What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to YMMV/HomePage

 

SallyB
topic
04:10:05 PM Jun 8th 2014
edited by 184.151.231.195
So, what exactly is up with canon non-het ships (Ho Yay / Les Yay) given the YMMV tag?
SeptimusHeap
01:12:11 AM Jun 9th 2014
Ho Yay and Les Yay are actually about non-canon fan feelings.
silveryrow
topic
07:08:56 AM Jun 5th 2014
Please could someone direct me to the page with the instructions for how to move items to the YMMV/Trivia tab. Several times when I've gone to edit, the request to perform these actions is there and I would like to comply, but don't know how. Thanks!
SeptimusHeap
08:41:30 AM Jun 5th 2014
silveryrow
10:38:20 AM Jun 5th 2014
Like a copy-paste deal?
SeptimusHeap
12:38:04 PM Jun 5th 2014
Yes.
SeptimusHeap
topic
03:01:37 PM May 19th 2013
Question: Ought we put Fridge Logic examples into Fridge/ or rephrase them to fit Headscratchers/?

This was prompted by a recent edit to the Fridge Logic entry.
Zoku374
topic
04:58:43 AM Jan 9th 2013
Is there any reason for the Character Alignment tropes to still be on this index?
SeptimusHeap
topic
10:46:24 AM Mar 9th 2012
Is there a reason why Fridge stuff is here, especially when it says right in the same paragraph to put them into /Fridge/? This index is for things that go in a YMMV tab, not simply "anything subjective"
SeptimusHeap
topic
10:02:25 AM Mar 7th 2012
Note: Given that this page gets unending misuse, here's the place to vote on solutions.
azul120
topic
10:37:25 PM Feb 20th 2012
Why was Expy put under the redirects?
Rilkar
10:15:02 AM Feb 22nd 2012
Because very few (if any) of them have Word of God confirmation, so anyone can add whatever crazy comparisons that they want. Half the time it feels like they're Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. I don't know, maybe it's more Trope Decay than YMMV.
SeptimusHeap
topic
01:59:35 AM Feb 15th 2012
This entry seems out of place here - opinions?
nayhem
topic
02:28:03 PM Dec 26th 2011
edited by nayhem
♫ They see me tropin' / They wary / All scopin' / Tryn'a catch my mileage vary… ♪
MagBas
topic
09:47:19 AM Dec 19th 2011
legoking831 removed Crack is Cheaper with the edit reason: "In-universe only. " troaccid put it again with the edit reason:" That's to scoop up any instances of it that inadvertently end up on works pages as reactions (which, sadly, is far more common than it ought to be). If you're willing to manually clean all the wicks, though... "

Is it true? Exist other similar examples?

MagBas
topic
05:30:03 PM Oct 28th 2011
Big Name Fan and Vindicated by Cable are in the Trivia page and here.
MagBas
topic
01:15:35 PM Oct 19th 2011
edited by MagBas
Why Incorruptible Pure Pureness is listed here?
Eyclonus
05:04:04 AM Oct 22nd 2011
Same reason Complete Monster its direct opposite is here.
Stovepipe
topic
02:41:32 PM Aug 10th 2011
edited by Stovepipe
This is getting too expansive.
Eyclonus
04:08:38 AM Oct 15th 2011
edited by Eyclonus
It seems the current definition of YMMV is too broad, it doesn't account for certain things, such as Draco in Leather Pants syndrome chewing away at work's Complete Monster, or Game Breaker now being considered subjective for some silly reason.

Take Complete Monster for example, the trope itself is about something that is defined as not having any variation, almost an objective standard of evil.

That is to say, a Complete Monster has no redeeming features.

The problem in this case however is Draco in Leather Pants syndrome, IE somebody finds this horrible, horrible monstrous bastard appealing. But not all examples of Complete Monsters are DLI Ps too. FFVII is flamewar waiting to happen over the antagonists for that one, on the other hand, reading the obscure Polity novels which have several C Ms, its clear none of them are capable of DILP status, and yet they're on a YMMV tab because all of CM is now YMMV. Putting them in YMMV cheapens just how bad these characters are, anyone browsing the article will see it and simple assume its a matter of how much a troper sympathised with them.

