redirected from SugarWiki.SoCoolItsAwesomeDiscussion
Herczy: I think Babylon5 belongs on that list, but I'm reluctant to list it here, because I don't know how much money or popularity it gained.
Kdz: I was thinking of adding the Flaming Lips, specifically because of their live show. Not everyone appreciates the music, but everyone I've ever talked to agrees their
concerts
are quite the spectacle. The issue I have is, would that go under Music, or Musical Theater? Personally, I would think the latter, but it is chiefly literal Musical Theater.
Lord TNK: So since some works get labeled as
So Bad Its Good or
So Bad Its Horrible on their own pages, should we do the same with the works here?
Trouser Wearing Barbarian:
Sure Why Not?
Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Added a little more detail so that the place doesn't get
cut. This is the polar opposite of
Darth Wiki/
So Bad It's Horrible, and is under attack for the corresponding reason. We need to make clear we want the greatest of the great.
vifetoile: Strongly,
strongly agreed. I think it's a bit early in the game to be cutting, though. In the meantime I'll confess to adding more examples - but only examples of the highest caliber, I swear. It warms the cockles of my little heart to see how fast this page has grown. And whoever provided the link to "The greatest song in the world" (the page has grown so fast, I don't even know who it is!) probably deserves either a kick or a
Made Of Win.
Also, can we add Barack Obama to the list of people without the wiki exploding?
Admiral_Kelly: No, just no.
I find it necessary to cut this article due to the amount of awesome works out there and how many works people find to be the 'best ever'. How do we determine this? Take polls? Cite sources? I can think of dozens of content which I find to be the epitome of awesome. Plus, if someone comes along and starts removing entries it will tick many fans off. Not to mention nobody bothers to elaborate
why these works are so good, making it a useless list. Keep the Gushing article, forget this one.
Oh, and take a look at this line:
"We could save a lot of space just by noting that about a third of the works by Marvel and DC belong here. A lot of space."
So we should only mention epic works which will not produce massive amounts of clutter? Does this line of thinking not invalidate the entire article?
Lord TNK: Then you'd better insist
So Bad Its Horrible gets cut too, since it's already covered by
Complain About Shows You Dont Like. But we keep them both. Why? Because
Darth Wiki and
Sugar Wiki are not meant to be like the main wiki. They're meant to be fun, and slightly twisted versions of it.
And we aren't going to bother with exact criteria. Only a few pages have that, and then only in ways that can be observed on this site. Doing it outside would fly in the face of no notability. If someone disputes a work here, we can discuss it.
As for the comics line, I dropped it.
Admiral_Kelly: On the contrary, every page on TV tropes needs a certain level of actual criteria. So Bad It's Horrible has the criteria of being the worst of the worst; examples which have a big enough following get removed. The 'necessary counterpart' argument is frivolous and does not add up.
Complain About Shows You Dont Like and
Gushing About Shows You Like should also be removed for these reasons. After this article is cut, I will get to work on those two.
Even if you are right, we already have
Gushing About Shows You Like, which is the same thing as this article for all sakes and purposes. Having duplicate articles clutters the wiki and is against policy. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Lord TNK: You're saying this is redundant, and they you are claiming the thing it's redundant to should be removed. That's trying to have your cake and eat it too.
And I did not write 'necessary counterpart'. You did (even there I just pasted it instead of wrote it). I wrote "Because
Darth Wiki and
Sugar Wiki are not meant to be like the main wiki. They're meant to be fun, and slightly twisted versions of it."
So not only are you claiming you'll nullify your redundancy argument, you're even making up a point to "counter" that I didn't actually make.
And again, if someone lists something others dispute, we have
this very page to discuss that.
Admiral_Kelly: Could you please see the difference between my two points instead of fusing them?
The first one is that this page contains no significant criteria. The nature is subjective to the point where you may as say 'Just add stuff which makes you feel good.' If this is meant to describe the 'best of the best' than how do we determine this when disputes come up? Critics opinion's? Fan reception? Dissect its content? Just list things?
