Duplicate Trope: Nighthawks

I don't get why Nighthawks and Hopper Shot are separate pages. The only reason the painting has its own page is to list its many homages and parodies, but then we made a catch-all Stock Parody trope page for those on top of it. I recommend Nighthawks be merged into Hopper Shot, since the latter is what's going to be linked to in all of the "tropes in this work include" lists. If there are any pages that directly refer to the painting and use the link for that, they should be changed to say something like "Edward Hopper's Nighthawks (the painting responsible for inspiring the Hopper Shot)" or simply have the link removed.

edited 2nd Apr '13 12:54:39 PM by ThePocket

Yeah, the examples look mostly the same.

Hopper Shot is not a very good name. Why merge it there instead of to Nighthawks, or "Nighthawks" Shot?

Let's see what Google says: Nighthawks vs Hopper Shot. If you don't want to look at them, the first shows pages upon pages of that painting and variants, while the latter shows two, I think it was. One was TV Tropes. Maybe a few more references if you sift it out. Most are about Dennis Hopper, or industrial hoppers of various kinds.

I don't see a point in having one page for the painting and its appearances, and one for references to it. Or whatever the difference is supposed to be; I don't see it.

edited 2nd Apr '13 1:57:28 PM by AnotherDuck

Nighthawks is currently a Useful Notes page, while Hopper Shot is a trope of the Stock Parody sort.

Nighthawks _should_ be a work page, given that it is a work of art. Although that begs the question: Do we trope paintings? If so, what namespace do we use?

I don't think there's much of a point in having a work page for it if all there is is a one-line description, and another line for it being a frequent parody/reference target. A trope page for how it's used in other works is probably enough.

I believe we can trope paintings if there are enough tropes about them. Or rather, I don't see what would prevent it. However, there's usually not enough storytelling involved to do so. They're far more commonly used as tropes one way or another, like this one.

edited 2nd Apr '13 3:21:05 PM by AnotherDuck

I'm not sure I could come up with enough tropes to make a works page worthwhile.

So... I think it is an easy call to merge the pages. Both have some inbounds, so make them redirects.

As for the name, I'd say split the difference and go with "Nighthawks" Shot.

Quite a few trope pages do have "Art" folders, but...

I would say we should have Creator pages for artists, and split off individual works only if they acquire enough tropes.

We do have Girl With A Pearl Earring, which purports to cover the painting, novel and movie, all at once. (And which is therefore extremely confusing to anyone who wants to put it in an appropriate namespace.)

I like Nighthawk Shot. As for Girl With A Pearl Earring, I would split that page and turn the rest into a Franchise/ page.

Seeing no argument, I'd like to get mod permision to make this official and implement it.

Edit: Specifically, merge Nighthawks and Hopper Shot under the name "Nighthawks" Shot.

edited 5th Apr '13 7:08:13 AM by Catbert

I would hold on. That's very few votes.

I've noticed that it is often the quick, easy, obvious changes that no one disagrees with or cares much about that get almost no feedback.

Waiting for an extensive discussion on stuff that no one objects to often drags out things forever, because most people are either not reading the thread because they know and care nothing about the articles, or not saying anything because they don't feel like they have anything new to add.

That's two votes.

Four, actually, right? The two of you, Duck, and myself.

Eh, 4, I overlooked these icons.

Make that five votes.

Go ahead and do it.

Do it. The only question is using Nighthawks versus "Nighthawks" Shot or Nighthawks Homage.

"Nighthawks" Shot.

Also "Nighthawks" Shot

OK, so the decision is to merge Hopper Shot and Nighthawks into a new third trope called "Nighthawks" Shot?

If so, that seems rather easy to do.

I agree with that.