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:
openUnnecessary Japanese English wording in Fan made anime page Web Original
So Nyan~ Neko Sugar Girls has some random Japanese- English words because of the theme of the fan made anime which leads to bad grammar such as "a main character dies of a broken kokoro", "she transforms into a human naked" (From Shapeshifting Excludes Clothing example) and "By the torukku (?) load"(From Narm example). Even though it's a joke. I think that's unnecessary to put Japanese English words because we might not know what it means. So fixed it?
Edited by BubblepigopenNarm - flame bait status?
Narm is marked as a YMMV trope, but not Flame Bait.
However, the medium-specific subpages for Narm are marked as Flame Bait.
Shouldn't Narm itself be marked that way?
Or is the intent really that mediums with no subpage (E.g. Tabletop Game) can continue to add Narm to their works' ymmv pages, and can crosswick to the main Narm page without ever seeing those flamebait warnings?
Thanks!
openNarm and ''The Imitation Game''
So, the YMMV page
for The Imitation Game keeps having disputes over Narm entries.
First fearlessnikki
adds
an entry talking about a low-ranking officer making a call. MisterApes-a-lot
then deletes it, stating "This is more of a Fridge Logic nitpick than an example of a dramatic thing that is both funny and cheesy."
fearlessnikki later adds two more
Narm entries, one about a character worrying over their brother that did not exist in real life, and one about Turing saying he can't speak German when he did in real life. One entry once again mentions that a low-ranking officer making a call is unrealistic.
I deleted these entries (unaware of the previous edits), with this reason: "Deleting these Narm entries because they're reliant on outside knowledge, i.e. "This is Narm if you know...""
Ninja857142
re-added
both examples, saying, "These entries still qualify as Narm for viewers who are aware of the relevant facts. The point of YMMV entries is that they are subjective."
I don't think this is an edit war exactly, but I'd like some input here. I recall from previous Narm discussions that an example doesn't count if it's dependent on the viewer being knowledgeable of something outside of the work.
open Troper sagar engaging in edit war Live Action TV
The troper @sagar added the below edit to The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power which I removed with an edit reason as it isn't meant to be a funny scene. In the edit reason I explained that if the audience finds this dramatic scene funny (which I've never seen any evidence of other than this particular troper) then it's actually an example of Narm. @sagar has since added it back with the edit reason 'Don't gatekeep another person's lived experience.'
which makes no sense whatsoever.
Do I have permission to change it back?
openTroper making low-effort cleanup posts
for as long as i have been active in the Narm cleanup thread
, a particular troper, Anddrix, has been posting long lists of examples there without stating what they think is problematic about the examples they're posting. i have seen them make similar posts elsewhere as well, but the Narm thread is the only place where our activity significantly overlaps.
this is a problem because they're making other people do the work of actually determining what, if anything, is wrong with the examples. posts of this type generally are not tolerated in the projects forums; the expectation is that, if you think there's a problem, it's on you to do the work to prove it. what's more, if they don't get a response to their posts, they repost them with no additional context until someone finally goes through the examples. this has been going on, as i said, for as long as i have been active on the cleanup threads, and honestly, im sick and tired of watching other people do the work Anddrix should have done before posting in the first place. it's unfair to everyone who posts according to the rules.
openRings of Power Edit War Live Action TV
So, I'm reasonably certain there was an Edit War on the Rings of Power YMMV page. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.TheLordOfTheRingsTheRingsOfPower&more=t
Specifically, a Narm item.
- Galadriel's lecture on how agility is more important than strength (a style that fundamentally opposes how medieval combat and swordsmanship worked in the real world) is weakly explained, along with the way some of her exaggerated demonstrations were filmed while fighting the recruits, who have a number of easy openings on her to exploit and strike her body, but instead mostly opt to aim for her sword, and some of her awkward blocking maneuvers that would be easily shattered by a strong opponent. Moreover, agility might be very helpful in combat when one is an elf with superhuman reflexes, but not so much for a human warrior.
It was added by antihero276, but Troll Brutal changed it a bit, to clean it up.
Then it was deleted by Shadowhax, with no edit reason, which is pretty bad. 22 minutes later, it was restored by Troll Brutal with the edit reason "on principle."
