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:
openConcerning 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.
open 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 KisujjopenNarm 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.
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.
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?
open 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
openNarm 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 Okami90openContested 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-ex777open''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"
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.)
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.
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.

So on YMMV.The Amazing Spider Man 2 the following:
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 Bullman