By the way, I'm entirely eager to discuss this. To be honest, I wanted more people to discuss it with when I first wrote the templates. A nice round table discussion. :) Lay out your concerns, your ideas, we can reflect and build on them, and so forth.
You mentioned having an issue with "dudebro" tone. I chose the style I went with because it was informal, sounded less stuffy, and sounded like something a grittier TMNT character might say. The Mature message, "always meant for grownups," is like a semi-polite thing a hard-boiled comics character might tell a preteen child who walks into a bar. I won't say it's perfect, and I'm glad to hear alternative suggestions. "Get lost, kid." would have had too much of a confrontational tone.
Putting aside the wording of that statement, really? From what I remember even the scenes containing outright murder are pretty tame.
It's more a question of the article and the series than the content of the individual issue. Before we started using these templates, the general policy was to keep all descriptions more or less G- or maybe PG-rated, out of concern for all the young children coming to read articles about the cartoons. But some TMNT works have much, much more mature content than that. For IDW TMNT comics, the "not for little kids" template applies to the entire series and every issue as a combined context. This way, we can discuss everything in context (and cross-reference events in other issues as needed) and not run into editorial arguments about whether a description is too mature for kids, especially when the description involved may actually be far less mature than what actually happens in the pages.
That makes a lot more sense, but, and I appreciate this is something that should be left up to democracy, the wording really should be changed to convey that better.
As is it looks like an obnoxious dudebro telling "little kids" to stick to their lane when he's talking about Batman's rouges gallery being turned into 80's action figures. Whereas tame as those Foot Soldier deaths are I could get just going with a T for Teen tag for the whole series.
The Dr. Who wiki has (or had it's been a while since I checked) a pretty good one. "Most of Dr. Who is family friendly. Some of it isn't. This is one of those." Something to that effect. I do remember the wording would specify when the wiki felt the need to advise viewer discretion and when something objectively wasn't for younger viewers.
Then I replied:
It's true, the template does intentionally adopt some informal language. The problem before was that using more formal wording had a negative effect, making the templates look like badges of shame trying to apologize for not being kid-friendly.
One thing you need to realize, is that TMNT was, in its original form, never for children, and there are plenty of TMNT fans whose interest has always been through the eyes of adults. In particular, both Mirage Studios and its readers have at times been mocking of the 1987 TV series many of them never liked.
But since there wasn't really a deeper discussion of what the wording should be, I guess you can suggest something else. If the message sounds "dudebro," it's because it was meant to emulate some of the grittier hard-boiled tone found in Mirage TMNT dialogue. And what kinds of characters most personify Mirage gritty and hard-boiled? Characters like Raphael and Casey Jones, of course. :)
And then you opened this thread on your message wall. :)
Sorry for the delay, had a big family get together so starting this conversation was really bad timing on my part. As for the tag, yeah I do feel it's condescending especially when you hang it over something like The Ninja Turtles meet Batman. But for Mirage and Image, which both hinge on the fact the guys flat out try to revenge kill a man and then Leo decapitates him...yeah. And that's just violence, never mind...let's call it "romance". So I get warning people.
On the other hand "YOU'RE A LONG WAY FROM NICKTOONS" is an odd sentiment to me because while the Nick show is very much not that, an equally vital plot point is that Shredder loses half his face to a fire and they actually show you said gross face fairly frequently. Sal Commander has a lil' hole in his side that lets you see inside him. Every third episode is a Cronenberg tribute. All well within TV-Y boundaries sure, but I'd argue that for the IDW stuff specifically? I think a younger fan who could handle all that would do okay with something like the Shredder fighting his way out of hell or Rat King taking away Leo's mouth. (Though there is actual decapitation in there too, but if that can fly under a general teen pass...)
And the problem really isn't being informal. I'd actually be really down with the Wiki adopting a TFWiki style approach but that's neither here nor there. As is I just feel like the tag does unintentionally come across like it's talking down to a certain audience which, let's be honest, is going to hunt down this stuff if they actually want to check it out no matter what age they are regardless of what anyone says. If nobody cares then the tags don't have to be changed but since you're open to suggestions I'd argue the Dr. Who suggestion is the best if you actually want to be matter of fact. Some of TMNT is family friendly. Some of it really isn't.
Also if you wanna go every other wiki route and work in quotes from the franchise:
"Hmm. Kids. [insert Splinter style explanation of why material is mature]
"Wise man says some material is really [T for teen or M for Mature or whatever rating system]
For mature specifically though, there's an issue of Tales of the TMNT where Raph and Casey are getting kid Shadow ready for her first day of school and then break down and weep in each others arms chibi style. So maybe a picture of that with "Our little fan's all grown up!" and an explanation for why the material miiiiight not be for them?
And there's that little Raph moment in Turtles Forever where he's really taken by the Mirageverse so the tag could be "This is my kinda place! Grim, gritty...I like it!" [Just because RAPH likes it doesn't mean you will. Some Ninja Turtles stuff is intended for older audiences.]
What about the black and white parts of the templates? "You're not on NickToons anymore!" I liked the visual similarity to a mature advisory warning while poking a bit of fun at TV-Y7 expectations.
Also, if I recall, the 1990s films were PG, not PG-13, so I wouldn't necessarily give them a teen template anyway.
If there were a franchise quote in the teen template, I'd prefer it to be from a work that is teen-rated.
That said, many Mirage comics are indeed more teen than mature rated, but the occasional Mirage stories (like Bodycount and parts of City at War and Blind Sight) are most certainly not teen-rated, but they form a combined canon so the mature template remains for them all because we are not a ratings bureau.
