Right, that's what I'm talking about. If tropers will be sick of the word, they will remove it. You are a troper, so if you are personally sick of the word, and started to remove it, this signs that the term is starting to annoy at least some people.
If there are some others who agree with you, some of it will be removed. If there are many like you, many of it will be removed. And if everyone agrees with you, all of it will be removed.
But there is no need organize any effort, or write a script, to remove them just because some of us in this thread don't like it. It's just a word, these things come and go, it's not like stuff where a leadership needs to daw the line between good and bad.
The difference is, that This Troper
was objectively bad. It wasn't cleaned up because some people were sick of it, but because it needlessly brought up the editor's person, that doesn't fit with an encyclopedia's purpose.
But "Brutally subverted" isn't objectively bad. It's just a way of saying that a subversion took a deconstructive, Darker and Edgier
take on the trope. There is no reason why it would damage the wiki, or alienate our audiance, or make reading harder. If people think that it's acceptable, there is no objective reason for it not to be acceptable.
edited 30th Jan '11 12:40:45 PM by EternalSeptember