Rename: Sugar Wiki.Moment Of Awesome

That's more or less what I was suggesting.

I highly object to implementing a one-per-person system. It's bad enough over at DMOS, where it's at least justifiable (on certain terms) as complaining. This is gushing. If, alongside the bad rename and the even worse re-rename, we are forced into a boring, limited, hyper-organized system over something that is harming nobody, then I for one will be quite upset. While the moderation staff is certainly effective and generally reasonable, I admit I am growing very frustrated with the fact that there seems to be a dwindling emphasis on user opinion and contribution.

That's my two cents. Nobody said it was rational, but hopefully it will be heard.

Same here.

I might want to try to explain how the version of TCM that 0dd 1 and I came up with would work from what I understand. This is basically a positive version of the DMOS page.

There would be a page for moments that are awesome/funny/heartwarming, but not the best examples. Basically, leaving those respective pages as they already are. I'll use Star Wars as an example. There's a scene from Revenge Of The Sith where Yoda walks into the Emperor's office and owns two guards in a comical fashion. That's a minorly Awesome Moment and a Funny Moment, but not neccesarily the best examples thereof.

Then there are the Crowning Moment pages, which have users discussing what and why the scene in question defines the series. I could say that Star Wars' Crowning Moment is the scene where Luke refuses to kill his father, which leads to Anakin's redemption. Then I would have to put my signature by it so that I would only have one moment.

Sure, there are problems with the proposed YKTTW, but that's why this is here.

edited 5th Apr '11 3:08:50 PM by KingClark

[Lag]

edited 5th Apr '11 3:08:39 PM by KingClark

Seems about right.

@Progeny Ex Machina: See, we have pages where people can list as many of those as they so desire already. This is not meant to restrict people's freedoms. And there's nothing wrong with a page being hyper-organized—would you disagree that it's easier to read a hyper-organized page?

As mentioned , this is for the defining moment of a work, and since people tend to disagree greatly over what it would be, signing one's posts would in theory keep the Natter down by keeping people's opinions on their own terms. And the one-per-person system, well, that's just to keep it easy for people to read and to make it mirror the DMoS page. Can't decide on just one, don't post.

I think you guys are Completely Missing The Point. I can't speak for anyone else definitively, but I was under the impression that the issue with the rename was not a matter of "the definition has drifted, we should change it back so that we don't have to rename it", but rather "the pages are fine the way they are, but there's no reason not to grandfather the old name".

I am heavily opposed to this sort of change. Sometimes, it's infinitely better not to hyper-organize everything. This proposal is a result of massively overthinking something that's supposed to be just for fun.

couldn't have said it better myself!

If we don't add any rules, than CMOA means nothing.

Progeny, you're making it out to be like there can't be any fun at all if there's any semblance of structure. Besides, it's not like there's overly restrictive guidelines that we're proposing here.

Besides that, I really have no idea what your issue is with this. I'm seriously lost here.

EDIT: Also, here's the permalink to King Clark's YKTTW: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=znisqehzu3k7kjayyyrpenow

edited 5th Apr '11 4:28:37 PM by 0dd1

I thought "massively overthinking something that's supposed to be just for fun" was practically this site's mission statement...

edited 5th Apr '11 4:45:42 PM by Micah

My issue is that I enjoy the format of the CMoA/Awesome/MoA/whatever pages as they are, and strongly dislike the format of the DMoS pages. While I haven't really used those (partially for that very reason), I would be sad to see the former transverted into the format of the latter. The way it is now, it's like...we're all just putting up things we thought were awesome, and occasionally commenting to agree or add to them, and I think all of that contributes to what the page is. I understand the fierce standpoints on the main wiki, but it just feels wrong to impose it on Sugar Wiki — the last bastion of gushing and natter.

...I'm still not making my thoughts clear, am I? >_< I'm sorry. I'm just really bad with words. And I'm just one person; if everyone else wants to do this, there's nothing I can do or say to stop it...

I don't think CMOA really needs hard requirements; putting general recommendations on the page should be good enough.

@Progeny I sorta see what you're getting at. Your saying that it's a sugar wiki page, and it should have looser requirements.

Well, I would say the fact that these pages allow you to share your personal opinion is the lowered requirement.

However, even though I don't find the MOA pages much fun, there are people who do. And unlike DMOS, there wasn't any flaming or edit wars (at least not that I know of.) The only problem the pages cause is serving as Snark Bait for other sites*

So maybe we should leave MOA as is. They maybe dumb, but they aren't hurting anything.

edited 5th Apr '11 5:58:02 PM by DrStarky

What about the precedent this sends? That we can just let a page go completely out of control as long as it seems "harmless"?

The DMOS signature system, IMO, has worked quite well. I personally wouldn't mind seeing an analogue of that system for CMOA. It just runs rampant with natter, much moreso than what DMOS used to be.

Well, I was suggesting this as a separate page from Moment Of Awesome, but if people think this should overtake it, that works too.

@Red Head The post above you was a combonation of devil's advocate and sleep depravation. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

When I think about it, we can't please everybody. I would support making the rules a bit tighter on Mo A pages and adding a crowner on each page so people can vote on a Crowning Moment.

We should prolly get a crowner going on in this thread to decide what to do.

edited 6th Apr '11 3:08:18 PM by DrStarky

I... I've kind of unintentionally launched it. Sorry. Really sorry.

Trying to fix that, but I don't know how.

edited 9th Apr '11 7:18:24 PM by Ekuran

Kind of off-topic, but giggling at how when I click any subpage link, the URL stays the same but the title of the namespace changes to "The Awesome". Some sort of filter, I'm guessing, instated in place of moving all the pages manually when the name was originally changed?

Wasn't the one-per-person thing already tried, and it didn't work? I was under the impression that's why Fast Eddie finally said "screw it, name change."

Should be renamed to Crowning Moments of Awesome. Just make it clear that more than one per 'thing' really is possible.

1. Current name has poor flow compared to the old one and isn't as cool. 2. Current name breaks the spin-off names. 3. The pedantry over whether it's strictly 'accurate' or not is pointless. Look at the name of the site itself! Tvtropes, in which most examples aren't about TV and a whole bunch of pages aren't strictly about tropes. As above, so below. I know we're never going to end up with a site called "Assorted_trends_and_tropes_from_various_media.org" so jeez, let up on the trope names.

But crowning implies only 1, therefor it does not work.

edited 12th Apr '11 7:48:40 PM by nuclearneo577

Is it just me, or are we going in circles?

Yeah, circles.

Keeping it down to one per person per work has been tried.

Hey, it is great that someone might think something is great in their favorite work. Whether or not it is their favorite favorite thing ever about the work really doesn't matter.

edited 12th Apr '11 9:14:12 PM by FastEddie

Does that mean this should be locked?