Needs Help: Parvum Opus

At the very least, this needs a rename. An obtuse name is bad enough, but an obtuse name that's an existing term that means something else entirely? Not acceptable.

So if it's getting cut for that... the question remains if it has a purpose. And I lean towards no. Its only real purpose is to provide grounds for people to argue.

And keep in mind, I'm one of the people who sees the merit in DMOS. But I still don't see why we'd need this.

Then we shall rename it, but for the record, I feel its purpose is to deal with the weakest part of something from an outside perspective. I would like to reiterate that the page has done nothing truly controversial, and it doesn't seem to be headed in that direction, so there really is no urgent need to eliminate anything.

I think we can call this one. The amount of votes to cut are more than sufficient.

Not after a day it isn't ready.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I know that the majority of votes look dire, but you must understand that this page is not as dangerous as it appears to be. Any suspicious or rule breaking entries were taken care of without much hassle, and it is far from the level of controversy that CM and UI came to. There really is no harm in leaving it be.

That crowner is one day old. Let's give it a few days more, at least.

I thought we called crowners if an item got enough votes regardless of timeframe? There are over 20 votes to cut while the other options are in the red.

Huh? No, they need to be sort of stable. And a minimum of 3 days is needed to tell that this is the case.

The rule is three days, four if it starts over the weekend. Crowners need to be stable, not just have X number of votes. Number of votes comes in after the crowner has been sitting around for days.

What if a moderator decides that the page does not need to be cut? Can they overrule the Crowner majority?

I'm going to assume only an Admin has the power to do that.

So... Noah, why do you think it should stay so vehemently?

Honestly, the closest thing to a compelling argument I've heard for keeping it is "it's barely caused THAT much trouble in two months it's existed" and "We have Magnum Opus." The fact it's caused as much trouble as it has is a definite strike against. It's very young, and made without YKTTW (largely because it would never have gotten through YKTTW). It's already caused an inordinate amount of trouble for its age. So why keep it?

edited 7th Jan '16 9:00:28 AM by Larkmarn

Certainly I doubt a single moderator can override the consensus of a TRS thread. In this case, so far three moderators - Willbyr, Fighteer, and shimaspawn - have posted to this thread advocating a cut. (Whether they have voted in the crowner at all, only they themselves know. Also, I did wonder what sort of time frame was standard for crowners - now I know. And knowing is half the &c.)

And Noah1, for all you say about how it's properly policed, have you read the OP for this thread at all? Why is it on the YMMV pages for four James Bond films? Why is it on the YMMV pages for over half a dozen Disney animated films, each claiming that the film is the weakest in the Disney Animated Canon? Two episodes of Spongebob Squarepants have it on their YMMV pages, and in each case they say it's one of three contenders. Two episodes of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic have it on their YMMV pages. Many of the entries are Zero Context Examples. There have been edit wars over including it on the YMMV page for The Force Awakens.

And something like this can only properly be viewed not just with historical perspective but, as Fighteer says, only when the creator in question has set down his or her or their pen/camera/computer/instruments/etc. for the final time, either by death or by permanent retirement (as opposed to a 10-Minute Retirement). Otherwise, the title of both greatest and least work will constantly change as new works are published/released. (And, again, the problems with Magnum Opus are myriad, but that's another thread for another time.)

Simply put, movies, episodes, installments, and moments that cause a near unanimously negative fan reaction is a thing, and the DMOS page is merely a product of it, and not a way to analyze and catalog it from an outside perspective. Look at how many subpages there are in the DethroningMoment.Western Animation page and you'll see what I mean. That sort of thing is not in the Parvum Opus page, which does a decent job of analyzing weak links in a series or creator's library without delving into full-on angry ranting the way DMOS does.

Of course I can't speak for Noah 1, but it seems that the defenders of the "trope" are looking at the trope page itself.

I don't think that's where the risk of misuse and complaining is largest. The potential for misuse is much greater on the YMMV pages of different works - it's so easy for someone who doesn't like a work to put Parvum Opus on the YMMV page. Even if it's done in good faith and after checking critical reception, the poster may be unaware that it is already on the YMMV page of a different work by the same creator. It's very easy to miss such a thing.

I really think you should stop comparing it with DMOS. DMOS is a very special case that is allowed on the wiki, despite calls to cut it, to provide a venting space where people really are allowed to complain about shows they don't like (or at least moments they don't like). It is not supposed to be calm, polite or objective. It is also on the Darth Wiki and it is explicitly forbidden to crosswick to it.

Parvum Opus, on the other hand, is currently a "normal" YMMV trope and doesn't live by the same rules. Arguments for or against the existance of Parvum Opus that are based on comparison with DMOS are not really relevant.

edited 7th Jan '16 9:30:08 AM by GnomeTitan

Well, I still believe that there should be a place to discuss low points in the media that is calm, polite, and objective. As I have said before, this is a legitimate part of the entertainment world.

GnomeTitan has a point in post 65, Noah1. You're not addressing the misuse and decay Parvum Opus has undergone on YMMV pages for works, you're just focusing on the trope page itself. Policing the trope page is not enough; its use across the wiki also needs to be kept in check, and frankly, that is clearly not being done properly.

edited 7th Jan '16 9:44:30 AM by mlsmithca

Okay, so it's established that the Parvum Opus page is not problematic, what is problematic it the trope's usage elsewhere. Now that we've identified that, we can find a solution without nuking the page.

edited 7th Jan '16 9:49:22 AM by Noah1

Maybe a Flame Bait flag (disallowing wicks) is appropriate, then. It's certainly induced enough bickering.

If the page is not cut, I'd vote for a flame bait tag.

There should be a place for discussing that. I just don't think that place is on this wiki.

EDITED: The purpose of TV Tropes, as I understand it, is not to judge the quality of works, but to discuss how they use tropes and other narrative techniques. This is, you could say, another side of There Is No Such Thing As Notability - just as we don't care about how widely spread or popular a work is, we don't care about whether critics or fans like it or not. The fact that a work exists and uses a certain trope should be enough.

edited 7th Jan '16 9:56:43 AM by GnomeTitan

Added a Flame Bait option.

This Wiki is all about the entertainment world and what makes it tick, so I'm inclined to disagree to some extent. We can claim that we shouldn't care about a work's reception, but the undeniable truth is we do, if only because we're fans.

Knowing that the actual term "parvum opus" has a positive connotation, it seems particularly odd to use the term for a negative/complaining trope.

And that positive connotation doesn't even seem like it has to do with a lesser work by a particular author- like the example on The Other Wiki deals with praise between the writers Strunk and White, the context makes it sound like the "smaller/lesser" part of the equation has to do with the length of the work.

I've seen books referred to as a "minor masterpiece" (or something to that effect), and that's what parvum opus seems to mean as White used it. Like as an example, I've seen the "minor masterpiece" label applied to Cold Comfort Farm because it's a short book with a frivolous subject matter, but it has some of the best comedic style in English literature.

Edit- That sounded kind of pretentious. Tl; dr, based on The Other Wiki, the impression I get is that the term parvum opus is used in circumstances where a work is short and doesn't cover a stereotypically weighty subject matter. But it's definitely a positive term and it is not about a work by a particular creator being less popular or bad.

edited 7th Jan '16 11:05:30 AM by Hodor2