Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Removed those examples. I really hope I didn't go overboard.

I found this on Trivia.Re Creators, under What Could Have Been:

It's brief, but it comes across as gratuitous complaining, unlike the other entries in What Could Have Been, which are more objective. "Some dialogues were scrapped" seems like hardly relevant information, too.

edited 15th Feb '18 1:21:40 PM by Gosicrystal

This They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot example from YMMV.Steven Universe S 5 E 11 Lars Of The Stars seems a little bit complainy.

• The negative flipside of the above. Seeing how Lars and the Off-Colors would escape Homeworld could have been enough material for a Stevenbomb, but instead we skip ahead, the answer just being "It happened."

I think something needs to be done about Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters. Some tropers are using the main wiki page and YMMV to complain and wonk about the protagonist. Take this Nice Job Breaking It, Hero entry, for example:

There's also these from Too Dumb to Live:

Needless to say, I think some tropers have a serious axe to grind with the character.

Got a kicker of a vandalism on this one. From the Emoji Movie's Tear Jerker, they removed all the legitimate entries and added "The very fact that this movie was thrust from the bowels of hell from whence it came." The user's name is Dinosauce.

Sent two warnings ("deleting YMMV" and "rudeness") to the blanker.

Speaking of which, this entry (which used to be worse, but was trimmed down in your edit) seems unnecessary:

• Meta: The very existence of this concept spawned legions of hate, yet Sony did not give it 110% and prove to the world why they were wrong to hate this film before it had been released. As stated under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot in the YMMV section, there were so many ways that the filmmakers could have defied all expectations and created something great. But alas...

Who could possibly believe that anyone actually CRIED, as in, shed actual tears, because Emoji Movie wasn't as good as it could have been? Crying because of the movie being awful doesn't count.

edited 19th Feb '18 6:40:30 PM by Zuxtron

We'll call him in on that double whammy (removing YMMV and replacing with complaining). That edit is uncalled for.

Frankly, I think whoever added that "Meta" entry should be lashed with a wet noodle. Just because Tearjerkers are YMMV doesn't mean you can just throw any old crap in there.

edited 20th Feb '18 4:02:20 AM by Nohbody

and , I have zapped the Meta tearjerker.

edited 20th Feb '18 6:34:18 AM by Albert3105

Could I get some input on 1028, please?

It doesn't seem excessively complain-y to me. It's true that Lars went through a massive change going from normal teen to badass space pilot, and the fact that it all happened offscreen is a legitimate criticism some fans could make.

Yeah, true. I think it might just be the wording.

This was recently zapped from DanBrowned.Game Theory Web Show:

• His "Leave PewDiePie Alone" video, which is about traditional media being replaced by the internet, has a section where he looks at graphs and statistics proving that less and less people are watching TV. One poll even states that 86% of the people who contributed don't even watch TV and only use the internet as their source for entertainment. A seemingly strong statistic, until you realize the poll was held by Mat. On Game Theory. For the Game Theory audience. On the internet. Where people are obviously going to be more likely to use the internet and possibly not television. It can still be seen as a legitimately impressive statistic, but Mat never acknowledges how holding a poll for an internet based audience could potentially be biased for the pro-internet choice.

The edit reason given was "the Pew Die Pie example dosen't count as he did actual reaserch that supports his claims."

But the bullet was about flaws in that research, isn't it? Is it okay to mention flaws in the research method that could warp the result?

edited 20th Feb '18 11:35:08 PM by Albert3105

Well...I think it is a legitimate complaint, not bashing. But I thought Dan Browned was about making stuff up. It would seem to fit better under a Sample Bias or Misleading Statistics trope, if we had such a beast.

But maybe "did really poor research" is good enough for DB? I'm not entirely sure.

I thought it was more of a credibility trope.

edited 21st Feb '18 11:28:54 AM by Albert3105

That Dan Browned subpage was probably originally a Critical Research Failure subpage and was moved to clean up the latter trope's misuse. I mentioned in the Critical Research Failure Trope Repair Shop thread that misuse of that trope might not all fit under Dan Browned after someone suggested moving CRF subpages there (I mentioned Cowboy BeBop at His Computer as another possible trope such errors could fit under; note that I don't mean it's the only other possible trope), but it might have ended up there anyway.

Edit: For context for anyone here who hasn't been in the Trope Repair Shop thread for Critical Research Failure, I mentioned Cowboy BeBop at His Computer specifically because the subpages being discussed at the time were for pop culture-related web shows like Game Theory and The Nostalgia Critic.

edited 21st Feb '18 9:34:09 PM by GastonRabbit

(self-thumped)

edited 21st Feb '18 6:48:35 PM by Albert3105

I created a cleanup thread for Unintentionally Unsympathetic to adress the issues complaining and negativity on a specialized thread instead of coming here. Feel free to join in if you feel the trope needs an overhaul.

So Discontinuity.Super Mario Logan, this series managed to get an entire page of Fanon Discontinuity examples even though it's a series filled with Negativity Continuity that lacks an ongoing story, so none of them even apply. The whole list is simply a catalog of episodes people generally dislike.

I don't know what the official policy is (if there is one), but I would think that Negative Continuity and Discontinuity (in either Fanon or Canon form) would be mutually exclusive.

This paragraph in Yet Another Christmas Carol's description feels half-complaining about works and half-natter. Any idea on how to trim or cut it?

"Almost invariably (see Blackadder's Christmas Carol for an exception) results in An Aesop. What Aesop is learned can depend, however. In the original Christmas Carol it was Scrooge being forced to confront what he had lost, and what the consequences of his current actions are and would be, that awakened the Christmas Spirit within him. Furthermore, the original had a generally horrible person Aesopped into decency, whereas some adaptations have resulted in a bizarre "You will be merry or else" lesson, where a character who simply doesn't like Christmas is taught the error of their ways. After all, Scrooge hated Christmas... Also look out for adaptations missing the point of the emphasis on Scrooge's grave during the future sequence- the point is not "Shape up or you will die" (so being nice makes you immortal?), but rather "Shape up or, when you die, nobody will mourn you.""

The entry for Pokemon added to Dork Age yesterday seems whiny. It literally says "Pokemon is more popular than it's been since it premiered BUT the Periphery Demographic thinks it's being dumbed down."

edited 1st Mar '18 8:40:33 PM by HamburgerTime

I dont Dork Age can work for Pokemon each game was well received and has plenty of fans. Every game is divisive to some extant so there can't be A dork age.

Never mind it's just pure complaining too. Like, I get that some aren't a fan of the series, but making up stuff and misusing tropes is a big no-no. Best thing to do is cut and cite this thread.