Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

That just sounds like "there was a Cliffhanger and then the cliffhanger got resolved" so they can both go.

The first one fits more under Bolivian Army Ending anyway, IIRC What Happened to the Mouse? is for more minor plot details or minor characters that disappear.

(EDIT: Page topper, about complaining/misuse on Yakuza: Like a Dragon and Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth)

Edited by SpongeBat1 on Jan 24th 2024 at 6:29:38 AM

One cleanup thread later...

Not sure where else to put this, but the only entry in the Magazines tab on FandomRivalry.Other Media feels incredibly one-sided to the point of existing solely to bash Smash Hits:

---

• In the 1980s and 90s there were two British pop magazines aimed at teenagers: Smash Hits and Number One. Number One targeted a slightly older audience, and affected a somewhat more "edgy" style, with a particular focus on criticising the Stock Aitken Waterman bands who were Smash Hits' favourite cover stars. Its readership, writing in to likewise make fun of the "poppy" side of pop, would frequently complain about SAW's supposed dominance of "Smashed Twits".

---

...aaaand no representation of the Smash Hits side of the apparent rivalry at all. As someone who didn't grow up in this era, I must ask: is this an actual rivalry or just readers of one magazine hating readers of another?

"As long as I have my comrades with me, I can do anything!" (She/Her)

ComicBook.Aquaman just got a ton of negativity added. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=ComicBook.Aquaman&page=5

"* What You Are in the Dark: What Arthur feels towards his own failed people, particularly during the [[Cullen Bunn]] run, where he internally recited how hatefully monstrous a great many amongst his own kingdoms military. The prequel comic featuring a Divergence issue shows as much when they massacre a whole town trying to flush Arthur out."

"* Dirty Coward: What the Atlantean race is revealed to be in a nutshell at the end of the King Rath run. When after all of Atlantis had been raised out of the seabed, the same slimy dirt clods whom ousted Arthur for an unworthy one whom their caste system normally mocks can be seen cowering the the very lowly sects of their kingdom which they all collectively mocked once."

"* This Loser Is You: Atlanteans show of retro regressive incompetence despite being a highly advanced civilization begets this. Being a bunch of hypocritical bigoted fascists with mediocrity detailing in political bias on the grounds of fascism and racist xenophobia. Time after time they need to be saved from themselves when the incredibly foolhardy regime changes blow up in their faces. And yet, the worst among them still fall back on blaming their failed king; shirking fault for everything going wrong on their part. "

"* Never My Fault: A trait shown on end by the atlantean racist cult mind. Often times it is their absentmindedness and general apathy for the world they live in that begets their homelands destruction. Yet more often than not, the people of Atlantis prove they deserve more blame than their perceived traitor of a king or the blight they see the surface world as."

The Protomen enhanced my life.

... how is that This Loser Is You entry even an example?

Not familiar with the comic, but yeah, all those entries look far too bashy.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

All those entries were added by the same troper. They may have a Single-Issue Wonk, especially to add that This Loser Is You entry.

I found Steven Seagal page has some tropes that come across as bashing, or troping about the creator himself. Here are few examples.

• Acrofatic: More apparent in his later films, due to a combination of his aging and neglecting to keep himself physically fit. His characters are frequently depicted as being frighteningly fast and adept at fighting, while being visibly overweight and out of shape at the same time. Ultimately subverted with Seagal himself as all of his action scenes are filmed with Stunt Doubles fighting in his place, while he's obviously lethargic and placid in the shots that do actually focus on him.
• Girly Run: Despite hyping himself up offscreen as an ultra-macho badass, he has a habit of running with his hands flailing wildly, causing mockers to compare it to this trope. This is one of the reasons why there aren't any shots of him running in his more recent movies (except through body doubles).

Edited by namsan on Jan 30th 2024 at 1:04:27 AM

Cut those entries right away, since they're both complainy and about a person and not their works.

"Kenny isn't evil, he just did a little too much trolling. :p" | He/Him

Yikes. Those can be cut.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

This has been the page quote for Disney Death for years, but I've always thought it was excessively negative:

---

---

If that's how you introduce a trope, then you're setting things off on the wrong footing. It just invites the audience to immediately despise the trope instead of understanding it.

"As long as I have my comrades with me, I can do anything!" (She/Her)

I agree with riolugirl. This isnt allowed.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

Removed. Which quote on Quotes.Disney Death should replace it? I'd prefer the Radioactive Man one.

x5 Also gone.

I'm back!

The Genie one would work for me. It's from a work by the trope namer, and it's lampshady without actively complaining about the trope. I'm not sure about the spoiler tags, though, so at a push the Radioactive Man one (with the potholes filled) would be fine.

