Clean up/description modification.: Hilariously Abusive Childhood

I'd say yes. That redirect sounds uncontroversial.

Redundant or pointless redirects are generally not encouraged, so I was hoping for a little more justification, but apparently I'm not allowed to ask.

Strictly speaking, the redirect would be completely 100% pointless since searching for Comedic Child Abuse brings up Hilariously Abusive Childhood as the first option anyway. It would literally change nothing.

edited 26th Aug '11 5:13:53 PM by Clarste

Is Artemis Strong the only other person that actually agrees with the redirect? It's not pointless because if it isn't chosen, Hilariously Abusive Childhood will have no redirects, which is kinda necessary for a TV Tropes article.

edited 28th Aug '11 4:37:38 PM by MadMan400096

Among other things, redirects help prevent duplicate YKTTW —> Creating New Redirects

Tropes do not "need" redirects; there are thousands that lack any redirects at all. The only purpose of a redirect is to help people search for a trope, and Clarste has shown that the current suggestion does not help. I absolutely do not object to adding a redirect, but it should be one that makes sense and helps people search. We don't add redirects just to have them, even though they're cheap and harmless. Some people actually dislike having them clutter up the corner of the trope unless they're necessary (which I find almost as strange as thinking an article needs redirects.)

In short, if you can think of some search terms that don't already turn up this trope, and make sense, I would absolutely support adding them as a redirect, but we don't generally add redirects just for the sake of having them.

But that search only works within TV Tropes. Comedic Child Abuse doesn't bring up the wiki on google.com Compare with results on google.com for Eccentric Mentor, Senile Badass, and The Dumbledore.

But I'm not gonna really argue this one much further, because both sides of the debate seem equally strong to me.

edited 26th Aug '11 10:17:05 PM by ArtemisStrong

I'm not objecting and never was. I was simply trying to figure out why we supposedly needed this redirect so very much. I suppose I'm doomed to never know though. :)

Yeah. Really, I could see something like Choking Bart Simpson or somesuch as a more worthy redirect.

The name works, and even better is perfectly clear (opaqueness and lack of clarity being my main cause celebre when it comes to renaming tropes). The name does not indicate a flashback, nor does is restrict it to the past. The trope itself does not imply same.

In short, you're reading something into it that simply is not there.

Anything else to do? If somebody went and cleaned out Bart Simpson as an example, he needs to be put back and what not. If not, next person who sees this holler.

WE'VE. ALREADY. FINISHED. THAT. ARGUMENT.

We were just discussing redirects.

edited 28th Aug '11 4:36:53 PM by MadMan400096

Whoa! Where the hell did the blatant hostility come from, dude?

I'm just sayin' that's all under the rug, and we're discussing redirects.

No reason to take my head off about it. I'm just saying.

Mad Man: For one, you completely ignored the standard protocol for declaring an image bad, entirely through your own misunderstanding of the trope, you did not call a vote. That's one of the things we try to do to make sure we get an appropriate assessment of an image.

We then started this TRS under the impression that there was something misleading about the title or description. Most people thought not. Now it's just some redirect gathering.

Okay, now it's just come down to calling me a moron just because of my interpretation of the description, hasn't it. We should lock this before it becomes Flame Bait.

Vote to lock.

No one's flaming. Calm down.