This really starts to bug me. On many Trope-pages, people misuse the Headscratchers-namespace for complaining about examples they don't like. We should really cut down the usage; is it possible to restrict it to work-pages only (just like YMMV)?
[insert EXTREMELY WITTY QUOTE here]
I agree that we should not allow Headscratchers for tropes.
I though that the (new, old) idea of Headscratchers was to discuss why some things work in a certain way and they set us off, and that the whole complaining about what one doesn't like was simply misuse that was to be removed (and an important factor behind the rename). Seeing so, I simply don't see a reason why there can't be Headscratchers for tropes (discarding policy as of the above being solved).
Any Headscratcher about a trope would necessarily be about its examples, right? Therefore it should go on the corresponding work page. Lack of clarity about what the trope is would be resolved in the Discussion page or TRS. Analysis of the trope itself would be done on the forums or Discussion. What's left?
Hmmm.... I tend to think that Discussion tab is for operational discussion like in... uh... The Other Wiki... my fault. So yeah. Discussion it is then. (I guess forums would be inconvenient for the issue. If no one "rediscusses" a trope in, like, [X amount of] months, the thread gets purged or lost anyway... unless it's linked to from Discussion anyway...)
I see no reason that we can't have Analysis pages for tropes. That seems like the reasonable place to put "Why did this trope come into existence,?", "Here's its history", "Here's how it differs from Real Life.", and so on. But Analysis, not Headscratchers.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Agreed. Analysis would seem to be the proper place, but I do worry that it could turn into navel gazing, or at worst, outright Complaining. Who's going to watch/curate these subpages?
I see the Awesomeness.
I thought that that was the purpose of analysis pages. Discussion, is something I've thought of as discussing the page, not the trope. For that, you should head to the forum.
I thought the discussion page was more for discussing specific examples and other page issues, while questions for the trope would go to the Trope Talk forum. Discussing why the trope exists and such I thought would go on headscratchers though. (not that I have ever tried to use a page like that.)
I see the Awesomeness.
Yeah. I use the discussion page when I want to discuss an example, or whether or not a set fits.
Even a Just Bugs Me page for a trope seems to me like it would be more about why it's a Pet-Peeve Trope.
I am trying to see the error in my ways and edit correctly my entries, but that is a Headscratched itself: If the WMG section read like the trope page, but the nature of any Headscratcher invite to Natter, woulnd't it be prefereable to give it a forum-like format instead of the trope page format? I think the difference of Discussion and Wild Mass Guess is very clear in the name itself for this to cause trouble. I mean, new tropers like me tend to learn for examples first and reading the manual last, so bad edition manners perpetuate themselves.
Once again we have confusion about what Headscratchers is for. I think the namespace name may be long on cute and short on clarity. Let's hear some alternative names for the namespace.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no purpose served by the existing Headscratchers function that could not be solved by a dedicated forum thread tied to the article. Of course we tried that before and it didn't work well, so ... I shrug at it. Anything that invites a Thread Mode atmosphere is going to devolve into crap eventually. It's inevitable.
That's way too long for the title of a namespace.
... I see what you did there. How about "Q&A"?
I'm an Irene!
Headscratches are most often used in works, and are about problems with the storytelling aspect. "Questions & Answers" seem to work, though. I can't think of many tropes where you need a page for that.
We don't want headscratchers for tropes; I thought that was established a long time ago. Only problem with my Q&A suggestion is that the ampersand doesn't work as a URL component.
edited 21st Dec '11 2:44:42 PM by Fighteer
QAndA is not a bad alternative, I hope? EDIT: Q & A is a bluelink. Go figure...
edited 21st Dec '11 2:48:19 PM by SilentReverence
I'm an Irene!
I'll make sure to check if somebody tried to make one for those. Anyway, Questions And Answers(Storytelling) would work fine, then. If that's what the guidelines are, it should work. Is it short enough? Alternatively, Q And A Storytelling might work.
Q & A is a work page in the wrong namespace and needs to be moved. The name just looks awkward spelled out. It has to be simple though, because it's going in the namespace component of the URL. Preferably a non-CamelCase word.
Gotta trope, dood!
I've not seen a huge problem with Natter on Headscratchers pages that's not just left over from when it was called Headscratchers— that is, old entries that hadn't been deleted when the change was made. Add to that, people who didn't participate in the last rename thread don't know why it was changed. If you want to change it, maybe add a disclaimer to the top of all the Just Bugs Me pages that "This isn't a place to whine and complain, but raise questions about plot holes, weird moments, and general questions about works." Re: Why Not Just Forumize It?— Much like WMG, it can't work as a forum because of the nature of it. We've already got a bit of a problem with multiple entries over the same thing, forumizing it would make it even worse. Someone'll say "It doesn't make sense that Alice died when she got thrown out of that window in season two, considering that pretty much the exact same thing happened in the third episode of season one." One or two people'll say "yeah, you're right" and move on with the thread, then three pages later, someone who was late to the party'll say the same thing and waste everyone's time. In addition to that, you'd have to sort the posts in some way, since the alternative is having
- Post 1: Why'd Alice Die in Season Two?
- Post 2: Because X
- Post 3: Because Y
- Post 4: Why'd Bob Shoot Dave in Season Three Finale?
- Post 5: Reason Alice Died Z
- Post 6: Reason Bob Shot Dave X
- Post 7: Why'd Carol Join Alice in Season One?
- Post 8: Why Didn't Alice Just Kill Carol in Season One
- Post 9: Reason Y Bob Shot Dave
- Post 10: Reason X Alice Didn't Kill Carol and Reason X Alice didn't die again
They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?
The way I see it, Headscratchers by their nature would require a sort of content versioning system (something similar to eg.: git). Lacking that, keeping them in wiki format at least helps maintain one of the key points of their nature's model — answers and comments to questions are posted where they have to be (with the questions).
Trouble is, you ask questions, you gonna get answers. Many answers, different answers, opposable answers, non-editable answers... Is Guessing after all. Thus, you get Natter.
Hey, don't diss getting answers, that's more or less what science is... Well, it is a two way avenue in my opinion. If you want to have a place where you can get answers or comments to questions, no matter you have a wiki or a forum the premise is the same — you want to get those answers (if you don't, how do you know they're "natter"?). Thus curation is the answer. Trouble is, the way the forums work, the only way to have HS working as a forum is with a dedicated curator who spends his time checking all pages and linking and indexing relevant questions and answers... and only the OP can do that. With the wiki, you can have other people learn and help. But they first have to use it.