Gamebreaker is another example where a broad YMMV definition falls down. Yes some things can't be agreed upon as to whether they're GB or not, especially in competitive multiplayer, but isn't that what the Metagame exists for? The metagame is where this "debate" takes place, making GB status a temporary position elected by a community in the case of G Bs that fit to the YMMV example, 40k for example is a veritable s***storm of subjective gamebreakers because the community can't really agree on much and the metagame can shift dramatically after a single tournament.

Gamebreakers can't be measured on an objective scale, but you can't say that therefore there can only be subjective gamebreakers: the Black Lotus card or any of the Power Nine in Magic: The Gathering are nowhere near subjective, they're universally accepted as gamebreakers by everyone.

Applying YMMV for gamebreakers seems like a poor generalised authoritarian approach when compared to simply splitting gamebreakers into the following categories:
  • Hard examples that are mechanically broken in a favourable way (Magic's Power Nine, Pun-Pun),
  • Democratic examples that are of a gamebreaker based on community/Metagame perceptions of power rather than mechanical effects that will lead to examples being relevant for a given period of time until a paradigm shift comes along in the relevant work (40k army lists and perceived Codex power tiers, M:tG in general due to its sheer complexity) EDIT: Democratic also conveniently covers anything that is debatable in its status as a gamebreaker.
  • Meta-Exploitive examples which are gamebreakers based on exploiting an aspect of the metagame/community that is contrary to existing views that may or may not have a resulted in an existent Democratic example dominating the competitive field (Anti-Latest Cheese/Codex lists in 40k, the AI built fleet that won the 3 Trillion Credit Challenge).

The last one is harder to find examples of as it is rare by definition of going against an entire community, and maybe even the creator's, definition of powerful.
ading
topic
02:08:19 PM Aug 5th 2011
Ok, I put this on the What Goes Where on the Wiki discussion page, and was told to move it here, so I will.

If this is for opinions, why do Audience Reactions go on the YMMV page? They're not necessarily opinions, whether or not a character has an Alternate Character Interpretation is completely objective, for instance. I know the main page is only for tropes used in the show, but then shouldn't objective Audience Reactions get their own tab?
SpellBlade
02:16:21 PM Aug 5th 2011
Good luck objectively determining whether or not a reaction occurred, and how prevalent it is among the viewers.

Whether a character has Alternative Character Interpretation is an opinion held by the viewer. He or she views a character different then the author intended.

Also, this fits better in the forums, where more people will see it.
AMNK
02:36:26 PM Aug 5th 2011
Also, not everyone in the audience reacts the same way to the same things.
ading
04:00:08 AM Aug 7th 2011
^^ "He or she views a character"=objective, "different than the author intended"=objective. Also, What do you mean by "Good luck objectively determining whether or not a reaction occurred"? And what does it matter how prevalent it is? If a reaction occurs, a reaction occurs. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

^ So? I might have a different reaction to a scene than someone else does, but I can't argue that because I didn't have the same reaction, that their reaction didn't occur.
SpellBlade
12:02:01 PM Aug 7th 2011
You seem to think that YMMV pages are only about subjective tropes you may not agree are in the work. It's also about instances where the audience's mileage varied.

Alternative Character Interpretation is an opinion held by the viewer, and you may not agree with the particular interpretation.

Please read under the second bold line on the article.
Spinosegnosaurus77
topic
05:22:24 AM Jul 31st 2011
edited by Spinosegnosaurus77
Why is Love It or Hate It here? It's only for in-universe examples; hence, your mileage will not vary.
ading
02:03:18 PM Aug 5th 2011
The Examples section is only for in-universe examples, but the actual trope applies to out-of-universe examples as well.
Moleman9000
topic
10:48:42 PM Jul 22nd 2011
I have a new proposal and commentary here. First of all, the amount of tropes that are being shoehorned into here is ridiculous, trying to include anything that may be remotely debatable in certain cases, and the increasingly blatant measures being taken to "purge" so–called "YMMV" stuff by blindly flagging anything that's listed here is obnoxious. I've just skimmed through it and removed the Tropes that don't belong, and I also demand you cease with the stuck–up, in-your-face policy of purging these with big red dots and prompts telling you to remove them whenever editing a page.

