Broken Base Cleanup

On the DR 3 page, I believe that almost all of them warrant entry. I've been one of the less critical people on the show, I've been more tolerant that a lot of people have to things that it did, and I feel that a lot of them have merit. A lot of them can definitely be re-worded, because some of them do sound like a one-sided hate train, but we certainly shouldn't dismiss them.

I agree that Dragon Ball Super should be cut, but I tweked some entries that I think counted so that they fit the new criteria.

For example, anything talking about the Super's manga and anime difference can easily be turned into a single bullet point that covers the massive fandom split from anime and manga fans.

• There is a unending civil war between Super fans that prefer the anime and fans who prefer the manga. Fans of the manga cite its better pacing, artwork, characterizations, and fights. Anine watchers dislike the manga for its tracing of the original Dragon Ball manga, characterizations, rushed pacing, and storytelling elements. This massive divide even led to heated forum debates regarding whichever of the two mediums should be treated as the "canon" version of Super, with no end to the arguing in sight.

And this entry should be fine under the new critieria after an edit or 2.

• As a whole, the entire Future Trunks Saga broke the fandom apart. One half proclaim it as one of the best, if not the best, story arc in the entire Dragon Ball franchise with its abundance of Continuity Nods, Call Backs, complex villains, mystery driven plot, and the unexpected ending. The other half hate the arc for its lack of use of the extended cast, the confusing nature of time travel and timelines, needless padding with the characters going back and forward through time, and the Esoteric Happy Ending. Needless to say, you either love the Future Trunks Saga or think it fell apart under its own weight.

edited 17th May '17 3:17:03 PM by VeryMelon

The criteria for inclusion are:

• A sustained conflict: short-term conflicts that are quickly forgotten don't count.
• An exceptionally vicious conflict: a simple disagreement where the various factions have little problem co-existing doesn't count.
• Two or more large, vocal, and entrenched factions: a tiny Vocal Minority that won't shut up about their pet peeve but is vastly outnumbered by more reasonable fans doesn't count. Nor does a silent majority that likes what they like (or hates what they hate) but doesn't make a big deal about it.
• Little to no middle ground: Cases in which the vast majority of the fandom just plain doesn't care too much about the disagreements of a few fringe elements don't count.

If you think that an example on the page counts, rewrite it so that it firmly establishes those criteria. Because right now literally none of them do. I'm not saying that none of them are valid examples in and of themselves, just that as written, none of them make a good case for themselves.

Those writeups are way, way better than anything that's on the page now, but I think they're still too narrow. They don't fit the "no middle ground" criteria because there's a huge faction of Dragon Ball fans that just plain doesn't care one way or the other about anything specific to Super.

edited 17th May '17 3:46:34 PM by HighCrate

I'm unsure if the "no middle ground" criteria has to be proven or not. There's nothing in either write-up to suggest a middle ground exists to the person reading it, at least to me.

I am telling you that I know from personal experience that there is a very large middle ground there. It's not a matter of how it's written in this case, it's a matter of it not being an example because the Dragon Ball fandom as a whole is not split over these things.

edited 17th May '17 4:04:20 PM by HighCrate

The only one of those examples I'm familiar with is the SM Crystal one, about the art, but I'm not familiar enough to rewrite it properly. On the other hand, I'm also not familiar enough to know if people moved on or not.

So we need proof then.

Adding a followup to Hyuuga, yes, DR 3 qualifies. This isn't like the Broken Base material with NDRV 3, where much of the BB was caused by misinformation and people being ignorant (just check out Comun's tumblr for that), here most of the arguments at least have some degree of validity.

It's difficult to "prove" a negative; there's not much you can do beyond saying something to the effect of "there is no middle ground."

Over on the Expy cleanup thread, they have a standard that examples must be "unambiguous," which they define as, "There is no doubt, there is no room for arguing that they aren't."

This might be a case where we need something like that.

edited 17th May '17 4:34:21 PM by HighCrate

Well, me and Hyuuga are DR fans, so I'd argue we'd have more idea then.

He was talking to Melon, Eternity. Not you.

Sorry, was replying to Very Melon about Super.

