Follow TV Tropes
The requirement for ugly YMMV tages whenever any of these is used doesn\'t seem like a good idea. How is, say, \"Gamebreaker\" subjective while \"Adaptational Villainy\" is objective? The former trope can be used to mention something that could be, but is not, a gamebreaker. Some characters, spells, or abilities are also magnitudes more powerful than anything else in the game, objectively and without question. In Warhammer lore, there is a character who can kill hundreds of thousands of daemons with a single spell, create impenetrable forcefields that lasts at least several decades, and resurrect himself if killed. Mentioning that he has been toned down in-game so as not to be a game breaker hardly seems like a matter subject to intense debate.
Is there any Tropes that audiences may consider best and/or worst episodes ever?
Not sure this is the right place for this, maybe TRS, but is it odd that Your Mileage May Vary doesn't redirect to this page or this one? I know it rarely comes up, since if you're on the YMMV tab, you presumably already know what that stands for, but it seems like that should be one of the alternate titles. Just a broken link that came up on the forums today.
There should be a They Wasted A Perfectly Good Line Character Trait when a character has an interesting trait one think isn't explored enough. My inspiration for this was from a Spanish game magazine where they have a movie corner in the back and they wrote that the movie company (sorry, haven't watched it yet) made a huge deal about Deadpool being pansexual in the movie leading up to release, but didn't really do anything with it.
I suggest that Main/YourMileageMayVary should redirect to this page (YMMV/HomePage). That page serves no purpose, but is easy to link to by using the normal wiki markup. I would have simply done it myself, but that page is locked. I would have suggested this there, but even the discussion page is locked.
Defied tropes should be allowed in the main trope section of a work, at least sometimes. Even if a trope itself is Subjective, its defiance may be objective — either In-Universe or by the producers or executives in making or distributing it. (BTW, defiance includes the attempt to defy, regardless of its success.)
So, for example, Who Framed Roger Rabbit was released under Disney's "Touchstone Pictures" label, defying the Animation Age Ghetto. There's no YMMV here.
Forgive me if this is not the correct place for this; I'm not totally savvy about the site's inner workings.
I want to suggest a trope be labelled YMMV: UST.
This trope is incredibly subjective.
For example, people displaying jealousy about each other doesn't automatically translate to sexual tension. It suggests that two people cannot be romantically interested in each other without physical attraction, when in reality people often display interest for other attributes (looks, hobbies, etc) only to find out there is no spark. Subsequently, what one person interprets as 'sexual tension' on-screen merely refers to directed displays of interest. When you consider the ephemeral nature of chemically driven attraction, it's insanely hard for actors to portray with believability. As an example, I never felt any tension between Booth and Brennan in 'Bones' or Josh and Donna in 'The West Wing', but I'm reliably informed by 'everyone' that it was/is there. I noted the actors' attempt to portray it, in the former case, but that didn't make me FEEL it. The difference being feeling and seeing.
Many of the examples seem to be due to shipping, as well, with fans who really like both characters projecting their hopes for the show, as in 'Rizzoli & Isles'.
I suppose I could take the trope name to refer to instances where the writers and/or producers directed the actors to behave in a manner that clearly said 'these two are supposed to fancy each other', but that only goes so far.
I guess my point is that an example cannot be stated categorically as being true or factual, which leads me to suggest that this shouldn't be a 'true' trope.
This belongs in the Trope Repair Shop.
That said, your reasoning is... weak, to say the least. "I didn't feel the chemistry" is just as bad as a shipper saying "I totally saw the chemistry." Author intent in these cases are usually pretty obvious.
As you say, though I disagree that intent is usually pretty obvious. Does the fact that people can disagree the intent is there not make it subjective?
I will give it more thought, however.
They have it: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnresolvedSexualTension?from=Main.UST
So, what exactly is up with canon non-het ships (Ho Yay / Les Yay) given the YMMV tag?
Ho Yay and Les Yay are actually about non-canon fan feelings.
Please could someone direct me to the page with the instructions for how to move items to the YMMV/Trivia tab. Several times when I've gone to edit, the request to perform these actions is there and I would like to comply, but don't know how.
When you are on the page Namespace.Insert Name Of The Work Here, you edit YMMV.Insert Name Of The Work Here or Trivia.Insert Name Of The Work Here.
