RWBY Clean-Up

Go ahead, if you want to do that.

I'm thinking of taking the following videos to the video moderation thread and ask for them to be deleted for not representing the trope. Is there any feedback before I do so? (VideoExamples.RWBY)

• Break Them by Talking: "Cinder Fall's Speech": The trope is supposed to be about how a speech breaks someone because they cannot deny the words that have been said. All this video does is cover Cinder's villainous Beacon speech. Given that we know this doesn't break any of the heroes and makes them fight back and realise she's behind everything, it's very much not an example of the trope.
• Kill the Cutie: "Vytal Festival Finals" video; while this establishes a character death, it does nothing to establish the "cutie" part of the trope. The trope description makes it clear how a work depicts a "cutie" in the run-up to their death. The video is just "shocking character death" and not Kill the Cutie.
• Strange Minds Think Alike: "Combat Skirts" video; this does not demonstrate the trope at all. The trope is supposed to be about a one character echoing another character completely by accident and during a completely different scenario, the point being that the two individuals use the same strange logic to reach the same conclusion independently of each other. The video is just two skirt-wearing girls bonding against the accusation that a skirt stops a girl from looking "combat ready".

Nuke 'em from orbit, Wyld

Since all WMG pages are now considered Spoilers Off here, I propose we should remove the spoiler tags from there. Thoughts?

Edited by gjjones on Oct 19th 2021 at 12:57:17 PM

Well, yes. If it's Spoilers Off now, it should be brought into line. Are there any other issues on the WMG pages? They should be looked at, too, if so.

If there's no further feedback on the videos, I'll take them for removal on Friday evening (22nd October).

I've taken the videos to the video moderation thread.

I've gone through the Fanon.RWBY page and removed quite a bit of theory-crafting and speculative troping from the page. I've done a bit of tidying up of entries, as well, fixing example indentation and grammar, and combining entries that were needlessly split between multiple bullet points.

There may still be grammar issues on the page, and I'm not sure I got everything. The page was basically acting like a WMG page, and there are still a number of entries on the page that have the "<insert theory> Jossed <because>" pattern to them, which makes me think that there are still examples on the page that are really theories instead of fanon.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Oct 31st 2021 at 6:47:16 PM

I've gone through the HoYay.RWBY page to remove Homoerotic Subtext, Shipping Goggles, Speculative Troping, and anything that is deliberately twisting or misrepresenting scenes.

I've listed what I've removed on the Ho Yay clean-up thread. I've sent the sandbox to the Cut List (it wasn't being used and wasn't needed in the end).

I don't see anything else major. Most of the clean-up was needed in the Ruby/Weiss folder. The rest of the page was mostly okay, so I've moved the Ho Yay section on the sandbox to the Completed folder.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Dec 5th 2021 at 3:18:24 PM

Okay, I've gone through the remaining videos on the VideoExamples.RWBY page and found the following issues. Most are just in need of cleaning up spoilerific titles, descriptions and thumbnails, but a couple don't seem to be salvageable. Thoughts welcome:

Edited by Wyldchyld on Dec 24th 2021 at 11:21:23 AM

So, in regards to RWBY's Misaimed Fandom page. What fits and what doesn't?

Emphasis added by me:

• Thanks to Roman's coolness and suave demeanor, many fans seemed to be convinced he was the real top dog of the villains, ignoring the fact he was one of the lowest-powered villains. Many fans still clamor for his return today, despite him not factoring into the larger plot.

Is this really Misaimed Fandom? The trope seems to be about "audience interpretation conflicts with authorial intent", and I don't really see that. It's certainly an audience reaction but I don't see how the entry as currently worded fits the trope. Maybe if it was clearer, but as it stands "fans want a 'cool' low-stakes villain back when the work has moved on to larger stakes" doesn't feel like an example.

I proposed adding this thread to the Trope Report here.

That sounds like a good idea.

On MisaimedFandom.RWBY:

The entries that are still on the page:

The entries that were removed because they were added by a ban evader:

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 8th 2022 at 10:02:39 AM

I was just reading about ban evader stuff on the Moderation thread. Personally I think there's no point in validating ban evaders. If something was added during ban evading, it should go.

