[003]
NotHereToCauseAnyTrouble
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I support that we keep Naruto and Hinata\'s maybe-RelationshipUpgrade mostly off the page for the time being, and put emphasis on the \
to:
I support that we keep Naruto and Hinata\\\'s maybe-RelationshipUpgrade mostly off the page for the time being, and put emphasis on the \\\"maybe\\\" part if we refer to it (like we did on the main (alphabetized) trope pages). It seems like a reasonable enough approach given Kishi\\\'s fickle history of handling romance in the series and the needless shitstorms that would arise if we jump the gun and declare something canon when it really isn\\\'t yet.
Still, this?
\\\"For everyone who thinks that way, there are just as many people who think the Hinata-focus is just bringing a resolution to her character(which doesn\\\'t mean she\\\'ll end up with Naruto)\\\"
Is patently false. There are exactly zero people who don\\\'t ship [=NaruSaku=] (or Naru-something-else) who believe this, and of the people who do ship [=NaruSomething=], a smaller fraction still of over-zealous shippers with their heads in the sand incapable of making a mind-numbingly simple inference of apparent authorial intent (or, rather, unwilling to make that inference). I think you\\\'re mistaking the high amount of noise in certain echo chambers for an actually high amount of people. Let me guess, you also think that \\\"just as many people\\\" believe there\\\'s a good chance Sakura\\\'s single detached \\\"gasp\\\" panel in 615 meant she was jealous and having a romantic revelation?
This fandom tends to have very passionate fans for all sorts of things (characters, pairings, clans...), and \\\'\\\'especially\\\'\\\' because of this, our coverage needs to be extra careful in calling things as the everyday sane reader would reasonably see them, rather than catering to the ad-hoc rhetoric generated by those groups in response to pretty much everything that happens. If we don\\\'t, the page will soon become a clusterf\\\'k debate thread. If two characters have a long look at each others\\\' eyes and then hold hands for 2 chapters, does this imply something? Yes, it probably does. Maybe the author is trolling, or will go back on it later, maybe this initial impression is mistaken, but in the bottom line, \\\'\\\'yes, it probably does\\\'\\\'. Please keep the true-believer rhetoric to the tightly-knit circles it came from.
Still, this?
\\\"For everyone who thinks that way, there are just as many people who think the Hinata-focus is just bringing a resolution to her character(which doesn\\\'t mean she\\\'ll end up with Naruto)\\\"
Is patently false. There are exactly zero people who don\\\'t ship [=NaruSaku=] (or Naru-something-else) who believe this, and of the people who do ship [=NaruSomething=], a smaller fraction still of over-zealous shippers with their heads in the sand incapable of making a mind-numbingly simple inference of apparent authorial intent (or, rather, unwilling to make that inference). I think you\\\'re mistaking the high amount of noise in certain echo chambers for an actually high amount of people. Let me guess, you also think that \\\"just as many people\\\" believe there\\\'s a good chance Sakura\\\'s single detached \\\"gasp\\\" panel in 615 meant she was jealous and having a romantic revelation?
This fandom tends to have very passionate fans for all sorts of things (characters, pairings, clans...), and \\\'\\\'especially\\\'\\\' because of this, our coverage needs to be extra careful in calling things as the everyday sane reader would reasonably see them, rather than catering to the ad-hoc rhetoric generated by those groups in response to pretty much everything that happens. If we don\\\'t, the page will soon become a clusterf\\\'k debate thread. If two characters have a long look at each others\\\' eyes and then hold hands for 2 chapters, does this imply something? Yes, it probably does. Maybe the author is trolling, or will go back on it later, maybe this initial impression is mistaken, but in the bottom line, \\\'\\\'yes, it probably does\\\'\\\'. Please keep the true-believer rhetoric to the tightly-knit circles it came from.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I support that we keep Naruto and Hinata\'s maybe-RelationshipUpgrade mostly off the page for the time being, and put emphasis on the \
to:
I support that we keep Naruto and Hinata\\\'s maybe-RelationshipUpgrade mostly off the page for the time being, and put emphasis on the \\\"maybe\\\" part if we refer to it (like we did on the main (alphabetized) trope pages). It seems like a reasonable enough approach given Kishi\\\'s fickle history of handling romance in the series and the needless shitstorms that would arise if we jump the gun and declare something canon when it really isn\\\'t yet.
Still, this?
\\\"For everyone who thinks that way, there are just as many people who think the Hinata-focus is just bringing a resolution to her character(which doesn\\\'t mean she\\\'ll end up with Naruto)\\\"
Is patently false. There are exactly zero people who don\\\'t ship [=NaruSaku=] who believe this, and of the people who do ship [=NaruSaku=], a smaller fraction still of over-zealous shippers with their heads in the sand incapable of making a mind-numbingly simple inference of apparent authorial intent (or, rather, unwilling to make that inference). I think you\\\'re mistaking the high amount of noise in certain echo chambers for an actually high amount of people. Let me guess, you also think that \\\"just as many people\\\" believe there\\\'s a good chance Sakura\\\'s single detached \\\"gasp\\\" panel in 615 meant she was jealous and having a romantic revelation?
This fandom tends to have very passionate fans for all sorts of things (characters, pairings, clans...), and \\\'\\\'especially\\\'\\\' because of this, our coverage needs to be extra careful in calling things as the everyday sane reader would reasonably see them, rather than catering to the ad-hoc rhetoric generated by those groups in response to pretty much everything that happens. If we don\\\'t, the page will soon become a clusterf\\\'k debate thread. If two characters have a long look at each others\\\' eyes and then hold hands for 2 chapters, does this imply something? Yes, it probably does. Maybe the author is trolling, or will go back on it later, maybe this initial impression is mistaken, but in the bottom line, \\\'\\\'yes, it probably does\\\'\\\'. Please keep the true-believer rhetoric to the tightly-knit circles it came from.
