Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Remove.

From Memes Pokémon:

• SHEER VOLUME OF HIGH QUALITY ANIMATIONS!
  • "Flying turds".
  • The Tree
  • "Small indie company."
• "We are aware of your complaints, we aren't planning on doing anything about it. Sincerely, Masuda."
• "We brought back the bike. That's like bringing back the VS Seeker and/or Battle Frontier."
  • "GC: You’re potentially making the dream game of every Pokémon fan here. For years people have been asking for an open world game with modern, home console graphics. Was that something you were aware of when you were designing the game?
  • Both: [laughs]"

All of these come from a place of clear hostility, assuming that they’re even widespread enough to be called “memes”. The explanations given (not included here due to the device I’m posting on making a copy-paste difficult for labelnote markup) just drive that point home.

There are other negative-skewing memes, but they’re much less directly hostile.

I appreciate the confirmation. I’ll make the edit when I get back to a device that would not make such an edit difficult.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Aug 7th 2019 at 12:05:43 PM

Does look like complaining.

Oof, yeah that's bad. Maybe keep the tree one, but if the label note's bad then throw it out too.

Might want to add some context to the tree, because "The Tree", by itself, is zero context.

Well, that’s what the explanation tab was for. Granted, separate from that little group, it’s not too complainy on its own, but it probably would benefit from elaboration outside of the explanation labelnote.

My fault. Copy-paste is being a bit wonky for me right now.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Aug 7th 2019 at 12:28:47 PM

The tab didn't pop up in your post here, so I missed it.

Yeah, those Pokemon examples are really hostile, and while Memes.Pokemon does have other negatively skewed examples, they aren't as hostile as that. The only one of those that comes close to being widespread enough is the tree, but even then, that's being used to complain. I suspect people have been moving their complaints to that page since YMMV.Pokemon Sword And Shield was locked for attracting complaining.

I'm just going to remove those examples if there are no objections. The one involving interview is especially bad since labelnote admits that it was taken out of context.

Edited by ADrago on Aug 7th 2019 at 5:25:07 AM

...What in the heck pissed people off so much about this game anyway??

The discovery that a good chunk of the Pokemon won't even be coded into the game, for reasons that seem contradictory or false for many fans, such as the claim that the graphics required too much space being contrasted with graphics these fans consider substandard and rushed. A straw that broke the camel's back, if you will, when it came to Game Freak removing features fans enjoy.

Not trying to justify the bashy page, I just understand where it's coming from as I was quite vocal myself about this issue on Twitter when I first learned of it.

I went ahead and removed the problematic examples on Memes.Pokemon. Complaining aside, I feel that page, in general, could use a cleanup since a lot of the stuff listed are one-off jokes and comparisons that weren't widespread enough to be considered memes. This a problem Memetic Mutation, in general, suffers from.

Anyway, the YMMV page for YMMV.Cans Without Labels is real real bashy. I know the show is bad, but it feels a bit...much.

OvershadowedByControversy.Web Original:

• The "SU Critical" movement, a sub-sect of the Steven Universe fanbase dedicated to criticizing the later seasons of the show, is mainly known for a few controversies surrounding its members.
  • The movement in general is known for its reputation as embodying every negative stereotype about online social justice activists and Steven Universe fans. These include harassment, bullying, treating even the most minor of flaws as major, hating anything that can even remotely be considered offensive, low tolerance for opposing opinions, and insisting that the plot twist from "A Single Pale Rose" was a Shocking Swerve despite all evidence to the contrary.
  • Bismuth's Partner in Crime was one of the most prominent members of the movement to the point were he was some have called him the head honcho of the community. Already divisive among tumblr users, he became engulfed in several controversies that have made him a complete pariah inside and outside of the critical community. These include re-blogging Rule 34 of children's media (most infamously the Angry Birds picture) despite his open opposition to it, his apparent belief that evilfriends is directly responsible for his fanbase harrassing him, re-blogging what turned out to be rape porn and claiming that it was an accident, his defensive reactions to any sort of criticisms, and accusing underage users of being pedophiles.You can read about it all here.

As much as I hate SU Critical, the second bullet seems like a major break in ROCEJ and drama-importing.

jesus, yeah. never list or mention any specific people involved with drama. kill it with fire.

Earlier, pages that were originally in the Critical Research Failure namespace that were moved to Dan Browned were cut due to still having the complaining aspect. I noticed one of these pages, DanBrowned.Cracked, is still present. Should anything be done with it?

