Discussion YMMV / StevenUniverse

I think you are confusing nothing to do with the plot and directly affecting the plot. Dewey lost the election to Nanefua who wanted created the task force to keep anyone from being abducted by Homeworld again. And as for Ronaldo, I could be wrong but he didn't have an episode and the one scene he did have directly took Steven not only to Lapis but also to plot of Single Pale Rose. Again, let me be clear, I do think that this trope applies but I first of all don't think that it was only in the fifth season and secondly, I do think that it needs to be written less like your complaint and more factual. I apologize for how I'm writing. I know I'm not saying this right but I can't think of a better to say it.

The thing is, on practical effects, Nanefua being mayor and having that taskforce had no effect on the plot at all, and given the recent developments with the Diamonds, it's very, very, very unlikely that we'll see another attack on Beach City like those seen in "The Return" or "Reunited". Though of course, I could be wrong.

I mostly used season 5 episodes because it's the most recent one, and those are the ones I have at the top of my head, but trust me, the trope applies to all five seasons. In fact, Season 5 is where this trope is applied the least.

Also, while it's true that Ronaldo found about Lapis in the moon, that was his only scene in the episode. It's not that missing any Ronaldo focused episode that came before would affect that scene.

Yes but tropes are not supposed to be about recent things but about the series as a whole. Okay that doesn't quite make sense but what I'm saying is Trapped by Mountain Lions should not be just about season five because it's the most recent season but about other if they apply. Again, having something to do with the plot does not equal having a direct effect on it. And I have no idea what you mean about Ronaldo? There was no Ronaldo focused episode in season five and considering it was his job to man the telescope, it's not like anyone else would have found Lapis on the moon. But honestly, I would think he would prove your point because again if he hadn't seen the barn, Steven wouldn't have spoken to Lapis and wouldn't have had that diamond dream that wouldn't have caused him to try to talk to Pearl.

Okay, I'm going to reword the entry:

• Trapped By Mountain Lions: Most episodes focused on the Beach City humans have nothing to do with the main plot regarding Homeworld, which causes many fans to refer them as Filler, and have a hard time getting invested into the smaller scale and more personal plots these episodes usually have.

Better? Now the entry doesn't single out any season or episode in particular, without actually sound like the entry is bashing those episodes.

I apologize for the delay but I just realized that this entire discussion might moot. I mean are we sure that Trapped by Mountain Lions refer to story arcs instead of just the a and b plot of episodes?

I think a third party might be helpful so I'm gonna link you to the ask I made in ATT. I hope you don't mind but I just a little confused which is counterproductive in this discussion. I'm sorry that I wasn't better at explaining myself or having a strong grasp on the subject. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=68050&type=att

The description and examples imply story arcs. Plus some of the examples are the same as the one I stated, episodes about characters that have nothing to do with the main plot, or whose plots have such small scale in comparison to other plots it's nearly impossible to care about them.

First of all, considering that I had to do a major cleanup on the spotlight stealing squad, just because there are examples like yours, doesn't mean you are right. Secondly, I don't know how to explain it any other way but telling you that just because the humans didn't help out that doesn't mean their plots aren't important. This is why a third party is better because I am not doing this right.

Also the main description says subplot that usually means that there is main plot (not story arc) and a subplot. What was the main plot? Because the Gems did nothing to prepare for the invasions (aside from helping the humans with their task force) until the Diamonds actually arrived. I mean by your logic wouldn't Garnet splitting up and the wedding be just as pointless as the episode of the citizens of Beach City as without or without those subplots, the diamond would have still attacked.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=68050&type=att

The link doesn't seem to be working and I can't edit the above post. Please ignore both the above and this reply.

Nope, you'rer not. I'm all for adding an entry about it.

If no one's gonna answer, I’ll do it then.

I'm OK with the idea.

Ok then, thanks.

There probably won't be. I think Rebecca Sugar said that basically none of the antagonists would be pure evil.

...isn't this veering into Death of the Author territory by default? Sugar said no episodes were filler either, and that's gotten to be pretty disputed.

Not yet.

....oh.

Apologies for that then, i went and made it a page before realizing this page existed.

I found Ensemble Darkhorse to be incredibly long even for its folder. (i closed everything else to make sure; it had a rather large impact on my scroll bar) Edit: I learned to timestamp. It's late over here. Anyway, that page is substantially larger than it would have been earlier, so it might have a reason to exist now.

I've seen the edits that you're talking about and at the risk of sounding rude, I take it that you didn't read the edit reason.

Word of God stipulates that fusion is not metaphorical sex. It's a metaphorical relationship. Romantic or otherwise.

So no. Steven and Connie are not having metaphorical sex. They're just giving their friendship a physical form.

I don't know how to read edit reasons.

And how does that change the fact some people find it to be squicky? This is an ymmv trope, and if I understand correctly, ymmv tropes are subjective, audience reactions and the like.

In the page history, the edit reason is right below the edit itself.

