RWBY Clean-Up

A few months ago, RWBY was added to the Complaining sandbox.

Given that, I think we should start working on the effort to remove any potential complaining from all of the RWBY pages. Thoughts?

Isn't that what we've already been doing?

Think so.

Yeah, we should already be removing complaining where we find it.

Complaining is on the project sandbox under Extensive issues. I've linked our sandbox and the clean-up thread's complaining sandbox together, so people know about both.

I've also moved the Hate Sink entry to the Completed. I can't find any issues on any RWBY pages. Either they've all been moved to appropriate sub-tropes already, or there were never issues on the RWBY pages.

Speaking of complaining. I added this to the Complaining thread, but they didn't really deal with it (RWBY crops up too much for them), so I've moved it here for feedback:

I've come across a headscratchers recap page — it's a headscratchers for a single episode. It's only got a single (wall of text) entry that's basically complaining that a character isn't doing what the troper wants them to do. It has a number of responses that mostly just point out that the OP wants the character to be something she's not.

Can I remove this for complaining? I'll have to Cut List the page if I do.

Headscratchers.RWBYV 8 E 5 Amity

• Why doesn't Penny kill Cinder, along with Neo (And for that matter, why doesn't Maria kill the downed Neo?) and Emerald? Yes, yes, we all know Penny is a good soul, and the good guys can't do bad things. But... really. Why doesn't Penny just nuke Cinder, Emerald's tears or no, followed by Neo and then finishing off Emerald alone, who's semblance is useless against her thermal vision? Cinder was responsible for her own death, along with Pyrrha's and many others at Beacon, and both Neo and Emerald were accomplices to the deaths there. Penny even says she has something of a grudge against Cinder for it last volume, so you'd think after trying to reason with Cinder and Cinder's response showing herself to be a self-centered psychopath, that she would just kill her. On that note, given Cinder's train of thought, if Penny did kill her, it's far less likely that Emerald or Salem, who Cinder barely pays attention to or cares about, would get the power as much as Penny herself or (given Cinder's obsessive grudge) Ruby would, greatly boosting the chances that Mantle could be saved, as well as killing the strongest (or with the Hound, perhaps second-strongest) subordinate Salem has. Emerald can cry as much as she likes, but Cinder has proven she can't be reformed and has, either directly or by proxy, murdered or come very close to killing Ruby, Weiss, Pyrrha, Ozpin, and indirectly many others, including Penny herself. Even if she doesn't go Terminator on the remaining three assailants, why doesn't she just kill Cinder, or at the very least damage her to the point she can't harm anyone anymore, such as amputating some body parts or destroying her other eye?
  • Penny has never in the show been demonstrated as the kind of person who would kill an unconscious, defenseless opponent. That would go against her characterization up until this point as a comparatively kind and altruistic person. She's never taken a human life, period, let alone a downed and helpless foe, nor mutilate them so they are helpless. She is just not that kind of individual. Yes, taking out Cinder would be the cold, calm, logical thing to do, but Penny is not a cold and ruthless killer.
  • Also, from a purely logical standpoint, Emerald has a gun pointed right at the central control system for Amity. If Penny tried to kill Cinder anyway, Emerald would fill the control system with bullets and disable Amity itself. While Penny could have attacked while they were moving away, Penny's got no way of guaranteeing Emerald wouldn't be able to further damage Amity's systems out of desperation or spite.
  • On the first one, Penny already has a grudge on Cinder, so it's not entirely out of character. And on the latter, it was pretty clearly an empty threat, and Penny can probably one-shot Emerald considering she KO'd Neo and Cinder with that Wave-Motion Gun move. She just has guns, not cannons or explosives. She wouldn't be able to do anything, considering that even Cinder's maiden powers couldn't destroy it during the fight to the point of not being functional.
  • "Has a grudge" != "will murder in cold blood." Penny has never demonstrated at any point in the show a willingness to attack someone who is helpless. She has never been hinted at being a ruthless killer. She might have attempted to apprehend Cinder, but killing would be out of character. As for Emerald's gun, it clearly is treated as a threat in-universe, because when Emerald threatens to use it, Penny pauses in place rather than continue the attack. Cinder was never shown directly attacking the control unit itself, as she only attacked the steel beams holding it up. When Emerald shot the control system, everyone treated that as a serious danger. Penny could have taken Emerald out, but Emerald would have gotten off multiple shots before Penny could have done anything, since pulling a trigger is much, much faster than charging up an energy beam. If the gun wasn't a threat, Penny would have no reason to pause.
  • Also, the first shot almost hit Pietro. Even if Emerald was aiming for the console, he could be hit by mistake or a bounced bullet, and we don't know (and Penny can't risk) if Pietro's damaged Aura could prevent him from being badly hurt with no way of helping him and keeping Amity up at the same time.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Apr 17th 2022 at 4:25:53 AM

I've put the ShipTease.RWBY into the Completed folder. If anyone thinks they can shorten the entries further, feel free to have a go, but I'm not sure they can be. The main ones for length are Blake/Yang, Blake/Sun and Ren/Nora — which are the three ships with the most tease in the show.

