The 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.
Definitively 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.
"reinterpreting" sounds still much like a retcon.
That's poor wording, not anything about the trope. A better choice would be revealing.
Cerebus Reveal addresses my concern.
Like it too.
Sounds good to me.
Because underscores break everything: Working link to my Troper page
The "rename" option is still doing poorly in the crowner, though.
I can only vote once.
Setting clock for crowner call.
Calling for redefinition. There is no consensus to rename.
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?
The 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.
I 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 Avatar
Why 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!
Before the crowner was created, the discussion got mixed up between :
- People who wanted the trope to be retcon-only and create a new page for the planned versions. That option sort of got hijacked by people who didn't want the new trope to be a Cerebus Bad Snowclone VS people who saw nothing wrong with having Cerebus in the new page's title, that sort of went stale.
- People who just wanted to keep the trope rectcon-only and the misuses to be kicked out of the page, which would have erased away a lot of examples that just needed a better suited page or to be accepted in their current one.
- People who wanted to only change the Recton part of name and keep the (now overwritten)initial definition that had the trope name the only thing containing the word "Retcon". The inital definition broadly defined the trope as retroactively deconstructing early gags in the later part of a work that had gone darker over its run.
- People who wanted to have the defenition include both intentional and retcon but saw nothing wrong with the name.
edited 12th Dec '12 4:02:51 AM by Nazetrime
It's a bad idea to mix a rename option with another, since it usually ends messy and confusing.
To 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.
Userstyle for the new site (v2.5): TVTropes 1.3 - Wide and Colorful
^The rename option lost in the crowner.
Page Action: Cerebus Retcon
27th Oct '12 10:37:49 AM