When To Rename A Trope

What's the yardstick? I'm pretty sure we don't have one. How do we tell the difference? I think we pretty much make educated guesses. If the title is narrow or misleading or otherwise nonindicative, it's fair to guess that a rename is a possible solution.

It used to be we could use the Wick page, but that's not been updated in quite some time, so...

Which is understandable, but it's not like we change them back if the inbounds don't go up.

If a page name is a Verbal Tic bait (like No. Just... No) and used as a part of a sentence instead of where trope is actually used, then is it another reason to rename a trope or a page?

There seems to be an evolving guideline that names shouldn't be at all allusive or metaphorical. If this isn't the case it would be nice if it were on the record; otherwise it should be made overt so it can be discussed and some consensus can be reached.

Where did you get that idea?

We have some guidelines for Trope Namers, like the One Mario Limit and such, but there's nothing inherently wrong with making an allusion in the title. And metaphors have always been okay.

edited 11th Mar '11 12:03:12 PM by troacctid

Except when they're misleading metaphors.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

With yet another Trope Of Legend TRS (The Worf Effect) turning into a "show misuse or GTFO" vs. "the name is bad, usage is irrelevant" argument, can we get an actual ruling on this? Everything You Wanted To Know About Changing Names lists "it ain't broke" as the first reason not to rename, but judging by the recent discussions over Nakama, The Mario and the like, that's not being treated as a settled issue in practice. Do we have any alternatives other than fighting the same battle every friggin' week?

The guidelines page is seriously flawed. I won't deny that. It was written by one person, who was trying very hard to bend the renaming policy to his personal agenda, and has never been cleaned up.

I would suggest that we discuss here and make a running Sandbox.Renaming Guidelines page to work on what the guidelines are and should be.

I'd suggest that one of the guidelines should be "if the title does not contain a word indicative of the trope, it's a bad title."

I was under the impression that the Renaming Guidelines page was made by mods, but I guess not. Well, at least that's finally an explanation for why half of them ignore the page.

Triple Elation started up a Sandbox/TropeRenamingGuidelines page back in December. It looks pretty good, I don't know why he never did anything with it. Maybe that would be a good basis?

Oh, and once we get a page everyone agrees on, don't forget to lock it. I don't think the old one was ever vandalized or anything, but still, it seems like a no-brainer.

edited 12th Aug '11 12:21:02 PM by Discar

That sandbox is an excellent place to start.

I've never understood why inbounds and wicks were considered absolute proof that a title is good. I mean, can't a page succeed despite having a crappy title?

I'm bringing this up because the sandbox page still seems to rely pretty heavily on inbounds and wicks.

edited 12th Aug '11 12:40:36 PM by INUH

Inbounds and wicks are objective evidence. The wicks are either correct or they aren't. The inbounds indicate how much use the name is getting off-site.

How strong or weak they are as evidence depends on how correct or wrong they are (in the case of wicks)and how high or low they are (in the case of inbounds).

A page can succeed wildly with what looks like a crappy title. But if the page is succeeding, something about the title is working, despite the fact that all our heuristics say it shouldn't.

edited 12th Aug '11 12:57:44 PM by Madrugada

And they're one of the few Objective ways that we have of figuring out what does and doesn't work. Sometimes titles that seem like they are Exactly What It Says on the Tin fail to catch on or be used correctly.

Just to complicate matters, inbounds and wicks have to be compared against what one might expect the trope to have. For a recently created, rare trope, few inbounds and wicks probably doesn't indicate a problem. For a common, well-established trope, lots and lots of inbounds and wicks may exist and the trope may still be under-performing.

This puts a whole lot of subjectivity into interpreting the data.

(This is not an agreement or disagreement with anything said earlier; merely an observation.)

There's also the problem of determining whether the inbounds are actually healthy - e.g. how much of them are not from sites that are using the trope name as an "example" of the site's worthlessness.

The Sandbox version is very good, I think.

I also like the sandbox version a lot better.

I believe Please Prove Misuse is supposed to be a link to a page that gives instructions on how to check wicks.

Shouldn't it be a simple majority to rename?