It's too vague to be a valid trope.: Mary Sue

Why is this a trope? I understand that it's used outside TV Tropes so it can't be explained but that's why it shouldn't be an encouraging term. From what it's at now, it seems to mean 'I don't like this female character therefore she is Mary Sue.' Either we find a proper description or we just axe it, it's very ambiguous right now.

edited 1st Jan '12 2:36:39 AM by TheGovernment

It has a description. It's a very elaborate trope, if you bother to check the page. And if I remember correctly it's a YMMV trope, so there is nothing wrong at all with the trope, as it's marked whenever people use it as "some people think this character is a Mary Sue, others don't".

So unless you find a real flaw in the trope this thread has no meaning at all. You shouldn't ask to "axe" tropes as easily as you did, specially when they are as important as this one.

edited 1st Jan '12 2:44:24 AM by DrMcNinja

I'd still like to cut all examples, not just the ones on the page. But this is definitely worthwhile as a definition if nothing else. Just because the term, in practice, has decayed into meaninglessness doesn't mean this isn't a trope.

If it's a trope then it needs examples, otherwise it wouldn't be a trope. And if you mean cut the interpretations of a Mary Sue, then I don't see what will be accomplished with that.

We have a number of highly controversial YMMV tropes where no examples are allowed, either on the page or elsewhere. As Mary Sue is Flame Bait (or should be), I'm inclined to want to give it the same treatment.

"Should be Flame Bait"? What?

In any case, is there any proof of that? Check the examples, and if they are indeed Flame Bait and cause Edit Wars then I wouldn't mind the trope having none, but if they aren't then there's no need to eliminate them.

edited 1st Jan '12 3:00:21 AM by DrMcNinja

Mary Sue is generally not to be used on the rest of the wiki, and the subtypes do a lot more for actually being useful to identify character types. It can still come across as complaining, but it actually has valid criteria whereas the current interpretation of Mary Sue is basically everything from a bad character to an Author Avatar and everything in between.

As for examples, I don't see them being potholed everywhere so that isn't an issue either. Mary Sue is not something TV Tropes created and thus it is going to be staying.

Mary Sue is lit criticism at its core it is one of those things that we can not avoid really we already had a big thread on this.

And its YMMV so it really cant be potholed without the red dot appearing... so it shouldnt actually be potholed anywhere but YMMV pages.

Two big threads, actually, if not more - the first purged examples from the subpages as well, though they're still found on individual works' YMMV pages, primarily as those tend to be fairly noncontroversial compared to the hellhole of natter that the subpages were.

The term should be Flame Bait because of its inherent negativity - when you call a character a Mary Sue, you're calling them a bad character.

edited 1st Jan '12 4:28:20 AM by nrjxll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Is it causing Edit Wars or not? If it isn't then it doesn't need to become Flame Bait. And I seriously doubt it does when it's YMMV.

Seriously, I think there's nothing wrong with the trope, why are we trying to fix what is not broken?

It really is Flame Bait, I for one have gotten into plenty of heated debates on other forums defending Naru from Love Hina from being a Jerk Sue (Not here on TV Tropes though because well its YMMV and Bait and I am better than that.)

And some people just carry grudges on some characters, like the character ate their last Twinkie or something, less avenues to complain the better... Keep it civil in the YMMV page.

I would of done it the other way around though, ditched the wicks but kept the examples on the tropes though.

edited 1st Jan '12 9:54:16 AM by Raso

You and me are talking about a different kind of flame bait. Check the page Flame Bait and you'll see what I mean.

And check your punctuation, sometimes it's difficult to know when a phrase ends and the other begins. Dots are your friends.

Eh? Things like Lawful Good and Periphery Hatedom are labeled as Flame Bait and still allow examples on their pages but do not allow wicks anywhere else. That is what these should be.

edited 1st Jan '12 9:55:36 AM by Raso

Why exactly this trope needs to be Flame Bait? Is it causing an Edit War in the pages?

If it is, then I wouldn't mind it becoming Flame Bait. But if it isn't, and nobody proved it did, then there's no reason to make it Flame Bait.

It was causing edit wars. That's why we removed the examples. Since the examples were removed, people stopped warring about them.

I'm talking about the wiks, are they causing edit wars?

They're a huge source of edit wars on the wiki itself. We've banned several people for it all ready.

Alright, if we needed to ban people for this then I don't mind making the trope Flame Bait. I just want to make things with a reason.

Basically, the only examples would be In-Universe (either an accusation by an author, or Parody Sue, or Her Code Name Was "Mary Sue").

For the record, I think most of the edit wars actually involve the various subtypes, since those are more commonly listed then Mary Sue proper. So they should get the same treatment.