Why not just make it so subjective tropes when appearing on pages just have a special "YMMV" bullet point, like it first was when the site began implementing this system, not to single them out for removal but just to denote them as being a special type of trope. Likewise, the same can be done for the "Audience Reaction" things, with a different type of special bullet point. That way pages could be kept whole and be comprehensive and fluent while still creating the kind of "distinction" you want them to have.

Having them all hidden on a separate page altogether is excessive and way too detrimental to the ability of a work page to effectively convey all relevant information about a story. Besides, most of these tropes you've blacklisted to this category are the ones that made this site fun and inviting in the first place. TV Tropes was a good site because it Allowed the actual opinions of the general viewership to be truly addressed, and if a statement is controversial all that is needed is to discuss any controversies on individual work discussion pages. No universal rules are needed.
SpellBlade
05:40:53 AM Jul 23rd 2011
edited by SpellBlade
So you didn't even read the page?

Example — Everybody who doesn't like the work have gotten together, formed a Hatedom and as such share a certain view of the work. As sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, there will also be a Fandom and there will be wars and rumors of wars. These wars are stories of a sort, they are constructed from tropes like Revenge Fics, Fan Fics, trolling ... the list is pretty long.

Also, it only takes one extra click to access the YMMV page - don't assume that Viewers Are Morons and need it on main. Stuff marked as Trivia gets moved, do we "discriminate" against those as well?
Evidently the fans and the haters enjoy these battles. Okay. Best of luck to them. The point is that there is no accounting for taste. Tropes about this kind of story, though, don't go in a work's page; that is a place for storytelling tropes. Audience Reactions are a part of the conflict, not the story the conflict is about.

And the message that shows up when editing a page is useful for knowing what needs to be moved, and for giving a hint to causal editors about what goes where. I facepalm when a page has a ton of YMM Vs and someone adds another.
CaissasDeathAngel
06:10:12 AM Jul 23rd 2011
Moleman, I seem to recall you being banned from the site before for attempting to rail against YMMV policy. Did you forget you were told before you were on your last chance? I'm not a mod, but I highly recommend you delete this post and apologise profusely for it as quick as you possibly can.
Ghilz
11:35:30 AM Jul 23rd 2011
I also demand...

Oh, well if Moleman9000 demands it! Seriously, who died and made you king? How do you go around deleting stuff unilaterally without discussing it first?
Moleman9000
01:00:47 PM Jul 23rd 2011
@Ghilz The only reason I'm using that kind of assertive language is because the people enforcing this controversial policy are doing just the same thing by demanding everyone follow it and trying to force editors to go along with it. I'm not saying I'm the "King" here, but I do think that someone else thinks they are.
Komodin
01:04:37 PM Jul 23rd 2011
Moleman, I think you better stop. You might get banned permanently...
thedragoness
03:43:51 PM Jul 23rd 2011
He's had, what? Three bans this year alone?
AMNK
02:35:18 PM Aug 5th 2011
Saw him complaining in the Flame Bait discussion page as well.
Spinosegnosaurus77
topic
04:53:19 PM May 24th 2011
Why is Family-Unfriendly Aesop on this list, but Family-Unfriendly Death isn't? They're both family unfriendly.
nuclearneo577
05:03:39 PM May 24th 2011
It's just temporary due to misuse. See the TRS thread.
Spinosegnosaurus77
12:12:55 PM May 25th 2011
What does TRS mean again?
Spinosegnosaurus77
12:13:45 PM May 25th 2011
Never mind.
AMNK
06:42:25 AM Jun 4th 2011
edited by AMNK
Trope Repair Shop.