I'm not sure that's how it works.

We are trying to determine if the examples fit the criteria for being the Misaimed Fandom trope or not. Whether or not they were added by a ban evader probably isn't a factor.

Let's put it like this. You have someone who writes up a trope for a character page. It's an example that's written well enough and is shown to fit the character and matches the description of the trope. It's later revealed that the person who added it was a ban evader and the trope needed to be removed.

Does the example permanently stay off the page just because of who added it in the first place? If you ask me, no. So long as the example fits the character and trope definition, it should belong so long as it's re-added by a troper who isn't a ban evader.

If the example works should be more important than whether or not it being there at all "validates" a ban evader. Right now we're still trying to figure out if the above examples for the MF RWBY page fit or not. If one or two of the ban evaders original additions fit, they stay. If they don't fit, they remain removed.

The only question was whether to keep them or not. I simply think the fact they were added by someone who did not respect the rules of this site means they should not be put back.

Though I suppose significant enough rewrites and tweaks would make them effectively new entries anyway.

Edited by M84 on Jan 5th 2022 at 9:14:32 PM

I say the ban evader's points are good and should be kept, but give them a overhaul so we're not using their stuff.

I just realised my previous post didn't link to the RWBY page. I've corrected that now.

I think most of the examples we keep may need a rewrite anyway, if only to cut down Wall of Text issues. As I mentioned in my above post, I think the ban evader posts have some issues as written anyway, so they'd definitely have to be rewritten.

So, I don't think it's a case of adding them back to the page as the ban evader had written them. It's a case of seeing whether there's a legitimate concept and then another troper writing it up as a proper example.

There are currently five entries on the page. Then there are another three examples that were taken off the page because they were written by a ban evader. To summarise what I'm suggesting in my previous post:

• Team RWBY: Wall of Text and Complaining issues; rewrite.
  • Illegal sub-bullet acting as a Take That! objection to the parent entry. Roll the two entries together into a concise, neutral entry.
• Roman: Some fans objecting to a character's death is just complaining and PSOC. Remove.
• Cordovin: This seems linked to the Take That! entry above; it's complaining, uses Fridge Logic, and is really touch-and-go as to whether a legitimate entry can be salvaged. Either remove or rewrite.
• Ozpin: Entry is just cribbing the Unintentionally Sympathetic and Unintentionally Unsympathetic entries about the same subject. This is best left to the US/UU. Remove.

So, of the five entries on the page, I'm currently suggesting two be rolled into a single rewritten entry, another might be salvageable with a rewrite, and the other two should be removed. That would leave us with just two examples — thereby cutting the page and moving them back to the main YMMV page.

Regarding the ban evader examples, I'm suggesting:

• Volume 7: This is rehashing the Base-Breaking Character and Broken Base entries on the same subject. However, there is definitely a vitriolic Vocal Minority of Ironwood supporters whose abuse of the creators forced them to reiterate that Ironwood unambiguously became a villain. So, either we just leave it to the BBC and BB entries, or we create a neutral entry that solely discusses this Vocal Minority.
• Adam: Legitimate, but needs rewriting to cut down the Wall of Text. So, a new entry would need to be created anyway.
  • Illegal sub-bullet that uses some flamebait language. It does mention a legitimate issue, but there's a more general entry about the entire White Fang storyline under Unfortunate Implications already. This is a very specific issue about how the fandom felt the introduction of Sienna showed that the writers could have made the White Fang more nuanced. So, we could either rewrite this as an example, or discard it in favour of letting the Unfortunate Implications entry speak for the subject at large.

Looking at the three ban evader examples, one is worth keeping but would need rewriting anyway for Wall of Text issues; the other two are touch-and-go because they do mention legitimate issues, but the question is whether existing audience reactions elsewhere on the YMMV already cover this subject well enough.

Even if all three ended up with entries, that would produce a total of five entries, and would still raise the subject of whether we keep the RWBY page or cut it and move everything back to the YMMV page. If we take on just the one ban evader entry, or don't take on any of them, we'll definitely have to cut the page because there will only be two legitimate examples.

