Talk:Secondary Character Title

I don't see why Character Title should be on different footing from Secondary Character Title. And Character Title has become a category.

Character Title was just a list. Secondary Character Title has descriptions on its entries. Is that enough to make a difference?

Pinging the usual folks, but everybody is welcome to comment: @Agiletek @Bauerbach @Dominicmgm @GentlemensDame883 @H-Games~Documentation @HelljmprRookie @HeneryVII @Jlaw @Just a 1itt1e bit further @Kuma @Lequinni‎ @RivetVermin @Tad Cipher @The23rdCamper @TheEric132 @Umbire the Phantom @Utini501 @Xemylixa @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

Secondary Character Titles as defined typically aren't as immediately self-explanatory, and your question exemplifies that - the character in the title isn't necessarily the one given the position of main protagonist (who is typically also your focus character). The apparent "footing" difference isn't really one - Secondary Character Title is a sub-trope of Character Title, which is still a trope itself, but it's just far more convenient to use the wiki software we're on to make it a category that contains a list of works, because in essence that's what it is.

I can see a case for moving the Character Title page into the mainspace to list any interesting title-focused twists and other tropes, perhaps, and I'm not necessarily against that as of yet - but one could also argue that such twists are better off detailed on that work's page.

Ah, yeah - if it wasn't clear from this and my comment above it, I'm voting no.

Not sure what to think of this. Shall reserve judgment till more others weigh in.

Mm. Character Title is, as we decided, an omnipresent and universal trope, something that's Older Than Dirt (the oldest surviving story is, after all, The Epic of Gilgamesh). As such it doesn't need examples -- it's so obvious, people can't imagine it not being practically the default way to title a story. This is not obvious, and by its very nature needs explanation and examples. I say no -- it should not be turned into a category.

The problem with turning this into a category is that it requires work, meaning that we'll have to post a "this page needs cleaning up" notice and hope that someone does it. At worst, the notice will be there permanently, and no one will do anything. I don't see a lot we can gain from turning this into a category, and others before me have said that secondary characters do often require explanation and context. It's easy to figure out who the main character is. Figuring out who a secondary character is and why the story is titled after them is harder. I'm voting no.

Character Title was just a list. Secondary Character Title has descriptions on its entries. Is that enough to make a difference?

I believe my question has been answered in the affirmative.

So... voting no to this one.