Because the Squick factor rides on the notion that fusion is metaphorical sex, which is false.

And just because it's an opinion doesn't mean nobody can question it if the reasoning behind it is faulty. Fusion has been outright confirmed by the creators to not be a metaphor for sex. So fusion isn't sex. Period.

Oh ok thank you.

But people who don't follow the show's creator's social medias won't necessarily know that. And even if they did it doesn't matter, if it did then every alternative interpretation proven false would have to be removed too.

Look, just go read the pages explain YMMV. You transparently don't understand the concept of "your mileage may vary".

So? I fail to see the issue with that. If you're referring to tropes similar to Alternate Character Interpretation, in most cases, creators fail to, or refuse to, elaborate on how something should be interpreted. In that case, no one is in any position to tell someone how they should interpret something. For example, Life Of Pi. The ending is ambiguous as to which story is true, the one with the animals or the one with the humans. Since it's left up to the reader's interpretation, nobody can jump in an say "This interpretation of the ending is false!" because neither the book, nor the author, ever hinted at which story is true. However, the phrase "the curtains are blue" exists for a reason. Misinterpretation is a thing. If you provide an example that rides on a misinterpretation, then you're feeding the readers incorrect information.

I... do not understand how to process that statement. Are you saying that I don't know how opinions work? Because I do. Not everyone likes Harry Potter. Not everyone hates Family Guy. "Your mileage may vary" on those works. Are you saying that opinions can't be questioned because opinions vary between people? Because that's a bad mindset to have. Yes, opinions themselves cannot be proven wrong. However, you can still use facts to question the reasoning behind said opinion. For example, let's say that somebody doesn't like Five Nights At Freddy's because they believe that Jump Scares are a cheap and lazy way to scare people. Well, fine. But I can still point out how the game's main method of scaring you isn't the jump scares, it's the tension and paranoia of sitting a dark, quiet room waiting for something that's trying to kill you. The jump scares are just the payoff. Granted, that sort of horror isn't going to scare everyone, but to imply that FNAF relies on jump scares alone is incorrect.

Ok let me put it this way as you didn't seem to understand what I said with that. The reason squick is a YMMV trope, and not a main page trope, is because they are not in universe examples. We are not documenting something that happened in the show here, we are documenting something someone outside the show thought about something that happened within the show. It is an audience reaction.

No I'm saying you don't know how tv tropes works. You can go ahead and question my reasoning all you want. You can disagree with my opinion all you want. But it doesn't matter that you disagree with me, or think my reasoning is flawed, this trope is asking for my personal opinion, so as long as I'm not being a dick, I can give my personal opinion, even if you disagree with it or feel it's based on faulty reasoning.

Basically, say we were on a website about color. There is one page dedicated to letting people to talk about their favorite color. I said my favorite color is pink because it's an innocent color, and you deleted my posting because an artist somewhere said white was the color of innocence. It doesn't matter what the artist said because this page was asking how I felt, not what the artist said.

If it's based on a misinterpretation, it's not a legitimate example of Squick.

Unless if you can prove that it's not, keep the example off the page.

Basically YMMV entries still have definitions that need to be met. And if the entry is based off of something explicitly false in the work, then the entry is still false and needs to be pulled.

That's... not a very good analogy. Nobody created color; it just exists. Therefore, there's no "objective" way to view certain colors. So deleting a subjective post about why pink's your favorite color just because some random artist associated the reasoning you gave with the color white would be unfair. From an artistic perspective, the only factual things you can say about pink and white is that pink is a mix between red and white, and that white technically doesn't qualify as a color. Pink and white have different interpretations throughout the world. For example, in Japan, pink is a masculine color and represents the samurai who died for their masters, while white is associated with death when paired with purple. But in North America, pink is a feminine color and represents girls in general, while white represents purity and innocence like you said. Neither country's interpretations of these colors are wrong because, again, nobody created color. So if pink's an innocent color to you, then fine. However, if an artist used pink to represent, let's say, evil, in their work, and you still interpret pink to represent innocence within the context of that work, then it would be a misinterpretation of the work and, within the context of the work, factually wrong.

Just because most of TV Tropes' pages are subjective in nature doesn't mean you can post whatever you want regardless of context or facts. That's why Dethroning Moment Of Suck has a rule stipulating that entries can be removed if they're blatantly wrong. Such as this one case in D Mo S' Western Animation page where someone deleted an entry listing the scene in Frozen where Anna punched Hans because the OP forgot certain bits of information and used biased sources to back up their opinion.

Agreed, it's mostly complaining, since there's no actual plot that was wasted

Yeah, they seemed to be more focused on the fact that he was a jerk, not that he had a Jerkass Realization. I say go for it.

Not until they've been released officially, no.

http://www.polygon.com/tv/2017/1/5/14177940/steven-universe-leaks-2017 it seems it was official...

Sounds like it would fit the broader Spiritual Successor more than Spiritual Adaptation.