Now, even though they weren't the initial OP, I think that means Troll Brutal is edit warring, right?
openWhy is Narm FlameBait in some areas but not in others?
I noticed that Narm is not flagged as Flame Bait when listed in a YMMV page, but is when it's an entire page dedicated to it. I can't seem to find the TRS discussing this, so I'm asking right here.
openEdit warring in YMMV Dragon Ball Super Anime
I removed a bunch of entries from the YMMV page of the Granolah's arc from Dragon Ball Super, since they were violations of policy (adding a Broken Base entry just days after the arc had ended, for example, alongside a It Was His Sled entry, and an Audience-Alienating Ending entry when the entire arc is days old). I also removed some entries that read as too much complaining instead of actually showing an audience reaction, particularly concerning Narm, Ass Pull, Franchise Original Sin and Fan-Disliked Explanation.
troper AMassiveOvereditor
(Which originally added most of these entries) added a bunch of entries back, with the exception of the entries that negated policy. What should be done in this case? I feel that rather than reflecting the views of the audience itself, the page just merely centers on the views of this specific troper. Not to say that there isn't examples of Narm and Ass Pull (I left some of those and after some days I thought that maybe I should have added back the Black Frieza entry in Ass Pull), but I feel that the page as a whole is too negative, which is a common problem in the Dragon Ball Super manga pages.
open Sweetness Aversion misuse (widespread)?
Sweetness Aversion is when audiences have a negative reaction to overly saccharine works. It was formerly Tastes Like Diabetes but was changed to separate the negative audience reaction examples from others. But the Sweetness Aversion sub-pages look like they were moved without cleaning up misuse as almost all fail to explain the negative reaction to it or play with it which YMMV can't be.
Some examples from SweetnessAversion.Western Animation:
- Lady Rainicorn from Adventure Time looks like a toy
◊ but is really a Badass Adorable. Not this if positively received as described.
- Animaniacs:
- Mindy. Between "Wakko's Wish" and the Buttons and Mindy episode "Mindy in Wonderland," one could vomit from the sugar overdose. Especially with the line "Fuzzy Bunny," and, "'kay I love you bye bye." Might count, might be a parody.
- "Baloney And Kids" parodies this with the namesake Barney clone. Deliberate parody. Does that fit something else?
- "Valuable Lesson" features Moral Guardians making the Warners watch an expy of The Smurfs with a lesson on being angry as an example of the kind of program Animaniacs needs to be. Same as above.
- Arthur becomes this during Kate and Pal's episodes. The series could be seen as becoming something of it as a whole thanks to the new animation. '''ZCE as to how it's such and the negative reaction to it.
- Batman: The Animated Series Baby
◊ Doll
◊ seems this, but is really a 30-year-old insane woman who merely acts like a little girl thanks to her massive issues stemming from being a Former Child Star whose body never matured past childhood. Double misuse it it was one of the saddest, best received work from the show.'
- ChalkZone is considered by many to be the sweetest and cutest of all the Nicktoons. This initially hurt its reception amongst viewers though as many it was too saccharine, but the show has earned itself a decent-sized fanbase over the years. Largely valid. But is the last part Natter?
- Hasbro's My Little Pony cartoons are famous and notorious for this, but reality is a bit murkier... Valid the franchise was considered this, but this seems wishy-washy on it. Does it count if it was wasn't actually that saccharine but still perceived as such?
- The original 1980's cartoons had this to an extent (lord knows the theme songs did), at least until the villains showed up. The Movie was probably the most diabetes-laden part of G1, even with the villains. (Y'know, the one with the ever-spreading, all-consuming, Hate Plague-inducing, eye- and mouth-spawning living ooze that is frequently compared to the Shoggoths from the Cthulhu Mythos.)
- It's mostly in the Direct-to-Video Generation 3 (early 2000's) that the My Little Pony cartoons acquired the reputation for tasting like diabetes. This generation contained, arguably, some of the cutest ponies in the show, and had a very feminine look towards it, as well as heart-warming friendship moments being used to their fullest. This got taken Up To Eleven when the already-cute characters were retooled into the "Animesque" style fans dubbed "G3.5". But even these two eras have their share of adventuring (in particular, the hot air balloon they take to the place they need to go always seems to end up with ponies needing to be saved from plummeting to their deaths, and never get into water in G3: the Inevitable Waterfall is a certainty!) Valid if it was big part of audiences feeling the franchise was such.
