is obsessed with cleanliness to the point of being repulsed by human contact finally hugging her friend as a show of appreciation. Shortly after this moment she disinfects her entire body in a moment that's played for comedy.
openSelf Pimping Vandal?
Samarth Ror's Only edits are to add poorly formatted sinkholes to a Creator article to his own name (which doesn't exist not that it matters he seems to not understand how to wikiword).
Incidently there's an article on Wikipedia (EDIT: actually wikialpha, wikipedia's cousin with lower standards where they pride themselves on not deleting stuff) by the same name made by a guy with the same name 2 days ago so it seems to be a weird troll going around creating pages for himself?
Latest entry was trying to add himself as a lead actor for RRR (2022)
Edited by GhilzopenEdit war over the terms "performer" and "player"
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.
openNeed helping fixing bullet points and folders on a page
Today, I finally begun a series of edits that I had long been planning to add on the Character pages for Identity V. However, in editing Identity V Survivors Part 1 I was shocked to find that the page had ended up bugging up, leading to folders being hidden and bullet points for tropes not being put in place. I tried to fix the issue myself, but nothing seems to work.
Does anyone know what has happened and how to fix it?
Edited by WiryAiluropodineopenCharacter page cleanup?
The character page for Tangled lists Tangled: The Series-exclusive characters on their own pages (Cassandra and Varian), but combines the original Tangled characters onto one page. I distinctly remember Rapunzel and Eugene having their own pages.
Was this a recent cleanup?
Edited by Pbskidsfan
I launched a trope and in writing it wrote out the numbers below 100, since that's how I was taught to format numbers in writing — everything that can be two words should be written out (so everything below 100) and minimally, it's correct formatting to do at least every number below 10 unless it's math you're writing. Recently ~@HazelMcCallister changed the text so every written out number was turned into digits. Including a five, which I was taught grammatically should always be spelled out. Examples of numbers in writing here.
Is this a rule I'm breaking?