Discussion Series / Glee

I'd like to see that, actually. I loved seasons 1 and 2, and my reaction to Season 3 was basically "Wait... what— what the hell is even happening?!"

There are still a bunch of orphaned references to this: "see below" and the like. Should they be deleted as well?

Probably yes.

I think it's pretty valid. Blaine was a guest star with 9 solos, Tina is a regular, "main" character and got 2, barely.

I noticed that, I assumed they'd moved it to Just Bugs Me. Couldn't find the exact text, but most of the same points are covered.

I think Just Bugs Me is more for plot details and little holes. A lot of the Unfortunate Implications deleted were discussed a lot in reviews, blogs, meta, etc., so I think it belongs.

What are the "implications" in having an able-bodied actor play a disabled character? Tom Hanks faked mental disability and won an Oscar, Jamie Foxx played a blind musician and won an oscar, Sean Penn played a mentally retarded guy and—okay, "you never go full retard", but the point is that able-bodied people can play impaired people. It'd probably be a lot harder to cast for a disabled actor, much less one with musical talent, than it would be to cast an actor with musical talent and have him fake disability.

I'm fairly sure Rachel's speech about abstinence was BS in the first place. Even people who don't believe in abstinence found it off-putting, and she probably made it up on the spot to get Finn anyway.

Oh, and Puck faking disability to get a pot discount? That's not so much "unfortunate" as it is "entirely in-character".

It's called crip-drag. (There's actually a trope being worked on.) I actually googled the term, and most of the the top results involve Glee, because it's one of the biggest occurrences on television in recent years. First Google Result.

I wasn't aware that the abstinence speech was in the the Implications section. Did see it under Soapbox Sadie.

And I think the bit about Puck was a larger part about who Glee views disabilities.

This reminds me of Las Vegas, which has Mitch, a quadriplegic man played by a quadriplegic actor. As one of the few such actors in Hollywood, you'll see him a lot, much like you'll see Mickey from Seinfeld or Peter Dinklage a lot if a show or film needs a little person.

On the other hand, the post doesn't seem too concerned with the question of what happens if a able-bodied actor is just plain better for the part than a disabled actor, though I don't imagine such a situation comes up often.

TBH, Glee does bring that question up. Kevin McHale, the guy who plays Artie, has the best male voice in the younger cast, was in a boy band, and is the best dancer according to the rest of the cast. And there has been a few handicapped actors who said that Kevin McHale deserved the part. However, it's still a question and an implication. :)

Someone deleted it again, so I re-added it.

Their faux-justification for it was "axe-grinding," but yeah - that's pretty insulting to people who think the things outlined in the Unfortunate Implications are legitimate concerns. Like disabled people or people who have survived domestic violence (since the thing about Will's actions toward Terri in Episode 12 was also deleted under the "axe-grinding" excuse).

Besides, the actual An Axe To Grind trope has nothing to do with that, and there's no TV Trope policy against that like there is with Natter - IIRC that's kind of the whole point of the Unfortunate Implications section, to read more into a show than is probably there.

I might add something in there telling people to stop deleting stuff out of that section unless you have a good reason besides "People are being too critical!" or "They're looking for stuff to hate!" or "Don't be so PC!" Yeah, um, if you have a problem with people doing that, you probably shouldn't be editing TV Tropes.

Not that I disagree, but there's a difference between those things and the normal operations of TV Tropes. Reference Avatar which has an entire section dedicated to whining about how it's a shameless ripoff of every movie ever made for no reason whatsoever.

"Besides, the actual An Axe To Grind trope has nothing to do with that"

Huh? that trope's name is a pun - "having an axe to grind" usually means someone is a Single-Issue Wonk.

@johnnye: I meant it wasn't related in that he referenced "axe-grinding" as though it's a trope that TV Tropes doesn't allow in articles, and failed to realize that not only do we not have a policy against that, but the trope he's referring to isn't even about that. I get that it's a pun.

