Follow TV Tropes
On the DR 3 page, I believe that almost all of them warrant entry. I've been one of the less critical people on the show, I've been more tolerant that a lot of people have to things that it did, and I feel that a lot of them have merit. A lot of them can definitely be re-worded, because some of them do sound like a one-sided hate train, but we certainly shouldn't dismiss them.
I agree that Dragon Ball Super should be cut, but I tweked some entries that I think counted so that they fit the new criteria.
For example, anything talking about the Super's manga and anime difference can easily be turned into a single bullet point that covers the massive fandom split from anime and manga fans.
And this entry should be fine under the new critieria after an edit or 2.
edited 17th May '17 3:17:03 PM by VeryMelon
The criteria for inclusion are:
If you think that an example on the page counts, rewrite it so that it firmly establishes those criteria. Because right now literally none of them do. I'm not saying that none of them are valid examples in and of themselves, just that as written, none of them make a good case for themselves.
Those writeups are way, way better than anything that's on the page now, but I think they're still too narrow. They don't fit the "no middle ground" criteria because there's a huge faction of Dragon Ball fans that just plain doesn't care one way or the other about anything specific to Super.
edited 17th May '17 3:46:34 PM by HighCrate
I'm unsure if the "no middle ground" criteria has to be proven or not. There's nothing in either write-up to suggest a middle ground exists to the person reading it, at least to me.
I am telling you that I know from personal experience that there is a very large middle ground there. It's not a matter of how it's written in this case, it's a matter of it not being an example because the Dragon Ball fandom as a whole is not split over these things.
edited 17th May '17 4:04:20 PM by HighCrate
The only one of those examples I'm familiar with is the SM Crystal one, about the art, but I'm not familiar enough to rewrite it properly. On the other hand, I'm also not familiar enough to know if people moved on or not.
So we need proof then.
Adding a followup to Hyuuga, yes, DR 3 qualifies. This isn't like the Broken Base material with NDRV 3, where much of the BB was caused by misinformation and people being ignorant (just check out Comun's tumblr for that), here most of the arguments at least have some degree of validity.
It's difficult to "prove" a negative; there's not much you can do beyond saying something to the effect of "there is no middle ground."
Over on the Expy cleanup thread, they have a standard that examples must be "unambiguous," which they define as, "There is no doubt, there is no room for arguing that they aren't."
This might be a case where we need something like that.
edited 17th May '17 4:34:21 PM by HighCrate
Well, me and Hyuuga are DR fans, so I'd argue we'd have more idea then.
He was talking to Melon, Eternity. Not you.
Sorry, was replying to Very Melon about Super.
As far as Dangonropa goes, I'm not saying that its fanbase isn't broken; I'm saying that none of the entries in its subpages are written in such a way that I, as a non-fan, can read them and know whether it is or isn't.
edited 17th May '17 4:56:51 PM by HighCrate
Well, the problem there is that DR 3 is written for fans (in theory anyway, the execution not so much), so many of the complaints are inevitably going to be tied to the fandom for fans.
However, say I read some Broken Base entries on, say, Blaz Blue, a series that I don't know too terribly much about. Discounting any gameplay reasons, I wouldn't understand too much of it because I'm not a fan of the series.
That's why we've set out some very simple and clear criteria that we can apply to each example. If an entry is written such that it establishes those criteria, then it's a good example.
If it's not, then it may not be immediately apparent to a non-fan whether it's a Zero Context Example or Not An Example at all, but it is clear that it's a bad entry that needs to be either cut or fixed.
So. We agree that the DR subpage, as written, does not fit the criteria. As a non-fan, all I can do is cut them for lack of context. If you, as a fan, tell me that they can be fixed by adding context, then great. Go for it.
edited 18th May '17 9:42:19 AM by HighCrate
Created Sandbox.Broken Base Sailor Moon Crystal, Sandbox.Broken Base Dangan Ronpa 3, and Sandbox.Broken Base Dragon Ball Super and copied the live pages over there in their entirety so that anyone who wishes can go through and look for salvageable examples.
