Initialism, and the name of an unrelated work.: BFG

I know some of us don't like to admit initialisms are bad trope names, but BFG is an initialism could easily be expanded to avoid confusion with the Roald Dahl book The BFG (which needs namespacing, but that's not the point.) Big Freaking Gun works as a new name, while also avoiding the F-bomb problem mentioned in Everything You Wanted To Know About Changing Names.

The new policy says that I need evidence of something being broken. Having the same name as an unrelated work in which the letters stand for something else, plus being an initialism, may lead to erroneous links in the future, if there isn't already misuse.

If you do keep this thread (which is very unlikely) apply the same solution to BFS as you do to this. I understand your thoughts if you decide to not keep this for lack of misuse.

Big Freaking Gun is a better name.

It's also a common initialism for Warhammer 40000's Battlefleet Gothic game. Definitely should be renamed to something else, like Big Freaking Gun.

The Renaming Guidelines have "unclear" as a good reason for a rename, you know.

edited 12th Feb '12 4:41:11 PM by MarqFJA

For the record, this trope is used on 2222 pages and has brought us over 1000 inbounds. It is also a pre-existing term.

The attempt to rename BFS for the same reason didn't exactly go too well. Please demonstrate confusion with the book title or other evidence of misuse.

edited 12th Feb '12 4:45:21 PM by Catbert

It's also not clear at all, which violates the "Clear first, Concise second, Witty third" principle that we're supposed to apply for trope names.

As an above poster said, "unclear" is a reason to rename. While there are little or no erroneous links, there are two works mentioned thus far with those initials.

Not gonna happen. Pretty much for all the reasons Shima just outlined.

I've read The BFG and I also have the minimum level of cognitive ability needed to differentiate the two based on context or the lack of the definite article. I believe most others can do the same.

But unclear must be proven. When it seems that this is one of the most consistently used and most recognized at a glance tropes on the site, clarity is apparent. In practice, no one is finding the name unclear and no one has actually cited any evidence that it actually is.

There is no evidence of this trope or name being broken or unclear. If there continues to be the same lack of proof by the end of the page I shall nuke this in accordance with the new policies.

edited 12th Feb '12 4:55:17 PM by shimaspawn

In your OP you said "it's unclear" while invoking the new rule that you're breaking at the same time. "It's unclear" is subjective. Make it objective for the rest of us.

Just for the record, "BFG" is a pre-existing term for OTHER things as well.

Understanding what the name "BFG" means requires prior familiarity with Doom, the Trope Namer. Not everyone is into action video games, let alone first person shooters.

Or, alternatively, that the term's complete obscurity for anyone not familiar with the Trope Namer forced anyone that came across it to click the link and see what the heck it means.

edited 12th Feb '12 5:07:07 PM by MarqFJA

I generally disagree with all of that, I've never played Doom, and you're still not showing evidence of misuse.

You need to be familiar with the Trope Namer, which means that IMO it's unclear.

Exactly, in your opinion. Subjective.

I started to do a wick check, and on the first four pages I looked at, there were a total of ten wicks, all of them correct. There's conceivably potential for confusion but the page has been around for years and I don't think anyone's made the mistake alluded to.

Would anyone be opposed to calling upon the assistance of Special Efforts to do a wick check of BFG's 2000+ wicks?

Too small of a sample. IIRC unofficial standard procedure is to check around either 50 pages or 10% of the total number of wicks, whichever is larger.

edited 12th Feb '12 5:19:35 PM by MarqFJA

That's not what special efforts is for. It is now the job of the OP to do this check before things go into the forums. If you think there's a problem, prove it. It doesn't look like you're interested in proving it.

I got a list of 50 numbers, but had to manually count down the list, which is tedious.

"I think it's unclear" is not a reason to rename. "It's unclear" is. Please make a good case, possibly involving evidence.

edited 12th Feb '12 5:42:02 PM by rodneyAnonymous

This is one of those no damage deals. Everything about its use is healthy. No issue.