@Anaheyla: I don't follow the connection. Complaining that a show isn't very respectful in its portrayal of disabilities or domestic violence is completely the sort of thing for which the Unfortunate Implications section is intended. Bitching about how something rips off other shows/movies doesn't, because the creator being unoriginal doesn't necessarily involve the Aesop.

I'm sorry, but making up reasons to accuse the show of supporting domestic violence isn't cool. At all.

The whole section needs to go.

They are not accusations. They are observed oversights. Nothing in them is readable as an attack on the production staff in any way.

Fast Eddie - Exactly. You can read problematic messages into a show/book/etc. without necessarily claiming that that's what the creator intended. Hell, in modern literary analysis/media studies the prevalent notion (in many academic circles, at least) is that the intentions of the author are essentially irrelevant; anything the audience can take out of it is valid. (See Death of the Author) From what I understand, the idea of Unfortunate Implications is that they're about how the audience perceives the show and not necessarily about the creators' intended Aesop. (Actually, direct quote from the Death of the Author page - "Also note that, while this wiki is generally critical of the concept (we do, after all, use the phrase 'Word Of God' to indicate what the author says), it is allowed in some subjects, and is actually encouraged in regard to Unfortunate Implications.") Values Dissonance and Family-Unfriendly Aesop are the tropes you use when the author's intended message is problematic, so if people wanted to make accusations they probably would have put them there.

I don't think anyone is saying that the creators of Glee are supporting domestic violence because Will's actions toward Terri in Episode 12 could arguably be considered DV. If there's any ill will toward the creators, it's at what is perceived as an oversight, not an intentional attack. And even if Will's actions were intended to seem abusive or at least ambiguous: Anyone who watches Glee regularly knows the show has a very Gray-and-Gray Morality - pretty much everyone on the show has been an asshole at some point by now, and Will has done other things that are more clear-cut (example: his behavior toward Sue in the more recent episode) which suggest he's hardly a role model. So I fail to see how pointing out the Unfortunate Implications of his actions in that episode is accusing Ryan Murphy et al. of promoting domestic violence. The hostility from Tokuiten toward the Unfortunate Implications section really just sounds like Complaining About Complaining to me.

Tokuiten - I guess I just don't understand why these discussions bother you so much. If you'd rather not look at the problematic parts of the show, that's fine, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have a right to discuss it. You can choose not to participate in these discussions without feeling the need to censor the page by shutting those discussions down.

I re-added the warning at the beginning of the Unfortunate Implications but re-phrased it. I still think that it's ridiculous to claim that because you have the privilege of not having to deal with these issues you're free of bias - as opposed to having your own bias - but I think the issue is more that we need to clarify what this section is for because some people seem to be getting confused.

Does anyone see the value of the Unfortunate Implications example RE: working retail? Just from my own experience working my way through school, I'd be more offended by a show representing retail work as anything but awful; I actually think that Glee nailed it, and I'd think more retail workers would identify with the portrayal than would be offended.

I agree that I don't really understand that the "working retail" example. Maybe this is just my personal take on it, but I thought it was clear that the use of "Loser" was less about calling them losers and more saying that they all feel like "losers" in that job. Also, one of the people joining in is Sandy, who is a customer rather than an employee.

What I don't understand is why the whole example about Rachel talking to Emma about her crush on Finn is on there. It's not that she needs a mom, probably. It's that she needs someone who isn't a parent. Maybe it's just me, but I don't talk to my parents about my crushes, so that's probably why Rachel went to Emma.

It's because Emma specifically says to Rachel that she should talk to her mom about this, and Rachel's response is "I have two gay dads." If the show had Averted mentioning her fathers' homosexuality I would see your point, but the fact that of the matter is the dialogue directly implies that the reason Rachel needs to talk to Emma is because she doesn't have a female parent. This isn't helped by later in the season when Rachel goes to Shelby for help with her Lady Gaga outfit after her dads mess it up, saying "I need a mom."

