Created By: EtherealMutationDecember 8, 2008
Nuked

Mary Sue Examples

Name Space:
Main
Page Type:
Trope
Vote for either keeping or deleting every example on the pages. Nothing more or less than that. No selective deletion of Canon Sue because it's inaccurate, sends the wrong message, won't be followed by editors that don't bother to read jack, and will just result in people whining for it to be added to the pages. If you vote to delete, it will be for everything from the single episode shoehorn characters all the way up to Marissa Picard and Davey Crockett without any exceptions whatsoever. Please bold either "keep", "delete", or "comment" (the last if you don't want to vote in either direction but have something to say).

My vote is for delete because:

  1. People in general can't be mature about it.
  2. People can't agree on a definition and bring total subjectivity to it.
  3. It causes lots of Natter, Flame Wars, and Edit Wars.
  4. At its core, it's basically just Complaining About Characters You Don't Like.

The article(s) should just be about the term itself in the same fashion as Jumping The Shark. Examples should be limited only to actual in-universe uses or references of the term.

Note: If you are an Unknown Troper or freshly created your account, please give a two or three sentence explanation as to why you voted the way you did. Any non-explanatory anonymous votes will be treated as blank ballots due to the possibility of people trying to force a particular result.
Community Feedback Replies: 76
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    I'm not subscribing to your paranoia-fueled requirements for those of us who don't use the forums (and therefore have no need for an account) and lengthening my response beyond what's expected of anyone else. For deleting examples. For fixing it later.
  • December 8, 2008
    Dookie2
    Delete I think maybe we should have a "No Examples Please" at the end of that one. Though some of the examples are perfect demonstrations of a Mary Sue. I guess those could go into the description proper.

  • December 8, 2008
    foxley
    Keep. The examples are going to creep back even if we delete them. If you don't like the page, don't read it.
  • December 8, 2008
    SKJAM
    Keep. This is SKJAM, if the replies are wacky again.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Keep. Legitimate concept; legitimate examples say something entertaining and instructive about the mindset of both writer and reader. Institute a stringent definition, and stick to it - perhaps institute an approval process for examples.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Sorry, that last was me, Shoebox. I've been here about a year.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Delete. These pages are better off example-less due to its subjectiveness.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Oops, that last one was from me, Komodin.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Delete. But I do believe that there can be examples later that are more on the objective side, so don't get rid of examples forever if you can afford it.
  • December 8, 2008
    Wyvernil
    My vote is Keep, but I might be open to taking out Canon Sue examples if they prove problematic. Examples of Mary Sue in Fan Fiction are much easier to know when you see them.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown20Troper
    This Troper votes 'keep', but maybe requiring an explanation to why a character meets the requirements and not X Just X or Two Words Obvious Trope.

    Bad Example:
    • Captain Shinypants. Full Stop.

    Good Example:
    • Captain Shinypants of (blue-linked series) frequently waltzes into a situation presented as unsolvable and then convinces everyone the rightness of his point of view by sheer force of personality. And he is never, ever considered to be wrong by his teammates or the people he's trying to help, even if it results in a Broken Aesop.
  • December 8, 2008
    Nate the Great
    Could we perhaps have no examples on the main page, but have a second page of just character names, where they're from, and one or two words of why she's a Mary Sue?
  • December 8, 2008
    LordTNK
    I say Delete. Too many examples are dubious, taken out of context, or use "facts" that are outright made up.

    I also vote to tighten up the definitions, as they are too long, and easy to take the wrong way.
  • December 8, 2008
    Recon 5
    DELETE and put a BIG NO EXAMPLES notice at the bottom of each article in such a way that it's impossible to miss. Maybe even a colorful banner or (Horror of horrors!) an animated banner, anything for emphasis. I'd still want a locking function, but that one belongs on the forums.
  • December 8, 2008
    Goldfritha
    DELETE
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Can I take a third option and vote for moving all non-in-universe examples to Darth Wiki? That's what it's there for, overly subjective negative tropes, isn't it?
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Ahem. That was me, Brickman, and I have NO IDEA why my cookie didn't work. I wonder if maybe it's a problem with the "linking to a specific YKKTW" thing, since a topic on the forum led me and presumably some others here and there's no login/cookie area at the top. Anyone want to confirm/deny that that's the cause?
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Shoebox again: Seconding the idea of a move, if move there must be, to the Darth Wiki. Seems like an acceptable compromise...?
  • December 8, 2008
    FreezairForALimitedTime
    Keep fanfic examples. Either delete published media examples or move them to Darth Wiki.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Keep everything. I'm amazed this is even a question. Darth Wiki as a last resort, though that seems like giving up just as much as declaring no examples is. If The Other Wiki is capable of acknowledging Canon Sue, why can't we?

