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
I was busy and therefore missed out on the discussion, if a stronger discussion was needed, okay, but again, you didn’t seem to vote against, but were simply unsure that it was necessary. If you were against expansion, I apologize, it seemed to me that you were not against it.
I “didn’t decide anything.” It seemed to me that you weren’t against it and that people were happy with my change, if it’s desirable to have a specific consensus, okay, I’m sorry, but I’m not deciding anything here,” it seemed to me that no one had problems, that’s why I didn’t ask others for their opinions. And I understand perfectly well that consensus is needed, but then it seemed to me that no one was against it and since it was better to have at least several opinions, okay, I’ll take it into account. But I don’t “impose” anything, “decide” or anything like that. It just seemed to me that in general the branch had no problems with my addition. I hope you understand this perfectly.
Edited by Ghal-Sur on Jun 11th 2024 at 6:12:09 AM
I don't think we need formal rules but we need to make sure we're getting consensus. Ghal, everything in cleanup threads needs consensus, and you in particular have a real problem with rewrites that don't add or clarify anything, so it seems like you just want to leave a mark rather than actually help
HAPPY HALLOWEEN FOR MARIAI don't think specific rules are needed but some level of inference would be nice. If someone says "I think this is fine as is" we should be able to take that as a no because I'm sorry I don't see how "It didn't seem you had any problems with it" could be the conclusion, it's just not something I see as a logical take from the prior statement. I think practice good judgement is enough but if we need formalized rules just to avoid this happening again I'm fine with that. Ravok has also said the same as me FWIW and that's a pretty clear request to revert.
The Cook-Cook rewrite is fine, but what is the sufficient amount of upvotes and downvotes for a decision to be made? I mean, sometimes one or two "fine with rewrite" votes or "the entry is fine as it is" votes will essentially decide everything, and the topic at hand will be simply forgotten. Consensus - which is supposed to be most important in here - may not be so easy when it involves only 2 or 3 people.
Edited by Thermal7 on Jun 11th 2024 at 6:30:14 AM
—-I wanna see what Cook-Cook looks like now before I vote—please add before and after's as we've said Ghal—and if you vote to change Khotun there are still two in favour of leaving him unaltered.
I'll reiterate I think practicing good judgement will let us do this in good faith: if you get a couple yeses and nos, then ask for more votes or accept that there isn't a consensus to change and move on.
Edited by PassingThrough on Jun 11th 2024 at 9:29:56 AM
Passing Through:Okay, thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the haste. I'll take into account the number of votes before adding a rewrite. May I re-suggest a rewrite of Khothun, with your and Ravok's votes as no, and Snoke's voice as yes?
And did you tell me or ACW about sanity and rules?
Thermal 7: Very well said about the number of votes and consensus.
The Cook-Cook rewrite seems OK at least to me, but the whole question of "to rewrite or not to rewrite" needs to be approached carefully. Rewrite needs to have a purpose, to either add clarity or context that may not be present in the original entry, not simply be a rewrite for its own sake.
If thread participants see that the rewrite is upvoted/downvoted several times in the row, they will probably feel compelled to upvote/downvote as well.
Another pitfall I personally fell into is to suggest that the original entry (which is likely composed by a long-time respected member of the CM community) is inferior to your rewrite, and that you can "do it better" (looking back at it, this mindset is why my Dr. Breen proposal was rejected, though I'm interested to bring it up again in the future).
I'm sure Ghal-Sur did not mean such a thing, but if you try too hard to advertise your rewrite as "definitive", people are going to get defensive, and that will certainly not make the rewrite look favorable.
Edited by Thermal7 on Jun 11th 2024 at 6:56:07 AM
—-There's also a little thing I observed - some of the CM entries have these little "summaries" which basically repeat the overall theme of the CM in question. In fact, there used to be more before they were edited out. For example, here is the last sentence from Mark Jefferson's entry:
- Despite his charming demeanor and close friendships with his students, Jefferson is taking advantage of their respect and admiration for the sake of his torture art and his own sick enjoyment, with no remorse or empathy for his victims.
Jefferson I take no issue with leaving it for.
Edit: Cut I'd like to suggest, from I Spy:
- Rachel Wright is a corrupt agent of the Bureau of National Security. During her mission to retrieve the Switchblade, a highly advanced, undetectable prototype stealth fighter, she was bribed by Arnold Gundars to give him the activation code of the plane and thwart her colleagues. After faking her death, she reveals to Gundars the location of the other BNS agents, causing him to send his henchmen to dispose of them. When fellow BNS agent Alex Scott finds the Switchblade, Rachel captures him and tortures him to make him reveal the new activation codes of the plane, knowing full well it will allow Gundars's terrorist customer Zhu Tam to nuke Washington, D.C. When more BNS agents arrive, Rachel takes the opportunity to fatally shoot Gundars and Tam In the Back in order to steal access to all the bank accounts. Cruel, manipulative and sadistic, Rachel has ultimately no loyalty to anyone but herself, and is willing to do the worst things as long as it benefits her.
My issue is this stuff is small scale compared to her partners and any argument of her helping facilitate their mass terrorism falls apart when she kills them to steal the bank account codes. It's not a moral issue but pushes her down to just being greedy while they're willing to kill countless people with weapons. I think she's a pretty straightforward cut for failing the heinous standard.
Edited by PassingThrough on Jun 11th 2024 at 1:16:22 PM
Cut Rachel Wright.
Edited by Azyat on Jun 11th 2024 at 7:29:25 PM
Fine. Have it your way. Come on in. The Doctor will see you now.

Though honestly, part of that may have been on me for actually doing the Khan change.