I argue in favor of keeping SBIH because it is a whole lot easier to find a skunk in a field full of flowers then to determine which flower is the prettiest one.
The second is
if we have a 'feel good' article there should not be more than one of them and currently we have two such articles. One of them should be deleted, and
under that thinking this would be the logical choice to cut due to it's nature of listing things which tropers find awesome. At least Gushing has actual descriptions.
You did not present the 'necessary counterpart' argument but others have. So perhaps I said it at the wrong time but it is still a valid counter-point in this dispute to my other opponents.
Lord TNK: First of all, stop deleting Narvi's line, It's a separate thing.
Second, you seem to think SBIH is doing just fine. It was moved to
Darth Wiki because it was so messed up. And you're giving a subjective opinion on what type of subjectivity is better. That's just wrong.
And "there should not be more than one of them" is no better. "Should" is also largely a subjective thing unless you can back it up, and claiming it's easier to judge one over the other is not backing it up, since I could argue success is easier to track than failure.
Finally, this isn't a "feel good" thing. It's for
fun.
Rule Of Fun.
Admiral_Kelly: "First of all, stop deleting Narvi's line, It's a separate thing." Must have been by mistake as I have not seen it till now. Anyway,
SBIH was moved not by consensus but after a single troper suggested the move and
Fast Eddie did just that. I find this decision to have been made in hast and there needs to be more of a consensus on this issue. There is a definite criteria for SBIH and if it is not being followed the solution is to correct the mistakes and set the article right.
When I use the term 'should', I am using in the sense of our policy to remove articles which are noncontributing and/or redundant. If this article is not noncontributing, it is definitely redundant. Ergo, it should be removed.
'Fun' is highly subjective in of itself. I do not see what fun there is in constructing a list in what various tropers all over the wiki like. Due to its subjective nature, 'fun' should not be the only reason for keeping an article.
Lord TNK:
Fast Eddie is one of the founders of this site and an admin, and he rarely rushes things. He did it not just from one suggestion, but because it was a highly negative page, that fit
Darth Wiki better, since that's the negative version of this site.
As for their being a definite criteria for SBIH, sorry. Many have claimed that is so, and it just doesn't work out. So one of your arguments against this page is that its counterpart is easier to handle, which is not true at all.
"If this article is not noncontributing, it is definitely redundant." I don't think you are using those words quite correctly, but aside from that, you have to prove it's not contributing, and just insisting it isn't, or claiming you think it isn't, isn't proof.
So what if fun is subjective. You not seeing the fun in this is just your opinion and not a valid reason against this. I have some issues with some fun pages, but I know better than to act as though that matters enough. And the thing is that other tropers find this fun, even if you don't.
There can be reasons against this page, but so far what you've given is weak. I just see you propping up SBIH as though it's something it isn't, and claiming your subjective opinions about subjective opinions are somehow valid more than the tropers on this page that feel differently.
Admiral_Kelly:
"Fast Eddie is one of the founders of this site and an admin, and he rarely rushes things. He did it not just from one suggestion, but because it was a highly negative page, that fit Darth Wiki better, since that's the negative version of this site."
I am aware of his status but we have always worked by consensus more or less. It is still my opinion he jumped the gun here.
"As for their being a definite criteria for SBIH, sorry. Many have claimed that is so, and it just doesn't work out. So one of your arguments against this page is that its counterpart is easier to handle, which is not true at all."
Back this claim up please? Because most of So Bad It's Horrible is, well, So Bad It's Horrible from my experience.
"If this article is not noncontributing, it is definitely redundant." I don't think you are using those words quite correctly, but aside from that, you have to prove it's not contributing, and just insisting it isn't, or claiming you think it isn't, isn't proof."
Perhaps I assumed it is obvious or did not elaborate on this enough. This 'article' is merely a list of what various tropers like. Just look at some of the examples - Rick Roll? Some Troper's pants? This wiki? "You"? All this tells us is what some tropers of this wiki like; and not as a whole or by majority, but whatever bloke that happens to be visiting the page feels like adding. This contributes nothing.
