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:
openNo Title Live Action TV
Have a problem in YMMV.The Walking Dead TV Show. There's a troper by the handle of NJE91 who's deleting entries without explanation or apparent reason. Jumped the Shark was nuked on the 14th, and then restored by another troper, and now he's deleting entries under Narm.
openEdit warring on ymmv page of JaneTheVirgin Live Action TV
Troper Sabat has been Edit Waring on the ymmv page of Jane the Virgin. They added these two entries several times despite being removed by two other people on the grounds of having racist leanings as well as coming off as biased.
Here are the entries in question: Anvilicious: This show has addressed the subject of illegal immigration in a one-sided manner, but it is especially obvious in Chapter 61, which dedicates another Alba subplot to the issue, finally culminating in Mateo asking "why some people don't want peace" in America.
- Strawman Has a Point: While the snooty white woman in Chapter 61 who informed a Spanish-speaking guest that "This is America. You should learn to speak English," was rude, many people would agree that if you live somewhere, you should know how to speak their language. Alba later reciting the Preamble of the Constitution as a retort comes across very Narm, as well.
As well as the Edit history
openEdit/Removal of Somewhat Transphobic Example on YMMV/Billions Live Action TV
Wasn't sure how to best phrase this inquiry. So, I saw on Billions, Troll Brutal re-added an example of Narm they had written, and which was removed by Tropers/thatfruitcake.
This is the example:
- The constant use of "they" and "them" without failure to refer to Taylor Mason -lest they want to put someone under the Politically Incorrect Villain light- sounds forced and rehearsed. In real life, it would be extremely difficult not to slip an occasional "she" without intended malice.
And this is Troll Brutal's edit reason:
Unexplained removal from what appears to be an agenda-based new account. which warrants a prudent restoration on principle. Even in this wiki we have neutral editors using "she" and corrections every one and then, but when John Malkovich uses it, we have the creators on record saying that reflects on his villainy. There's honest mistake, and then there's heavy handeness. Reasons and discussions are needed around here to contest.
So, my two cents at least is that while I can see the need to discuss something before removing/ discuss along with removing, the example and edit reason are really iffy. Because while I can acknowledge that it's very plausible that someone could misgender someone innocently and without malice, I don't think it's particularly narmy if at all that everyone would be shown using correct/desired pronouns, or that a malicious character deliberately wouldn't. And the fact that it was a deliberate writer choice doesn't make it heavy handed.
Full disclosure, I had a similar critique about a book River of Teeth in terms of how everyone, even the villain, correctly used "they" and "them" to refer to one character, but that was because the book is set in the 1800's in a "Wild West" setting. However, I don't think there's anything particularly surprising or "politically correct" that in a modern office setting everyone would use correct pronouns.
Thoughts?
openEdit War Live Action TV
2 days ago RiceRomp
added Audience-Alienating Premise to YMMV.Ratched.
Yesterday Golden City Bird
removed the example citing in his edit reason that works that haven't been released yet can't qualify for "Audience Alienating Premise".
RiceRomp has since then re-added the example.
Also they've added a couple of Narm examples, that were confirmed to be
Zero-Context Examples, so I commented them-out, but they have uncommented them.
openEdit War Live Action TV
RiceRomp
added the following examples to Hollywood (2020):
- Narm: Every time that people act wowed by Camille's acting, just because she’s so clearly not that good. Of particular note is her screen test where she delivers her dialogue with a constipated look on her face, which comes across as worse than than Claire's intentionally botched tape, yet the characters In-Universe view it as a brilliant performance.
- The Scrappy: Camille is this for some since she’s supposed to be an amazing actress, but many have said her portrayer is the weakest link of the ensemble. The idea that someone as untalented as her could overcome the insane racial bias of the era and win an Oscar is laughable.
I removed them because the Narm Clean-Up thread had said
that the former was not an example, and The Scrappy Clean-Up thread said
that the latter requires a 6 month waiting period before examples can be added and the work was released in May of this year.
RiceRomp just today has added these to the page:
- Narm: Every time that people act like Camille's acting is incredible, given most viewers not only think it's nothing to write home about, but legitimately bad. Of particular note is how in universe she's apparently so good that she helps change the country into a more accepting place, and manages to win a lead actress Oscar in the 1940s, a feat that wouldn’t be done in real life until the early 2000s.
- The Scrappy: Camille is probably the least popular of the main characters, with the main reason being that she’s supposed to be an exceptional actress, but her performances come across as more laughable and dull than actually good.
openPossible misuse of narm Live Action TV
The YMMV page of Superman & Lois has two entries of Narm, both from the pilot, which read:
- The dramatic intensity with which Clark confesses his origin story to Jon and Jordan can be so over-the-top in a "well, when you say it like that, this whole thing is actually pretty silly" kind of way. With the way it's played out, you'd almost expect for Clark to laugh and yell "just kidding!" instead of proving himself by lifting the truck.
- Nobody at the party noticing Jordan using his heat vision during the brawl, even though he's surrounded by dozens of people, some of whom are filming the brawl. Makes the emotional and shocking scene seem unintentionally comedic.
I have to ask, is this valid? Narm only applies for moments that are meant to be taken seriously but instead come off as hilarious, not moments that either fall flat or just don't have the intended effect.
openPossible Edit War on YMMV.TheBookOfBobaFett Live Action TV
Troper StrangeBro
added a Narm entry on YMMV.The Book Of Boba Fett which read:
- Narm: The Chase Scene in "The Streets of Mos Espa" was mocked for its apparent sluggishness, obvious and jarring green-screening, and out-of-place tone (fans observed that a bunch of Cyborg Scooter Riding Mods on gleaming, color-coded "space Vespas" would be more at home in Spy Kids than Star Wars).
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
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?
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?

Not entirely sure what to do here
.
Someone deleted a Narm entry because they disagreed with it. I restored it and said not to, and they then stripped out almost all of the context from the example. I don't think it's edit warring because his edits were very different, but I'm not sure what to do here. Especially since the example is from a very controversial episode. I understand Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment but that doesn't seem the best way to go about it.