People kept putting Analysis On The Mainpage (I don't think we have that article, but Natter doesn't quite fit), so me, or somebody, suggested that it be attached to all tropes, the same way that YMMV is attached to works. That way if somebody wants to go on and on about how the trope was created, evolved, or whatever, they don't clutter up the main description.
Fight smart, not fair.Judging from what I've seen coming into the Analysis namespace what you had is Garbage On The Main Page Which Is Not Analysis and decided to implement Make A Namespace Into A Dumping Ground Because It Worked So Well For Darth Wiki Troper Tales And It Just Bugs Me.
Maybe what we need is a page called Deletion Anxiety: "See that button on the top right of your keyboard- the one that says 'backspace'. Yeah, you're allowed to use it y'know.".
If it is talking about the trope, it's generally an Analysis. If it's just fluff, I delete it. If it's actually discussing something, that's analysis.
Fight smart, not fair.Analysis is a dumping ground. Because "what this trope symbolizes" is garbage, belonging in a dump. As does the history of the trope and any of the other crap that keeps building up. YMMV and the Crowning Moments pages were created just for this purpose. They seem to be working okay, so maybe this will help clean out the soap boxing and other crap people bitch about getting deleted.
Fight smart, not fair.
Wait. If symbolism in tropes doesn't matter for the trope itself, doesn't that mean that all tropes represent nothing inherently, and are thus all People Sit On Chairs?
^ This.
Very strongly opposed to the notion that symbolism doesn't matter. If it didn't, tropes would be absolutely meaningless.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI am. When a trope like Zombie Apocalypse gets filled with utter crap like this, there is something wrong with the description. People objected to me simply cutting the entire section. Dumping it in the analysis was the compromise.
Bobby, that's not symbolism, that's narrative purpose. Which is different from a regular trope. "This is an event that happens, and this is what it is saying about the world around us" is half trope, half analysis crap.
edited 5th Oct '11 4:49:55 PM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair....What is wrong with that analysis exactly, again?
Because from what I see, well, that there is the trope being analyzed. Granted, less deeply than I'd want it to be, but we have Wiki Magic for a reason. It's definitively not "garbage".
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?Analysis isn't supposed to be the dumping ground for anything. If that's how you were using it, you've gotten it completely wrong.
What should have probably happened is you made a sandbox page, put it all there, then told the people who wanted to keep it to try to expand it into something more coherent and with more depth. As it is, that's quite the mess.
edited 5th Oct '11 4:54:33 PM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Analysis is for going into more depth about the trope; how it relates to real world trends, how it doesn't make sense logically, how it relates to the personality of the author, etc.
The reason we don't go into that much detail on the main page descriptions is because we want readers to get to the examples list. The description is supposed to be a basic guide to what the trope is, not much more. The Analysis page is where you go for the formal dissection of more specific aspects or usage of the trope.
The problem with the Zombie Apocalypse description wasn't that it kept the issues brief. The problem was it tried to address too many things at the same time. So it did need a trimming. That doesn't mean the stuff on it just needed to be moved to Analysis.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Mocking the trope, flame bait, stuff like that. Insulting stuff shouldn't be allowed.
Likewise, Analysis isn't for dumping the crappiest stuff you can think of. It still needs to be handled with actual care.
Quest 64 threadIn other words, stuff that isn't allowed on the normal wiki anyway. The sandbox serves a useful purpose, and people are hesitant to put things on a sandbox if there's already stuff there, so I don't want it put anywhere that it matters. As always, the Analysis page is open to bother general editing, or specific editing by an individual troper (provided they sign their name).
Fight smart, not fair.^^ Yes, this is correct. So long as you are being analytical about the trope/work.
v Edit: and yes, no bashing, as should go without saying. Reasoned criticism belongs in the reviews; mindless negativity has no place here.
edited 5th Oct '11 5:56:29 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff![]()
![]()
And respectful. Both are key. Treat it with care, and there's nothing wrong with delving into the full information either.
edited 5th Oct '11 5:55:24 PM by Hydronix
Quest 64 threadThe Analysis section is a section of the wiki that I have put quite some effort into setting up and maintain. I will not accept it being made into a poorly written garbage heap. It is my work and not giving due respect to other people's work is on page 1 of "How to be a dick: illustrated edition".
If you can't appreciate the purpose of the subwiki and if you can't appreciate the purpose of particular paragraphs then you will not be capable of making good enough contributions. It is your malfunction and it is not my job to clean up after it. There are standards for formatting, focus, length on the main page and on the analysis page that you are failing to comprehend and that you are leaving out.
Making a dumping ground never worked for the aspects of the wiki that the administration didn't like so it sure as hell isn't going to work for the aspects that the administration does like and from where I am, it looks like the practical function of the Analysis icon is to aid Deboss's sloth.
No. This is most definitely not true. Analysis does cover stuff that would and does appear on the Main wiki but it has the space to do so with more depth and it can readdress the imbalance in how different parts do not get scaled for importance because they all have to made somewhat concise.
You have and probably will again end up moving something over because you don't like it when all it needed was to be shortened and will confuse the length for "analysis crap" when it's really just a failure at conciseness.

I've noticed that apparently every single article now has a link to its Analysis page among the icons at the top.
I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's an attempt to promote the existence of that namespace. A laudable goal, but it might be made more useful if the icon was gray if there is no Analysis page behind the link yet, to let us know if there is something worth checking out behind that link.
edited 1st Oct '11 11:53:15 PM by Korodzik