Agreed. Also, mod input should be required when the OP fails to demonstrate a problem with the trope in general. Not just when proposing a rename. If the OP proposes an Example Sectionectomy, then they should demonstrate the problem with the examples.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Hi
IP has a very similar policy, but it's not as stringently enforced as it probably should be. Having something like this in TRS would be a great idea.
I could live with this policy.
I would be happy with this policy honestly and I've been campaigning for it myself. Currently I put a three day clock on them, but a lock might be better.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
That would be nice, but I am afraid that it would need some expansion of moderator work, to check every new thread in TRS.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Well, hollering should suffice for that. TRS is always clattered, so no more than 10 new threads seem to start in a single day.
Of course, there's the timezone issue...
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Zzzzzzzzzz
I support it, now that the thread-nuker allows us to add the reason for the nuking. It would certainly be easy enough to nuke with the reason "unsupported claim that the page is broken" or something like that.
On the timezone thing, there are mods around pretty much around the clock, now. A Holler doesn't usually go more than a few hours without being seen.
edited 12th Feb '12 8:55:50 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
So ... what we need is someone to go around across recent TRS threads and holler those who look like they have insufficient evidence for asking a rename - and simultaneously not enough one for any other TRS action either?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Works for me. I think the best way to inform people of the policy would be to put it right on the create-thread dialog page for TRS and IP, rather than a sticky, though. Stickies have a tendency to disappear when there is more than one of them.
I'll hop right on that.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Zzzzzzzzzz
I'll toss up a headline for it, as well.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I fully support this turn of events.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
It's in.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
I would be inclined to grandfather existing threads that haven't gone stale.
Zzzzzzzzzz
If they're open and working, I'd say leave them. There's no reason to shut the process down once it's actually started. But if they're sitting there with only the OP or the OP and a couple of replies asking "What do you think is wrong?" or "Do you have any evidence it's broken?" they might as well be shut.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
adopting kitteh
Autonuke of unsubstantiated "I don't like this name" / "We can do better" TRS threads? Whoo hoo! Congratulations for this improvement!
Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?
What counts as evidence? Are these items listed in the official name-changing criteria as good reasons to change a name still valid?
- The name is Unclear — it fails to indicate what the trope is about, and thus undermines our goal of making the trope as accessible to as great a portion of our readership as possible. This includes titles that have nothing to do with the trope, using technical terms that mean something else in everyday speech, or names that rely on familiarity with a particular work to make sense.
- Character-Named Tropes used to be standard, but are now deprecated and considered a form of Fan Myopia. Very few characters are iconic enough to truly personify a trope, and these are generally in the dictionary (e.g. Pollyanna); using anyone else risks Popcultural Osmosis Failure. Consider whether there are other fictional characters by that name, whether the character may have other aspects, and how old the work is that the character is from.
- Everything's Worse with Snowclones. Too often the, ah, cleverness of a snowclone can obscure the fact that a name doesn't quite fit the trope it's supposed to describe. If the snowclone doesn't make sense outside of the context of the original, or doesn't make sense inside the context of the original, it's misleading.
I think that "evidence" is e.g a wick check showing more than 10% misuse, massive underuse in both inbounds and wicks despite it being a prevalent (in storytelling) or old (on the wiki) trope.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Those are valid, but you need to write more than "I don't like it" or "I thought of a better name." Think out your OP before you post it.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
^^But those are problems independent of misuse and underuse. There are more than two possible problems with a page.
^Fair enough.
Infinite Tree: an experimental story
Gentleman Troper!
I think this is a good idea, but the info text when you start a thread could use some expanding. Right now, it basically says "Abuse or GTFO", whereas disuse or redundancy are also issues that TRS should be able to deal with. Basically what he said, too.
It would help if there were two separate info texts, one for TRS and one for IP, and if they were linked respectively to this page and to this thread
.
Disuse and redundancy are also forms of broken. You just need evidence that they're being disused or redundant in the OP.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
No, the problems with unclearness and character-based names show up in a wick check. It's exactly because of their effects that can be seen in wick checks that they're a problem. If the wick check is fine, chances are the name isn't making problems.
^Which would be in a Related To check (inbounds + wicks)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
So, tropes which are vague unfunny references or mean something entirely other than the trope can't be renamed anymore if they're old enough that people have gotten used to them. Good to know.
edited 12th Feb '12 11:28:09 AM by INUH
Infinite Tree: an experimental story
10% misuse is too low a floor lever for a rename, that should be bumped to 25% (1)really. At ten percent a single particularly clueless Entry Pimp could easily put a trope over without it really being a problem with the trope per se. Especially if it is a low usage trope (highly specific, or genre tropes are most prone to this). So bumping the level of misuse up from questionable, to clear at a quarter is a much better idea. It means any patter of misuse is clear.
(1)Although I personally am not going to vote in favour of a rename in a crowner unless it is 50% or above, but that is a personal and private like.
...will be locked on sight, no questions asked.
The Trope Repair Shop is for fixing tropes that are broken. It works much more efficiently if we know at the beginning whether or not a trope is actually broken.
If you're proposing a name, you should be willing to provide clear evidence that there's an actual problem: unhealthy wick and inbound counts, sharing a name with a work, premature launch (with YKTTW link), or a Wick Check showing a pattern of misuse.We shouldn't have to wait until ten pages into the thread before someone gets fed up and does a Wick Check for you; if you think the name is causing confusion, you should have to check that stuff in advance.
Yes, this means "The name is opaque and potentially confusing" is not, in itself, enough reason to start a thread if the trope in question has healthy usage stats. It's a point against the name, sure, but if you think it's a problem, you really need to be willing to back it up with something more concrete than your own analysis in a vacuum. If it's not worth your time to comb through a few wicks, why is it worth everyone else's time to discuss it? Show some consideration.
There are several reasons why we should be doing this:
If a thread is locked this way, the OP can reopen the thread when they have something more concrete to start the discussion off, and thus everyone's time is saved.
edited 5th Mar '12 6:53:16 PM by troacctid
Rhymes with "Protracted."