So You Want To... Clean up a namespace?

I agree, and I think the crowner options could be:

• Remove the "Greats" and "Epic Fails" sections
• Keep the "Greats" and "Epic Fails" sections, but rename one or both of them
• Keep the "Greats" and "Epic Fails" sections, but clean them up

Honestly, while I don't like those sections, I also don't really like these pages in general, so I'm not entirely clear on why they're dramatically worse than all of the stuff in there that brings up preexisting works as points of comparison.

There's also "replace the Greats and Epic Fails section with a single quality-agnostic section as described here".

So I was reading through the page SoYouWantTo.Write A Magnificent Bastard, and I noticed the following line:

This line honestly just sounds wrong, because I know of some approved Magnificent Bastard characters who did experience possession or mind-control by another character. It also just sounds really arbitrary.

I don't think this is an actual rule, since Administrivia.Magnificent Bastard makes no mention of such a thing. So I'm wondering if this is an actual rule or just one editor's opinion.

Sorry for the late reply, but I feel like you're misinterpreting the point of that SYWT page. It doesn't read like a page for writing a character that counts as an MB – it's about writing one that elicits that reaction from the audience.

Or, at least, that's what I think. It's a very wordy page, especially compared to other pages in the namespace. That, and I saw some trope-slashing, of all things, in the "other tropes" folder. I'd be happy to work with thread regulars to make the page more concise, so long as we keep the page's meaning intact.

Is that a good point for the page to have, though? My impression is that Magnificent Bastard should be an objective trope but was used so much for gushing about how awesome someone's favorite villain was that it has to be YMMV and go through the convoluted approval process. I'm not sure a page that leans into the idea of it being an Audience Reaction is a good idea. From your description, I suspect the page may be a relic of when Magnificent Bastard was more widely misused.

That's not to say the page isn't valid, but maybe it shouldn't have Magnificent Bastard in the name if it gets across a misleading idea of what that trope is.

From my perspective, it feels counter-intuitive to have a "... Write a Magnificent Bastard" page, since MB is YMMV. Creating something that is a dependent on audience reaction seems not very feasible.

We also have Write a Complete Monster, which also falls under YMMV, so that would probably have to go as well if we cut the Magnificent Bastard one.

And then there's the whole Troublesome Trope section on SoYouWantTo.See The Index, most of which are YMMV or Flame Bait.

So I gotta ask. Do we need Write a Complete Monster? I thought ymmv tropes like this don't get so you want to pages?

I think they also encourage the "badge of honour" mentality that we've had a problem with in the threads

It and Write a Magnificent Bastard are also somewhat redundant with the two tropes' Administrivia pages, and have grown bloated with potholes for characters' names. I wouldn't mind deleting these pages, but we should also find a way to preserve Kosha Vinka's page images for them.

Edited by ShootingStar7X on Feb 2nd 2024 at 3:25:02 AM

I don't necessarily mind their existence but if they keep they need a lot of cleaning.

How should we go about doing that? To start, I'd suggest removing all those character name potholes.

I can see the value in having a page for Magnificent Bastard as it can be tricky to write convincing mastermind characters and I imagine a lot of aspiring writers might want advice on that.

I don't see the purpose of giving Complete Monster a page. That's not a tricky trope to write. Just make an evil character with no redeeming qualities.

I think it’s worth having a page for Complete Monster. As the analysis page notes, while it may be simple to add an irredeemably evil character to a work, writing one well is trickier, and a page to give advice on that fills a useful role. I do think the lists of associated tropes and examples could stand to be trimmed down, though.

Edited by EthanLac on Feb 3rd 2024 at 10:07:39 AM

I don't think the pages are inherently harmful in and of themselves (the MB one in particular honestly looks basically fine minus a few of the "examples" that plague the CM page), but the CM page frankly needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. It's a natter-filled mess, and I think it needs to begin by just removing every single one of the parenthetical "examples".

Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Feb 3rd 2024 at 3:51:32 PM

its also spending almost half its length on explaining the qualifications and disqualifications for counting a character as a Complete Monster, which is both off topic and explored elsewhere in great detail. Probably doesn't need more than a paragraph to cover that part

agree its best just to start from scratch

Edited by Tremmor19 on Feb 3rd 2024 at 4:14:06 AM

I agree that the pages by themselves are probably fine, but the CM one definitely needs to cut down by a ton.

Also, the qualifications and disqualifications are there for our purposes. Tropes are things we identify; there's nothing firm you can hold on to and say "this is a trope" beyond how we define it, and that's especially the case for CM and MB where we've defined the pages very strictly to make them as objective as possible and not "my favorite villain is teh evulz/awesomez", as opposed to identifying where the actual trope is. If the page is explicitly telling people how to write a character to fit our definition of Complete Monster, that encourages a style of "writing for TV Tropes" that's largely frowned on, at least off-wiki.

How about this - it may feel like an extreme first step, but frankly, desperate times call for desperate measures. Can I go ahead and just delete all of the "examples" all over the page? Specifically, all the characters listed in parenthesis, sometimes including long, unnecessarily detailed explanations of why they do or don't apply. I think getting rid of all of that might actually give us an idea about what to do with the rest of the page.

yea, do that. and maybe cut the first section (rules defining a CM), since thats covered very thoroughly elsewhere. At most it needs a quick overview

I'd be happy with cutting the list of CM requirements. As Morgan Wick pointed out, the requirements make no sense for a "how to write X" article, as opposed to a list of Complete Monsters (you can create an excellent, memorable villain who still "fails" the CM criteria).

Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Feb 5th 2024 at 5:10:17 AM

Alright, I had to get rid of about 300 parenthetical phrases, but that part is all done. What's a good next step?

i cut 90% of the "rules" section so it just covers the basic qualifications. I can go through more of the page later with an axe