[003]
girlyboy
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I think this is too broad. If a trope title only makes sense in context for a work, but that work is widely considered a classic, and/or provides a particularly iconic example of the trope, I believe it would be best if such title were treated as acceptable. In fact, \'\'preferable\'\'. After all, the wiki is by, and for, people who like fiction -- otherwise, why would we be here cataloguing tropes? There\'s nothing wrong with encouraging people to read the classics, and there\'s nothing wrong with naming tropes after examples that are iconic, even if the name itself isn\'t intuitive. If someone hasn\'t read the work, and doesn\'t get it, they may be encouraged to pick it up, which isn\'t a bad thing. And an iconic example will likely make for a memorable trope name anyway, so they aren\'t likely to mix up the name in the future. In cases where a lot of confusion \'\'does\'\' result, a rename would be needed, but being a reference to an iconic example should not, by itself, be a point against a trope name.
to:
I think this is too broad. If a trope title only makes sense in context for a work, but that work is widely considered a classic, and/or provides a particularly iconic example of the trope, I believe it would be best if such title were treated as acceptable. In fact, \\\'\\\'preferable\\\'\\\'. After all, the wiki is by, and for, people who like fiction -- otherwise, why would we be here cataloguing tropes? There\\\'s nothing wrong with encouraging people to read the classics, and there\\\'s nothing wrong with naming tropes after examples that are iconic, even if the name itself isn\\\'t intuitive. If someone hasn\\\'t read the work, and doesn\\\'t get it, they may be encouraged to pick it up, which isn\\\'t a bad thing. (I can\\\'t speak for others, but I\\\'ve been encouraged to read several great books by this site, and it\\\'s one of the reasons I like it here). And an iconic example will likely make for a memorable trope name anyway, so they aren\\\'t likely to mix up the name in the future. In cases where a lot of confusion \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\' result, a rename would be needed, but being a reference to an iconic example should not, by itself, be a point against a trope name.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
As to what constitutes \
to:
As to what constitutes \\\"a classic\\\"? Well, if someone feels a particular trope should be renamed because the work it references with its non-intuitive name is too obscure, they can always make a Repair Shop post about it, as now, and the Crowner will decide. I\\\'d just like it if people didn\\\'t get to constantly refer to this page while saying things like \\\"this name makes no sense unless you\\\'ve read [[AC:Name of Classic Work That Everyone Probably Needs To Read Anyway if they Haven\\\'t Already]]!\\\" If a \\\'\\\'lot\\\'\\\' of people agree a work isn\\\'t a classic or an example isn\\\'t iconic \\\"enough,\\\" then that\\\'s one thing. But I think the official guidelines here should reflect some flexibility.
