Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Yeah. I think the first one needs a re-write, mainly because it relies on opinions of opinionated cartoon community reviewers.

We probably need help from a Gargoyles fan on how we should re-write the second one.

Bringing this up from California Doubling:

• The Highwayman (a Glen A. Larson series) was set around America but filmed in Arizona; Lee Goldberg (of Monk and Diagnosis: Murder) wrote the episodes "Send in the Clones", "Phoenix badly," and obviously, stood in for New York locations (with palm trees in Central Park!) in this sloppily shot pilot.

I know why you needed to post it but chillax with the double posting. Remove the example from California Doubling.

double posting is fine in projects threads as long as it's something of substance. it's good to bump the thread if you're bringing in a new issue.

Also those posts were several hours apart.

From Bakugan

"All and all, Bakugan could be seen as a combination of many different popular series. It is in varying parts reminiscent of Digimon (the whole "save both worlds" thing— it probably skews closest to Tamers in concept if not in tone), Yu-Gi-Oh! (the sentient Bakugan are somewhat like the spirit monsters in GX, and the game is played with cards), Pokémon (in that Pokémon was one of the first "mon" series and this series features battling monsters contained in spherical devices), and Beyblade (Merchandise-Driven). There is one notable difference from these series, and that is that the non-human characters are able to talk while in ball form. (Go ahead, there's no instance where a Pokémon ever talks to its trainer while inside a Poké Ball.)

The rules are hard to pin point, since they were never fully explained and change whenever necessary, similar to the first season of Yu-Gi-Oh!. Best to just leave it alone."

This sounds out of place, if you ask me. The editor is wasting too much time comparing the show with other ones.

I agree and I don't feel it's needed either. Therefore, it should be safe to cut it.

Yeah no other media page feels the need to list all the works it has similarities to, definitely unnecessary

Just wondering, do Jerkass entries saying things like "Saying [insert the character's name here] is an asshole^note (or a synonym) is an understatement." count as complaining even if it's accurate?

it's word cruft and can be slashed for that alone.

always remember Strunk & White's Rule 17.

Yeah, I'm aware about omitting needless words. However, I honestly don't see how that's WC, at least if there is more written than that.

because it's redundant. they're listed under Jerkass. tell us what they did that makes them a Jerkass. don't repeat "boy, this guy is suuuuch a jerkass" before you launch into it, just demonstrate their jerkassery.

it's basically sticking an extra ZCE to the beginning of the example, which shouldn't need to be hyped up. it's supposed to stand on its own. "is an understatement" is exactly the same as "in spades" or "and how", which i cut on sight.

Ok, I was just wondering since Administrivia.Word Cruft doesn't mention it or anything like it.

I've read a bunch of negative entries on The Simpsons S 16 E 2 Alls Fair In Oven War such as:

• Broken Aesop: The moral of the story is summed up as "don't cheat", but it falls apart because a) Marge only cheated because of the horrible way all the other contestants were treating her, with one of them destroying her meal and mocking her over it, and not because she was insecure about her cooking abilities or something similar, b) she only cheated to level the playing field rather than gain an unfair advantage as they destroyed her creation to the point her only reasonable option to stand a fair chance of winning was to cheat, c) that the other contestants cheated first but would suffer no repercussions for their behavior and could enjoy their unfair advantage scot-free unless Marge cheated back, and d) Lisa is appalled when she learns that Marge had cheated in the contest, but not only did she not call out the contestants who were blatantly trying to sabotage Marge, she didn't do anything to stop them even though she witnessed their behaviour first hand. All of this makes Marge look like she has an actual reason for cheating, and also makes Lisa come off as a huge Hypocrite.
• Double Standard: Lisa is appalled by Marge sabotaging the other contestants, yet she is not bothered at all by them sabotaging her prior.
• Fighting Back Is Wrong: When Marge rightfully sabotages the other competitors as payback for tormenting her, Lisa is disgusted with her and convinces her to confess... even though she herself did nothing when she witnessed the other competitors tormenting her.
• Hypocrite: Lisa is disgusted with Marge for sabotaging the other contestants' entries, but she herself never did anything when the other contestants sabotaged Marge's entries earlier on.
• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Viewers are supposed to feel bad for Lisa after she realizes that Marge cheated in the Bake-Off, however Lisa herself saw how the other contestants were trying to blatantly sabotage Marge throught the whole contest, with one of the contestants burning her mother's entry to a crisp right in front of her, but she never calls them out for what they tried to do. The instant Marge cheats in the contest though, Lisa tells her to tell the truth and apologize.

