Well, he is now. (Trope Namer will no longer be an example.): I Am Not Shazam

I think the only reason for a change is that Shazam is a Fan Myopia name. Sure, decently popular, in America. I never heard of the character before this trope, though, and as far as I know, it's the same for many Europeans, and possible other non-Americans.

A variant with Frankenstein is a better name, but I'm not sure the change is worth it. It works well enough as it is.

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

There is now a single proposition rename crowner for this trope here. Feel free to tell me if you think this crowner is premature.

I think a wick check might be worth doing, but I would not consider it necessary since the main argument for renaming seems to be that the Trope Namer will no longer be an example.

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

Wick checks shouldn't be rendered moot by that. They are still good ideas, and a crowner should have waited for one.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

That was dumb of me, sorry about that. I hollered to dehook the crowner.

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

@Feather, you're right that it's a myopic name. I sort of knew who Captain Marvel was just due to Comic Book Knowledge Osmosis, but I wasn't familiar with his origin or the whole Shazam thing. In other words, I had to read the trope to know what it meant. Then again, I never really think that's a bad thing, although I understand why most people around here do.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

Well names that require reading the page have often led to misuse, as people see the name, and think it's exactly what it says on the tin, when it doesn't.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Right, that's why I said "I understand why a lot of people do."

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

Oh, okay then.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

I wouldn't say it's popular in America either. It's certainly no Superman or Batman, but it's also not even a Green Lantern. I'm no expert, but I'd call it a third-tier superhero, known only by comic book fans and those who interact with them a lot.

He also appear on the Justice League cartoon. It is how I know about him.

Either way, the fact that it requires knowledge of a specific character in order to understand the trope title indicates that a rename is a definately option.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

I think the "My Name Is Not" helps a lot to not have the name too opaque.

And, anyway, there is absolute no proof the name is causing problem. Heck, the supposed opacity of the name was not even what bring it to the TRS. As far I can tell, there have been significant misuse and the name is healthy (have both good wicks and inbound). Also, although it is "character named" it is not just a character name title, so there shouldn't be any sinkhole either.

Keep the name. There is no reason to change it.

edited 3rd Feb '12 7:03:29 AM by Heatth

While I'm generally okay with most instances where Trope Namers are not trope examples, I do believe the whole "His name's not 'Shazam', except now it is" thing represents the ugly side of the practice, and the ugly side can always be avoided and rectified.

edited 3rd Feb '12 7:11:17 AM by SeanMurrayI

How about we do a wick check before declaring there is no reason to change this?

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Sorry. I meant to add a "so far" in it.

Ah, an innocent goof (has happened to me a lot of course). Okay then.

Now I would do a wick check, but I have things to do first. It someone wants to do it now, that's good. If not, I can do one later.

edited 3rd Feb '12 9:58:25 AM by DragonQuestZ

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

I don't know how to rename we only need one reason when there are many others to not rename. I thought that renaming was something special that should be done as less as possible, but in reality it's applied like if it were the only thing we could do in a TRS.

With the numbers it has unless there is a lot of misuse I don't see a reason to rename. Redirects Are Free, we don't need to rename every single trope.

There's an explanation in the description of the page, which is all we need. For over 70 years the guy has been a very good example of the trope, the fact that he got renamed (something that it was already tried in 2006 and failed, and we're not sure if it's gonna work this time) doesn't erase those years just like that.

There are no heroes left in Man.

To be fair, most people usually don't read entire descriptions, and anyone who comes across any one of the 543 occurrences in which the trope appears off of this page won't have the luxury of being given that explanation (nor should anyone be expected to go read the explanation in the event that they come across one of the trope's wicks).

"There's an explanation in the description of the page, which is all we need."

That's for misuse checks to decided. Even the admins maintain that not everyone here reads descriptions.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

When someone does not completely understand what a trope is about they go to the page and read the definition, in any of the 543 wiks of this trope or the X wiks of any other trope. And not only we have a clear explanation somewhere where it's easily seen, there's also another in the trope image.

Also you claim people don't read the definitions (something I don't agree with), but that's more a point against having any definition than to rename a trope. Repeating your point about "it's not an example anymore" doesn't make my points against a rename less valid.

Again, that's more against having descriptions than to rename a trope. If the name was all we needed for a trope then we wouldn't need any description at all in any trope. Also I don't think that there is a number large enough of people not reading the description to support it as a reason to rename tropes.

edited 3rd Feb '12 10:24:21 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.

Nope, not necessarily. Sometimes they assume different definitions based on the name and add new examples and wicks based on that (which is how tropes usually wind up getting misused). Other times, they assume these different definitions, add examples and wicks based on that, then read the description, and (after the initial surprise wears off) come here to make a new TRS thread and push for a rename based on some Guess That Trope principle.

All in all, if there ever has to be a passage in a trope description written along the lines of, "Named after such-and-such who explanation explanation explanation..." that isn't just a bit of Trivia but has to be included out of necessity to make sure everybody understands the trope, that's not very good for the name's sake. And you still can't expect everyone to read everything.

edited 3rd Feb '12 10:32:41 AM by SeanMurrayI

I don't see how it's the name fault that people don't read the descriptions anyway. Judging a book by its cover doesn't make the cover bad, it makes a bad judgment. It's the same with tropes, it's not that the name is bad, it's that people don't act like they should. We should expect people to read the pages, and not just accomodate to them and fix the problems they cause with a solution that it's supposed to be used as least as possible.

It's like I never read Harry Potter and I directly assumed it's about someone who smokes pot. It's not that the name is bad, it's that I'm dumb for assuming that a knowledge I haven't verified is correct. I can't complain for not understanding because I haven't bothered to read in the first place. If there is a reason for something to have the name it has then we should bother learning that reason, not just ignore it and then bitch about how we haven't been spoon-fed everything for us to stay comfortably without doing any effort.

edited 3rd Feb '12 10:57:09 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.

"I don't see how it's the name fault that people don't read the descriptions anyway."

That's not our argument. Our argument is that since people don't always read descriptions, then the name has a job to provide good information about the trope.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Yeah, and mine it's that it's not our job to spoon-feed everyone who won't bother to read something they should. The problem isn't in the name, the problem is in the tropers who want everything dumbed down to superbasic level. I think that the average person should be smart enough to know that they should check things before assuming any knowledge. I would feel offended if I was told that I need a clearer name to understand the trope instead of reading the description. We're applying Tropers Are Morons here.

Besides rename is not something we should apply as much as we do. Specially not when we're not helping anyone with it. There is an explanation in the description, Captain Marvel has fit the trope for over 70 years, and the numbers of the page are pretty good. Unless there is a significant amount of misuse related to the name I don't think we should rename this. If there is little misuse then it's as simple as cleaning it. We should do that more often than renaming BTW.

edited 3rd Feb '12 11:24:45 AM by DrMcNinja

There are no heroes left in Man.

"Yeah, and mine it's that it's not our job to spoon-feed everyone who won't bother to read something they should."

Well... people often don't. People often don't read instructions for games (even before tutorials became prevalent and instruction manuals took a quality dive).

The fact is that convenience and clarity are what drive mainstream products (even cars, that you need to be taught and licensed to use, are made uncomplicated for the most used versions). So this site is striving for that as well.

EDIT: This is also why some hate and fear mongers are successful, because they exploit when people don't look things up. If people were research-oriented, those people wouldn't find audiences larger than a few wackos.

edited 3rd Feb '12 11:29:12 AM by DragonQuestZ

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.