Discussion YMMV / WreckItRalph

Turbo isn't heinous enough? As Calhoun would say, Bullroar!

You're really hung up on this, huh?

Yeah. Plus, this is not the place to propose such a thing.

So where should I propose it? I've tried proposing it on the cleanup thread and I haven't got anywhere.

... because it doesn't qualify. It's been discussed, it's been shot down.

Honestly, you've completely ruined any chance at it ever being genuinely considered at this point. No one's going to consider it after these stunts.

Back in the day when I was arguing the pro-CM side, even I didn't think he was a Complete Monster (I felt he was too much of an egocentric Cloudcuckoolander who couldn't be bothered). Though I'll admit, I did stay longer than I should have because I got frustrated when some of the arguments were essentially "If he was a CM, he'd have done X", when he's been shown to have repeatedly tried but failed to do X, or X was established as something he simply could not do.

Yep, it's been discussed so many times and been looked at from so many viewpoints that the issue is completely settled, decided and cleared up.

Isn't the term "insufficiently heinous" rather vague in the context of settling a dispute?

Looking at Archive Of Our Own, Felix/Calhoun is the most popular of the pairings. Granted that's only one fanfic site, but 3 of those pairings are all with minor characters, so it's doubtful they'd count, and I'm betting Ralph/Felix is more popular than all 4.

What?

He stopped him two times!

And?

Did he have to?

Who knows. "Troll" doesn't mean "occasionally inconveniences the main character." It's also not a YMMV—the character either is, or isn't one.

Oh.

Yes, because of all of the...almost zero time they spend on screen together?

Seriously, there's more to the -Yay tropes than "these two characters exist and someone somewhere has shipped them."

Ok, then.

Agreed. Also, I think the Critical Research Failure tag needs to be marked as a subversion, because as it is written right now, the example is implying that the screenwriter/studio didn't do any research at all. The decision to make Zangief a bad guy was a conscious decision rooted in the screenwriter's personal experiences with playing SFII.

EDIT: Actually, I think the Critical Research Failure example needs to go entirely, because of something the trope page stresses:

"This trope is about errors that are obvious to any grown individual with a high school education. If you feel the need to explain why the person has made an error (and it's not some character getting an in-universe fact wrong) then it is not this trope."

I think they forgot about this topic.

I second this in the wake of it also losing at the Academy Awards.

No Yay is about creepy subtext, not complaining about ships you don't like.

I guess I misunderstood No Yay. I thought it was about relationships/ships that squicked you out.

It just seemed super weird to me, with Felix being a super short and cartoony, and Calhoun being tall and realistically designed. And the entire relationship just seemed off. He's like the size of a child. I guess I'm the only one bothered by this.

No Yay seems to be more about where the relationship is creepy or weird due to motives or subtext. Like if one party is actually a child, or a zombie, or a rapist or something. If the relationship is between two mutually-consenting, mature, considerate adults with no abusive subtext, it can be as squicky as you like when it comes down to the physical size and shape of the participants without counting as No Yay.

The relationship makes as much sense as Roger and Jessica Rabbit's from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Despite the fact that their designs (and their chronological ages) are vastly different, the fact that they're both "toons" (or in Felix and Calhoun's case, "game characters") means that the relationship shouldn't be all that strange.

To be honest, there aren't that many movies that are specifically about video games themselves (The only one I can think off of the top of my head is The Wizard) and even then they're still pretty bad. Most film makers just don't get the video game medium as a whole.

Depends on whether or not Taffyta is meant to be depicted as wrong in that scene.

If she is meant to be depicted as wrong, but events would pan out to support her position, then it's Strawman Has a Point.

The thing is, Vanellope as a disaster waiting to happen is set up in other scenes, but it doesn't actually have any payoff. I think Strawman Has a Point would be more appropriate after thinking about it, though.

Yes.

Actually, it wasn't so much arguing about whether or not he counts as a Complete Monster — both sides of the edit war agreed on that. It was arguing about whether or not the format of the entry needed to conform to one person's particular interpretation of the Style Guide or not. Dunno how you'd resolve that.

I am actually quite disappointed in this development, considering the amount of maturity level it isn't displaying. Not to mention a) the original Complete Monster entry was not the "badly-written mess" that was edit-warred over, but a much better and more detailed one which managed to be both interesting/entertaining and well-written...but it got deleted because someone decided he didn't fit the example—only after it got replaced with the "bad" version did the Edit War start; and b) it being deleted at all is poor form and wrong, because by definition a Subjective Trope is one not everyone will agree on. Basically, just because you disagree with a trope on the YMMV page doesn't mean you get to delete it. Someone has forgotten their definitions, or just has a thing against subjective tropes. Or is a DILPer for Turbo. And the only other reason for the deletion, that the entry was full of spoilers, is also not valid—because Turbo is a Walking Spoiler, it's impossible to talk about him without entries that are all or mostly spoilers.

