Talk:Trigger Warning Debate (2009)

I think we need to clarify if "Warnings Wank 09" is Fanlore's name for the wank and not the generally agreed upon name of the event. I notice that FanHistory has a different title for this wank which I in no way endorse[1] [ETA: I think FanHistory was taking its cue from f_w on the wank moving away from discussing warning at all, whereas Fanlore's page is more focused on the actual warnings part of the debate], but it would be good to have a paragraph explaining who uses what terminology to refer to this event and whether there is or isn't consensus (I'm guessing there isn't).--aethel (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. I dislike this title, and I'm the one that labeled it as such. I put this line in the text: "It was at this point, the discussed morphed into "Warnings Wank '09"" but I don't think its even close to sufficient. Any way we can tweak the title, or explain in the text is good. --MPH (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe rename to Bandom Warnings Debate (2009) or Bandom Trigger Warning Debate (2009) or Trigger Warning Debate (2009) or Trigger Warning Wank (2009)? I haven't read all the linked material, but the thing that strikes me is that even though the topic was the importance of warning for triggers, people mostly just called them warnings (also why I think I was still confused about the difference circa 2013). Googling trigger warning debate gets me a lot of results about 2015 reporting on triggers in college courses.--aethel (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

ETA: on FFA they now call it a trigger warning debate[2]--aethel (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So, should we go with Trigger Warning Debate (2009)? --MPH (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OK by me. We can change it later if we find something better.--aethel (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)