Edited by Riolugirl on Jan 31st 2024 at 12:08:16 PM

"As long as I have my comrades with me, I can do anything!" (She/Her)

On the YMMV page for Re-Animated, there's a lot of hate towards Craig. Some specific examples:

• Designated Hero: Craig, Craig Craig, Craig, and let's not forget, Craig. He has a delusionally entitled view of friendship that Jimmy is just supposed to do whatever he says and never offers anything in return. Jimmy is condemned for leaving Craig to be the news spokesman for Appleday, even though he was better off without Craig in his life and Craig proved time and time again he didn't deserve any friends period.
• Jerks Are Worse Than Villains: Craig, Jimmy's horrendous excuse of a "best friend", is far more despised than Sonny, a Psychopathic Manchild who wants to kill Jimmy to further his own goals. The fact that the latter is Laughably Evil also helps his case.
• The Scrappy:
  • Craig may in fact be the most hated character from the movie. He's a terrible friend who takes advantage of Jimmy and has No Sympathy for anyone as he tries to be a part of the popular kids. Far less so in the show, however.
• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Craig is supposed to be Jimmy's best and only real friend, and yet he keeps using him, brushing off his inputs, accusing him of being a bad friend for things that are out of his control, and only cares about hanging out with the popular kids... and yet we're meant to feel sorry for him when Jimmy can't go to his party and cheer when he chooses his so-called friend over his career as Milt Appleday's successor. At this point, we can pretty much assume Jimmy only hangs out with him because Robin's his sister.

I know Mr. Enter didn't like Craig, but did the rest of the audience hate the character too?

Edited by SharkToast on Jan 31st 2024 at 5:38:57 AM

I agree, those entries are massive Craig-bashers, but beyond that, why did whoever added those entries feel the need to put Craig's name like half a dozen times just for emphasis, when simply putting his name in italics would have been enough?

These entries probably need to be cleaned up in some way, but I've started by removing the word cruft bonanza that is "Craig, Craig, Craig, etc."

I found this was commented out on the page:

• Accidental Aesop: Don't be an asshole like Craig.

Even if it had the proper context, should it even be on the page? This is just more character bashing.

Yeah, I cut that. There's more like it, and I also axed two examples that are solely about Craig being a jerk, one of which was your Jerks Are Worse Than Villains, and the other, Informed Wrongness. I also axed more bashing of the same character from the Esoteric Happy Ending example. Here's what remains:

• Esoteric Happy Ending: Jimmy finally realizes that he needs to stand up for himself and for what he wants, as well as who to consider as his real friends. However because he came to terms with this on live TV in front of an audience, his film crew immediately ditches him, leaving him to be killed by Sonny. Even after surviving that whole ordeal and making it to Craig's party as planned, the other partygoers immediately leave, insulting Jimmy for choosing to throw away his fans and popularity. In the end, this leaves Jimmy with Craig and Robin as his only friends.

Note that this item is at TRS due to misuse.

I'm back!

YMMV.Suicide Squad Kill The Justice League

• Fandom Rivalry:
  • Has developed a bit of this with Gotham Knights. While a lot of players are excited for both, many people who were turned off by Suicide Squad being another Beware the Superman story find Gotham Knights more interesting, since it will be the first time in a major AAA release that almost the entire extended Batfamily is both present, playable, AND the main focus; meanwhile, other people who were a little disappointed or turned-off that Knights wasn't an Arkham spin-off (including those that wished to play as that version of the family) are more interested in Squad, wanting a continuation of that series and trusting Rocksteady's track record. This has only increased after the game was released, with many arguing Gotham Knights had a far better send off for Batman than this game did.
  • Both games, however, naturally have one with Marvel's Avengers. While still an extension of the long-lasting Marvel vs. DC rivalry, several Marvel fans are very disgruntled with Marvel's Avengers due to its "live service" approach compared unfavorably to Destiny and Anthem, uninspired aesthetics that make it look MCU-lite rather than its own thing, boring gameplay, and controversial business practices such as keeping Spider-Man exclusive to PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5 as well an excessive amount of tie-ins with businesses like Verizon and Intel. And while neither Gotham Knights nor Suicide Squad have shown much gameplay, the developers behind them do have a good track record when it comes to comic book video games, so it's not unreasonable to assume that more people trust them to put out a good game than they do with Crystal Dynamics, the developers of Marvel's Avengers.

I mean are they even fans of these games? These feel like detractors damning their game with faint praise more than anything.

Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!

Either way the first one's outdated given both games are now out and from what I hear neither of them were good.

One cleanup thread later...

So a troper called Kizor just added a very long, bashy rant to the description of Sinfest along with a lengthy edit reason about how it's "Nazi bullshit". I know Sinfest is infamous for its creator's political viewpoints and general animosity towards like... every possible group of people, but this kind of thing doesn't go in work descriptions. I sent a complaining notifier but also wanted to bring it up here before reverting. They clearly feel strongly about this so I'd like a consensus for undoing it to show.

Yeah, I don't like those additions either. But since they've edited so often the description, the only thing that can repair it is a mod revert (since normal editors cannot rollback).

