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

So instead of blaming people for not doing what they should we blame the name and help them to be dumber and lazier, this way promoting misuse on other tropes that also aren't superclear and that way having to rename those tropes as well. Rinse and repeat until it seems we are explaining things to kindergarten kids instead of teens and adults, insulting at the same time those smart enough to know that reading things is good for them.

It doesn't sound a good plan to me, and I'm going to oppose it. I won't support a rename unless someone shows in a misuse check that there is misuse enough to make a rename a solution to the problem. Redirects Are Free if anyone thinks that they would help, but there are no reasons here for renaming except "I don't really want to bother to read a page", which is not a reason.

edited 3rd Feb '12 11:55:04 AM by DrMcNinja

"So instead of blaming people for not doing what they should we blame the name and help them to be dumber and lazier, this way promoting misuse on other tropes that also aren't superclear"

1. It doesn't matter what they "should" do. It matters what they ACTUALLY do. Blaming people for being people is just a way to excuse the actual laziness of someone making an un-intuitive work.

2. If people are lazy on information, then misuse that is already happening cannot be promoted by making information more clear. If your claim is that we'll have to make even more names intuitive, then you are claiming an actual goal of this site to be a bad thing.

edited 3rd Feb '12 12:11:30 PM by DragonQuestZ

1: "Blaming people for being people". Are you saying that everyone is lazy? Because I should say that it can be taken as an insult.

And then you go again favoring spoon-feeding (calling a name that does fit "a lazy work"), and claim that the name is counter intuitive. For over 70 years the guy fits, and now for not even a day (because he hasn't been renamed yet) being called Shazam the name is counterintuitive? I don't think so, because the explanations in the page cover that.

2: "then misuse that is already happening cannot be promoted by making information more clear. If your claim is that we'll have to make even more names intuitive"

No, my claims are the following:

• No one has proved misuse yet, so don't say that it's happening.
• The names don't need to be more intuitive WHEN THEY WORK. Something that happens in this trope.
• Renaming something that does work just because someone doesn't want to read the trope is not something we should do. We don't have to make people don't have to bother reading tropes, because that only encourages them to do exactly that, and therefore they misuse the tropes. But if we make them read they won't misuse the tropes anymore. If they do then we can say that the problem is in the name or the description, but not when problem is laziness on the part of the editor. Besides I think that sending messages to people when they misuse (via history) would act much better against it than renaming everything in sight.
• Changing a name is something that should be done at least as possible, or so says the policy, and Redirects Are Free anyway, which also help people understand the trope.

edited 3rd Feb '12 12:37:06 PM by DrMcNinja

Actually, if the TRS has proven anything at all in its years of existence, it is that there is a non-trivial number of editors who do not read trope descriptions, but instead assume meaning from trope names or from how the trope is used in context on other pages.

This behavior is consistent and constant and if you have a suggestion for how to prevent it, we'd all really love to hear it. Because it's the number one cause of misuse on this wiki.

I have absolutely no opinion on this rename, but I can say with 100% certainty that if we change the description of any given trope on this site, most existing editors won't notice (because they already think they know what the trope is about, rightly or wrongly) and many new editors won't notice (because they'll assume the meaning from seeing it used elsewhere).

I offered a solution to it in the point "renaming something that does work...". If we make people note their mistakes we will be preventing them from commiting more, or at least that's what I think. When we see misuse at the same time we eliminate it we send a message to the troper who edited it (searching who did it in the history) to prevent him/her doing it again, just like the Natter-fy button is there to prevent natter.

Also I still say that policy claims that we should try to rename less than we do. And the point that judging a book for its cover means a bad judgment, not a bad cover, stands. From what I've seen renames are taken very lightly, compared to what they should be.

Apart from that I don't see why this trope in particular should be renamed, as it's working perfectly. Why don't we add a few redirects and let it be? We can still rename it later if it starts getting misused because of the name. We're rushing to try to prevent a misuse we're not even sure that will happen.

There's another thing your argument isn't taking into account. Even a casual reader of this site will quickly realize how big the site is. That means a psychological reaction where they decide just to go by names for the sake of expediency.

That's not lazy. It's human. And the pragmatic thing to do with that is to go with names that fit the trope as much as possible.

