^^There's also a difference between "interpreting a mandate with 100% literalness" and "not expecting a site about something to actually be about a different thing entirely."
Infinite Tree: an experimental storyarromdee, you are welcome to go start a TV Opinions Wiki. Until then, you're now doing exactly what I just told Guy in White to stop doing: arguing for a personal interpretation of this wiki which is not factual, and insulting the admins along the way.
Yes, the admins can do these things because they can. They could close the site tomorrow, or sell it to China, or change the primary font to be white-on-white. The changes that have been made have been supported by a large majority of tropers who feel that they want the site to be about tropes, not opinions. It is fine to dislike that. It is not fine to stand around bitching about it and insulting our intelligence while you do.
edited 9th May '11 2:23:08 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Personally, I find that wikis as a format are lousy for expressing opinions of any sort. Without any sort of author attribution on the page, it looks like any opinion on a wiki page is the consensus opinion of the entire userbase, which can be pretty repellant for any newbie who stumbles upon the wiki who holds a differing opinion. Moreover, if an existing editor stumbles upon an opinion he or she doesn't agree with, the result is either likely to be either Conversation In The Main Page or an Edit War, both of which are pretty ugly in their own right.
The everyone-edits-a-single page, no user attribution format of a wiki works better if pages stick purely to factual stuff with no room for subjective disagreement; if two editors disagree on factual grounds, it can be resolved by looking up the correct info. Ideally, all opinions would be left for forums, discussion page, and other places with a username attached to every single opinion. Realistically the existing culture is probably too ingrained for that to occur; separate YMMV tabs are an acceptable compromise.
Ideally, the YMMV page would be for Audience Reactions that can be demonstrated to exist — so instead of tropes, it would catalogue things like a Broken Base or Shipping. We should strive to keep even the YMMV pages from sounding like they are the wiki's opinion, for the very reasons you note above.
Pages like Awesome Moments are exempted from this, of course, as what constitutes an awesome moment is inherently subjective to the troper, but I think people understand that.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Aromdee: This wiki has never been about opinions. From the get-go the purpose of Tv Tropes was to catalog tropes that are used in works, not to list anybody's opinions about it. In some cases they are (or were) allowed, but they were at best a secondary goal. If the inclusion of opinions ever goes against the wiki's ability to catalog tropes, the opinions are going to get axed.
Also, YMMV tropes weren't moved because we wanted to keep people away from them. The reasons we moved them were:
- To keep the main pages at a manageable size
- To organize the tropes better by categorizing them
- Because subjective tropes tend to attract strong reactions and edits, so it's easier to keep them isolated from the other tropes.
I understand that you may not personally like this, but there is a solid consensus on this wiki that that's how we're doing things, and we aren't going to overhaul the purpose of the wiki to please a minority. No matter what we do, some people aren't going to be content with how it turns out, and those people have to decide whether they want to leave, complain and annoy everyone else who likes the wiki as is, or give up the complaining and enjoy what Tv Tropes has to offer.
edited 9th May '11 3:28:29 PM by JapaneseTeeth
Reaction Image RepositoryThis might explain why Rational Wiki rubs me the wrong way.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.From the Home Page.
"We are not a stuffy encyclopedic wiki. We're a buttload more informal. We encourage breezy language and original thought."
I don't know exactly what the person who wrote that meant when s/he wrote that, but readers can hardly be blamed by thinking it means opinions are A-Ok on the mainpage. It needs changing.
edited 9th May '11 5:14:37 PM by Stormtroper
And that's how I ended up in the wardrobe. It Just Bugs Me!To be fair to the person who wrote that, NPOV and NOR are completely separate Wikipedia policies.
The act of troping, of noticing a pattern not pointed out by someone else first, is forbidden on Wikipedia.
edited 9th May '11 5:53:18 PM by silver2195
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.^^If I remember right, that's actually a recent change by Fast Eddie from the previous "We Are Not Wikipedia" version, which was really vague. "Original thought" means "you don't have to cite that someone else thinks that."
edited 9th May '11 5:56:35 PM by INUH
Infinite Tree: an experimental storySo the other day I suddenly had an epiphany and was converted to being in support of the YMMV migration. I was thinking "Hey, wouldn't it be great if there was an objective way to analyze fiction that wasn't subject to all of that literary analysis bullshit, OR subject to all of that fandom bullshit?" Then I realized "Holy crap, that's what TV Tropes would be if not for the subjectives," and suddenly changed my opinion on the YMMV migration.
edited 9th May '11 8:13:19 PM by PDown
At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...There is no objective way to evaluate fiction save on the basis of grammar and technical proficiency, and even those are dubious at best. Twilight may be completely worthless dreck to me, while simultaneously being a deeply moving, inspiring love story to a teenaged girl who needs something fluffy to cheer her up.
