[Official] Discussion of Subjective content segregation

why are they being taken off main pages and put on a different page? It's annoying!

It's subjective, as opposed to objective.

Anything subjective (up to one's own opinion) is put on separate tabs, while anything objective (factually correct) is kept on the main page.

edited 29th Nov '10 1:02:34 PM by MrAHR

YMMV also includes audience reaction tropes, even if much of the audience did objectively react that way.

It will stop being annoying in a few weeks, when you get used to it.

why are they being taken off main pages and put on a different page? It's annoying!

Because a bunch of people were wondering, "Why are all these subjective opinions on a page that's supposed to be about objective facts? It's annoying!"

They were also annoyed at all the people who replied to it saying "no you are wrong", and the reaction to these people of slapping "Your Mileage May Vary, but" on anything that wasn't pure solid undeniable fact, but I couldn't fit that into a rephrasing of your post.

Also because an audience reaction is not a trope and they look odd slapped into a list of actual tropes.

Subjective Tropes tend to attract natter.

And that's terrible.

edited 1st Dec '10 12:26:03 AM by SpellBlade

Yes, that is terrible.

Indeed. Plus Natter/Conversation In The Main Page just looks tacky, almost as if the parties involved can't be bothered to make use of the discussion page, a blog or even an instant messenger.

edited 1st Dec '10 1:22:33 AM by Komodin

Natter is especially bad when you consider the recent issues with page length.

:) I'd say don't just get used to it, help out. When I've had a moment here and there, I've been creating those pages for those entries that don't yet have them. Though I must admit it does occasionally feel a bit silly to move something that takes up one entry and maybe two sentences to an entirely separate page. But who knows? Maybe through Wiki Magic it'll grow and then the new page will be a proper page in its own right.

^ (Referring to your last sentence) Not really something we want, in that subjectives ideally wouldn't exist at all, and the only reason we're making this sort of page is because getting rid of them altogether is ludicrously impractical.

edited 2nd Dec '10 10:03:14 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

So essentially it's a way of sweeping under the rug something that can't be tossed out with the garbage?

Yes. Just like Troper Tales.

And Fridge, and Darth Wiki, and Sugar Wiki, and to an extent JBM and WMG.

None of them are actually objective tropes in fiction, the only sub pages that are are the character sheets.

Why are we all so worried about objectivity?

What about "Don't just tell us the facts; tell us the memes, tell us the archetypes, tell us the catchy ideas and symbolic roles that get planted in people's heads"?

A work is nothing without audience reactions - why do they need to be thrown out, or even swept under the rug? It is possible to list subjective tropes in a neutral voice, if that's what the fuss is about.

And let's be honest, you can make a case for nigh-everything being subjective.

edited 3rd Dec '10 5:29:15 AM by Turtle

I don't entirely disagree, Turtle, but apparently the issue was beaten to death before and this is the decision that was made, so I've decided to just go with it. I guess you could say that YMMV content is TV Tropes's Old Shame.

Unfortunately the YMMV tropes attract natter even if it was said in a neutral voice.

If that be the case, then delete the natter. It's not the fault of the Troper who made the initial entry.

Ideally, that would be what would happen, but people seem to think that's impractical for the same reason that pages get locked because people are edit-warring or whatever. They find it easier to just not have to deal with that.

The thing is, ultimately TV Tropes is a hobby, not a job or a chore. With the wiki guidelines as they stand, in regards to audience reaction and other clearly subjective tropes, it's more likely to stay a hobby, and not edge towards the cesspool that is Encyclopedia Dramatica and the like, or even go in the other direction and become equally useless with sugary fluff that's even less figuratively nutritious than cotton candy.

^ That's it. When I go to a work's page, I want to see what tropes apply to it. As in, definitely apply to it. Not oodles of people humming and hawing and discussing among themselves on the main page whether it does or not. The main page is supposed to be a list of tropes and context/explanation as to how/why they apply in the story. "So Bad Its Horrible: This Troper thought this film really sucked, and so did my friend" is the sort of thing I'm really not interested in seeing.

A subjective trope can be listed in a neutral voice.

Maybe, but if it's subjective, the placement of the trope in itself is not neutral. And it's just too much clean up for EVERY ARTICLE EVER to have CONSTANT monitering to ensure neutrality, ESPECIALLY when that neutrality is subjective.

edited 4th Dec '10 9:04:34 AM by MrAHR