Fair point, though you can see my logic right?

The biggest problem with this whole thing: You're not describing the main character. You're describing his son. Gohan is NOT the protagonist of Z. GOKU is. Although one could realistically call Steven an Expy of Gohan.

• Spiritual Successor: For reasons described in this page's Discussion page, this is like a western equivalent to Dragon Ball Z.

___ It's a Zero Context Example because you basically redirect the reader to the discussion page which is distracting.

There has to be a way to stop these pages from becoming battlefields. I've put a note in.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned here. It's been a big deal in the fandom. Honestly it looks bad on TVT's part that people keep removing it, because it looks like "oh we don't want people to know about this" and that you're seriously defending people who nearly bullied someone to death for their show. This issue, that is, whether or not she deserved to be bullied, isn't really an issue you should be neutral on.

It sounds as a Fan Dumb example, and Fan Dumb is listed is Flame Bait, meaning that this can not be listed.

I have to agree with Mag Bas, but I see where you're coming from Raidrik and Raven King Sage. The issue is definitely not something that should be ignored or thrown under the rug by anyone.

Um, we don't have to mention that stuff at all. Especially since we can't help anybody here.

I think if it gets mentioned at all, it should be put along with other things the fandom has done as a reason for the Fan Haters trope being placed.

The SU fandom has had tons of shit being done in it's fandom, and everywhere, even on tumblr, there's an enormous outrage with how the people flocking to this show treat others. It wouldn't be inappropriate, imo, to have some mention of how the fans are seen.

Way I see it, it's kind of too big to end up ignoring even actively so. I mean, from now on whenever anyone explains why they dislike the fandom the incident's gonna come up. That doesn't mean examples of that WILL make it in, since this wiki doesn't exactly catalogue fandom hate, but it ends up being necessary at some point or another, to explain some things.

And depending on the creators' response it pretty much HAS to go in, what with Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things. Either way, it's gonna end up inside, but let's not go out of our way to list it.

It's significant to the point that the creators got involved, and it sorta made Internet infamy. It deserves to be recorded for historical purposes at the least, and possibly so that future fans don't make the same mistake ("Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them", etc).

I further agree that some further notation is needed. If the creators got involved, it's a big enough deal that it needs mention. Almost every other YMMV or Trivia page for larger fandoms has some notation about the darker side and incidents within the fandom, deleting it here IS just sweeping it under the rug and acting like nothing is wrong. History is doomed to be repeated by those who don't heed it. Tvtropes is a reservoir of information for a lot of people and this would just be doing what TV Ts has been doing all this time.

As it stands, this is probably THE biggest event within the fandom that has occurred, causing many conflicts within the SU fan base (both internally with Transgressors vs. Defenders and explaining why many other fandoms now have a tainted relationship with SU). Leaving it out not only ignores probably the biggest problem the fan base has had, but also an explanation as to why things are the way they are between the SU base and others.

It's been about two weeks since the drama hit its peak, I think we can pen something now without it being provocative; just informative.

We strongly prefer not to have information on Internet controversies though, as it tends to drag us into the controversy. And it has nothing to do with tropes.

Well, except when it does, with some of the semi-outside-the-work stuff like creator breakdowns, take-thats, why fandom can't have nice things, things inspired by events outside the actual show and everything.

It'll be added when it becomes relevant to those, naturally. And my guess is it will.

Even if adding it were permitted, the only relevant trope here is Fan Dumb, which as mentioned is flamebait.

What else are you gonna put it under? It's not Why the Fandom Can't Have Nice Things unless the writers pull up stakes and quit the show over it.

Internet Backdraft is about backdraft specific to the show, non? This is fans being shitty to other fans. The show is only tangentially related.

She ISN'T worrying about her optometrist, which is why it's narm.

I mean, come on, she explicitly mentions how her eyesight was healed about a year ago, and her mother never notices, and she's worried about her mother finding out. The narm comes into play because she never mentions how her optometrist would react, given that you'd think her eye doctor would know more about it than her mother. How would she hide it from her optometrist?

That's where it gets narmy. She isn't concerned about her optometrist.

Her optometrist doesn't even play a role in the series, so I don't know why she (or the writers) would make such a big fuss over it, aside from one line.

It's more to do with her NOT being concerned, because...seriously, there's some major Fridge Logic involved with that.

The most recent episode, When it Rains, confirms that Peridot was NOT present for the creation of the forced fusion experiments. I would, however, like to hear a counterargument before deciding whether or not to edit the page.

I was actually just about to remove that entry. "Catch and Release" and "When It Rains" make it clear that she had no part in the experiments and wasn't actually trying to reactivate Kindergarten. Given the nature of this particular trope I think it makes more sense to remove it, even if it is YMMV and that was the fanbase's initial reaction. The whole point of a Moral Event Horizon is that you can't return from it.

I edited the entry and a few similar ones.

I agree. Everything that is bolded there isn't really needed.

Meh, I didn't think she was that great.