And all that is only if people agree with my take on the current entries, which isn't guaranteed to be the case.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 8th 2022 at 10:31:29 AM

Come to think of it, we may need to remove the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment sinkholes from the RWBY pages, if we haven't done so already.

Edited by gjjones on Jan 15th 2022 at 5:22:40 AM

Back in December, I posted here about a bunch of video examples that are either misuse or spoilerific, and listed them for feedback before I take them to the video moderation thread for axing or clean-up. I didn't get any feedback, so I'm posting a last call.

I'm sending 7 videos to be removed and I'm sending a further 7 videos for clean up (name, and/or description, and/or thumbnail).

So, here's the link to my post. Feedback would be appreciated, but if I still haven't heard anything by next weekend, I'm going to go ahead and take them to the moderation thread.

Maybe there's something with salvaging with Covordin, it would just need to be more about the dissonance between writer intention and certain Fans takes on it.

"Many sections of the Fandom seem to be more sympathetic to Authority and legality then the show intends for them to do, particularly when it comes to Atlas. It began with the controversy surrounding Covordin in Volume 6, with many Fans seeming to believe that Covordin was simply doing her job and was fairly reasonable, hence many Fans shock and Anger at the protagonists when they decide to steal an airship from her, believing that they made Covordin actions, like deploying a Mecha on the team, necessary and were responsible for the resulting consequences like Argus nearly being destroyed. The show itself makes it clear that Covordins actions were largely motivated by her own Pride and needlessly Vindictive tendencies, and the writers have both expressed surprise at its controversy, as it was meant to be a straightforward and Fun climax without much moral ambiguity to give levity from the Darker subplot with Adam, and have revealed that Covordin was considered an annoyance even by the standards of the Atlas Military, only having her job in Argus as they believed she wouldn't be able to but anyone."

Im almost certain it's a bit messy and would need work if it did work, but just wanted to throw it out there

I did also think, maybe just make the entry more about the General situation with the fans siding more with Authority and such?

That's still something I have a hard time wrapping my mind around with this fandom. So you have people who argue that what the protagonists do is illegal and lambast them for it, but when Ironwood does illegal shit (bring his army over to Vale without permission, the dust embargo, the border lockdown, etc, and it's confirmed he's shafting Atlas law for a long time since the Atlas Council outright points out in V7 how he's been ignoring the checks and balances) it's totally okay just because he's the one making the rules?

Okay, so, I gave it a proof-read. Are you okay with this?

• A significant part of the fandom is sympathetic to authority figures who uphold the law, which generated controversy during Volume 6's Cordovin arc. Fans perceived Cordovin to be reasonable, just doing her job, and that actions such as deploying a Mecha against trained Huntsmen were necessary; they were shocked and angry at the protagonists stealing a military airship, blaming them for consequences such as the Grimm attack on Argus. The show depicted Cordovin as petty, prideful and vindictive, so the writers were surprised by the controversy. They wanted a fun, straight-forward climax without moral ambiguity to counter Adam's darker sub-plot, revealing that the Atlesian military considered Cordovin annoying and assigned her to Argus because they thought she couldn't bother anyone there.

Disclaimer: If anyone wants to do any rewrites of their own, or feel my rewrites have issues, please feel free to rewrite. I've done it to kick-start discussion. I don't have to be the one who rewrites the entries, and there's no guarantee my rewrite suggestions are any good anyway.