EDIT: Ninja'd.
Jisu
topic
06:58:22 PM Apr 30th 2011
I'm not sure why Crossover Ship's on here. There are a lot of works where crossover ships are canon, including Shared Universe series, fanfics, multifandom RP — things where the pairing is one hundred percent canon. There are even canon examples on the main page.
SpellBlade
11:28:00 PM Apr 30th 2011
Just us the in-universe or [[invoked]] tag.
DokEnkephalin
topic
10:44:04 AM Apr 14th 2011
How do you add a non-subjective usage of these tropes appropriately to a main page without waving a red flag at all the zealous little curators?
nuclearneo577
10:47:49 AM Apr 14th 2011
Pot Hole to In-Universe or use [invoked].
AMNK
11:18:48 AM Apr 21st 2011
It's [[invoked]].
CockroachED
08:26:02 PM Apr 27th 2011
Shouldn't Discussed and Conversed tropes also be given passes since like invoked they are In-universe examples of tropes?
SpellBlade
09:24:36 PM Apr 27th 2011
Yup, just use one of the tags anyway.
KingClark
topic
06:31:28 PM Apr 3rd 2011
edited by KingClark
A bit of Fridge Logic: Narm Charm is subjective, but the trope it's based on isn't. I've usually seen Narm examples listed with a "YMMV, some people thought the scene in question was dramatic." If people don't always agree on what's Narm, then why is it considered an Objective Trope?
SpellBlade
06:32:37 PM Apr 3rd 2011
Narm is subjective - it's on Darth Wiki.
AMNK
04:30:51 PM Apr 8th 2011
Then, Narm Charm should be moved to Sugar Wiki?
Will
topic
12:04:46 PM Apr 3rd 2011
So... what exactly does the phrase mean? I mean, I get that it's used to mean "opinions differ" all over the internet, but... how does mileage come into it? Distance isn't something that really varies. If you walk 10 miles and I drive 10 miles our mileage is still the same, it's just that I probably got there faster. Seriously, where did this come from?
lrrose
12:21:00 PM Apr 3rd 2011
Some car commercials tend to say "your mileage may vary." It's become internet slang for stuff that people may disagree about.
murlough23
12:38:08 AM Apr 5th 2011
I think it's legal jargon that they're required to use when a car company, tire company, whatever, makes a claim about how many miles per gallon you'll get with their product. They got a good number while testing their product that they'd like to trumpet, but they know you're likely to get less in the not-so-ideal conditions of the real world, and would prefer not to get nasty letters about it.
murlough23
topic
12:52:03 AM Apr 1st 2011
One thing that's really bugging me about the automatic flagging of certain tropes with a glaring red bullet is that there's no allowance for in-universe examples of these tropes. If a troper thinks a certain show, episode, movie, whatever, is So Bad, It's Good, it makes sense to move it to YMMV. But if characters watching a Show Within a Show regard it as So Bad, It's Good, that's a trope deliberately invoked by the writers. That's objective, and it'd be nice if we could turn off the big glaring red dot for such examples.

Another good example is Dude, Not Funny!. If this was a troper's reaction to a mean prank that a character played on another character, it would belong under YMMV. If it was a character's reaction to that prank, it should belong on the main page. But we can't post such things without future editors being nagged to move it to YMMV.
SpellBlade
12:59:41 AM Apr 1st 2011
Adding the text "in-universe", or potholing to "Invoked" (no quotes) gets rid of the YMMV warning you know.
murlough23
12:35:33 AM Apr 5th 2011
I did not know that. Was that All There in the Manual?
SpellBlade
12:38:18 AM Apr 5th 2011
Yup, on What Goes Where on the Wiki, under "Exceptions".
AMNK
04:32:18 PM Apr 8th 2011
You can put an [[invoked]] in the in-universe example, and the whole "YMMV markup" won't mark that example up.
Moleman9000
topic
05:44:00 PM Mar 8th 2011
Hello, I recently posted a comment here criticizing this new policy, and now not only does it seem to have disappeared, but I have been banned from editing (AGAIN). What gives?!
Komodin
05:49:20 PM Mar 8th 2011
The deleted "comment" wasn't constructive criticism so much as a overly loquacious and whiny bitchfest about how this site is apparently "transforming into Wikipedia". As for the edit ban, try discussing it here. Oh, and don't be a jerk about it; the ban will be permanent if you do~!
BNJC1
topic
04:43:51 AM Mar 6th 2011
Question about the whole "YMMV tab" thing: why? Really, why? If you say "to cut Natter" than I have two questions: "What's so bad about Natter? This isn't your standard wiki, right?" and two: "If you still don't want Natter, DELETE IT instead of doing something that isn't 100% sure too kill all natter. Why not do this, hmm?" All it does is break up things and make articles WAY less interesting.
Gilphon
03:00:20 PM Mar 8th 2011
1. We have an anti-Natter policy here; it makes the page look schizophrenic when it starts having a conversation with itself. These tropes also attract a bunch of other undesirable things, like edit wars, This Troper statements, justifying edits; basically everything about entries that we don't like tends to crop up when it's a matter of opinion whether or not a trope applies.