As far as Dangonropa goes, I'm not saying that its fanbase isn't broken; I'm saying that none of the entries in its subpages are written in such a way that I, as a non-fan, can read them and know whether it is or isn't.

edited 17th May '17 4:56:51 PM by HighCrate

Well, the problem there is that DR 3 is written for fans (in theory anyway, the execution not so much), so many of the complaints are inevitably going to be tied to the fandom for fans.

However, say I read some Broken Base entries on, say, Blaz Blue, a series that I don't know too terribly much about. Discounting any gameplay reasons, I wouldn't understand too much of it because I'm not a fan of the series.

That's why we've set out some very simple and clear criteria that we can apply to each example. If an entry is written such that it establishes those criteria, then it's a good example.

If it's not, then it may not be immediately apparent to a non-fan whether it's a Zero Context Example or Not An Example at all, but it is clear that it's a bad entry that needs to be either cut or fixed.

So. We agree that the DR subpage, as written, does not fit the criteria. As a non-fan, all I can do is cut them for lack of context. If you, as a fan, tell me that they can be fixed by adding context, then great. Go for it.

edited 18th May '17 9:42:19 AM by HighCrate

Created Sandbox.Broken Base Sailor Moon Crystal, Sandbox.Broken Base Dangan Ronpa 3, and Sandbox.Broken Base Dragon Ball Super and copied the live pages over there in their entirety so that anyone who wishes can go through and look for salvageable examples.

Cutlisting them in the meantime, because as things stand, none have any valid examples.

Will move on to the main Anime & Manga page next.

Created Sandbox.Broken Base Anime And Manga and copied the live page over there for the benefit of anyone who wishes to check for salvageable examples.

Potentially valid examples:

• Sailor Moon:
  • The original English dubs of the anime. Are they worth watching or are they dated, horrible macekre's only worth watching for nostalgia (and even that is arguable)? Most fans have a negative view on the dub and mock it however others honestly enjoy it and think it's a good dub (especially for its time period). Then there are those who enjoy them for how hilarious the dubbing, censorship, and voices can be instead of the quality of the dubbed version itself.

This is the sort of issue that can legitimately break a base, but as written it's slanting more towards the complaining side. It also fails to establish that the conflict is sustained, exceptionally vicious, and that there's no middle ground.

• Pokémon:
  • Misty's departure pretty much split the anime fandom into those that won't have anything to do with any episodes past Johto and those that openly embrace the newer episodes.

Potentially valid and establishes "sustained" and "no middle ground" by implication, but fails to establish "exceptionally vicious".

• Pokémon:
  • There's also a divide between people who like the anime and people who think it does more harm than good for the games. The latter tend to want an adaptation that's truer to the games, like Pokémon Origins.

Fails to establish "sustained," "exceptionally vicious," and "little to no middle ground," but is the sort of issue that legitimately does break bases. Might be fixable with more context.

• The stereotypical portrayal of the Gundam fandom is essentially older fans shouting "It's Popular, Now It Sucks!", while the fans who got into the franchise through newer shows like Mobile Suit Gundam Wing and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mock them for their True Art Is Angsty attitude. This attitude was very prevalent in the early 2000s when Mobile Suit Gundam Wing became many people's Gateway Series into both anime in general and Gundam specifically.

Establishes "exceptionally vicious" by implication, describes a legit-sounding two-faction split (classic fans versus relative newbies), and implies "sustained" by describing an entire decade when this war was at its hottest. About the only thing it's missing is "no middle ground"; I'm not familiar enough with the Gundam fandom to speak to that. Can anyone illuminate for us?

• Yu-Gi-Oh!:
  • With the fifth series Yu-Gi-Oh! ARC-V there was a split between its fans and the fans of Zexal; while the fandom as whole has always discussed which series is "better" to various levels of seriousness, you'll seldom find any consensus reached in between these two fanbases, let alone people who like both series. The reasons vary according to who you ask, but mostly it seems like Arc V fans think of Zexal as the Dork Age of the franchise, while the Zexal fans look down on Arc V for considering it too ambitious or convoluted for their tastes.

Goes out of its way to establish it as more vicious than the typical "which is better" discussion and that there's little middle ground. More firmly establishing "sustained" would be nice, but it at least implies it by framing it as a series vs. series conflict, which are usually relatively long-term. Firmly establishes two conflicting factions. Pretty good example.