    Oh, and it's Rebochan saying this, damn YTTKW system.
  • December 8, 2008
    Finn Mac Cool
    Keep
  • December 8, 2008
    Rebochan
    I thought I'd add that my main objection to Darth Wiki on this trope is that all of the tropes in that entry are pretty much baseless bitching. In the case of this trope, there is objectivity possible. A move to Darth Wiki relegates the trope to Complaining About Shows You Dont Like, which we were trying to avoid in the first place.

    ETA: Yep, the cookies only work if you reply to this YKTTW through the main YKTTW page. How strange.
  • December 8, 2008
    Korgmeister
    Keep EVERYTHING. For the love of God when did TV Tropes turn into a bunch of drama-averse weenies. I'm NOT an unknown troper, I'm freakin' Korgmeister and something's screwing up.
  • December 8, 2008
    EtherealMutation
    Comment: Darth Wiki is supposed to be a satire of Darker And Edgier, not just a 4chan/Encyclopedia Dramatica anarchy of aimless negativity. Despite how it may seem, it does get governed by most of the same rules as the rest of the site and anything considered genuinely harmful will be deleted.
  • December 8, 2008
    LordTNK
    "If The Other Wiki is capable of acknowledging Canon Sue, why can't we?"

    It's not denying canon sue. The thing is that the vast majority of the examples are not real sues. It's just character bashing.
  • December 8, 2008
    Jisu
    Keep everything. I have no idea why people wouldn't want examples. Some of them aren't sues, but some definitely are!
  • December 8, 2008
    EponymousKid
    KEEP. Seriously, what the Hell? Look, sues are fun to read about (except in the actual story they're in), okay?
  • December 8, 2008
    arromdee
    1)Keep.

    2)This isn't Wikipedia. And even there, votes aren't really votes.

    3)If you think that some examples don't belong, take out the examples (or hold a "vote" on each example).
  • December 8, 2008
    Mrs Abject
    I vote to keep everything. The point of this wiki is more to be entertaining than to be a serious reference for stuff, and most of the entries for Sues have some kind of justification for why they're like that. Not to say that all of those characters are Sues, but a case exists for all of them being Sues. Sure, we could get obsessive about making sure all the Mary Sue examples are 100% accurate, but it's not like all of our entries for other tropes are accurate, either- people get obsessive about making their favorite series fit every positive trope there is, or their persona berzerk button series fit every negative trope there is. The Sues aren't the only problem.

    Plus, example-free articles are boring.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    The examples of this need to be nuked from orbit for now. I think we will benefit by beginning again with a blank slate and selecting some thoroughly-developed and agreed-upon examples. (I am the first UT also).
  • December 8, 2008
    LordTNK
    "I vote to keep everything. The point of this wiki is more to be entertaining than to be a serious reference for stuff, and most of the entries for Sues have some kind of justification for why they're like that. Not to say that all of those characters are Sues, but a case exists for all of them being Sues. Sure, we could get obsessive about making sure all the Mary Sue examples are 100% accurate, but it's not like all of our entries for other tropes are accurate, either- people get obsessive about making their favorite series fit every positive trope there is, or their persona berzerk button series fit every negative trope there is. The Sues aren't the only problem."

    The thing isn't whether examples are %100 accurate. It's that so many are barely even 50% accurate. And examples have to fit properly. Not exactly, but properly. We have few rules (mostly technical), but we also have agreed upon guidelines, and not bashing anyone is a pretty strong guideline here. See Complaining About Shows You Dont Like. A lot of the examples use more points a troper doesn't like. That isn't justification. That's bashing.

    I propose another option: Cut all but examples most of us agree on. That will be just a handful, but it's better than hundreds of canonical characters, which would ruin all those shows if that were true.

    Mary Sue warps the show to be around her. Any example that doesn't have warping should get cut, if we do nothing else here. And just claiming in the example there is warping isn't good enough.
  • December 8, 2008
    patsy
    Delete. The entire internet has been arguing about these terms for years. Even if we were to somehow reach a satisfactory definition, it still wouldn't stick because Tv Tropes does not control the rest of the internet, from whence new tropers spring.
  • December 8, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Keep
  • December 8, 2008
    Known Unknown
    Keep/Tweak. Mass deletion is a bad idea. What's the point of something anything can add to if someone can come behind, say it isn't worth it, and delete it all. Though, at least we're putting it up to a vote, instead of just doing it, so that might justify the action.