That is both the beauty and the curse of fiction.
"Objective analysis" doesn't mean "deciding whether it's any good or not, or what kind of story it is". It means "classifying the main characters, situations, and plotlines, according to the objective traits that the story tells us about them". The only debatable aspect, then, is the Unreliable Narrator.
At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...
Uh, we already do that, barring the non-objective part (we are humans) — regardless of YMMV, headscratchers, or the forum. Your point?
Also, am I understanding this recent debate a'ight in that we can't even mention in the Phantom Menace (or Star Wars) page the objective fact that Jar Jar Binks had a pretty bad reception, to the point that it has become a mocking vector for the franchise? Or do we mean that even that goes into "YMMV"? (which I don't see how, since you simply can't reasonably go and say "nah, Jar Jar is considered by most other media to have revived the franchise" or something) (In which case wouldn't be Trivia more acceptable?) (I'm actually getting kind of lost here, I think it wasn't the best example to bring in for debate) (And why am I talking like this, again?)
edited 9th May '11 11:21:31 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?![]()
It's an audience reaction. It's not a thing observably present in the work. We are drawing a distinction between these things regardless of how prevalent the reaction is or how much it influences the popular perception of a work. Otherwise we're left with the insane proposition of taking some kind of poll to find out how prevalent each YMMV is among the audience and establishing a threshold to treat it as "fact" rather than "opinion".
To simplify: "Jar-Jar is hated" is not something in the film. That's the distinction we're drawing.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Also from the main page "If your entry cannot gather any evidence by the Wiki Magic, it will just wither and die. Until then, though, it will be available through the Main Tropes Index. "
This is no longer true. If The Forum <tm> complains about the trope, no matter how many people add to it or put links to other articles, they'll erase it and ban anyone who puts it back up.
And this isn't just "opinion" stuff. I'm getting tired of working for a week on something with other people and then it all getting erased because "nobody discussed it and followed the rules." Many of these threads are then locked.
Also, am I understanding this recent debate a'ight in that we can't even mention in the Phantom Menace (or Star Wars) page the objective fact that Jar Jar Binks had a pretty bad reception, to the point that it has become a mocking vector for the franchise?
It is my impression that your understanding is correct.
I think it wasn't the best example to bring in for debate)
I think it's the perfect example. Everyone understands the example, for one thing. And it's hard to argue with.
Yes, the admins can do these things because they can. They could close the site tomorrow, or sell it to China, or change the primary font to be white-on-white. The changes that have been made have been supported by a large majority of tropers who feel that they want the site to be about tropes, not opinions.
My point is that there is tension between "we can do this because we can, so shut up" and "we think this is a good idea", which implies room for disagreement.
Also, telling people they shouldn't express disagreement because everyone already agrees is circular reasoning. Not allowing disagreement will cause everyone to agree, so you can't justify it by the fact that everyone agrees.
Its not that we don't allow disagreement (Seriosuly just look at this thread, this thread is nothing but a thread where you can discuss your disagreements with the mods)
It's the fact that till you get the administration (and your fellow tropers) to agree with you, you can't edit the wiki in the way you want. Nobody is forcing us to agree with the administration. I just think that this is the right position to hold. Same goes to anyone who agrees with me. I think
"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.arromdee, thanks much for ignoring my post where I stated exactly the reasons we keep opinions about Jar-Jar in YMMV. You may not agree, fine, but don't misrepresent wiki policy. You can indeed mention these things, just not on the main article. You seem to completely ignore the presence of YMMV, as if the fact that you can't put these things wherever you want diminishes the quality of the wiki experience.
Also, telling people they shouldn't express disagreement because everyone already agrees is circular reasoning. Not allowing disagreement will cause everyone to agree, so you can't justify it by the fact that everyone agrees.
I'm pretty sure this is in regards to the You Fail X / Artistic License issue. There was a very lengthy thread that got deleted.
edited 10th May '11 9:10:19 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I don't understand. WMG, Headstratchers, and all of the other things we have in tabs on the main pages have the same "interface design". Does that mean they all were designed to keep people from reading them? Or do you have some sort of thing against YMMV?