• The Endless Eight arc of The Melancholy Of Haruhi Suzumiya anime has sharply divided the once-strong fanbase. The main problem wasn't that it was adapted, it's that a short "Groundhog Day" Loop story was adapted into 8 full episodes with little variance between them, and that those episodes took up half the season's episode count. You either believe that it was all meaningless Filler that wasted half a season on what was a single, brief story in the novels or a clever Mind Screw that forced the viewer to share [Yuki's pain in being the sole person fully aware of each loop for almost 595 years and being unable to do anything about it. Which side you're on also may depend how you first experienced it. Were you a fan that was watching the episodes each week as it was coming out or a fan who came in after the fact and could watch the episodes at their own pace. Unique in that it managed to not only split the fan base, but the entire cast and directing crew as well. Some people got in serious trouble over Endless Eight and the fan reaction.

Establishes two competing factions and no middle ground and at least implies "exceptionally vicious." Not sure it passes the "sustained" test, though. Thoughts?

• Fairy Tail fandom is extremely divided on the subject of Jellal Fernandez. A major player in Erza's backstory, he made his appearance in the Tower of Paradise arc, which concluded with the manga's hundredth chapter, although technically, he'd been around since the second page of the first chapter. He has appeared in every single arc since then, in some form or another, and opinions are very mixed on if this is a good thing or not. One large segment of the fandom thinks that the unfolding drama is interesting, another thinks that he's worn out his welcome and needs to go away for good.

Firmly establishes two competing factions with a sustained (multi-arc) conflict, but doesn't establish the "exceptionally vicious" or "no middle ground" criteria. Might be a good example with more context?

• Naruto:
  • Uchiha Itachi and his true backstory. At least in the American fanbase, this plot twist split the franchise right down the middle to absolutely polarizing extremes. Those who loved the plot twist venerate Itachi as some kind of tragic hero, while those who hate the plot twist continuously paint him in a bad light or make him as Wangst-y and obsessive as possible. The split created some of the strongest sections of the Naruto Hatedom, some of which last to this day.

Firmly establishes two competing factions with no middle ground and an exceptionally vicious conflict that is sustained over time. Textbook example, and maybe the only one so far that can stay as written with no additional context needed.

• Slayers:
  • The third anime season, Slayers TRY: in the late 90's/2000's when it came out, it deviated in formula and story from the first two seasons (darker plot, downplayed humor, and one villain to chase as opposed to a multitude), and the main characters become peripheral to Guest-Star Party Member Filia and antagonist Valgaav. Because of this, it's either the most well-loved season or regarded as a piece of crap - it's even referred to as such by some professional reviewers.

It's the sort of issue that can divide a fandom, but it doesn't establish that the split was sustained or exceptionally vicious.

• Science Ninja Team Gatchaman:
  • Science Ninja Team Gatchaman vs. its multiple English adaptations. While Battle of the Planets is lambasted for turning the franchise into a joke and being one of the early examples of Macekre, there are just as many fans that will defend the flaws present (or love it in spite of such) and insist that it is the superior dubbed adaptation by the fact it came first, had a high budget, and was a source of much '70s childhood nostalgia.

Describes two competing factions, and a sustained conflict is at least implied, but it stops short of "exceptionally vicious with no middle ground." Might be a good example in need of further context.

• To Puella Magi Madoka Magica fans, the sequel movie known as Rebellion is extremely contentious—mainly due to the part where Homura usurps Madoka and becomes a demon, creating a better world for everyone (except Madoka... probably), but in a morally questionable and manipulative way. Some people consider this ending a complete trainwreck, and will usually claim it was so out-of-character that the entire movie (or just the final-act twist) didn't really happen. But some people love it, because of some combination of the coolness/edginess/tragicness, the fact that they saw the big twist coming, or the sheer wild complexity of the whole thing. There isn't much middle ground. The related question of whether Homura's decision to take over the universe was good or evil can generate heated arguments at a moment's notice, which generally go nowhere because viewers' opinions on this question are absolutely unshakeable.

It describes two entrenched factions with an exceptionally vicious conflict with no middle ground. It could stand to more firmly establish that the conflict is a sustained one though.

