Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Not familiar with the writer, but that write-up looks clear and neutral to me.

The Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy page is pretty negative. Quite a few examples are just "I hate all the characters in this work and don't care". There's also problems with the various Uncanny Valley subpages.

edited 24th Jun '12 6:24:45 PM by wuggles

Have the descriptions for Fangirl and Fanboy been changed yet? They still seem negative to me. Looking at the examples for both tropes, most examples seem to be a character fawning over another character in universe. The descriptions, on the other hand, describe the fanperson as the stereotypical fan types more often seen in real life on the internet than in fiction. Can the description be changed so that it matches the examples more rather than hating on fans? Fanboys and fangirls aren't inherently as nasty as these pages may imply.

It is not always a pejorative term (though this being the internet, it often is); some people use the term "fangirl" to mean nothing more than a female Nerd—that is, a fanboy's legitimate female counterpart.

From the Fangirl page. Yeah... I'm not quite sure how to feel about that implication at all. :/

I'm guessing how influential a work is is part of its reception?

I think we should be able to talk about a work being influential, since things like Genre Launch and Trope Codifier have an important effect on fiction. As long as people actually use it that way, instead of using it as a front for gushing.

Genre Launch and Trope Codifier are directly relevant to tropes. Most of the items we think of when saying "influential" aren't.

But if a work has a strong influence on later works of fiction (within a genre, or medium, or whatever), that's relevant to our mission in a way that "this work is awesome and brilliant and all the critics praised it" isn't.

It is, but not on the page itself. That would be trivia, it's not part of the work so it's not something in the work.

While doing some namespace cleanup, I noticed that Gainax Ending seems to have examples of complaining, natter, justifying edits, and arguing on the main page. Might need a bit of attention.

Distress Ball seems to be too negative for what the trope is: a character does something (relatively) stupid because the writers need him or her to be in distress. While this could be a writing fumble, the trope completely overlooks the possibility that realistically, people do stupid things sometimes. No character besides the dreaded Sue is perfectly competent all the time.

The current description leads to resistance to people adding the trope to their favorite character/show because of how it makes it out to be always terrible.

I'm not sure how to fix the description, someone want to take a stab at it?

I think the "Ball" tropes in general all have that problem.

Although I also think they might supposed to be only for blatant cases, not just any "character does something stupid for the sake of plot point X".

I thought the ___ Ball tropes were all "done for the writer's reasons rather than the character's." Like Deus ex Machina without having to be an ending.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Distress Ball should be "the writers need the character to be in distress, therefore the character will do something that will land them in distress, whether or not it makes sense for the character to do so." It's not so much about acting stupidly as it is acting in a way to serve the plot. So acting OOC would also count.

Is it just me, or does Think of the Children! have an excessively negative description? (Not that I would care if it stays...)

It's quite negative, but I have no idea of how to improve it.

I tried neutralizing the Distress Ball description. How's it look?

Xanth needs the reviews removed from the description.

^done

Thanks

Doubleposting. Is it just me, or does the TV Tropes section of Accentuate the Negative come off as complaining/Complaining About Complaining?

...

I don't know if there's anything worth keeping on that page.

edit: oh, you meant just the tvtropes section. Yeah, that's not good either.

edited 13th Jul '12 7:56:55 AM by abk0100

Nevermind, Fast Eddie took care of it.

edited 15th Jul '12 7:09:48 PM by biznizz

I'm having some difficulty looking at Viewers Are Morons and figuring out how it's managed to live so long without a scrub. I noticed this because of a ranty complaining edit on Skyrim.Tropes U-Z which I removed, right below an older Viewers Are Geniuses example that I also removed because it somehow managed to be bashing as well.

Why aren't these YMMV again? Or if Viewers Are Morons is limited strictly to examples where Word of God says they dumbed stuff down for the audience, then it needs a serious scrubbing.

I don't have time to clean it up, but I just want to say that I've cleaned up wicks to it that are bashing as well. Too much of it comes off as tropers trying to seem like they are geniuses compared to "everyone else". Maybe it should go to TRS?