2. We do delete natter, but this is a preventive measure rather than a reactive one. It is not expected to get rid of it 100%, but nothing will; this makes the main page a lot easier to keep clean and puts all the natter-bait stuff together so one can keep an eye on it all at once.
MagBas
04:16:08 PM Mar 8th 2011
edited by MagBas
Beyond this, about 1, the pages have one limit of characters. Beyond this, the page needs be cut in pieces. This is one excelent motive to not want natter.
nuclearneo577
topic
06:51:15 PM Feb 26th 2011
Is cut listing this ban worthy?
RedViking
11:17:15 AM Feb 27th 2011
I don't know about a ban, but regardless, the person who cut listed this is going to need a better reason than "It just sucks" to get something like this cut.
AMNK
03:19:00 AM Feb 28th 2011
"It just sucks"... Sounds like whine.
Xzenu
topic
06:41:36 AM Feb 9th 2011
I noted a YMMV trope on the Zinnia Jones page, and noted that this case was not YMMV... The trope was Moral Event Horizon, and the episode was about Zinnia accusing some other youtube producer of having passed it. I left it on the main page, but made a note of the trope being invoked rather then played.

Also added the following to the last paragraph of the YMMV page. Hope I'm on the right track here. :-)

[...] Not as "played", straight or otherwise. [...] However, the value judgment of a YMMV trope can sometimes be made by a character. Such invoked examples still go on the main page.
Xzenu
07:51:39 AM Feb 13th 2011
Fast Eddie thought that this solution might confuse people, so I just started a new trope on YKTTW instead: Value Judgement, a trope about characters invoking YMMV tropes.
SpellBlade
topic
12:27:01 AM Feb 5th 2011
edited by SpellBlade
Why was Idiot Plot removed? It requires the viewer's judgment, is epic natterbait, and is essentially complaining about stories you don't like.
nuclearneo577
01:09:13 AM Feb 5th 2011
Read the page, it says this.

