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:
openNarm---Ducktales 2017 Western Animation
I've been running into a problem with multiple misuses of narm. However I wanted to double check just in case I'm the one who is misunderstanding the trope. Narm is only applicable when a scene or moment is unintentionally funny or cheesy right? It's all about what the creator intended. If they wanted a funny thing to happen during a serious scene it can be considered mood wiplash or even big lipped alligator moment but not narm. And people getting over their sadness in less than three minutes is angst what angst or mood wiplash not narm, right?
openOdd page
UsefulNotes.Villain Army was recently made and, well, it doesn't seem to be connected to any work (and the editor may be writing about themselves) or make sense for that matter
the editor also has added examples about it on other pages
openFridge and Headscratchers from Hellboy: The Golden Army Film
The Headscratchers and the Fridge pages from Hellboy II: The Golden Army are identical, with the only exception that Headscratchers is more clearly-written. Wouldn't it be better to cut one of them (I'd say the Fridge page indeed)?
openArguing-against-self Narm entries?
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 iamconstantineopenVandalism/gushing
Borught up here
, but I saw some bits that I'm certain are gushing on top of natter, and had to double-check if the troper's edits were natter on other pages too (the troper self-admitted in the edit reason, and they appear to be new, only having five edits).
On Characters.Sonic Boom Antagonists, in this edit
for Shadow the Hedgehog:
- Adaptational Jerkass: Shadow was never a saint, but he wasn't malicious and had several close friends. His original version was a Consummate Professional whose rivalry with Sonic was built around either seeing Sonic as a Worthy Opponent or an obstacle in the way. This version of Shadow is an arrogant (yet awesome) bastard who mocks Sonic for relying on his friends and wants nothing to do with them in the games. In the TV show, he's also a case of Vile Villain, Saccharine Show, being a villain that even intimidates Eggman, and knocks everyone else out of the way so he can fight Sonic one-on-one, and even then his motivations can be seen as petty.
- One-Man Army: He absolutely destroys Team Sonic like the scrubs they are, all by himself, just like the badass he is.
And these edits in Characters.Dragon Ball Z Abridged Movies for Broly here
- Hulk Speak: Just like the Trope Namer, he speaks like this after his homicidal personality surfaces.
Broly: Excuse Broly? (Rebel's Version: "Excuse me?")
- Mythology Gag: When Broly attempts to describe himself.
Broly: Monster? Broly's not a monster. Broly is a... huh...\ (Rebel's Version: Monster, you say?! I'm not a monster! I am... hmm...)Gohan: A genuine demon? note What Broly refers to himself as in the AB Groupe "Big Green" dub
—>Goku: A true freak? note What Broly refers to himself as in the Funimation dub
—>Broly: The Devil. note How Broly refers to himself in the original Japanese version and the Speedy dub
—>Vegeta: OH MY GOD, HE'S SO GODDAMN COOL! - Pre-Mortem One-Liner: Arguably, it's ambiguous whether he knew it would kill him or he simply didn't know his own strength. However, what is the last thing he says to his dad before crushing his pod (and him)? "HUG!" (Rebel's Version: "DEATH WAITS FOR NO ONE!")
- Pokémon Speak: As LSSJ, he devolves into Hulk Speak and then into saying only "Kakarot!" And also "hug"...while crushing his dad to death. Rebel's Version defies this with a huge passion.
- His general impatience even in casual conversation, especially in his Legendary form, also mirrors that of the aforementioned fans when they kept asking for Broly's movie to get the Abridged treatment.
Broly: BROLY DOES NOT LIKE TO WAIT! (Rebel's Version: "TIME'S UP, MOTHERFUCKER!")- Played straight after becoming the Legendary Super Saiyan: his interest in Trunks has increased to the point he thinks Trunks is his property.
Vegeta: You've been ignoring someone this entire time.
Broly: Broly's wife?\ (Rebel's Version Are you referring...to Trunks?
Trunks: Well, technically, I was the one who killed Freeza.
Broly: That's hot.
This is all grounds for vandalism and I can remove without issue, correct? I should also send both a natter and gushing notifiers too?
openNarm Entry on Kamen America
Recently a Narm Entry was removed with claims of it being exaggerated off of Kamen America's YMMV page.
- Narm: The comic's conservative right-leaning writing can sometimes reach eye-rolling levels (and is somewhat ironic given the creative team's critiques of the so-called "left wing bias" of mainstream superhero comics) due to the sheer amount of strawmen characters and mouthpieces demonizing almost every non-conservative concept or idea under the sun and portraying it's proponents as either evil criminals or brainless sheep, while the "wholesome, proud conservative characters" are near-perfect and always right.
It was removed by another troper for claims of it being exaggerated and claiming the characters were far more three dimensional when they're...not.
The story's recent arc focused on a climate change allegory that leans very heavily into the conspiracy claim that "climate change is a hoax from liberal-aligned cabals faking weather disasters to push radical climate change laws."
The entire Fateful Lightning Story is so full of straw you could feed an entire herd. There's never a counterpoint, there's never a moment where the heroes have to question if they're in the wrong. They're always right, and the people championing the climate change allegory are all portrayed as moronic violent thugs who are 100% wrong and treated like idiots.
They literally differentiate the red and blue states as "light and dark states" for crying out loud.
