Special:Badtitle/NS90:Forum:Wiki Talk/Analysis pages: what they are for?/reply

Huh, well, right now I think anything there would be nicer than an empty page.

There are really forms of analysis page going on here, trope analysis and work analysis. Tropes are a form of analysis themselves, so any trope analysis subpage is really asking for more cowbell. I think in general that does mean a longer version of the trope description, with maybe some wikipedia-type writing thrown in for flavor. But these should be cover the trope in question's use globally, with only a few references to a specific work.

Trope analysis pages should also get down to why a particular trope is used in stories -- how it interacts with story building and human nature. I guess, to look at the trope from both Watsonian and Doylist perspectives.

Work analysis pages are intended for in-depth analyses of a work as a whole. The idea being that the work is much more than the sum of its parts, and that a detailed discussions of the themes of the work can take place here in prose rather than bullet point format. Again, Watsonian and Doylist perspectives would be useful here.

School type essays would probably be appropriate for work analyses, but they doesn't have to be that long. Sometimes, you just want to talk a bit about the themes, or the context in which the work was made. Sometimes, it might be good to discuss a few important tropes in the work, and how they interact together.

Oh, and long essays are editable by everyone, but it's weird how people avoid editing them. It might be reverse-bikeshedding -- so easy to add a bullet point, but hard to revise complex logic.

You can take these recommendations as "policy for now", meaning I'm not really sure what to do with Analysis, and I encourage more discussion.