about the 'No Negativity' rule

Let's see an example from these people who want analysis in the main page of what they would define as analysis.

edited 18th May '12 11:00:34 AM by FastEddie

I guess it's a case of 'why is this trope used, and what for?'.

Let's take The Big Guy as an example. That's a specialised character role, providing the protagonist and his allies with a way to fix physical problems like The Smart Guy fixes intellectual problems. However, since he's a secondary character, and thus it's not such a big deal if he gets taken out, he also serves as a good way to emphasise a villain's physical power. See The Worf Effect and Big Guy Fatality Syndrome.

That'd just be a taster, a way to explore the how and why of a trope's usage.

I think FE means analysis on a work page within the trope list, but I could be wrong.

Iaculus, I just read our article on The Big Guy. It says all of that already. So I'm not sure what the disparity is.

To be sure, repeating all of that text from the description of the trope every single time The Big Guy is used as an example on a work page would be horrifying, but one shouldn't need to given that the example links to the trope. Every time a Wikipedia article mentions organic chemistry, it doesn't dump the entire introductory text from that article. That would be stupid, as the whole point of a wiki is that you can click on it to find out.

edited 18th May '12 11:03:42 AM by Fighteer

In that case, you might look at why, say, a fanservice-heavy series uses a Legal Jailbait character. Since the object of the series is appealing to various fetishes, that character lets you appeal to those who like 'em young-looking without actually sexualising a child.

This of course differs from a more character-driven and less fanservicey work, where the purpose of making the character in question look way too young is to show what kind of psychological impact it might have on them, and how it shapes their character.

edited 18th May '12 11:04:44 AM by Iaculus

re #152: That's a how description. Nothing wrong with that.

edited 18th May '12 11:02:46 AM by FastEddie

re 155: That's conjecture. That's not okay.

Well, on Legal Jailbait, it is useful to note in the trope description that it's used to get loli pandering around age-of-consent laws, but as the description already notes that, saying it each and every time an example of Legal Jailbait comes up is redundant.

However, speculating on whether a specific example of it is intended for that purpose would definitely be Analysis and would not belong in the example. Well, I suppose Word of God might confirm that it is the case, but in that case it might get cut by P5. Maybe a less emotionally loaded example would work better.

edited 18th May '12 11:06:35 AM by Fighteer

Saying that fanservice shows use different body-types and/or personalities to appeal to different fetishes is conjecture?

I was explaining what analysis is, since Eddie asked for examples. Whether we currently have it or not is irrelevant to that (though it's certainly good that we do on those pages).

edited 18th May '12 11:07:47 AM by Iaculus

Not when stated as a general part of the trope description, although delving into all the various permutations probably is Analysis and should go on that subpage rather than cluttering up the main article. Trying to guess how much of which applies to any given example of it in a work, however, is most definitely conjecture.

In response to your edit, we can and often do discuss the narrative purpose of a trope in its description, but that needs to be kept to the bare minimum needed to establish the context for its use. More detailed stuff needs to go on Analysis because it distracts from the examples.

edited 18th May '12 11:09:58 AM by Fighteer

Remind me, why are lists of examples more important than analysis again?

For example, why don't we have the description and analysis as the main page and examples as a subpage?

edited 18th May '12 11:13:34 AM by Iaculus

Because tropes are about the examples. I think this was stated somewhere, like maybe on our Home Page. Like it's kind of the whole point of the wiki.

"This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction."

It says catalog. It does not say analysis.

edited 18th May '12 11:17:22 AM by Fighteer

It's on Fast Eddie's own page, in the anecdote. Janitor said "Can't you see that people are having a great time with the examples? That they are suiting stuff to the things that they are familiar with, making it theirs?"

I understand that's the wiki's purpose. I was wondering why it was the purpose - why cataloguing tropes was more important than analysing them.

I'm not advocating getting rid of example lists (they are, indeed, fun) - I'm just wondering why they're more important than analysis of the hows and whys behind tropes.

On an unrelated note, having the hugely popular examples section as a subpage might result in subpages in general getting more love. As is, they tend to be very ancillary and thus neglected.

edited 18th May '12 11:28:06 AM by Iaculus

Because our readers like them better. They like seeing how all their favourite stories use different variants of the same convention.

That answer your question?

We don't want the description devolving into debates. We want the description to be clear and concise, and if we can get it, witty. This doesn't happen by having someone get up there and drone on about his theory of why the trope grew that way or what was in the writer's mind when he used the trope. All of which will be contested by someone else.

People who want to play that way can use the Analysis tab.

I'm just going to say that this is the exact reason that I first came to the wiki, and the reason that I'm still here after 6 years.

@post 139: The second set of examples is exactly what we're aiming for. Not just "This trope happened" but "This is how this particular trope looks when used in this context".

I'd like to think that's not true, but history has shown that most people just like this wiki for shallow entertainment and not anything academic.

What's stopping the Analysis tabs from devolving into neverending debate? Right now the analysis tabs are formatted like articles but if debate picks up and the Analysis goes into Thread Mode I think Analysis should get its own subforum.

edited 18th May '12 1:48:28 PM by Akagikiba2

History has shown that most people like most things for shallow entertainment. You are not reaching any novel or extraordinary insights here.

Nothing is stopping the analysis page from being filled with debates; that's the whole reason those pages are there, so the debates can occur in a place where people who aren't interested don't have to read them. Also, we shouldn't treat it like a bad thing that people are disinterested in analysis of authorial intent. There's nothing wrong with preferring to read information on how the tropes are used rather than why the tropes are used.

This whole discussion is pretty much becoming circular and obsessed with pointless semantics.

It has been explained several times why Analysis is not allowed on the main pages, why examples are the on the page, and pointed out we have a spot devoted entirely to analysis.

You have the place for it use it.

edited 18th May '12 7:44:23 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I'd suggest that one of the reasons that the wiki is primarily about the examples over the why is the format. Wikis are great at looking at examples, but if you wanted to argue and state things from different interpretations, a blog style format might be better for that.

edited 18th May '12 4:42:43 PM by Deboss

This has run its course.