Rename: Enemy Mine

First off, it seems to be named for a movie; there is a film tab in the article, which could also in theory get it confused for the article of a work.

That aside, though, what is the point of calling it Enemy Mine anyway? The phrase, whatever it is supposed to mean, just seems so disconnected from the concept of the trope (working together against a common enemy) that using one of the alternate titles (especially Enemy of My Enemy) would seem so much more fitting in comparison.

It's named after a sci-fi story originally.

Anyway, "Enemy Mine found in: 1312 articles, excluding discussions. This title has brought 1,414 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09."

Is there actual evidence of it being incorrectly used? Are a lot of the wicks or examples bad? In short, is the title actually broken? Trope names should not be changed on a whim just because you can come up with a more intuitive or clearer title. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If it is broke, then sure, by all means, but you should really show this first, something beyond just "I think it's not intuitive and another title would be better."

Regardless of the film, I was always under the impression that Enemy Mine was a pre-existing phrase. Is that not so?

The name of the film and book "Enemy Mine" relates to the fact that the common enemy is represented by a mine that uses slave labor from one or both factions and is willing to kill either. There was a Stargate SG-1 episode named this that was essentially a rehashing of the same concept with some changes.

Not everything involving "the enemy of my enemy" relates to mines of either the mineral extraction or the explosive variety, and the name isn't exactly evocative. Plus, it shares a name with a film, and the novella it was adapted from, which vastly outweigh the use of the phrase. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a use of "enemy mine" as a term meaning "the enemy of my enemy" outside of this wiki. The latter phrase is far more common and much more evocative.

Edit: This is a test on November 23 2010 to edit this post after the thread lock. It will probably fail.

Why bother? Well, as folks down below say, and as I've since discovered, the plot of the film does involve a mine, but the plot of the book, fortunately, does not. It's Adaptation Decay in action. The existence of a mine was completely pointless for the plot itself, as there's plenty of tension on a completely deserted planet with two people on it who hate each other (at first). The title was purely a poetic use of the archaic "(thing) mine" possessive form.

This is what I get for doing a two-minute search online for material and trusting the few sources I find. My sources sucked, and Hollywood execs suck. Sorry for setting off confusion.

edited 23rd Nov '10 7:15:17 AM by GoggleFox

Well, plenty of people on the wiki are using it.

Again, is there evidence it's being used incorrectly? For instance, are a lot of those wicks actually references to the film or story, made by tropers not realising that they were actually linking to a trope? Can we maybe get a sample of the wicks searched for improper use, so there are some numbers to show if there's a lot of improper use or not?

For the film and short story (I'm pretty sure it's not a book, just a short story; IIRC the book that the story and its sequels are collected in is called "The Enemy Papers", though I've never read it) there are name-spaces.

edited 21st Nov '10 9:04:59 AM by girlyboy

^^ I thought the literal mine was only exclusive to the film adaptation because executives thought people would be confused by the title unless an actual mine was part of the plot. I've heard that story on multiple occasions for that matter.

This is even mentioned on the work page for Enemy Mine... as well as a notice that the phrase "Enemy Mine" predates the work in question.

edited 21st Nov '10 10:23:44 AM by SeanMurrayI

Yes, we've done this before. We keep the name, namespace the work.

Actually Enemy Mine means two enemies team up to accomplish some common goal, it may not be the thwarting of what could be termed a third "enemy". I'm pretty sure that's the case in the actual story Enemy Mine, I know it's the case for the Invader Zim quote that tops the page — they were both looking for a cure for a Baleful Polymorph. So if you made The Enemy of My Enemy the main page, you'd run into the same "non-intuitive" problems as before, unless you were willing to restrict the scenario to one specifically about teaming up against a third enemy, and leave the other entries out in the cold.

As I see it, Enemy Mine is the scenario, and the fact that the characters are the respective Enemy of My Enemy is the frequent (but not universal) reason for that scenario happening in the first place.