Talk:Suspicious Looking Tentacle

Reference to the weird ending in Bloodborne where you fight "Moon Presence" and get turned into a tentacle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y9Ih9EsPcY&t=4m50s

On the subject of the tooltip.
Is there any reason to doubt that the tooltip could be a reference to tentacle porn? I think that while it could also be about summoning bosses, that's no reason to deny that it could be a reference to a certain fetish. In fact, though I believe both could be true, personally I believe the hentai reference is the more likely one. It's not as if Terraria hasn't made this kind of immature reference before, and deleting it from the page simply because of the source material is silly and just as immature as, if not more than the reference itself. I'm up for keeping both interpretations on the page, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject, since I'd like to keep this from being an edit war. Drsonic1 (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been doing this a lot lately, so I'm going to be blunt on this one. It's not being removed as a matter of taste, but because it's highly improbable. This item is almost certainly deliberately named similarly to existing items, all of which share the same function of summoning a boss, except for this one- ironically dropped by an enemy that previously had no summoning item. It actually ends up being a summoning item in some sense, giving the player a pet with the same name as the item that summons the "untrue" boss form of the enemy it's meant to resemble. Given that information, if the tooltip questions your presuppositions about the item's nature and the first thing to come to mind is "yeah, tentacle rape!" then it's saying a lot more about how you draw conclusions then about what the tooltip actually means.
 * If it's added without a source, it'll be removed. Gearzein (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it improbable? It's not as if Re-Logic is above making references concerning... adult material. I don't see any of the other references on the wiki needing sources, so why is this different? Now, I'm not trying to argue that one interpretation is more likely than the other. I'm just trying to say they're both reasonable, and unless you have a solid reason why one isn't, I don't see anything keeping us from having both up. Drsonic1 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given you a reason. They're not both reasonable claims- one is a correlation drawn based on existing data, which admittedly could be interpreted as speculation, while the other isn't backed up by anything else in the item's design or the game's content. Golden Shower, Mourning Wood and Master Bait are all literally (well, nearly) the word they're meant to be, so if you're right, there's no reason for them to play coy in this case and expect the player to make a reaching interpretation rather than just calling it "Hentai Tentacle" or something.
 * Other trivia on the wiki does require sources, and while they're handled when they're found, we're not omnipotent and things slip through the cracks sometimes. Finding evidence of errors on the wiki is not an invitation to introduce more. Gearzein (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, why would Re-Logic name an item "Hentai Tentacle" if they wanted to make a reference to it? The reference isn't reasonable because the name of the item isn't literally "hentai tentacle"? I checked about the top 15 relevant results searching "reference" and not a single source was to be found. That, of course, is understandable; confirming a reference sort of kills the point of one. And while I understand this is not a 100% concrete argument-ender, I'd also like to note that nowhere in the rules does it mention needing to source references, and that rumors simply need to be labeled as such (which they were).
 * I implore you to stop moving the goalposts and simply let members speculate on what something is referencing. Drsonic1 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we did that, these wiki pages would be mostly "references". It seems like a harmless rarity to you only because we happen to spend so much time and effort preventing "reference" trivia from consuming articles. As for unsourced trivia, there is an allowance when a reference is "undeniable", as in a well-known something that nearly everyone can safely assume is the intended reference. This particular suggestion seems rather narrow, esoteric, and very much open to debate. Equazcion  ( talk ) 05:37, 16 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * PS. Gearzein isn't saying an item name must literally express a reference, however in the case of something like "tentacle porn", the subject is too short-reaching for a general mention of "tentacles" (even with the "I know what you're thinking") to convey their tentacle porn message to the 99% or so of players out there who have probably never even heard of that. It's entirely possible that your suggestion is correct, but it's far from obvious enough to include here with no confirmation. It's certainly no more plausible than any of 50 other different theories that people could come up with. Equazcion  ( talk ) 05:51, 16 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, whatever. I'm sick of debating this. But at the very least, I'd like to see a more clear outline of what is and is not an acceptable reference in the rules if you claim to spend so much time cleaning it up.
 * Maybe then we wouldn't have to have arguments like these again. Drsonic1 (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That information can be found in the Style Guide. Gearzein (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Drsonic1 is probably right in that it should be in the rules, so I've added a section there. Equazcion  ( talk ) 15:05, 16 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm here on the Talk page because I read the article page and thought, "likely references the fact that... wait, not tentacle porn? Someone here must have missed it by a longshot." Redigit engages in casual lewd humor and internet jokes both, and tentacle porn is a longstanding reference to hentai. It's not esoteric or short-reaching, as Tentacle erotica both exists (which implies that it's notable enough to merit a page) and states that it's "popular enough...for parody". There are card games (Tentacle Bento, Consentacle, Hentacle, Cthentacle (all different properties)) and sodas (Tentacle Grape) marketed on the reference. I'm not asserting that the trivia bit must go up, but I think its worth revisiting the issue if the main argument is that the tentacle porn reference is unlikely. Raggleton (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The main argument isn't that it's unlikely, but that there's no proof and nothing pointing to it beyond connections drawn by certain readers. The prevalence of tentacle pornography doesn't automatically associate every tentacle with it. Unless the proof requested above is produced, the argument isn't worth revisiting. Gearzein (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Design
Did anyone notice that it looks just like a septic eye?
 * Googling "septic eye" brings up several pictures of green eyeballs. Given this, it's obvious why there would be a resemblance, but similarities in design end halfway through that comparison, as beyond that broad stroke the design isn't that similar. It's highly unlikely that any resemblance to this septic eye logo is deliberate. Gearzein (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)