I think that if we/you delete the Headscratchers/Tropes pages, there needs to be a better replacement than the Tropes Talk pages. The problem inherent with Tropes Talk is that it is 1: A forum format, which is built in a chronological order with the only subject ordering being the separation of threads by title, and 2: not directly connected to the pages, so there's no way to tell if there even is
an existing Trope Talk thread for a given trope without searching through the forum section and risking false negatives (which in turn lead to redundancy).
Personally, if we could somehow make an in-wiki Trope Talk section (or something like that), and have the Headscratchers/Tropes pages redirect to the new namespace, that would be great. It would keep all of the functionality of the current format while reducing the confusion and lack of caring that led the pages in question to their (not generally as bad as the above posters make it sound) current state. Basically using an automatic process to make sure the Headscratchers namespace icon doesn't appear at the top of tropes pages, but the icon for a new namespace with a more trope-ready theme of the Headscratchers format (i.e., the already-in-place redirect system combined with already-in-place functions for the namespace/page lock-and-redirect effects).
Personally, I don't want to bother, and I don't think the change would be worth it, but I think the possibility that it would be worth it (as with the JBM->Headscratchers change) would be worth the bother of changing instead of any of the other options (including being better than doing nothing). I would rather vote for making the namespace change to preserve function and dissuade improper use than vote for doing nothing or any of the other options given.
Using Analysis as a replacement: Analysis is really an exposition thing, kind of like graduate papers instead of an open forum (in my experience, at least, and from what I understand their purpose is in the first place). While Headscratchers is more for asking "What's up with X?" and getting responses, and thus encouraging understanding of what actually is
up with X, Analysis is more of a place to say "Here's what I think is up with X!" even when nobody asked, just because the author of the analysis thinks it would be good for interested people to read (which in all but one or two of the many cases I've seen has been true, in my opinion).
Using Discussion as a replacement: That discusses the page itself, not the topic of the page (a container versus content question). Keeping to the grad papers vs. open forum metaphor, it's more like an open committee overseeing the aforementioned forum in case a fight breaks out or someone wanders in and starts ranting about some unrelated subject under a thinly-connected facade.
In both cases, Headscratchers/Trope has a purpose that the other does not, and the other has a purpose that Headscratchers/Trope does not. My motion is to replace
, even if it's a replacement in name only like with JBM->Headscratchers, rather than merge or remove.
Edit: Additionally, may I add options to the crowner for "Merge Headscratchers for Tropes with Discussion Pages for Tropes", "Merge Headscratchers for Tropes with Analysis Pages for Tropes", and "Rename Headscratchers for Tropes Something More Neutral, I.E., Trope Talk, Trope Discussions, or Something Not Quite So Similar To An Already-Extant Thing"? If not, would one of the people in charge of the thread please add them, a subset or superset of them, or something like them? I feel the single-option ballot promotes a bit of bias. Not a lot, but enough to skew the vote.
edited 28th Jun '12 3:03:23 AM by JET73L