Jut to clarify, then—please correct me if I'm wrong!—

• There is consensus that the current page is for the trope "send your subordinate on a mission in order to get him killed." (NOT just: "send him on a mission where you expect him to die" and/or "send him on a mission with contemptuous disregard for his chances of survival"—as catbert says, it's for the specific case where your primary objective is to get that subordinate killed.)
• There is consensus that the trope does not require any specific reason why you want him dead—e.g. "I want his chick" (David & Uriah), "she's getting too inquisitive" (Prof. Walsh & Buffy), "I can't stand the way he chews gum", are all valid examples.
• There is disagreement about whether the trope should be renamed. Arguments for renaming it include:
  • The David & Uriah story was specifically about "kill him to get his girl," so using that name implies that the trope is specifically about that.
  • Ordinarily, you name a trope for the person who did the thing, not the person it was done to. (Though nobody is suggesting renaming to "The David Gambit", which would be a very confusing name IMO.)
• There is disagreement about whether to split off sub-tropes by motive.

Is that a fair summary?

If so, my 'umble suggestion would be:

First, vote on whether it even needs a rename. Second, if there's a consensus to rename, vote on what the new name would be. Third, whether or not there's a rename—I'd suggest that the split-off-subtropes discussion be taken over to YKTTW. Though that might as well wait until after we finish deciding about the rename. (Especially because if we rename, then we might want to use the name Uriah Gambit for the kill-to-get-his-girl subtrope.)

I think that's about right.

Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.

BTW, this may be a digression, but it's far from clear that even the Trope Namer (David and Uriah) is a case of "kill him in order to get his girl". David already had Uriah's girl, as often as he wanted her. The problem was that she was pregnant. David's main concern was to cover up the scandal, which is why his first response (2 sam 11:5-13) was to try to arrange for Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba so he wouldn't suspect the child wasn't his. (And plan 1a: Get Uriah drunk so then he'd sleep with his wife.) It's only after that plan fell through that David decided to have Uriah killed.

So David & Uriah is a case of "kill underling to cover up a crime", not "kill underling to steal his girl". Which doesn't matter right now, since I think we agree the trope doesn't require a specific motive—but if we break off subtropes, that would be a reason not to name the "steal the girl" trope after Uriah.

edited 3rd Apr '12 4:58:50 PM by Narsil

Yes. It is also worth pointing out that Uriah fails the One Mario Limit (i.e. there is a multitude of unrelated characters and famous people that are also named Uriah, and there is no reason to suppose people will know which one is referred to).

Point is, the bible case has a specific motive, and the trope doesn't require that; so the trope is much broader than the current name.

edited 3rd Apr '12 1:24:52 PM by Spark9

Yes, there is - the lack of evidence that it's being misused or underused.

The problem of failing the One Mario Limit is still something that needs evidence in a wick check.

edited 3rd Apr '12 1:28:28 PM by SeptimusHeap

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Whether you like it or not, failing the One Mario Limit is a valid argument against the name.

We just had to have a discussion to figure out what the trope is about, so I think it does need some work.

edited 3rd Apr '12 1:27:04 PM by lebrel

Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.

Yes, we need some work here to find which are the correct defintions to choose.

I am still against a rename as I can't see evidence of the name causing problems by itself.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

It seems to me that Spark9 and Septimus Heap are both right.

Spark9 is right that One Mario Limit is an argument against the name The Uriah Gambit, in that there are other people named Uriah in the bible and out of it.(*)

Septimus Heap is right that if the name isn't causing confusion, then we don't need to rename the trope.

I don't think we need to decide right now which argument should carry more weight. It seems to me that now is when we raise the various arguments on both sides, and when we vote on whether to rename, each troper can decide which side is stronger.