- Unintentionally subverted with one specific part of G3.5, Newborn Cuties, and not in a good way. They obviously try to go for this, but instead, the peculiar art style and poor animation leaves the "cuties" looking very unsettling. Behold.
Can't be played with so this seems like a unrelated complaint.
- Unintentionally subverted with one specific part of G3.5, Newborn Cuties, and not in a good way. They obviously try to go for this, but instead, the peculiar art style and poor animation leaves the "cuties" looking very unsettling. Behold.
- My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic from mere subject matter alone is a very adorable and sweet show, so there is no shortage of diabetes and Narm Charm is in abundance. But that hasn't stopped it from playing around and lampooning itself to lessen the diabetes. While the show has diven into the sugar sweetness with no hint of irony whatsoever, it will sometimes throw lampshades on this as a source of comedy. Fluttershy's cute shyness is sometimes played up for jokes. Pinkie Pie's singing and overly cheerful demeanor has irritated characters on many occasions, Spike mocks Twilight's excessively sentimental wrap-up in an episode, The Cutie Mark Crusaders react to Big Macintosh's and Cheerilee's sappy love talk with visible disgust, and Rainbow Dash is utterly terrified of extreme cuteness. Not an examples as this has broke the franchise stigma of being this such it achieved mainstream popularity/acceptance. Cut or worth noting it playes with this expectation as part of the series. If the latter should it just be added to the franchise wide examples saying it broke that?
Almost all the other examples have these issues? Should we just cut examples that don't mention the negative audience reaction? Or is this something needing a proper cleanup?
openAdd back of misused examples Live Action TV
So on Stranger Things. A bunch of Narm entries were removed via the cleanup thread for being misuse and Not An Example with a link to the thread in the edit reason.
Legends Avatar 798 not only wholesale added them all back but also ignored that the edit reason said to come their if anyone wanted to re discuss a removed example
openOdd edit to YMMV/VsSonicExe
So on YMMV.Vs Sonic Exe, this used to be under Rescued from the Scrappy Heap:
- One major compliment of the mod is that it takes one of the most infamously Narm-y creepypastas in existence and manages to make its titular antagonist genuinely intimidating through his disturbing Body Horror animations, his ominously deep voice, and an incredibly fast and frantic song that keeps the player on their toes. In other words; it made Sonic.exe legitimately scary. This is especially the case when it comes to EXE, who was designed with the express purpose of making Sonic.exe actually scary in 2020, and his showing in the mod succeeds with flying colors - especially when it comes to his nightmarish transformation sequence.
Real Escape 99 removed the part about EXE with the edit reason "Faker Isnt Any More Scary Than Xenophanes Or The Others What Are You Talking About"
Ignoring the fact that the edit reason Capitalizes Every Word, the write up wasn't saying that EXE was scarier than the others, it was using EXE as an example of how the mod succeeds at making Sonic.EXE scary.
Maybe I'm looking to much into it, but it feels like an odd reason to delete.
openYMMV Entry Restoration Videogame
The 2017 video game Mass Effect: Andromeda features a character that is supposed to be a powerful, violent, intimidating female warlord from a Proud Warrior Race. The voice of the character in question sounds like, to be blunt, a very stereotypically effeminate gay male, to the point where it sounds like a parody. Think Family Guy cutaway portrayal of a gay male, except it's supposed to be taken seriously. It's legitimately not very clear that this character is supposed to even be a female. Because of this and the character fighting in an extremely poorly animated and choreographed scene, this character has been overwhelmingly ridiculed and mocked by players and fans.
It turns out the person who provided the voice recordings for this character is transgender. DGCatAniSiri removed a Narm entry from the YMMV page, claiming that such an entry is transphobic. There was no mention of transgenderism in the entry.
I've sent a message to DGCatAniSiri explaining that even if this claim had any weight, it's irrelevant. Explaining that YMMV entries don't become valid or invalid based upon whether the fan reaction was "right," and that they are perfectly free to disagree. After weeks, a follow up message, and more weeks, they still haven't responded, despite being active.
May I restore this entry?
Edited by HeartOfStoneopen Is this an Edit War?
