The point of putting this to bed for a month was to let the virtrol die down, not so much develop new arguements. So far at least things are calm. So I don't follow you. You adknowledge that some of the reasons people want a rename are probably valid, but you still oppose? Just because the last attempt went so badly?
I wouldn't go so far as to say I acknowledge reasons as valid. But ether way, I fear the people who support removing the historical reference will point to any decision to rename as agreement with them.
The child is father to the man —OedipusI don't believe that most of the rename proponents want to rename for the sake of removing the historical reference. It wouldn't be a problem at all if it were a better known historical reference. However, the way things are shaping up, the only consensus we're likely to get (the crowner is +10 as I write this but at 50+ votes that's stretching it, even if we've pushed through on less before) is by at least partly keeping it.
I'm a little hesitant to carry this line of argument too far because further down this road lies accusations and counter-claims of "dumbing down the wiki" and ends up right back in the last thread.
What's the difference between a historical reference people have trouble with getting and a fandom reference people have trouble with getting?
Even if I had known what it was referring to when I first saw it, I'd still vote for a rename because the title is falling under the same problem as described in the trope: It means one thing, but people are taking it literally.
"The fact that your food can be made into makeshift bombs alarms the Hell out of me, Scrye." - CharlatanHershele Ostropoler, why exactly are you opposed to renaming it to Will No One Rid Me Of This Meddlesome Priest? It's not simply that it's clearer, it's more historically accurate. (Assuming the quote was ever actually said to begin with anyway.)
edited 14th Sep '10 6:27:45 PM by VincentGaribaldi
Speaking as someone who did not know the historical context of the quote before reading the page, I vote for a rename. The title did not in any way indicate the contents to me. Maybe something like Unintentional Kill Order would work better. The quote should definitely stay on the top of the page, though—it's a perfect example, even if it's a bad title.
Well, you found me. Was it worth it?@Martello: well, maybe it should (I remember it as meddlesome)... I don't get the impression that "turbulent" has anything to do with someone being troublesome which was kind of the point of the "mis order" being expressed unintentionally — at least, "turbulent" sounds to me like it's something about a) wind or b) being an agent who rallies insurgency.
The more time it passes the more I think a more explicit name is needed, but the more I think the full quote won't be worth the extra effort unless a grammar shortcut redirect like Wold Rid Me Of This X is also used. But as per ↑^10 I won't accord to that as a reason pro-rename!
edited 15th Sep '10 12:55:41 PM by SilentReverence
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?Saying that the name is not working is not the same thing as saying that the historical quote can go die in a ditch. For one, the quote is used at the top of the page quite expertly, I wouldn't even think of removing it from there. For two, I could get behind a rename that simply expands the context of the quote and/or removes the word "priest."
The title as it stands is not only opaque to those who don't know the quote, which I admit is my main personal argument, but the title takes it out of context to the point that it obscures it's meaning.
"Rid me of this priest" sounds like a direct order. Those who know the quote may be able to parse it, but there is no way a layman would interpret the title as "a casual remark is taken as an order."
Expanding the context to "Will no one rid me of this priest?" On the other hand, makes the rhetorical question angle more obvious, giving the title strength in that those who don't know the quote may go into the page thinking "Rhetorical question," instead of "Direct order."
I won't lie, I'd personally prefer that the title do away with the reference entirely, but I recognize that an expanded version of the quote would do wonders for the title, and I won't go about claiming that "A vote for renaming this is a vote for doing away with historical references."
I've never heard the quote, but I do like Will No One Rid Me Of This X. It hints at the trope in question, and has style. I like style.
I am opposed to changing the name. I'm not overtly opposed to clarifying the name. That's not what this discussion is about, however. I am not going to take any stance other than opposition to the change in a discussion that seems at all like it's about renaming the trope to completely eliminate the Real Life reference.
The child is father to the man —OedipusFine. Then we're still discussing renaming. Then I'm still completely opposed.
The child is father to the man —OedipusAll right, I gave being reasonable a fair shot. I'm done talking to you here.
But I am curious, if we agreed only to a minor change (I prefer the Will No One Rid Me Of This X version), are there any people in this thread who voted no that would change their vote?
↑Well, I have not voted yet (that was kind of the idea) but as I said many posts above, yeah, if I had a guarantee that it's going to be a minor fix (or at least that is not going to be a dumb rename) I'd definitively vote in. It's the possibility that this will be one-step-ahead-four-step-backwards that keeps me twelve pixels away from the crowner.
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?Non-native english speaker here. For me the title doesn't make sense, as even if I knew the source (which I don't, since English history isn't exactly widespread where I live) I'd know it on my native languaje and not in english, so the title still wouldn't make sense to me. Something a bit less referencial would be appreciated.
When I first read it I thought it was asking someone to get rid of an insistent person bothering the speaker (as did a good number of people before me, it seems)
Agreed, we've even gotten 2 more votes since Black Humor's post. Lets give it a little longer.
edited 16th Sep '10 7:40:01 PM by Meeble
Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!
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.

Thank you for writing me out of the wiki, Vincent Garibaldi.
Oppose. Oppose oppose oppose. Oppose.
I guess I can see the reasoning behind keeping the refrence but maki g it sound less like an order or making it not seem to only be about priests. But after last time I don't even want the camel's nose in the tent.
So, oppose. Nothing said last time changed my mind, none of the arguments seem to be different this time around. If anyone does have any reasons to change the name that weren't brought up before, I'll certainly consider them.
The child is father to the man —Oedipus