Cutlisting them in the meantime, because as things stand, none have any valid examples.
Will move on to the main Anime & Manga page next.
Created Sandbox.Broken Base Anime And Manga and copied the live page over there for the benefit of anyone who wishes to check for salvageable examples.
Potentially valid examples:
This is the sort of issue that can legitimately break a base, but as written it's slanting more towards the complaining side. It also fails to establish that the conflict is sustained, exceptionally vicious, and that there's no middle ground.
Potentially valid and establishes "sustained" and "no middle ground" by implication, but fails to establish "exceptionally vicious".
Fails to establish "sustained," "exceptionally vicious," and "little to no middle ground," but is the sort of issue that legitimately does break bases. Might be fixable with more context.
Establishes "exceptionally vicious" by implication, describes a legit-sounding two-faction split (classic fans versus relative newbies), and implies "sustained" by describing an entire decade when this war was at its hottest. About the only thing it's missing is "no middle ground"; I'm not familiar enough with the Gundam fandom to speak to that. Can anyone illuminate for us?
Goes out of its way to establish it as more vicious than the typical "which is better" discussion and that there's little middle ground. More firmly establishing "sustained" would be nice, but it at least implies it by framing it as a series vs. series conflict, which are usually relatively long-term. Firmly establishes two conflicting factions. Pretty good example.
Establishes two competing factions and no middle ground and at least implies "exceptionally vicious." Not sure it passes the "sustained" test, though. Thoughts?
Firmly establishes two competing factions with a sustained (multi-arc) conflict, but doesn't establish the "exceptionally vicious" or "no middle ground" criteria. Might be a good example with more context?
Firmly establishes two competing factions with no middle ground and an exceptionally vicious conflict that is sustained over time. Textbook example, and maybe the only one so far that can stay as written with no additional context needed.
It's the sort of issue that can divide a fandom, but it doesn't establish that the split was sustained or exceptionally vicious.
Describes two competing factions, and a sustained conflict is at least implied, but it stops short of "exceptionally vicious with no middle ground." Might be a good example in need of further context.
It describes two entrenched factions with an exceptionally vicious conflict with no middle ground. It could stand to more firmly establish that the conflict is a sustained one though.
I was going to add this on BrokenBase.Literature, then remembered this thread and figured I might as well run the entry by here before it has to be deleted afterwards anyway. So, unless there are any objections, I'd like to add this on BrokenBase.Literature:
edited 19th May '17 2:05:40 PM by Derkhan
Those are actually both pretty good. They establish a sustained conflict with two opposing factions, and the fact that they frame each of those factions as roughly half of the fanbase strongly implies the lack of a middle ground. The only strike against it I can see is the last line of the first example. If the fandom is able to set aside its split and be reasonable on a semi-regular basis, then it's Not An Example and the whole thing should be scrapped. If doing so is a relative rarity, then noting that it sometimes happens just muddies the waters and the line should be deleted.
Moving on to Comic Books, starting with BrokenBase.All New All Different Marvel.
Starting with the first line, "Basically every single thing announced about ANADM has gotten the fans at each others' throats," I'm suspicious about this page. If everything is a Broken Base, then nothing is. The fact that the first two entries are written in the future tense makes me even more suspicious. We don't trope things that haven't happened yet.
Sure enough, the page is riddled with Weasel Words and one-sided and/or extremely context-light entries. Only one looks even potentially valid from my perspective:
This at least describes two entrenched factions— Inhumans fans vs. X-Men fans within the larger "Marvel fandom" umbrella— but doesn't establish "sustained," "exceptionally vicious," or "no middle ground."