Well...they didn't run into the unfortunate implication of making one of Rachel's dads "the woman" and basically writing a stereotypical straight relationship with two guys? Because then I suppose people would have had a problem with that, too, haha. I do agree with you, though.

I'd be all for that.

Don't necessarily ship Klaine, but I don't get what's so "blatant" about it. Sure, all the "the entire LGBT world rejoiced" stuff could be rooted out as it's pretty obviously so exaggerated, but it's not so bad.

The Problem with Pen Island, only spoken. Mondegreen, only spoken. Lovely tropes, aren't they?

Chris Colfer lampshaded that in an interview (which I can't seem to find).

The song's title is "Jesse's Girl", and the spelling for a boy is usually "Jesse." Where does it say "Jessie?"

Somebody presumably Ctrl+F'd all the pages and changed the spelling from "Jesse" to "Jessie" (the reason given was that it's the official spelling).

My guess is that it's a case of Spell My Name With An S as the Glee wiki, Wikipedia, creator's twitters, etc. list his name as Jesse St. James, but things such as the Behind the Glee videos and sneak peeks spell his name as "Jessie."

And the song title is in fact [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessie's_Girl Jessie's Girl]].

Natter does not become OK just because it's "valid." This is not a forum. It's not a chat room. It's not a place to discuss the show or argue about the show or debate popular takes on the show. That's not what we do.

If an example is wrong, delete it. If an example is of an iffy nature, re-write it so that it's accurate; do not add a bullet point disagreeing with the point, and do not try to get around the Natter prohibition by tacking on your disagreement at the end of the paragraph. If an example is pure YMMV, move it to the appropriate tab.

That's the point. If something is wrong or has multiple points of view, either put the whole thing in perspective or delete it completely. Deleting just one part while leaving others, as I already addressed, comes as "I think this one is right and everything else is wrong and must be deleted" instead of "I'm deleting Natter"

I frankly don't care how it comes across. "Don't turn the page into a conversation" is one of the few rules we actually have, and if people can't be bothered to follow it, well, that's too bad. In short, when you (collective "you," in this case, not referring to you specifically) throw Natter on the page, you lose the moral high ground. You don't get to complain when someone deletes your edit.

If the Nattering individual can't put in the effort, don't expect the guy cleaning up after the rule breaker to do it for him. I try occasionally to re-write the entry, but it's exhausting just keeping this page free of Natter, let alone making sense of the insane Flame Wars the Glee fandom wages on a near-daily basis.

I delete Natter where I find it, whether it's "Kurt is totally in the wrong" or "Kurt is just misunderstood."

You won't like it.

I didn't think so.

Actually...I just read some things on the fetish fuel page...creepy things...offensive things...pregnancy...hot asian perky goth...musical...definitely not gonna watch it now.

I've watched most of the first season. There are offensive things in Glee? Where?

In the "things that could be TAKEN as offensive" category is Sue Sylvester. I'm certain there are people who take the things she says as real.

Unless you were being really rude on the page and got banned, I think it's just a bug. Try editing the page again and see if you can do it this time.

X Just X examples always need more padding. Pulling the link until someone comes up with a concrete example; I can't think of anything.

More like JumpingTheShark for me. Then again, following up Britney with Gaga with... three episodes and counting of forced musical numbers... Yeah, I'm only watching 'cause I can stream it online, but I don't think I'll buy season 2 on DVD. Maybe I'll get a couple albums for select singles or just select singles of the songs I want.

They were dressed as a priest and a nun from the top up.

Somewhere it said that Blaine/Blair (whoever he is) appears in episode 6, which we have no info on yet plot wise.

That statement would be better put in the forum topic than here I think.

It points out that Glee is show choir taken to Serious Business levels, and also that it's about making fun of how seriously it takes show choir.

Isn't that the first quote? I was talking about the second one.

My addenum of "describing the show" and "describing the fans" has been removed, so now I'm curious too.