And enough with this "should". One of the few things Stan Smith was right about is that we don't live in "the land of Should".

A casual reader may or may not read everything, that's ok. A troper who is going to edit must be expected to have readen the page and understand it when he's adding an example. As I understand it when you're adding something to a page it's because you know it's right, not because you just think it may be right. And not bothering to learn about what you're talking is laziness. I'll put the same example I put before: If I think that Harry Potter is about a guy who smokes pot or makes ceramic pots it's my fault, not the fault of the name. I don't get any right to complain about it if I didn't check what is really about.

And while that happens that doesn't mean we should encourage it happening by just fixing their mistakes and dumbing things down instead of telling them about their faults, because that's insulting to those who bother to do things as they should be done.

"A troper who is going to edit must be expected to have readen the page and understand it when he's adding an example."

We don't live in the land of "must" either!

There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of pages on this site. People are going to skip a few when they want to focus on others. That is the biggest cause of this, and that cannot be changed.

You're acting like the people are there to serve the information (as in look up any page before they use that name), when the information is there to serve the people (as in be as clear as possible).

It's in Fast Eddie's sig that we go for clarity above anything else.

We are. not looking to put blame on anyone. We are looking at a situation that may need fixing and trying to figure out what we can do about it.

Yeah, acting like we can't do it is a sure way to not be able to do it. And if you're going to quote Fast Eddie get it right: "Goal: Clear, Concise, Witty. Acceptable: Clear" means that clarity is enough in a name, not that we should rename everything in sight. This name is clear, because it's related to the meaning of the trope. As Martello told you you argue semantics, technicalities and whatever you can find forever until the opponent gives up, so I'm not going to keep telling you facts you refuse to acknowledge once again. It's your problem, not mine.

There might be a problem in the future, but maybe not. There isn't a problem now and that's all that matters. We're done here.

"means that clarity is enough in a name, not that we should rename everything in sight"

1. We aren't claiming that. You are making a slippery slope argument.

2. If a name lacks clarity, that actually negates the "enough" part.

You think the name should stay, then prove the name is clear. Don't go for arguments that could be applied to any name on this site. If trope names weren't about discussion on a case-by-case basis, then we wouldn't need individual TRS threads.

"If a name lacks clarity, that actually negates the "enough" part." You never heard about "necessary condition" and "sufficient condition", right? Well, clarity is sufficient (that means "enough") for a name to stay, but it's not necessary (that means a trope can have a name that doesn't overexplain the meaning). Not that it matters here, because as I explain below the name is clear, but you should remember it for future discussions.

"You think the name should stay, then prove the name is clear". It works the other way, you want a change, you have to prove it doesn't work. But I'll do the work and prove it's clear: "Guy is called (insert name here, Shazam currently doing that work), but he's not really called like that". Anyone can get that from the current name, whether they know or not who Shazam or Captain Marvel is. It's clear, and you can't argue me that. So we have a sufficient condition here: the name is clear. No need to change it.

Now, Captain Marvel has been an example for 70 years. Though he won't fit after he's renamed (we'll see if that works or not) that doesn't affect the trope at all because his name can perfectly work as a placeholder (a job Frankenstein or any other example can do the same way), and he's been an example long enough anyway. The stats say that the trope is working. There is no misuse proven. Either you bring it or we're done with this discussion.

And I applied general arguments to the general discussion we were having. I've explained detailed arguments for this trope when I talked about this specific trope. If you want to continue with the discussion about acting in a general way PM me and I'll answer tomorrow (gotta leave for today).

edited 3rd Feb '12 3:08:43 PM by DrMcNinja

Personally, I'd say having to explain a Trope Namer as, "His name is not 'Shazam', except now it is," would be a problem with the page at present.

And while I do agree with your position that "potential for misuse" is, overall, a weak argument for a rename, I would maintain that, in this sudden, unique case of the Trope Namer no longer being an example, the bad outweighs the good. The name, in light of recent events, only does more to create confusion than it would to clarify; it presents a problem that would be easy to resolve and avoid if the page just had a different name.

edited 3rd Feb '12 3:08:57 PM by SeanMurrayI

Now if someone isn't going to to an actual wick check, I will later.

