Talk:Purple prose/Archive 1

Merge in Purple Patch

 * Support. No need to have two articles, and "purple prose" is the usual term. Purple Patch has a very strange edit history by User:Egyptian Scholar though, moving from an article about quatrains to one about this subject: . As such, I don't think there's much to be saved from that article during the move. DWaterson 01:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some support, no opposition -- I'm merging. Goldfritha 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage of "purple patch" outside literature?
There's nothing in the article at the moment referring to the use of "purple patch" in a more general, and unequivocally positive, sense: for example, a sportsperson having a series of excellent games. This usage is fairly common, surely? Loganberry (Talk) 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now added a short para to the lead section mentioning this usage. Loganberry (Talk) 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention of the term "Purple Dialogue"?
I recently came across the term Purple Dialogue, had no clue, and could not find anything through various Google searches to help clarify my understanding. A friend turned me on to Purple Prose and it became immediately clear (computers are not infallible after all!) A quick Google for "Purple Dialogue" reveals the term is in common use. Whether 'proper' usage or not, it is certainly common, and I think this entry could use a quick mention of the point. - jglide 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It could also use a redirect here. Goldfritha 00:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice there's still no mention of "purple dialogue" on the page, and while not well-documented on the internet, "purple dialogue" is a term that seems to be mentioned any time there's a real discussion about "purple prose" in real life (the former being a subcategory of the latter). Just because no hits come back when one "googles it" doesn't mean it's obscure or non-noteworthy; there's a reason why googling is only used as a rough guideline (because when used as a rule to determine basically anything, its useless -- a good example of this is the Wikipedia page titled Hippocampus, which is about the part of the brain, simply because the internet is filled with spammy medical websites that return ludicrous numbers of hits for what is ultimately a usage so obscure that it isn't even heard outside of medical circles, while the far, far, FAR more common use of the term was shoved over to Hippocampus (mythology), because it's harder for people to make money by spamming the internet with redundant websites about mythology).  We here on Wikipedia need to be cognisent of the fact that google is just an internet search engine, and an extremely poor one at that, subject to even more spam and false-hits than reliable search engines like HotBot, AltaVista, or even unreliable-but-still-better-than-goolge search engines like Yahoo!'s, and to not base the level of priority we give things on something as disconnected from reality as a search engine so that nothing like the Hippocampus travesty ever happens again.  I'll reserve being bold till I've heard from someone.  --Þórrstejn [ ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn ]:  Hammer of Thor  talk  14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph in "Modern Usage"
seems to be an unintentional example of its own subject.--Streona (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of the term "ultra-violet prose"
I came across the term "ultra-violet prose" and when I googled the phrase there were 77 results. The first was "We've got language so overly-flowery that I had to ask Mako-chan if there was anything beyond purple prose. (After much consideration, I have decided to name it "ultraviolet prose". Feel free to use this in term in future conversation.)" Another person replied: "Ultraviolet Prose: By george, you did it! You coined the perfect phrase. For not only is it unnecessarily flowery, it is actually physically painful. It burns. BURNS." source: http://minakokouchou.livejournal.com/148604.html 71.221.40.80 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrm, I think a livejournal post hardly constitutes a reliable source. DWaterson (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And even if a LiveJournal post did constitute a reliable source, we'd still have WP:NEO with which to contend. Jeff Silvers (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Silvers (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lovecraft
I understand that his work could be refered to as this, but that's no reason to put him under the see also section. Further, there is nothing on his page about purple prose; he is not the only possible example; he is not listed in the main article here; it seems rather insulting to his work, and a tad subjective to have the link; finally, even if every line of his work is a perfect example of this, his page wouldn't be useful since it doesn't actually contain his work. In short, there is no good reason for him to be linked to, and I'm removing it. Phoenix1177 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention of "Twilight" under examples?
The whole book seems to be written in nauseating purple prose. here's an example:

"He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening, pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn’t sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.29.180 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I came to this talk page to complain that there wasn't a single example on the articlr page. I like your example! It answers my question/need. I would support adding yours. Or another example, if someone has a better one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:CBC:1080:F526:48F9:37CD:45CA (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Mention of "Twilight" continually removed
Someone continually removes the mention of Twilight under the example section. Not really surprising considering this person is a fan of Meyer but this is VANDALISM ! Can someone please stop her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.151.6.1 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not an act of vandalism to remove unsourced information. If a reliable source can be found that discusses Meyer's writing as using purple prose, then the entry can be readded. Andrea  ( talk ) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)