My other concern is that templates should not appear in any way to be badges of shame, nor should they be signs encouraging users into inappropriate edits or comments.
Lots of stuff to consider.
Hm, now that I'm having a humorous, cattier moment, and though it's probably not the best idea, I admit I'd be really, really tempted to use an image/quote like this for the mature template:
Hey The S! I've found this rather intresting video about Krang from the 80s show. It actually explains what his original body looks like! (It can be a bit cringey in some spots but trust me. Its worth it)
Hey there, The S! My name is Doug from Wikia's Community Development Team! I wanted to stop by and let you know that we are currently working with Activision to create a fun little bracket tournament between TMNT characters and 90s Nickelodeon characters to help celebrate the upcoming release of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutants in Manhattan.
It'll be more of a character popularity thing instead of a 'battle' matchup. We'll cross-promote to a variety of Nickelodeon wikis to help get outside eyes and votes within it as well. We will host the tournament on a user blog on this community and it'll be four rounds until the winner is select, lasting in total about a month.
Does all that sound good to you? We wanted to give you heads up about it, if you have any questions and concerns, just let me know. Thanks and have a great one!
TheBlueRogue •(profile)•(talk)•(firstname.lastname@example.org) 21:42, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that there had been templates for first appearances and death just like they did on the wiki for the different comics. Is there a way for you to add in templates for mentioned and apparent death? The first one was because of Zog being mentioned in the recent two episodes of the 2012 TV series.
Maybe someone will disagree but if mentions are to be added it would be a separate column. It's one of the few things that the other comic wikis do that I don't agree with... because a mention isn't an appearance.
I also am uncertain on why an "apparent death" would be needed... just add "death" and remove it if it comes out to be untrue.
Feel free to let me know what you thnk and find out what others think.
Speaking of the verifiability of character deaths, I recently wrote the article for Swan Song, where Leonardo's death is left sort of implied, but vague. Feeling the death template wasn't quite appropriate on its own (but neither was saying nothing), I added (Death?) with a question mark.
I think the vague, implied deaths could be something we do (your Death? template is pretty great), but I personally don't think the apparent deaths of characters who show up later would be anything of note to keep track of. Otherwise we're gonna be tagging all of Kraang Subprime's appearances and a few other characters (Romero?) this way.
For my opinion, the (Death?) template would be for characters who are implied to have died and pretty much are very unlikely to return.
Swan Song is a pretty solid case—it's chronologically the very final Mirage TMNT story where Leonardo is seen alive. This is his strongly implied death scene:
I think the only story chronologically after this one, is one (I forgot its name) where a very elderly Donatello remembers his brothers who are now gone, using holographic simulations to recreate them. That one ends with a scene of him going to bed. Renet is standing nearby, watching him, and shedding a tear. The implication is that he's going to sleep and never waking up again. That could be another use of the "(Death?)" tag.
Can you please update this list, taking Muckman out of the Canceled Projects section and add Karai, Armaggon, Spittin' Raph & Mikey, Muckman, Robug, Dimension X April & Casey, and the Tongue/Eye-Poppin' figures into the 2016 releases? Also add the vehicles and playsets from Out of the Shadows please? Thanks!
My criticism comment was intended to be frank, but it was never intended to be crude. I'm generally better prepared for adult TMNT discussion, and I didn't even know the word "fanwank" was considered explicitly sexual—I know where the word comes from, but it's already so deeply entrenched in fanspeak that I never really think of it as an obscene word. Either way, I edited my comment to change "porn" to "naughty movies" and "fanwank" to "fanservice." I hope that should fix the sexual reference issues?
You also asked why I still comment on a show that bothers me so much.
I like wiki editing. It's a collaborative documentary effort, and there's a lot here to contribute here, and I have contributed to a great deal of it. But there's also a social dimension to getting involved here. I don't just want to collaborate—I want to talk to people.
And the problem arises not only when a show most people are watching goes south (most of my friends have stopped watching it entirely), but it's still the only thing most users on the wiki want to talk about, and they seem to have a habit of talking most about the very things on the show that make my skin crawl the worst. Since I love TMNT, and I love this show for what it has done in the past, it is painful to see how the show is going, and I periodically feel a fan pain that compels me to comment on that.
But what's also painful is when practically no one is talking about the good TMNT that actually is still being published (by IDW, etc.). In so many ways as a TMNT fan, I'm alone on this wiki, and I'd like more people to actually be reading and commenting on all the other stuff out there. But not only do most users seem to be 2K12-only fans (or 2K12-and-1987-only fans), but they don't seem to have much of an inclination to read or discuss anything else in the TMNT multiverse. I've tried starting forum threads for other versions of TMNT before, and have been met with the deafening silence of crickets.
It's been suggested that I can just go to the Technodrome Forums if I want more people to talk to who like the same things I like. And yes, I'm already registered there. But the problem is part of the reason I'm at Turtlepedia to begin with—Technodrome is not a wiki, and what I want, again, is a collaborative documentive effort. Since not all my friends who have come to loathe 2K12 have this same documentary ethic, they aren't here on this wiki, which means we never hear from them. And I've occasionally asked some of them to become involved at this wiki, but they'd rather not. And why? Because they see this site as mainly for current fans of what 2K12 is doing lately, and so much of the busiest attention and discussion is about topics that makes their skin crawl. Being in such a place would be joyless and irritating to them, as it occasionally has been for me over the past year.
But as long as this is Turtlepedia and not just 2K12pedia, I still have work that needs to be done here. And when being that fan comes with the occasional (or even prolonged) distress of fan disappointment, I need an outlet for those frustrations. And this site needs both such contributions—the documentive in its articles as well as the critical in its comments.