Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment - Violations, misuse, and other issues

I think Sirena's write-up is too long. A comprehensive discussion of terminology belongs on UsefulNotes.Romani IMO. The purpose of the note on Hot Gypsy Woman is to signal to the reader that the name "Gypsy" is no longer generally accepted in polite speech, even though we use it here to denote a certain stereotype.

Sorry for jumping the gun; I wasn't aware that the discussion was going so fast. Anyway I came up with the following version:

Does that sound good?

Edited by LordGro on Mar 11th 2021 at 10:46:15 AM

Let's just say and leave it at that.

"Romani" by itself is a plural term.

I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.

No it isn't. It is a singular form adjective.

Let's just say and leave it at that.

The point is that they're called Romani (or Roma), not Romanies.

Interestingly, "Romani" is a feminine adjective in the Romani language. Given the trope we're discussing, that has interesting implications.

Well, this is pretty common for language names to be feminine gender.

But yeah, in English both Romani and Roma are plural nouns. In the Romani language Roma would be masculine plural.

grammar aside, i find Gro's writeup acceptable; Sirena's with Rally's proposed changes would also be acceptable.

I'm also ok with Gro's version. But then we should rewrite the passage in the Useful Notes article and link it.

As for the commented-out note, is the following sufficient or is it missing something?

They don't have an all-encompassing name for themselves in their own languages. In their own languages, they are Roma, Sinti, Romanichal, Kále, Kalderash etc. These terms denote ethnic identities within the totality of all Romani people.

Both "Romani" (as a plural noun) and "Romanies" are neologisms coined specifically to denote the entirety of all Romani identities and thus, to replace the name "Gypsies". "Romani" as a plural noun is no more "correct" than Romanies.

The Roma are a large Romani group from Eastern Europe. Other groups do not traditionally call themselves by that name, and may perceive themselves as mislabeled.

Edited by LordGro on Mar 11th 2021 at 11:30:16 AM

Let's just say and leave it at that.

It's not but it's currently in far wider use (among English speakers). There's also Romanis, Rommanee, Romoney, Rommani. So we might want to keep it consistent. I'm actually not sure if we currently are on this wiki. That's a point though. But if one looks closer, there's even less ethnic or linguistic unity. We could also use the term "itinerant groups". (And in general, exonyms ain't a problem, only if stereotypes get attached to them like with "gypsy". For example, compare it to "Eskimo". That term is better than the endonym "Inuit" since there are also the Aleuts.)

Ok, so how do we solve this in a non-academic way?

tbh, it sounds largely above our pay grade. personally, i think Romani works better just because it's in much wider use, and imo using Romanies is just inviting it to get changed to Romani anyway by someone who thinks Romanies is incorrect, regardless of whether it is or not.

the option that makes less work for us is generally the preferable one, imo.

So I have a Misaimed Fandom entry in mind but I want to run it by here before I do anything.

So let's say there's a popular satire show that did an episode on a certain conspiracy group. The show depicts the group as ridiculous morons who rely on Insane Troll Logic to validate their own conspiracy theories. However, real-life members of the conspiracy group interpret the episode to be supporting their beliefs. Is it safe to write a Misaimed Fandom entry if I only refer to how the group was depicted in the show, without casting any judgment on the group proper?

....Why would I add a Strawman Has a Point entry when the point the show is making is antithetical to the point the fandom is interpreting, and the straw character making conspiracy arguments isn't really rational at all, and trying to claim that his conspiracy theories are right somehow would probably be a massive ROCEJ risk?

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 12th 2021 at 12:50:31 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Never mind

Edited by Nen_desharu on Mar 12th 2021 at 12:52:06 PM

Kirby is awesome.

There's this bit for the Tear Jerker entry on YMMV.Friday Night Funkin Corruption that (part in question bolded)...

• It's been confirmed that Pico and Boyfriend used to be a couple, that being the only reason the Ax-Crazy schizophrenic psychopath that is Pico didn't just shoot Boyfriend when he was hired to. Pico tried his best to save Corrupted Boyfriend, who he still valued more than The Father's money, and went down in the process.

Yeah. Pico is indeed Ax-Crazy and canonically schizophrenic, but I feel putting them together comes across as... Unfortunate, especially to one without that context. Is it just me?

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

for one thing, scare formatting is frowned upon, so id get rid of all that. in itself, that makes the entry seem less belligerent. here's an attempt at a rewrite:

• It's been confirmed that Pico and Boyfriend used to be a couple. This is the only reason Pico, who suffers from schizophrenia and is Ax-Crazy to boot, didn't carry out a hit on Boyfriend when he was contracted to do so. Pico tried his best to save Corrupted Boyfriend, who he still valued more than The Father's money, and went down in the process.

