Pages that need the YMMV banner:

Total posts: [1,546]
1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 62
1151 MagBas24th Jun 2013 01:25:47 PM from In my house
Bumping to votes.
1152 Saber1525th Jun 2013 08:32:49 AM from Florida , Relationship Status: Get out of here, STALKER
Torment is my art
Crack Is Cheaper should have the YMMV tag removed now that all the Real Life nattering (aka "every hobby ever") was purged from the page. Crack Is Cheaper is also now In-Universe examples only.
“In the universe, there is just the one ultimate law: Life always devises some ultimate means to put an end to life” - Sister Alice
1153 SeptimusHeap25th Jun 2013 08:39:41 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Have the wicks been cleaned, too?
I removed listings on Crack Is Cheaper on YMMV pages up to E. The main problem I'm seeing is Zero Context Examples.

Full list of all that were removed

  • Beanie Babies: As 3rd Rock from the Sun made sure to parody.
  • Blaze Union: If you want to import the game, it's 60 USD. Then there's the 30 USD soundtrack, the 20 USD guide, and the upcoming artbook, which will probably cost around the same. That adds up to $130. If you want Pamela (and the rest of the canon story), you also need Yggdra Union, which is another 30 USD to import, and its merchandise (soundtrack and artbook/guide), which adds up to another 30 USD each. Your total is $220 by now. Gaiden Game Yggdra Unison, which stars a lot of Blaze Union's cast, is yet another 50 USD to import, and then there's its merchandise (guide, soundtrack, drama CD). Oh right, and you're going to want the series sourcebook if you want to know the details of Nessiah's backstory. After that, there's the rest of the series. Yikes.
  • Dawn of the Dragons: Some long-time players feel this way about the game, which makes you pay money to get the best items, armor and legions if you want a shot at dealing more damage in World Raids or leveling faster.
  • Disney Theme Parks: Beyond the expenses one would normally expect for a theme park/resort vacation, the Disney parks feature a notorious amount of specialized, often collectible merchandise (hence the Foxtrot joke about Souvenir Land at the expy Fun-Fun Universe) and "experiences" (i.e., princess makeovers, character dining, behind-the-scenes tours) that cost even more.
  • Donald Duck: Don's (almost) complete filmography of animated shorts is available through The Chronological Donald sets on the Walt Disney Treasures. You can easily snatch the four volumes via Amazon, if you have 307 bucks or so laying around. If you live outside of the US, prepare to add shipping costs to your paycheck...
  • .hack: Be prepared to fork over ALOT of money if you want to get heavily involved in this series
  • Dot Hack GU: Each game is ridiculously short, full priced, and you need all three of them for it to make sense.
  • Durarara!!: The 8-episode DVDs are going for 80 bucks each.
    • Luckily, it's down to about $40 each. All together, that's almost five times as much as any standard TV season set. So it's better, but it's not great.

Moved to the main page with modification

  • Busou Shinki: Both in and out universe: In the lore, a Shinki costs about the same as a high-end computer, while the figures, due to a combination of eccentric production pattern, the lack of overseas licensing, and with the airing of an OVA and anime without any figures to back it up, they can cost a small fortune. The more popular ones (Arnval, Altines, Altlene and Strarf) costs up to 300 USD in Japan, that is if one manage to find it at the first place.


  • American Girls Collection (A reference to the trope in the So Cool, It's Awesome entry describing its aversion)
  • Counting Cars: Once again, Danny's personal collection includes more than fifty cars. He regularly makes offers exceeding what he could expect to see in return for cars he's interested in personally.

edited 25th Jun '13 8:09:02 PM by MikuruFan

1155 MagBas27th Jun 2013 03:39:15 PM from In my house
Bumping to votes.
Dissect and disserve.
I'm not quite sure if All Animation Is Disney is better suited for YMMV or Trivia, but I have the feeling it isn't quite a trope. It's about an audience (and perhaps journalism) misconception about the creator of an animated work, not at all present in the work itself. There also seem to be two concepts running through this article; 1) any animation of good quality being mistaken for a Disney work (audience reaction/trivia), and 2) animated works intentionally following the Disney formula, pretty much invoking the misconception (trope/intended audience reaction).