So on YMMV.Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness, lbssb added
this to the Narm Charm tree:
- Narm Charm: C'mon, it's a Sam Raimi movie:
I removed
it because it felt informal and I didn't see what it added to the entry. However,
lbssb added
this to the tree:
- Narm Charm: It is a Sam Raimi film, after all; he's quite well-known for this:
Like this nearly the same thing just reworded. I can't find anywhere where they discussed this. Is this an Edit War?
Edited by BullmanopenRevert due to awful grammar.
JonathanGulster
's grammar and overall editing is really bad, honestly more than I can expect to be rectified with any number of notifiers. I'll send them, but flagging.
However, I need a mod to revert this page
to before they edited it.
openQuestion about Narm
I noticed that on Narm's subpages (like Narm.Five Nights At Freddys), theres a Flame Bait banner. However, Narm itself has a YMMV banner, and isn't in the Flame Bait index. What's up with that?
openEdit war
DogOnRollerSkates
is edit-warring over a Narm entry on this
page. They added
the entry, Dylandbk
deleted
it saying the scene is intentionally funny and thus doesn't count as Narm, and Dog re-added
it saying it does.
This is the second time
Dog has been involved in an edit war, and they were suspended for it before.
openBioshock 2 laconic edit war. Videogame
I changed the laconic for Bioshock 2, it was changed back and I thought I just forgot to publish the edit so I changed it again. The laconic thread told me that mine was a better description of the game. It was changed back a few days ago. The troper in question, Anti Hero 276, who also created the page back in February, reverted my edit from this
resolved Removal of YMMV examples over what seems to be a personal disagreement
I noticed that the Narm entries on the YMMV page for Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds were removed in July last year by Primis for what they put down as just "Misuse".
Thing is, the only thing they show to back up the claim of misuse is a link to the Narm cleanup thread
where they come off as simply disagreeing with the examples listed, with no other troper replying to agree with their post.
I was under the impression that simply disagreeing with YMMV items isn't enough reason to remove them, and that's what seems to be happening here, especially as I've actually seen the "dancing heatray" examples in both the 2006 and New Generation shows and know exactly what those examples are referring to and why it would come across as Narm. Is it ok to restore those examples (minus the Mondegreen link, since that's obviously not a YMMV trope)?
openAdded back edit
I removed these from YMMV.It Takes Two 2021 but they were added back by separate tropers.
- CrossesTheLineTwice: The infamous part where Cutie the Elephant is murdered by the main protagonists is intended to be over-the-top BlackComedy in the spirit of a ''[[Series/MontyPythonsFlyingCircus Monty Python]]'' sketch, though some players still felt it was [[DudeNotFunny too disturbing]].
- Designated Hero: Cody and May end up as these when drag Cutie the Elephant to her death as she cries and begs for them to stop, slowly tearing off her leg and an ear when they get snagged on a door and a fallen screwdriver respectively. While they don't like doing the deed, they do dance in their daughter's tears thinking they will finally return them to normal. They don't.
- Intended Audience Reaction: Many people reacted negatively to the fact that Cody and May had no qualms with killing Cutie the Elephant because they think it'll return them to normal, citing it as the moment where they stopped sympathizing with Cody and May's plight. The point of that scene is to show Cody and May are terrible people who need to fix themselves (and their relationship) in order to be free of their curse. Cody and May previously had committed less-than-stellar deeds of leaving behind their beetle steed to die and breaking their promise to Moon Baboon that they'll protect Rose when they think it could benefit them. The scene with Cutie was just the tip of the iceberg.
The creators confirm Cody and May were not supposed to be sympathetic in that moment
and I believe one moment is not enough to count as Designated Hero regardless so cut. Intended Audience Reaction is not YMMV so should be cut as well.
Crosses the Line Twice was intended to be this but it seems many felt it failed so should it be cut? Dude, Not Funny! is In-Universe Examples Only so it should be cut regardless.
Permission to re-cut? Since it got added back by what seems like completely separate tropers is there anything else to do like adding commented out notes?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught

So on YMMV.Wednesday, I removed
this Narm entry:
I removed it because it doesn't fit the trope definition of an overly serious moment that becomes funny. Well a little while ago added this new Narm entry
:
On top of this being Zero Context it also is still not a moment like the trope needs to be. So, I don't know what to do, because if I remove it I will be edit warring.