Talk:TV Tropes

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

mission

while I agree to some extent, why do we need an article exactly? ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 02:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, this reads like ED-lite. ТySerious Business Guy 02:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Im a bit curious why we need a article on it as well; and i also agree on the second point. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Get rid of it. We don't need an article on this. Barely relevant.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that tu quoque is not exactly the best form of argument, but TvTropes deserves a page more than half of the wikis (Why does Encyclopedia Dramatic and Uncyclopedia have pages but this one is off mission) for two major reasons. 1.) The first I've already talked about, it's because of the "Fanboy Point of View" allows said Fanboys to push denialism and censorship on topics and persons of interest with real world ramifications under the guise of social harmony. Posting snark, let alone factual criticism of things like the O'Reilly Factor because that would be being rude. 2.) The second is because... uh, I don't really want to go into this too much because this is going to be opening a huge can of worms, but if you've been paying attention to peripheral sites TvTropes is starting to get a very sticky reputation (and unfortunately, it's pretty well-deserved) for child sexual abuse apologia. And not just from Internet Hate Machine websites, either. I tried hinting about it in some of the links and tried glossing it over with snark, but if it comes down I'd rather have an article with no venom and a factual look at those things than not have an article at all. --Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I saw little snark in that mess, just ED style "jokes"--il'Dictator Mikal 04:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Тysic semper 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

mission explanation

I wrote this article not because of the weirder tastes of the website like the Fetish Fuel wiki, but because the "fanboys are always right" POV allows utter denialist bullshit like the whitewashing of Rush Limbaugh. I agree that the article should focus more on that, but, that's not what the website means to most people. That's a pretty big concern, in my opinion.--Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

that would work if it didnt look, like TY said, a ED article. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit snarkier than our usual fare, but treating this topic more "seriously" would just induce headdesk. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Why? ТySerious Business Guy 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Because it's TV Tropes. Well, if you want to dial down the tone of this article, feel free. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 02:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
All i saw was pointless jokes that didnt add anything. not really informative... like the random hate on voyager--il'Dictator Mikal 03:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, this: "TV Trope's page on Rational Wiki. We must admit, it prickles at the conscience to write this borderline hatchet-job article on that website when they spoke of us so well, but, that's just the way Rational Wiki rolls, mang. (*sunglasses*) "--il'Dictator Mikal 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I took out the Voyager jab. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If this focuses on things concerning the real world, it'll be fine, but I don't think this should be bashing people just for having "nerdier" tastes. Woodgod (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm still seeing nothing in this article which has anything to do with RW's objectives. Could you explicitly state which mission objective it hits?--BobSpring is sprung! 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing he's talking about 3 and 4.ТyYes? 13:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it.
3 is: "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." I don't see the connection.
4 is: "Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media." I agree it's media, but it's still got little or nothing to do with "authoritarianism and fundamentalism".--BobSpring is sprung! 06:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
But TV Tropes is awesome!!! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

People are asking why this is not on mission but ED and Uncyclopedia are allowed raise a good point. I say delete all three. - π 00:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Theres lots of articles about obscure one nobody cares about too. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
See, this is a rather stupid discussion, because - and I've said this over and over again - if we were to delete all of the articles that don't directly pertain to the mission, we'd be getting rid of hundreds if not thousands of pages. We really have to clarify our content standards. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but in context of just clarifying what other communities are, I really don't see the point.. Perhaps this could be an article about 10% this long discussing what TVtropes has to do with crankery? Other than that, why would anyone ever care what rationalwiki has to say about TVTropes? In that context it should make sense to delete some of these articles. Don't succumb to slippery slope arguments. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a slippery slope, it's something I've been talking about literally for years. The "why would anyone ever care what RW has to say about x" test is a good one, but the fact that a significant portion of our content fails that test is undeniable. What you have to do is demonstrate this article is truly beyond the pale in order to delete it. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 03:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Playing Devil's Advocate (secular-malevolent-force's-advocate?) here. Perhaps a thing to say about TvTropes is that it's a place where a lot of unvetted ideas and opinion are frequently passed around as fact. People come up with goofy conspiracy theories about their favorite TV shows of all things and then defend them to the death. People connect things to other things for no reason other than that they vaguely see the link but can't explain it. TVtropes might be viewed, no matter how entertaining its analysis of patterns in media/stories can be, as an example of how people will defend things that make them happy, no matter how silly/nonsensical/against-the-spirit-of-the-original their particular beliefs about those things are. Once again, not arguing for this article to be kept. Just sharing an observation about the goings-on there, and by no means do all tropers display this behavior. I myself find tropes entertaining... but I am not sure they really belong here on RW.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
See, that's actually pretty much what I think a RW article about TVTropes should be. Not much else I can think of. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 04:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Though to comment on that don't you need to be balls deep in the discussion forums? I normally just stick to the main tropes pages, which is interesting analysis and only rarely and non-intrusively goes into the batcrap fanboy territory. I'm happy with that arrangement. Scarlet A.pngmoral 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Voyager

