Headscratchers Cleanup

Did you read the full content of the page? It's chock full of complaining, and speculating about real life, and asking questions like "So why the hell do Bronies exist", and the last question is about TVT itself...

It's a messed up page. I can't see anything redeeming about it.

And didn't we cut Headscratchers.Real Life for a reason? Meta is banned on moments, I'm pretty sure we aren't allowed to make WMG about real life either, and Headscratchers is about asking questions about the narrative, right? Not debating, not speculating, and not asking about real life things.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 14th 2020 at 10:36:55 AM

I agree, the MLP page should be cut.

Honestly most of the MLP ones need looking at, but I'm still trying to focus on the Harry Potter pages first and don't have time to give them all a thorough examination. Yet. I just felt this one was bad enough to warrant action right away.

Huh? Headscratchers pages are not form of Moments, and I did see a number of legitimate questions that aren't just complaining (but also a fair amount of complaints). Most of the stuff on Headscratchers.Real Life had no relevance to storytelling or fiction whatsoever.

We're not saying they are. We're just asking why meta would be banned in one area and okay elsewhere. It's still an attempt to trope and discuss real-life rather than the actual media. None of the questions on the page are about the narrative. They're things like "Why do Bronies exist" and "Why is the merch pink"? The questions also get repeated a lot.

Um, we do have a page for WMG.Real Life

And I'd say a good chunk of those "theories" are either:

• Tongue-in-cheek jokes and not meant as serious discussions of reality, often as part of the "Real Life as a game" joke.
• Genuine conspiracy theories or veiled attempts at discussing controversial subjects
• Silly theories about very minor real-life things

I'd say the first and third versions are fine and inoffensive, but the second group is not good. There's a fundamental difference between jokey "Obama is a Time Lord" theories and the actually controversial and flame-baity "9/11 not real" theories, and between silly theories about real-life and debates over the production and meta of a cartoon, where the discussions are meant to be serious, and often dip into complaining or speculating on the behaviors of companies and actors and fans without any hint of self-awareness or attempt to be funny about it.

"Meta" headscratchers and genuine theories about real life just don't really belong here when we're meant to be discussing narrative. The key thing that might salvage the Real Life WMG page is that a lot of the examples treat reality like fiction, and not like...the real world. The problem with the MLP page is that it's discussing reality, the meta surrounding the show, real people and real companies, having debates about those things even. It just doesn't seem to fit with the wiki's mission and I just don't see a point in allowing "Meta" headscratchers.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 14th 2020 at 2:01:08 AM

I recall when WMG.Nicki Minaj got brought up and requested to be cut, and I declined while encouraging removal of certain entries - which seems like a decent comparison - there's benign tinfoil hatting (which is the whole point of WMG), and then there's bashing/ROCEJ violations.

Fair to point out that, regardless of how others perceive them, WMG and Headscratchers are not synonymous. So say Headscratchers.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic Meta has such benign items - they'd be rather in-line with WMG instead.

And, now, having looked at the page itself, I don't see anything worth keeping, to be frank.

Edited by nombretomado on Jul 16th 2020 at 4:30:25 AM

I haven't seen the show, but what should be done with the page?

Given how closely related the two are, can we expand this to cover WMG? Or would its own thread be better. Asking because this has been in Ralph Breaks the Internet since before its release.

• The film will be considered a Jump the Shark moment and the start of Disney's next Dork Age.
• The big crossover scene with the Disney princesses has been very controversial so far, with some accusing Disney of Pandering to the Base (not helping matters is that the princesses behave very out of character in their scene). Plus, the very idea of a film centered around the internet is risky, due to the danger of dating the film with references to memes. Not to mention the Product Placement of sites like You Tube and IM Db. This film combined with the possible firing of John Lasseter due to his sexual harassment accusations, might cause Disney to step into yet another dark age.
  • Here's hoping. Don't wanna judge but this movie seems to lack any sort of artistic quality what-so-ever, and I only really see hardcore fans who are into the shipping and crap liking this over the large audience at hand.
    • As far as Word of God goes, the directors made a point of mentioning that they were very aware of the negative possibilities, and are going out of their way to avoid over-commercializing the film. It's not a matter of the "hardcore" fans liking the movie no matter what; it's that they're the ones paying attention to more reputable information (like interviews, storyboards, and stuff coming directly from the crew) rather than obnoxious advertising (like the teaser trailer/commercials that are just designed to grab attention for marketing reasons without giving an accurate picture of the movie).

I believe several ATT threads confirmed that such things weren’t appropriate.

It's not.

This is for Headscratchers specifically though, not WMG, unless people think they're similar enough to warrant similar cleanup...

Should it be cut?

So...yeah. What do with the meta?

Seems like you may want to post a discussion about this on Wiki Talk. I am sure that I've seen disagreement on this question elsewhere but cleanup threads are not really tasked with defining policies for a namespace.

Didn't realize I'd be defining a policy since I thought it was an unspoken policy already, but I get it. I'll make the thread later if nobody else wants to.

I took notice of this thread, and it seems to go with this thread that I made regarding First Person Writing in not just Headscratchers, but also Fridge and WMG.

Is it just me, or does some of the responses on Headscratchers.Captain Planet And The Planeteers seem... off?

I made the meta thread, please come and discuss.

Cool.

Well, added a disclaimer on cleaning up FPW and natter, and I cleaned up the first few examples of it.

This is on Headscratchers.The Guardian Legend. It has nothing to do with the game. Should it be removed?

• It bugs me that an NES game actually has a Headscratchers page.
  • This wasn't a question, but my answer is that you need to play more NES games. Guardian Legend barely scratches the surface of how bizarre (and Fridge Logic-baiting) they could get!
    • Well, to be fair, I've played many upon many NES games, this included, and I'm surprised that the appeal of NES gaming has made its way to TV Tropes. Not that that's a bad thing.

Yes. My god, yes. That's not even a headscratcher. It's just a complaint and conversation.

You missed some spots on cleaning up FPW. At least that page has no "this troper" on it. Those really grind my gears as much as the next person does.

I wasn't actually attempting to clean up the page, just wanted an official word on whether that entry should go. But I guess it did need it.

Some people prefix their headscratchers with "More of a question than a headscratcher", but I thought the definition of a headscratcher was a question about the work.