Excessive Negativity: Joe Quesada

That's a YMMV trope. It goes on the YMMV page.

Only if we redefine Character Derailment via Trope Repair to not be a subjective.

Didn't know it was changed. But the page still should note why fans are upset with him. It doesn't have to agree with them, just state why, and let readers make their own judgments.

I believe that Shimaspawn's proposed text does that quite adequately.

I am saying that we can take all the things that are on the page now. Assign them as factual tropes rather than opinions, and still get the same reaction of, "what is this man doing?" from comic book fans without just bashing him.

Just the facts alone should be enough in his case. We don't need to hit people over the head with it.

edited 10th Feb '11 9:22:48 AM by shimaspawn

Okay, so just leaving in the letter, while taking out the hateful spirit.

Seems fine to me.

Yep. We just need to convert the current set of complaints into a cohesive trope list that's just the facts, and the page will be much less overtly negative, but still paint a clear picture.

I would just keep the part about to some he did good for Marvel, and to some he's the poster boy for Running the Asylum (in the description, not on the trope list).

Fair enough. Now, shall we get to converting these opinions to tropes?

Um, I'm wondering of this would be legit:

• Double Standard: Forbade writers from bringing Jean Grey back (and possibly ordered her killed off), which he justified by claiming she hasn't done anything of merit after saving the universe, and has so far not applied this logic to any other character.

Eh, maybe. I guess it could work. I don't think we're trying to claim that his work is not hated, just to make the language less loaded.

Exactly. Hence tropes instead of a list of grievances.

"List of grievances" is the perfect term for this, and for the types of pages we don't want. It's gotten to where whenever I see "One More Day," (and it's almost invariably followed by a long, meandering, ranty paragraph), I just skip ahead to the next example, because I already know exactly what's in that paragraph.

Since the page is still locked I figured I'd bump this thread. One solution to all the massive bashing is just to set aside a paragraph to describe that he's made some controversial decisions that have resulted in him being a polarizing figure.

I've taken all the stuff out that made it YMMV.

We just need to convert the current set of complaints into a cohesive trope list that's just the facts, and the page will be much less overtly negative, but still paint a clear picture.

That doesn't help, because any trope that can show a negative fact either is, or will become, classified under YMMV and we won't be allowed to use it.

We're at the point where we're not even allowed to say on the Star Wars page that people don't like Jar Jar. (Not necessary just as a trope, but at all.) It's useful information to anyone wanting to know more about Star Wars than just a plot summary, but since it's an audience reaction we can't say it.

(I wonder if anyone's ever going to try to apply this to positive audience reactions. Surely it's just subjective or an audience reaction to say that a series is popular, or beloved by fans, or classic, or even that it made a lot of money. And it may actually be good to remove those given that we can't have negative ones—removing the negatives and leaving equally subjective positives can give the wrong impression.)

edited 28th May '11 10:59:46 PM by arromdee

Well, the fact that something made a lot of money is entirely objective.

But I agree that "positive" YMMV tropes should be treated exactly the same as "negative" ones. As far as I knew, though, this was already the case.

Well, the fact that something made a lot of money is entirely objective.

The fact that something got a lot of negative comments is also objective—you can count them just like you can count dollars—but I don't think we're allowed to say "Joe Quesada's One More Day storyline got a lot of negative comments". I don't think we can even say that it was considered #XX of X bad stories in XXXXX fan poll. They're all ultimately audience reactions; they're just measurements of audience reactions.

But I agree that "positive" YMMV tropes should be treated exactly the same as "negative" ones. As far as I knew, though, this was already the case.

They sometimes are when they are listed as separate tropes, but the rule applies to material in the main text as well as material that is listed as trope examples. For instance, Star Wars's first sentence describes it as "a classic tale". Isn't whether it is a classic an audience reaction?

For that matter, Star Wars still contains the sentence "However, to say that many hardcore fans merely "hate" the Special Edition films would be an understatement. " That's a negative one and it's still in. I don't see how under the current rules we're allowed to say that fans hate the films.

(And of course the title "Excessive Negativity" is misleading. It's not as if we're permitted to have negativity that is not excessive.)

edited 28th May '11 11:14:28 PM by arromdee

I fixed that line.

YMMVs don't belong in main anyway.

edited 29th May '11 12:01:16 AM by SpellBlade

I fixed that line.

It still claims to be classic.

Not only does it still claim to be classic, it also contains this line:

The canonicity (or lack thereof) of the Expanded Universe is a matter of some heated debate among the fans.

Sounds like an audience reaction to me. If we're serious about taking the audience reactions out, this needs to go. It's no different than saying "Jar Jar was widely hated by the fans."

Personally, people are worrying about subjectives way too much. If we start chopping down everything positive or negative, the main pages will come off as clinical, and that's not good.

Taken from the home page:

Also, This Is A Wiki. Please don't tell other people to make edits you can do yourself.

Everything's relative, if 95% of an article is truly neutral we really shouldn't have to worry about the 5% that is positive or negative, unless that 5% is Wiki Schizophrenia. Joe Quesada is very polarizing but there is a difference between explaining why he is disliked in the community (using the 5% idea) and telling the reader why they should hate him too (using the 95%).

And other things are really splitting hairs. The use of "A Classic Tale" in the Star Wars page doesn't tell me "This must be REALLY good," it tells me "this uses old school style storytelling" like classical literature.

Please don't tell other people to make edits you can do yourself.

I think that the rule is a bad rule. It would be hypocritical for me to edit in accordance with a rule that I believe is bad.

The truth is that the rule has much wider scope than what anyone really wants to delete. So nobody really believes in the rule as written, but it makes a handy excuse to delete material selectively.

It's as if we had a rule that we could delete anything containing the letter J, and someone used it to delete references to Jar Jar, but left in Jabba the Hutt. You can tell they're not so interested in the rule.

Back to the original subject, the material that people want to delete from the Quesada article may violate a rule about audience reactions, but the wiki is full of stuff that violates that rule but which we don't want to delete, and which even Eddie would never delete.

(KJ:) Everything's relative, if 95% of an article is truly neutral we really shouldn't have to worry about the 5% that is positive or negative

There are two types of arguments being made here:

1. This is excessive negativity, but maybe a little bit is okay.
2. Any amount is wrong because it's a *rule* so anything negative or subjective is shoot on sight. We have to take it all out because the rule says so (for instance, see post #23).

The attitude in #2 is what I'm responding to. And people really do think that way. In fact, I'd suggest that the rule was made into a rule in the first place to cater to such people.

edited 31st May '11 3:34:41 PM by arromdee