What does that matter for the crowner? ANF isn't on there, and isn't being affected by this vote.
They're trying to make one a redirect for the other (HONF will probably become a redirect for NF since NF is easier to spell), and make the resulting trope an Audience Reaction to scary things.
Since it's going to be an Audience Reaction for scary things, could ANF examples go on there as well or are we giving up on that one forever? One of the issues ANF had was that many examples belonged on either NF or HONF, and if they're all on a single page for scary things then that issue goes away. This new page might end up solving a number of problems.
Of course if we're giving up on ANF completely I understand. This new page will still be useful either way.
No. ANF was deleted by pressing a button on the entire namespace. Too much trouble to bring it back.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Agreed.
I believe what me, Nocturna, and Fnu are saying is that regardless of whether the examples have been deleted or not, that new examples—ones which would have been called ANF before this—ought to make it onto this new Nightmare Fuel page without people going "Hey, that's not really Nightmare Fuel! It only counts if the writer was trying to scare you!"
edited 13th Apr '12 8:45:23 AM by KilgoreTrout
Yes, examples that were previously ANF would fit on the expanded definition of HONF/NF. We would be dropping the "intentional" distinction.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.Calling crowner. The two options in the green should be implemented.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerThe editing of the main page must be done by a moderator (or via unlock), but the crowner to pick the name is here
New crowner glued to thread.
What edit are you talking about, Septimus?
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerHmm, in retrospection it seems that the current definition of HONF hammers the point home enough that this is an Audience Reaction. Otherwise, it must be edited to reflect that.
On a second note, can we get a "No weblinks EVER" rule or a banner warning about Weblinks Are Not Examples on all NF/HONF subpages? It's an even bigger problem than the natter.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWhile No Weblinks Ever seems an overreaction, warning Weblinks Are Not Examples in big, bold letters is probably necessary given the shape these pages are in.
"Polite life will fill you full of cancer." - Iggy Pop "I've seen the future, brother, it is murder." -Leonard Cohen
Or just make a rule that anything looking like natter or "Just a weblink and a reaction" can be zapped on sight.
Weblinks can be a useful complement to an example as long as the example has enough description to stand on its own without the link. But even then, there's no guarantee that the link will always work. If you ask me, broken links are even more annoying than Natter.
Not so keen on keeping it as HONF, so long as it's still going to be any degree of horror by intent, so casting a vote for the change.
edited 14th Apr '12 2:42:15 PM by EarlOfSandvich
I now go by Graf von Tirol.
What is your proposal to reduce Weblinks Are Not Examples then?
The trope page says:
It is always preferable to use outside links as additional tools to clarify, enhance, or provide reference to a detailed example's content, rather than using them in place of the detailed example itself.
Therefore they are acceptable if used that way. So if you are saying "no weblinks EVER", then you should stop linking to Weblinks Are Not Examples.
If I've misunderstood you, then I apologize.
Crown Description:
Previous Crowner