    Still, voting keep, because examples are usually worth saving; bad examples are rarer than people think.
  • December 8, 2008
    Rebochan
    Lord TNK, I agree that we should definitely make a pass on these examples and cut the truly awful ones. But that's the MO of TV Tropes anyway, right?
  • December 9, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    I am extremely leery of any mass deletion. I find it fun to read every justification people come up with! But I'm not voting - I'll accept the decision of the majority.

    Does it strike anyone else as odd that the definition of Mary Sue is something about how she warps the world around her, making the story all about her... and her trope is (apparently) attracting all sorts of inapplicable characters, as though any sort of strong, charismatic, or highly competent character is a Mary Sue? I mean, it almost seems like Mary Sue the trope is capable of warping reality and pulling in all the cool characters....
  • December 9, 2008
    LordTNK
    I'd say it's less warping than tropers using the sue label to knock characters. Since that's Complaining, those ill-fitting examples need to go.
  • December 9, 2008
    trouserwearingbarbarian
    Keep/Tweak
  • December 9, 2008
    TheNifty
    Keep. We may need to police the pages with a level of commitment bordering on fanaticism, but dammit; deleting everything remotely controversial isn't the way to run a wiki.
  • December 9, 2008
    Mrs Abject
    "I propose another option: Cut all but examples most of us agree on. That will be just a handful, but it's better than hundreds of canonical characters, which would ruin all those shows if that were true."

    Well, if we can Take A Third Option...

  • December 9, 2008
    trouserwearingbarbarian
    I'd also like to take the third option.
  • December 9, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Delete/TakeAThirdOption. This is Fly without a cookie.
  • December 9, 2008
    BlackHumor
    Keep only the fanfic examples. Delete the Canon Sue bits, even if that does mean we have to delete The Wesley.
  • December 9, 2008
    EtherealMutation
    The Wesley is a different beast altogether, really. Just having Character Focus doesn't automatically make a Mary Sue and there are plenty of other reasons to hate a character.
  • December 9, 2008
    Smokie
    Comment. I'd like to note that if this train wreck is going to stay, it's your goddamn responsibility to sort out unfitting examples.
  • December 9, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Keep. At this rate, we won't have any subjective pages or examples left soon, and then this wiki will be a boring, boring place.
  • December 9, 2008
    LordTNK
    What "rate"? It's just the Mary Sue section.
  • December 9, 2008
    ccoa
    Keep, but require all examples to be vetted through the discussion page first and get at least 66% majority agreeing that the character is a Sue (out of at least 9 tropers?). Any example added to the page without going through discussion should be deleted no matter how good of an example it might be.

    Canon Sues inarguably exist, so deleting them all is going contrary to the purpose of this site.
  • December 9, 2008
    Mouser
    I like ccoa's idea so... what he said.
  • December 9, 2008
    ccoa
    I'm a she. ^^;
  • December 9, 2008
    arromdee
    "The thing isn't whether examples are %100 accurate. It's that so many are barely even 50% accurate."

    Umm, if that's what you don't like about it, then delete the 50% examples.
  • December 9, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Posted by Rebochan, hated by the YKTTW cookie monster:

    Smokie, that's exactly what I've been doing,

    ccoa, I don't know if we need a nomination process, but if an entry is contested at all, it should have to be agreed on and your standard is a good one to go by. The only reason I'm iffy on mandatory discussions is because of the extra work that makes and whether there will be people that will do that. I can definitely support chucking a lot of examples that aren't worthy. I've been doing that for months, and honestly, if there's some still up there anyway, it's only because they're shows I'm not familiar enough with to make the call.

