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:
openDeleted Work
Fortune Favors the Brave has been deleted. The link to the page no longer works and I have been unable to find any backups on Way Back Machine or Archive Today. Based on the page's history, the work was paused/deleted sometime in July 2021.
I was able to find the author's AO3 account, as well as their Tumblr account, which show that they are still active and writing as of today. According to this Tumblr post, the author was very disappointed with a certain episode of the series and how it portrayed the characters, which made them no longer want to continue working on Fortune Favors the Brave, so they decided to delete the fic and rework it later. However, this never seemed to happen and there have been no further posts on this work since November 2021, so it looks like the idea has been completely abandoned.
Should I move this page to DarthWiki.Unpublished Works?
resolved The One With Spongebob
Some troper has added "The One With [element in said episode]" to each episode description of Spongebob Squarepants for the first three seasons. They range from something integral to the episode (i.e. Club Spongebob being "The one with the Magic Conch Shell", which is an important part of the episode) to something largely irrelevant (i.e My Pretty Seahorse being "The one with the coin slot", which only shows up as a seconds-long gag that has no bearing on the plot and is never mentioned again). Since The One With is now Just For Fun (and not linked to on any of these recap pages), are these additions OK to keep, or should they be removed for lack of relevance?
openNot Since Carrie help Literature
Hi, I am thinking about creating a page for the book Not Since Carrie: Forty Years of Broadway Musical Flops by Ken Mandelbaum. But I’m unsure what category it would belong to, as it’s non fiction and is a history/reference book about the risky world of musical theatre. Hope you can help fellow Tropers, thanks.
resolved EditWar
On the YMMV page of The Simpsons:
- Kingslayer38 added a sub-entry for Jerks Are Worse Than Villains dedicated to bashing on Lisa Simpson.
- I removed it for being too complainy the same it was added.
- Kingslayer38 re-adds it back with no prior discussion.
openTroper widespread formatting issues.
Many of Biohazard 2035's edits has * in front tropes as if they're cutting and pasting them from lists, as well as other typos like so:
- The Alicorn Princees who are not Twilight Sparkle (and by get this to a degree, due to often suffering *The Worf Effect by getting knocked out or defeated by whatever villain or big threat is showing up, especially in two parters.
Even when they revisit/add to their entires, this error remains. They've proceeded so much I bringing here to do something about.
open TRS crowner
There is an active crowner for Daddy System at the Trope Repair Shop. Click here if you want to join the discussion.
openSEED Freedom edit war
drillizer added several Ass Pull entries to YMMV.Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Freedom that Omega Nemesis 13 removed. This one in particular:
- The existence of Spec II versions of the Strike Freedom, Destiny, Infinite Justice, and Impulse. That 3 out of 4 just so happen to have been made in secret for testing purposes and without the knowledge of anyone else, revealed just in time for their counterattack against Foundation is a bit of a stretch. The IJ makes a little sense at least considering that machine wasn't destroyed at the end of Destiny or before this movie, but it's still too convenient that the rest just exist.
It was removed citing that repairing/upgraded machines to keep in cause of major conflict was what they did the prior series, so it has enough precedent to not come out of nowhere. But drillizer added this back without edit reason.
- The Spec II machines in general. Minus the Infinite Justice, the Impulse, Destiny, and Strike Freedom were all damaged beyond repair; it's incredibly convenient that the latter three machines were rebuilt from the ground up in complete secrecy and were ready for a large-scale conflict, complete with a full-on Silhouette for the Destiny in particular, in time for a major conflict. The IJ in particular makes sense because it could easily be an upgraded version of the original and was already hiding inside the Z'gok (Both of which share the backpack), but having war machines that single-handedly determined wars being rebuilt solely for "testing" when nuclear powered suits were supposed to have been banned, yet still just as strong, if not moreso, than they were first fielded, is a stretch even for Rule of Cool to waive away easily.
Besides failing to address the reasons for removal, the added point of violating the ban on nuclear power also applies to the last series repaired/upgraded machines so not unpredicted.
drillizer's other edits to the page are complainy enough, including adding "Could Have Avoided This!" Plot I removed as not YMMV and objectively misuse (lacking in-work acknowledgment), that I intend to take them to dedicated cleanup. But combine with the edit warring it's enough of a concern I'm taking it here.
Edited by Ferot_DreadnaughtopenInformation on old cut tropes
I was looking for the original discussions that removed the old, now-defunct pages Big, Badass Wolf and Everything's Worse with Wolves, which now serve as redirects for Wolf Tropes and were replaced in function by the current pages Savage Wolves, Noble Wolf, and The Big Bad Wolf, the latter having been in existence before the rest were cut.
The basic history here is as follows:
- These tropes existed and now they don't. They are not listed in Renamed Tropes, Split Tropes, or any of the Trope Epitaph pages, this in particular being the main thing that I'm trying to fix here.
- Problem is that to do this I would like to access the threads where these decisions were made, both to know the precise rationale that they had and to link them, since entries on Split Tropes link the relevant discussion threads.
- The cutting and reworking process seems to have taken place in 2013. The actual cutting took place in November.
- SW's creation edit describes it as having been "agreed on in the badass cleanup thread". This isn't linked to and I've been having trouble tracking it down in the forums. Noble Wolf has no comment, linked or otherwise.
- Everything's Worse with Wolves was originally made into a redirect to Wolf Tropes. Big, Badass Wolf was instead made into a disambiguation page for Canis Major, The Big Bad Wolf, Our Werewolves Are Different, Noble Wolf, Savage Wolves, and Wolf Man. In February 2014, a user named Catbert, who has not been active on-site since 2016, changed both to redirects to Wolf Tropes, which is what they are at present. No discussion or rationale was given for these last edits.