edited 28th Jun '13 6:29:58 AM by Morgenthaler

All I ever wanted was to pick apart the day. Put the pieces back together my way.
1157 MagBas28th Jun 2013 07:00:52 AM from In my house
I guess that is a good idea to wait a new crowner to put new options.
1158 MagBas30th Jun 2013 05:23:09 PM from In my house
Bumping to votes. One of the candidates(Jerkass Dissonance) is with 7 positive votes and 0 negatives.

edited 1st Jul '13 7:22:47 PM by MagBas

Nominating Sequelphobic. Fans of a series oppose any creation of a sequel to a work out of fear of said sequel ruining the series. It's entirely in the audience and is related to Sequelitis.

edited 3rd Jul '13 11:27:11 PM by MikuruFan

1160 MagBas4th Jul 2013 12:53:37 PM from In my house
Nominating All Animation Is Disney, as morgenthaler suggested. Beyond this, i am guessing in nominate Protagonist-Centered Morality after read the discussion page. In many cases, it is impossible prove that this is not merely a Values Dissonance issue, similar to Designated Hero.
1161 SeptimusHeap4th Jul 2013 12:55:37 PM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Protagonist-Centered Morality looks objective enough to me. That discussion argument seems to be more about interpreting a work than about subjectivity, per se. And the examples are almost entirely contestation-free.
1162 MagBas4th Jul 2013 01:22:42 PM from In my house
I am speaking about the discussion started by Knight9910. In particular, the following argument trades:

"Belittled minority or bullied child, this isn't just "Katara did something I disagree with and wasn't punished" this is "Katara did something that is objectively wrong and was portrayed as being right about it". "

"That's the thing, though. I don't say that she was wrong. As someone who was bullied as a child, and who was only able to finally put a stop to it by kicking a few butts, I don't see anything wrong with standing up for yourself against a bully, or with using violence as long as you don't take it too far. (For example, I would agree that school shootings are absolutely wrong. Giving a bully a bloody nose, however, is something I would agree with.) Violence is not automatically bad. Violence is a tool, it's all in how you use it, and it's not like Katara was trying to actually kill or even seriously injure Pakku.

That's the big issue. I don't believe Katara was portrayed as right because she's a main character. I believe she was portrayed as right because a lot of people, including myself and apparently including the writers for the show as well, believe that bullies need to be stopped, even if that means punching them a few times. In other words, the "objective" morals that you claim the show violated for the benefit of a main character are not quite so objective or widely held as you think."

"To put it simply:

Was Katara portrayed as right, solely because she's a main character and the main character has to be right?

Or was Katara portrayed as right because the writers believed that she was right, with her main character status being a mere coincidence?"

In other words, would a secondary character in the same situation, who made the same choice as Katara have also been shown to be right? I believe that the answer to that question is yes."

"Katara was 100% in the right, not because she is the protagonist, but because sexism isn't right. Hitting the guy in the head and forcing him to fight her was the only way to even make him acknowledge her. This was the only way. That should be painfully obvious. Why is this even in debate unless we're simply going to declare that any time someone does something that agrees with the protagonist, the morality is Protagonist Centered?"

"She's 100% wrong, and the only reason it's not Protagonist Centered Morality is because the setting inherently encourages violence as a means of conflict resolution."

edited 4th Jul '13 1:23:59 PM by MagBas

You sure that's not just an example of Square Peg, Round Trope? I think Protagonist-Centered Morality is pretty objective and not YMMV. I know that trope tends to get a lot of shoe-horning anyway.
I would like to nominate Discredited Trope for needing a YMMV banner.

"...a trope may be overused, misused, opposed, made obsolete, subverted on many notable occasions, or just end up being widely disliked."

