Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Oh boy. The US Politics page is full of straight up complaining about Trump. Has anyone else noticed this?

I'm "very" tempted to just cut this from the Fire Emblem: The Blazing Blade YMMV page with "complaining and bashing" as an edit reason, but I'd figured it wouldn't be bad to take it there before :

• Franchise Original Sin:
  • Just like The Binding Blade when many were introduced to the support mechanic in this game, it was considered great and was deemed the gold standard of supports in the series. But, while the five-Support cap left most players unable to see most of them in one play-through and did much to disguise the problem, Elibe saw just as much broad comic fluff, poor character development, and weakly developed romance in its conversations. Later titles merely had quality control issues from the sheer number of Supports and the "marriage and children" mechanic muddying up the issue. Awakening in particular got hit pretty hard just for removing the five-support limit, which many fans wanted to see gone before realizing what would happen as a consequence.

Whoever wrote this take so much his own opinion as the general consensus that I have some trouble to see what he means when he pothole Gone Horribly Right et Be Careful What You Wish For when talking about removing the support cap in Awakening. I'm still very happy, just like most of the fanbase, that the old five support cap is gone, and while I do agree not every support is a masterpiece, Whether their general writing is poor enough to qualify as a flaw for the newer game is largely up to debate and personal opinion, so it just looks like someones is using the trope as an excuse to complain about the support of the newer games. (Franchise Original Sin as a whole might be worth a dedicated cleanup thread, by the way, as the one time I did read it last year, it had more than its share of complaining in it.)

edited 24th Jul '17 7:31:05 AM by Yumil

I agree, plus Echoes (the most recent game) had pretty garbage Supports overall despite the low number (which kind of spits on the "quality over quantity" argument people like to bring up). I'd delete the above example.

edited 24th Jul '17 8:39:54 AM by Karxrida

...huh, Just chekced Fire Emblem: The Binding Blade page and the same thing is present, except it's slightly diffrently worded.

• Franchise Original Sin: As the game that overhauled Genealogy's "Love and War" system into the modern Support mechanic, fans often consider the Elibe titles the gold standard when it comes to Support writing quality, character development, and proper romantic escalation when appropriate. But, while the five-Support cap left most players unable to see most of them in one play-through and did much to disguise the problem, Elibe saw just as much broad comic fluff, poor character development, and weakly developed romance in its conversations. Later titles merely had quality control issues from the sheer number of Supports and the "marriage and children" mechanic muddying up the issue. Awakening in particular got hit pretty hard just for removing the five-support limit, which many fans wanted to see gone before realizing what would happen as a consequence.

Okay, with this formulation I understand the whole thing quite diffrently now, it feels the writer is trying to say awakening and Fates supports are Misblamed for their supposed lack of quality compared to those gamesn while they weren't actually that better, it just wasn't obvious because of the cap.

I think i'm going to slightly rewrite the one I brought up in the first place, and maybe this one, to sound less negative, but that seems much more legitimate now.

edited 26th Jul '17 6:39:22 AM by Yumil

Should any of the following be allowed on Funny.The Emoji Movie?:

Absolutely none of them, if you ask me. Funny Moments is to describe hilarity from the works' universe.

Yes, good call on torching them.

edited 29th Jul '17 3:44:19 PM by Berrenta

Kill those all with fire. Also, we should keep an eye on the pages for other issues.

That said, the pages do need cleanup due to a lot of rumors being thrown on there as facts. But that's another issue altogether.

So I have a question. Have you guys looked at the Unintentionally Unsympathetic page yet? Because that page is just a cesspool of complaining and I am afraid removing examples on my own without forum approval would just start an edit war.

That page might require TRS attention. If you read the trope description, it talks about a character having "supposed insecurities or embarrassing quirks" that are meant to inspire sympathy but don't. Almost none of the examples talk about that; they're written as though any instance of a character being less sympathetic than intended, for any reason, can count. The name certainly suggests the latter.

Well it is a subjective trope and subjective tropes require more upkeep then regular examples. Right now it seems people are ignoring the description and are just posting characters they don't like saying that a character is "despised" by a fandom while in reality they are making stuff up. Worse, it seems the page is becoming more popular.

Cleaning it up by myself would also be too much work because I would have to research each fandom to sort the legitimate examples from the fakes.

edited 31st Jul '17 6:07:43 PM by DocJamore

I feel Unintentionally Unsympathetic could use a cleanup thread. Just by skimming through the page quite a few of the characters listed lack "insecurities and embarrassing quirks" and is just used for any instance when a character isn't as likable as intended. I also feel the trope is being used as an excuse for people to complain about characters they don't like or when a character acts in a way or does something they don't like.

I doubt that a cleanup effort would curb the problem of the trope being interpreted more broadly than a strict reading of the definition would support, because that's kind of right there in the name. Taking a trip through the Wayback Machine reveals that that part of the definition has been there since the beginning and has been ignored in the example section from the beginning.

I think this is a case where either the page will need to be renamed to match the definition, or the definition will need to be adjusted to fit the name and the usage, and either one will require a TRS thread. I also strongly suspect that an organized cleanup effort will be needed regardless, but given the magnitude of the cleanup, I think that the definition and name should be nailed down first.

edited 31st Jul '17 7:17:13 PM by HighCrate

I'd previously posted about blatantly biased and bashing language when it comes to Adam Ruins Everything and Demo Reel under Author Tract Web Original section:

Adam Ruins Everything: "Virtually every time Adam Ruins Everything, He does so by telling several cynical jokes that can actually be seen to push liberalist ideals. This is evidenced by the fact that the videos only seem to target things that are deemed counterproductive to the politically correct message that various colleges attempt to teach [i.e. are religious or conservative in nature]. These include, but are not limited to, things such as views on death and the afterlife,Christmas, circumcision, and at one time the idea of being a virgin was implied to be sexist."