Like a copy-paste deal?
Question: Ought we put Fridge Logic examples into Fridge/ or rephrase them to fit Headscratchers/?
This was prompted by a recent edit to the Fridge Logic entry.
Is there any reason for the Character Alignment tropes to still be on this index?
Is there a reason why Fridge stuff is here, especially when it says right in the same paragraph to put them into /Fridge/?
This index is for things that go in a YMMV tab, not simply "anything subjective"
Note: Given that this page gets unending misuse, here's the place to vote on solutions.
Why was Expy put under the redirects?
Because very few (if any) of them have Word of God confirmation, so anyone can add whatever crazy comparisons that they want. Half the time it feels like they're Complaining About Shows You Dont Like. I don't know, maybe it's more Trope Decay than YMMV.
This entry seems out of place here - opinions?
♫ They see me tropin' / They wary / All scopin' / Tryn'a catch my mileage vary… ♪
legoking831 removed Crack Is Cheaper with the edit reason: "In-universe only. "
troaccid put it again with the edit reason:" That's to scoop up any instances of it that inadvertently end up on works pages as reactions (which, sadly, is far more common than it ought to be). If you're willing to manually clean all the wicks, though... "
Is it true? Exist other similar examples?
Big Name Fan and Vindicated by Cable are in the Trivia page and here.
Why Incorruptible Pure Pureness is listed here?
Same reason Complete Monster its direct opposite is here.
This is getting too expansive.
It seems the current definition of YMMV is too broad, it doesn't account for certain things, such as Draco in Leather Pants syndrome chewing away at work's Complete Monster, or Game-Breaker now being considered subjective for some silly reason.
Take Complete Monster for example, the trope itself is about something that is defined as not having any variation, almost an objective standard of evil.
That is to say, a Complete Monster has no redeeming features.
The problem in this case however is Draco in Leather Pants syndrome, IE somebody finds this horrible, horrible monstrous bastard appealing. But not all examples of Complete Monsters are DLI Ps too. FFVII is flamewar waiting to happen over the antagonists for that one, on the other hand, reading the obscure Polity novels which have several C Ms, its clear none of them are capable of DILP status, and yet they're on a YMMV tab because all of CM is now YMMV. Putting them in YMMV cheapens just how bad these characters are, anyone browsing the article will see it and simple assume its a matter of how much a troper sympathised with them.
Gamebreaker is another example where a broad YMMV definition falls down. Yes some things can't be agreed upon as to whether they're GB or not, especially in competitive multiplayer, but isn't that what the Metagame exists for? The metagame is where this "debate" takes place, making GB status a temporary position elected by a community in the case of G Bs that fit to the YMMV example, 40k for example is a veritable s***storm of subjective gamebreakers because the community can't really agree on much and the metagame can shift dramatically after a single tournament.
Gamebreakers can't be measured on an objective scale, but you can't say that therefore there can only be subjective gamebreakers: the Black Lotus card or any of the Power Nine in Magic: The Gathering are nowhere near subjective, they're universally accepted as gamebreakers by everyone.
Applying YMMV for gamebreakers seems like a poor generalised authoritarian approach when compared to simply splitting gamebreakers into the following categories:
The last one is harder to find examples of as it is rare by definition of going against an entire community, and maybe even the creator's, definition of powerful.
Ok, I put this on the What Goes Where On The Wiki discussion page, and was told to move it here, so I will.
If this is for opinions, why do Audience Reactions go on the YMMV page? They're not necessarily opinions, whether or not a character has an Alternate Character Interpretation is completely objective, for instance. I know the main page is only for tropes used in the show, but then shouldn't objective Audience Reactions get their own tab?
Good luck objectively determining whether or not a reaction occurred, and how prevalent it is among the viewers.
Whether a character has Alternative Character Interpretation is an opinion held by the viewer. He or she views a character different then the author intended.
Also, this fits better in the forums, where more people will see it.
Also, not everyone in the audience reacts the same way to the same things.
^^ "He or she views a character"=objective, "different than the author intended"=objective. Also, What do you mean by "Good luck objectively determining whether or not a reaction occurred"? And what does it matter how prevalent it is? If a reaction occurs, a reaction occurs. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
^ So? I might have a different reaction to a scene than someone else does, but I can't argue that because I didn't have the same reaction, that their reaction didn't occur.