135 - 158 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

That's definitely inappropriate, even for a comic as terrible as contemporary Sinfest. And the comic's infamous political turn is already discussed later in the description, so it doesn't serve any informational utility.

back lol

They've stopped editing the page but haven't responded to my notifier so I'm not sure if they saw it or are just done with the edits for now.

The numerous smaller edits after the first big one were just editing the wording of the paragraphs they added into the description, so I think all of that can be taken out without needing a mod revert.

Replying.

I stand by my edit summary: This is both appropriate and necessary.

I hope it's not in dispute that Sinfest is Nazi bullshit. Not in the sense that I feel passionately about it. In the literal sense, without exaggeration or passion. When you keep making strips about Neo-Nazi talking points (Jews run the world, Jews hide the bodies of the victims they secretly murder and/or rape), using terminology invented and used exclusively by Neo-Nazis (ZOG, Zionist Occupational Government, aka the Jewish cabal that secretly controls America and/or the Western world), that's Nazi bullshit. I hope this is not in dispute.

When we host (if we host) Nazi bullshit, we need to say that it's Nazi bullshit.

If we don't, if we host it just like it's another innocuous comic or novel, we're promoting Nazi bullshit. I hope this, too, is not in dispute.

The single defining feature, most important thing to note about Nazi bullshit, is that it's Nazi bullshit. Not its long history. Not the size of its archive. The fact that it's Nazi bullshit goes front and center.

Before my edit, the fact that Sinfest is Nazi bullshit was conveyed in a small note of "transphobia and antisemitism" at the bottom of the fifth paragraph. This is completely inadequate for saying that it's Nazi bullshit (and again, I really hope it's not in dispute that it's Nazi bullshit the most literal sense, the comic's up to straight up blood libel now).

My way of stating that it's Nazi bullshit is appropriate and necessary to the importance of the issue, and no more.

My way of stating it is also a lot longer than how such things are stated in other Nazi works we feature, like Mein Kampf or Triumph of the Will. This, too, is necessary. Everyone knows they're Nazi bullshit, they've always been Nazi bullshit, they're nothing else than Nazi bullshit, you can just say "written by Adolf Hitler" or "directed by Leni Riefenstahl" and the fact that it's Nazi bullshit is adequately conveyed to the reader, and - this must not be neglected - TV Tropes does not have a ton of their images as trope images that make them out to be just another piece of media, not Nazi bullshit. None of these things are true about Sinfest. If we don't make it darn clear that it's Nazi bullshit, the most important fact about it, the fact that it's Nazi bullshit, will be a tiny detail, trivially easy to overlook in an overwhelming flood of details about how the author changed this and this character did that. That, I keep hoping we can all agree, is unacceptable. Therefore, the informational utility of making it loud and clear it is vast and vital.

Finally, my way of stating is, I think, neutral, it doesn't resort to insults. (Okay, except the the references to nuclear waste storage. You have a point there. Those can go. Personally I'd keep the note about how it got to be this way not mattering now that it is, but we can toss that too.) If I didn't have to be neutral, it could be a whole lot shorter. I could just write that Sinfest is messed up Nazi bullshit, boom, doneza. But I agree that would be obviously unacceptable, so instead I convey to the reader the essential, most important thing about Sinfest, how badly it's messed up (being Nazi bullshit) by listing ways it's messed up, with every item tying back to a specific instance of how it's messed up, instead of being there for the sake of complaining or insulting. One or two items would not get this across, they'd just read like a case of Unfortunate Implications or an otherwise sensible writer dropping the ball. The note about the comic being So Bad, It's Horrible is a bit lengthy but, to my estimation, also appropriate and something that needs saying (since it's Na... you get the idea), and every part of it ties back to an important part of how it is horrible, instead of being there for the sake of complaining and insulting, parts that I think we should convey to the reader. This is worthwhile information to people who enjoy bad works, ie. a ton of us and our readers.

We must not host Nazi bullshit without making it good and clear that it's Nazi bullshit, or we're guilty of pretending it's not Nazi bullshit.

Thank you.

Edited by Kizor on Feb 1st 2024 at 12:17:58 PM

It is not our job to call out "Nazi bullshit", though. TV Tropes is a wiki about documenting and celebrating fiction. Mentions of a work being controversial are fine in the appropriate venues like YMMV and Trivia, and more sparingly in the work page's description as long as they don't take over the essential information (synopsis, release date, brief history on its run, etc.), but in your case you're aiming to completely disregard the basic purposes of the work page in favor of gravitating all of it towards the numerous controversies it's been surrounded by. Your edits are very biased and should be reverted.

EDIT: Also, if you want tp present a reasonable argument, you have to start by stopping this repeated, persistent mention of "Nazi bullshit". It makes your post harder to be taken seriously.

Edited by MyFinalEdits on Feb 1st 2024 at 4:21:04 PM

135 - 158 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300