Opening and bumping but not convinced that cutting is warranted. Title tropes often do not say much by default.
I think we should rename the trope to have a more self-demonstrating title, then clean up misuse.
How do we determine misuse? Decide how many words (or a ratio of words) makes the subtitle long? The trope shouldn't just be "the stuff after the colon is longer than the stuff before", because we get ridiculous examples like "Blood: The Last Vampire". We can't have such a low threshold for what constitutes "long, elaborate".
There's also the second paragraph of the description: "May be used to evoke an older era, when such subtitles were more common, or a faux-academic style". Well, saying "may" could mean it's not a must, but most of the examples to begin with don't evoke either old-timeyness or academia. What is this trope about then? All media with titles that have a colon and a certain word count?
Edited by Tabs on Apr 15th 2019 at 10:36:49 AM
As Septimus says, we have pretty low standards when it comes to title tropes. Like what's the big meaning behind The Place or The X of Y? These are basically indices. That said, my lower limit would be seven words in the subtitle to justify "elaborate".
I believe this trope has more to do with Officially Shortened Title than currently detailed. The (shorter) title is the way the author expects people to name the work, while the subtitle is providing more detail about the work (hopefully to Exactly What It Says on the Tin standards). That is, the subtitle should be elaborating upon the context of the Officially Shortened Title.
I like the minimum of seven words, but would also like to see it be a minimum of twice the length of the main title. The Hope of Jeriska: Annalie Gallium, Hero to the Peasant People does little to expound upon the context.
As far as title tropes go, I think this one has a lot more substance than most, as itís often parodied and does evoke a particular era of literature.
Would support clarifying the requirements as per , and cleaning up misuse. Would not support a cut. I also canít see how another title could improve on conveying the concept.
The current title is trying to demonstrate the trope (which is understandable since it's a title trope), but doesn't meet the 7-word minimum as stated above.
Maybe as a new title: "Short Title: A Very Long, Needlessly Elaborate Subtitle" or "Short Title: A Very Long, Needlessly Elaborate Subtitle That Takes a Long Time to Say"
Edited by RamenChef on Apr 17th 2019 at 11:56:54 AM
If the name of the trope remains as-is, can it be removed from the This Trope Name References Itself index? That invites misuse in a "a 3-word subtitle is long and elaborate? Then let me list other examples that don't really count!" kind of way.
Gotcha. Maybe something like Short Title: Long Elaborate Subtitle In Which The Major Premise of A Work is Described In Far More Detail Than is Conventional
Is there a character limit to work/page titles on the wiki? That might impede this somewhat.
Weird how there's no crosswicking between this and In Which a Trope Is Described, I feel like there is often overlap
There is a limit, although I'd be more cautious about users forgetting the longer title if it's too long (presumably why we stopped using this trope in general).
Short Title Long Elaborate Subtitle For Adding More Context fulfils the requirements discussed, while being reasonably short and using some wiki terminology. I see general agreement, but I'd definitely like to see a crowner for renaming if that's where we're going.
Edited by crazysamaritan on Apr 17th 2019 at 1:47:50 PM
^ Seems a little long for my taste.
Of the suggestions given so far, I prefer Short Title A Very Long Needlessly Elaborate Subtitle.
Personally, I'm not a fan of renaming just for the sake of self demonstrating. The title's clear enough as is, in my opinion; maybe we should just clean up misuse.
However, if we do end up renaming...nothing too long, please.
Edited by Berrenta on Apr 23rd 2019 at 8:10:33 AM
Clear, Concise, Witty are prioritized in that order. Making the trope name too long would go against the "concise" part for the sake of "witty".
Personally, I wonder if this is the sort of thing that belongs on Just for Fun, whether due to a lack of narrative intent or context or the subjective nature of what counts as "long" or "short".
~Berrenta, ~Zuxtron, and ~Brainulator9 — Would the three of you like to chime in on the proposed length requirements as well?
- Subtitle is at least seven words long
- Subtitle is at least twice the length of the shorter title.
That works too.
I don't really have a strong opinion on the exact specifics of what makes a subtitle "long".
This is very much a trope. Itís a deliberate choice by the author, and conveys information about the work. Itís also an unusual and highly stylized way to name something. What do these titles mean?
- Gives a fairly detailed description of what the reader can expect to happen. Contrast One-Word Title.
- Gives the work an old-fashioned or formal feel, similar to In Which a Trope Is Described or Either/Or Title.
- Provides an opportunity for a gag within the title by playing with or parodying the first two, a la Oddly Named Sequel 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Support adding a strict criterion and revamping the description. Neutral on a rename.
Edited by naturalironist on Apr 23rd 2019 at 11:37:03 AM
That looks good. I'm neutral-ish about renaming, but if 1. doing so removes the invitation to add misuse - seeing as the current title itself doesn't adhere to either of crazysamaritan's bullets above - and 2. it's easier to do than produce specific criteria of "long, elaborate", then I'm for it.
To respond to crazysamaritan: Either works for me.
Bump for votes, looks like it's a "no"
Crown Description:Should Short Title Long Elaborate Subtitle be renamed?
The Short Title: Long, Elaborate Subtitle description reads:
"A common form of title, sometimes used in academic works, that can sound rather pretentious. Only the first bit is usually used in reviews or discussion.
"May be used to evoke an older era, when such subtitles were more common, or a faux-academic style."
The examples hardly demonstrate that the creator chose the title as a throwback or to mimic academic style. Many do not strike me as particularly elaborate and are cases of "sensible title explains what the work is". That's People Sit on Chairs.
In the wick check, I look for 1. whether example subtitle is long and elaborate (6 or more words is a reasonable requirement), 2. whether example evokes an older era or academia, as the description says. If it doesn't, then there's probably no meaning behind it.
That's 9/50 correct uses by my standards, ignoring the fact that every example contains nothing after the bullet or just restates the title. Sure, what counts as "long" and "elaborate" is a bit subjective, but the short titles in the wicks show that the definition is way too lax. A good title trope says/suggests something about the work. Like Excited Show Title! wants you to know that the show is fun/exciting/funny. Short Title: Long, Elaborate Subtitle's examples do not explain at all what the purpose of their title is.
I propose cutting the page. This is an unnecessary subtrope of Long Title. All "correct" uses can be moved to Long Title if they aren't already there.