I was going to add this on BrokenBase.Literature, then remembered this thread and figured I might as well run the entry by here before it has to be deleted afterwards anyway. So, unless there are any objections, I'd like to add this on BrokenBase.Literature:

• Malazan Book of the Fallen:
  • Fan opinions regarding which half of the ten-book-series is better are split almost exactly right down the middle^note if books five and six were swapped, it would be exactly the middle, with both sides insisting their preferred half is better. Those who prefer the first half of the series argue that it's just one awesome thing happening after another and the second half lost that due to becoming overly philosophical and overwrought, introducing too many new characters and leaving the titular Malazan Empire behind. Fans of the second half prefer the philosophical turn and think the writing has become much more polished, with Steven Erikson daring to try new styles and finding his own voice; also, the series was never meant to be about the Malazan Empire, only its lost and fallen people, which are present to the very end. Even years after the release of the final volume no chance to have the argument flare up is missed, usually when a new fan dares to ask what the heck happened that book five reads so different than the previous four. Occasionally, both sides will agree that you like what you like, but then roll over and continue typing furiously.
  • The fandom is equally split over the books of Ian Cameron Esslemont, co-creator of the Malazanverse and writer of his own series within the setting. One half loves his books and the other hates them. The first half of the fandom argues that as co-creator, Esslemont's Novels of the Malazan Empire are just as Canon as the Malazan Book of the Fallen, follow the titular Malazan Empire's fate and are actually fun to read because they aren't bogged down by pseudo-philosophy. The other half argues that while they may be Canon, the Novels of the Malazan Empire are unreadable because Esslemont can't write a proper story arc, derails characters all over the place and just can't write, period, especially compared to Steven Erikson's carefully crafted prose. Since the fandom keeps gaining new readers and the question of when to read which author's books keeps coming up, the argument remains even after both authors have moved on to prequel trilogies.

edited 19th May '17 2:05:40 PM by Derkhan

Those are actually both pretty good. They establish a sustained conflict with two opposing factions, and the fact that they frame each of those factions as roughly half of the fanbase strongly implies the lack of a middle ground. The only strike against it I can see is the last line of the first example. If the fandom is able to set aside its split and be reasonable on a semi-regular basis, then it's Not An Example and the whole thing should be scrapped. If doing so is a relative rarity, then noting that it sometimes happens just muddies the waters and the line should be deleted.

Moving on to Comic Books, starting with BrokenBase.All New All Different Marvel.

Starting with the first line, "Basically every single thing announced about ANADM has gotten the fans at each others' throats," I'm suspicious about this page. If everything is a Broken Base, then nothing is. The fact that the first two entries are written in the future tense makes me even more suspicious. We don't trope things that haven't happened yet.

Sure enough, the page is riddled with Weasel Words and one-sided and/or extremely context-light entries. Only one looks even potentially valid from my perspective:

• The even bigger Inhuman push. Fans of Charles Soule's revamp love it, since he will be writing both of the ongoings and the Inhumans will be having more of a presence in the Marvel Universe, while Warren Ellis will be writing Karnak. Detractors, especially X-Men fans, see it as another attempt to make the Inhumans 'happen', which already kind of failed the first time, since Inhuman was not a particularly good seller. The use of Inhumans in team books is seen as an attempt to try and force non-Inhuman readers to read them.

This at least describes two entrenched factions— Inhumans fans vs. X-Men fans within the larger "Marvel fandom" umbrella— but doesn't establish "sustained," "exceptionally vicious," or "no middle ground."

Moving on to BrokenBase.DC Rebirth:

This is another one that appears to have largely been written using pre-release information and never revised since. Virtually all of the entries fail the "sustained" test by definition— the run being barely a year old— and most of them fail in other ways as well. Not seeing anything worth saving here.

edited 20th May '17 7:26:32 AM by HighCrate

And finally, the main BrokenBase.Comic Books page (the old page has been copied over to Sandbox.Broken Base Comic Books so that anyone who wishes can comb through it for salvageable examples even as we make cuts to the live page). This page is a mess of entries that are really just Base-Breaking Character (which is No Examples Please), complaining, natter, Thread Mode, and minor squabbles that most fans just plain don't actually care that much about. Entries I think may be potentially salvageable:

• The death and replacement of Peter Parker in the Ultimate Comics definitely polarized the fanbase between those who like newcomer Miles Morales and those who want him gone and Peter back.

I do remember this one being fairly controversial within the Spidey fandom, but it also seemed to die down after a while. Can anyone comment on whether this passes the "sustained" test?