"So what if fun is subjective. You not seeing the fun in this is just your opinion and not a valid reason against this. I have some issues with some fun pages, but I know better than to act as though that matters enough. And the thing is that other tropers find this fun, even if you don't."
You criticize my argument for bringing what you consider to be suggestive notions into the argument and then you justify your side of the argument with suggestiveness?
"There can be reasons against this page, but so far what you've given is weak. I just see you propping up SBIH as though it's something it isn't, and claiming your subjective opinions about subjective opinions are somehow valid more than the tropers on this page that feel differently."
This is all erroneous labeling on your part which you keep using to run around in circles with. My opinions are on the articles themselves and are far from subjective. Your defense for keeping this article, that being 'because it's fun' is very subjective.
Lord TNK: "You criticize my argument for bringing what you consider to be suggestive notions into the argument and then you justify your side of the argument with suggestiveness?"
No. I just pointed out suggestive notions are not valid against this page. Nor is claiming your opinions on the articles are not subjective. No. Those are your opinions. They can easily be shared by others, but those are still subjective, because not everyone will agree wit you.
As for the silly points on this, I'll just make a
Troper Tales page and move them. I was planning on that anyway.
Admiral_Kelly: I do believe I have established a sufficient argument as to why this article should be deleted many times over and you declaring me wrong is not going to get you anywhere and I have run out of patience to argue with you further. At this time, I would appreciate having some other tropers way in their opinions on this matter.
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: I vote that it stays.
Noaqiyeum: Anyway, keep the page.
CAD: I vote for deletion.
- Just look at the page. Is it fun to read, like Horrible or Gushing? No.
- The only thing separating it from Gushing is the lack of descriptions, which would, in fact, make it identical to the Gushing page.
- This page attempts to be a counterpart to So Bad Its Horrible, but fails, because such a counterpart is impossible to have. Human nature dictates that it's easy to get a lot of people to agree that a work is bad, but difficult to get a lot of people to agree that a work is not just good, but truly the epitome of awesome, since opinions are in and of themselves very specialized. To put it another way: Horrible is the rule, Awesome is the exception. They're not opposites, and they can't work like that. Horrible has an air of objectivity to it, this does not and cannot. As an illustration, nobody disagrees with anything on the Horrible pages, but I personally disagree with a quite a lot of things on the gushing page, and I don't think I'm alone.
- This essentially looks like a "Stuff of note" page, which we could have, but not like this.
Just throwing my opinion out there.
Lord TNK: Fair enough. So how do you think it could work?
Smokie: I
love the
Sugar Wiki, but I seriously don't think this page makes sense, for the reasons
CAD already listed. Personally, I'd like a gush about
characters you like-page.
Sharm Hedgehog: I agree; this page makes no sense. It's pretty much a clone of Gushing About Shows You Like, and the whole thing is
incredibly subjective. For
So Bad Its Horrible, those things are pretty much universally hated, and we used to have
Complain About Shows You Dont Like so we could complain about good shows we disliked. But this... just because something is critically acclaimed doesn't mean
everyone loves it. For example,
Naruto is a successful anime and manga series, but it has quite a few haters. I agree that this page should be deleted.
Dragon Quest Z: "just because something is critically acclaimed doesn't mean
everyone loves it" And who the hell claimed that? The page description sure as hell doesn't. It explicitly states that these works will still have
Hatdoms. So pretending the page is claiming something it's not is a strawman.
Narvi: Am I the only one who totally thinks the page should be
HOT PINK to contrast with
Darth Wiki's GRIMDARK?
Noaqiyeum: I just realized that
- (a) Phoenix Requiem is not on this list despite being up with Gunnerkrigg Court in terms of popularity (at least, from what I gather from online - it's held the number one position on Top Webcomics for weeks now), and
- (b) We don't even have a page for it yet. Possibly because the plot is a Big Secret that's only being partially explained now, but still. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Lord TNK: Just make a page for the comic.