    I'd like to also change my vote to Take A Third Option and I'll live with whatever system we can come up with.
  • December 9, 2008
    fleb
    Keep and keep on pruning them. There are plenty of pure, undeniable examples. Leaving a note before the examples, telling contributors to vet potential additions through the discussion page first, would be ideal.
  • December 9, 2008
    silver2195
    Take A Third Option. There are Sues, but there's also a ton of complaining. Some people seem to be confusing Jerkass Stu with The Lancer. (Sasuke, maybe. But Chaud? Being reasonably cynical and not a complete idiot is bad?). And Mary Sue Exemption should be deleted entirely (It's blatant Gushing used as a Justifying Edit for accusations of Sueishness).
  • December 9, 2008
    Jupiah
    Keep

    Reading examples is one of the biggest draw of this site to me. Exampleless tropes are boring.
  • December 9, 2008
    BeinSane
    Delete every single reference to M_ry S__ on the Wiki and decree that anyone who ever mentions the term here again be boiled in oil. Because I'm really sick of all this pointless bickering.
  • December 9, 2008
    Recon 5
    I think that it might be acceptable to take examples on consensus and remove without consensus. That way, the article will prune itself.
  • December 9, 2008
    binaroid
    Keep.
  • December 9, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Keep, because it has a good reason for being up there. It's just as valid as any other trope with examples, and like any other trope with examples, some will disagree. Nobody will agree on everything, there's no reason to annhilate the Mary Sue examples just for that.

    And ET's war on Mary Sues is getting tiresome.
  • December 9, 2008
    trouserwearingbarbarian
    • And ET's war on Mary Sues is getting tiresome.

    QFT. I do agree that some people are too quick to call any character that they dislike a Sue and that Mary Sue tests are overly restrictive and inaccurate, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a real trope.
  • December 9, 2008
    Scrounge
    keep.
  • December 9, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Someone in a previous thread perhaps summed it up best by suggesting that "someone" had one of their fanfic characters called a Mary Sue, thus this.
  • December 9, 2008
    Charred Knight
    Keep with a massive amount of removals in particular God Mode Sue.

    Also come up with a strict definition

    Like I said in the previous topic this is TV Tropes I think we can handle this with some effort. It can't possibly be as bad as Magnificent Bastard.
  • December 10, 2008
    silver2195
    @Charred Knight: I personally think Jerkass Stu is worse.
  • December 10, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    If it's all or nothing, KEEP;. Example-less tropes are annoying and the suggestion of people too lazy to Trim properly.
  • December 10, 2008
    Zeta
    Keep, tropes with no examples aren't worth reading.
  • December 10, 2008
    TheNifty
    OK, currently the tally stands at:

    11 for DELETE,

    28 for KEEP,

    5 for Take A Third Option.
  • December 10, 2008
    BeinSane
    My vote is not "delete". It's abstain, with a heavy dose of "quit taking this shit so seriously" and "can we get this over with already?"
  • December 10, 2008
    FastEddie
    Looks like a consensus to keep the examples, with our usual practice of pulling out iffy examples to the discussion page.
  • December 25, 2008
    Unknown Troper
    Keep. Examples are examples, whether they're in fan fiction or in actual production. I might be naive in thinking so, but I'm pretty sure the troper community will keep Complaining About Characters You Dont Like to a minimum.
  • January 9, 2009
    Unknown Troper
    Keep. Deleting the examples makes the Wiki Serious Business, and it just messes up a lot of work put into the pages. What the pages need is moderation from the community. Natter and Edit/Flame wars will occur with everything, singling this out does nothing.
  • January 24, 2009
    Unknown Troper
    Keep. I cannot speak for everyone, but I don't care for trope definitions without examples.
  • February 19, 2009
    The Deleter
    'Keep. The call for it to be deleted smacks of Stop Having Fun Guys. There has been a lot of work put into the pages, and Mary Sue is a recognised term/trope/whatever, so to delete it would be countering what Tv Tropes is about.
  • September 29, 2009
    Ranchanthalas
    Delete. The only marginal way for keeping them would be to keep it to canon-characters only. All editable examples do is open up a whole can of worms for anyone with a grudge to waltz in and start up a flame war just for the sake of doing so, and end up dragging the entire community into it.
  • October 3, 2009
    X3
    Keep / Take A Third Option:

    Reason: Its a very subjective trope, and lots of the examples are quite inaccurate. But that's no reason to go and delete the whole thing. Just skimming it occasionally for bad examples won't hurt. Proposing a complete deletion is a bit of an overreaction.
  • January 22, 2010
    Unknown Troper
    Keep.

    I say we should keep them. If we're always going to be afraid of ruffling feathers, and fans of a Canon Sue or two or many will whine until all the related examples are deleted, then we should and go erase EVERY example of EVERYTHING, since EVERYTHING has an angle that could offend some extremist Fan Dumb.

Three days must pass before this YKTTW is Launchworthy or Discardable