Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

On YMMV.Fire Force

• Americans Hate Tingle: Tamaki was ranked second in the first popularity poll in Japan. However, she's more divisive overseas due to her "Lucky Lecher Lure" curse, since many Western fans take issue with her entire character being a walking Fanservice machine who loses her clothes and/or gets groped in almost every appearance. As a result, this makes her a rather one-note character. Episode 19 is seen as a perfect example of this: whereas Maki gets to confirm her badass status by demolishing a whole squad of White Clad with little effort followed up by brutally beating Flail, Tamaki's "fight" against Assault consists of her tripping and causing him to grope her breast. And then Sister Iris of all people beats Assault unconscious with a lead pipe she found laying around. The Nether arc gave every other main character a chance to show off their strength, but Tamaki still only got to be a one-note gag.

This entry really comes across like it's pickings sides. I don't think it's necessary at all to mention an example to try to prove one side "right".

I'd agree the Doctor Who entry is exaggerating. Yes, there was a lot of drama, but there were certainly plenty of people who liked the episode, which that entry kinda implies there weren't.

Thoughts on the Marville page?

Page in question

Today I was doing some reading and found the page. I scrolled through and there is barely any actual information about the actual person the page is about - most of the page seems to be dedicated to bashing Cinemasins/Jeremy and most of the tropes listed are along the lines of "He gets annoyed when Cinemasins does x" and based around things Cinemasins does wrong, rather than actually telling us about the actual person the page is about.

The page goes a bit off-topic and I feel like it seems more focused on "picking apart Cinemasin's flaws/mistakes" rather than "telling us about the actual person the page is about from a neutral POV"

The main page for Criminal Minds comes across as very salty in regards to the Police Procedural genre, referring to their premises as gimmicks and the CSI clones as using "magic" to solve cases. Feels like a sarcastic joke in the wrong place going on far too long.

While I agree with their point somewhat, I think that kind of talk needs to stay in the YMMV tabs while the main page description remains as unbiased as possible. Thoughts?

Edited by Stage7-4 on May 29th 2020 at 4:39:40 AM

I agree, it's not cool.

Anyway, here's a weird complain-y, natter-y example I found when doing Snark Bait cleanup; it's on The End of the World as We Know It in the "Real Life" folder:

• There are about a thousand theories on when the world will end, prior to being destroyed by the sun. The currently (strangely enough) least popular are the Nostradamus 2012 and Mayan Long-Count Calendar prophecies. Not many have heard of the Nostradamus-prophecies, though, which might explain the lack of panic over it, and hundreds of scientists, NASA included, have debunked the Mayan Long-Count theory. It turns out that according to the Mayan calendar, the 13th Baktun ended back in the 1960's, and that the 2012-thing was an error in the calculations (it was solidly confirmed when 2012 came and went without incidents on this level, completing the transformation of this end-of-the-world scenario into a subject of mockery, especially for a Roland Emmerich movie that had this as it's major plot point); the Mayans also ended with the 13th Baktun because they could not calculate past that point, not because the world was ending). The next "big" Doomsday, is scheduled for the 2030s, when an asteroid should hit us (with a 0.000001% chance of actually doing so). Luckily, by then we'll most likely have the defense-systems to wipe out giant rocks plummeting towards the Earth.
  • In 2011 when a religious individual named Harold Camping claimed to have figured out the exact date of the world's end according to the Bible, saying that the world would suffer massive and simultaneous earthquakes on a global scale. The date came and went, confusing people who were expecting and preparing for the world's end. Naturally, the person who made the bold doomsday claim went into hiding from the public while others who still strongly believe the prophecy brushed off the mistake by saying the world is still going to end, but not right now. He died not long after this fiasco turned him into a punchline.
    • What makes the above example hilarious is that anyone who actually read the bible would know that his claim to know the end was coming was bogus. The Bible explicitly says "No man will know the day of the Lord's coming", so his claim to know the date of the end times was bogus simply because he claimed to know it.
    • Though this didn't stop those who claimed Harold was on the right track from carrying on his legacy; an online-only Christian organization called the eBible Fellowship predicted October 7th, 2015 as the next big date for God to systematically wipe out the planet. The founder of the group, Chris McCann, directly referenced the previous prediction in 2011 as a simple cessation of cataloging which church-goers would be spared obliteration by fire, stating that the new date would seal the Earth's fate: "It'll be gone forever. Annihilated."
  • Speaking of 2012, the world - or, at least the world's technology - almost did meet its end in July of that year. A coronal mass ejection missed Earth by a margin of nine days. The last time a CME of that magnitude hit Earth, it fried nearly every telegraph installation in the United States and Europe. One can only imagine how that would affect modern-day technology.

