Awful Name: Chuck Cunningham Syndrome

I want to insert a few points here:

1) The name Vasquez Always Dies has not brought in a single inbound. A Cracked link that didn't even mention the name did. The only reason the name is still there is by wiki creator fiat, based on the above erroneous assumption. It's a shame, IMO, but there it is.

2) There should be a limit to the influence of inbounds, IMO. Otherwise, we could just rename every trope "HOT NAKED GIRLS XXX" and get tons.

I guess my basic point is, inbounds alone is not, cannot, and should not be the sole determinant of whether a name stays, IMO. A larger context needs to be considered. That's why some names with lots of inbounds have been changed in the past, and others have not.

(Oh, and I'm still not 100% sure whether the term that's the topic of discussion here really is preexisting, but I wouldn't take Wikipedia as a source for it either way; the person who added it could've been a troper.)

edited 3rd Jan '12 3:57:34 PM by Leaper

Spark, the guidelines do not state that being a character-named trope is always grounds for a rename. Saying that they do is also misrepresenting them, just in the other direction. I would call your attention to the points listed under Good reasons Not to rename:

#2=: * A large number of inbound links indicates that the current name is generating "buzz", being linked from outside the wiki and generating traffic for us. The higher the inbound count, the stronger this argument is. If it can be further shown that these inbound links are resulting from bona fide conversational use of the name outside TV Tropes, this means the name has gained traction outside the wiki and is a very good reason to keep it. For details, see Analyzing Inbounds.

#3: * If the name is already an established term in the outside world, that's a good reason to keep it (assuming its outside-world meaning is related to the trope). When making this claim, it is recommended to show outside proof thereof; the strength of this argument depends on how widely the term is in use. The article should have the name with the meaning that is used by the widest number of people.

#4: * No (or negligible) misuse in the wicks (in-wiki links) means that the title isn't confusing our editors into thinking it's something else.

#6: * All other things being equal, keeping the current name is better - if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Lack of a good argument for renaming is a good argument for not renaming.

It meets three of the six "good reasons not to rename" (2,3,and 6) without even breathing hard. It can be verified if it meets #4 quite easily.

Also, "deprecated" means "discouraged strongly" not "forbidden".

edited 3rd Jan '12 5:57:54 PM by Madrugada

I'm arguing no wick check is needed because the pre-existing term criteria and the Google results trump any other policy arguments. If the OP believed it was being misused they should have said so in the first post. If someone wants to do one anyway and finds any signifigant amount of misuse, let them bring it up in a new thread so the space occupied by this one can go to a more-likely-valid repair issue in the queue.

While I don't like this name at all, the fact that it's a pre-existing term and a presumed small amount of misuse leads me to think it shouldn't be renamed.

No change is needed here. Locking to free up space for other threads.