You seem to think that YMMV pages are only about subjective tropes you may not agree are in the work. It's also about instances where the audience's mileage varied.
Alternative Character Interpretation is an opinion held by the viewer, and you may not agree with the particular interpretation.
Please read under the second bold line on the article.
Why is Love It or Hate It here? It's only for in-universe examples; hence, your mileage will not vary.
The Examples section is only for in-universe examples, but the actual trope applies to out-of-universe examples as well.
I have a new proposal and commentary here. First of all, the amount of tropes that are being shoehorned into here is ridiculous, trying to include anything that may be remotely debatable in certain cases, and the increasingly blatant measures being taken to "purge" so–called "YMMV" stuff by blindly flagging anything that's listed here is obnoxious. I've just skimmed through it and removed the Tropes that don't belong, and I also demand you cease with the stuck–up, in-your-face policy of purging these with big red dots and prompts telling you to remove them whenever editing a page.
Why not just make it so subjective tropes when appearing on pages just have a special "YMMV" bullet point, like it first was when the site began implementing this system, not to single them out for removal but just to denote them as being a special type of trope. Likewise, the same can be done for the "Audience Reaction" things, with a different type of special bullet point. That way pages could be kept whole and be comprehensive and fluent while still creating the kind of "distinction" you want them to have.
Having them all hidden on a separate page altogether is excessive and way too detrimental to the ability of a work page to effectively convey all relevant information about a story. Besides, most of these tropes you've blacklisted to this category are the ones that made this site fun and inviting in the first place. TV Tropes was a good site because it Allowed the actual opinions of the general viewership to be truly addressed, and if a statement is controversial all that is needed is to discuss any controversies on individual work discussion pages. No universal rules are needed.
So you didn't even read the page?
Also, it only takes one extra click to access the YMMV page - don't assume that Viewers Are Morons and need it on main. Stuff marked as Trivia gets moved, do we "discriminate" against those as well?
And the message that shows up when editing a page is useful for knowing what needs to be moved, and for giving a hint to causal editors about what goes where. I facepalm when a page has a ton of YMM Vs and someone adds another.
Moleman, I seem to recall you being banned from the site before for attempting to rail against YMMV policy. Did you forget you were told before you were on your last chance? I'm not a mod, but I highly recommend you delete this post and apologise profusely for it as quick as you possibly can.
I also demand...
Oh, well if Moleman9000 demands it! Seriously, who died and made you king? How do you go around deleting stuff unilaterally without discussing it first?
@Ghilz The only reason I'm using that kind of assertive language is because the people enforcing this controversial policy are doing just the same thing by demanding everyone follow it and trying to force editors to go along with it. I'm not saying I'm the "King" here, but I do think that someone else thinks they are.
Moleman, I think you better stop. You might get banned permanently...
He's had, what? Three bans this year alone?
Saw him complaining in the Flame Bait discussion page as well.
Why is Family-Unfriendly Aesop on this list, but Family-Unfriendly Death isn't? They're both family unfriendly.
It's just temporary due to misuse. See the TRS thread.
What does TRS mean again?
Trope Repair Shop.
I'm not sure why Crossover Ship's on here. There are a lot of works where crossover ships are canon, including Shared Universe series, fanfics, multifandom RP — things where the pairing is one hundred percent canon. There are even canon examples on the main page.
Just us the in-universe or [[invoked]] tag.
How do you add a non-subjective usage of these tropes appropriately to a main page without waving a red flag at all the zealous little curators?
Pot Hole to In-Universe or use [invoked].
Shouldn't Discussed and Conversed tropes also be given passes since like invoked they are In-universe examples of tropes?
Yup, just use one of the tags anyway.
A bit of Fridge Logic: Narm Charm is subjective, but the trope it's based on isn't. I've usually seen Narm examples listed with a "YMMV, some people thought the scene in question was dramatic." If people don't always agree on what's Narm, then why is it considered an Objective Trope?
Narm is subjective - it's on Darth Wiki.
Then, Narm Charm should be moved to Sugar Wiki?