Let's leave it in until some discussion has occurred.

Most of the Deconstruction examples use language which implies that they are aware they are over-analyzing, such as "Glee can be read as..." and not "Glee definitely is..." They're not saying this is FOR SURE what the creators intend, but rather that these are the tropers' individual readings. I find them interesting and would prefer we keep them in.

I think the Deconstruction trope in particular lends itself to over-analysis, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I've always thought that the fun you can have with over-analysis is the reason we have TV Tropes, what distinguishes it from The Other Wiki.

Okay, I guess I could accept most of them under that label, but the After-School Special thing still absolutely does not fit because there hasn't even been so much as a wink wink on the show to make us think they're being anything but dead serious, and neither do the first two, because those aren't just overanalyzations, they're based on false ideas and false information. The first one is based on a complete lack of understanding in how musicals work, and the second is based on the idea that Glee is a realistic depiction of high school life. It's not so much the overanalyzing, but the fact that several of them do not even fit the definition of deconstruction if they were true.

Hey there. I wrote the first example, about the musical numbers. According to the wiki's definition of "deconstruction," it's about showing that staples of genres would be bad in real life. The presentation of the musical numbers is in fact deconstructive (by this definition) BECAUSE it abandons the Musical World Hypotheses and shows the numbers as if they existed exactly as they were portrayed. This leads to the problems outlined (awkwardness, fueling Rachel's crush, etc). I think it could use a rewrite, but I'm not convinced it needs to be deleted entirely.

Okay, I guess that makes sense. I thought that it was saying that the songs in musicals are supposed to be happening within the "real world" of the musical, which is what a lot people who "don't get" musicals seem to believe.

I still feel the "realistic version of High School Musical" thing doesn't fit. It's Darker and Edgier HSM, but just as silly. In fact, wouldn't you say "Zac Efron stresses out about preparing for college" is more realistic than Tina convincing the principal she's a vampire, or either of the pregnancy storylines?

Glee is more entertaining than HSM, but it is not better written. Cheesy as it is, HSM has character consistency, continuity, and actual structure to the storylines, and in the end its exactly what it wants to be. Glee is...uneven to put it lightly. When it's good it's fantastic, but it has a lot of flaws that need to be worked out before it can really live up to its "High School Musical done right" label.

Also, there's just not enough substance for the "Popular guy dates unpopular girl" deconstruction, considering the entire storyline was told not shown and it was gone before it started.

I noticed that you deleted all those without waiting for any discussion, which is rather concerning. As with someone else who deleted a bunch of examples he didn't like in another contentious section, I strongly suggest you look/wait around a bit more before deciding that your opinion is everyone's, or that the people adding these are just adding their particular isolated opinions. I, for one, think that the parts you deleted count under the site's definition of Deconstruction just as much as the ones you decided to leave in did.

I really think you need to spend more time on places where people discuss the show before you decide these are each only one person's whacked over-analysis of the show. There has been quite a debate across the Internet about whether the After School Special aspects are a straight playing of the trope or a deconstruction of the genre. Just because you take the former side doesn't mean that everyone does, and I think the wiki needs to acknowledge that debate. Likewise, I've read a lot of stuff comparing Glee to High School Musical and seeing the former as a more "realistic" deconstruction of the latter, which is what prompted me to add the Deconstruction example acknowledging that discussion. The fact that the latter had particular plotlines that were more true-to-life didn't undo the fact that it's giving us a high school where no one has sex, no one experiments with ANY drugs or alcohol, and where Hide Your Gays is in full effect. And those "real" plotlines are ones that Glee has given us too (most of the characters on the show are sophomores so they wouldn't be stressing too much about college yet, but there have been lines about hoping for scholarships, etc. I imagine there will be more of this in the coming seasons and Rachel, Finn et al. grow up.)

