TRS Policy: Threads suggesting a rename without evidence

Yes, that was a bad one. I was going to give them until the first page was done, but no one seemed to want to even try. They just wanted to complain that it was unclear and offer no evidence that it actually was.

If Eddie didn't lock it, I would have.

edited 12th Feb '12 9:02:17 PM by shimaspawn

The BFG thread was a clear example of the system working.

Though I suspect we won't see many examples of the new system working; it'll mostly be people saying "I don't like this name, but I can't show that it's a problem, so I'll have to resign myself" and not posting, or people posting on the basis of not liking it but without evidence of a problem and it getting locked before anyone notices it's there.

Well, we do have a policy against acronym based titles as far as I know.

Which allows for exceptions, with BFG as the specific example given.

& : Relevant.

The BFG thread was a clear example of the system working.

I actually think it was an example of the system not working. The OP made good points. There is a work with nearly the similar name, we do have a policy against acronym based titles, and the only reason why BFS and BFG are allowed because of the Fucking part, not because this is a widly used acronym like DVD and the OP had a suggestion concerning this part.

If this are not enough arguments in favor of at least starting a discussion then the new system is broken.

The OP did make good points - that I disagreed with completely - but he also showed an utter lack of interest to provide any evidence of actual misuse. Thus the thread was locked, and the system works.

edited 13th Feb '12 4:16:15 AM by Martello

But misuse is not the only reason to rename a trope, it is the one which is the hardest to disagree over and therefore the clearest. But a name failing the guidlines we have for names is at least a reason to discuss.

Sure, but as stated above, BFG is specifically cited in the no acronyms rule page. It's a case of Did Not Do The Research. It's also an old and very well-used trope within the site. So to bring it up for a rename without showing misuse is just asking for a lock.

BFG is specifically cited in the no acronyms rule page.

The reason why this name is allowed is that fucking is not the most family friendly word to be used in titles. The OP addresed this point by offering a substitude name which does not include fucking and still fits the acronym.

Yeah, but Big Freaking Gun just sounds stupid. Anyway, we're getting off-topic here. This discussion belongs in that thread and it was locked for a reason.

edited 13th Feb '12 5:29:55 AM by Martello

That is the point, this kind of discussion belongs in the threads which are made for this kind of topics, they can't be done there if the threads are locked, without caring if a discussion evolves or not.

The point is we have some guidelines when to rename a trope: unclear, character named, bad snowclone, misuse, disuse, unnecessarily subjective, same title as a work of fiction, line of dialogue or a Stock Phrase, trope as placeholder, acronym.

And we have reasons against renames: large number of inbound links, established term, no misuse,

It is possible that a trope name has points in favor of a rename, and points against, which ones is stronger has to be decided individually for each trope.

If someone opens a discussion and points out that a trope showes several pro rename points: unclear, same title as a work of fiction and acronym then there should be room to discuss if the pro-rename points are enough to justify the change of many maybe not misused wicks.

edited 13th Feb '12 6:23:26 AM by Osmium

The problem is that many other people in that thread disagreed with the OP, and the OP even said "IMO," which is by nature subjective. He wasn't able (or willing maybe) to make his statements objective for the rest of us. When it's a trope like BFG, there's really no need to discuss further. No evidence of misuse, "unclear" is subjective, done.

Some people agreed with the OP, and they were not that much less than the people who disagreed, bad argument.

And the OP brought objective arguments:

• Named after a something in a specific work.
• Named like some unrelated works
• acronym

This are points on the reasons to rename list. This are points making a trope name objective bad. They can be counterd by the fact that there is no misuse (nobody botherd to check if their claim that the trope is not misused is true ) and a healthy number of use (true for BFG). In this cases there has to be a discussion if the name is bad enough to justify the work necessary for a rename. Again that is something which should be done individually for each trope brought up in TRS.

And just saying IMO once during a discussion (not in the OP, just in the following discussion) is not making the whole discussing useless.

I'm not arguing BFG as a trope name with you in this thread. Send a PM if you want to continue the discussion. Otherwise, we can get back on topic.

I am not arguing because of the name , I am talking about the procedure.

The problem I see is: The OP opend a thread pointing out a trope name failing on three points of the reasons to rename list. Then the thread is closed with the reasoning that the OP fails to give a objective reason why this trope name is broken.

If we have a when to rename list several items long, but in the end the only item which is really important is the misuse point, I have to wonder why we have this list at all?

What you're seeing here is why there will always be problems with any kind of collaborative effort like TRS.

Some people don't understand the word "no".

The TRS thread was closed, so the argument moves here. When this thread is either closed (or the users told to stop arguing), they'll go to Trope Talk. Or the Discussion page. Or open a new TRS thread. It's forum shopping - The Other Wiki fights the problem all the time, too.

There needs to be some understanding that (and forgive me for somewhat trivializing this phrase) that "no means no". And, perhaps, a mechanism that provides links from a page to previous TRS efforts, to avoid duplication.

Otherwise, TRS will never truly clear the backlog, because there will people beating dead horses over, and over, and over...

I'd wager that one of the reasons BFG was not renamed to Big Freakin Gun is that "Freakin'" is a Bowdlerization of the original word, which as far as the wiki is concerned would be even worse than the original term being a well-known profanity.

Do not keep discussing BFG in this thread or any other. That discussion is closed.

Re: The previous page and offensive trope titles: Badass Lolita was renamed on the grounds it was an offensive title. If a title makes a page potentially unsafe for Google, and thus the site's primary revenue source, then a rename should be considered.

I don't think "offensive title" by itself is usually enough for a rename, but it should be considered on a case by case basis rather than simply disallowing it as an argument.

That's an unavoidable problem with an open process, I'm afraid. As long as anyone can propose a rename of any trope, people can keep sending something through until they get the answer they want.

edited 13th Feb '12 10:26:11 AM by HersheleOstropoler

^ I keep seeing that accusation, but I don't see the evidence to back it up. Very, very rarely does the same person return the same trope to the TRS, and when they do it's usually because the trope is right back to being broken again.

It doesn't have to be the same person, just the same faction. I mean it would be too obvious if it was always the same troper on the same subject...

And that's just getting into conspiracy land. There are no organized factions or conspiracies behind the scenes. Promise.

To play Devil's Advocate, I think the problem is like-minded tropers who share the same distaste or objection to a particular trope.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy.