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:
opencan 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?
openSpectacular spider-man MJ knows Peter’s secret Western Animation
I was reading over the page the spectacular Spider-Man and I saw in the example of secret keeper that according to word of God MJ knows Peter secret. Can someone please provide the source?
openDoes Tech Wishlist only work on tech feature wishes with a certain number of votes?
I have looked on this site, but I can't find anything that tells me anything about this. I was only asking because I requested something about video examples. Someone came up with an idea of how it could work, which seemed to be a good idea, but it only has 1 vote. So as far as I am aware, nothing has been done. I just wanted to find out if that is the issue, that's all.
openEditing Pages Based on Your Own Fics Web Original
I was curious on what the policy is for editing pages based on fanfics you've created. I heard something from a friend that it's usually something to steer away from as far as avoiding personal bias or tooting your own horn. Just wanted to check if that's true or not.
The page I'm talking about is one of my own called Ultimate Sonic Fighter and wanted to check if there was any kind of policy on the original author editing any pages based on their own works.
openI would like to report myself
I would like to report myself for discussion in the edit reasons on Trivia.Wednesday I honestly didn't realize what I was doing until I had clicked save. I thought I was simply putting an edit reason, but then I remembered that you aren't supposed to respond to previous edit reasons. It only happened once before I realized and decided to report myself. I apologize and will except punishment if necessary.
As a side note I am not even sure if the entry should be there but that is for another thread.
Edited by Bullmanresolved "Featured" Video Examples
Just a quick question, what does marking your video examples as "Featured" actually do?
openMoonlit Fantasy Anime Opening Literature
In the second half of TSUKIMICHI -Moonlit Fantasy- season 2, the opening for the anime has two sets of opponents, first Kuzanoha's students and their rivals, and immediately various hyuman leaders from different countries and the demon leadership, giving each other Giving Someone the Pointer Finger.
I wasn't sure if this counts since it is in the opening and should it be under Literature of Giving Someone the Pointer Finger even if it is from the anime version of things.
openEdit war on YMMV/BrotherBear Western Animation
The YMMV page on Brother Bear used to include a Vindicated by History entry, which I removed on the grounds that the movie's critical consensus hasn't really switched around. While some viewers appreciate some of the themes being juggled, it still stands out for being fairly forgettable and for many of the themes being really undercooked, which doesn't fit with the standards for Vindicated by History (Which is a total critical reversal)
- Vindicated by History: For a long period of time, it was considered one of Disney's weakest films, with some even ranking it alongside Home on the Range and Chicken Little, with complaints about anachronistic dialogue, a predictable plot, and unlikeable characters. In later years, however, many consider it an underrated gem in spite of its flaws, with many praising the themes of revenge and seeing past differences, along with the movie's criticism of the mindset of love being unmasculine. The film's vivid visuals and stunning wilderness scenery help it stand out as well. It's telling that there was a resurgence of merchandise in The New '20s such as shirts, collectible pins, and a 20th anniversary Disney Sketchbook Ornament.
Mr Media Guy 2, the user who originally added the entry, added it back later with the next comment "If the reaction to it is more positive than when it first came out, yes, it absolutely does count." which to me means he isn't familiar with the actual tenets of the trope, nor how his edit constitutes an edit war. I sent him a PM, which he subsequently ignored, so I'm now reporting the edit war here.
Edited by RemulusopenToo many "Enemies to lovers"
In the Trope Finder, I've noticed that from October 2023 we've had 3 different instances of a troper making a post titled "Enemies to lovers", with no further explaination added. They are almost always ignored.
What's interesting is that it's not the same troper spamming the same half-baked question every time. Each time it was a different troper, all making the same style of post. Should I be concerned or not?
I made a screenshot of it, but I have yet to learn how to upload images here.
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:
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 Theriocephalus