Subjective Trope Deletion

Was browsing the Red String page's recent edits, and noticed that all mentions of a certain character being considered The Scrappy were deleted in a recent edit. Now, what struck me as interesting about this was the reason in the edit history. Quoted from there:

"Subjective tropes on works pages are getting phased out, so...regardless of truth or not, this must go."

Now, I know that subjective tropes on works pages have been subject to some controversy, but usually in the aftermath of a major Edit War, which this page (as far as I know) has been devoid of. As such, I figured it might be a good idea to check what the official policy regarding this stuff in fact was, and whether the troper in question was following it as closely as he thought.

Any input from on high, please?

What's precedent ever done for us?

To put my two cents in before someone with authority does, it sounds like he did a good thing. I really hate when people shoehorn in subjective tropes just for the hell of it and if every reference to this character potholed to The Scrappy it sounds like that's what was going on.

I'm still waiting to find a reference to Ron Stoppable that doesn't pothole somewhere derogatory.

Support stupid freshness, yo.

You misunderstand me - not every single mention of the character was originally potholed to The Scrappy, but in the recent edit, every one of the (relatively few and entry-relevant) mentions to him being The Scrappy was removed. Check the page history for details.

Again, I can understand if this is indeed the new policy, but I'd like to check.

edited 19th Aug '10 4:14:49 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

I see. Well, at the very least that entry should be toned down a bit.

Support stupid freshness, yo.

Toning down, though, is something rather different from the removal of all subjective tropes from a page. Again, note that the edit reason wasn't because of whether or not the character counted as a scrappy, but because, and I quote, 'subjective tropes are getting phased out'.

edited 19th Aug '10 4:28:31 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

Right, and as far as I know, besides a few troublemaking subjectives, there hasn't been any official move to kick them out of main altogether. Like you though, I'll wait and see what the mods say.

Support stupid freshness, yo.

Hmm, that was Rebochan's work. I'm not entirely sure that we've decided that all Subjective Tropes MUST GO. They do tend to detract from the flow of works articles, though, unless very carefully controlled. Certain subjective elements are notorious in a work's fan base — for example, I don't think anyone's pushing for removing The Wesley from Star Trek The Next Generation.

Then again, I'm not going to cry buckets of tears to see the subjective tropes go.

edited 19th Aug '10 6:24:33 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Yeah, that's the idea. I'd say Subjectivee Tropes are fine as long as the page doesn't just read like a rant about how godly/evil the work is. I don't think anyone would be anal enough to remove The Scrappy from Scooby Doo, for instance.

edited 19th Aug '10 6:44:43 AM by Glowsquid

There's some subjective tropes that clearly have no place in any article (at least on the main page). Some we've created places specifically to hive them off to so there's no excuse to put them on the main page (Fridge Logic, Crowning Momentof X, etc).

Others though, for me it tends to depend on the example and how it's written. The Scrappy can be an excuse to complain about characters you don't like, but it can also reflect an attitude that's almost undisputed within the fandom. It also doesn't need to be written vitriolically.

So for that sort of thing, I'd judge case by case, and just remove the ones that are clearly natter-bait or excessively gushing/complaining or else highly controversial (unless it's made quite clear that it's a divisive issue)

Would you kill your best friend, can you save yourself?

So can I revert the entry for Red String, then? I'm not so fussy about the precise wording, of course, so if anyone wants to clean it up after the fact, feel free.

What's precedent ever done for us?

I suppose. Just make sure to mention this in your edit reason, lest an Edit War start, and try to make sure the example doesn't read like Complaining About Characters You Don't Like.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That's the plan, chief.

Righty-ho, reverted. Was that an acceptable sort of edit for this, if I may ask?

edited 19th Aug '10 2:34:28 PM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

Looks good to me.

Support stupid freshness, yo.

Hrm, I really did think that Subjective Tropes were on their way out on works pages because they do have the potential to cause fights even if they haven't yet. For example, while a lot of the editors on Red String would definitely call that character a Scrappy (and I actually wrote that entry around the time the fandom turned on him), what happens if newer editors show up and start getting upset?

I've actually been nerfing Subjective Tropes lately over that, so I definitely could use some guideline. Or dare I say...is it subjective about whether subjective tropes get used?

Like I said above, subjectives are inherently, well, subjective. Unlike other tropes, which are factual — either it is used or it isn't — subjectives are about someone's opinion and therefore must bear a higher burden to be included on a main page. We have been advocating subpages for many of them, like the various Crowning Moment of X entries, Just Bugs Me for Fridge Logic and Wall Banger, Reviews for generalized opinions, etc.

That still leaves room for things like Complete Monster, The Scrappy, Strangled by the Red String, etc., but one must apply very careful judgement in when to include them. Unlike objective tropes, the default should be not to add them. There needs to be significant consensus to do so, and a downvote counts higher than an upvote.

Further, as soon as a subjective devolves into Natter, it should get cut. No questions asked, no mercy given. If people can't play nice with them, they go.

edited 23rd Aug '10 10:46:43 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

All right, that makes more than enough sense. I'll try and patch up some that got deleted that could still work and I'll be more discriminating in the future.

I'm bumping this, since I have a question:

Whenever Fast Eddie breaks up an edit war over subjective tropes, he leaves a % note warning against further additions of the example in question:

"No _____ entry, please. It has its own page and it is not a trope."

However, the way these notes are phrased implies that they *never* belong on a work page, and their examples should only appear on their own separate pages.

I'd like a clarification from the Big Guy on this, if that's all right.

edited 20th Sep '10 8:45:58 PM by SpellBlade

What he said is exactly correct. If we have a subpage for a subjective, it never belongs on main articles, period.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Oh, I see. If it's something with its own namespace, it doesn't go on the real pages.

The other day I saw an edit in the history for a trope page taking out a pothole to a Subjective Trope, with the edit reason being something about, supposedly, subjective tropes being barred throughout the Main namespace. Was this the editor misinterpreting or is that right?

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

No, not entirely correct. That's taking things a bit far. If it has a subpage, it needs to go there. Some subjectives are, indeed, always verboten. Other items need to be decided on a case by case basis.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, which subjectives are so subjective they're not allowed to pollute the Main namespace — i.e., not as a Pot Hole in a trope example to identify a character, not as a third-party opinion, not ever? I understand not putting individual tropers' opinions in trope lists on works pages or character sheets, but that's lesser than a blanket across-the-board ban.

Relatedly, it seems to me that in the past year or so there's been a crackdown on subjectivity  ^*

. What happened a year to a year and a half ago to cause this? Saying that's just when I started noticing it is a perfectly reasonable answer.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

Generally, if it's in Darth Wiki or Sugar Wiki, it doesn't belong. We also don't permit tropes attacking creators of works, like Small Name, Big Ego. Similarly, pure fan reaction tropes (like Hey Its That Guy) are not wanted.

The problems with subjective tropes arose largely as a side-effect of the growth of the wiki. As the number of editors increased, the propagation of memes became rampant, and pages started becoming about tropers' opinions of works or those "hilarious" memes, not about the works themselves.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

All right. The subtext of that question was "is TV Tropes the same wiki I joined 25 months ago?" and the answer seems to be "sorta, but bigger and so inevitably less cozy." But the loss of coziness isn't something the admins are doing.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

Well, it is a deliberate attempt to rein in those elements. Cleaning up Natter is a daily job for the tropers who attempt it, but there are so many articles that policing them can only be a cooperative effort of all tropers.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"