Needs Help: Shaggy Search Technique

This suffers the problem of Trope Namer Syndrome. I've asked about it in ATT previously.

134 wicks

410 inbounds.

Currently has Luck-Based Search Technique as a redirect.

Opening and bumping.

Since it already has a redirect, a full on rename would be the easiest right?

Probably.

Wick check would be nice.

Does the "you have to prove the misuse before a rename can be considered" rule not apply to pages with Trope Namer Syndrome?

The ATT thread linked in the OP doesn't mention Parodies for Dummies being misused as "Tropes For Dummies".

Everything You Wanted to Know About Changing Names says unclear names and character-based names (the latter is listed as a subset of the former) are good reasons for a rename on their own, but unlike "Trope" being used as a placeholder, wick checks and inbound checks are mentioned for cases of unclear names.

However, disuse (Not Thriving in TRS terminology) is also listed as a reason without wick checks being listed as necessary. The page doesn't specify how many wicks/inbounds would be too many to consider disuse, so I don't know whether the wick count and inbound count mentioned in the OP are low enough.

If it matters, my previous post was referring to how swapping the current name and the redirect would be an easy way to rename if a rename occurs, with this being how Altum Videtur was renamed to Gratuitous Latin. With the rename from Tropes For Dummies to Parodies for Dummies, a mod had to move the page because the only existing redirect was For Dummies, which was less clear because it was often mistaken for a work page, and ended up getting cut.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 16th 2019 at 6:52:07 AM

I deleted a couple more wicks to For Dummies, and while I can't easily find them without scanning through every wick to Parodies for Dummies, I can't remember if those wicks were also referring to the book series. It's conducive to that misuse either way.

I'm in favor of the rename, by the way.

Are 423 inbounds considered a large number? I am asking because this would be one argument for or against a rename.

Edited by eroock on Apr 18th 2019 at 2:23:37 AM

I wouldn't think so. Plus we could keep it as a redirect.

I don't see why inbound links are much of an issue, since the original name can just redirect to the new page.

^ It's not a concern about losing inbounds. Everything You Wanted to Know About Changing Names mentions under "Good arguments for changing an existing name to a new name" that a low inbound rate could be used as an argument for a rename. But since the article fails to mention a reference number I am asking the question here.

I typically consider inbounds under 1000 to be small, but that's my own preference; I don't know if there's an official number.

I don't think being named after Shaggy is a problem, as it's not being mis- or underused, but if you insist on renaming, Luck-Based Search Technique would work fine.

Crowner for a renaming?

The crowner's been up for a month, and it's mostly in favor of renaming. Is it safe to call, or does it need more votes?

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 28th 2019 at 12:20:56 PM

I don't see any alt title suggestions besides Luck-Based Search Technique.

If we have no other options, maybe we can use that.

Anyone else want to pitch in?

Without any other suggestions, we can just swap the redirect and call it a day.

I'm fine with swapping the current name with the redirect.

Same here. Not helping is that Shaggy fails the One Mario Limit in my mind, since there is both the Scooby-Doo character Shaggy and the musician Shaggy who sang "It Wasn't Me". Implausible Deniability at 0.01% of its power at its finest.