Removing Gushing from the Wiki

Woobie.Doctor Who seems excessively gushy (in the "fawning over the poor cinnamon roll" way), with long walls of text and natter everywhere.

From the description of WesternAnimation.Roger Rabbit Shorts:

Since reception isn't allowed in the description, should I just remove this?

At least remove the second part, and replace "Disney-quality" with "Disney."

Did as such. Thanks Mew.

On the main page for Legend of the Galactic Heroes:

And yet, said glacial pace gives way to one of the most well-regarded stories in anime history, rich with philosophical debates, tactical planning, a healthy amount of Genius Bonus, and enough political intrigue to fill the Bundestag three times over. The series is filled with Character Development and dissertations on themes like authoritarianism versus democracy and takes inspiration from many real-life historical empires to form the basis of its background. Anyone from historians to politicians to engineers will find something to like in this series, and if you don't care about any of that stuff it's also a great character drama as well. Plus, who doesn't love political thrillers set in space?

We should probably get rid of this paragraph, but the problem is it comes right after a paragraph describing its low pace and how its complexity can be confusing, so it might come off as ironically complains if you just got rid of that paragraph and didn't change anything else.

Honestly, these paragraphs need to merged and trimmed. I would cut everything bolded and find a way to just say it's a rich, deeply layered military space opera. A sentence like "it's played straight and seriously" can be always cut. If you don't say that it's played for laughs or is a parody, people will rightly assume it's played straight.

Think of all the drama films this wiki covers. How many of them need a "this story is serious" introduction?

It does reek of "anime fan insecurity", where since it's from Japan and is best known as an anime there's this apologetic tone, assuming the reader is gonna automatically look down on this kind of story.

Basically, all that should absolutely be cut.

I wanted to say it so I thank you profusely. All of it should go.

From Film.Maniac Cop 2, this is a bit gushy on the action side.

• Man on Fire: The climax centers around a deliciously dangerous-looking set of stunts where Cordell is set on fire and just keeps on killing everyone anyway, eventually crashing through a wall and falling through the roof of a van, which promply explodes. The best part is just how long it goes on for - they must have set that poor stuntman on fire about ten times to get that many shots.

That whole trope is under repair at the moment anyway, so it might be best to cut it now and then reconsider if it works later.

Said repair effort actually finished last night.

Anyways, it's gone.

The recap page and YMMV for this one episode of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius seem to devote a lot of time to gushing about how hot the villainess is. I get that she's supposed to be attractive, but it mentions stuff like "smoldering bedroom eyes", "toned, curvy rump", and "breathy voice that'd leave just about anyone quivering", which feels kinda... one-handed to me, especially since the page doesn't have many tropes that don't relate to her in some way (in fact, all the tropes on the YMMV page are about her). I haven't seen that episode in a long time, so I can't do much about that last bit, but would it be possible to tone down the gushing just a little?

Can someone check over The Patrick Star Show? I've recently become a fan of it and have added a bunch of entries since the show gets a lot of backlash online, but I want to get someone else's opinion to make sure it comes off as fair and isn't overly gushy.

You cant have us check every single entry. You have to show us a manageable number of entries you fear are not kosher.

FWIW, the character's attractiveness is her main trait, but some of that romance novel talk can be dialed down.

This was added to the page for Cassette Beasts a few hours ago. While I agree that various aspects of them game seem to be a response to criticisms that Mons-related media often gets, the entry still comes across to me as overly-gushy in some ways.

...Doesn't there need to be a Deconstruction in place first?

Yep, that's the whole point. I don't see that here.

Honestly, "reconstruction" has always been very confusing to me and I think it's being misused in general, but... yeah cut that.

I cut it.

Honestly, that entry sounds more like Deconstruction than anything (mainly with how it addresses common criticisms on monster catching games).

No, a reconstruction doesn't need a deconstruction. A deconstruction is "this is what happens for real when you play the trope completely straight". A reconstruction is "this is what you'd have to do in order to get the genre or trope to occur realistically in the way it's usually portrayed". I don't think the example should have been deleted as it read like, "this is what the game did to make the mons genre as friendly as it's normally presented, and without any Fridge Horror."

From Reconstruction.

So yes a deconstruction is expected to have occurred first. Hence "re"construction. You can't rebuild what was never taken apart.

If the deconstruction has to be internal to the work though, then reconstruction is redundant with Decon-Recon Switch.

That's a completely normal mistake completely normal guy. LOL

But seriously we should check that out. If there's redundancy or misuse.