So... what exactly does the phrase mean? I mean, I get that it's used to mean "opinions differ" all over the internet, but... how does mileage come into it? Distance isn't something that really varies. If you walk 10 miles and I drive 10 miles our mileage is still the same, it's just that I probably got there faster. Seriously, where did this come from?
Some car commercials tend to say "your mileage may vary." It's become internet slang for stuff that people may disagree about.
I think it's legal jargon that they're required to use when a car company, tire company, whatever, makes a claim about how many miles per gallon you'll get with their product. They got a good number while testing their product that they'd like to trumpet, but they know you're likely to get less in the not-so-ideal conditions of the real world, and would prefer not to get nasty letters about it.
One thing that's really bugging me about the automatic flagging of certain tropes with a glaring red bullet is that there's no allowance for in-universe examples of these tropes. If a troper thinks a certain show, episode, movie, whatever, is So Bad, It's Good, it makes sense to move it to YMMV. But if characters watching a Show Within a Show regard it as So Bad, It's Good, that's a trope deliberately invoked by the writers. That's objective, and it'd be nice if we could turn off the big glaring red dot for such examples.
Another good example is Dude, Not Funny!. If this was a troper's reaction to a mean prank that a character played on another character, it would belong under YMMV. If it was a character's reaction to that prank, it should belong on the main page. But we can't post such things without future editors being nagged to move it to YMMV.
Adding the text "in-universe", or potholing to "Invoked" (no quotes) gets rid of the YMMV warning you know.
I did not know that. Was that All There in the Manual?
Yup, on What Goes Where on the Wiki, under "Exceptions".
You can put an [[invoked]] in the in-universe example, and the whole "YMMV markup" won't mark that example up.
Hello, I recently posted a comment here criticizing this new policy, and now not only does it seem to have disappeared, but I have been banned from editing (AGAIN). What gives?!
The deleted "comment" wasn't constructive criticism so much as a overly loquacious and whiny bitchfest about how this site is apparently "transforming into Wikipedia". As for the edit ban, try discussing it here. Oh, and don't be a jerk about it; the ban will be permanent if you do~!
Question about the whole "YMMV tab" thing: why? Really, why? If you say "to cut Natter" than I have two questions: "What's so bad about Natter? This isn't your standard wiki, right?" and two: "If you still don't want Natter, DELETE IT instead of doing something that isn't 100% sure too kill all natter. Why not do this, hmm?" All it does is break up things and make articles WAY less interesting.
1. We have an anti-Natter policy here; it makes the page look schizophrenic when it starts having a conversation with itself. These tropes also attract a bunch of other undesirable things, like edit wars, This Troper statements, justifying edits; basically everything about entries that we don't like tends to crop up when it's a matter of opinion whether or not a trope applies.
2. We do delete natter, but this is a preventive measure rather than a reactive one. It is not expected to get rid of it 100%, but nothing will; this makes the main page a lot easier to keep clean and puts all the natter-bait stuff together so one can keep an eye on it all at once.
Beyond this, about 1, the pages have one limit of characters. Beyond this, the page needs be cut in pieces. This is one excelent motive to not want natter.
Is cut listing this ban worthy?
I don't know about a ban, but regardless, the person who cut listed this is going to need a better reason than "It just sucks" to get something like this cut.
"It just sucks"... Sounds like whine.
I noted a YMMV trope on the Zinnia Jones page, and noted that this case was not YMMV... The trope was Moral Event Horizon, and the episode was about Zinnia accusing some other youtube producer of having passed it. I left it on the main page, but made a note of the trope being invoked rather then played.
Also added the following to the last paragraph of the YMMV page. Hope I'm on the right track here. :-)
[...] Not as "played", straight or otherwise. [...] However, the value judgment of a YMMV trope can sometimes be made by a character. Such invoked examples still go on the main page.
Fast Eddie thought that this solution might confuse people, so I just started a new trope on YKTTW instead: Value Judgement, a trope about characters invoking YMMV tropes.
Why was Idiot Plot removed? It requires the viewer's judgment, is epic natterbait, and is essentially complaining about stories you don't like.
Read the page, it says this.
A term for a plot that hangs together only because the main characters behave like idiots.
1. It's still natterbait and a complaint fest.
2. Read the examples. Lots of "why didn't the heroes do X?" And lots of responding.
Put it back as per above.
