Rename or add redirects?: The Aragorn

It's character-specific. Also, some examples (e.g. Nastasha in G Gundam, Digimon, The Mummy movies, etc.) are far.

I already hate the name. Now I just hate it more because I read the article.

Wait what? XD

Add Heroic Supporting Charater as a redirect

I didn't see it misused in the past, and out of the two above mentioned examples, the only one I know seems to be correct. (It's about The Mummy, that's the arab guy with the hawk, right?)

Character Named Tropes give me a rash. Reading the article just made it worse, since it's a not even about the actual character, but the way the character relates to the story.

That's quite a forced interpretation, of course most character tropes are not floating in a void, they are defined by their interaction with the plot. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is defined by her interaction with the boy, A Pirate 400 Years Too Late is defined by the modern setting, the Weirdness Magnet is a character who coincidentially gets into weird situations, etc.

We could rework them as Manic Girl Brooding Guy Relationship, Time Passed Since The Age Of Pirates, and Settings That Make Everything Weird For The Main Characters, but they work as they are, since the tropes are concentrated around certain characters.

edited 13th Mar '11 12:12:02 PM by EternalSeptember

I meant as a character the plot focuses on rather than a character trait.

That still also applies to the first and third examples I gave, and I don't see how the "character trope" interpretation is causing any problems.

There are some cases when it can be a problem, for example right now, I'm trying to rename the two "Childhood Friend love interest" tropes as "romantic feelings between childhood friends", because the former is too narrow, and excludes cases where there is no single "love interest" character device, just two protagonists who are in love.

But what about this case? Is there any plot example of The Aragorn that's left off because it pretends to be a character trope? Or there are incorrect examples that were only added because they are characters, but the ywouldn't work if it would be a plot trope?

IMO the name should be more of a foil towards Supporting Protagonist. Heroic Side Character works.

As for Ardeth Bey, he doesn't really strike me of that character. He felt more like The Obi-Wan.

Your examples don't use specific, named characters though.

edited 13th Mar '11 12:27:21 PM by Ookamikun

Yes, it definitely feels like a trope related to Supporting Protagonist.

But they don't always cross. The Black Fox in The Court Jester is certainly this trope, but Hawkins isn't really a Supporting Protagonist.

Because Deboss' complaint that it isn't really about "the" character has nothing to do with it being name after a specific character.

The Aragorn isn't more of a character trope than Heroic Side Character, so it wouldn't fix that problem.

With 300 wicks, it would be nice to see some misuse first.

edited 13th Mar '11 2:41:11 PM by troacctid

Also, 414 brought to the wiki,bear that in mind.

I'm honestly not seeing a lot of problems beyond a personal dislike of tropes named after characters.

The vast majority of whom, I expect, were expecting to read an entire article about THE Aragorn.

^ We have no way to know that, so it's not a valid assumption to make in this case.

But isn't quoting inbounds as a reason to keep a name itself predicated on an assumption that it works because people know what the name, and therefore the trope, means?

Otherwise, we could name a trope about minivans as the vehicle of choice for TV families "HOT SEX HERE!" and then use the flood of inbounds as proof the name works.

Inbounds don't include google hits, most of them are from forum links, of people discussing media, that are at least intentionally placed by a troper.

And anyways, it's not just a proof that it's intuitive (wicks are better for that), but at least it is a reason that they learned it after they clicked on it. There are 400 people who already learned what this trope title means, and who would be certainly confused if we would change it.

Your assumption that people clicking on a trope link means they learned what the trope means is so delightfully naive.

Inbounds matter because braking them and leaving dead links scattered all over the internet is rude. They matter because it means someone else on some other site thought that the page was worth sharing. They are not fail-safe, because we have no way of knowing why they linked; it could be that they were linking to make fun of the page, or the name, or the wiki in general. We only know that someone took the time to put in the whole URL and link to us from an outside site.

Isn't that what retaining the original name as a redirect (when possible) is for?

Yeah, I usually thought when Character tropes are renamed, they still retain the original as a redirect, well, even for Actor Allusion.

edited 13th Mar '11 8:31:08 PM by Ookamikun

This is true, of course, but I've been having an issue with the idea that a lot of inbounds means a trope has a good name. I would think that in general (ie not in cases where the name is truly awful or is interesting on its own), inbounds have more to do with the trope itself and the likelihood of an interested party finding it (whether or not they were searching for it in the first place). That Anti-Villain outperforms Fangs Are Evil by a factor of 30 has little to do with the names, I think.

Bump for a resolution