Not sure where to begin fixing it.

None of that even seems to fit the trope anyway; doomsday predictions aren’t worth anything as far as the trope goes. I suppose if the impact of a CME was actually described, it could count as an example since “as we know it” is a factor, but that’s not what’s present either.

So should I just go ahead and cut it then?

I might need to take the rest of the folder to the RL cleanup thread.

Cutting it has my vote, but then, I am just one voice.

Real life end-of-the-world predictions are pretty interesting and quite occasionally amusing to study (hey, did you know that the earliest known prediction that the world was going down the drain and mankind's inevitable self-destruction had to be right around the corner was found on a 4800-year-old Assyrian clay tablet?) but I'm not sure this wiki's the right place for that.

Is there a trope about doomsday predictions? It could go there. I'm only finding Mayan Doomsday (which is specifically about the world ending on December 21, 2012) and The End Is Nigh, which is about a character declaring that.

This was added to YMMV.Wall E under Hilarious in Hindsight:

• The movie came out before Disney became a mini-B'nL, buying up Marvel, Lucasfilm, Hulu and Fox Pictures. The Fox purchase gave Disney full ownership of the Hello, Dolly! movie in 2019.

The example originally only mentioned how the Fox purchase gave Disney ownership of the Hello, Dolly! movie.

The B'nL comparison was removed earlier due to it just being complaining, so I went ahead and removed the first sentence of that.

Edited by jandn2014 on May 31st 2020 at 3:34:11 PM

There's a problem on WarpThatAesop.HarryPotter where several tropers use the page to list what they seem to genuinely perceive as cases of Moral Dissonance and Unfortunate Implications (as opposed to deliberately misinterpreting information for laughs), or simply as an excuse to complain about the series' writing in general. There are quite a few questionable entries but here are the ones that I think can definitely be cut.

* No matter how far you deliberately warp the Aesops of a series with a large cult fandom beyond recognition, it will still sound exactly like real fan wank and may be taken as such.^note It's a joke, seriously, turn off the fun policing.

Several new entries recently added by tropineasily on YMMV.Rise Of The Guardians look like complaining. On the other hand, YMMV pages are for opinions, and maybe it's me who's biased, or maybe I got something wrong. So, let's see:

• Glurge: A frequent criticism against the movie. It tries to be uplifting and bittersweet, but the narrative completely ignores the pain Jack's family had to go through after his death, with Jack himself being completely apathetic towards that as well, in favor of telling a comparatively sappy story about "The Little Jack Frost That Could".
• Narm:
  • Pitch's introduction. He appears out of nowhere at North's workshop, gliding around the room while laughing and then he just disappears. While it isn't a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment, since it alarms North that Pitch is back, it's a mystery on why they didn't just choose to have him appear before him and threatening him, rather than flying through the scene like some sort of insect.
  • "I should've never TRUSTED YOU!" While the context is heartwrenching on multiple levels, it sounds too much like "I've put my TRUST IN YOUUU!" for comfort.
• Signature Scene:
  • Even detractors showed admiration towards the scene where Jack's life before Jack Frost was shown. Him genuinely caring for his little sister, saving her from drowning only to end up drowning himself. In fact, the scene after that completely ruining the athmosphere is one of the biggest reasons as to why people express their dislike for the film.

Edited by Tenebrika on Jun 1st 2020 at 8:26:05 PM

Does the page description for The Load seem a bit complainy to you guys?

The Narm examples should be cut, for sure. The first one could conceivably be restored if there was a better explanation of what's supposed to be silly about the bad guy flying around, but the second... off the top of my head I have no idea what the meme it's referring to is even supposed to be.

