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:
openAvoiding an Edit Wat
So on YMMV.Wednesday, I removed
this Narm entry:
- The Hyde looks incredibly silly and cheap, having been compared to the zombies from "Plants Vs Zombies", and the scenes of Tyler's eyes bugging out as he transforms are unintentionally hilarious
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
:
- Even, The Hyde monster suffered this by a more silly than serious design.
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.
openJustEatGilligan/factual error issue.
From Just Eat Gilligan:
- The series How It Should Have Ended is pretty much dedicated to pointing these out. Examples are The Lord of the Rings (blindfold the eagles and fly them straight from Rivendell into Mordor), Predator (if the Predator doesn't attack unarmed people because it's not good sport, just ditch all the weapons) Star Wars (don't wait until the Death Star has gone all the way around the planet that the rebel base orbits, just blow up the planet - in the original video, or lightspeed around the planet to the appropriate side -in the updated version, and you'll have a clear shot at the base), and Avengers: Endgame (Take a Third Option by sacrificing Red Skull for the Soul Stone instead of having Natasha/Black Widow or Clint/Hawkeye be the sacrifice- though this ignores that the movie specified that the sacrifice had to be someone who you loved, which was why Thanos sacrificed Gamora instead of a random mook, and obviously Natasha and Clint don't remotely love the Red Skull).
The rest are valid but the last one has issues.
- If it's arguing the solution is factually incorrect despite portraying it as such in work is it not an example (most JEG examples are also unintentional)?
- If an intended/discussed example is valid is arguments against it Natter?
- Is there anything such errors can go under? (Cowboy BeBop at His Computer only applies to the work the error is about.)
open''Forspoken'' edit war
Almost a month ago, GuiltyAdonis
added this
entry to the YMMV page for Forspoken.
- Opinion Myopia: The game's most vocal critics make it out to be a trash fire with no redeeming qualities and an unsympathetic protagonist who nobody could possibly like. In fact, it's got some really solid gameplay mechanics and worldbuilding, and even the dopey dialogue has its charms.
With the edit reason: "adding some positivity to the ymmv page because jfc. your experiences are not universal and some of us actually did get good mileage out of it" They edited the entry again to fix brackets, with a comment saying "delete this if you must but i couldn't stay silent any longer ):<"
Which, as a side note, I think is misuse of Opinion Myopia, since it comes off as saying that the vast negative reception to the game is "incorrect," which I don't think the reaction means. They also added a (incorrectly indented) further comment
to the page complaining about editors being too negative on the YMMV page, which was later deleted.
The Opinion Myopia entry was recently deleted
by MBG
with the edit reason ""why do these people state their opinion as fact? here's my opinion presented as fact."" (Which, sarcasm aside, is also why I think the entry was misuse, but that's beside the point.)
Guilty Adonis re-added
the entry verbatim with the edit reason "the fact that the overwhelming majority of times I've made an even slightly positive edit to this page, someone either removes it or rewords it to be more negative, is the reason i put this here in the first place, and your reason for removing it really doesn't convince me that that's changed. thanks though <3"
openContested mass edits on Characters/LimbusCompany Videogame
Ok. So I'll get this problem straight. The wording I used for my previous help post isn't all that good.
I tried to edit Dante's entry from Limbus Company with something that is explicitly All There in the Manual (specifically, the character's true identity, which is heavily implied but not flat-out stated), but I faced very heavy resistance from another user that I'm just adding "baseless speculation" and "Wild Mass Guessing", so I reverted my own edits just to be safe.
For all I know, they are not. (These
are
the Japanese fanslations of the source material.)
What should I do in this case? The thing I want to edit in is All There in the Manual (leaving it out results in lots of misinfo), but at the same time I do NOT want to risk an edit war. I just need help resolving this conflict.
Edited by Mr-ex777openNarm trope Anime
Is it okay to put a description like "Many of this character's moments become Narm due to the way they're animated/portrayed", or does it have to be a specific moment you put as the trope?
Edited by Okami90open New NRLEP Crowner!
Up for NRLEP:
- Blood Knight - Morality, Characterization
- Bungled Suicide - Gossip, too gorey
- Creepy Good - Morality, Characterization
- Dies Wide Open - Too Common, attracting gross anecdotes and autopsy photos
- Dodgy Toupee - Gossip about people's hair loss, Complaining About Toupees You Don't Like
- Genetic Engineering Is the New Nuke - Narrative, Impossible, Too Controversial since it's about a controversial hot button issue
- Groin Attack - Too Common, attracting gross anecdotes
- It Can't Be Helped - Too Controversial, as it's a stock phrase it's Too Common
- Late Coming Out - Gossip about peoples' sexual orientations, related to Transparent Closet
- Narm Charm - Narrative, attracting anecdotes
- New-Age Retro Hippie - Narrative, Too Common
- Or Are You Just Happy to See Me? - A sex-related trope, as a stock phrase it's Too Common
- Royal Brat - Characterization, related to Jerkass tropes
- Teeth-Clenched Teamwork - Too Common, Too Controversial, attracting Natter
open Is the Narm cleanup thread getting a little overzealous?