(*) Though IMO, the Uriah of David's story (Uriah the Hittite) is by far the most famous one in the Bible; the others seem fairly anonymous. If you went up to someone who knew the Bible at all, and said "Tell me about Uriah", I'd be very surprised if they talked about any of the others. The only other Uriahs (Uriot?) of comparable fame are the "Uriah Heep" of David Copperfield, and the British band named after him.

edited 3rd Apr '12 1:34:59 PM by Narsil

What Septimus means is that claiming that the name is ambiguous is not enough now. You must do a wick check or similar to show that the name is ambiguous and is causing problems.

I'm starting a wick check now to just see how it's being used.

edited 3rd Apr '12 1:48:30 PM by Oreochan

"Learning without thinking is labor lost. Thinking without learning is dangerous."

One Mario Limit doesn't mean that their is only one person ever in the world with a particular name. If that were the case, even Mario would not qualify.

As for spliting off subtropes by specific motive, I don't think that is really necessary because most of the potential motives are already covered by other tropes.

For example, in a case of of "Kill the guy because he's a rival love interest" you would simply list this trope plus Murder the Hypotenuse.

No, it fits none of the criteria on the When To Rename A Trope page—the page itself is very clear that "character-named" and "unclear" are only relevant when backed up by evidence, of which there is none—and a cursory skim reveals that the examples on the page itself are overwhelmingly correct, unless you're going to count "has a poorly-written Example as a Thesis" as misuse.

There is no evidence to support a rename and it is inappropriate to turn this into a stealth rename thread. If the confusion about the definition is settled and there's no misuse, let's change the description and move on.

edited 3rd Apr '12 2:04:51 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

I would also like to fix the description issues first. Those are more important than the name in this case.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

Okay, I wasn't clear here. What I said wasn't quite what I meant. Let me try again, with more details, to get across my message.

Let's say that Private Alice has a really nice beachfront house. General Bob wants said house. In order to make sure it gets into a position so that Bob can take Alice's house, he sends Alice on a mission that is sure to get her killed.

Essentially the same scenario, but with a house instead of a love interest involved. Is that this trope, or is it a closely related one?

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

32 Footsteps: Yes, the trope would apply to that situation. The consensus seems to be that this trope applies to all situations where superior A sends subordinate B on a mission with the intent of B being killed. The trope applies whatever A's motive might be.

The most common motives, in my rectally-derived estimate, seem to be (in no particular order): A wants B's lover; B knows (or is in danger of learning) something A doesn't want him to know; and, A just hates B's guts. But any number of other motives could apply, including (as you suggest) A wants to get his hands on something B owns.

@37:

But misuse is generally measured by examples of it being linked from other pages, because that's where most of the misuse happens.

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

Well Oreochan said she was already starting a wick check so I didn't want to step on her toes.

But it seems unlikely that there will be misuse because really, what would people be confusing it for?

I think the best plan here is just to tweak the description and move on.

edited 5th Apr '12 11:43:07 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Sorry for the wait. I'm doing them right now. 80 wicks out of 251. I will be checking them and organizing them as I go.

Also, Spark please at least do some more homework on the trope before you claim ambiguous name or start a TRS by doing a wick check beforehand or something like that. Saying it could be used in different ways than what it means is different from proving just what it's used on this wiki. Other tropers should not be burdened to do these things for you.

I personally think that a split is unnecessary since these different uses all point to same trope being used and they are not substantial enough to stand on their own two feet. The only thing we probably need to make the description more general that's all. I think Career Killers sums up the trope best; "A character is deliberately given a particularly dangerous reassignment in hopes they won't come back."

---

Wick Check

Guy sends one of his comrades on a mission to die, so he can get or exploit his girl

• …And That Little Girl Was Me
• Avalon High
• Comforting the Widow
• Cyrano De Bergerac
• People From Notable Cases
• The Men First
• Flirty Stepsiblings
• Get Thee to a Nunnery
• If I Can't Have You…
• Naked First Impression
• Royally Screwed Up: Refers to the biblical example.
• Prince Roger: Subverted.
• Sibling Triangle
• Murder the Hypotenuse
• Outdoor Bath Peeping: How David fall in love with Bathsheba.
• Redshirt Reporter: A caption

Guy sends one of his comrades on a mission to die, so he can just simply get rid of him.