Noaqiyeum: Too busy to do more than criticize, and, more importantly, not close enough to the story to put together more than a pretty slipshod page.
Nornagest: My (admittedly selfish) criterion for cutting subjective pages is pretty simple: in the absence of any ulterior motives, would I want to read it, or would I just want to add personal anecdotes to it? I like to read most of the
Troper Tales namespace. In certain moods I can even want to read
So Bad Its Horrible, although rarely and mostly for snark value. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to read this — it's too subjective to be useful and too vague to be interesting. My vote goes to
cut.
Insanity Prelude: I actually like reading
Subjective Tropes pages. Sometimes it turns me on to a new work I want to read/play/watch. :) (Or, in the case of
So Bad Its Horrible and
Nightmare Fuel, avoid like the plague.)
That said, this page just seems kind of pointless. We already have... well, all of
Sugar Wiki basically, for this.
Lord TNK: *sigh* I love the title, but it actually is just turning into the gushing page without the fun.
I'm thinking if we don't drop this, we could make this a no example page. Just be aware of the concept.
Narvi: This is no fun without actual, you know,
gushing. You're
fans. I realize that this might be a foreign concept to you, but write
good things about your favourite show. Something we can read and enjoy!
Lord TNK: This isn't about favorite shows. This is about popular and/or acclaimed shows.
Devils Advocate: Risk? Monopoly? No. Just no. Go spend some time at
BoardGameGeek if you are under the impression that they are universally loved. The consensus there (which I share) is roughly "the only reason people play those crappy games is because they don't realize anything better exists." And it's not just snobbery either. Some players get eliminated early, while the game can go on for hours after that. And their endgames are way too long, where the outcome is more or less certain but the game has to go on until all players but one are eliminated. Really, does anyone enjoy the interminable final battle where the second-to-last player, holding on to Australia, makes a valiant but futile stand against the player holding the rest of the world? After you've seen it (or been involved in it, on
either side) five or six times it's beyond tedious.
Lord TNK: The page description does
not say "universally loved".
Devils Advocate: My argument is stronger than "they're less than universally loved." The argument is "they're nearly universally reviled by those who actually have the experience to judge them within the genre." But yes, Monopoly and Risk are popular. By that standard,
American Idol should be listed among the TV shows here, or if we had a "wine" section, it would be appropriate to have "White Zinfandel." If that's what people want this page to be, that's fine, but the name should probably be changed from the inaccurate
So Cool It's Awesome to
So Popular It's Profitable or something like that.
Lord TNK: I'm going to call that. Where is the proof those are "universally reviled by those who actually have the experience to judge them within the genre"?
And as for the title, it's supposed to be listing the best of the best. Even if some works are
Love It Or Hate It.
Lord TNK: Okay, I'll alphabetize the items on this page, and then I'll put that we can each "vouch" for a work and why it deserves to be here. This will not just be blind praise, since that's covered in
Gushing. Nor will there be comments to why a work doesn't deserve. That is for this discussion page.
BattleHamster:Given how widely
DragonForce is hated among power metal fans, should it really be on this list? With Guitar Hero, they have become quite popular, but the contempt for them is so strong and so widespread among metalheads that they don't seem to belong here. Admittedly,
I'm a power metal fan who hates
Dragon Force, so I'm hardly unbiased, but still...
Lord TNK: I was actually thinking of that, but it's hard to tell if the
Hatedom is significant or a vocal minority. But even then, could you imagine the mess if we tried to apply "Fan minus hater" math to this? It's best to argue if the popularity is significant enough, not if the haters are.
BattleHamster: I honestly haven't gotten the impression that
Dragon Force is any more critically-acclaimed/popular/whatever than, say,
Helloween or
Blind Guardian. I
am a BG fangirl, so I tried to put aside my bias when I checked out other some metal sites. From what I've seen, they're popular, but not
that popular. (I do know some people who consider them a
Guilty Pleasure, so maybe some people just aren't admitting to liking them.)
