Headscratchers Cleanup

Glancing through the page, I see one of the questions is "Why does he takes things not to be taken seriously, actually seriously?" which already sounds like stealth complaining, but one of the replies is " Asperger's syndrome has a tendency to make people Literal-Minded." which just seems...really inappropriate. Much of the page seems to be accusing him of being a hypocrite for liking one episode but disliking a similar episode, and at least one instance of Complaining About People Not Liking the Show (and at least one note about him being too influential on this wiki). However, I'm not sure if it's disallowed for Headscratchers pages for review shows to include confusion about a reviewer's logic, since that's the closest thing to a narrative.

It had been discussed on the Web Video cleanup that the The Mysterious Mr. Enter pages have lots of issues regarding troping the creator and not the works. I don't think we are allowed to trope creators at all, which brings the Headscratchers page's legitimacy into question.

Should we cut it? Should we try to save it and salvage what we can, if anything?

Maybe remove anything against the rules and see what’s left?

So, like "no troping real-life people" and "don't just use entries to complain or gush about someone/something"?

Maybe we should go through each of the entries and see which ones are worth keeping. Anyone willing to assist?

But are the entries responding to his opinions or the way he does his show troping real-life people? Obviously things like remarks about his autism should be removed but what about questions that seem like genuine confusion with the show, like the question about his MLP "egghead" joke?

If I recall correctly, we aren't allowed to trope real life people period, and I believe that includes troping someone's opinions. Although I might be wrong so someone correct me if I am.

Actually, how would we would trope a straight, non-wacky Video Review Show with very little original content? With something like The Angry Video Game Nerd or The Nostalgia Critic, there is a lot of original content, characters, etc. that are unrelated to the games/movies being reviewed, and are easily tropable. Someone like The Mysterious Mr. Enter, however, who at least claims that they are a serious review show, has little to trope because most of the show is them and their opinions. This also applies to much more serious and detailed channels like ContraPoints and Lindsay Ellis that have even less original content to speak of. How, if at all, would we trope something like that? Or is there something I'm missing?

Looking over the Headscratchers home page, the main guideline is gives that would be applied here is "no listing opinions." I'll go over the questions on Enter's page and give my thoughts on whether they qualify. I'm only looking at the questions now, since any invalid question will get answers chopped too.

Good run-through! I think all the complaining could at least be deleted. The legitimate stuff I think can stay. Nice job!

And those legit examples that have FPW (especially the ones with the deprecated "This Troper") need to be re-written to be less first-person.

Can probably also get rid of ones about opinions.

Honestly, I've never felt we should.

Yeah, the work needs some creative content to really be tropeworthy. Whether that's in the work itself being a narrative, the work having creative skits or jokes, original music, etc. It needs something tangible we can trope.

Soooo...is anything tropeworthy about Mr. Enter? There isn't much narrative or plot in his videos, just straight reviewing.

Mr. Enter does have fictional moments, at least early on when he was kind of trying to be Nostalgia Critic. He had this old man character he'd talk to a few times early in his run, for example, and he does sometimes do small skits. Plus, a review show can be troped in the sense that it discusses or converses certain tropes in the reviewed material.

Fair points, if he has tropable moments then we can trope his videos.

Most of his Headscratchers page needs to go though. I don't even know how to rewrite a Headscratchers page, so all I can do is delete non-applicable examples. Unless someone else wants to delete them, in which case go ahead.

The activity here reminds me that I really need to continue my HP headscratchers analysis.

I already deleted all the Enter Headscratchers that were definitely meta, but I'm not sure about the rest. I think questions about the way he does his show, or the way he talks about his opinions, are fine as long as they aren't remarking on Trivia, shoehorning in contrary opinions, or making personal statements.

I concur.

Questions that amount to "why does he think this?" can probably go as well, since it's basically asking why he holds a certain opinion.

Does that include "Why does he argue this plot isn't okay in [X] episode when that logic also applies to [Y] episode with a similar plot, which he likes?" That makes up a lot of examples.

Just a question; if there's a entry that asks about a certain story development and a later installment gives a concrete answer to that question, is it okay to cut the original entry?

For example, say an entry is "Why is Bob suddenly working for Alice when she's a bad guy?" and later in the season the show dedicates an entire episode explaining why he's doing so, would be redundant to leave that entry up?

I remember a couple years ago after Thor: Ragnarok came out, I cut an entry for Thor: The Dark World that was about what happened to Odin after Loki took his place since Ragnarok showed exactly what happened. I feel these types of entries take up space and date the page to when the work was first released. There wasn't any issue after I deleted them, but it's a problem I sometimes see on Headscratchers pages.

Must be people who didn't watch the previous films. And are not aware of Late Arrival Spoilers.

What the priority in cleaning up First-Person Writing on Headscratchers pages?

Edited by alnair20aug93 on Sep 16th 2020 at 6:12:40 PM

More along the lines of “Why does he think so and so is that bad?”

Probably low. We shouldn't worry as much about the use of first-person on these pages than about other things involving them, but if we can clean it pretty easily we should.

Thanks, those needed to be cleared out. TV Tropes is not a place to go to complain about one's least favorite works/creators, so thanks for cleaning those out.