That would mean that we're going to ignore 70 years of being an example just because he's going to get a new name that didn't work before, as proved when they changed it in 2006. Anyway, Shazam works as well as Peter, to say something, would. Well, I think Shazam in fact works better, because of it being exotic and all.

Why don't we wait a few months, and if there's misuse then we change the name? Because the argument of "it will cause more confusion" really boils down to "there is potential for misuse", which you accepted as a weak argument for a rename. The option is going to stay in the table then, it's not like this is the only chance we have to rename. We can add redirects too, and see how they work then. But right now there is no reason to rush a rename.

That is, if the misuse check doesn't prove there is a problem now.

And now I really leave.

edited 3rd Feb '12 3:18:31 PM by DrMcNinja

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it's less that him having the name now will cause misuse (although I suppose it could) and more that the trope namer is not an example, which is a strong strike against any trope title.

However, if there's doubt the name will stick, I'd agree that waiting may be the best course. If the name sticks, then we have a problem.

correct

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

Abobo's Big Adventure

Actor/Role Confusion

Adaptation Displacement

Character Name and the Noun Phrase

Kung Fu Panda

The Big Lebowski

YMMV/Strider

Stuart Ashen

The Swiss Family Robinson

Main/Thunderbirds

Ultimate X-Men

wrong

A Canticle For Leibowitz

Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn

Casper The Friendly Ghost

Monumental Damage

Sailor Moon

Series/Stingray

The Merchant Of Venice

unclear

Adventures of the Links

Chronic Villainy

The President's Daughter (can this trope used to describe Zelda? Isn't Link the victim of the trope?)

Urusei Yatsura

edited 3rd Feb '12 3:45:39 PM by Osmium

My argument was not "It will cause more confusion". I said that having the character actually named "Shazam" now does cause confusion; having the trope name explained as, "The character's name is not Shazam, except now it is," is, at present time, confusing.

edited 3rd Feb '12 4:58:38 PM by SeanMurrayI

A few. More to come.

• ARMA - Misuse. Confusing an work for being part of a series is not this trope.
• Artifact Title - Correct
• Artistic License – Nuclear Physics - Troper pothole
• A Tale Of Two Kingdoms - Think it's correct. Someone who knows the work should be able to tell.
• Auto Tune The News - Technically correct, but it makes me wonder if we have a Super-Trope for name confusions in general.
• NamesTheSame.Cross Media - Misuse. This isn't confusing names from different shows.
• Crusader - No context
• Cybersix - Not sure confusion over how to pronounce a name she actually has would count as this trope.
• Danger Girl - Correct
• Daniel Amos - Correct
• Do Androids Dream? - Okay, that is misuse. Dr Frankenstein should not be potholed with this trope. The book gives the monster no name (Word of God is Adam), so that is an out and out misuse.
• Doctor Slump - Correct, I guess
• Doctor Solar - Misuse. That's more a secret identity thing.
• Analysis.Doctor Who - Does that even count as this trope? Did the show title actually refer to the character?
• Funny.Doctor Who - That's more a pun on the title than this trope.

I'm really hoping we'll have a backlash against the prevailing trend of assuming Tropers Are Morons one of these days.

edited 3rd Feb '12 4:51:29 PM by suedenim

Um, which stance do you think does that?

So about half of the wicks checked were correct and half were incorrect. Question is, would a rename fix that?

I feel like a rename to The Monster Is Not Frankenstein would work best, because it's not dialogue and a pretty well-known example of this trope in action.

For those who insist that poeple should read the trope, I'll provide an example of a trope that people were assuming the meaning of based on the name (until it was renamed):

Mixed Marriage had 150 wicks when it was renamed to Maligned Mixed Marriage. After the rename and cleanup, the number fell to 65 or so (it's risen back to 71). Over half the wicks were misuse, because people were going soley by the name, and putting any mixed marriage as an example.

Off-topic question: Why is this trope considered YMMV?

The Urusei Yatsura example seems valid, based on this.

edited 3rd Feb '12 11:37:21 PM by evilneko

It's YMMV because it's an audience reaction. The fact is that not everyone would mistake that name, no matter what reason they would have to do so.