Still, this?
\\\"For everyone who thinks that way, there are just as many people who think the Hinata-focus is just bringing a resolution to her character(which doesn\\\'t mean she\\\'ll end up with Naruto)\\\"
Is patently false. There are exactly zero people who don\\\'t ship [=NaruSaku=] who believe this, and of the people who do ship [=NaruSaku=], a smaller fraction still of over-zealous shippers with their heads in the sand incapable of making a mind-numbingly simple inference of apparent authorial intent (or, rather, unwilling to make that inference). I think you\\\'re mistaking the high amount of noise in certain echo chambers for an actually high amount of people. Let me guess, you also think that \\\"just as many people\\\" believe there\\\'s a good chance Sakura\\\'s single detached \\\"gasp\\\" panel in 615 meant she was jealous and having a romantic revelation?
This fandom tends to have very passionate fans for all sorts of things (characters, pairings, clans...), and \\\'\\\'especially\\\'\\\' because of this, our coverage needs to be extra careful in calling things as the everyday sane reader would reasonably see them, rather than catering to the ad-hoc rhetoric generated by those groups in response to pretty much everything that happens. If we don\\\'t, the page will soon become a clusterf\\\'k debate thread. If two characters have a long look at each others\\\' eyes and then hold hands for 2 chapters, does this imply something? Yes, it probably does. Maybe the author is trolling, or will go back on it later, maybe this initial impression is mistaken, but in the bottom line, \\\'\\\'yes, it probably does\\\'\\\'. Please keep the true-believer rhetoric to the tightly-knit circles it came from.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I support that we keep Naruto and Hinata\'s maybe-RealtionshipUpgrade mostly off the page for the time being, and put emphasis on the \
to:
I support that we keep Naruto and Hinata\\\'s maybe-RelationshipUpgrade mostly off the page for the time being, and put emphasis on the \\\"maybe\\\" part if we refer to it (like we did on the main (alphabetized) trope pages). It seems like a reasonable enough approach given Kishi\\\'s fickle history of handling romance in the series and the needless shitstorms that would arise if we jump the gun and declare something canon when it really isn\\\'t yet.
Still, this?
\\\"For everyone who thinks that way, there are just as many people who think the Hinata-focus is just bringing a resolution to her character(which doesn\\\'t mean she\\\'ll end up with Naruto)\\\"
Is patently false. There are exactly zero people who don\\\'t ship [=NaruSaku=] who believe this, and of the people who do ship [=NaruSaku=], a smaller fraction still of over-zealous shippers with their heads in the sand incapable of making a mind-numbingly simple inference of apparent authorial intent (or, rather, unwilling to make that inference). I think you\\\'re mistaking the high amount of noise in certain echo chambers for an actually high amount of people. Let me guess, you also think that \\\"just as many people\\\" believe there\\\'s a good chance Sakura\\\'s single detached \\\"gasp\\\" panel in 615 meant she was jealous and having a romantic revelation?
This fandom tends to have very passionate fans for all sorts of things (characters, pairings, clans...), and \\\'\\\'especially\\\' because of this, our coverage needs to be extra careful in calling things as the everyday sane reader would reasonably see them, rather than catering to the ad-hoc rhetoric generated by those groups in response to pretty much everything that happens. If we don\\\'t, the page will soon become a clusterf\\\'k debate thread. If two characters have a long look at each others\\\' eyes and then hold hands for 2 chapters, does this imply something? Yes, it probably does. Maybe the author is trolling, or will go back on it later, maybe this initial impression is mistaken, but in the bottom line, \\\'\\\'yes, it probably does\\\'\\\'. Please keep the true-believer rhetoric to the tightly-knit circles it came from.
Still, this?
\\\"For everyone who thinks that way, there are just as many people who think the Hinata-focus is just bringing a resolution to her character(which doesn\\\'t mean she\\\'ll end up with Naruto)\\\"
Is patently false. There are exactly zero people who don\\\'t ship [=NaruSaku=] who believe this, and of the people who do ship [=NaruSaku=], a smaller fraction still of over-zealous shippers with their heads in the sand incapable of making a mind-numbingly simple inference of apparent authorial intent (or, rather, unwilling to make that inference). I think you\\\'re mistaking the high amount of noise in certain echo chambers for an actually high amount of people. Let me guess, you also think that \\\"just as many people\\\" believe there\\\'s a good chance Sakura\\\'s single detached \\\"gasp\\\" panel in 615 meant she was jealous and having a romantic revelation?
This fandom tends to have very passionate fans for all sorts of things (characters, pairings, clans...), and \\\'\\\'especially\\\' because of this, our coverage needs to be extra careful in calling things as the everyday sane reader would reasonably see them, rather than catering to the ad-hoc rhetoric generated by those groups in response to pretty much everything that happens. If we don\\\'t, the page will soon become a clusterf\\\'k debate thread. If two characters have a long look at each others\\\' eyes and then hold hands for 2 chapters, does this imply something? Yes, it probably does. Maybe the author is trolling, or will go back on it later, maybe this initial impression is mistaken, but in the bottom line, \\\'\\\'yes, it probably does\\\'\\\'. Please keep the true-believer rhetoric to the tightly-knit circles it came from.