Thank works! Thank you

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Is the schizophrenia part even really necessary to the example? I don't know the work, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the emphasis here seems to be on the psycho-killer part.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I... don't know, actually? The schizophrenia is the reason why he carries the gun around, but he's still a hitman.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Okay, I noticed this entry on the Characters.Moana page, and it's giving me really bad vibes. I wanted other people's opinion on it, especially the last sentence, given that the only difference between Maui's face and the faces of other male characters in the film is that Maui is carrying extra weight, giving his face an overweight look (compared to other males).

Am I right to feel like there's a racist vibe coming off this post?

• Adaptational Ugliness: Maui in Polynesian Mythology is described as being a thin, lithe, handsome teenager on the verge of manhood that usually has his hair tied back in a neat topknot or ponytail. The movie portrays him as a massive, muscular adult with a head of thick, wild hair. However, his broad, round face, big nose, bigger mouth, heavy brow, sloped forehead and small, piggish eyes, makes him rather weird-looking.

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Yeah, I don't know if the film intentionally wanted to make Maui ugly, just bulkier than the other men. But he's definitely not played as attractive like the original seems to be, either. So maybe the example counts, but the last line should be cut for the unnecessary Unfortunate Implications that sound more like audience projection.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I've just had a look through the history of the page. The original entry was written like this:

• Adaptational Ugliness: Maui in Polynesian Mythology is described as being a thin, lithe, handsome teenager on the verge of manhood. When Moana finds him, he looks nothing like the Maui of Polynesian Mythology. For one thing, he’s big, really big — somewhere between Dwayne Johnson and an Airstream trailer. He also has a great head of thick, wild hair (in most versions, Maui’s hair is tied back in a neat topknot or ponytail) and biceps bigger around than his Moana’s waist.

It was edited to this by another troper who felt the original entry didn't fit the trope, so wanted to emphasis his appearance as 'plain-looking':

• Adaptational Ugliness: Maui in Polynesian Mythology is described as being a thin, lithe, handsome teenager on the verge of manhood that usually has his hair tied back in a neat topknot or ponytail. The movie portrays him as a massive, muscular adult with a head of thick, wild hair. However, his broad, round face, big nose, bigger mouth, heavy brow, sloped forehead and small, piggish eyes, makes him rather plain-looking, at best.

Then a third troper changed the entry to the current entry (which involved changing 'plain-looking, at best' to 'weird-looking'). There was no edit reason for this change.

Given this, do you mind if I rewrite it as this:

• Adaptational Ugliness: Maui in Polynesian Mythology is described as being a thin, lithe, handsome teenager on the verge of manhood that usually has his hair tied back in a neat topknot or ponytail. The movie portrays him as a massive, muscular adult with a head of thick, wild hair, and who is slightly bulkier than other men.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Mar 14th 2021 at 12:11:59 PM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Good rewrite, but does Maui even count as ugly?

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

the write-up sounds good to me.

the way that edit is worded reads *extremely* dodgy to me. a lot of those features are common in racial minorities. i would alert the mods about it and request that they investigate the editor who originally went into so much detail about Maui's appearance.

i don't think he has to be flat-out ugly, merely less attractive.

Edited by ChloeJessica on Mar 14th 2021 at 7:18:51 AM

I think Adaptational Ugliness can qualify if the character goes from "specifically depicted as neat and beautiful" to "not really depicted as attractive or ugly, and loses the elements that made him supposedly beautiful in the original."

Link to the edit, BTW. I'm giving the troper the benefit of the doubt that they didn't consciously realize how many features considered "ugly" in Western works are also associated with people of color.

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 14th 2021 at 8:21:36 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Well, I never thought so. But he's certainly no more handsome than the other characters, and is visually portrayed as a bit overweight compared to the other male characters. Nothing, however, is ever said about his appearance that I can recall, beyond his one blink-and-you'll-miss-it boast about his body.

So, that seems to be a case of 'less attractive' than the original Maui, rather than 'ugly'?

The edit was made in 2017. Should I still report it despite its age?

Oooh. I did not know we could link directly to edits. New skill assimilated!

Edited by Wyldchyld on Mar 14th 2021 at 12:25:26 PM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

AT the end of the YMMV page for MLP: Rollercoaster of friendship, a weblink is used as an example.

"Listen up, Marina, because this is SUPER important. Whatever you do, don't eat th“ “DON'T EAT WHAT?! Your text box ran out of space!”