A term for a plot that hangs together only because the main characters behave like idiots.
SpellBlade
01:16:19 AM Feb 5th 2011
1. It's still natterbait and a complaint fest. 2. Read the examples. Lots of "why didn't the heroes do X?" And lots of responding.
troacctid
10:38:59 AM Feb 13th 2011
Put it back as per above.
antialiasis
topic
03:44:45 AM Feb 2nd 2011
So are absolutely all works' subjective tropes supposed to go on a separate YMMV index? It makes sense to me when things are cluttered or there is natter going on, but on smaller, quieter pages it just seems to break things up in an annoying way.
OldManHoOh
10:08:29 AM Feb 2nd 2011
Short answer, yes, as they're no longer technically tropes.
LosingStreak
topic
09:49:35 AM Jan 31st 2011
Any idea why Memetic Mutation was removed? It's not like anyone unfamiliar with certain works would immediately understand the significance. Additionally, other subtropes like Memetic Badass and Memetic Molester are still marked YMMV, so why isn't Memetic Mutation also on the index?
Dentaku
01:30:44 AM Feb 1st 2011
Memetic Mutation is not at all subjective. It's something that describes a subjective interpretation of a work, but that's about it. That also means that the other Memetic tropes don't belong here either.
MagBas
01:39:26 AM Feb 1st 2011
"It's something that describes a subjective interpretation of a work," you want say as one Audience Reaction?
troacctid
08:57:56 PM Feb 9th 2011
YMMV is for tropes that are present in the work, but it's not objectively clear whether, how, and to what extent. Audience Reactions don't appear within the work at all; they deal with the way audiences react to the work. Memetic Mutation falls into the latter category (where it is currently indexed) but not the former.
Koveras
topic
02:54:44 AM Jan 30th 2011
edited by Koveras
How are Yaoi Fangirl and Yuri Fan YMMV? They are quite objectively defined as "a girl who expresses a lot of interest in male homosexual romance" and "a person who expresses a lot of interest in female homosexual romance (as opposed to merely being turned on by lesbian sex)".
SeraphimSwordmaster
06:32:22 AM Mar 25th 2011
edited by SeraphimSwordmaster
Because the new super-subjective YMMV is dogpants idiotic.
SpellBlade
10:39:12 AM Mar 25th 2011
edited by SpellBlade
^You know, you should have checked the pages before complaining about YMMV - they're both limited to in-universe examples, and lack a banner.
NeoChaos
topic
02:22:25 PM Jan 29th 2011
edited by NeoChaos
Why is the The Masochism Tango on here? Seems pretty clear cut to me...
Xzenu
06:36:53 AM Feb 9th 2011
The trope description used to rad that the relationship is bad but the author doesn't know it. In other words, it was a trope for Complaining About Shows You Don't Like. I toned this down a while ago, but the trope is still a grey YMMV area between more objective tropes.
Dentaku
topic
01:17:21 PM Jan 29th 2011
edited by Dentaku
I don't think Tear Jerker really belongs here, since that trope is largely about deliberate attempts to make the audience feel sad.
troacctid
08:54:19 PM Feb 9th 2011
People can cry at things that weren't engineered to induce tears. If they do, it's still a legitimate Tear Jerker scene for them whether it was deliberate or not.
ading
01:55:48 PM Aug 5th 2011
But what if someone felt something was a Tear Jerker while someone else thought it was Narmy, or otherwise a failed attempt to induce tears?
MagBas
topic
07:44:36 AM Jan 29th 2011
Why Badass was listed here?
LosingStreak
12:25:41 PM Jan 30th 2011
It's not on the actual index, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Likely it was due to Badass Decay being listed and the entire Badass index got marked up.
83.88.161.118
topic
08:07:39 AM Jan 28th 2011
Complete monster? Why?

The complete monster lacks any kind of redeeming features, that is the point of him. If the milage varies he is not a Complete Monster.
LosingStreak
06:35:41 PM Jan 29th 2011
It's likely due to the existence of Draco in Leather Pants. Some people are just into that kind of thing.
troacctid
08:52:42 PM Feb 9th 2011
Additionally, people often disagree on whether the character's acts are truly unforgivable or just ordinary everyday villainy.
SeraphimSwordmaster
06:30:54 AM Mar 25th 2011
It's DILP syndrome all the way. Just try telling fans of a certain JRPG that the bad guys are evil. Their record for removing any such edits is twenty-two minutes. Heck, Hojo gets this treatment. And there are many pages just like it.
ading
06:03:26 AM Jun 25th 2011
Because whether or not someone is redeemable is subjective, as is whether an excuse is adequate.
198.237.185.8
topic
10:57:39 AM Jan 10th 2011
MagBas
11:10:55 AM Jan 10th 2011
I guess that the problem is in this paragraph: "Another big problem is that in multiplayer games, where people actually care about what other people do on their games, players will often not agree what is game breaking and what isn't. Heated debates (or worse) will spread like wildfire on the Internet, or even around the house. It's obvious that the extremes of the Munchkin or the Scrub are wrong. However, there are techniques whose power is hard or even impossible to call. Nor is banning glitches and "unintentional" moves an easy solution either; sometimes it can be hard to tell whether something is a glitch or not, sometimes a glitch happens so often that you'd have to go out of your way to have it not happen, and other times it can be argued that a glitch adds more depth to a game rather than less."
MagBas
topic
02:04:49 PM Dec 29th 2010
edited by MagBas
Question: Is it allowed to use one subjective trope in an explanation, as Fridge Brilliance or the like?
Xzenu
05:53:33 AM Jan 4th 2011
IMHO it depends on context.

