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.
Yeah, I think that's actually considered Natter or an "Arguable" example.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall^ I agree so much on both counts.
"It's this, unless it isn't" and "It's maybe this, but it could be that instead" and "It's this, but it totally has a reason" aren't good example writing. There are probably exceptions where the explanation is actually providing context for a casual reader to understand the example, but it's often someone disagreeing and unsure about the trope.
For anyone who's wondering what policies the tropers above are referring to, they're three Administrivia pages called:

I've noticed on entries for Narm across the wiki (I may even be guilty of it myself, not sure) that they occasionally include lines of explanation. For example, "It's hard to take (insert scene here) seriously when Alice's face is so goofy-looking. Though considering she was just drugged, this might explain why."
Would this be considered arguing against a listed trope? I usually see them added by the original editor, and it seems to have less to do with arguing that "Alice's face" is unintentionally funny and more about it being Justified.
Edited by iamconstantine