Is there any policy for Headscratchers and when they can be removed?

I'm honestly not sure. I don't normally touch Headscratchers pages. I think there's a clean-up thread, but I don't know how active it is.

The RWBY headscratchers might be beyond repair.

I'm not really sure why it needs treatment to begin with.

I've just had a look at it. The short answer to your question is: because most of it seems to be complaining, nitpicking, debates, natter, opinion, and repetition

Headscratchers is supposed to function like a Q&A for something that genuinely confuses someone. The confused troper asks the question, someone provides the answer. That's it. That's all it should be. That's why a clean-up thread exists, which I've found and so linked to.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Apr 24th 2022 at 3:33:44 AM

I asked this on the main RWBY thread, but there was talk of a Vindicated by History entry for the YMMV regarding Volumes 4 and 5 since they've been getting more positivity in recent years thanks to being able to binge the episodes all at once. Would there be a case for an entry, or does this fall under Better on DVD and not need an entry?

It feels like straight-up Better on DVD.

The film format has also turned out to be very popular on the discs. That's putting all the episodes together so that the whole volume can be watched like a film (you can still watch it as individual episodes as well). They didn't do that for one of the volumes (you can watch the episodes in a "play all" style mode, but not like it's a single film). There was a bit of an outcry about that, and everything's been back to film format ever since.

So, yeah, I'd go with Better on DVD, and rewrite the existing entry.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Apr 25th 2022 at 6:22:23 AM

Can anyone post a link to the main RWBY thread? I lost mine in the Followed Threads function and I can't find it.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13639868050A17401700&page=3035#75872

Here you go.

• Common Knowledge: Because of the different medium, on top of it retelling the events of Volume 1, there is a frequent assumption that the anime is in an Alternate Continuity from the original show. This has been directly refuted by Rooster Teeth, who has stated that Ice Queendom, while standalone, does take place in the same universe as the original show.

This is misuse, its Canon Adjcacent as in a version of the events theoretically could have happened in Canon. But they are not the same universe, the mere fact we have a slightly altered Recap confirms that.

The post that the entry links to states that it is the same universe, but it's allowed to take liberties with canon for the sake of the story it's telling. That's why they're calling it "canon-adjacent" rather than AU.

However, I'd say that it's not an Common Knowledge example. The very fact that the term "canon adjacent" causes so much confusion, requiring so many attempts to explain what that means, makes it clear that it's not "common knowledge" at all. People don't think it's AU because of Common Knowledge, they interpret it as AU because they're trying to translate "canon-adjacent" into something that makes sense to them thanks to many people feeling that the "canon-adjacent" explanation is what an AU explanation would be. It's got more in common with Fan-Disliked Explanation than Common Knowledge (and I'm not sure it's FDE either).

Edited by Wyldchyld on Aug 15th 2022 at 11:35:47 AM

Yeah, namely because it felt like a Flip-Flop of God rather than a straight up answer.

Regarding Qrow and Nora's entries for All the Other Reindeer.

After re-reading the trope description several times, I don't think the two entries are examples as currently written.

• Qrow will need a rewrite as a Discussed Trope entry only. He claims to be the trope in V4, reveals in V6 that he thinks he's an inversion of the trope (ostracism leads to heroic traits) until Robyn tells him in V8 that he plays the trope straight (his determination to do the right thing despite his pain, not because of it. However, we never actually see the trope in play for him, it just gets discussed a couple of times.
• Nora's entry is about the ostracism she experienced while she was a street urchin long before she ever became a hero. Given that homeless people are typically ostracised because they're homeless, the trope is about people being ostracised for the specific traits that make them a hero or villain, and Nora has never been ostracised for her heroic traits, I think she's trope misuse.

Hmm... For what it's worth, I've gone ahead and removed the All of the Other Reindeer entry from Nora's folder.

Edited by gjjones on Aug 29th 2022 at 5:19:48 AM

Should we consider adding a "Save the dates" section with important dates (such as the premiere date for the ninth volume, RWBY day, etc.) in the sandbox? For example:

• October 10: Often considered "RWBY Day", so expect edits around that time period.

Edited by gjjones on Sep 1st 2022 at 12:32:37 PM

I don't recall a significant editing pattern around October 10 in past years.

I found this on the YMMV

• Sacred Cow: Part of the fandom is really invested in the show, to the point where they consider it almost flawless. This part of the fandom doesn't like when the show is criticized and can become very defensive when it happens. This has unfortunately led to the fandom developing a bit of a bad reputation for being unable to handle criticism.

I thought this was decided to be removed ages ago? Sacred Cow is for something that is treated with nigh universal praise and thus has people who dislike any flaws being pointed out.

'There are fans of this thing who dislike it being criticized' is basically every popular thing that has ever existed.

I checked Sacred Cow's main page, I agree that that isn't an example because I don't think it's approved of enough to count.