I don't understand the renaming

Oh yeah... it [bugs] me that the SPOONS, PLATTER, KNIVES etc. pages redirect to a locked index.

I kinda miss them, even though I wasn't a memeber of any of the groups. It's nice to see which tropers are in which groups.

Not really. All it accomplished in the big picture was to sharply divide the wiki and make it easy to label one's opponents. We don't miss that culture at all.

Here is the thread in which it was decided to just have the TABLE index.

Yup. I pretty much unreservedly support the SPOONS philosophy, but I never formally 'joined' it because I didn't like the way it would have put me on a "side".

edited 26th Jul '12 1:34:52 PM by nrjxll

I think I'll put forward the case for the current naming policy:

- Wittiness and pop culture are fine, but take a second seat to the wiki being readable (and searchable). That includes knowing and remembering what a trope is without having to open and read it (yes, it's a good idea to do so anyway, but we don't want to have to jump to another article in the middle of reading a page).

- We have an obligation to use pre-existing terms, not make new ones of our own just for its own sake.

- Related to the above, it helps if we can use the same terms to those unfamiliar to the wiki. (I have once dropped "Anvilicious" in conversation and been met with blank stares.)

- We are a wiki, hence a collective intellectual construct. Using obscure, fandom-specific references is a somewhat proprietary act, giving a privilege to whoever YKTTWed it. The articles need to reflect the consensus. This same applies to the use of redirects talked about earlier. (Feel free to use them on pages that belong to you: your troper page, your blog, perhaps your reviews.)

- More subtly, naming a trope after a character or a work can lead to a peculiar form of Trope Decay from the start, in that editors don't agree on what aspect the trope is about. "Spikeification" was understood by some as being a not-always-bad character arc of going from a menacing villain to a weak but more rounded anti-hero.

- Linked to the above: it is demeaning to take a complex work and use the name as if they were one-note shows (take a look through Renamed Tropes at how many were "known for being about more than just...").

And I think Seinfeld Is Unfunny sorely needs a rename ("Invented The Cliché"?). It is utterly opaque and not even a proper example (that would be "Seinfeld Is Mundane" or "Seinfeld Is Like Every Other Sitcom").

edited 28th Jul '12 5:41:17 PM by RJSavoy

I understand both stances on the renaming issue. I, too, think that quite a few of the new titles are really bland. However, I understand the reasons behind the name changes, and in many cases they were probably really necessary. The optimal solution would be names that are both witty and easily understandable, but that's not easy and probably not always possible.

It is utterly opaque and not even a proper example (that would be "Seinfeld Is Mundane" or "Seinfeld Is Like Every Other Sitcom").

This kind of way-too-literal thinking doesn't help. No one is being confused by the name. It's not like someone would see "Seinfeld is Mundane" and immediately understand the trope any better than they would "Seinfeld is Unfunny". It's just accuracy for the sake of accuracy.

It's the Seinfeld reference itself that has become dated, ironically. The "Is Unfunny" part could apply to any work that invented tropes that are now seen as cliché — the point is that regardless of the reference in the title, there's no way for someone unfamiliar with that work and its cultural significance to know what the trope is about at all.

To claim that Seinfeld is a "must know" to be considered a literate troper is to engage in cultural snobbery. Grandfather Clause aside, good trope titles should function without reference to any particular work.

edited 29th Jul '12 12:36:45 PM by Fighteer

That's one of the weird parts about what's called originality. It doesn't look original unless you look at the time stamp.

That's going on the quotes page.