Voyager is for desperately lonely nerds, but Star Wars is for ordinary well-adjusted folks? How on earth does that make sense? I think anyone who feels the need to put down stuff that other people like is the one who's desperate and lonely.

I am just sick to death of everyone on the internet hating on Voyager. What did it ever do to you? Were you forced to watch it by someone you hate?

And TV Tropes itself hates on Voyager even more than this page did. Hell, they hate on Voyager like we hate on Conservapedia! Seriously. Try finding a TV Tropes page that even mentions Voyager without a disclaimer about how awful it supposedly is. Did whoever added this bit of the page even read TV Tropes? Did they even watch Voyager? Does anyone besides me care?

I know this doesn't really matter, and I know that ranting about Star Trek in talk pages really isn't helping the wiki any. I'm just sick of this everywhere on the internet. Wehpudicabok (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've seen all of the Voyager episodes. Voyager was the only Star Trek show I actually enjoyed, besides the Next Gen films. So I sympathize. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 05:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes me feel better. I still don't understand the hate though. I mean from most of the internet, not you. Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's an identity issue, or at least a lack-of-identity issue. It's instinctively easier to craft yourself around what you don't like, don't follow or just plain hate. Though this produces the Grand Nerd Irony/Paradox: if you hate something so much, you must avoid it at all costs, which means you haven't experienced enough of it to have good reasons hate it - and if you did, then why did you watch it if you hate it so much? Still, hating's easier because you don't need to actually put the effort in. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

This is still here? Pi 3:14 (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently... Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 05:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Why not just move to Fun? It's interesting and worth reading, and even though it's mostly off-mission I imagine some editors here could enjoy learning about it if they saw it in the wiki template. That being said, I'm not wholly opposed to deletion. Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
"Failure to further a mission goal" is a laughable reason for deletion. Nowhere is it stipulated that all of our content has to further our explicit mission. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 06:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It should do. I would rather 1,000 good articles that further the mission than 5,000 where 4,000 are bloated rot. Pi 3:14 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Help:Namespace - mainspace is for "mission" articles. This can go to essay or fun unless there's anything genuinely mission-focused to be added to it. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I agree. I disagree with deletion outright; I think this could do well in funspace. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 06:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Seems fine. ТyComplaints 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yo

  1. Delete, along with Uncyclopedia and Encyclopaedia Dramatica--"Shut up, Brx." 13:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. I support the brxbrx hattrick, or move them all to fun even though they are tedious and not fun at all. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. Try Wikipedia. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. Delete, move or rewrite (don't much care which). The only thing even vaguely related to RW missions/themes here is the paedophilia apologetics, which is only mentioned in passing a couple of times & without links or examples. The rest of the article is just cruft. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  6. Changed my vote. As much as the troper community annoys me, the article seems a bit exaggerated and just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And that "detailed" page on the supposed "pedo" anime, that's used as an example here, doesn't even exist on their site. Woodgod (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No

