Inspired by this thread
, I've noticed that this wiki doesn't have a dedicated cleanup thread for negativity.
As we all know, Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, Creator Bashing and other negativity isn't desired on the wiki, except in a few selected areas like reviews and several Darth Wiki pages (and even then, with limitations). And yet, it's one of the most common sins wiki contributors can make.
So, if you find a page, TLP or discussion whose content seems like a straight-up insult or any other bitching - including complainy soapboxing -, you might ask here for help with removing said content.
The sandbox for this project is located at Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining.
Edited by MacronNotes on Apr 27th 2022 at 5:36:47 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
You want this thread.
Hurler of Swine
Thanks. Sorry about that.
Die for Our Ship.Bleach needs some looking-over for Orihime examples considering the argument that went on on the discussion page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
nonarySpade
His Dark Materials has an insane amount of Natter.
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay
You Have Researched Breathing has a lot of complaining in the examples.
Doesn't look that negative to me.
Nattery, though.
It's super effective.
I know it's a YMMV about negative reception, but does anyone think someone has an axe to grind over Seasonal Rot's Two And A Half Men entry?
edited 31st Aug '12 9:12:12 PM by OldManHoOh
Definitely. The impression I got from the trope description is that it's supposed to be shows that are widely considered to have declined, not the specific problems that that troper doesn't like.
Although I dislike both films, I noticed that many pages of films in the Disney Animated Canon include a Take That! against both Home On The Range and Chicken Little.
edited 15th Sep '12 11:06:57 PM by toonyloon
It's super effective.
What on Earth is the lead of True Capitalist about?
The Taylor Swift YMMV page is pretty negative. I'll try to edit the Unfortunate Implications entry but the whole page has a negative tone. Someone can revert the edits to Unfortunate Implications if they can make it more neutral, right now it's full of RANDOM CAPITALIZATIONS and HYPERBOLE!!
edited 15th Sep '12 8:41:41 AM by wuggles
The English Language page is currently a Wretched Hive of repeat questions, Natter, cross-talk, negativity, sniping, and complaining ... worst of all, a few of these are my own fault. I'd like to overhaul the page, removing the complaints, duplicates, tendentious stuff, and Conversation In The Main Page (beyond even the laxer Headscratcher standards). However, that's a pretty wide-ranging scrub job, so I'd like to air the idea with the community & mods before going in unilaterally.
Any thoughts on what to avoid changing, or reasons to leave the page as is?
Reymmã
Most of those questions have been addressed by teachers and academics for decades. Giving references to where to find answers could help, but I don't know of or how we can do that on a Headscratchers page.
The page for The Trapped Trilogy is full of mean spirited Take Thats and nasty digs at the religious content. That's not even getting started on it's sub pages.
edited 17th Oct '12 9:38:06 AM by shoboni
While Ticker is a bad movie, it doesn't mean that you can use its official page to whine about how it sucks.
Example: "The problem with the film isn't so much that it's explicitly terrible, so much as the fact that it's profoundly bland. It can barely be called an action film; there's hardly any action in it. The acting isn't so much over-the-top or unrealistic so much as bored and detached. Thus, the film has not even So Bad, It's Good or camp value, and is hardly even a viable way to kill 90 minutes if it's playing on TV and you have nothing else to do."
Good grief, that's like a textbook example on how not to write a work page.
Since the bit you quoted comes right at the end of the article and has no real connection to the rest of the write-up, will anyone object if I just delete it?
Lost in Space
Go for it. Article descriptions should not be reviews.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I removed that and the other review-like material on the Ticker article.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
So, is someone going to help out with The Trapped Trilogy?
Thank you, Eddie sir!
To whoever cleaned the The Trapped Trilogy, thanks.
Forced Tutorial needs a look-over within the examples and description. From what the tone suggests, it seems that the mentality it's trying to enforce is "Screw in-game instructions! We've got manuals!" The title isn't helping. I may need to create redirects that sound less negative.
Could I get some help with They Changed It, Now It Sucks!? As well as hate towards the fans, it has attracted quite a few Justifying Edits.
I didn't have enough time to fix the pages, but I have zapped all wicks to Unpleasable Fanbase, since it's Flame Bait.
edited 8th Jan '13 12:35:29 AM by nemui10pm
A genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker
Four Eyes, Zero Soul has a Real Life section. I don't think this is appropriate because 1) it falls under the "calling real people evil" clause for No Real Life Examples Please qualification, and 2) because Real Life does not in fact have an author, it is by definition putting the cart before the horse.
The trope is about an author using a character's glasses as an alignment-related visual cue (i.e., the trope is about characters whose design includes glasses because they're evil, not Nazis and serial killers who happened to need glasses), so it having a Real Life example section implies that people with glasses in real life are more likely to be evil than people without glasses, which is obviously not true.