She did. But it doesn't come naturally to many English-speakers, especially In America! After all, the name sounds much uglier if you can hear the T at the end.

The Harry Potter films use the pronunciation with the "T."

My point was that it definitely wasn't Volt-emort as one troper called "Word of God".

The picture and the article are sort of self-explanatory....

Yes, calling the people who contribute to the page "fantard" and "douchebags" is a great way to start a discussion.

Be that as it may, John Casey 21 has a point - there's some serious Trope Decay going on here. I'm not sure exactly where you draw a line between getting just about everything wrong that it's possible to get wrong vs. failure to correctly identify all 600+ species of Pokemon, but I'm pretty sure there is a line to be drawn.

That's not what the line is supposed to be at all. The trope is, as I understand it, people who should get it right (either by profession or by simply being in a position where they shold know) getting it wrong. Like a movie reviewer apparently not having seen the movie, or a gaming webcomic getting something entirely wrong about a game series. It's not about "getting everything wrong that it's possible to get wrong".

What distinguishes simple Did Not Do The Research from this trope is in this trope, you'd have every expectation that they'd make an effort to get it right.

The way I see it, this is primarily a journalism-based trope. News people (like myself) are expected to fact check their articles.

I think the sheer number of criticisms on this page definitely draws the line with the whole "in a position where they should."

But I'm seeing way too many don'ts, which are quite frankly utterly ridiculous. Here are two examples:

A GOOD EXAMPLE: "There was a newspaper article about how "Sega's mascot Mario" was more recognizable than Mickey Mouse. If he's so recognizable, how do they not know what company he's from?" Pretty darned self-explanatory.

BAD EXAMPLE: "British teenage science magazine Flipside ran a small article on Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, listing a handful of returning characters as being 'Solid Snake, Roy Campbell, and Quinton Flynn'. The latter is the name of the voice actor for one of the characters." It's called a reflex typo, people... Everyone makes them all the fucking time. If you're a "news person", like you claim you are, then I think everyone on here would easily know you're bullshitting if you deny simple typos sliding under the radar. If reflex typos were such huge, inexcusable epic fails, then I can guarantee you we'd be having a whole lot of fucking college students dropping out, and a lot of "news people", like YOU, or whatever, getting their asses dusted on the resume.

This page needs to be cleaned up something fierce.

You need to calm down. There's no need to start swearing at me, or imply that I'm lying or bullshitting. Especially since I never said what you seem to think I did, so don't go putting words in my mouth (or at my typing fingers, as the case may be) either.

Fact checking is one of the first things journalists are supposed to learn. Yes, obviously typos happen, but we're not talking about typos, we're talking about factual errors. If you're going to write about a subject, you want to make sure that what you're writing is accurate, it's as simple as that. If I get a name wrong in an article, my editor, or a reader, calls me out on it.

Even if it applies only to journalists who make any error whatsoever, the page needs to be cleaned up. For one, many examples have nothing to do with media of any kind, referring only to 'people think' or something similar. Also, it's debatable whether movie critics should be considered journalists. While a critic watching a movie does take notes, their memories aren't any better than anyone else's so unless they note down the entire film then they can't be expected to remember every single detail, especially when watching 4 and 5 movies a week.

In general, before going nuts about an example, people should remember that fact checking is subject to cost-benefit consideration just like everything else. Some errors are egregious, but often enough it isn't worth the time to verify details that are beside the point for the great majority of the reading/viewing public.

I think movie critics should count. If you're reviewing something, you should at least be able to get the basic facts right.

If you think it needs cleaning up, then by all means, do some clean-up.

Pretty much anyone who watches Cowboy Bebop knows there's something wrong when a spaceship is sitting down to chillax and points at "his" monitor.

Case in point.

Right, I don't watch cowboy bebop, I had never even heard about the show before this trope and it took me longer than just reading the description to understand what the trope was about... I still think we should change to something better