Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

This is certainly very significant, although I do wonder if it might be worth waiting a while to add it as the controversy is very much still-ongoing.

I too suggest a wait. Despite the gravity of the situation, we don't know yet if it'll be something that will truly endure over time (for all we know, they might backpedal if the backlash is too significant).

The Unity page was edited again, this time with this added (addition is bolded):

• In 2023 Unity Technologies announced a change in their revenue scheme where they plan to charge developers for every installation made on their games, a backtrack compared to the above "liberal licensing policies".

Does it still qualify as complaining?

Edited by Siegfried1337 on Sep 16th 2023 at 6:15:34 AM

Yes, it's a commentary and not what the Unity company themselves said. May need someone else to weight in to be sure.

Edited by Amonimus on Sep 16th 2023 at 4:17:39 PM

I've been looking at Fanfic.Loyalty Among Worlds, which has come up before, and three entries feel wrong to me:

• Hypocrite: Darrel is prone to selfish tendencies throughout the fanfic and can be quite myopic when it comes to calling out those same tendencies in other people. One infamous example is when he unsympathetically calls out Marcy's selfishness while he himself cheats on Sasha for her friend Anne. In the same infamous moment, Darrel also yells at Marcy for hiding the fact that her family were planning on moving away while he himself wasn't honest with the girls about his mother's terminal illness long before they ended up in Amphibia.
• Irony: In the first chapter, Darrel is said to be kind, caring, but also shy and nervous around others. However, he is shown to have no problem in socializing. He is also prone to anger many times when someone wrongs him, such as yelling at the Calamity Trio for their wrongdoings many times.
• Ironic Name: Despite his last name being "Loyaliat". Darrel isn't very loyal as he dances, confesses his love to and kisses Anne '''whilst still being in a relationship with Sasha. Even though Sasha was not a nice partner to Darrel, it still goes against his name sake. He also has moments of being selfish and hypocritical towards the Calamity Trio whenever their mistakes are exposed (see above).

The problem is that these are audience judgements, and don't seem to be in the story itself. They might fit Informed Attribute (I don't know why this isn't YMMV, but anyway).

From YMMV.The Simpsons S 2 E 4 Two Cars In Every Garage And Three Eyes On Every Fish:

• Base-Breaking Character: Marge.
  • Her supporters argue that she was right to sabotage Burns' campaign, that Homer went too far in supporting Burns and forcing the rest of the family to play along, and echo her words about how the old man's wrath means nothing to Homer.
  • Her critics see her as a cowardly, unsympathetic shrew who directly put her family's livelihood in danger, threw Homer into his boss's line-of-fire when she should have stood up to Mr. Burns herself, then got herself off the hook by saying sweet words to her husband that are blatantly wrong: Burns could effortlessly take away the things she listed off by simply firing Homer (and he's rich and powerful enough to do it out of spite and get away with it), meaning he wouldn't be able to afford two helpings of dessert, a bed to snuggle on, or even a TV to watch football on.

This just seems like mostly complaining to me. At the very least it needs a rewrite because it leans for to much towards the negative. Plus the person who added it's edit reason just makes it seem like a single wonk issue rather than a widespread debate among the fandom at large: "I see her as Unintentionally Unsympathetic, and the reasoning that trope got removed does not hold water. This is a compromise, I think. Before you harp on me, everything listed is an objective fact: when Mr. Burns threw a tantrum, Marge ordered Homer to "make them stop" instead of doing so herself; and a simple pink slip would ensure Homer could never have those things she listed off." Is it just me? Anymore opinions?

Edited by Bullman on Sep 17th 2023 at 2:14:51 PM

Feel like it might be worth noting that the person who added the above (Pyromania 101) edit warred a couple years back; as they were starting an argument and going against the grain in the edit reasons in addition to un-commenting out their example.

ETA: This.

I'm not seeing anything in ATT about them, so it might be better to continue the discussion there (plus they seem to have a...problematic edit history in general and I don't want to just list every contentious edit out of the blue, even ones related to this specific episode).

Edited by Coachpill on Sep 17th 2023 at 3:22:51 PM

Should that be taken to the ATT or was that dealt with back then and was to long ago?

Edited by Bullman on Sep 17th 2023 at 2:18:26 PM

Not able to weigh in cuz I barely remember that episode, but can BBC even be episode-specific?

I don't know. I have seen some that are episode specific but normally those are one off characters and not main characters throughout the whole show.

I generally don't think a Base-Breaking Character entry can apply for a major character for only one episode. That seems more reserved for a Broken Base entry... although I honestly don't really see a lot of people debate about whether Marge was in the wrong for that episode. There have been episodes where Marge's actions have been the subject of debate, but I wouldn't count this episode as one of them.

Anyone have anything to say about the Sonichu complaining/bashing misinformation entries?

To bring it up again, in Web Comic/Sonichu and Characters/Sonichu, it says under one villain entry:

• Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds: Even after her Freudian Excuse (having never been loved herself) is revealed to her adversary, he still beats her into a state of paralysis.
• The Only One Allowed to Defeat You: Sonichu saves Slaweel Ryam's life in episode 20 because "the final blow belongs to Christian." Chris-Chan returned the next issue, had a heart-to-heart talk with Slaweel, learned about her Freudian Excuse, declared she'll never forgive her anyway and beat her up, paralyzing her in the process.

A cursory look up from someone whom has never read the comic, shows the protagonist beating up Slaweel (the villain, the above entry is on) and permanently paralyzing her is in no way the case at all.

I've noticed a thing with widely hated media where people will intentionally misinterpret actions of a protagonist from widely hated media to make them look worse on Tv Tropes entries.

