Rename: Nightmare Fuel

For reasons not to rename both:

High Octane Nightmare Fuel is being used properly, has good wiks, good outside links, and is well known outside the wiki. Renaming it will hurt our inbounds for little or no gain.

edited 27th Mar '11 10:39:32 PM by shimaspawn

So if they get Renamed, what will the new names be?

we decide that next, after we know which one(s) we're renaming.

The arguments on rename both are off. The second one is about wik clean up. The third one is patently untrue as the current name has far more wiks and name penetration than any new name we come up with will for years.

It occurred to me that Nightmare Fuel does not have a TRS notification, since this thread is only tied to High Octane Nightmare Fuel. Would there be a way to add that notification to Nightmare Fuel as well, so that viewers of that page can weigh in?

I would probably be more inclined to vote towards renaming both if i knew what the new names were most likely to be.

Maybe we can start a new thread if it comes to renaming only Nightmare Fuel.

that's what it looks like so far

Yeah, no one's come up with any good reasons to rename only HONF.

There are very. Few good reasons to rename HONF at all.

There's two on the crowner.

We could change the tag on the thread to Nightmare Fuel.

I think it should be pointed out that the phrase "Nightmare Fuel" seems to be used outside this wiki from time to time. I recently saw, on another webforum, someone describing the Japanese earthquake and tsunami as "nightmare fuel." Of course, it applied in the TV Tropes sense, in that it was not "intended" to be scary, (unless one believes some supernatural being was behind it or something) but it could be a coincidence that it applied as such.

The question is to what extent the phrase is used outside this site, and how much of THAT can be attributed to this site itself. If much of the use outside this site is not because of this site, then HONF does not depend on this site`s notion of Nightmare Fuel.

edited 28th Mar '11 5:32:11 PM by neoYTPism

I support renaming Nightmare Fuel but not High Octane Nightmare Fuel. Both are used readily outside the wiki, but unlike this wiki, both are used to denote things that are intentionally scary. Nightmare Fuel's name misconstrues its real meaning, while High Octane Nightmare Fuel does not.

But if we make it Accidental Nightmare Fuel we can still keep one of Tropes Audience Reactions of Legend and clarify the term.

It's a win-win.

Agreed, change NF, leave HONF.

Actually I kinda like that idea.

edited 28th Mar '11 11:04:22 PM by marheavenangel89

Accidental Nightmare Fuel is too close to Nightmare Fuel for my tastes. Something like What Do You Mean It Is Not Horror would be named similarly to What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids? and What Do You Mean It's Not Heinous?, and it already has a similar concept.

Though really, that is something for the next crowner, which judging by the current poll results should not be too far away...

edited 29th Mar '11 7:18:18 AM by neoYTPism

The "what do you mean it's not..." snowclone is not one we want to spread further.

What do you mean it's not one we want to spread further?

Seriously though, why not?

What's so bad if it's similar to the current name if the new name makes the trope clear?

It's not a snowclone that we want to encourage. In many cases it's confusing (are we saying that it wasn't but it looks like it? or that it was?) and it's been used willy-nilly on unrelated tropes, so that the relationship between the various "What do you mean it's not..." is blurred.

• What Do You Mean, It's Not Awesome?: a non-awesome thing is presented in a manner to indicate we're supposed to think it is awesome. It's something the creator of a work does.
• What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?: People assuming that a work is for kids even when there's nothing in the way that it's presented to justify that belief, and often despite explicit warnings or information that it's not for kids. It's something the audience does.
• What Do You Mean, It's Not Didactic?: This one isn't about how works are presented or received at all — it's about how critics treat the works. It's something the critics do.
• What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?: The tendency of some audience members to assume that a work is referencing something political (and probably recent) even when it isn't (something the audience does, again.)
• What Do You Mean It's Not Heinous?: A minor infraction is treated as a major flaw. Something the creators do.

I was asking about Accidental Nightmare Fuel

I think Madrugada was responding to me, not you.

As for the inconsistency in the snowclone, that is a problem with how it is often applied in practice, but not with the snowclone itself. The overall pattern is What Do You Mean X, where X is the case, but is treated as though it were not. The pattern is apparent when you put aside the question of who treats it that way.

EDIT: Examples buried in hot-tips, as they are somewhat tangential anyway.

*

*

*

*

*

*

Overall, my point is, the slowclone is not that bad in and of itself, but a couple of the tropes it applies to seem not to be using it right.

Even with all THAT said, I was not suggesting that What Do You Mean Its Not Horror was the only alternative to Accidental Nightmare Fuel... we just need something that emphasizes the accidental part more, and to make sure that whatever we replace Nightmare Fuel with does not repeat its mistake. I just happen to otherwise be fond of the snowclone, but just to be clear, I am not insisting on applying said snowclone to this trope.

EDIT: And sure enough, the index reveals Faux Horrific, which has What Do You Mean, It's Not Horrific? as a redirect. I guess What Do You Mean Its Not Horror is not an option after all.

edited 29th Mar '11 1:51:24 PM by neoYTPism

I don't want to sound snarky, but what's a better way to emphasize it's accidental than by putting accidental in the name?

edited 29th Mar '11 2:22:03 PM by DrStarky

For one thing it does not exactly narrow down the nature of the unintentional-ness. (Which I am guessing is not really a word.) It could be mistaken for the characters not intending something to be scary, etc... but overall, I just think something further from the prior name (perhaps It Was Not Supposed To Be Spooky, for example) should drive home the point that the mainstream use of the phrase Nightmare Fuel was missing the point of what it was about.