Moving on to BrokenBase.DC Rebirth:
This is another one that appears to have largely been written using pre-release information and never revised since. Virtually all of the entries fail the "sustained" test by definition— the run being barely a year old— and most of them fail in other ways as well. Not seeing anything worth saving here.
edited 20th May '17 7:26:32 AM by HighCrate
And finally, the main BrokenBase.Comic Books page (the old page has been copied over to Sandbox.Broken Base Comic Books so that anyone who wishes can comb through it for salvageable examples even as we make cuts to the live page). This page is a mess of entries that are really just Base-Breaking Character (which is No Examples Please), complaining, natter, Thread Mode, and minor squabbles that most fans just plain don't actually care that much about. Entries I think may be potentially salvageable:
I do remember this one being fairly controversial within the Spidey fandom, but it also seemed to die down after a while. Can anyone comment on whether this passes the "sustained" test?
This is the sort of issue that can legitimately break a fanbase, and it also establishes "sustained" and at least implies "exceptionally vicious." It doesn't really describe who the factions are particularly well, though.
This describes a potentially legit split— between fans of three different versions of Batgirl— but then gets off-track talking about a second split (Babs-as-Oracle fans vs. Babs-as-Batgirl fans) that should really get its own entry if valid, and then descends into complaining. (It's also followed by several secondary bullet points' worth of natter and Thread Mode which I've cut.) I could probably take a fair stab at rewriting this one myself, but would prefer to hand the job over to someone more knowledgeable if possible.
I'm somewhat new here, so please correct me if I'm(most likely) being wrong, but I looked into the Broken Base trope & it said there a Broken Base is cause with each oppose sides being incredibly vocal about their opinion/perspective with little to no middle ground. If this is the case why has the Dragonball Super's broken base has been deleted given how incredibly vocal they can be? Especially since you said you yourself know how divided the fanbase can be?
A Broken Base isn't just "any time any fans anywhere disagree on anything," which would be People Sit On Chairs. It's "a sustained and exceptionally vicious conflict between two or more large, vocal, and entrenched factions with little or no middle ground to be found between them."
Dragonball Super is less than two years old, so only the oldest of conflicts about it stand any kind of chance of being considered "sustained." In my experience, it goes more like, "episode comes out, fans find something to disagree about in it, then the next episode comes out and they forget all about it."
I haven't noticed any coherent, unified factions forming around DBS. Fans are certainly vocal, but that's not the same as something like, say, the Harry/Hermoine vs. Ron/Hermoine shippers in the Harry Potter fandom, or TNG fans vs. TOS fans in Star Trek fandom. Those were clear-cut factions divided over a specific issue. DBS doesn't, as far as I can tell, have that.
Finally, there's a huge built-in middle ground in any DBS-centered conflict, which is the fact that there's a large contingent within the Dragon Ball fandom that simply doesn't care too much one way or the other about anything that's not based on Toriyama's original manga run (and, usually, the Z era specifically).
Any way you look at it, it's a contentious fanbase sure, but not one that's broken in the way the trope describes.
edited 21st May '17 7:36:11 PM by HighCrate
The Green Lantern Broken Base (which is really for "who should be the primary human Green Lantern") roughly breaks into three factions:
1. Old school Hal Jordan fans/Superfriends fans who feel his character was assassinated by turning him into the supervillain Parallax during the Zero Hour event.
2. Kyle Rayner fans who feel that he's the most creative user of the Green Lantern (and that Hal was a bland character with little personality) and carried the franchise post-Zero Hour.
3. Fans of Justice League/Justice League Unlimited cartoons who were first introduced to John Stewart and wonder why comic book fans are arguing about two white guys when Green Lantern is a black ex-Marine.
There are other popular human Green Lanterns, but you won't find Guy Gardner fans or Simon Baz fans claiming that they should be the primary focus of the main Green Lantern series. Hal versus Kyle is particularly vicious (although bring Hal back to life and the Parallax-emotion spectrum retcon has made it calm down a little).
Though they really shouldn't be considered examples of Broken Base either.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?