I wouldn't think to call 870 wicks and 152 inbounds in one year "lousy" stats.
I never fully understood the "Durwood" part, either, but I always thought this was one of those "grandfathered" pages. Is there any way to check it's pre-2011 inbounds?
Durwood seems to be a placeholder name. In any case I don't really see anything wrong with the title. It sounds like "you got my name wrong", and the trope is about that. Any reason to rename it other than not liking the name?
70,000 inbounds since what date? Those tallies (originally from January 1, 2009) now only record inbounds from January 1, 2011 onward. I'm not sure if any pages would even record tallies as high as 70,000 anymore, if that was supposed to be the accumulated inbounds over, roughly, three years, instead of just the past year alone.
That's why I'm asking to know if there's any way of finding out the original recorded stats from 2009. For a page that has been around as long as this one, the number of inbounds the page has accumulated over three years would be a better gauge than just the most recent year alone.
I don't think so.
That the inbound count no longer counts from the page creation date but from January 1st is a deliberate change by Eddie. That means that he thinks that recent inbounds are more relevant than all the inbounds ever. And that's a very good point - we want page names that are working, not names that used to work and then stopped working.
(oh, and it was 70000 inbounds in a month's time, in case you were wondering).
Do we at least know a rough "average" of how many inbounds pages got in the past year? That would be a good way for us to measure a number like 152; otherwise, on the whole, I would figure that to be a pretty modest number for a page.
I don't think anybody has agreed to your proposal so far. And, well, Eddie said this a bad title; considering it's his wiki, that's a pretty solid reason to rename it.
That said, I don't see how the same title but with X as a placeholder is an improvement.
(edit) we could start by considering whether "Bob forgets Alice's name because he's an idiot" is indeed the same trope as "Bob intentionally misnames Alice because he's being mean".
Yeah, well, excuse me but "I don't like it" doesn't seem like a good reason to me. The name has nothing wrong with it. Redirects wouldn't hurt, but unless someone shows some misuse related to it then there's no reason to change a perfectly working name.
Besides, I don't know how the thread went from "let's change the name" to "let's take some totally non-related action about the trope". Why don't we keep threads to their purpose, and finish them, before moving to other matters?
Um, would these differences be enough to split? I mean, malicious and non-malicious reasons have the same form, but different reasons and results.
I mean, one is mostly Rule of Funny, while the other is a Real Life bullying tactic.
Alternative Titles: My Name Is Not Durwood
9th Jan '13 11:40:52 AM
Vote up names you like, vote down names you don't. Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner (the Single Proposition crowner). This one just collects and ranks alternative titles.
My Name Is Not Durwood is getting split into accidental and malicious misnaming. Pick a name for this sandbox.Laconic: Using a permutation of someone's name in a insulting/derisive/malicious way.