This is one such example, as the protagonist hits "Slaweel" (the villain, the above entry is on) with an electric attack and immediately after, she gets up and says "I'm ok, just paralyzed", as the Paralysis status effect symbol from Franchise/Pokemon floats above her. The protagonist also never says Slaweel will never be forgiven, only that whilst she feels sorry for her, Freudian Excuse Is No Excuse.

For clarification, Paralysis in Pokemon is usually caused by electric attacks and doesn't prevent the target from moving, only from attacking their opponent. Paralysis is also easily reversible.

The villain in the entry is even seen literally standing up and walking into a police vehicle immediately after being paralyzed. Regardless of what people think of media, TV Tropes shouldn't push blatantly incorrect info on a work, that is my opinion anyway.

Here's some rewrites that can work.

• Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds: She reveals Freudian Excuse is having never been loved herself.

and

• The Only One Allowed to Defeat You: Sonichu saves Slaweel Ryam's life in episode 20 because "the final blow belongs to Christian." Chris-Chan returned the next issue, had a heart-to-heart talk with Slaweel, learned about her Freudian Excuse, and thus has her arrested without lasting harm.

Does anyone think I should take this to the locked pages edit request topic.

I don't think we should trope Sonichu at all, but if we do, we should have correct information.

Edited by Monsund on Sep 17th 2023 at 8:30:50 AM

So what would the timeframe be to prevent knee-jerk reactions? Six months maybe?

I don't remember if we set a specific guideline for that, but at least long enough for the fallout of the controversy to settle.

The thing is that we shouldn't be troping Unity at all. It's a game development platform, not a game in and of itself. It's not a narrative work and it doesn't have tropes.

As a Useful Notes page, it should provide enough information that someone looking at it from an historical perspective would be able to write about it, but we don't need to go into great detail.

Even the pricing section is a little dicey. It's not really on topic for the wiki.

But I don't want to dictate the contents of the article. I simply wanted to bring up our recency policy and explain why the edit should be removed on that basis.

Aaah ok.

Bringing this up from the YMMV subpage Wayside. This entry seems very whiny and needs a bit of a cleanup.

• Suspiciously Similar Song:
  • The show will often play what is essentially not even this trope, but essentially an exact cover of Eye Of The Tiger by Survivor, but with the chords changed.
  • This background track that sounds similar to "Just Can't Get Enough" by Depeche Mode.
  • Another background track sounds slightly similar to "We Like To Party" by the Vengaboys.
  • Even more egregiously, this background track sounds almost exactly identical to the intro of "Respect" by Aretha Franklin, even being in the same key.

On the simpsons example. I was the one that removed it after running it through the relevant thread after getting no complaints in a long time.

This troper messaged me saying that he is just presenting facts. I still don't think it counts, even with this compromise, but I will abstain from deleting it myself and wait for more responses.

Regarding Monsund's post ( x 7) I'm going to say that while I don't have the best knowledge to exacxtly know what's in the situation of the state here, but I think the information that was written was incorrect, it was left unedited even before the page was locked from non-mod edits. Seconding this, but I'm also requesting help for someone to be able to analyze the trope if it is misuse or wrong information.

My two cents: the Simpsons entry should be removed because Marge can't be a Base-Breaking Character in just a single episode, and the complaint about her behaviour in the episode doesn't take into account that she foiled Mr. Burns' gubernatorial campaign, which clearly prevented massive environmental damage (and probably various worker rights rollbacks, given his track record). I mean, wacky sitcom plot aside, she wasn't picking a fight with Burns and letting her husband take the fallout for shits and giggles.

Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Sep 18th 2023 at 11:42:48 AM

On Futurama S 8 E 7 Rage Against The Vaccine:

• Fanon Discontinuity: This episode received several negative reviews from critics and fans and it currently has a score of 6.3 on imdb, which makes it the lowest scoring episode of the series. Several fans preferred for this episode to have never been made and criticized the episode for having unfunny and repetitive jokes, having several characters exhibit out of character behavior for the sake of satirizing current issues and pushing political agendas, lackluster writing, and for focusing on an outdated issue that had already been around for over 3 years.

This just sounds like an excuse to complain. A 6.3 isn't even an abysmal rating. The episode wasn't super well liked but it's pretty much on par with other controversial "topical" episodes, and bear in mind it's also only two weeks old. (Not to mention the "out of character behavior" was justified in-universe as the result of a Hate Plague, and the "outdated issue" is a pandemic that still exists in some regions lmfao.)

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 18th 2023 at 3:50:41 PM

Definitely seems too early to make such a negative statement about the episode, especially in terms of ratings.

It's not even a proper entry about Fanon Discontinuity anyway. The trope's supposed to be how fans pretend a certain instalment never happened and isn't canon because it either had controversial developments or was just bad enough to affect other instalments by proxy.

That entry just talks about how badly the episode was received, without mentioning how fans pretend to ignore it ever happened.

I say cut it.

Bringing this up from the YMMV subpage for Wayside. This entry seems very whiny and needs a bit of a cleanup.

• Suspiciously Similar Song:
  • The show will often play what is essentially not even this trope, but essentially an exact cover of Eye Of The Tiger by Survivor, but with the chords changed.
  • This background track that sounds similar to "Just Can't Get Enough" by Depeche Mode.
  • Another background track sounds slightly similar to "We Like To Party" by the Vengaboys.
  • Even more egregiously, this background track sounds almost exactly identical to the intro of "Respect" by Aretha Franklin, even being in the same key.

Edited by DongwaChan on Sep 19th 2023 at 8:33:53 AM