Misused: Sugar Wiki.So Cool Its Awesome

(Well okay, more like Not A Trope.)

I see this particular "trope" put in a lot of work YMMV pages, but I think to myself, "does putting this in really add anything to the page?"

All this trope really says is "this work is highly acclaimed by fans and professional critics," and nothing more specific. Most examples I see don't even bother to say something like "this work got over 95% on Rotten Tomatoes / Metacritic / some other review aggregation site", making them border on Zero Context Examples. This trope's usage is too reminiscent of Magnum Opus before it became in-universe examples only.

Yes, I get that gushing is better than complaining (hency why DarthWiki.Complaining About Shows You Dont Like is resting in peace but Gushing About Shows You Like stays), but the point of this wiki is to describe tropes used in works, not just say "most people agree that this is the best work ever 11/10!"

edited 9th Jun '16 2:34:17 AM by LucaEarlgrey

Opening. Is a dewicking warranted?

I'd say so, this seems pretty useless.

Kill it with fire & load the ashes onto a rocket to the sun.

I'd say that this trope isn't tropeworthy.

Maybe we can keep this without examples. It seems unbalanced to have So Bad, It's Horrible but not this.

Even So Bad Its Horrible has examples.

Not only that, but SBIH has objective guidelines to determine what is & isn't an example. I can't think of a single reasonable guideline for SCIA.

If we keep SugarWiki.So Cool Its Awesome since we also have DarthWiki.So Bad Its Horrible, where would examples go? Would examples only be allowed in its wiki page like Horrible?

Horrible has a large list of criteria to keep it used objectively, Awesome has nothing. I'd say get to cutting So Cool, It's Awesome links so it's at least kept to the same usage standards as Horrible.

Start cutting links (since Sugar Wiki content should stay on that wiki)?

When I said "keep without examples", I meant no examples anywhere.

Fine by me. Horrible has criteria to objectively determine examples, Awesome has nothing, so not worth saving.

+1 for cutting.

edited 17th Nov '16 12:51:13 PM by Ferot_Dreadnaught

Add some criteria if ya must but IMO that's about it, allowing complaining and not gushing makes the site a lot more negative. If not then cut the negative one too.

Also it keeps the gushing off the main page cause people will add it somewhere anyway even if there isn't a place marked for it.

That's what I thought, but I don't think we need examples anywhere - not on the page, and not on other YMMV pages.

the guy above you said that it's bad if we outright allow examples of the horrible when we cut examples of the awesome. As if this site only allows negative thoughts.

"Horrible" to me also needs more criteria to add examples than the "awesome" for a reason. (Namely, highly offensive potential.)

So Bad, It's Horrible says that merely being offensive doesn't qualify it. It's kept because otherwise the complaining would end up in the main wiki. That wouldn't happen with So Cool Its Awesome because we already have Gushing About Shows You Like. Speaking of that page: why don't we just redirect there?

And we also have Complaining About Shows You Dont Like.

That's actually an administrivia page telling you not to do that. The actual page for complaining, DarthWiki.Complain About Shows You Dont Like, was cut and locked some time ago.

Then why do we still have the Biggest Complaint pages? It's either redundant to DMOS or Loophole Abuse for complaining.

Complaining is judged more harshly than gushing because it causes problems more commonly. Case in point, the only problem with this page is that it has questionable wicks, which is not a reason for cutting the page at all.

It's not a trope. Terminate with extreme prejudice.

I'll chainsaw it if I see it on a work page.

edited 18th Nov '16 11:51:57 AM by crazyrabbits

It shouldn't be on any work page it's the Suger Wiki.

I'm down with cutting this.

And still having So Bad Its Horrible? (Or So Okay, It's Average for that matter?)

That we cut one does not mean we need to cut other pages as well. And I am not convinced that this page, which is reasonably well trafficked and is about a term in use, needs to be cut. The main redirect and the wicks on the other hand need to go.

Sounds reasonable. It's already a policy that sugar wiki entries should stay in sugar wiki's pages, right?