...Really slowly, but I am.
edited 24th Sep '10 1:49:27 PM by Meophist
Helpful Scripts and Stylesheets here.I think the reason we have pages like... Tsundere for example that we haven't kept is two-fold: one, it's a term already used to describe that kind of character, and two, this.
This title has brought 23,827 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
Definitely a big draw that's already well-integrated to the wiki, would resist rename. Where as this trope...
This title has brought 6 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
...is noticeably less of a draw and doesn't have as many internal links.
Also, that analogy doesn't really fit. If it was an obscure piece of Japanese history that wasn't well ingrained, then it'd get scrubbed, and if it was a term used to describe a character in English like Big Bad with a ton of internal links and that brings lots of people to the wiki then it'd stay.
EDIT: Fixed Villains to Big Bad
EDIT2: Clarified what I said
EDIT3: Also, random question, but how does speaking an often-used language mean that you would know the history of the country that language came from? I mean, it's probably a good idea, but I've spoken English my entire life and I've never heard that story.
edited 24th Sep '10 3:17:32 PM by TheInferno
"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - CharlatanThat's the biggest objection to the French quote (wich I notice isn't on the rename crowner), though again I might have defended it if t were the original name. A title with the historical reference is clearly not familiar to everyone, but the same could be said of Dating Catwoman. And like that one, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to be familiar with it; I don't think it's unusual to be familiar with it.
So even if the original title is broken somehow — and the thrust of opinion seems to be that it is — I am still not convinced that the historical reference is what breaks it.
And no one has even attempted to convince me, except by assertion.
The child is father to the man —Oedipus@BH: No, because Australia is a separate branch. England is the root.
I don't know if you're playing Devil's Advocate, or if you really only learned as much English history in school as you did Australian (assuming you're American).
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardPretty much the same here.
Also, isn't this about the renaming of the trope? The quote can stay as one of the oldest examples and as the page quote and the picture... well, it seems pretty good as is. Just the name needs to change, me thinks.
"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - CharlatanYea, I've said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with the quote (though the picture is questionable...I doubt we'd find a clearer one anywhere).
I guess at this point we're waiting for genius to strike someone with a perfect name for this that will gain support from both sides, the crowner is basically at a stalemate at best for each name.
^^He'd have to be quite some genius, and come think with something that is, like, Make It Look Like an Accident - level of clarity. And truth be told, I hope it is soon.
Anyways, the crowner seems to be gaining stability on the top two/three names. Considering tha the sum of votes in each indicates there is voting potential still pending, I hope this is a sort of good news.
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?@Rottweiler:
Only slightly more.
English history I know: Norman Conquest, Battle of Hastings, general overview of feudalism, skip to Henry VIII-Charles I, skip from Charles I to the Glorious Revolution, that's about it.
Australian history I know: Brits found it, send their prisoners there, they made a country out of it.
It's not generally reasonable to expect anyone to know the history of a country besides their own in detail.
The Henry II - Thomas Beckett incident wasn't a minor detail; it was comparable in importance to Henry VIII and his divorces.
Henry II was trying to subject the clergy to national law, reducing the Pope to a purely nominal figurehead, pretty close to what Henry VIII actually ended up doing. Because of the Beckett incident, he failed, and had to let all the bishops of England and monks of Canterbury line up to beat him with a rod.
Considering that, the murder over a misunderstood remark, and that Beckett and Henry had once been friends, it's just the kind of colourful yet important incident made for school textbooks, and popular histories. US schools may choose to ignore it, but it's not unreasonable to assume that people beyond the UK would have heard of it.
Incidentally, this event is also why the pilgrims in Chaucer's tales were going to Canterbury in the first place.
Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.Unless countries of other schools specifically teach English or European history in detail, I don't see why other countries should be expected to know it. Even world history goes over main topics, not a random English king accidentally ordering the assassination of a priest.
“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”Mistaken For Order is a bad title for two reasons, it describes many situations that don't fit the trope, and doesn't describe many situations that do fit the trope. It overlaps the trope, but that's all.
A modern day example would be
- Mafia boss, Al, is overheard by underling, Bill, telling his right hand man, Charlie, "This new President is bad for business. Someone ought to kill him."
- Al didn't even notice Bill was listening, and Bill knows Al wasn't talking to him.
- Bill decides to kill the President, without Al's knowledge, in the hope of gaining favour.
- Al is horrified that Bill did something so stupid because, while Al really would like to see the President dead, he fear the consequences of being involved in the assassination.
There is no order here, nor any rhetorical question, and Bill isn't even mistaken about what Al wants to happen, just about what he wants to make happen.
Any potential trope name which doesn't fit this scenario is not a good name for this trope.
Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.Thing is, we really don't have any that fit much better.
Doing Something Without Being Ordered In Order To Get Favor But It Was Not Really What Was Wanted isn't exactly something we can use, and I can't think of anything less detailed that fits, really.
"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - CharlatanIf there are no titles that fit well, as descriptions, we shouldn't settle for one that fits poorly. Other options are to describe a specific example of the trope, and let people make the hopefully obvious generalisation (which runs into the same problem of succinct description) or to use some easily recognisable reference to a well known example of this situation (but there are no such well known examples).
This leaves us with no good names, nor any prospect of any. We can only pick the least worst name, never a good position to be in. Worse, there's every chance that whatever name gets picked, it'll be back here in a few months, just because the name isn't clear enough. Somehow, I doubt this is a position anyone wanted to end up in.
As for what name we should actually pick, we can forget about the debatable pros of each name, and just look for the ones with cons we can best tolerate.
Cattle die, kinsmen die. You yourself will surely die. Only word-fame dies not, for one who well achieves it.
Crown Description:
The Definition that the name needs to fit is as follows: A person says something he does not mean literally; he does not mean for it to happen. Someone else hears the statement and interprets it as an order or request. The person who heard it acts on it, believing it to be the genuine desire of the speaker. This results in something the person who made the statement did not want or expect. Upon learning that the non-order was carried out, the person thought to have issued it is displeased.- The speaker does not
- have to be alone when he makes the statement,
- have to believe that no one heard him say it.
- His awareness of or lack of awareness of the person who heard him is irrelevant.
- The result does not have to be death or even serious harm.
- The relationship between the person speaking and the person acting is irrelevant.
- The statement does not have to be phrased as a rhetorical question.
- The statement does not have to be made in anger or frustration.

For the record, I'm strongly against the "purge the historical reference" stand, but I voted up on both Will No One Rid Me Of This Priest? and When I Said Get Rid Of Him...
I voted no on most of the others, but When I Said Get Rid Of Him... amuses me. I hate the idea of renaming a trope because (I know, I know, exaggerating) of the danger of exposing people to history, but I like the idea of renaming a trope to something better and funnier!
Jet-a-Reeno!