Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

If you can't judge their rewrite yourself just ask them to come here.

I think you people are overreacting. But if it's really is such a big issue, I rewrote it to be more straightforward.

"An inevitability with a paleontological documentary that's over 2 decades old. Non-saurian Triassic wildlife being sluggish and ungainly, scaly coelurosaurs, Ornitholestes with a nose-crest, whale-sized pliosaurs, plesiosaurs crawling onto land, stiff-necked diplodocids, female T. rex being larger and more aggressive than the males, badger-like Didelphodon, and dinosaurs already teetering towards extinction before the meteor impact are all very reflective of late '90s paleontology."

I rewrote it in the first place because I thought it didn't cover the subject well enough, just focusing on two outdated elements.

Edited by AnimationFan767 on May 14th 2022 at 11:46:01 AM

Yeah that entry's fine. Honestly I didn't even think the original version was that bashy, I was just getting annoyed at playing middle management between the PMs.

To be clear I thought the example was valid (all paleo documentaries will date at some point, so it's fun to explore how and why), I just thought the rewrite made it worse, not better.

As I said, my intention was to elaborate on the subject without being too wordy. I don't aim to cause trouble, I just aim to add context that I thought was either underwritten or not addressed at all by anyone else.

If you think that an entry of mine is problematic in any way, just PM me, I'm more than willing to talk things out, but don't just cut it out when the apparent issue is easily fixable. I altered it in no time and I could have done it a lot sooner if anyone just talked to me.

My aim is always to add something informative without over-describing it first and foremost. Inane complaining is the thing I try to avoid the most.

I understand, and again to be clear I only brought it here since it seemed to fit the best. Please don't worry too much that something like this will happen again.

I'm a little dubious that the show accurately reflects the 1990s scientific position anyway. I was in a related field at the time that show came out, and I'd summarise the prevailing attitude at the time as "it's using outdated science and a hell of a lot of speculation, but it's a wonderfully massive breakthrough in how to sell science to the public".

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 15th 2022 at 4:52:56 AM

Hey everyone, I'm really sorry for shitting up the thread these last few posts.

This person came and gave me a custom notifier regarding myself commenting out their edit. I wasn't sure what to do, so I constantly asked for input instead of asking them to come here. I wanted to constantly make sure I wasn't somehow doing anything wrong.

As a major paleontology enthusiast for nearly a 10 years who regularly reads up on this stuff as a hobby, I can assure you that all the examples I listed are on point. Certainly, some of them like the whale-sized pliosaurs were controversial but they were still a theory that was alive and well specifically during the late ‘90s. Many of the others, like scaly raptors and sea turtle-like plesiosaurs were very omnipresent elements of the paleontological discourse at the time (like in Paleoworld or contemporary paleoart) all the way until the Turn of the Millennium.

Edited by AnimationFan767 on May 15th 2022 at 11:33:37 AM

I'm not criticising the vast majority of your post, just the last couple of words. I'm saying the position of the science in the late-90s was not as universally represented by that show as the last few words of your post imply. It would be more accurate if you said "...are all very reflective of late 20th century paleontology".

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 15th 2022 at 5:21:59 AM

There's this entry in IneffectualSympatheticVillain.Western Animation:

• Tom, from Tom and Jerry, is so ineffectual and sympathetic that, in some cartoons, Jerry seems Unintentionally Unsympathetic. Particularly egregious in some of those is that Tom would leave Jerry in peace or ignore him, and Jerry would antagonize him and try to ruin his life. The shorts sometimes start with Jerry trying to steal Tom's milk, break into a safe/refrigerator/ship that Tom was guarding or even picking on him unprovoked. Sometimes Tom's methods can get a bit extreme, but he's mostly just trying to protect his property or doing his job.
  • Though there were just as many examples were he was not sympathetic at all.

Unlimited Saga has constant Obvious Beta take that's against the game. Can I removed them? Pretty Please?

I guess so. From what you've described, it seems to be snark, so it needs to go.

The page for the wrestling gimmick character The Gobbledy Gooker was obviously created to snark about and bash the failed gimmick. But here's this one entry from the YMMV section that's just plain shoehorning:

• Never Live It Down: To the point that an award is named after it, by WrestleCrap. And that award is awarded to the worst angle of the year. For perspective, one of the recipients was Katie Vick.

Edited by DongwaChan on May 17th 2022 at 3:02:31 PM

Give that entry a good piledriver.

These bits from the description of Creator.Acclaim seem bashy:

• Ironic Name: Considering their practices, the quality level of their games, and their marketing techniques (among other things), it's safe to say that acclaim was something the company wasn't getting.

What should I do?

That's just plain bashing. I don't think any of it is salvageable.

Agreed. Cut it.

I removed the bashy parts and tried to salvage the rest.

I'd like to refer to this entry in YMMV.Alice In Wonderland 2010:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character: So, you get Sir Christopher Lee to voice the Jabberwocky...and you only give him two lines and then have Alice cut his tongue out? Why does he have an enemity with the Vorpal Sword? Why does he stick by the Red Queen's side out of apparent loyalty? Why was he sleeping inside that hill? We'll never know because you sliced off his tongue!

Maybe WTH, Casting Agency? would be more fitting?

"You have Sir Christopher Lee voicing the Jabberwocky...and you only give him two lines before Alice cuts off his tongue. Why does he have an enemity with the Vorpal Sword? Why does he stick by the Red Queen's side out of apparent loyalty? Why was he sleeping inside that hill? We'll never know."

Easy fix.

I don't think that fits; I'm not sure there are a lot of people who would think that Christopher Lee isn't a fitting voice for an intimidating monster.

Edited by dragonfire5000 on May 18th 2022 at 8:52:08 AM

Yes, it's more a case of "They Wasted A Great Actor", but that can go hand in hand with They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character, as is the case here.

Edited by AnimationFan767 on May 18th 2022 at 8:58:30 AM