Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Look at this from Elmo Saves Christmas:

• Angst? What Angst?: Averted. Unlike other stories that have used this concept, it takes the people of Sesame Street quite some time to really get tired of Christmas Every day. When lightning takes Elmo into the future to May, five months after Elmo made the wish, everyone is perfectly happy enjoying both the new season and Christmas. Two months later on the fourth of July, everyone's attitude starts to turn lukewarm, but nothing exceptionally horrid. It isn't until the following December 25th, a whole year after Elmo made the wish that everyone is legitimately unhappy and sick of Christmas being everyday. Cut to a year later and everyone is broke because they have to buy Christmas presents every day, the Fix-It shop is out of business because they can't be open on Christmas, carolers have lost their voices, Big Bird is despondent because Snuffy is away for the holiday (forever!), and the Count is tired of counting Christmases. Santa himself is a wreck. Elmo gets a chance to press the Reset Button, therefore saving Christmas - when he was the one who ruined it.

This was called a non-example, but the troper listed it as an aversion.

An aversion is a non-example, since it means the trope is completely absent; this is covered on Playing with a Trope. Plus, YMMV items can't be played with either way.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 27th 2019 at 2:52:39 PM

Someone added back the inverted It's Short, So It Sucks! example on YMMV.Olafs Frozen Adventure but made it more neutral, despite Audience Reactions being unable to be played with. Maybe the example can be moved under Internet Backdraft.

I reremoved it and added a comment.

Am I the only one who thinks Kingdom Hearts III could use a look? That is one seriously huge Internet Backdraft section for a game that's been out two days.

Ow, that section could use some trimming. Especially because it relies on lone third-bullets (cue sirens of misindentations sounding.

Not just lone third-level bullets. That page's indentation is all over the place. I spotted a lone first-level bullet (as in, doesn't have a trope attached to it; I'm assuming that this was probably meant to be a second-level bullet under the lone second-level bullet above it).

Edit: Page is locked, so it can't be fixed yet.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 31st 2019 at 5:48:27 AM

From the history there also seem to be quite a lot of people deleting entries they don't agree with, despite, of course, the whole point of a YMMV page being to document tropes fans disagree on.

The pages for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek: Nemesis, two of the most maligned Star Trek movies, have image captions that are criticizing the movies.

Should we also cut some other non-straight examples listed on YMMV.The Emoji Movie? Admittedly, I do believe that it is logically possible to play with YMMV tropes and Audience Reactions to certain degrees, but I'd rather favor policy and make inversions their own tropes.

Here's a list:

• Eight Point Eight is inverted. Turns out the "inversion" is a valid straight example.
• And You Thought It Would Fail is downplayed.
• Award Snub has various neutrality issues. The last example includes possible natter and an apparent inversion.
• Critic-Proof is zigzagged.
• Friendly Fandoms is inverted? It says that "Friendly Hatedoms" would be more accurate.
• He Panned It, Now He Sucks! is inverted, with that word being in bold letters.
• Moral Event Horizon is an unintentional example since it's not the villain who crosses it but rather the Designated Hero. Does this count?

It Was His Sled and Too Cool to Live also seem like Square Peg Round Trope.

Edited by Brainulator9 on Feb 1st 2019 at 4:05:09 AM

@costanton11 Bomberman Act:Zero also has the same issue.

Edited by Albert3105 on Jan 31st 2019 at 4:01:34 AM

I brought up the aforementioned captions to the General Caption Repair Thread.

Re: Emoji: Need a second opinion on Eight Point Eight.

The other played with examples have been canned; comment left on top.

That's what I thought. Leaving it as is.

Edited by Berrenta on Jan 31st 2019 at 11:18:16 AM

The Eight Point Eight example can stay since Eight Point Eight can also apply to examples of people thinking a critic rated something too highly.