You may think Glee is silly and stupid and has terrible writing and is no better than HSM except that it's Darker and Edgier, but the mere fact that the show won a Golden Globe and a SAG award is evidence that there are plenty of people out there who disagree with you on that. Please keep that in mind when editing this wiki, which while not Wikipedia with its harsh NPV guidelines, isn't supposed to reflect just one side of a debate either.

I'm sorry I was so hasty with the deletions, it just didn't seem like anyone was debating. 74.97.180.112 made good defense of theirs, but the other responses were just "It's my opinion!" and "A lot of people feel that way." rather than a rebuttal or even acknowledgment of the concerns. A lot of these are reading like "Episode 5 is a MAJOR deconstruction of bananas because there were bananas in it. Sometimes you make it into banana bread and sometimes you slip on the peel." It reminds me of the How Not To Write An Example page: "Deconstructed in Your Show: Your Show used this trope, but because it's Your Show, it's a deconstruction."

I have a problem with the "My show is edgier and more subversive than Your Show!" vibe on this page, especially when people break out the "It's ironic." defense because, however unintentional, that reads like "You're just too dumb to get it." It comes off as pretentious, especially since most of the attitude about everything this show is and is going to be was formed before the premiere of the second episode. This fandom moved really fast, and the early pilot and long hiatus did not help things.

I actually wasn't aware that the Very Special Episode episodes were considered a parody by anyone. I frequent Television Without Pity, the official Glee forums, IMDB, the After Elton recaps, and whatever other recaps I can find, and the majority opinion is that they're playing the Very Special Episode pretty straight. That part should at least be rewritten to say that there is some debate over whether it's a send up at all, because right now it just says "Home" is the only one that's even questionable.

While we're on the topic of deletions, I'm curious why you deleted the Beam Me Up, Scotty! on the subject of what Finn said to Kurt. Just reading the main Glee page will show you that people - intentionally or not - are getting what Finn said wrong. I agree with your assertion that it's just as insulting, but if neither is worse than the other, why do people insist on misquoting it? I plan to add it back unless I get a good reason otherwise.

I won't protest if you add it back. I just thought it was another person trying to demonize Kurt, but I realize now that's not the case. There have been so many people twisting the story into "Depraved Homosexual preys on helpless teenage boy! Father boosts the homosexual agenda by taking the side of The Homosexual!" that it seemed like another entry saying "And Finn didn't even really do anything wrong at all!" It just seems like a lot of drama for a storyline that appears to be resolved and will most likely never be brought up again. There's also a lot of people saying that Finn is starving and homeless now, when Burt was probably just telling Finn he has to shape up before he can live there, not actually throwing him out permanently. It's really the writers' fault for the confusion. Like I said...uneven.

Seven Of Diamonds - If you didn't add something I will add something about whether the Very Special Episode is a deconstruction or not, because I think there were disputes before "Home" (but "Home" is the one that seems to support the most the idea that they're playing it straight). I've seen a lot of discussion of that on the AV Club recaps, where the writer seems to see them as a deconstruction/parody but there's considerable debate about that.

On the other hand, re-reading some of them, I agree with you that the Finn/Rachel thing is not really a deconstruction, mostly because I haven't seen the show deal much with Finn losing his popularity over that. He lost his popularity for other reasons. IIRC that was just something Rachel accused him of because he was hesitant to date her (which seemed to me, just to suggest that Rachel was full of it, when the reason was obviously that he was dating someone else who he thought he had impregnanted) but in the two episodes where they were actually dating that part wasn't an issue. So unless someone disputes that I agree it should be taken out.

Also, not sure how the makeovers thing is supposed to be a deconstruction. The reason that makeover backfired was because Kurt misled Rachel about what Finn wanted. It wasn't necessarily a charge against makeovers in general.

Yeah, that's why I removed them the first time. You're the only one who had a problem with those entries being removed.

Re: [Your response that you completely changed after the fact.] I'm really not anti-Glee. I wouldn't waste my time on it if it wasn't a good show. I'm just critiquing it. And as I clearly stated with many examples, I have visited plenty of Glee sites and I know the majority's opinions.

