CM/MB Policy and Thread Culture

So I have had for some time some questions about adding entries to the YMMV pages, since it seems we lack some consistency for this:

1. Can they be added the moment that I have posted the write-up in the thread and in the drafts, or do I have to wait for them to be added to the Sandboxes and for these to be swapped? Because I swear that lately I have seen people do both cases and I'm confused.

2. The rules says that I'm the one who has to add the entries myself right? Because last time when I did my Going in Style MB entries and I waited for the Sandboxes to be swapped (since that's what I had recently read that I had to do) Siegfried ended up adding them to the YMMV pages themselves. Do I have to do it then or what?

3. If a character counts throughout two different works, the entry should be added to both works' YMMV pages or only to the one where they're more prominent, with a link to the other one? I have also seen people do both, for example Mrs. Tweedy has it like the latter while Governor Ratcliffe has it like the former.

I'm not sure if there's a set rule for 3), and I don't know if MB does it differently, but for CM (and keep in mind these aren't hard and fast rules, but instead what usually happens), for 1) and 2):

Once you post the entries to the thread and the Drafts, I add potholes and such, and then add those entries to the YMMV and the CM Sandbox page. Swappings happen every Sunday/Monday.

I'm seeing one of the proposal threads has an entry being actively edited on there. That needs to be taken to the cleanup one instead.

Some Image Pickin' stuff

Re this — just a head's up, if a CM/MB IP thread is linked to an existing page and an image is changed, added or removed, I personally don't bother to check the corresponding sandbox (I am not a participant in the threads and wouldn't even know if there is one being actively edited). Please make sure edits are transferred over.

Re this — if an illustrating character is deemed not an example, please do not remove the commented out IP note. Previous threads can be useful in current discussion.

Edited by Synchronicity on Apr 12th 2024 at 11:04:58 AM

So to clarify it's now two weeks after first release anywhere right?

So, in the thread there has been a bit of a disagreement because one poster went and proposed a character from a Japanese work (that was already reserved by someone else) and it has yet to come out in English. The OP was asked to blank the proposal and did so, but now it is being said that it is not against policy to bring up works that have yet to be released in an English market as long as it was released somewhere. My rebuttal was that, if the work is confirmed for an English release, bringing it up for discussion beforehand essentially spoils the work for those who do not speak the original language and makes it harder to verify if the proposal is honest with less access to the work. Now, works subject to No Export for You are fair game, but if there is a confirmed upcoming English release or good reason to think there will be, I feel it is more fair to wait until then before making any proposals. In the case of, say, a Japanese video game, I shouldn’t have to export a copy from Japan in the original language just to make sure I can play it without spoilers. Making a page for it before then is fine, because pages have spoiler marks, but a proposal will almost certainly discuss spoilers.

Edited by MasterN on Apr 23rd 2024 at 9:29:40 AM

Pretty sure we did away with mentioned that om the thread IIRC.

Edited by AustinDR on Apr 23rd 2024 at 10:27:38 AM

Reserved characters are one issue, and a pretty clear one.

Works that aren't available in certain countries or languages are a different matter.

Given the feedback when these were formalised, I think it's fair to say that the wiki as a whole has a strong view that a release anywhere, in any language, is a release. We do not prioritise any one market.

If CM and MB processes want to add extra rules within that framework then, subject to consensus, that's fine. We already have the additional two week rule, for example.

But (mod hat off) I don't personally think we'll get far with any proposal that goes against the principle that we're an international site and the USA does not get treated as the "main" market. No country gets special treatment.

Likewise, if you want to add a rule that specifically restricts untranslated works, that potentially gets tricky. We've never had a rule that other tropers need to have experienced the work. At least one of my candidates was from a Tamil (Kollywood) action film I initially saw on a flight, and - subtitles or not - I'm pretty sure nobody else on the thread had seen it.

If the argument is that proposals shouldn't risk spoilers for people who might want to experience the work later but can't yet (which is the basis of the two week rule, iirc?), then that isn't a translation-specific issue.

(Edit as I'm misremembering what was a Crowner and what was a thread approval)

Edited by Mrph1 on Apr 23rd 2024 at 8:14:25 PM

As I said, if the work doesn’t have a translation planned (ie, No Export for You), then proposing someone from it is fine because the work might not ever get a translation anyway. The restriction I would prefer specifically refers to works that are confirmed to be getting an English/international release, such as the work that was proposed from (I dunno what it is because it was blanked before I could see the post). And we have precedent for prioritizing English releases with the Localization cleanup thread, where works that are officially localized must use the official localization title, regardless of if the original title was something different.

Sorry to interrupt with my own issue, I don’t really have an opinion about the release date either way.

I’ve seen a lot of people propose to cut a character based on tropes written on character/work pages because anyone with their own opinions can edit them.

I propose putting up a note in the pinned posted, something like the “As a final note, we do not care what other sites have to say regarding whether or not a character counts. We have our own criteria and they have theirs for their CM equivalents; while they are similar, they are not exactly the same and should not be treated as such. Another site removing a character from their equivalent should not be a reason why a cut is proposed here, and if this is the case, it will likely lead to mod intervention.” that says something along the lines of “important note with their own opinions/biases can edit character/work pages and tropes listed on them can be inaccurate or exaggerated. Please do not propose to cut a listed character based on what’s written on their work page/character sheet.”

