A casual glance around the wiki shows that whether a videogame was popular is often mentioned in the description of that videogame (to the point that it's a lampshaded running gag on the Final Fantasy games pages). Pages for various Zelda, Mario, Final Fantasy, Mega Man, Metal Gear and Punch Out games all have reasonable descriptions of the game's reception, and none of them have the bare bones Beige Prose ledes that you reduced this article to. I think the problem here is twofold - you're oversubscribing to a rule while misinterpreting its intent, and you're somehow seeing a review where there isn't a review.
Reverting, and then I'll see if there's anything that can be pared down a bit.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
First of all, when your additions are being contested, do not continue to revert until the discussion is resolved. The whole point of discussions is to settle editing disputes without repeated reversions.
Second of all, I am not misinterpreting anything. I am directly quoting established wiki policy. Your sole defense for your actions is that other pages do the same thing. In other words, "monkey see, monkey do" logic. Many pages also have issues with Example Indentation, natter and Zero Context Examples; that doesn't make it OK to make those same mistakes elsewhere.
Actually, it would have been your removals that were being contested, and the onus would have been on you to stop reverting and try and convince me that there was reason to change the status quo. And based on what the vast majority of the content on the wiki is like, either you're wrong, or the rules page is wrong. If you disagree, then go try to beige-ify the Final Fantasy pages and see how it's received by the community.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
I just got finished saying that widespread =/= OK. In my previous post. And you're still using that as an argument. I must say it again: many pages on this wiki violate Example Indentation in Trope Lists (and those other things I mentioned). That doesn't make it OK to do so. The same thing applies here. I do not understand why you are having so much trouble grasping this.
Also, suggesting that "the rules page is wrong" just because other tropers are unaware of (or in your case, defiant of) the rule is ridiculous.
It is acceptable to lightly discuss the impact that a particular work has on its genre or time period, by way of establishing cultural context. Details of critical reception ("X score on Metacritic"), or performance ("Y dollars at the domestic box office") are irrelevant. Being complimentary towards the work is acceptable. Reviewing it ("You should play this") is not.
Those things that are not permitted in the description may go in Trivia, Analysis, and/or Reviews. That's why we have them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Mc Jeff, quality judgements in a work description (especially when it's as blatant as it was here) are against the rules, and you've been editing the wiki long enough that you should know better.
From the Tips Worksheet:
And from How to Create a Work's Page:
That's two administrivia pages that cover this, and that's on top of the fact that the edit tips randomly appear in the edit box whenever you edit a page.
Furthermore, you're argument that the review text has been there for a long time is completely irrelevant. I don't care if it's been there for 6 minutes, 6 weeks, or 6 years, it's still a violation of the rules.
On a different note, regarding that other edit you reverted, that was my fault. I forgot to mention it in my edit reason. Specifically, when writing examples, do not refer to other trope examples with "see [X] above/below" or anything to that effect. All relevant context should be right there in the example itself without relying on references to other trope entries.
Edited by MyTimingIsOff Hide / Show Replies