And no Glee does not win awards because it has good writing. It wins awards because it has universal appeal, funny jokes, a talented cast, good characters, occasional moments of great writing (Kurt and his dad for example), and most importantly fantastic music. Which is exactly why I watch the show in the first place. I think we're all in agreement there.

But the writing is still lacking in consistency, both external and internal. Every episode floods the forums with people fanwanking about some confusing plot point like "Why is Jesse so mad?" "Are Quinn and Puck going out or not?" "That's not what high school bullies are like" and "Mercedes' babydaddy speech made no sense what the hell?" "What are they supposed to do at regionals? Place? Show? What?" "The regionals rules make no sense! Sue shouldn't be allowed to judge!" In fact your AV Club site criticizes Glee for the same things, even going as far as calling it three shows in one Depending on the Writer. This is something that can be fixed, but it's a problem that's caused more critical viewers to stop watching the show.

And no, Glee is not realistic just because it has sex and drugs. I don't think HSM is realistic, I just think it's hypocritical to deride anything for being "unrealistic" while praising a show that featured one of the most ridiculous pregnancy plots ever written, alongside another fairly silly pregnancy plot! (Which is not a bad thing, it's just not realistic)

Also, your "Glee does 'real' topics like college" example does not hold up. When Glee did it, Finn was trying to win scholarships by dancing to single ladies to win a football game and seducing Rachel back into Glee club so that he could have money for the baby he sired in a hot tub that Quinn had told him she was giving up anyway. Zefron had it a lot easier.

I know people who want to prove they're grow up by spurning all "kiddie" things think Glee is the most edgiest, subversive, complex show on television and every episode Crosses the Line Twice with Refuge in Audacity (Omg! They made a joke about blowjobs!) but the truth is...plenty of those "kiddies"? Are also Glee fans. Some of them even see HSM as an ironic show (Homoerotic baseball dance? Bet On It? Kenny Ortega knows what he's doing...)

Again, with the "real topics like college" thing - as I pointed out, pretty much all the characters whose age has been discussed are sophomores. Zac Efron was a senior in the third High School Musical movie which dealt with the college topic. Sophomores generally are not panicking about choosing colleges yet (and I went to a college-prep high school, and even most of my peers did not have that as a major concern in 10th grade), so I think we need to wait until the later seasons before we decide that the show doesn't address those topics. Besides, that is one topic. It's not like Glee never addresses any other issues that are realities for teenagers.

I know the writer of the AV Club has mentioned more than once that he sees Ryan Murphy's version of the show is one that's a parody or deconstruction of the After-School Special. And I don't see how the fact that the show is inconsistent negates the fact that it can be read as doing that some of the time. No one is claiming that Glee does this stuff in every episode, so your point doesn't really hold up. (Actually, there are probably a total of 3 tropes on this page which pop up every week, so if we're using that standard we have to delete the whole page.) Considering the Very Special Episode trope is usually something that's one-off rather than carried throughout an entire series, it doesn't make sense to expect Glee to play with that trope in every episode, either, or even to always play it the same way when it does.

With the High School Musical deconstruction stuff, your point doesn't really make sense about what the show is about, either, because it has less to do with the show itself than the perception of the show. The creators of Glee saw High School Musical that way from the way they've discussed the two shows in interviews. Yes, it's often Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch when people are so critical of HSM, but doesn't change the fact that people see it as an unrealistic, (literally) Disneyfied version of high school, and it misses a lot of things that Glee gets (even if Glee doesn't get things HSM does, but you're not being completely fair when you expect a show whose main characters are mostly younger high school students to go in depth about college admissions woes.) As for the idea that Glee isn't necessarily more "adult" than HSM because kids watch it - kids watch a lot of things which are not intended for kids, and adults watch a lot of stuff intended for younger people. Glee wasn't intended as a kids' show (more for teens and adults), though, while High School Musical was intended for people who are not yet in high school (e.g., what most people consider "kids").

