Does this really need examples?: Internet Backdraft

I think we should give this page an Example Sectionectomy. Basically anything can be and probably has been argued about on the internet, so the example don't serve much purpose. The page contains an index of related audience reactions that are more specific, such as Base Breaker, Serious Business, and Ruined Forever, so the Internet Backdraft example can be filed on those pages, a lot of which already are. Also, the examples on this page are pretty much duplicated on the Flame War page (which might needs its own Example Sectionectomy).

Another point is that IMO the examples on Internet Backdraft aren't very interesting to read, and many of them just sound silly. They treat the occurences of Internet Backdraft like it is a huge deal that will affect you, with phrases like "You will be burned by flames." and "you will lose your eyebrows to the resulting fireball". It's just geeks wasting their time arguing with strangers. I don't know why fan complaints is such a popular topic to trope about on this site, because it is not interesting at all.

Example Sectionectomy seems a little extreme for examples just being uninteresting, which is pretty subjective to start with. If there are examples that don't fit, feel free to clean them out.

edited 12th Aug '11 7:43:05 PM by BioTube

I firmly oppose all attempts to document internet drama and/or Fan Dumb on this site, so I'd be in favor of cutting the examples. Even if there's some reason to keep them, though, can we please do away with the ridiculous dramatics? Some of this stuff may be considered "controversial", but it's hardly going to get you set on fire by Internet Tough Guys. An Example Sectionectomy is my preferred treatment, but it needs a rewrite no matter what.

Completely against axing the examples, that's a ridiculous thing to do. At worst it has natter but other wise there have been no problems with the page.

Quick glance at doesn't note rampant problems. Also, the statement that it's geeks arguing with strangers is totally untrue; no argument is contained within these pages, only things that could cause (in theory impressive) arguments.

Why is this actionable?

I didn't mean that the actual examples are full of arguing, I meant that the examples talk about geeks arguing with strangers elsewhere on the internet.

I don't think the examples are particularly problematic, I just thought that the examples aren't really necessary because it is such a common concept and we don't need to document every instance of it. Maybe that's not enough reason to delete the examples, but I had noticed that the pages for several other common audience reactions were given example lockouts because the concept is too common, for example the Shipping page.

I feel like a lot of the examples, at least in the pages I was looking at, can be summarized as "fans of thing X are really assholes, aren't they?"

It's also got a lot of natter.

It's also incredibly prone to Bold Inflation; there's not one example on the page (or at least there wasn't, the last time I looked at it) that wasn't overflowing with hyperbole about how violent the reaction would be if you dared to even mention the forbidden topic. To read some of them, you'd think that member of whatever forum were going to show up on your doorstep with flamethrowers and nuclear bombs for espousing the side they don't hold with.

edited 14th Aug '11 10:26:01 AM by Madrugada

Again, while I want to axe the examples, even if we keep them that stuff has to go. There is no reason to write the page in such a melodramatic fashion.

I thought that was part of the humor?? seriously i thought things like that was encouraged given the subject matter?

^Um...no. Read the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment.

And I'm not sure where this policy is, but bashing stuff (as well as gushing, for that matter) on the wiki isn't actually allowed outside the reviews section and liveblogs.

edited 14th Aug '11 12:30:11 PM by INUH

Yea, considering how every other page like it has been given the Example Sectionectomy treatment, this one should get it as well if for nothing else than consistency.

A crowner is the best way to settle the Example Sectionectomy debate, but INUH is correct: the way the examples are written now must go.

Yes, I realize I'm starting to sound like a broken record now.

I think Example Sectionectomy is a bit extreme, but it definitely needs to be cleaned up and scrubbed of natter.

edited 14th Aug '11 10:19:04 PM by BooleanEarth

Against cutting the examples, but maybe just cleaning them instead?

Yeah, there are some legitimate examples of "the fanbase got really angry at something". We need more than "the fans complained on forums and Twitter" to be valid, but if there were petitions, or the creators did an emergency press conference in response, or other drastic actions, they should stay with this trope.

Internet Backdraft is defined simply as "A topic that is virtually guaranteed to draw flaming if it's mentioned among a particular group if internet users." That's all. It's got nothing to do with petitions, or flaming the creator of a work or press conferences or other drastic actions. That would be a complete redefinition.

I've been keeping the Theatre and Literature cleaned up, and I'm working my way through cleaning up Other, moving examples that should be on other pages and taking out the hyperbole and "ask this anywhere!" generalizations.

Oh my god, it's a fun(ny) article, and fact is that subjects that promote flamewars are an important part of a fandom.

Why are all of you acting like Wikipedia?

That's the second invocation of Tropers Law I've seen in the past twelve hours. I'm impressed.

The more I look at this page, the more I hate it. We're supposed to be about cataloging tropes. I know lots of people get their kicks out of fans being idiots, but do we really need examples on this page?

Besides that, I can think of at least two objective reasons to ax the examples - it's off-mission and it attracts natter. What objective reason is there to keep them?

I have to agree - while I can see the point of having the article, I feel like it'd be better for the wiki for the reasons mentioned above to remove specific examples. Particularly since quite a few of the related tropes (like Award Snub) are listed as "No Examples, Please."

This is one that I'd hate to lose for the amusement value (I have fond memories of far too many "Sondheim sucks"/"Sondheim is God"; "Webber sucks"/"Webber is god"; "Cats sucks"/Cats... wait, you're right, Cats does suck" flame wars back in the glory days of r.a.t.m on usenet) but it is completely off mission unless we restrict the examples to Backdrafts being mentioned in-universe.

sorry i didn't know anybody was bashing anything. all the page does is list potential flame wars and people are pissed over "bold inflation"???...really?? just clean it up. all pages are prone to natter, if you see it clean it up.

All lowercase is annoying.

Rather like this one.... Can we shove the out of universe examples to another page (maybe darthwiki) then free the main page for in universe examples?