So, basically its just complaining about tropes you don't like.

Also, it seems like it is highly subjective. Especially when you consider how huge the world of storytelling it, any one of single us would have a hard time giving an accurate assessment of whether or not something is "discredited" by amongst the whole spectrum of storytellers and story audiences.

Example: Digital Piracy Is Evil is listed as discredited, claiming that most companies have given up. WTF? There are whole websites killed by take down notices all the time on a daily basis to this very day.

Honestly I think it is so subjective as to need its examples cut, but I'd setting for a YMMV banner.

Also, why the heck are there examples on there that aren't even tropes? People are throwing this like the catch phrases of individual characters on it, or giving narrative descriptions of supposed and stock phrases that don't even have their own pages?

edited 7th Jul '13 1:43:20 AM by Catbert

1165 SeptimusHeap7th Jul 2013 01:43:07 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
So, basically its just complaining about tropes you don't like.

I am somewhat sceptical of that. Many times I see that argument, it's pure hyperbole and/or strawmanning.

That said, I agree with the YMMV idea.
More evidence it has a problem

So is it discredited or not? Apparently people can't agree and are having Conversation on the Main Page.

I don't think any index should be YMMV. No indexes are currently YMMV, and it would appear at the bottom of main pages.

edited 7th Jul '13 1:56:05 AM by MikuruFan

Then de-index it. Or cut examples and make it a "definition only" page.

edited 7th Jul '13 2:10:19 AM by Catbert

It's a term that pops up around trope descriptions too.
1170 SeptimusHeap7th Jul 2013 02:16:44 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Deindexing is the best approach, I believe. It isn't really a navigational tool as much as an example list.
"It's a term that pops up around trope descriptions too."

Which is not a good thing. It basically smacks of a Tropes Are Bad approach to trope description writing. No matter what nuance you want to give to the definition we use on this page, the term "discredited" will never be understood by the general population of readers as having a positive or even neutral meaning.

edited 7th Jul '13 2:19:10 AM by Catbert

1172 AnotherDuck7th Jul 2013 02:55:48 AM from Stockholm , Relationship Status: In season
No, the other one.
Considering Discredited Trope is about large, non-homogeneous patterns in how tropes are used, it's impossible to have a fixed definition in terms of "what's enough for a pattern". In many examples, there are (relatively objective) explanations for why the trope is discredited.

I'd say it's basically an objective trope with a hard-to-define boundary and some difficulty in establishing where a trope lies in relation to said boundary.
Check out my fanfiction!
Even if you can say that something has been objectively discredited among certain specific audiences, I think there will be a certain amount of variance by genre, age group, nationality, etc. Not to mention a constant flux of what is "in" and "out" from year to year.

Also, this is a bit off topic, but would anyone object if I at least removed this examples that aren't actually trope pages?

edited 7th Jul '13 3:27:57 AM by Catbert

Speaking of those, Dead Unicorn Trope is mostly made up of specific examples, which sound YMMV.
Dead Unicorn Trope isn't so much complaining or criticizing, in way that the term "Discredited" implies, as it is giving very factual, specific and detailed explanation of the history behind some commonly held misconceptions about old tropes.

For example, the entry for Here There Be Dragons points out that only one map ever used this line, in contrast to the common perception that ancient maps were riddled with that sort of this. It also suggest that the line may have been referring to Komodo Dragons rather than the mythic beast.

Although I would still cut out all the examples that aren't talking about specific tropes. Stuff like Call of Duty players all being screaming children. We don't have a trope page for that, so why list it?

Dead Horse Trope would be closer to YMMV.

edited 7th Jul '13 4:38:27 AM by Catbert

Page Action: YMMV Banner 4
17th Aug '14 8:08:24 AM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
YMMV is for items that are reactions of the audience to works and tropes that need a significant judgment call to tell whether they exist objectively or not.

Should these items become members of YMMV?

Total posts: 1,546
1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ... 62