Very odd name (New Crowner 2.12): I See London

Hang on, can we have dialogue titles or not? If not, is there any way to remove them from the crowner?

Bump

Bump for votes.

Dialogue-like names are not in and of itself bad. I support wholeheartedly I Can See Your Underpants based on 1.- the funny factor 2.- being concise 3.- essentially keeping the reference, yet at the same time making it approachable.

Well, the current name is already a line of dialog, so by renaming it to another line of dialog, at least we're not getting more line-of-dialog tropes.

Dialog titles are bad when we might mistake them for stock phrases or wrongly pothole examples of dialog to the page. I see neither problem with I Can See Your Underpants.

Looks like dialog. It is disqualified. Also, we don't anymore articles about ^%$&^%$^%$ing underpants.

Let's be real clear. No more dialog-like names. Period. Ever. 100% of the time.

edited 6th Mar '12 2:14:50 PM by FastEddie

Eddie, this is the comedy trope about "the classic underwear reveal, usually accidental". Are we really going to start throwing out perfectly valid tropes because someone glops them up? Because that's giving vandals and haters a lovely way to make us throw out almost any page they set their sights on.

edited 6th Mar '12 2:17:04 PM by Madrugada

Not throwing out the trope. It is here. We just are not accepting any more dialog-like names for tropes.

edited 6th Mar '12 2:19:51 PM by FastEddie

Okay, but then I suggest to restart the crowner from scratch (because people would have voted differently if the now-disqualified favorite wasn't there). Note that the current name is also a line of dialog.

edited 6th Mar '12 2:22:37 PM by Spark9

While I agree with restarting a crowner, nothing will remove the knowledge that we had a very good option that was winning the crowner from whatever alternative we propose next. Note until a "spayed" alternative was added, the good option was winning the crowner by a lot. We could as well see first if the good votes the original option had reflect on the next "spayed" option.

Let's just start changing our votes. If something else comes out on top, we don't have to restart the crowner, which is convenient.

I think Public Underwear Exposure sounds good, but it's a bit far down at the moment.

But it doesn't have to be Public. It just has to be funny.

Unintended Underwear Exposure?

What's the rational behind renaming the trope at this point? Trying to attract more wicks and inbonds to a page that has 3 sentences and a picture of a Kamen Rider in boxer shorts?

Calling The Panty Shot, perhaps, since that's what the rhyme is all about?

The phrase "panty shot" is suggestive of titillation, which should be avoided I think.

Well fleshing out the description should also be done as well.

Yeah, this trope is nonsexual. Cutting the examples was a little rash for something that's a comedy trope and is something generally rated G. Panty Shot shouldn't be mentioned in the name at all.

edited 6th Mar '12 8:10:36 PM by shimaspawn

Bump for votes.

It looks like some people voted early on and aren't voting on the new suggestions, which is creating an issue as there is a discrepancy between best score and best ratio at this point.

Why were the examples cut? This isn't a sexual trope.

According to the comment left:

"We are not interested in that time you saw someone's underpants."

That doesn't actually describe the content of the examples that were deleted, so I don't understand it either, but that was apparently the reasoning.

edited 9th Mar '12 6:25:06 PM by abk0100

Some of the examples had some fanservice mentions. But those examples should've been pruned and the description of comedic intent should've be stronger. This page wouldn't fit under No Examples Please.