Removing Gushing from the Wiki

So. Personal opinions on the main wiki aren't allowed, be they gushing or bashing. Now, bashing gets tolerated even less than gushing, and that makes sense; it leads to more flamewars.

But that doesn't mean we have to live with all the gushing either. This thread can serve as a center for keeping it in check. One function might be to alert people to pages that are really heavy in gushing, to the point that it's not just a quick fix and will need some assistance.

No way that's possible... Bashing maybe but removing being positive about something is just asking for a lot of trouble.

If complaining is not allowed on the wiki, then gushing is not allowed either. It's in the site rules that pages should be kept neutral. Gushing can still exist in its own pages, of course, but not on the main pages.

^^We're not supposed to gush about works on the wiki either. It's just not very well-enforced.

Ninja'd.

edited 15th Aug '11 5:16:05 PM by INUH

If you want a Special Efforts thread to accomplish anything you need to have something more specific in mind than "remove gushing from the wiki". This section is for organizing special, concerted efforts, not talking about whether they should ideally be done or not.

edited 15th Aug '11 5:17:39 PM by Madrugada

Positive opinions about a work can be as controversial as negative opinions about a work.

^The idea here, I think, is similar to the Troper Tales cleaning project a while back, where we report on pages and look for gushing and general positivism and neutralize it in order to create a more impartial article.

edited 15th Aug '11 5:18:44 PM by juancarlos

In addition, since there has been an excess of gushing on pages that shouldn't have it, there should be a community effort to clean it up and make the wiki better.

^^^Something more specific? Is keeping an eye out for gushing when browsing the wiki, then removing it if it's a little and posting it here if it's too much to do yourself not specific enough?

I see this as being similar to the Natter Alert thread, which we do have posted here.

It should probably be pointed out that crowner pages are...not exempt, but the rules are more lax there. Also, the difference between a positive article and gushing should mentioned. Other than that, I say pin this, and it can function like the natter alert thread.

Wait, actually, before anything happens, I'd like a mod ruling. The only official word I remember is that gushing is infinitely preferable to complaining. I don't remember any policies on gushing. I mostly agree with this, but without mod approval it just ends up looking like vandalism.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:08:37 PM by Discar

^The way I heard it was that the wiki isn't supposed to have an opinion, but that gushing is less bad than bashing because of the lowered tendency to create flame wars.

We don't want either one, but bashing is far more damaging, and far more contagious.

And I'm sorry about how the tone of that other post came off. I should have taken more time to compose it. If you intended this to be like the Natter Alert thread, ("<This page> is gushing, but I don't know enough about the work to fix it. Can someone who does know it, work on it?") that's fine.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:58:52 PM by Madrugada

Make sure people understand the difference between text that makes a work look interesting and meaningless gushing.

Interesting: this work/author likes playing with Trope X. [further examples]

Gushing: this work/author is the best at using Trope X ever.

See how the first contains a statement about amount of use a work/author makes of a trope, and the other talks about how it's "good"? That's the difference between "gushing" and "positive".

Also, my "nuke" list:

1)"How the work was received", we're not IMDB or Wikipedia, that's what they're interested in.

2) Anything that sounds like Most Triumphant Example before it got nuked.

3) "Used very well" as well as "[work] used this trope a lot" with no elaboration.

Can someone with a bit more objective eyes than I have take a look at the OFWGKTA page? I'm a huge fanboy and would rather not mess the page up with gushitude.

Not seeing gushing. The only thing I see that could be considered gushing (if you squint and look at it just right) is saying that they have a "cult following".

Well, I'd consider that to be true. Even then, I didn't put it there.

Should I remove it and replace it with "sizable" or something? Even though it is currently the case, it probably won't be for long.

I wouldn't bother changing it. That's why I said "if you squint and look at it just right" — it could be considered gushing, if you really are looking hard for gushing in the article.

edited 16th Aug '11 5:01:20 PM by Madrugada

I see a problem where people treat a neutral or mildly positive writeup of a work as Gushing because they don't like it and think everyone else should feel the same way.

Here's some ridiculous gushing I found in the Shantae article:

Seriously, "we recommend"? Who's "we"? TV Tropes doesn't have an opinion. Articles are not reviews. Remove that, yes?

Also, should I remove any part of a works page which says that the work Needs More Love, either with an actual link or saying that the work is "highly underrated? I found the latter in the Blassreiter article.

edited 17th Aug '11 8:47:21 AM by ThatHuman

Yes, those items should be removed.

At risk of repetition: I'd urge caution when culling gushing. Gushing has a greater tendency to come intertwined with information — losing it in a snipping of paragraphs may well not be worth it. One of our goals is celebrating fiction, so a certain degree exuberant enthusiasm is to be expected.

EDIT: Not saying anything specifically about that one example, more a reply to the OP.

edited 18th Aug '11 10:20:02 PM by Camacan

Yes, but the Shantae bit is just recommending people to buy a used copy of the game. Also, just removed that bit, by the way.

edited 17th Aug '11 9:41:34 AM by ThatHuman

Move Needs More Love to the YMMV tab.

edited 17th Aug '11 11:47:12 AM by Madrugada

I think a brief summary of a work's critical and commercial reception is appropriate in a works description.

edited 17th Aug '11 5:48:17 PM by AndrewJ