The Caustic Critic pages: Did Not Do The Research

Now, this wiki has had a collective thought process like this: Did Not Do The Research doesn't have examples. It probably shouldn't. It's just too broad, leave it on the subtropes. That means you should remove things listed as just "Did Not Do The Research" from works pages too.

Unfortunately the wiki collectively thinks slower and in between those thoughts made these pages.

So what we're saying is "Don't put your examples for this trope... unless you do it in such a broad and complainy fashion you can make a whole page's worth!"

I'm looking for people to move whatever might actually be worth moving to a subtrope  ^*

and then a collective nod of heads before I delete these.

Some Sort Of Troper, I skimmed through those pages you linked to in your post, but I cannot find much that is not just "failed to fact-check a detail" and some of the examples seem like nitpicks to me.  ^*

I am fine with cutting those pages though. I would like to see the opinions of people who actually watch those Caustic Critic reviews though since I do not.

edited 6th Jan '11 7:27:47 PM by LouieW

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

I did make a Did Not Do The Research page (well, trivia page) for the Critic because even though it said not to nitpick, people were doing just that and adding any example they could find. I just thought it'd be a decent idea for them to go wild on a different page and leave the main page fairly neutral.

I cut up one dozen new men and you will die somewhat, again and again.

I added the one for The Angry Video Game Nerd because there was a post in the Discussion section that said the Did Not Do The Research section was cluttering up the page. I remembered that the The Irate Gamer and Dan Brown sections had their own DNDTR page on the index for a long time (at least a year) and thought there were enough examples to warrant a page. I thought it was okay. I'm sorry if this caused problems.

I dunno, it'd probably cause more problems than it'd solve to delete all that. Though removing them from the DNDTR index itself and linking them on said Critics' pages is perfectly appropriate and reasonable.

Personally, I'm in favor of pages for individual works for Did Not Do The Research. Some works have way too many examples to appear on the work's page, but that doesn't mean they should get deleted instead of put on a separate page.

It's one of those ideas that is good on paper. The problem is that no one bothers to put the tropes that would associate with the mistake or whatever(ironic that they are willing to complain about other DNDTR yet won't even bother to the work in finding the right trope for said error). Here's an example from the Irate Gamer DNDTR page:

• His review of Zack and Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure has him confused over the gameplay and that there's too much clicking. Implying he's never heard of a Point And Click Game like Maniac Mansion or Sam And Max.
  • He also says "It's not an action game, like you'd expect", seemingly not having even heard of the game before playing it.

In the end, it resembles a Just Bugs Me/Rhymes with "witch" page and all the minor nitpicks should just be placed there. I agree with taking the important stuff, and getting rid of the individual DNDTR page.

I think the fact that the Did Not Do The Research pages have been having their existance questioned at the highest level within the past few months needs to be considered. If the examples are to be moved to the Trivia namespace, then the subpages can be merged there. If it's redefined or cut, that's a different thing.

It bugs me that the Caustic Critics have spawned DNDTR pages of their own, in that it's probably not behavior we want to encourage, but looking at the Nostalga Critic's (the only one I'm familiar enough with to judge), I can't find any justification that it['s bad. I think remove them from the index page and clean up the obviously bad examples, then wait and see what happens with DNDTR as a whole.

edited 18th Jan '11 10:56:01 PM by Elle

I feel like there's a secondary problem here. The trope description clearly seems to set this up as being for when the writers, well, Did Not Do the Research. However, in practice there seems to be many potholes where it's clear it's the character that failed at background checking, not the writers. We may need a separation between those two scenarios.

TheIrateGamers page just got cut for bile and bashing. We should just cut them all.

Bumping this.

And the page is cut. Please lock this.