But since the clear intended message of the episode was "Two wrongs don’t make a right. If someone wrongs you and you retaliate against them in a worse way, you’ll be no better than that person", should these entries stay?

Edited by BrianKT on Oct 25th 2022 at 11:15:39 AM

Er... yes, because that just proves that the audience is meant to disagree with Marge which they clearly don't.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 25th 2022 at 11:55:15 AM

they do need to be cleaned up for Bold Inflation and the first one could stand to be shorter.

Edited by ChloeJessica on Oct 25th 2022 at 9:59:25 AM

Maybe remove the italics. I also feel the Double Standard entry fits more under Hypocrite or Moral Myopia because, to my understanding, the former is misused.

I mean, that one can be cut and they can all be rewritten to avoid bashing. However, Brian's thesis is just incorrect.

Well, maybe about the "retaliate in a worse way" part at least. But I still see it as an "two wrongs don't make a right" message.

Edited by BrianKT on Oct 25th 2022 at 10:40:50 AM

The message doesn't matter, except to prove that these reactions weren't intentional. You keep doing this, Brian. You keep arguing that examples shouldn't count because the work says they're wrong. That's not how YMMV works.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 25th 2022 at 1:42:35 PM

Okay, okay. But only one of the entries I mentioned is a YMMV trope, so perhaps that can stay. But what about all the other entries, particularly the ones that criticize Lisa?

On a side note, there's still a discussion on whether Broken Aesop should be a YMMV trope or not.

Edited by BrianKT on Oct 25th 2022 at 11:21:28 AM

Broken Aesop should be YMMV, because it focuses on an audience reaction. As in, audiences think the intended message wasn't conveyed properly, to the point of the work actively proving the aesop wrong. So that one might be able to stay, but does need to be trimmed. Again, while it's a mainspace trope, it'll probably be moved to YMMV at some point because it's a subjective concept.

Double Standard is misuse, but not because of the message issue, rather than that it's not meant to be for "work does a wrong thing". Same is true of Hypocrite, which is meant to be intentional. I think. Both of these tropes are problem children.

I don't see any issue with Fighting Back Is Wrong.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 25th 2022 at 2:22:20 PM

Look War Jay I like you and I mostly agree with you but whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Broken Aesop YMMV? No, I dont think so. It is objective fact that the writer had the characters violate the lesson they intended to give. Ok I will backpedal. I dont know about the current case, but the trope either is or isnt there. It's like you cant possibly be half pregnant... (ie a trope being partially subverted) or in this case be pregnant by popular vote.

Edited by AegisP on Oct 25th 2022 at 11:28:18 AM

Whether or not they violated their own aesop is subjective. Not everyone will agree that the aesop was broken. It's also a reaction to the work rather than something that happens in the work itself.

Oh, and I'm not the only one who thinks this. It's been on Tropes Needing TRS for ages.

Anyway, this isn't relevant to my actual point, which is that Broken Aesop is about declaring that the work screwed up it's own moral, which requires fans to think that, and thus the actual intent of the work doesn't discredit it.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 25th 2022 at 2:30:26 PM

(x3) The closest thing I found stating that Hypocrite has to be intentional is the main page stating that it depends on whether or not the character's hypocrisy is deliberate. However, it doesn't say that it being unintentional disqualifies it.