The Analysis Namespace.

Analysis.The Scrappy feels... odd. It feels less like a list of possible scrappy traits, and more like a way to bash certain tropes, especially since it's usually the combination of specific traits that make a character a scrappy and not just "they're a Jerkass", "They're The Ditz", "They're The Eeyore", etc. I'm not disputing that these traits are linked to why characters may be hated, but it feels like an odd way to frame an Analysis page and it doesn't offer a lot of helpful information beyond "audiences dislikes characters who are annoying or dickish". Most of these tropes also feel redundant (bullies are mentioned at least three times, for example).

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 29th 2023 at 10:47:05 AM

To supplement an essay portion, I'm trying to add quoteblocks to an analysis page

But it doesn't seem to be working on Analysis pages.

Is it the use of a header like this, that prevents quoteblock activation?

Edited by Saint-Starflicker on Aug 17th 2023 at 6:21:56 AM

I don't know if quoteblocks work on the wiki. Never tried it myself though.

Quoteblock only works on the forums. Not sure what use they would have on the wiki.

Edited by MacronNotes on Aug 17th 2023 at 10:39:30 AM

Aw. Because if I'm writing an analytical essay, then while I know we're a buttload more informal than the other wiki but I will still want to cite and quote my sources and frameworks.

Analysis.Dungeons And Dragons Honor Among Thieves (by ~Erik Modi) reads more like a review?

Yeah it's more of a review (which is ironic considering this conversation), though the individual points (DND races and classes) could fit the Analysis page if described more scientifically.

It's been a while since I came across the broken table formatting in the wild, but here one is on Analysis.Improbably High IQ.

Analysis.Neopets just seems to be a list of background information and trivia, and not of the kind that goes on a trivia subpage. Is that kosher?

Yeah, that seems kinda pointless. We're not Jellyneo over here.

Sounds like something that can go.

Analysis.Freud Was Right doesn't seem like much of an analysis, only listing weapons that seem phallic/yonic.

Honestly the whole thing seems like one-handed writing to me, cut?

Edited by Chabal2 on Dec 19th 2023 at 9:51:23 PM

Bleh, cut that.

Is Analysis.Paranoia Agent effectively a forum thread?

Yeah, seems like that should be cut.

Cut it.

The totality of Analysis.Unmanly Secret:

Cut?

Yep.

Just found Analysis.Alphablocks; I assume this is also misuse of the namespace?

I don't even understand what the page is going for.

Should Analysis.Great Offscreen War be cut? I noticed that it claims World War II is a "definitive example" of the trope in real life, even though that trope is NRLEP. It does use this to segue into how examples of Great Offscreen War "often" take place when WW2 would have occurred in real-life...except I'm not sure that's true? Skimming through the examples, I see a lot of conflicts in the far future/distant past. There's also a discussion of how Japanese aversion to discussing World War II too deeply results in Japanese war fiction focusing on sci-fi and pre-modern conflicts. Putting the aside the issue of this analysis is sound or factually accurate, I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the trope. (It might work, with some tweaks.)

Edited by Diesel on Apr 5th 2024 at 12:13:29 PM

For starters, WW 2 is the opposite of offscreen war, so it makes no sense from the get go.

Edited by Amonimus on Apr 5th 2024 at 10:34:31 PM

Analysis.Space Jews has one example and doesn't particularly analyze the trope.

Edited by Chabal2 on Apr 8th 2024 at 12:00:47 PM

Can be removed

Not just irrelevant, but feels very [citation needed]. Don't think anything of value will be lost by cutting it.

Is it bad form to "yes, and" an existing analysis? I'll remove my addition to "A New Spin On An Old Story" in Analysis.Dr Horribles Sing Along Blog and any others on that page if it's not allowed.

Edited by vulpeculae on Apr 11th 2024 at 8:05:10 AM