I didn't want this to turn into an edit war, so wanted to see if this more or less tracks.
openEdit 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.
openuhh are these allowed or nah???
since trivia and YMMV stuff arent allowed in the main page of a work(obviously bc its out of universe bc trivia are facts that arent in universe and are for Word of God stuff thats confirmed and YMMV are opinion related such as fanon things and whatever) but are these things allowed if its actually IN universe??? like for example a character thinks a Show Within a Show is really narmy. yes or no?
Edited by Inotpurplegirl06openEdit War?
So, on YMMV.Mean Girls 2024 the following happened:
- Young Artist 79 added
Narm entries.
- Octoya removed
them do to being misuse.
- Young Artist 79 re-added
them without discussing it anywhere.
I already removed them again due to being jokes where the trope is for stuff that accidentally becomes funny. That said is Young Artist 79 edit warring?
openFilm namespace
So, I noticed several Film namespaces covering both Animated and Live-Action movies, like AnArmAndALeg.Film, TragicVillain.Film and WhatDoYouMeanItsForKids.Film. Is it okay to split to their respective namespaces ? If so, how should I split them without losing their history edits ?
openNarm Removal
I want to challenge the removal of one of my inserts.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Narm.JessicaJones2015
This person argued that it was Truth in Television:
"Someone trying to convince a child of their parents wrong-doing is Truth in television and a staple plot point of police procedurals. Nothing in the example states why the drama is so bad it makes the scene funny."
First off, that statement is debatable, especially since in this case, the child wouldn't be inclined to believe a stranger. Second, this is not an apparent case of wrong-doing to bystanders, or to the child. Third, It wasn't that she was trying to convince her. It was how she said it.
What was funny was her inflection. As a bonus, there's him suddenly threatening to get physical. Even if he didn't know about her powers, it would be a very silly idea to make a scene on the beach, especially for someone keeping a low profile.
open 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 Bullmanopen 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?
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"
openTroper re-added incorrect trope by potholing it in another entry
The troper yin_13147 had Translation Train Wreck listed on the Qian Qiu YMMV page and even made a subpage (now deleted) that listed translation complaints about the official subtitles. Based on what the YMMV entry and examples said, the official translation isn't awful enough to qualify for the trope (it has laughable issues but it's still comprehensible and only partly mistranslated). I can't retrieve the old examples, but here's some links
with screenshots
of the official subtitles
that show it isn't Translation Train Wreck levels of bad as a whole.
I removed the trope from the YMMV page
with an edit reason and had the subpage cutlisted while moving some examples to the main page under Lost in Translation (I made a mistake here as most of the examples didn't apply to that trope either, but that's been fixed now). The troper just recently re-added TranslationTrainWreck
to YMMV by potholing it in another entry under Narm ("But mistranslations mistranslations and atrociously-phrased dialogue dialogue aside, [...]"). I've explained to them in a message why the trope doesn't apply to the work, but may I remove that pothole at least?
May be worth mentioning that the troper seems to be obsessed with talking about the work's translation quality, as they also previously made a Qian Qiu Lost in Translation subpage (also cutlisted) just to replicate the examples from the old Translation Train Wreck subpage and list other errors/critique.
openEdit War - Narm in Jurassic Park
Jackthe Movie Fanatic has re-added an example of Narm that I had previously deleted in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. The entry has already been an object of discussion in the cleanup thread
, where it was deemed to not be valid, since it does not describe an unintentionally funny moment and mostly amounts to complaining about a certain sound effect. I made sure to leave a link to the discussion when I edited the page. What should be done here?
openTwo issues with YMMV/It2017
On It (2017), there was this line by troper Youtubenut:
- Narm:
- For some, Pennywise's voice. Bill Skarsgård was clearly going for a more childish take on Pennywise's voice but ended up sounding a little too much like a mentally challenged Scooby-Doo.
As an autistic person I was annoyed at the comparison, but I wanted to bring it here to make sure I'm allowed to change the wording, and looking for suggestions on what I should change it to. Don't wanna come across as Righting Great Wrongs, but that felt... a little ableist, to put it mildly. Especially because Pennywise is a horrifying villain.
Additionally, there's this:
- Draco in Leather Pants:
- Pennywise. You read that right. Not the handsome actor Bill Skarsgård, Pennywise. The man-eating, child-torturing, pedophilically-toned shapeshifting Monster Clown has groupies. After all, he appreciates the simple things in life such as popcorn, rides, balloons and of course, children. Entire blogs have sprung up of people wanting to meet Pennywise and have him do very dirty things to them.
I already cut out the link to one blog in question and some extra judgmental commentary that felt unnecessary, citing No Lewdness, No Prudishness. The cut text:
While it's not my thing, per se, I don't think we're here to pass judgment on how other people perceive and consume media. Should I delete the chained sinkholes in the current version of the entry as well (Sarcasm Mode, Blatant Lies, and Comically Missing the Point)?
Edited by annieholmesopenNew image for Kid with the Golden Arm Film
So I've been doing alot of work for The Kid with the Golden Arm, and I noticed that the image is basically just that of Hai Tao fighting Golden Arm.
I propose replacing that page image, with this one shown on the left side of the page:
https://cityonfire.com/kid-with-the-golden-arm-1979/
I already have a PNG version of this ready to go; I just need to know where to go to find a consensus to be able to do this replacement.
Edited by Stardust5099

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:
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?