Follow TV Tropes
Unfortunate Implications examples require specific citations. However, many tropers have difficulties distinguishing if a citation fits the criteria needed. That is where this thread thread comes into play.
Confused about whether a citation is legit enough? Ask here then.
Two examples from The Mysterious Mr. Enter were removed from Unfortunate Implications under the statement that they're reviewers/blogs, not proper citations. Is Enter considered a citation or not?
That's one of the troubles with smaller fandoms. Say, I know plenty of controversies in the Warrior Cats fandom, but there aren't exactly dozens of professional blogs interested in a children's book series about talking cats who beat each other up. Most, if not all, citations would be from Tumblr blogs or Youtube Analysis Channels, which aren't proper citations.
On another note, is RebelTaxi a good citation?
From YMMV.The Powerpuff Girls 2016:
The example cites two Tumblr blogs. I remember I posted the Unfortunate Implications originally as just a placeholder until I found the website link I was looking for, but I couldn't find the link so I deleted the example for not being a proper citation. It was posted back with more content a while later.
Edited by Pichu-kun on Dec 30th 2018 at 7:32:37 AM
Gothel's design was based on Cher according to Wikipedia.
If fans are debating whether it falls under Unfortunate Implications, shouldn't it fall under Broken Base?
Only if there is very little middle ground in the argument, and said argument has also been going on for a long time.
I think it falls under "people making stuff up because they want to be offended".
The link in the following example:
Yeah, that's not a citation. It's just a character page on a wiki, and it doesn't even include a "controversies" header or anything of the sort.
So, are either RebelTaxi or Mr. Enter good enough citations or are they just internet reviewers?
Personally, I'd say yes, though only for smaller fandoms.
Larger, better known fandoms that draw wider media attention should probably draw from larger media outlets, IMO. No idea on how to enforce that, though.
That's a very arbitrary standard. Arbitrary standards encourage cliquish behaviour. I'd much rather an objective requirement that doesn't need to account for personal opinions.
I feel like the citation rule having limits is primarily meant to prevent someone from making an entry on their own blog or Tumblr page or whatever just to allow an example. By that reasoning internet reviewers are acceptable sources.
Edited by nrjxll on Jan 9th 2019 at 12:21:15 PM
I've asked on ATT and Analysis Channels aren't considered proper citations as they're considered basically blogs with animations. Reviewers probably have similar limitations.
Maybe it should be either be one respected and critical source (such as the news or an actual critic) or multiple less-respected sources? (such as internet reviewers). I can get the idea behind, say, not wanting something posted just because Mr. Enter complained about it, but what if Mr. Enter and ten other reviewers also complained? That might make a stronger case that it's an actual issue and not just someone's opinion.
I think that people are making this overly complicated.
The main reason for the citation requirements was to prevent super far fetched examples. Thus, a source can be everything except total nuts, I am not sure why all the other qualifiers were added but it looks supremely pointless to me.
Part of the problem is people are linking to random Tumblr posts instead of media sources, while that thread says something like "just about anything bigger than a blog should be fine."
I always thought it was anything that was more than just one person's opinion.
A blog is written by one person. If you have a column written by someone working for a larger media company, that column is most likely at least checked by others in the company. If you can point to a controversy caused by the implication, you probably also have a source. In that case, a blog written by a single person could count if that in itself points towards a more general opinion rather than just its own author.
I'm going to remove this example from Tangled's YMMV page because of improper citations:
If Enter is a viable citation then these two examples should be posted back to Unfortunate Implications:
There is an uncited Unfortunate Implications entry in I Favor The Villainess. It also happens to be the only entry on the page.
Is the proper course of action here to cutlist the page, or something else?
Should this thread be listed on the Unfortunate Implications article?
I read the entry and it sounds more like Family-Unfriendly Aesop so I switched it to that.
It doesn't seem like Family-Unfriendly Aesop. That's for a work with a valid moral, but one that's not in line with general morality (for example, "sometimes, violence really is the best solution"). Drawing a bad moral from a work is Warp That Aesop, which is a Just For Fun page on Darth Wiki that shouldn't be listed on a work's YMMV page.
Of course that doesn't mean violence is always the solution.
How do we feel about citations to journals that are behind a paywall?
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?