Do we really need that note there? I dont think anyone would by trying to turn this trope into CM which doesnt allow eexample entries anyway.
Topic on Talk:Magnificent Bastard
The note is there because several someones tried this within the last couple months. Because they couldn't add anything to CM or its subpages, they started using this trope as their substitute. This is an explicit warning to anyone else who has the same clever idea that they will be stomped and their edits reverted.
Looking at the trope history I dont really see when or how that happened as most edits revisions and new entries seem in line with this tropes qualifications rather than trying to shoehorn a CM into MB.
They weren't on this page, but on those of works or their subpages. We reverted the first few attempts to turn it into an ersatz Complete Monster and put the warning on this page to make our stance on the issue clear. It's staying, unless you can get a clear consensus of wiki users to agree it should go.
Care to provide links with these alleged attempts to turn it into a ersatz of CM?
"alleged"? Exactly what is questionable about the claim?
Since you have chosen to use that sort of language, you can look them up yourself.
I'd always assumed the note was put up because of me. Even though attempting to turn MB into an Ersatz of CM was not ever an intention behind any of my contributions and edits on the trope whatsoever.
The world does not revolve around you.
The note was put up because of other people's actions.
Well I was away from the Wiki for quite a long while, so I guess I wasn't in the know of what was going on with certain tropes even as I contributed my own efforts to them.
I have too many other things to do to spend the time needed to troll through months-old change histories. Nor am I obligated to justify a wiki administration decision to a random new user who's walked in with an obvious chip on his shoulder, and whose only contributions to the wiki so far have been three messages, all on this talk page, demanding a change in that decision.
I will repeat what I said before: If you think a policy needs to be changed, propose it in the forums and assemble a consensus of wiki users who agree. We are not going to change a policy just because you decided to complain about it. Especially when you have absolutely no history as a productive contributor to the wiki. But we will change it if a solid bloc of active, contributing users tells us it needs to be changed. You feel strongly about this? Convince the other users.
-- Looney Toons, admin
CC: @Labster, @GethN7, @Robkelk, @QuestionableSanity, @Derivative, @SelfCloak
And why am I not surprised, three months later, that he never came back, he never tried to generate a consensus supporting his demand, and never made any other contributions besides these three messages?
Another random schmuck here... this thread doesn't look great when taken out of context.
'So go read it in context' ... well, sure. I learned that Complete Monster was incredibly controversial and caused a wiki fork.
But bear in mind: new users get a banner at the top of the page, and 'here is how to change a rule' is the link in the banner. When you click on it, you get a blurb about changing the rules, and a link to this thread.
The result is that, the way things are now, this thread might well be one of the first 'meta' things someone new to AllTheTrops sees.
I know that it is hard to forget what you know, and pretend you are a new user to the site. I urge you try, and perhaps reconsider linking this thread like that. Thanks for listening.
@Fool1901, you are right and the mods are wrong.
Since the line that had link in question didn't add anything to the page, I've removed it altogether.