  1. ТyNo 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. With some fixing or more work, this article can be a good show of just how uncritical and irrational people can be when it comes to things they're attached to. To me, tvTropes is a good example of juxtaposed analysis and failure of analysis. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 13:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. What she said. Omar (gibber) 14:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. In its current state, this is one of the only decent negative articles on TVTropes I've managed to find. Keep, because the Troper community desperately needs to be called on its shit. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 06:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. Keep per Knight and Stabby, but rewrite to focus on elements relevant to the real world; there's no point in spending this much of the article talking about Buffy and Star Wars. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  6. I just don't like deleting long and historied articles. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Goat

Why this article is shit

The "debunking" sections (the bad and the ugly) are morally judgemental and are considered bad and ugly based on the taste of the writer. The writer is infact the arsehat for being against people's rights to write freaky fan fiction or what ever they are into. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's shit because it's only here because a few cabalists made a habit of editing there. It's got nothing to do with anything here. Fuck it. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was gonna say, Dr. Swordopolis is a cabalist? Actually I think the only troper here is Ty--"Shut up, Brx." 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't check the history. The way I remember it being rambled on about in the SB, I thought it had been here for years. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You wish for the cabalists. This is the work of the third gen ocd-brats that run the show now. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Dunno, but "...because it exemplifies Web 2.0 content and anything worthy of that buzzword is a waste of time by definition" I would nominate for one of the worst statements on this site. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that a better word than "mainstream" should be used. A lot of respectable works of art are more "indie" or "underground", and the articles for some of these aren't really much worse than the ones on Star Wars or Pokemon. It's not "mainstream" or "weird pedo anime". Woodgod (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Pedophilia

They're actually cutting down on this, hard. They've deleted pages on lolicon shows and their article on lolicon itself only talks about the idea of pedophiles in Japanese media, no examples, no defenses. I think they realized what the internet thought of them and are working on it. That being said, I'm not going to change the article itself because I don't have enough background information to know whether what they're doing now is going to be enough to save them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently their page on Lolita is back, albeit still locked. HolyKatana (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Or was it ever deleted? HolyKatana (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the thread that's linked in this article, it was deleted. I think they restored it with a bit of cleaning up to remove anything that seemed overly sympathetic to the pedophile character and locked it to prevent such edits, which makes more sense than completely omitting a classic work of literature, IMO. Woodgod (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Most disturbingly, it's one of the few places on the internet where pedophiles aren't automatically banned on sight. "

Do people actually read this sentence? I guess that people are so brainwashed by the mass media that they dont notice the lunacy and sheer bigotry of that. We are talking of banning people for their sexual condition. Prohibiting people (many of them children and teens) to speak up just because of their sexual orientation. Please read what I said. Teenagers and young people ostracized because of their natural feelings that they didnt choose.

Banning anyone for the mere fact of being different is ATROCIOUS and should not be acceptable in any context whatsoever. We are talking of people here. Banning someone for their "condition" disregarding any actual behaviour is completely stigmatizing them.

Is saying "just because you are a pedophile you are worthless". "Just because you are gay/pedophile you dont deserve to give your opinion". Is wrong and is inhuman to hundreds of pedophile teens who want and need to speak up. — Unsigned, by: 95.211.153.115 / talk / contribs

No one bought those NAMBLA talking points when they were new, and no one is buying them now. --Revolverman (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Im sure those children and teen pedophiles surely deserve to be condemned for the monsters they are, right? I bet those 15 year old pedophile boys are member of NAMBLA in disguise. I mean, whats more disgusting than teens who have a different sexual orientation? We should totally shame them like we did with gay teens its not like they would feel bad or depressed or try to kill themselves or anything. — Unsigned, by: 93.182.129.86 / talk / contribs


Troll Corry (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess this kids are totally trolling fucking INSENSITIVE SCUMBAG — Unsigned, by: 89.248.173.112 / talk / contribs

The bolding was a nice touch, also sign your fucking posts. --Revolverman (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support