• Alphas
• Dirty Cop
• Career Killers
• Electrified Bathtub: Buffy is given a malfunctioning Initiative taser from Prof.Walsh so she can die in a pool. but she throws it in the water in which a demon is standing on.
  • Comment: It's this trope defied.
• Groo The Wanderer
• Jolly Rover
• Good Old Ways
• Interservice Rivalry
• La Femme Nikita
• Liberal Crime Squad
• The Lost Fleet
• Murder Is the Best Solution: Listed as related.
• No More Emperors
• Offing the Offspring
• Please Shoot the Messenger
• Promoted to Scapegoat
• Revenge Of The Sith
• Scattered Remains
• Single-Stroke Battle: Pothole: Says that a character was sent to the wilderness in hopes that the bandits will finish him off.
• Snipe Hunt
• Suicide Mission

Guy sends one of his comrades on a mission to die, so he can be granted power or similar by a higher authority to get some reward.

Guy sends one of his comrades on a mission to die, for none of the reasons above

Zero Context Examples or Unclear

• Personality Conflicts
• Horus Heresy
• Necessarily Evil
• Father Brown

Misused examples

edited 6th Apr '12 1:04:49 PM by Oreochan

"Learning without thinking is labor lost. Thinking without learning is dangerous."

Thread Hop, though I at least skimmed the first page.

The elements of the original story, it seems to me*

:

1. David, the king/commander-in-chief, impregnates the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah.
2. Not being That Kind of King, he needs to deal with this in some way.
3. He has Uriah furloughed, and encourages him to take to the marital bed.
4. Uriah declines.
5. David sends Uriah back to the front.
6. To get rid of Uriah, David gives him a letter ordering the general to put him somewhere where he'll be killed.

Now, the original story happened at most once (depending on how much historicity you ascribe to 1 and 2 Samuel). So the questions here are:

• What elements make this a trope?
  • Looked at another way, what elements need to be removed (aside from the names) for this not to be Too Rare To Trope?
• Which elements are necessary for it to be a Uriah Gambit? Which elements justify this story specifically being the Trope Namer?

My opinion is that "leader deliberately sends subordinate into danger, where the subordinate isn't intended to know this*

, in order to get rid of the subordinate" is a trope, but to be named for Uriah, "...in order for the subordinates partner to be 'on the market'" is also needed.

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

The Uriah Gambit is still the answer to the question, "What was David's plan for getting rid of Uriah?" without the need for the romance clause.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Without the romance clause the trope is much broader than that name

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

I don't think so. It's still the trope that David used to get rid of Uriah.

If it were Uriah Plot, it would have to include the romance. But I don't think the "gambit" should restrict itself that way. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be causing confusion.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Hershele Ostropoler writes: but to be named for Uriah, "...in order for the subordinates partner to be 'on the market'" is also needed.

Two thoughts:

1. I think "Uriah Gambit" is appropriate even in no particular motive is part of the trope. If the trope is just "send a subordinate off to die", David and Uriah is still one of the most famous examples.

2. If we say a motive is necessary, it's far from clear that David's motive is "to put Uriah's girl on the market". After all, David's first approach was to try to trick Uriah into sleeping with Bathsheba so nobody would know about the adultery. It seems to me that David's motive is to prevent a scandal, not to get a girl (or the more general case, "kill an underling because he knows, or might learn, too much").

I think motive is required. After all, what if a leader sends a subordinate to perform a suicide mission to win a war? If motive isn't involved, it is this trope - even if the commander didn't want to send the subordinate.

I think, upon analysis, that personal motives are mandatory for this trope.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

I think motive is certainly important, and since different motives give this a different impact on the story, they may end up being different tropes.