It's not a pointless distinction when that's the academic definition of the word and humanity predates the "historic" period by quite a large margin.
edited 12th Feb '18 1:52:02 PM by shoboni
Lost in Space
Academically, it's not pointless. For troping, it is absolutely pointless.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The wiki has always ruled to go by the prevalent/correct outside usage so it's certainty not pointless to use an academic term correctly.
Which means not using the misnomer that prehistory predates humanity.
edited 12th Feb '18 2:17:04 PM by shoboni
The techincal definition of "Prehistoric" is irrelevant. What is relevant is the prevailing usage of the title in question : "Prehistoric Monster"
The prevailing definition is essentially what Fighteer posted in post# 25. Don't believe me? Google the phrase. I just did. I looked through the first 20 pages of results that it returned, without finding a single result that didn't operate on that particular definition.
World's Toughest Milkman
My only complaint about the definition in 25 is that it would include the Aurochs
. But that beast was still around—in Europe—during the Roman Empire. And they were not tame—they were large and dangerous, even though they're probably the ancestors of modern cattle.
I think that actually being prehistoric is probably a worthwhile addition to the definition, because I just don't think aurochs should qualify. Though I admit they're right on the edge, and I could go either way. But it just seems off somehow.
Fortunately, they're really the only tricky case I'm aware of.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Wiki says the last one died in 1627 so I'd say WAY TO RECENT for this trope.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
Is this thread still active?
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Pilgrim Adept
Is there any reason not to make these changes?
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
That definition works.
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!