The main thing that I've been trying to achieve here is to find what forum or thread the original discussion took place on so that I can add the tropes to the relevant cut/renamed/split trope lists. However, this proved to be a little more complicated than I expected it to be. I've tried using both the forum search and Google to track the threads down to no particular success. I'm making this query to ask if anybody here was involved in that discussion or at least knows how to track it down so I can do that and move on with my life.
(I'm also kind of tempted to revert the 2014 edits to the original redirect/disambig status on the principle of the thing, but, well, it's been ten years, so it's not exactly super urgent.)
Edited by Theriocephalusopencan we recreate the wide world of sports page?
you deleted it but yet the British world of sport page exists.
openRemoval of the formatting hiding a disambiguation year.
On the page Theremin, Clancy Gardener has removed all of the formatting for titles that hid a disambiguation year (such as Film/{{The Ten Commandments|1956}}) to the default custom title. And I'm pretty sure that's not the first page he's doing that.
Wouldn't that count as edit warring if those titles have already been changed once? Or trying to impose a style?
I think it was discussed already that such format were okay, notably because the year in parenthesis shouldn't be inside the italics. I believe a clear ruling is needed on this subject.
openWhat happened to my index "Seal Tropes"?
So I created an index back in 2022 (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=wnveei9eeagpm1ev76221x3j) that was an index for tropes about pinnipeds (and there's quite a number of them). Now, I've been off of tv tropes for almost 2 years and I looked at all of my old projects when I returned yesterday. I checked back at this TLP, but for some reason, it was nuked, even though it said it was launching on 2/28/23, also with no comment or reason indicating why it was discarded.
Was there a policy change on indices or specifically animal indices that occurred during my absence? I do remember there being a lot of animal indices in TLP around the time I left, as well as just lots of discarded indices in general (one of which I recall being an index on asexuality, which IIRC had quite a number of tropes).
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 NethiliaopenContentious DoubleStandardRapeFemaleOnMale in ''VideoGame/Fallout3''
Recently, a valid example of Double Standard Rape: Female on Male was removed from the Fallout 3 page. It involves a female character using mutated queen ant pheromones (which are explicitly called an aphrodisiac) to seduce a priest who has taken a vow of celebacy. If you provide her with the pheromones during the quest, the game gives you Good Karma, emphasizing the "double standard" part.
I added it back with an explanation on how/why it fits the trope (I did not add it initially, so it's not an edit war), but out of curiousity, checked the page's history on that trope. It has been deleted and added back, deleted and added back, two other times.
As mentioned in my most recent add-back, I obviously feel that it is a valid example as a woman is using a chemical to impact the decision making of man with the explicit intent of getting him to break his vow of celebacy (the "rape" part), and then the game gives you Good Karma for helping her to do that (the "double standard" part).
I'd like to get some kind of consensus decision and add a link to that entry (commented out) explaining that it is valid and should stay to avoid future situations like this.
openRidiculously Potent Explosive and the ending quip, violation of ROCEJ?
Way back in the distant era of 2019, I launched a trope called Ridiculously Potent Explosive, it includes an ending quip about the Reality-Breaking Paradox of a real-world explosive breaking the laws of real-world physics, by the text of:
"When a real-life explosive emerges that breaks the laws of physics, then [a real life example] can be added.. and may God help us."
Originally, I potholed those last five words to Portal 2 because a line in that game goes "If the laws of physics no longer apply in the future. God help you."
I since changed the pothole to the Reality-Breaking Paradox, as that means you no longer need to know Portal 2 to get the quip, and it is still - in my opinion - a fun way of drawing attention to the absurdity of a real-life explosive breaking the laws of physics.
But now in the enlightened year of 2024, I am wondering if the quip is insensitive, considering "God" specifically and religion in general are quite controversial.
So is the ending quip in violation of the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment? Should I change those last five words to something else like "for all the good it will do us"?
Edited by TheharboopenEdit 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.
openTroper who is using plagerized fanfic summaries and multiple names for recommendations. Live Action TV
On the fanfiction recommendation page for Dead Boy Detectives (2024), dozens of fanfics have been added in the last two days (because that's how long the page has existed) by Shanwooo444 which have the summaries copy-and-pasted straight from Archive of Our Own. I changed the only one that I've actually read, but I can't re-summarize the rest of them because I haven't read those fanfics. I've also noticed that all those fanfics being added rapidly have a variety of different names listed as "Recommended by," but a quick glance at the history of the page shows that they were all posted by the same person. So it is definitely just the one person who is copy-and-pasting the exact summaries from Archive of Our Own.
Anyone who is a fan of the show want to swing over there and help edit the ever-growing number of fanfictions being recommended there?
I'm in the midst of culling An Aesop wicks from Lilo & Stitch: The Series recap pages, when I discovered that the plot summary for the recap page for "Spats" is taken verbatim from the fandom page of said episode. As if it wasn't obvious enough, the opening section has this displayed in bold at the top: The plot synopsis below includes content originally written on Lilo & Stitch Wiki on Fandom, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported).
No other recap page for the series has this as placed at the top of the page. Risefrom Your Grave added this back in 2021 and has edited other recap pages of Lilo & Stitch: The Series in their time on here. but they haven't added this notice on other pages they have edited. I don't want to send a Plagiarism notifer for a 3 year old edit, but they are still active on the site. I'm listing this here as I don't want to make a drastic edit without notifiying the troper that made it, and I don't want to instigate an edit war. What should be my course of action?
Edited by Jalpo99