Three StepsWhile I agree that the current name doesn't meet our standards and is generally terrible, as far as I know the trope is perfectly healthy. This may be a Grandfather Clause issue.
Gentleman Troper!Well, if so many people claim that the name is terrible, I suggest holding a crowner to find out consensus. Swapping this with an existing redirect should be less big of a deal than picking a new name from scratch, anyway.
Special trousers. Very heroic.
I think grandfathering should only apply when it's an entrenched term. This really isn't.
The first thing that needs to be done is to prove that the trope name isn't working and prove misuse. As the trope name is currently attracting inbounds well as well as new wicks, it seems to be working. Unless someone proves misuse, this thread will be locked in accordance with TRS rules.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Where in the TRS rules does it say that? The stickied thread in this forum only mentions misuse when it is the topic of the thread. The most on whether a misuse check is necessary for a rename is Everything You Wanted to Know About Changing Names, and that says that it is an opinion of users and not a rule.
Puʻu ʻŌʻōIt was me who more or less drafted the current sticky text, but it was implemented in a different way than I envisaged - wich may be a problem. Anyhow, "The name isn't working" has always been the standard for a rename. It has 1800+ inbounds, and even with @15 there is @7 and @25.
Gentleman Troper!Yes, but "it isn't working" is something that people have different standards for, so in practice the standard for renaming has usually been "it gets enough votes in a crowner to do so". There is clearly precedent for renaming tropes like this. This is also because, by its own admission, Tvtropes is not supposed to be a formal and rules-bound site. Now it's clear from the thread that several people will vote against a rename, but it's not a priori clear if that's just two or three people or a sizeable amount. So that's what crowners are for, to find out. I strongly object to the principle of "well, the crowner will possibly/probably fail so let's not have one".
Special trousers. Very heroic.
With Mod Hat OnWhile "It isn't working" isn't entirely objective, there is objective evidence that can be presented to support the claim that "It isn't working". Evidence of misuse or confusion over what the trope is, in the form of a wick check is some of that supporting evidence. Since Shima asked for a wick check 9 days ago, and no one has bothered to do one yet, instead choosing to argue over what constitutes "Isn't working", I'm going to lock this thread as non-productive.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 33
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.