Is changing "This Troper" to normal first person acceptable?

No, but it can be changed to an editorial "we" if it fits. Best to just rewrite the example to be a general example, or remove it if it's only a personal anecdote.

Then I assume there's no pep talk, but I'm not sure. Bio Ware have a reputation for The Dev Team Thinks Of Everything, but chances are it's just that particular bit of dialog never happening.

In your particular opinion.

Heartwarming is a YMMV page. The original person who added it has just as valid an opinion as you do, and by its nature this entire page is very subjective. You'll need to provide a better reason why it should be removed than what effectively amounts to your personal opinion on it.

It's not just my opinion! It's objective fact! Did the Catalyst create the Reapers? Yes. Did the Catalyst set the Reapers on a genocidal path out of some insane desire to preserve organic life by destroying it? Yes. Have countless civilisations been lost as a result of this course? Yes! That is an unimaginable atrocity. Neither you or I can comprehend it. There's a reason why there's a Complete Monster section on this site. The Catalyst's actions make more than a few of them seem like saints by comparison. Even the very worst serial killers listed on that page have nothing on the Catalyst. They're eventually brought to justice. Under the Catalyst's directions the cycle of extinction went on for millions upon millions of years. How the fuck you can get a crowning moment of heartwarming out of that is beyond me. Why are you so eager to keep this example on the page? Why do you defend it? What exactly will be lost from its absence?

How can you ignore what the Catalyst has done? Because a delusional AI reacted to the end in a more dignified way than others? Do you have that much of a hard-on for the destruction of other species? It's ridiculous that you keep making excuses for this idiocy. I guess everything is permitted in your world because all opinions are somehow valid (even the most crazy ones. Hooray for democracy).

The other examples in that folder specify moments of love, compassion, friendship and alliances between once bitter enemies. The Catalyst example isn't even in the same league. Including it with the others is a disservice to the others. It. Just. Doesn't. Fit. It's utterly baffling to me that we're even having this argument in the first place. This goes beyond YMMV.

You're making a mistake in assuming that I care about the example itself. I don't. I care about the reason you want it removed. You have a very strong opinion on the topic at hand. That's perfectly fine, and I'm perfectly willing to respect your opinion, but it is just that. The blanket rule regarding crowner pages is that just because you disagree with the opinion behind an entry, it doesn't mean that you get to remove it.

I personally don't agree with it, but the person who put it up there has just as much a right to their opinion as you do, and I value standing wiki policy regarding crowner pages over the actions of one fictional character. I don't care if someone finds that entry offensive, and I don't care that someone finds it heartwarming. There's a rule regarding crowner pages that you need to have a better reason to remove an entry than just because you don't like it, and that it what your point ultimately boils down to.

So, you'd rather cite bullshit rules instead of having any principles at all. That's nice. I stated my opinions and I gave valid reasons. It's not my problem if you choose to ignore them. Since you refuse to co-operate I'll just have to continue taking it down. I don't have to answer to you.

Personally, I agree with you, but this is a matter of principle. All Sugar Wiki entries are, by their nature, subjective and opinionated. So of course people feel differently. Anyone who feels sufficiently moved by an even is entitled to share it here. But you don't get to choose what other people enjoy.

EDIT: Okay, that was stupid.

Long story short: the rule exists to protect the opinions of others. It's not going to change because you believe your opinion is more valid than theirs. Leave it alone.

But you do have to answer to me. You will not continue to edit war it off the page. You don't get to decide for other people what their reactions to the work are. Unless the entry violates some other rule on the wiki, it stays.

^I readded it before sendig him a detailed PM.

I'm astounded that anyone thinks this actually applies, even considering YMMV.

At best it's face death with dignity/graceful loser, but heartwarming?!

The cited reason isn't even true: "he peacefully accepts his end, if that means a permanent peace between synthetic and organic life". That's not true in the slightest. What is actually said is (paraphrasing) "This didn't work, here you try another way." And one of those options is to utterly destroy all synthetic life. Peace has nothing to do with it, and never did.

WW 2 example:

Hitler is captured alive in his bunker by overwhelming force, and instead of putting up a fight he says "I surrender, see if you come up with a better idea. Here's 3 options I'll force you in to". Troper: What a moment of heartwarming, he calmly accepts the end to enable peace with everyone! Someone else: What the hell? All he did was surrender to overwhelming force, because he had no other choice.

There's subjectivity, and then there's making arguments that blatantly aren't true and including things that are against the very spirit of the trope.

Hell, just look at the text at the end of the example: "Godspeed, you mechanical bastard", as if what would be the end of one of the most evil beings in existence is something tragic, and he died redeeming himself instead of just giving up.

This is actually the first time I've ever read a subjective page and been amazed that anyone could feel in such a way. There are plenty of examples which, say, are not a CMOH for me, but I can easily see why someone else might feel that way. In a year and a half of reading a huge amount of pages, this is the first time I'm staggered anyone could think that X is a given example of a trope.

Just... what?

^Because I prefer following policy to endless arguments about such entries.

Is it not also policy that making stuff up is not a valid justification?

This example as it stands isn't simply a subjective viewpoint (albeit one I strongly disagree with). Its justification simply is not true, as can be seen if anyone watches the scene in question. If anyone wants a good reason why this example should be removed, then that is it.

Unfortunately, I have not played and do not plan to ever play this game. So I have not seen the scene in question and have no idea about the context.