Not only is all of that based entirely on the opinion of the person who posted it, it's quite obvious they're trying to purposefully depict it in a negative way which shows Right-Wing bias. I don't see how the show can be an Author Tract, since any show about skepticism will inevitably touch on somebody's sacred cow.

Demo Reel: "On the subject of Demo Reel, the series was tailor-made for intersectional feminism, with a tribute to a real-life actress (Elizabeth Hartman) who committed suicide because she was too getting too old, Played for Drama rants about how much Slut-Shaming sucks, interracial male/male flirting and a whole episode dedicated to shoving bisexuality in your face while another was dealing with white privilege."

The Troper who wrote that post (Emeriin) had said that I should "just delete the thing," but I have trouble with wiki editing and can't figure out how to do it. The section on how to delete would help most people, but I was unable to figure it out.

They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character needs a lot of cleanup. Tropers just add characters who do get a lot of screen-time & depth. Said characters are only added for them to complain about how the characters are portrayed.

We have a cleanup thread for They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character already.

So I've noticed universally hated fan works documented here tend to get alot of Accentuate the Negative. While many of them are bad, should we really push the most negative interpretations of the protagonists of these fanworks as fact.

I still think we shouldn't document works that don't have any fans outside of Bile Fascination.

I forgot about it.

Anyway, I think some examples on Character Derailment need to be rewritten, as some of them are either filled with bias or just ranting/complaining. It's no wonder the trope is Flame Bait in the first place.

AdoredByTheNetwork.Teen Titans Go has a lot of complaining. And I mean a lot.

edited 9th Aug '17 7:50:56 PM by Karxrida

I...uh...wow. I really shouldn't be surprised honestly. Not that I don't agree with them, but that page needs a cleanup yesterday.

Speaking of AdoredByTheNetwork.Teen Titans Go, these would count as complaining/bashing, correct?

• They were actually willing to premiere the episode "Pyramid Scheme" on the same day as the finale of Gravity Falls in a viewership-theft gambit that, for obvious reasons, failed to the point where it could be a No-Hoper Repeat with a new episode.

• In 2015, the series gained the tagline "Your New Favorite Show", and marketing referred to the Titans as "Your New Best Friends", mainly due to reruns getting consistently high ratings. Those who actually liked the series were inclined to agree, but many more were utterly disgusted by Cartoon Network's Blatant Lies, as if they were trying to dictate what viewers liked and didn't like, and it didn't help that ads would end with a clip from "Let's Get Serious" with Raven telling Robin to "have a laugh every once in a while", which was interpreted as a personal attack on the show's detractors (as if the series didn't have enough of them). Fortunately, for everyone's sanity, the tagline was done away with several months after it was introduced.
• On the last two days of June 2017, a two-day all-day marathon was held to celebrate the finale of Uncle Grandpa and to compete with the opening weekend of Despicable Me 3. Yes, Despicable Me 3. They were trying to pull people away from the theaters using the series.

Yes.

Gonna go remove them now. Thanks!

I think the YMMV page for The Emoji Movie may need a look at.

Also the main workpage has a few issues of its own:

• There's some sinkholes to Cliché Storm, Family-Unfriendly Aesop and Wild Mass Guessing, despite the former two being YMMV items that should not be linked outside the YMMV page, and the latter is not a trope at all.
• I'm not sure the 2 Totally Radical examples are being used correctly. The first bulletpoint appears to be treating the trope as a subjective audience reaction when it's meant to be an objective trope, even linking to a negative critical review of the film (which seem to violate this site's rule about not including critical reactions on a work's page). And the second bulletpoint is identical to an example I already removed from both Unintentional Period Piece and Were Still Relevant Dammit for not fitting either of those tropes^note Unintentional Period Piece requires the work to be at least 10 years old, Were Still Relevant Dammit requires the work to be a Long Runner

Also think several wicks to the main page might need checking out.

Also the film was added to the Animated Film section of So Bad Its Horrible which I wouldn't have a problem with since as written it seems to fit, apart from 3 things:

• It was added on the exact same day the film was released.
• There seems to be a debate going on in the discussion page as to whether the film qualifies due to it's debatable financial success (as of now it's made back its domestic budget, but it's unknown how much it cost to market it and whether it can recoup that), despite the fact that - as I had previously enquired about - how much a film makes at the box office should have no effect on whether a film is declared So Bad It's Horrible.
• Whilst the film does have very low scores on both Rotten Tomatoes, Meta Critic and IMDB, on Cinemascore its audience score is B^note which admittedly is a really low score for an animated moviebut with an A- amongst under 18's (accounting for 50% of the film’s audience), suggesting it might have some niche audience that likes it.

Going by the last part of I'd say that the movie (which I have no desire to see) doesn't qualify as SBIH.

I found this entry for the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic movie.

There's also Emily Blunt's character, Tempest Shadow. Some find her design interesting, others think she looks like a typical "edgy" OC, with black and red color patterns, a scarred face, and a broken horn. The fact that she was described as having a "troubled past", another common trend with bad OCs, didn't help. And when her prequel novel (The Stormy Road to Canterlot) came out, the base got even more broken — some did indeed see her as a genuine Jerkass Woobie because of her unique Fictional Disability, but others just saw her as Unintentionally Unsympathetic and Wangsty in the same vein as Starlight Glimmer when her own Freudian Excuse came out.

While it acknowledges both sides of the debate, it seems to give the negative side more detail.