Speaking of context, ANY subjective trope is totally valid as an example when it's actively used by a character who for example is the audience of a Show Within a Show.
MagBas
08:13:33 AM Jan 5th 2011
edited by MagBas
Well, i questioned this because of one discussion in the Pokemon generation III characters page. Here are the uses of subjective tropes : In Nincada/Ninjask/Shedinja: In Wailmer/Waillord:
  • Artistic License - Biology: So, Game Freak, how exactly does a 14.5 meter long whale weigh 400 kilograms!?
    • Fridge Brilliance kicks in when you consider Wailord is a "Float Whale" Pokémon. It's based on a blimp, while Wailmer is a beach ball. Doesn't explain how Wailord is less dense that hydrogen, but oh well...
In Cacnea/Cacturne: In Zangoose/Seviper:
  • Enemy Mine: They are mortal enemies and have been for quite some time. Doesn't mean they can't be on the same team, fight together on a Double Battle, or even breed.
In Castform:

By the context, said links are valid?

wootzits
topic
03:53:48 PM Dec 10th 2010
Ensemble Darkhorse and The Scrappy. It's totally objective that one character is popular and another is hated. It's all about statistics. They really shouldn't be subjective tropes.
AMNK
01:12:11 PM Dec 13th 2010
edited by AMNK
These are still subjectives, as those two are about opinion values about characters. Even if the Scrappy has a hatedom, it doesn't mean that every people hates him/her. Ditto for the Darkhorse, it doesn't mean that the entirety of the fandom likes him/her.
Xzenu
05:51:47 AM Jan 4th 2011
Also, popular where? What if everyone on one fan forum hate the character and everyone on another fan forum love her? And what if one fan forum where 90% of the posts are hatedom against her actually have five spammy loudmouths who hate her and hundreds of timid fans who love her but got silenced by Chewbacca Defense and similar a long time ago? :-)
azul120
03:17:43 PM Jan 11th 2011
edited by azul120
Here's the thing: characters can fall under both favored (i. e. Ensemble Darkhorse, Draco in Leather Pants, etc.) and unfavored (i. e. The Scrappy, The Wesley, Ron the Death Eater, etc.) fandom tropes. Or more succinctly, they are Base Breakers.
wootzits
04:40:45 AM Feb 3rd 2011
So, every character in a given series is a Base Breaker?
Xzenu
05:07:19 AM Feb 3rd 2011
Potentially, yes. :-)
ading
01:52:23 PM Aug 5th 2011
I don't see how that would make it a matter of opinion. The Scrappy doesn't mean "a character that everyone hates", it means "a character with a Hatedom." Likewise, Ensemble Darkhorse doesn't mean "a character who everybody likes", it means "a minor character who becomes very popular, or a character intended to be minor who ends up becoming a major character." Even if a minor character has a massive fandom and a massive hatedom, so? Then they are both tropes. That doesn't make either one a matter of opinion.

Thing is, they aren't actually in the work, so they go on the subjective page. Personally, I think Audience Reactions should get their own tab, but that's a different topic.
DarthMegatron
topic
07:44:11 PM Dec 2nd 2010
Why have the admins decided to completely relegate subjective tropes to separate pages? Some of the more extreme and subjective ones I can understand (So Bad, It's Horrible, Brain Bleach, etc.), but IMO it makes quite a few of the pages less amusing to read, not to mention that the fact that subjectives aren't allowed on character sheets means that individual characters can't be referred to as Base Breakers, etc. Maybe we should rethink this a little - this is getting a bit too "politically correct" IMO.
AMNK
07:40:00 AM Dec 14th 2010
I guess the point with these subjectives is that they attract too much natter and "This Troper" statements than many other non-subjective tropes.
Xzenu
05:58:01 AM Jan 4th 2011
There's also the matter of Edit Wars and the risk of disgusting readers who don't agree with whatever troper made the subjective statement.