This is a rather sticky area - it's entirely possible for people to have reactions to a work that make no sense to me. I've seen it many times on this very wiki. So I'd be very cautious to label this as someone making something up.

I would think that instead of edit warring it off the page, the better response would be to find the editor who added it, and PM them about it. EDIT: Did so.

Speaking of edit warring, the Unfortunate Implications entry seems to be "hot-running"*

"Hot-running" means about to develop ino an Edit/Flame War

Yes, I noticed, but I can only do so much at once.

Honestly, I'm really starting to dislike this game just based on how much trouble it is.

Too bad. It's a great game with an unfortunate resolution; unfortunately, the fanboys, as a whole, are insane. I should know. I'm one of them.

Sometimes I think we really should lock the damn thing until Bio Ware finishes up with the extra content for the ending they're planning. But that would just mean more work for the mods, with the constant edit requests. And in all likelihood, that content is going to take a while.

I got a reply from the original editor:

It's due to the controversy over the ending. A lot of people agree, but there's a combination who honestly don't and then there's the Hate Dumb. I stand by with what I said: It's a cerebral Heartwarming Moment.

It seems that she or he genuinely feels this way.

Regardless of whether they genuinely feel that way, the example as it is originally written is not true. If I have to dig up a transcript for this scene complete with context, I will.

It's like saying Vader murdering a Rebel pilot in A New Hope is a CMOH because he promises to look after the man's family, and only does it in a fit of rage because he misses his son. This hypothetical example invents dialogue and a justification that simply doesn't exist. Anyone could easily disprove it by watching a clip of the scene, and anyone proposing would find it impossible to give evidence in favour of this.

Additionally, surely there are limits to what can be allowed due to subjectivity? If I claimed some completely inane statement or thing was a CMOH, I would hope that others would say the example does not qualify, instead of defending it due to it being subjective. At what point do you say that it's too unreasonable?

Limits on subjectivity is not a road we want to go down. The line is too hard to pin down, and thus it's too easy to begin deleting everything someone doesn't agree with as being "unreasonable."

It's "cerebral"? It doesn't even work on that level, based on the reasons that I and Abstract Indigo gave. Hey, the Catalyst might have wiped out species after species but he didn't whine or rage when the end came so that qualifies for a crowning moment of heartwarming? Can't you see how absurd that is? The Catalyst is evil on a cerebral, objective and subjective level.

You've made it clear that you haven't played the game but I'd like to try and give you some perspective. You think the Holocaust was horrific? Try this on for size. In the Mass Effect universe the cycle of extinction has been perpetuated for millions upon millions of years by the AI called the Catalyst and his creations- a race of sentient starships known as the Reapers. Entire civilisations rose up and at their heights were brutally destroyed. The survivors of those same civilisations were ruthlessly merged into new Reapers or transformed into mindless slaves. So at the very least we have genocide and mind rape on a tremendous scale. Remind me again where the heartwarming part in all of this is. There's no known bodycount for this cycle but given the timescale it's estimated to run into the trillions at the very least. I'm trying to think of other examples in fiction that approach the Catalyst's insanity but I'm coming up empty.

Under what criteria would the example become unacceptable? What's it going to take to get it removed? You say that there shouldn't be any limits on subjectivity but by that same token should everything be permitted? Ted Bundy pretended to be a pillar of the community so that makes up for what he did, is that it? Going by the uploader's logic I'd be well within my rights to include Bundy within the Heartwarming/Real Life section because he might have been outwardly nice or charitable. Well, what Bundy did doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the Catalyst's track record. Are you starting to get why this is an issue now?

The entry is far, far too apologetic towards one of the worst mass-murderers in all of fiction. That's my primary issue with it (aside from the Catalyst being on the page of course. The only place he truly belongs is in the Complete Monster section).

^I think that the subjective debate might be worth a Wiki Talk topic.

Let's tone down the hostility a tad, shall we? It's a fictional character.

I think a Wiki Talk thread is the best course here. Removing it sets a precedent I don't particularly like, and it needs more input.

^I'll make one, but it will take a bit. And it's probably going to tie in in other issues.

That's a more general topic that is out of purpose for this discussion alone. (Also, reporting for personal attack)

ETA: The personal attack was just actioned upon and deleted.

Given the amount of frothing hatred this entry is producing, I do have to wonder if it's a troll entry. Or unintentional flame bait.

Frankly, I am always baffled by people getting this worked up over a fictional character.

It's more a matter of one guy getting enraged about it. I can kind of understand his position - the ending is deliberately ambiguous - but I think the principle of subjectivity here should be paramount, and he doesn't need to be this angry about it.

I kind of agree with this guy (even if i'm not really angry about it) the problem I have here is that its not just a matter of a questionable entry, the entry is just plain wrong about the events in question and should be removed/ammended because of that.

What is plain wrong? Did the event never happen?

The event happened but not how its described there, despite the catalysts motivation being damn confusing its pretty clear that while the part about going out with dignity being correct it also has the exact same somewhat bland unsurprised reaction to destroying all synthetic life in the galaxy/breaking out of you're mind controlled state if a particular fan theory is used in a new ending.

Honestly, you guys need to be more clear about what's factually wrong.

Remember, we have no clue about any of these characters. Every explanation so far doesn't make a lick of sense.

Wait, so its wrong because it contradicts a fan theory?

Wait until we know what the actual new ending is first.

I agree with this.