• Green Lantern. God help you if you try and discuss who is the best Green Lantern; the fight between fans rallying behind their preferred Lantern is one of the most persistent in fandom. This is partly due to DC ticking off Hal Jordan and old-school Corps fans by getting rid of them when introducing Kyle Rayner as the new GL.

This is the sort of issue that can legitimately break a fanbase, and it also establishes "sustained" and at least implies "exceptionally vicious." It doesn't really describe who the factions are particularly well, though.

• Batgirl: Fans are split over their preference for Barbara Gordon, the original Batgirl, or her Darker and Edgier replacement Cassandra Cain, or her Lighter and Softer replacement Stephanie Brown. Further complicated by the fact that Barbara Gordon fans are split between those supporting her uncrippling and those wishing it happened again. There is always been an Unpleasable Fanbase since Cassandra Cain first took the mantle, and now that 3 fairly popular and quite different characters have had the role, it gets worse, even though all 3 have had successful times under other monikers. Which meant that if DC had simply provided all 3 with a consistent role, they could probably avoid such difficulties, but replacements cause the replaced to be Put on a Bus and ignored. The Barbara Gordon return was made even worse in the noticeable decline of quality, and conscious but unsuccessful copying of several elements of Batgirl (2009).

This describes a potentially legit split— between fans of three different versions of Batgirl— but then gets off-track talking about a second split (Babs-as-Oracle fans vs. Babs-as-Batgirl fans) that should really get its own entry if valid, and then descends into complaining. (It's also followed by several secondary bullet points' worth of natter and Thread Mode which I've cut.) I could probably take a fair stab at rewriting this one myself, but would prefer to hand the job over to someone more knowledgeable if possible.

I'm somewhat new here, so please correct me if I'm(most likely) being wrong, but I looked into the Broken Base trope & it said there a Broken Base is cause with each oppose sides being incredibly vocal about their opinion/perspective with little to no middle ground. If this is the case why has the Dragonball Super's broken base has been deleted given how incredibly vocal they can be? Especially since you said you yourself know how divided the fanbase can be?

A Broken Base isn't just "any time any fans anywhere disagree on anything," which would be People Sit On Chairs. It's "a sustained and exceptionally vicious conflict between two or more large, vocal, and entrenched factions with little or no middle ground to be found between them."

Dragonball Super is less than two years old, so only the oldest of conflicts about it stand any kind of chance of being considered "sustained." In my experience, it goes more like, "episode comes out, fans find something to disagree about in it, then the next episode comes out and they forget all about it."

I haven't noticed any coherent, unified factions forming around DBS. Fans are certainly vocal, but that's not the same as something like, say, the Harry/Hermoine vs. Ron/Hermoine shippers in the Harry Potter fandom, or TNG fans vs. TOS fans in Star Trek fandom. Those were clear-cut factions divided over a specific issue. DBS doesn't, as far as I can tell, have that.

Finally, there's a huge built-in middle ground in any DBS-centered conflict, which is the fact that there's a large contingent within the Dragon Ball fandom that simply doesn't care too much one way or the other about anything that's not based on Toriyama's original manga run (and, usually, the Z era specifically).

Any way you look at it, it's a contentious fanbase sure, but not one that's broken in the way the trope describes.

edited 21st May '17 7:36:11 PM by HighCrate

The Green Lantern Broken Base (which is really for "who should be the primary human Green Lantern") roughly breaks into three factions:

1. Old school Hal Jordan fans/Superfriends fans who feel his character was assassinated by turning him into the supervillain Parallax during the Zero Hour event.

2. Kyle Rayner fans who feel that he's the most creative user of the Green Lantern (and that Hal was a bland character with little personality) and carried the franchise post-Zero Hour.

3. Fans of Justice League/Justice League Unlimited cartoons who were first introduced to John Stewart and wonder why comic book fans are arguing about two white guys when Green Lantern is a black ex-Marine.

There are other popular human Green Lanterns, but you won't find Guy Gardner fans or Simon Baz fans claiming that they should be the primary focus of the main Green Lantern series. Hal versus Kyle is particularly vicious (although bring Hal back to life and the Parallax-emotion spectrum retcon has made it calm down a little).

Though they really shouldn't be considered examples of Broken Base either.