Cool :) This is more or less what I thought, too.

What about the Glurge entry? It seems, the basis here is Angst? What Angst? + bitching. Angst? What Angst? doesn't automatically equal glurge, as far as I understand. Also, that's the first time I see this "frequent criticism." Right, I generally try to avoid negativity but I still saw plenty of criticism against this movie.

The Signature Scene entry states that the atmosphere was ruined like it's an indisputable fact; it's not. Then again, it is a YMMV page. (And I doubt this scene is a signature one for the movie at all. And there is a typo in the entry.)

Edited by Tenebrika on Jun 1st 2020 at 10:56:18 PM

I brought it up in ATT here, but I thought I'd bring this particular issue up here as well since it involves a troper who has a history of wonking about Fire Emblem Fates.

Said user recently posted this entry in Fire Emblem Fates:

My concerns with this entry are:

• The user has edit-warred before trying to get the character Iago labeled as a scrappy; the Scrappy clean-up thread deemed him ineligible as a Scrappy due to having a large enough fanbase. This entry still seems to be trying to paint him as a scrappy, what with the "graduating out of scrappydom" bit.
• The user has, in the past, tried to put in complainy entries about Iago, Hans, and Garon. At this point, it definitely feels like a Single-Issue Wonk with them and they seem hellbent on making their displeasure towards those three characters known.

Edited by dragonfire5000 on Jun 1st 2020 at 1:58:17 AM

You can do what you want with the entries as long as your arguments are reasonable and not just "There's absolutely nothing wrong with the movie! YOUR JUST A HATER!"

I've seen some rather strong opinions about the characters before, particularly Pitch, generally in tandem with Alternate Character Interpretation, since people are divided if the plot and details of the books are important to the movie (which I personally think aren't, it's an adaptation, it should be able to stand on it's own).

Particularly the "Movie!Pitch has been flanderized" argument is very valid in my opinion, since none of his Tragic Villain traits are present, beyond subtext.

The Glurge entry is also an amalgamation from other entries, the movie could've been a lot more powerful if the character backstory they actually showed wasn't just thrown to the wayside, something that the YMMV page also points out with the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot entry.

Now with the Narm entries, the first one doesn't tell you anything about the character. It's gone in seconds, but too important to count as Big-Lipped Alligator Moment. The second one is just something that I personally thought killed the scene, feel free to remove that for good.

With the Signature Scene entry, you can remove the complaining part, it's already covered in Angst? What Angst?.

You also can't write entries that are "this work sucks and you suck for liking it". That's another limit, and why we have this thread.

About the first Narm entry, it's important to remember that the trope is about scenes that are meant to be dramatic that end up being funny by mistake, not scenes that people didn't like. Just because the scene doesn't tell you anything about the character doesn't automatically make it funny.

Cut that Glurge entry. It reads as pure complaining.

Thank you all :) I removed it.

I've been mulling over these Base-Breaking Character entries and I suspect the ones about Bunny, Tooth, and Jamie can be taken down altogether. Because a Base-Breaking Character requires "little to no middle ground: most of the work's fans must have a strong opinion, positive or negative, about this character," and I don't think these three get that much hate or that much worship.

The entry about Pitch, on the other hand, maybe it's legit: he gets hate as the bad guy who causes the heroes a lot of grief and has a number of fangirls who believe he's done nothing bad. So, here's the entry:

• Pitch Black. Some see him as the same Tragic Villain that he was in the books, finding him a fascinating character who often gets justified for his actions and also has a good number of fangirls. Others think his character design and motivation is incredibly generic, while his personality comes across as whiny and hard to take seriously. However, even some book fans tend to express frustration about how badly the movie portrays him.

• They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: Some fans of the original books criticize the drastic Adaptation Personality Changes for most characters. Bunny and Tooth are nothing like in the books, and Pitch's backstory isn't even hinted at in the movie.

Edited by Tenebrika on Jun 2nd 2020 at 5:15:50 PM

Oh God No pitch has way too much personality and motivation to be a GDV. That's straight up misuse.

Square Trope, Rounded Character :)