So are absolutely all works' subjective tropes supposed to go on a separate YMMV index? It makes sense to me when things are cluttered or there is natter going on, but on smaller, quieter pages it just seems to break things up in an annoying way.
Short answer, yes, as they're no longer technically tropes.
Any idea why Memetic Mutation was removed? It's not like anyone unfamiliar with certain works would immediately understand the significance. Additionally, other subtropes like Memetic Badass and Memetic Molester are still marked YMMV, so why isn't Memetic Mutation also on the index?
Memetic Mutation is not at all subjective. It's something that describes a subjective interpretation of a work, but that's about it. That also means that the other Memetic tropes don't belong here either.
"It's something that describes a subjective interpretation of a work," you want say as one Audience Reaction?
YMMV is for tropes that are present in the work, but it's not objectively clear whether, how, and to what extent. Audience Reactions don't appear within the work at all; they deal with the way audiences react to the work. Memetic Mutation falls into the latter category (where it is currently indexed) but not the former.
How are Yaoi Fangirl and Yuri Fan YMMV? They are quite objectively defined as "a girl who expresses a lot of interest in male homosexual romance" and "a person who expresses a lot of interest in female homosexual romance (as opposed to merely being turned on by lesbian sex)".
Because the new super-subjective YMMV is dogpants idiotic.
^You know, you should have checked the pages before complaining about YMMV - they're both limited to in-universe examples, and lack a banner.
Why is the The Masochism Tango on here? Seems pretty clear cut to me...
The trope description used to rad that the relationship is bad but the author doesn't know it. In other words, it was a trope for Complaining About Shows You Dont Like. I toned this down a while ago, but the trope is still a grey YMMV area between more objective tropes.
I don't think Tear Jerker really belongs here, since that trope is largely about deliberate attempts to make the audience feel sad.
People can cry at things that weren't engineered to induce tears. If they do, it's still a legitimate Tear Jerker scene for them whether it was deliberate or not.
But what if someone felt something was a Tear Jerker while someone else thought it was Narmy, or otherwise a failed attempt to induce tears?
Why Badass was listed here?
It's not on the actual index, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Likely it was due to Badass Decay being listed and the entire Badass index got marked up.
The complete monster lacks any kind of redeeming features, that is the point of him. If the milage varies he is not a Complete Monster.
It's likely due to the existence of Draco in Leather Pants. Some people are just into that kind of thing.
Additionally, people often disagree on whether the character's acts are truly unforgivable or just ordinary everyday villainy.
It's DILP syndrome all the way. Just try telling fans of a certain JRPG that the bad guys are evil. Their record for removing any such edits is twenty-two minutes. Heck, Hojo gets this treatment. And there are many pages just like it.
Because whether or not someone is redeemable is subjective, as is whether an excuse is adequate.
I guess that the problem is in this paragraph:
"Another big problem is that in multiplayer games, where people actually care about what other people do on their games, players will often not agree what is game breaking and what isn't. Heated debates (or worse) will spread like wildfire on the Internet, or even around the house. It's obvious that the extremes of the Munchkin or the Scrub are wrong. However, there are techniques whose power is hard or even impossible to call. Nor is banning glitches and "unintentional" moves an easy solution either; sometimes it can be hard to tell whether something is a glitch or not, sometimes a glitch happens so often that you'd have to go out of your way to have it not happen, and other times it can be argued that a glitch adds more depth to a game rather than less."
Question: Is it allowed to use one subjective trope in an explanation, as Fridge Brilliance or the like?
IMHO it depends on context.
Speaking of context, ANY subjective trope is totally valid as an example when it's actively used by a character who for example is the audience of a Show Within a Show.
Well, i questioned this because of one discussion in the Pokemon generation III characters page.
Here are the uses of subjective tropes :
By the context, said links are valid?
Ensemble Dark Horse and The Scrappy. It's totally objective that one character is popular and another is hated. It's all about statistics. They really shouldn't be subjective tropes.
These are still subjectives, as those two are about opinion values about characters. Even if the Scrappy has a hatedom, it doesn't mean that every people hates him/her. Ditto for the Darkhorse, it doesn't mean that the entirety of the fandom likes him/her.
