Zzzzzzzzzz
Just like we keep Darth Wiki in Darth Wiki, Sugar Wiki should be kept in its own space as well.
My vote is Dewick it and put a notice on it not to wick it in the Main Wiki, in keeping with the notice that's already on the main Sugar Wiki page
edited 19th Nov '16 11:35:23 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Looking at the wicks its not really linked on any main pages, occasional YMMV pages and such but that is about it.
So are we keeping examples on the page, or not? They would be pretty pointless.
Huh? The page has no examples, and we don't mandate examples for everything.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Honestly I expected this to have examples actually and indexed subpages like So Bad Its Horrible, I do not see why that wasn't the case. Did they all get cut sometime or something?
edited 19th Nov '16 12:21:07 PM by Memers
Bumping this. Do we want a crowner for wick cut? Or do folks still want to push the page cut?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Just wick cut please. I believe it can still have examples in its own page. Just like how SBIH can't be wicked anywhere for its examples.
We don't need justice when we can forgive. We don't need tolerance when we can love.
I believe the wicks should be cut, but allow it to have examples on its own page, just like So Bad Its Horrible.
I don't see how this should have a complete wick cut. It's already on the sugarwiki so it's not allowed on most pages just like darthwiki links, any link on normal pages gives that icon that should be cleaned up right?.
edited 27th Dec '16 5:36:08 PM by Memers
There are many links to it on normal pages, none of the ones I looked at had any sort of icon. Of course, quite a few of them are potholed somewhere in the description or the image caption.
I say we keep it but put in strict guidelines like So Bad it's Horrible has.
That would be pointless. We're supposed to tell them that their favourite work isn't awesome enough to qualify?
Dread Sorcerer of Auchtermuchty
The guidelines on Horrible are because they don't want everything labelled as bad - people get less annoyed when something they think is "meh" is labelled as awesome by someone else.
Keeper of The Celestial Flame
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Exactly. Kind of like how Gushing About Shows You Like still has examples while its inverse/opposite number is on the PRLC with just a "don't do this on pain of a permaban" Administrivia page remaining. The latter is guaranteed Flame Bait while the former is just simple YMMV that tends not to provoke incendiary disagreements.
edited 3rd Jan '17 6:42:53 PM by Theatre_Maven_3695
I dunno, I think it could be used for works that are unanimously considered extremely good (for example, anything that's gotten movie of the year on Rotten Tomatoes or gone Game of the Year with major publications)
Zootopia would be a good Western Animation example because the reviews were overwhelmingly positive, it won movie of the year from several places (some for animation, some in general) and only had FIVE Rotten reviews out of nearly 240 on RT.
It would be an interesting contrast to So Bad It's Horrible.
edited 3rd Jan '17 9:22:21 PM by shoboni
This page has no examples. Why are people discussing examples?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
We're talking about this being listed as examples in other pages, not the SCIA page itself.
That being said, I think it would be interesting to move those examples to the page and make it the sugar wiki counterpart to So Bad It's Horrible.
You know, for works with overwhelming critical acclaim and public approval like aforementioned Zootopia or Minecraft in the realm of Video Games.
edited 11th Jan '17 4:58:25 PM by shoboni
That would be pointless, IMO. It would just be a review aggregator. And adding objective standards for measuring how "awesome" a work is would be asking for trouble.
...you mean the same way So Bad It's Horrible has objective standards for bad that amount to the inverse of general consensus the work has no redeeming value among critics and the general public?
There's honestly no reason the trope can't have a positive counterpart on the Sugar Wiki.
edited 12th Jan '17 9:46:26 PM by shoboni
Because let's face it, it's harder for people to stay objective when they're reviewing something they like.
And we already have Gushing About Shows You Like. And it has examples.
edited 13th Jan '17 6:12:31 AM by Getta
We don't need justice when we can forgive. We don't need tolerance when we can love.
That's a YMMV trope, not something we catalog based on actual public and critical reception like So Bad It's Horrible.
I also find people tend to the most biased when tearing apart things they don't like, IMO.
edited 13th Jan '17 3:27:11 PM by shoboni
Here's the problem (as I see it, anyway):
Troper #1: I want to add Tropers: The Series!
Troper #2: Let me check...uh, sorry. Tropers: The Series isn't awesome enough. Try again when it's more awesome.
See what I mean?
You typically would need a reason to flat out remove an example from these pages. Minor contested examples typically get a bullet point or rewrite to clarify, the former tends to be bad form in terms of arguing though.
edited 13th Jan '17 3:35:00 PM by Memers
That will be fine, I suppose.
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report