Complaining: The Scrappy

Depends upon what additional criteria you have.

I don't think that the "renaming" option is accurate because Scrappy was popular at first and then became unpopular because he always took up the spotlight from the other characters.

Someone should copy and paste the source of the subpages and save it.

Base Breaker got all its examples removed because it was extremely difficult to determine whether or not a character had a huge fandom and hatedom. Every character has its devotees and detractors after all. The Scrappy is more noticeable though. I too don't want to see the examples go, The Scrappy is already on YMMV pages though. We have a clean up thread going(just need more people for that effort) so I'm still of the opinion that keeping it locked (like with Creator's Pet and Complete Monster) and going through the examples.

Out of curiosity why are Base Breaker and Broken Base separate tropes, and why does the latter allow an example section when its counterpart doesn't?

Base Breaker is the cause and Broken Base an effect. We don't lump causes and effects into the same pages. TRS decided against the example cut on Broken Base because that is a neutral thing while Base Breaker is often a negative attribute.

Basically yeah, Broken Base is a simpler observation that a fandom is highly divided over near everything. Base Breaker is identifying individual characters, story points, etc and that easily gets out of control.

The one thing I notice about The Scrappy page is how many examples are a Wall of Text, several even deciding to split it up into paragraphs describing the hatred of a character. That kind of passion is not healthy individually and for the wiki.

Lastly, there was a YKTTW that tried to push a "demoted to scrappy" trope where a characters starts off popular and later becomes hated, which I felt was redundant because a good number of scrappies become that way and are not like that from the moment they are first seen.

edited 6th Jun '13 11:37:35 AM by KJMackley

Personally, I think that makes them better than the Zero Context Examples I encounter elsewhere.

KJ Mackley may have been talking about the paragraphs bashing the characters, rather than explaining in a good way why the character is despised.

edited 6th Jun '13 1:05:06 PM by MsCC93

Hmm...I can see both sort of items.

Some of these examples are unbiased and impartial, explaining why a character is disliked by fans. An example is this:

* The talking gargoyles from Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They're Actually Pretty Funny but a lot of fans feel that their overly comedic natures undermine the darker elements of the movie.

This example does not bash, but explains why fans felt they hurt the movie. These examples are informative and useful, and I'd hate to see the well-written ones cut. The examples that say "this character sucks because he's annoying", which is basically saying "why I hate this character", need to go, or be revised for impartiality. I still stand by locking the page.

EDIT: First paragraph works. Cut second.

edited 6th Jun '13 2:12:06 PM by Rethkir

It's been my experience that if you can't explain something in 5 or 6 sentences then it calls into question the validity of the example if you have to spend so much time proving it. If there is a unbroken paragraph filling up my entire computer screen I figure it is not worth reading.

Ummm don't we plan to move the examples onto the work's YMMV pages? They aren't gonna be completely gone, you know?

Maybe. It won't fix the inbound issue, you know.

The Scrappy are already on YMMV pages. As far as inbounds go, I have no clue what's to be done about that, But looks like Example Sectionectomy is winning.

As an aside, 41-25 is not enough to cut pages some of which have hundreds of inbounds.

Ummm I agree, but we aren't making the decision immediately. Don't we have to wait a few more days or weeks anyways?

Plus, I think (That if the leading option wins) we should place the examples in the sandbox and post the links on the discussion page for the main scrappy page, so we can guarantee that the examples will not be lost. (that's if the leading example wins).

edited 6th Jun '13 1:19:18 PM by MsCC93

Usually, we call crowners when they are stable. If no option has consensus by then we don't do anything.

As another note, sandboxes don't last forever.

Well, on the day we call the decision and the leading option wins, I think I should save the examples on a microsoft document first, and then I can dump them onto their respective YMMV pages.

We are not ruled by crowners. I locked that one off. Howsabout we just leave alone this popular thing that is not causing any trouble beyond troubling some people who have a compulsion to apply strict rules to everything?

Just set the thing to YMMV status and move on.

edited 6th Jun '13 8:58:58 PM by FastEddie

That's fine by me. 48152 inbounds speaks for itself. Do we still wanna clean and/or lock?

edited 6th Jun '13 10:10:04 PM by Rethkir

I was expecting this to happen, really. It is already YMMV, for the record.

I'll just ask for some time to remove natter from the subpages, then we can close this off.

Cleanup given. Took off some contestations and improved the Example Indentation.

So how come I did see this coming?

So were not gonna lock the pages either? Okay then =/. I mean, this trope was going through a lot of misuse and we still can't get rid of the bad ones?

edited 7th Jun '13 3:28:25 AM by MsCC93

The other thread is still open, mind you, although it may not mean anything.

Well. You're right because tropers would just add back bad examples anyway. I mean, I would have even gone along with the "locking up subpages" if my personal choice didn't go through. So, are we locking this thread?