(x3) It seems too meta as well. A lot of series have critic sub-fandoms, but they don't seem tropable.

The part about "A Single Pale Rose" being a Shocking Swerve seems like an exaggeration. Pretty much the entire fandom has been on boat from that theory since mid-season 2. Only a few outliers probably think it's a swerve.

Edited by Pichu-kun on Aug 10th 2019 at 8:14:04 AM

They were on the boat at the time. After "Back to the Moon", nearly the entire fandom 180'd and thought the theory was impossible.

Nevertheless, I removed the "example" whole cloth. It's probably better not to have something like that, anyway.

I've cleaned up the description for the "Berserkly" section of Strawman U. The page seems significantly improved, but I am wondering if the "real schools to invoke this one" section should also be cleaned up. At the very least, the descriptions for Reed and Evergreen seem extremely suspect, and most of the rest aside from Berkeley (and even that needs to be cleaned up to avoid being Flame Bait) are hardly mentioned in media and thus seem to be just a way to sneak in real-life examples under the guise of "real schools used to invoke this trope".

I know for a period the show seemingly jossed the theory, but it was a Red Herring.

These two entries from "Bart the Lover" are questionable. Both were written by the same troper, so it's apparent that they had a bone to pick with this episode:

• Broken Aesop: It is better to let someone down easy after you've pulled a cruel, perhaps unforgivable prank on them. That is what Homer and Marge decide should be Bart's punishment for writing prank love letters to Mrs. Krabappel, rather than be real parents and force him to admit to both her and the principal, and possibly the superintendent as well what he had done and accept what surely would be severe consequences. Comment: A Broken Aesop is where the story's supposed message is contradicted by its narrative. However, this entry is simply complaining about a message that the troper didn't like or, more specifically, complaining that the episode didn't deliver the message that it should have.
• Idiot Ball: Couldn't Mrs. Krabappel recognize "Woodrow's" handwriting as being too similar to Bart's? And presuming that she has reasonable pop culture awareness, didn't she recognize the photo of "Woodrow" as ice hockey icon Gordie Howe? And what about his family not catching on that Bart wasn't exactly penning letters to a love interest? Comment: I don't know whether to consider this example incorrect. Regardless, however, the entry reads like a rant rather than an explanation of how the parties involved are being uncharacteristically stupid for the sake of plot convenience.

EDIT: I've removed the entries.

Edited by ArgonianLorekeeper on Aug 12th 2019 at 4:57:38 PM

100% agreed on the Broken Aesop entry. It's clear shoehorning.

The bit in Idiot Ball about Edna not recognizing an ice hockey player is ridiculous complaining for the sake of complaining; IIRC there's no indication that she follows ice hockey and no reasonable expectation that she should recognize the picture.

The bit about not recognizing Bart's handwriting might have a little more merit, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of Idiot Ball. That trope is about characters being stupider than they have otherwise been shown to be for the sake of the plot. Edna is rather lackadaisical about her teaching duties and has never been shown to have any great attention to detail; she's also quite desperate for love, so it's not inconceivable that she's simply so excited about each new letter that it never occurred to her to pay attention to the penmanship.

I move to cut both entries entirely.

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 11th 2019 at 3:39:20 AM

Remove Broken Aesop, since it's often misused to mean "aesop that's bad" instead of "aesop that's contradicted by the narrative".

I'm not sure how much Idiot Ball can even apply to The Simpsons since the show's cast, as I understand, is comprised of idiots or children.

YMMV.Simple Plan:

• Dork Age: They have entered these with Taking One For the Team. Similar to Weezer's Strictly Formula writing on their albums between Pinkerton and Ratitude, they seem to have boiled their essence down into a more childish mentality, weak lyrical content, and overall weaker songs than what they put out before that sound like they hearken back to their earlier albums, only without a lot of the wangst, thus having a lot of weak love songs, bad/mediocre crossover songs, and songs on the second half that make the album sound like it's aimed towards depressed people, which makes the album sound disconnected, as if they had no idea who they were making songs for and, thus, was trying to appeal to everyone. Not to say that they weren't here before then, but the fact that they've regressed in terms of their maturity in their writing and have 2 crossover songs reminiscent of others from the year before that album came out (see Were Still Relevant Dammit down below), they've hit a low in their songwriting.

Thoughts on the Dan Browned.Cracked page? Should it be removed for the same reason the other Dan Browned pages that were moved from Critical Research Failure were cut?