Okay, so based on everyone's posts (and a rewrite), we've got the following entries remaining:

• Many regard Team RWBY as the only main characters and feel that Team JNPR, Oscar and Qrow are a Spotlight-Stealing Squad, resulting in a backlash when these characters take centre stage, such as their focus during Volumes 7-8, or Jaune's arc in Volume 1. They regularly express the desire for the others to be Put on a Bus so that Team RWBY receives sole focus, and disliked Jaune joining Team RWBY in the Void Between the Worlds. The show itself has made it clear that there is an ensemble cast, with Team JNPR being the deuteragonists since the beginning, even though marketing usually focusses on Team RWBY. The writers' response has been to confirm that the show was almost called "Remnant" instead of "RWBY", as there was never an intention to focus solely on just one team.
• A significant part of the fandom is sympathetic to authority figures who uphold the law, which generated controversy during Volume 6's Cordovin arc. Fans perceived Cordovin to be reasonable, just doing her job, and that actions such as deploying a Mecha against trained Huntsmen were necessary; they were shocked and angry at the protagonists stealing a military airship, blaming them for consequences such as the Grimm attack on Argus. The show depicted Cordovin as petty, prideful and vindictive, so the writers were surprised by the controversy. They wanted a fun, straight-forward climax without moral ambiguity to counter Adam's darker sub-plot, revealing that the Atlesian military considered Cordovin annoying and assigned her to Argus because they thought she couldn't bother anyone there.

That leaves us to decide what to do with the ban evader examples. I've tried to rewrite them below as a possible replacement entry, but it needs consensus on whether they go onto the page.

As it is, with only two entries, we'd be cutting the page and moving them back to the YMMV page. Even if we add the following two entries, we've only got four examples, so still need to discuss whether to keep or cut the page and move everything back to the YMMV page.

Edited to add: Actually, this first entry about Ironwood was not created by the ban evader (it was actually written mostly by me). There was a debate on the discussion page, and it led to an entry being written that tropers agreed to and then put on the page. A troper came along later and removed the entry without seeking any consensus, and the ban evader added it back to the page. As a result, I'm not sure this Ironwood entry does count as a ban evader one. There was a consensus for it being on the page. So, it does need to go back there. Either as the originally worded entry, or as a rewritten one.

• Ironwood has a devoted fanbase who sees him as a strong military leader who can make the tough choices when his allies cannot, and who dislike the protagonists as naïve heroes endangering lives with their idealistic stances. They feel Volumes 7-8 portrayed Ironwood as being the only person with a plan to save some lives in contrast to Team RWBY, who wanted to endanger everyone's lives as a result of having no plan to save anyone and no will to make the tough call to guarantee the salvation of some. They therefore believe that Ironwood was derailed into the role of a ruthless, impotent villain in favour of Protagonist-Centred Morality. The backlash was so strong that the writers pointed out that Ironwood had been portrayed as a deeply flawed individual from the beginning, and that he was meant to be regarded as unambiguously villainous by the end of Volume 7.

So, this rewrite is based on the only entry that was created by the ban evader:

• Adam has a fanbase who interpret him as an Anti-Hero who became a Well-Intentioned Extremist, who goes to dark lengths to fight for a better future for the Faunus. When Volume 3 revealed him to be Blake's Psycho Ex-Boyfriend, they felt his character had been derailed, especially after it's revealed he was once a slave who was branded like an animal. However, in the Black Trailer, Blake left Adam because he was a terrorist who didn't care if he bombed innocent people, she makes reference to his increasing violence over time during Volumes 2-3, and Ilia is used during Volume 5 to show that a character can turn away from extremism if they want to. The writers confirmed that Adam was an unstable villain with no redeeming qualities from the beginning.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 29th 2022 at 11:26:08 AM

Just gonna say, as the guy who wrote the Cordovin and Main Character parent post entries for Misaimed Fandom long before Misaimed Fandom got it's own page, I was not trying to be complainey or bash anyone in particular. And for the record, the Cordovin one isn't related to the Take That! subbullet on Team RWBY, the former was written long before that and was more just me documenting reactions to the Cordovin subplot and their trying to whitewash her.

And saying they're badly written cut me deep. I know I have issues being concise and stuff, no need to rub it in.

• Since people seem to be incapable of telling when I'm just screwing around, I am invoking Humor Mode.

Comedy or not, it's fair to point out I was a bit harsh. Apologies for that, I'll tone comments down in future.

If you want to do any rewrites, please feel free. I've added a disclaimer to my post to make it clear I've only rewritten to kick-start discussion. We don't have to go with what I've written, and what I've written may have problems anyway.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 29th 2022 at 4:32:41 AM