About the Kingdom Hearts III Internet Backdraft, I brought it up here. I propose cutting the following:

• Anything pre-release, which falls under Tainted by the Preview.
• The ones involving Fan Myopia and Vocal Minority, which admit gives unfair emphasis.
• Those that say some are unhappy but others aren't, which is trying to sneak in a premature Broken Base.
• "Cyber Monday 2018" and "Gamestop" for being about companies not the game itself.
• "The treatment of the female characters" since it's covered by Faux Action Girl / Badass Decay and seem like an attempt to sneak in a uncited Unfortunate Implications.

Where do we start a discussion on what to do with Internet Backdraft? It's complaining by definition and lacks any restrictions or rules as what counts. We can't even tell if it is misused without discussing it in forums. Since we added a waiting period to Broken Base, they've just moved complaints there thad now lack counterbalance.

Maybe Internet Backdraft should be like Badass; too broad to be a trope itself but kept as a super trope we replace with fitting sub tropes.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jan 31st 2019 at 6:04:06 AM

On the Star Trek V page... The description is far worse.

Fine, the movie sucked. Let's just not make the page join the hate train, because that's not what the wiki is for.

Update: Know Your Meme has has noted the Cyber Monday part so I'll keep that but delete the rest.

How about this: all Internet Backdraft entries need a citation (link to a reputable source discussing the backdraft as opposed to partaking) to prove it's widespread enough to count.

Found this on Funny.Ghost Stories

While not bashing a specific work, this seems unnecessarily negative to me. Regardless of your opinions on Christianity and its intersection or lack thereof with science, implying that all Christians are so non-scientific that one even sharing voice talent with an scientist character is laughable goes a bit too far for ROCEJ, I think.

Add to that the fact that it's a misuse of Irony, a minor (albeit easily fixable) violation of Examples Are Not Current, and not really funny to begin with, imo (is it really odd or hilarious that voice actresses do different roles with different traits during their careers?), and this seems like something that should be cut to me, but I'm new to the more curatorial side of the wiki and hesitant to just cut things without asking anyone about it.

Should I try to clean this up, or just cut it?

It's got no point. I say cull it.

That entry manages to come across as potentially offensive to everyone involved - Christians, scientists, Christian scientists, and even arguably actors. Eliminate it with extreme prejudice.

Consider it gone, then.

Still seems to be some fighting on Kingdom Hearts III. Not sure it's a true edit war but I've noticed a lot of people editing and reverting other people's opinions on whether or not such-and-such story beat qualifies for such-and-such negatively-tinged YMMV.

DanBrowned.Honest Trailers is full of shoehorned examples, complaining, and nitpicking. Dan Browned is supposed to be about a work whose creator claims to have done meticulous research on the subject matter, but in fact made it all up.

If the people behind Honest Trailers ever made such a claim, I've never heard about it. And even then, the majority of entries on that page aren't disputing matters of fact that can be proved or disproved through research, but matters of opinion like whether Pocahontas was a "good" Disney musical.

If this is representative of the general quality of Dan Browned example subpages, it might warrant a dedicated cleanup.

Edited by HighCrate on Feb 8th 2019 at 6:06:22 AM

From YMMV.Kim Possible:

• Internet Backdraft: The trailer for the film did not sit well with the fanbase (with over half as many dislikes over likes in under 24 hours), with some even comparing it to Spy Kids. Let's leave it at that.

I don't get the Spy Kids reference. Is it talking about the special effects or the quality? I think that part of the sentence should be removed either way.

That was probably originally a Critical Research Failure subpage, and was moved to Dan Browned after Critical Research Failure's TRS thread sifted through examples (particularly on dedicated subpages) that misused it to mean "absolutely any research error" instead of the proper "incredibly obvious errors regarding basic knowledge" definition (example: The "bats aren't bugs" page image). Your pothole seems to be misusing it the same way.

Critical Research Failure inherited the complainy misuse that got Did Not Do the Research added to the Permanent Red Link Club (Wayback Machine archives posted in the TRS thread showed that misuse of CRF grew after DNDTR was cut), and I'd prefer not to see that seep into other research error-related tropes, like Dan Browned. If nothing's worth salvaging from the Honest Trailers subpage, just cutlist the page.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Feb 9th 2019 at 6:08:59 AM