Dragon Quest Z: Ignoring the
Hatedom (as we should, or half the works would be taken down), the group probably still needs a bigger following. So I took them down, for now.
Bobfrank: Removed Pleasantville. You've
got to be kidding me. That was
one of the worst movies ever made and doesn't belong anywhere near a list like this.
Morgan Wick: As is, this could be renamed "Notable Works" and moved into the main wiki with few changes. And since
There Is No Such Thing As Notability...
Fast Eddie: Not putting this subjective stuff in the main wiki, thanks. It is just a list of works selected on the same criteria as any of the other works indexes. Somebody was moved to write about it. Pointless duplication.
Why the heck is Bratz on the page? It says right on its page, "it is almost universally hated by everyone outside of its target demographic." So, why is it here?
Dragon Quest Z: Because they are a really popular toy, one of the bestselling lines ever. Hatedoms don't counteract that.
Don Quigleone: Some entries under Anime are far to niche to be here, a very good example would be
Gao Gai Gar, I'm the first to say it's good, but outside of a small number of Mecha fans it's pretty much unknown; meanwhile Bleach and Naruto, two
extremely popular shows aren't present at all.
Dentaku: Another example would be
Haibane Renmei. I love it to pieces myself, but I wonder whether it's really that popular overall. Also, do series that are madly popular in Japan but not so much outside of it also fit here? I entered
ARIA for instance, which is quite a big franchise in Japan but is seemingly relegated to niche status in other countries.
Sotanaht Most if not all of the works of
Hayao Miyazaki should be on here. The only reason I am not adding them myself is because I am not sure if I should just add him, or if I should add all of his movies, or just most of them and if so which ones. Just look at his page, if being "the single most successful and renowned animator in Japan since
Osamu Tezuka." isn't enough to be on here, what is?
Haven: I'm very confused about this page.
So Bad Its Good and
So Bad Its Horrible are both subjective, and this one is even on
Sugar Wiki, the home of Subjectivity. It's not intuitive that this is about "objectively popular and successful" works rather than "works you think are so cool they're awesome".
Dragon Quest Z: The things is that the original intent of horrible was to list the worst works ever. That got derailed, so this page was carefully written to avoid that (which does fall somewhat into
Quality By Popular Vote, but other systems are just even more bait for
Natter), while simply listing things you like can be freely done on
Gushing About Shows You Like
Igloo Mc Coy: I get that it's subjective, but come on, Titanic? That's not a cool movie. I mean there was a pretty decent scene when the ship sinks, but that only lasts for a few minutes before we're back to generic Chick Flickdom. The rest of the movies on the list are pure awesome, whether you love them or hate them, you have to admit that they were sick and featured seriously wicked characters. Rose and Jack were hardly badasses.
Winter: Why is
Looney Tunes not on here? Or did I just miss it in the long list?
BrightBlueInk: There's two works on here I'm a little concerned of...two I almost hate to debate because I
love, both, but I'm not sure if it's what the page is going for.
First of all,
Princess Tutu...this one seems borderline to me. I can justify it—it has near-universal critical praise (as far as I know), it's one awards and been on "best of" lists, and I've only met one person who said he didn't like it (and he only saw the first season). But at the same time, it didn't do that well in either Japan
or America, from what I've heard.
The other is
Treasure Planet—come on, this is one of my favorite movies ever, but it was a MAJOR flop in the box office. I mean, it was one of the major factors in Disney deciding that people "didn't want traditional animation."
Dragon Quest Z: We don't need to cut this. We can just redefine this and make it have no examples, same as
So Okay Its Average.
Some Sort Of Troper: But what good does this do without examples?
So Okay Its Average manages to describe a reaction to a work that we can recognise but the function of this page is to try to give us a little information about what is widely regarded as good and to understand that when it comes to explaining and being explained to. If it were exampleless, what could we reduce it down to? People think some things are awesome?
Dragon Quest Z: Yes, because people do. I redid the page, so I didn't undo a cut. The page as it was is officially gone. But the concept described by the name is still sound.