LOL, I remember one time when I visited a fan forum for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Some idiots was ranting about how much they hated one character I liked. I never replied, I simply un-bookmarked the site and quickly forgot it's name. Good riddance.
gfrequency
08:20:19 PM Feb 9th 2011
Ah well, sooner or later every trope will end up on the YMMV page for any given work. And then we'll be back where we started and have to come up with some new and interesting way to point out that people have differing opinions.
SpellBlade
01:02:13 AM Apr 1st 2011
Slippery Slope Fallacy much? The site isn't about opinions anyways.
MagBas
topic
02:03:38 PM Nov 30th 2010
edited by MagBas
I removed the following examples because neither needs one values judgment:

Badass Decay means either one Badass character revealing one vulnerable side or turning less Badass (note that the own Badass trope is not subjetive-neither sounds as one). Adaptation Decay means changes into one work between two different mediums. Nothing subjective.

Ass Pull means drop one plot point without foreshadowing or Chekhov's Gun. Not needs neither values judgement or differences of opinion.

Nothing in the description of Character Derailment hints that this calls by one value judgement neither this is about differences of opinion. (actually, one lot of tropes related as Character Rerailment, Out-of-Character Moment and Characterization Marches On are not marked as YMMV, and many tropes in the Character Derailment list not sound subjective (Motive Decay? Aesop Amnesia?)

FastEddie
moderator
02:25:29 PM Nov 30th 2010
edited by FastEddie
Total disagreement here. The decay things call for a judgment of 'decay.' The other two are opinions, as well.
MrDeath
02:43:02 PM Nov 30th 2010
Additionally, most of the time you'll see those on a page, it's not someone trying to catalogue the tropes as much as it's someone trying to say, "This show sucked because..."
AMNK
03:46:45 PM Nov 30th 2010
I'm curious... why Hey, It's That Guy! and Hey, It's That Voice! are in this list?
FastEddie
moderator
04:08:39 PM Nov 30th 2010
I think the idea now is that they go on the Trivia tab, rather than the main page. They can probably come off of here, since they have been marked for Trivia banners.
nuclearneo577
04:36:26 PM Nov 30th 2010
^ Done.
AMNK
04:22:40 PM Dec 3rd 2010
My concern is, why those two tropes? I don't think those two tropes I've mentioned can be subjective ones, since they rely more on recognization (it's in the name!) rather than value judgement. If those tropes were about good or bad acting, well, I agree, but those aren't the cases AFAIK.
MagBas
05:27:11 AM Jan 4th 2011
Ok,ok. I understood why you want them outside the main page. Sorry by have removed them. But i yet am curious: why Ass Pull and Character Derailment are opinions?
PPPSSC
01:50:21 PM Jan 16th 2011
Sometimes someone will see something as Character Derailment that someone else sees as Character Development, or even, no change at all. Other times it's more apparent than that, but there are occasions where one interpretation of a characters' motives are consistent and another is inconsistent.

As for Ass Pull, maybe people think that it means "plot point done badly" instead of "plot point done quickly without any buildup" and are being offended that Their Show has it listed.
MagBas
01:56:55 PM Jan 16th 2011
edited by MagBas
... Ass Pull is listed as subjective because suffered Trope Decay?... Thanks.
AMNK
05:55:41 PM May 1st 2011
Character Derailment is now listed as Flame Bait.
MoG2
topic
08:20:09 AM Oct 22nd 2010
Everything else is there, but Awesome Moments / Moments Of Awesome isn't?
AMNK
05:14:33 PM Jan 4th 2011
CMOA has it's own page.
Lime
topic
10:46:57 AM Oct 10th 2010
Shouldn't there be an index for subjective (my bad, "YMMV") works?
FastEddie
moderator
10:59:05 AM Oct 10th 2010
Lime
11:14:06 AM Oct 10th 2010
Whoops, didn't see that. Thanks.
billybobfred
topic
05:16:55 PM Oct 9th 2010
And now it's the new name for Subjectives.
back to YMMV/HomePage

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy