Old Complete Monster cleanup thread
Welcome to the new Complete Monster (CM) cleanup thread! This thread is where we clean up or cut already-existing entries.
If you're looking to add new entries, please see the approval thread
.
IMPORTANT: Before you begin any discussions on this thread, please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List. Here, you'll find explanations of the criteria for the trope as well as our rules/procedures for approving and cutting candidates.
What goes through this thread?
- Cut requests. If you believe a CM has been approved and they do not count, this thread is where you propose their removal. To know how to go about this, please see the FAQ folder on the Administrivia page, where the process is explained in detail.
- If we ever need to consider cutting multiple examples without individually reviewing them (e.g. if we discover widespread plagiarism with a particular troper's CMs), the initial discussion will be on this thread and we'll then escalate to the mod team (as described here
) to get a formal consensus if we decide to recommend a mass cut.
- If an entry was put on the wrong subpage/YMMV page, you may propose where they should be moved to.
- Full rewrites of existing entries, including expansions, trims, and ground-up rewrites. If your rewrite is approved by the thread, feel free to add it to the drafts page so that other users can check grammar and the like before it is included with the rest of the weekly swaps.
- If an entry on a work's YMMV page doesn't match the entry on the media subpage, you can bring it here to discuss which entry works better.
What does not go through this thread?
- New candidate proposals - as stated before, those are done on this thread
.
- Unapproved wicks - if a Troper encounters either of these kinds of wicks, they can be cut with no approval.
- Any CM link on a non-YMMV page - as a YMMV trope, it should not be linked on those pages regardless of any cleanup effort. The only exception is if the wick is being used within the definition of another trope.
- If an CM link on a YMMV page refers to an unapproved character. If it refers to an approved character on any such page, the wick can stay. On the other hand, if the unapproved character being linked to sounds like they might have promise (and you don't feel like checking it out for yourself), feel free to mention it on the approval thread - someone may already know why they don't count, or it could invite a brand new discussion!
- Proposals for images, quotes, and videos of already-approved CMs - quotes and images are proposed on the approval thread
, while videos can be uploaded normally as they are screened for approval by the moderation.
- Crosswicking examples to YMMV pages - if an example has already been approved and added to the main page, you do not require any special permission to add the example to a work's YMMV page (assuming the work has a page already). If a YMMV page doesn't exist yet, then you can make it yourself, but either way, feel free to just add the example without asking.
- Small changes to existing entries - these can simply be done on a Troper's own prerogative with no approval.
- Spelling and grammar fixes.
- Pothole changes.
- Minor rewordings.
- Spoiler tags.
While these changes do not require any kind of approval, it is requested that should you make any of these changes, you do one of the following:
- Make the same changes on the relevant Sandbox page, then add the Sandbox to the list at the bottom of the drafts page. This will add the Sandbox to the weekly swaps and ensure that the edits end up on the relevant locked page. If the Sandbox is already listed, then once you make the edits, your job is already done!
- If you don't know how the Sandboxes work or simply don't have the time to find it, then you can simply post on the thread about the changes you made. Someone else can then make the edit on the relevant Sandbox and add it to the weekly swaps.
- Alternatively, you can simply request that the change be made directly to the locked page on the Locked Pages thread
. Members of this thread keep track of that one, so we will ensure that the changes are made in the Sandbox so that it doesn't get deleted during the next swap.
Again, these changes don't require any approval, but we prefer to keep the entries on the YMMV pages and the locked pages the same in order to avoid any miscommunication or errors between entries, so if you do make the change, we would greatly appreciate it if you could ensure the change is made on the locked page as well.
As a final note, we do not care what other sites have to say regarding whether or not a character counts. We have our own criteria and they have theirs for their CM equivalents; while they are similar, they are not exactly the same and should not be treated as such. Another site removing a character from their equivalent should not be a reason why a cut is proposed here, and if this is the case, it will likely lead to mod intervention.
Other than this, once again, welcome to the cleanup thread, and we look forward to your contributions!
Edited by Mrph1 on Jan 14th 2024 at 11:30:03 AM
Ah yes to clarify what I meant these are pure comedy works. Their are no moments of genuine seriousness that isn't undercut by a joke or genuine pathos.
In contrast adventure time has plenty of scenes with no comedy whatsoever and that's because of the lich.
Actually could we add this to the rule set? Feel like this might be worth adding.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."The Lich is a Knight of Cerebus who not only greatly contrasts the show’s tone whenever he shows up but also heralds the show becoming darker in general. A single comedic moment involving him doesn’t negate that. Lotso’s defeat is deliberately humiliating and karmic for the sake of Catharsis Factor after being such a deplorable person and abandoning our heroes to die in an incinerator. It isn’t meant to make us take him less seriously.
Once Upon A Time.I mean, we have the Joker up and even his darkest incarnations have silly moments (like the hospital scene in the dark knight which is every bit as funny as it is creepy)
Speaking of the joker, does he need to be on the Resolved Items list? I don't really see the point in including him just to say that he's a case by case basis since that applies to any candidate with multiple incarnations.
I noticed that there was a new rule saying that if a candidate counts in multiple incarnations of a work, both incarnations get separate writeups even if their actions are similar.
I bring this up because of Old Nick from Room - his entry on the YMMV page covers the book version, but would his film counterpart get a separate writeup?
Image Pickin' BacklogYeah, there's a stark difference between a villain have laughable moments in-between their horrible crimes, and the horrible crimes themselves being totally upended in seriousness by the humor. Lotso and the Lich absolutely fall into the case of "have humorous moments but overall are played seriously".
As for Musical!Bateman, yeah, just reiterating what the proposal said: he treats Jean nice with a promotion the one time after she's appealed to his ego in a unique way, but soon afterwards he goes right back to proclaiming he loves nor values anyone beyond surface level.
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!Oh hey what’s the consensus on Driscoll? Does he have enough votes to warrant a cut?
My sandbox of EPs and other stuffI support the Driscoll cut and I support keeping Bateman since his “good deed” is just another expression of his narcissism. You can bet any “kindness” is conditional and would be taken away the moment she ever did something to damage his ego.
Also support keeping characters like the Lich and Lotso. Since they come from works that contain both comedy and drama, the work having a laugh at their expense isn’t grounds for cutting them if they’re portrayed seriously 99% of the time. I mean, in the same episode where someone places a cup on the Lich’s head and other people take selfies with him, Prismo explains the only reason the Lich isn’t murdering everyone horribly is because he’s trapped and has no way to further his end goal of destroying all life. He’s playing helpless since he’s trapped in a room with a Reality Warper god, after all. In that same episode, the second he finds out HOW to murder said reality warping god, he does murder him, HORRIBLY. Thanks for the childhood nightmares Adventure Time! Then he makes another bid to wipe out all life.
Likewise, I don’t think a humiliating defeat like with Lotso would be enough to warrant cutting a character. For example, Ozai is mocked by a bunch of teenagers after Aang takes his bending away and it doesn’t diminish his crimes, it’s just played as righteous karmic comeuppance for an arrogant, imperialistic sociopath with a god complex to be disabused by that notion with childish mocking. It’s catharsis for the audience after watching him be a smug, seemingly invincible monster.
Also, thanks Ravok and 43110, good to be back.
Edited by OccasionalExister on Feb 8th 2023 at 12:58:26 PM
Should also note. That's also for works that you know have a full on separate trope page from their source with at least some differnces. Otherwise medium of origin takes precedence (its why we sent all the isekai stuff to literature). The film room is shared with the book.....
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."Anyway, I don't like the idea of using "comedy work" and "full-on comedy work" or similar phrasings. That doesn't really explain anything at all. Comedy is subjective alone if it's really funny enough or not(as we've had cases where people don't find a character taken seriously enough despite quite a fair amount of evil acts existing). This is just an issue with the phrasing, though. When explained clearly, it's easy enough to understand~
Though to be fair, and keeping in mind I have skimmed here and there, are we having these constant problems with comedy works being questioned enough that a guideline is needed? It's okay to repeat an explanation, as not everybody will read it. Likewise, it's okay to have a noted guideline to also help newcomers see more information. It's kind of a matter of whether the header is heavily taken into account by various people stopping by or not. It might seem kind of minor, I admit, but sometimes people will read a straight reply more often than look at the guidelines and rules, respectively. That's the main reason I see nothing wrong with simply explaining it as it comes up. That, and I don't see any problems with people questioning this stuff. Isn't the whole point that they are unsure and want to learn more? That's how we get better editors and so on. :)
Yes, we're still having problems with the comedic works even after we've added more specifying notes on the FAQ page - the fact that we had to have a several-page length discussion on whether or not a work that featured a fart virus could have a candidate is proof enough of that. I would 100% specify further on the guidelines, list a new rule if necessary, and I can do that when I go through the rest of the page.
And frankly, after all the effort that's gotten put into writing these rules out and writing the giant "IMPORTANT" note at the top, people should be reading the rules first. The idea that "people might not read it so why add it" doesn't make sense to me.
Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Feb 8th 2023 at 4:13:50 AM
Anymore thoughts on Driscoll
.
I honestly personally think that we should drop the idea that works can be too comedic or ridiculous to have an example, unless something is being purposefully played for laughs it shouldn't really matter. The rule that we have created has created a culture where people reject works because they personally find it too ridiculous to have an example. There is no other precedent for rejecting examples due to a work being considered to ridiculous to have examples, tropes are based on how they are presented in universe.
This is in my eyes a similar kind of thing that was a huge problem with tasteless stuff and I don't want another case like that to end up closing the threads again.
Uh not really. Work having a CM also requires you know for them to be taken seriously (that's always been the case since when we created the trope)
If the whole thing is a gag than you really can't say that.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."But a massive part of this trope is that they have to be played seriously. That's been part of the trope from day one and it's not going anywhere, so I'm sorry, but if a work is too comedic, then yes, it's not going to be conducive to candidates. This rule and the taste rule are nowhere near the same thing and I don't know where that comparison is coming from.
You're correct, but this isn't a trope - this is YMMV. It's an audience reaction, not a trope, so if people feel that the work is too comedic to have an example, then that's how the audience reacts.
Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Feb 8th 2023 at 4:24:01 AM
You do realize that when people say "ridiculous" they mean "comedic", right? That's why those works were rejected - it's "ridiculous" in the sense that it's so comedic that there's no way that it's played seriously enough for the trope. No one has ever argued anything else. Like, this argument has been very clear, and I'm really struggling to find where your argument is coming from compared to what others have argued.
Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Feb 8th 2023 at 4:25:35 AM
Okay, on YMMV.Ghostbusters The Video Game, under the Complete Monster entry is a bracketed phrase "(Realistic version)". What does that mean?
For every low there is a high.

Adventure Time is also a comedy work, so it’s not simply that. It’s all a matter of how seriously the character is played within the universe, with the caveat the work has them stand out with their horribleness. Comedies like South Park has nearly everyone be horrible, so even a non-comedic villain can’t stand out overall.
Comedy works can have a CM, but it requires unique context too.
Shadow?