Also, popular where? What if everyone on one fan forum hate the character and everyone on another fan forum love her? And what if one fan forum where 90% of the posts are hatedom against her actually have five spammy loudmouths who hate her and hundreds of timid fans who love her but got silenced by Chewbacca Defense and similar a long time ago? :-)
Here's the thing: characters can fall under both favored (i. e. Ensemble Dark Horse, Draco in Leather Pants, etc.) and unfavored (i. e. The Scrappy, The Wesley, Ron the Death Eater, etc.) fandom tropes. Or more succinctly, they are Base Breakers.
So, every character in a given series is a Base Breaker?
Potentially, yes. :-)
I don't see how that would make it a matter of opinion. The Scrappy doesn't mean "a character that everyone hates", it means "a character with a Hatedom." Likewise, Ensemble Dark Horse doesn't mean "a character who everybody likes", it means "a minor character who becomes very popular, or a character intended to be minor who ends up becoming a major character." Even if a minor character has a massive fandom and a massive hatedom, so? Then they are both tropes. That doesn't make either one a matter of opinion.
Thing is, they aren't actually in the work, so they go on the subjective page. Personally, I think Audience Reactions should get their own tab, but that's a different topic.
Why have the admins decided to completely relegate subjective tropes to separate pages? Some of the more extreme and subjective ones I can understand (So Bad Its Horrible, Brain Bleach, etc.), but IMO it makes quite a few of the pages less amusing to read, not to mention that the fact that subjectives aren't allowed on character sheets means that individual characters can't be referred to as Base Breakers, etc. Maybe we should rethink this a little - this is getting a bit too "politically correct" IMO.
I guess the point with these subjectives is that they attract too much natter and "This Troper" statements than many other non-subjective tropes.
There's also the matter of Edit Wars and the risk of disgusting readers who don't agree with whatever troper made the subjective statement.
LOL, I remember one time when I visited a fan forum for Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Some idiots was ranting about how much they hated one character I liked. I never replied, I simply un-bookmarked the site and quickly forgot it's name. Good riddance.
Ah well, sooner or later every trope will end up on the YMMV page for any given work. And then we'll be back where we started and have to come up with some new and interesting way to point out that people have differing opinions.
Slippery Slope Fallacy much? The site isn't about opinions anyways.
I removed the following examples because neither needs one values judgment:
Badass Decay means either one Badass character revealing one vulnerable side or turning less Badass (note that the own Badass trope is not subjetive-neither sounds as one). Adaptation Decay means changes into one work between two different mediums. Nothing subjective.
Ass Pull means drop one plot point without foreshadowing or Chekhov's Gun. Not needs neither values judgement or differences of opinion.
Total disagreement here. The decay things call for a judgment of 'decay.' The other two are opinions, as well.
Additionally, most of the time you'll see those on a page, it's not someone trying to catalogue the tropes as much as it's someone trying to say, "This show sucked because..."
I'm curious... why Hey Its That Guy and Hey Its That Voice are in this list?
I think the idea now is that they go on the Trivia tab, rather than the main page. They can probably come off of here, since they have been marked for Trivia banners.
My concern is, why those two tropes? I don't think those two tropes I've mentioned can be subjective ones, since they rely more on recognization (it's in the name!) rather than value judgement. If those tropes were about good or bad acting, well, I agree, but those aren't the cases AFAIK.
Ok,ok. I understood why you want them outside the main page. Sorry by have removed them. But i yet am curious: why Ass Pull and Character Derailment are opinions?
Sometimes someone will see something as Character Derailment that someone else sees as Character Development, or even, no change at all. Other times it's more apparent than that, but there are occasions where one interpretation of a characters' motives are consistent and another is inconsistent.
As for Ass Pull, maybe people think that it means "plot point done badly" instead of "plot point done quickly without any buildup" and are being offended that Their Show has it listed.
... Ass Pull is listed as subjective because suffered Trope Decay?... Thanks.
Character Derailment is now listed as Flame Bait.
Everything else is there, but Awesome Moments / Moments Of Awesome isn't?
CMOA has it's own page.
Shouldn't there be an index for subjective (my bad, "YMMV") works?
Whoops, didn't see that. Thanks.
And now it's the new name for Subjectives.
Community Showcase More