So the Narm cleanup thread
has been around for a while, but I'm wondering if it's perhaps recently been taking things a little far. As far as I was hitherto aware, we usually take a fairly light touch on YMMV tropes, precisely because they're subjective, and only delete entries in cases of clear-cut trope misuse. The Narm thread seems to be applying a somewhat more aggressive approach, getting more into the weeds of whether an example is funny enough to qualify (which strikes me as more of a subjective matter than, say, whether it's mislabelled intentional comedy) and applying a particularly strict interpretation of our 'examples are not general' rule that I haven't seen applied to other audience reaction tropes, ruling out any repeated/recurring elements of unintentional comedy in an otherwise dramatic work.
Did I miss a shift in wiki policy towards this style of YMMV cleanup, or is this approach indeed going a bit far in cutting valid/informative entries?
openNeed help on Clothing Damage.
On the Clothing Damage page, there is a part that looks like this:
In Star Trek: The Original Series Captain James Tiberius Kirk of the Starship Enterprise has his shirt ripped in fights in six episodes ("Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Miri" "Court Martial", "Shore Leave" "Amok Time" and "Gamesters of Triskellon") and ripped outside fights in "The Naked Time" (where Mc Coy]= thinks it's the best way to administer a hypospray) and "Miri" again (where he rips his own sleeves to show he has the disease). The rips in "Court Martial" and "Shore Leave" are exactly the same. This was parodied in the Futurama episode, where Shatner simply tears his own shirt right before a discussion, into the same pattern. Delirious's first mask was cut by Matt Sydal, who turned Delirious's own wooden stake against him. He's also had masks damaged by Jimmy Jacobs, Hang Men 3 and Bryan Danielson. Good thing Daizee Haze likes sewing. In OVW, Jillian Hall went mad and turned on Alexis Laree, beating her down and ripping off her shirt. While Laree was face down on the mat, she then ripped apart Alexis's bra and tried to lift her off the mat to expose her to the crowd, who, being full of Laree fans, heavily booed Hall for this (The referee got a towel to preserve Laree's dignity) Pretty much the point of the Tuxedo Match for men and Evening Gown/Bra & Panties match for women.
I am not sure how to fix it.
openNarm pages for creators?
I noticed that someone recently made a Narm page for Christopher Nolan's movies; not for any particular one of his franchises (though the Dark Knight Trilogy has its own separate page) but to encompass all his films... which it turns out to be only a few otherwise. I couldn't find another instance of a page where someone made a Narm page for an individual creator (except maybe Chick Tracts lol), does this seem allowed? To me, it doesn't seem right.
resolved Is Narm YMMV or Flame Bait?
I noticed that Narm has the YMMV banner at the top, but on the subpage for the different media (Narm.Anime, Narm.Film, Narm.Literature, Narm.Western Animation), it appears with the Flame Bait banner.
Is there a reason for this?
Edited by SoyValdo7open About the Bolivian Army Ending trope.
The laconic says it is about characters facing impossible odds at the end. First of all, it is rather vague and blurred. The result is that there are such examples like, for instance, a group of characters looking at a hurricane (cue the end of the movie, though actually I'd say it is not impossible odds, as the characters are not alone somewhere in the desert and can try to drive away). Isn't it weird to call a hurricane an "army"? Then, there are such examples when a dying character faces two or three enemies and it is implied that he actually defeats them. Anyway, three people - is that enough to call them an "army"? There are many examples like this (one of them is about facing a single humanoid monster at the end). I'd say this is not what comes to mind when you think about what is a Bolivian Army Ending, at least for me. What do you think, people?
Edited by KisujjopenConcerning edit reasons about Israel/Hamas conflict
emlovele has made a few edits today with some pretty hostile and (in my opinion) dogwhistle-y comments about the ongoing military conflict in Gaza.
On Narm.Music and Narm.Live Action TV they removed some entries that I would actually agree need to go, but left these edit reasons:
"Watch a news report. Read a book. It’s not anti-Semitic to CORRECTLY point out that thousands of Palestinians have had their property seized ON CAMERA by the IDF. There’s nothing funny about it. I know this site is overrun with Zionists, but let’s be serious for a second."