As for your complaints that I'm the only person defending these examples, why did it only take one person in the previous examples to convince you that they needed to stay in, but somehow my perspective isn't enough? And that's ignoring the fact that you are the only one who is complaining about these examples. Deconstruction examples are always going to be subjective. My point is that deleting examples should require more than one person's input as well, and that my perspective is as valid as yours. If it's just you, then why not just add a Your Mileage May Vary bit to the example?

(And for the Golden Globes thing? Please. You really think there's some conspiracy among awards show voters to deliberately ignore lesser-known but excellent shows and reward the show that appeals most to the lowest common denominator? They pick the shows they think are the best, and yes, they generally tend to miss less-popular shows because they fly under their radar, but that doesn't necessarily mean they go for something they don't like because it's popular. Again - my point, you're missing it. I'm not saying your view is wrong. I'm saying that your view is not universal, and therefore rewriting the page to fit your particular analysis of the show is unfair and misleading. Besides, the whole idea that a work needs to prove its "seriousness" in order to merit analysis is something that anyone who truly understands deconstruction would find laughable.)

On another note, in terms of ideas that are deconstruction - I don't know if the virginity thing qualifies, either. The idea that it's okay to say "no" to sex is not exactly a rare one in media, when the characters in question are teenagers and especially when it's a teenage girl. So I'm not really sure what it's deconstructing. It could, arguably, deconstruct the notion that your first time is magical by showing just that during the "Like a Virgin" song, and then quickly revealing to us that that's not actually what's going on.

I think you're seriously misunderstanding me here. I think Glee deserves the awards that it's gotten and I don't think it needs to be any more serious than it is. I don't want to see college applications portrayed in stark realism and I really don't want Glee to be anything like HSM. I do think the show's main flaw is its lack of consistency but that can be fixed, especially in a show that's only just finished its first season.

I'm not saying the show doesn't merit analysis. I have written analysis of the show. But people were taking tropes the show uses dead straight and claiming they're deconstructions, because deconstructions are "deep", and they were doing it to the pretentious tone of "my show is edgier than your show" that's been pervading this page since the pilot.

I don't like saying that Glee is better than HSM because it's "realistic" when it seems to me Glee is better than HSM because it's a crazy train on crack. But you have defended the example just fine, and I'm perfectly content to leave it. I don't want to take out any of the examples that people are attached to. I was just trying to explain my point in deleting it in the first place, and why I disagree with you. And I absolutely believe the Very Special Episode example needs a serious rewrite, but if I do it somebody's just going to revert it back.

I didn't make my first complaint clear enough. After this discussion was up for a while, I tried to only delete ones that there was no debate about. Nobody was defending the Rachel/Finn, virginity, and makeover ones, but you added them back in anyways and then said you agreed that they didn't actually fit. That was frustrating. But I don't have any problem with leaving in examples that you or anyone else are defending.

ETA: And I see you actually have revamped most of that section. I missed that on my watchlist, sorry. I'm still going to tweak them though.

Okay, what's your problem 142.177.125.249? Seriously, there is absolutely no excuse for deleting my entry on Musical World Hypotheses. It's a quote from the creator of the show!

Sorry about the ones no one was defending which I added back in. I felt like with those, you didn't give someone a chance to defend them either, just like you didn't with mine (I didn't want to be a hypocrite, basically), and that's why I re-added them in. However, it's been a while since this has been up and no one has defended them, and you agreed with me about those so I thought it was okay to take them out. I just didn't want to do it too soon. Sorry if that was frustrating.

It's been given a new page.

Wait, we have a Theme namespace now?

We do now! Honestly "Theme" was just the first related word that came to mind...

accidental post, ignore

Um, change it to something else? I don't think you can delete crowner posts once they're up.

Aw poo.

Yeah, just edit to "Double post" or something similar. It will sink down as it gets no or negative votes.