I’ve seen this happen too many times and frankly I’m getting sick of it. I think this will help curb misuse of characters sheet tropes.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.

Edited by LarryT on Apr 23rd 2024 at 1:10:27 AM

I personally don’t think its necesary. It isn’t super common occurence and sometimes it does have positive ouctume with characters who were either grandfathered in or whose reddeming gualities are missed during the proposal.

I get it can annoying, but it is just a thing that happens sometimes.

The wider issue is that anyone proposing a candidate, or suggesting that we cut one, shouldn't be relying on secondary sources. It doesn't matter whether that source is another wiki, our own Characters page or a news article somewhere.

If someone's proposing the addition or removal of a CM/MB candidate, I think we assume they're acting in good faith and expect that they've actually seen/played/read the work.

No, let's absolutely not make that forum policy under any circumstances.

Part of the issue that caused the threads to close down the first time was precisely because those kinds of insular policies contradicted the rest of the rules elsewhere on the wiki. Besides, we've had plenty of cases where a Pet the Dog or Even Evil Has Loved Ones (or so on) pothole have led to a reevaluation of the character and ultimately cut them.

Point is, "no" to the proposed FAQ addition. There will always be incongruities on the wiki (especially in that this trope is YMMV). It's not reasonable to expect—let alone enforce—that they all be accounted for.

Edited by Starkrafty on Apr 23rd 2024 at 7:46:19 AM

this is out of curiosity more than anything, but what are these cases?

Well, you can begin by looking at the history of this very forum, or the Former Complete Monsters page (the latter comes with plenty of receipts).

It's not an "abuse" in any way and we should not be policing it like it is.

I'm with Starkrafty on this one; even if it turns out to be wrong sometimes it's a perfectly fair concern to raise

When a certain thread was discussing a certain work I either hadn't seen yet or was planning to—or both threads were, I made it a point to go forth at my own discretion. I'd either wait to see the work to better participate or be involved anyway, depending on however I felt at the moment or what the work was. I can understand the interest in the rule though since it allows for the restrictions on when the work is discussed to be loosened up just a bit (and I don't necessary think there's anything wrong with it).

The date's sometimes played with in that a discussion would take place on a Thursday rather than a Friday when it would actually have been the two weeks on Friday officially. No one ever really had a problem with that though.

There was another good point brought up; if we don’t wait until the English release if one is clearly planned, it makes us less able to independently verify whether a character qualifies or an EP is accurate. While we do work on an honor system of assuming the EP is factual, it could easily happen that someone takes advantage of the language barrier to exaggerate or make up things about a candidate to make them fit the criteria, or perhaps unintentionally misinterpret things, and we would never know until weeks or months later (or years, as some games have taken that long to be translated). This can happen with any trope, but with most tropes, you can just make a quick edit to clear up the misconception; CM and MB, due to their controversial nature, have a formal process that makes dealing with incorrect entries a bit more cumbersome.

Again, this would only apply to works that are definitely getting an official English release; untranslated works without any plans to release them in an English market (for example, the German RPG Maker games that got brought up in the CM thread) are fair game.

Edited by MasterN on Apr 25th 2024 at 3:19:34 AM

I know for a fact we've approved characters from works that never had any English release - and I know this because when I objected for that reason, I was the only one to do so - so to be honest, I don't see why we need to have a policy on an English release date for that reason. If someone's going to be dishonest about it, that's gonna happen regardless of a language barrier, and I don't see a reason to lock people out based on that potential issue.

Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Apr 25th 2024 at 6:48:20 AM

We usually get the right info anyway. Release dates have been fudged in the past, but that's usually because it either wasn't updated when changed or it was an honest mistake that the wrong date went down to begin with. The threads when asked usually wave the dates the day right before too when asked and it's never a problem.

Are CM/MB allowed from ongoing works? I'd figure no since the status may be subject to change unless the character is written off the story, but policy pages don't say that.

CM and MB on No Recent Examples, Please! have "(2 weeks): Since all examples require group consensus, this allows more people to experience the work so that consensus may be reached on newer examples", but two weeks since what, character's final appearance?

Yes, there are plenty of CMs and MBs from ongoing works, particularly long works or one shots.

We have approved several characters who are still active from ongoing works.

It depends, either two weeks since the character dies or two weeks after the season/arc ends.

My main concern is that this is spoiling the work for people who cannot see it beforehand until the English release because they do not speak or read the original language. I would hate being unable to vote on candidates from Japanese works because I have to wait months or weeks before being able to read the post so as to not get spoiled.

Also, this is ignoring that the post that kicked off this discussion was already violating a rule, in that it was discussing a work someone else already reserved, so it needed to be blanked out anyway.

I'd think evaluating a CM/MB would naturally involve heavy spoilers, and since all entries will have spoilers, participating in these threads would naturally acknowledge the presense of spoilers for many works. If a work is released anywhere officially, as far as the wiki is concerned it's a global release, so holding off because some CM/MB participants have yet to see the work in English translation sounds more like a personal issue.