Wrong on all counts.

• Overuse of italics, bold and phrases like "Dear god" and first person are badly written Word Cruft and formatting abuse. They do not read well.
• A YMMV trope can be deleted. A Complete Monster needs to be determined through consensus in the above forum thread, no exceptions.
• An example should never be written completely in spoiler tags, Walking Spoiler or not. It looks very ugly.

Funny, I've seen plenty of Walking Spoiler characters written completely in spoiler tags. Unless those are old examples people haven't gotten around to rewriting yet. And no offense, but I think that second policy is stupid. By definition a subjective trope cannot be agreed upon by consensus—if it could, it would be objective, not subjective. And if even one person disagrees, it could be deleted, which is wrong.

All of that said though, I love how you missed my initial first point. The original entry for Turbo did not have italics, bold, first person, Word Cruft, or any of the rest. It was properly written, informative, accurate, and defensible. It was only when someone deleted it (without discussion, without going to the forum thread you mentioned, and without any explanation other than "he's not an example") that it got replaced by the horrible mess which caused the Edit War. So if you're going to enforce policies, enforce them rather than using false conclusions to bolster your opinions. If the original entry were restored, there would be no reason for the Edit War—and if it needs to be discussed in that forum thread before it can be added back, then the original entry is what needs to be discussed there, not that mess which replaced it.

Finally, if you think I am being rude, forgive me—but simply coming in and declaring "Wrong" just because you're a moderator seems pretty rude to me. Courtesy will be returned when given.

EDIT: Also, I find it rather appalling that you would claim consensus needs to be reached about Turbo being a Complete Monster when the decision to remove him from the page was made by one person, one who has been reprimanded, suspended, and banned several times for unilaterally deciding who does and does not fit the trope. Saying consensus needs to be reached when only one person disagrees, and said person is one in trouble with the moderators for ignoring the rules, is ridiculous.

People overuse spoiler tags all the time, as many people have trouble understanding how to write in this wiki. What needs to be done is to be fixed, not write more spoiler tag messes. There's a reason the admin has thought to disable it.

Complete Monster isn't exactly a subjective trope. It's that people were abusing it and causing edit wars over it, so much that it was decided to be cut at some point. Instead it got shoved into YMMV and is going through a dedicated and very successful cleanup, which is the only way to avoid the petty squabbling. And YMMV can be deleted since it's often abused to just bash things people don't like, like shoehorning Mary Sue tropes around. Or misplacing Fridge entries as they get them confused with WMG.

The original entry is such a spoiler tagged wall of text my eyes find it painful to read. Even if the second entry hadn't been bad, the point is whether there's consensus he fits the trope.

Who said anything about being a moderator? I'm giving you established administrivia and forum rules.

Um, no. The votes were 3 to 2. Krystoff made a unilateral change which is bad, but then even more people voted against the inclusion. Second, when there is disagreement about Complete Monster, the decided course is "leave it out of the page until the thread decides", not make more unilateral moves.

It originally was a subjective trope, since no one could agree what made someone heinous and irredeemable. The fact criteria have now been established does in fact suggest it should be an objective trope, thank you for correcting me on that. The problem is that even with the criteria, it still seems people can disagree on whether the trope applies and to what extent. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, since no matter how many people list the horrible things a villain has done, someone out there will consider those not to be horrible, or not to have happened, and that lack of consensus will get the entry removed and accusations of complaining about characters/shows you don't like thrown around. Or of something being Fridge or an WMG when clearly a little thought can make the terrible actions and consequences clear.

The spoilering really isn't relevant, since once enough people have seen the movie, the spoiler tags can be removed. That doesn't change the fact that what was under the spoilers was not badly written, unsubstantiated, or inaccurate.

Yes, but you gave them to me in as harsh and dictatorial a manner as possible.

I see that now, after looking at the thread. However I still stand by the fact that the deletion happening thanks to only one person, who didn't follow procedure by discussing it in the thread first, and who had got in trouble and suspended for this very same action on numerous pages, rather undermines any claim to impartiality or proper policy enforcement. To put it another way, if Krystoff hadn't gone around continuing to do the same thing he/she had been reprimanded for, the entry would never have been deleted, turned into a mess, or even noticed or contested by anybody.

As for the voting, it seems pretty clear that there is not yet a consensus. Which while that shows Krystoff isn't the only one to think he isn't one, it also shows there are several who still think he is. And their numbers seem to be growing.

Still, if as long as there's any disagreement over whether something can be included, it will be cut, fine. But I still must observe that the manner in which this happened—both Krystoff's original action and the subsequent Edit War—is appalling, immature, and not true to either the Wiki's policy or its stated aims and atmosphere.

Neither. He's not calling Sarah Silverman annoying, he's calling her character annoying. Plus it isn't Lampshade Hanging because it's in the universe of the movie and not everyone finds her annoying.