[003]
VVK
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
WholePlotReference: I disagree with this one too. It doesn\'t work on a more detailed level of description of the plot, unlike something like CharlieAndTheChocolateParody or OffToSeeTheWizard. I\'m not going to remove it outright since there could be \'\'some\'\' debate on this, so I\'ll wait a bit if someone can try to defend it here.
to:
WholePlotReference: I disagree with this one too. It doesn\\\'t work on a more detailed level of description of the plot, unlike something like CharlieAndTheChocolateParody or OffToSeeTheWizard. I\\\'m not convinced it is a reference, and if it is, that\\\'s just one part of the plot, not the whole of it. I\\\'m not going to remove it outright since there could be \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' debate on this, so I\\\'ll wait a bit if someone can try to defend it here.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Ok, let\'s run through the criteria for a name change, firstly, when not to rename:
to:
Ok, let\\\'s run through the criteria for when not to rename:
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Many of the examples I\'ve seen on pages refer to characters who aren\'t even villains, like [[{{iCarly}} Sam Puckett]]. And there seems to be some people who think that anything a bit jerkish is a MoralEventHorizon-I\'ve seen entries as stupid as \
to:
Many of the examples I\\\'ve seen on pages refer to characters who aren\\\'t even villains, like [[{{iCarly}} Sam Puckett]]. And there seems to be some people who think that anything a bit jerkish is a MoralEventHorizon-I\\\'ve seen entries as stupid as \\\"hitting someone with a ball\\\" and \\\"slapping a CD out of a guy\\\'s hand\\\". Plus, there\\\'s a lot of misuse saying that \\\"this character crosses the line multiple times\\\", which is logically impossible.
2. It\\\'s a term already in use in the world.
I don\\\'t think so but I\\\'m hardly omniscient.
3. Needs a punctuated title
Uh... no.
4. It\\\'s just for your opinion.
Hard to tell unless you have a reason for a rename.
5. There is no consensus.
I\\\'m not entirely sure what this wiki defines consensus as, so I really don\\\'t know. However, looking at this discussion, I would guess not.
So, I\\\'m guessing not to rename on the grounds that there\\\'s no consensus, but I\\\'m really not sure.
2. It\\\'s a term already in use in the world.
I don\\\'t think so but I\\\'m hardly omniscient.
3. Needs a punctuated title
Uh... no.
4. It\\\'s just for your opinion.
Hard to tell unless you have a reason for a rename.
5. There is no consensus.
I\\\'m not entirely sure what this wiki defines consensus as, so I really don\\\'t know. However, looking at this discussion, I would guess not.
So, I\\\'m guessing not to rename on the grounds that there\\\'s no consensus, but I\\\'m really not sure.
