MissThe renaming option seems to be getting support here. Anyone have any ideas ? I'll stay out of the renaming thing otherwise because I'm biased towards keeping it a Cerebus snowclone (while taking away the retcon part), but acknowledge that if all Cerebus swowclones are going to be renamed sooner or later anyway (like some have suggested), this one may be a good place to start.
I'm more or less neutral on getting rid of the "Cerebus" part.
Puʻu ʻŌʻōDefinitively no to a rename. I don't see any problems so far that would justify it.
The trope is being redefined to no longer be limited to retcons. You don't see "being factually incorrect" as a problem? Although I'll admit that the retcon name hasn't stopped people from including pre-planned examples already.
Puʻu ʻŌʻō"reinterpreting" sounds still much like a retcon.
That's poor wording, not anything about the trope. A better choice would be revealing.
Puʻu ʻŌʻōSo, Cerebus Reveal? I would personally like that.
the it-thingyCerebus Reveal addresses my concern.
MissLike it too.
PiffySounds good to me.
Because underscores break everything: Working link to my Troper page
The "rename" option is still doing poorly in the crowner, though.
the it-thingyI can only vote once.
So now we have a trope named Cerebus Retcon that's not limited to retcons. Go, democracy. Does anyone have a potential rewrite prepared, or does one need to be written?
Puʻu ʻŌʻōThe redefinition looks like it's about retcons, unless I am badly misreading the crowner. I don't have a new description, though.
If the author planned it beforehand, it's not a retcon - otherwise "retcons" and "reveals" would be indistinguishable.
Puʻu ʻŌʻōThen I'd add Cerebus Reveal as a redirect.
MissI rewrote the tope to include non-retcons (and cases that made early gags more serious whitout necessairly being a deconstruction) when the option seemed to get enough support quite a while ago. It had however been changed to a rectcon-only thing before that. Didn't really check the examples for misuse based on the new definition, however.
edited 10th Dec '12 3:57:44 AM by Nazetrime
Not An AvatarWhy were the options separate in the first place? Doesn't redefining it demand a rename for simple reasons of wording?
We're not just men of science, we're men of TROPE!
MissBefore the crowner was created, the discussion got mixed up between :
edited 12th Dec '12 4:02:51 AM by Nazetrime
Puʻu ʻŌʻōTo be exact, using a Page Action crowner for more than one yes/no option (As opposed to running several Single Proposition crowners) is a bad idea, as I've learned the hard way.
Puʻu ʻŌʻō^The rename option lost in the crowner.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.