"1. Again, there’s nothing funny about Israel murdering hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with zero MSM coverage. It’s great that you guys think it’s something to joke about, but it’s like saying a song sang by Jews during the Holocaust is cringey or worthy of being laughed at. It’s not a funny situation. 2. There are hundreds of songs about men getting revenge on cheating women. Eminem’s Love the Way you Lie, anyone? “Ima tie her to the bed and set the house on fire”?"
In my experience, the term "Zionist" tends to be associated with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and their troper page further conflates "Zionists" with "genocide supporters". (It also helpfully states that they will refuse to respond to any messages or notifiers sent to them, so...) All of the things mentioned here were edits made today, and I haven't combed through their entire history, but it certainly is giving off a personal agenda to me even if the removed entries should have been cut.
resolved Close to being an edit war? Literature
JaidebeccaShipper removed
the word "transphobic" from this entry:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: The book tells the story of a little boy named Johnny who loves to role-play as different animals and objects. One day, he decides that he wants to be a walrus. This (somehow) causes everyone to treat him as if he actually wants to become a walrus, culminating in a doctor suggesting that Johnny eat worms and have his limbs cut off in an allegory for hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery — a metaphor that would only be understood by the transphobic adults in Walsh's audience who would purchase it, despite the book being illustrated and ostensibly presented as a children's book. Walsh boasted that it was the best-selling book in Amazon's LGBTQ+ category, only for Amazon to recategorize it to Political and Social Commentary and for Target to completely remove it from its online storefront.
With the edit reason: " Arguing against an ideology is not transphobic, just like not following a religion doesn't mean you hate people of that religion."
Moroaica added
"transphobic" back to the entry with the edit reason: "trans medication isn't 'ideology' and opposition to that is transphobic."
I'm not sure what do here. But my observation is that they're both troping with an agenda (but hey, correct me if that observation is wrong).
On a related note, Moroaica removed
- Narm Charm: The Zookeeper Author Avatar looking like Walsh is something that fans of the book consistently praise.
Their edit reason for removing it was: "This book has no actual 'fans'"
As much as I disagree with this book's message, this isn't true. The book certainly does have fans and those who agree with Walsh's message. It feels like Moroaica is being disingenuous here and biased.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2openAvoiding an edit war. Opinions on if this is word cruft.
So on YMMV.The Amazing Spider Man 2 the following:
- Joe Mere added
the following to the Base-Breaking Character tree "All three of the movie's villains are quite divisive to say the least."
- I removed it for being word cruft
, though to my embarrassment I misspelled cruft.
- Joe Mere re-added
it but reworded to "All of the villains are incredibly divisive to say the least, up to the point where they tend to be one of the most criticized things about the film. Either you find them entertaining in spite of their flaws or poorly written and unintentionally goofy."
Now, I don't know if this is still word cruft or not with the rewording. I don't think it is an edit war as they might have believed that they managed to fix the problem by rewording this. So, should it be kept or removed?
Edited by BullmanopenWhere can we discuss YMMV-tropes?
Such as "Catharsis Factor", "It Was His Sled", "Narm"?
Edited by Kuprinresolved Weird edit reasons
Troper Shinn Bidan made a few edits with a few edits that I consider to be, for lack of a better word, off.
- In here
they added a Blue with Shock entry with this:
- In here
, they added a What Could Have Been entry wishing it was in the final game.
Now, none of these are really eyebrow raising but I firmly believe that personal opinions should not be in the wiki pages and these edit reasons make me unsure we that also includes expressing those opinions on edit reasons.
Any other opinions?
openInsight so as to avoid Edit War
On the YMMV page
for The Haunting of Hill House, I added the following Narm example a while back:
- Episode 3 begins with an unsettling scene of someone crawling into a young Theo's bed and snuggling up to her. She thinks it's Nellie, but when she turns, no one is there. The music goes eerie, and the camera creeps in to Theo...who then asks aloud, to no one, "Who's hand was I holding?" As though the audience needed to be told why the scene was scary.
alexrae250
later added a note to it:
- The line is in reference to an extremely famous scene and line from the original novel, in which Eleanor and Theo cling to each other in terror at the sound of a mysterious something approaching them, only for Theo to realize that Eleanor has been across the room from her the whole time and was not in fact holding her hand. This line was not added for the audience's sake, but because an adaptation of Hill House would be incomplete without it.
Which seems like a justifying edit, IMO? But I don't want to commit an edit war by deleting this bit outright, so I wanted some thoughts.
Edited by iamconstantineopenEdit War on The Marvels YMMV
On December 21st, Arcane Azmadi added a Narm entry
to YMMV.The Marvels 2023. Three days later, it was cut by the cleanup thread
for being media association and Fridge Logic, therefore not qualifying as Narm. On January 29th, the same troper re-added it
with different wording but still all the same problems.
I already removed it since it was already voted by thread and I wasn't part of that discussion.

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 Bubblepig