When To Rename A Trope

Or it could be indicative, quoth Eddie, of a "circle-jerk in progress". It's a volatile issue. Certainly I'm not against making it clear that lack of misuse is an argument in favor of keeping.

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Well, for one, we need to point out the difference between a "good" name and a "functioning" name. We want a functioning name. A good name has a better chance of functioning, hence their preference.

Fight smart, not fair.

I thought we already changed it so that lack of misuse was merely a good reason not to rename a trope, rather than automatic no rename?

That being said, I really think making wick checks mandatory any time they're relevant would be a very good idea. Misuse isn't the only reason to rename, sure, but either way it falls is a good argument for one side.

Take for example, the recent TRS for The Jor-El. It's 4 pages long and not done yet. The trope is misused, underused, and while the name technically isn't the problem, its certainly not helping. If someone had published a wick check in the first couple posts, it would have been renamed in under a page.

I doubt that. I find that often when someone posts a wick check, the thread degenerates into disputing the wick check and/or meta-arguments about what percentage of abuse is "required" to rename.

As Triple said, 'maybe we can put a line above the arguments which says, "we used to have a phase where pro-rename arguments were automatically invalid without proof of misuse. We're not doing that anymore."' I think that's a good idea. It's perfectly fine if people ask for an abuse report; it's not fine if people state that such reports are mandatory for any rename. And yes, we have a handful of people who persistently do that in TRS, and that is contributing to its low throughput.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

No, I don't think it's a good idea to discourage or devalue checking wicks. It's an important criterion to consider.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

The point is not to discourage wick checking, but to discourage the claim that renames are not to be done unless there's misuse.

This is something that I would like to hear more people's opinions about.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Again: It was agreed that no misuse does not mean automatic no rename. However, misuse is a good reason to rename a trope and lack of it is a good reason not to. We put that on the sandbox. And since wick checks are extremely useful in getting good, hard numbers for exactly how a trope is being used/misused, it would be wonderful to see more of them.

Yes, wick checks are difficult. But so is renaming a trope (and I don't mean the part in TRS, I mean the actual legwork). I'm of the opinion that if no one cares enough to grab fifty random wicks and publish them, then no one cares enough to rename the trope.

Has anyone ever actually claimed that ? I don't think I've ever seen it.

edited 16th Oct '11 6:03:43 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Before it became clear that the original When To Rename A Trope page was written by one or two people without mod consent or even popular consensus, yeah, it was. Now, however, not really.

Putting something in the guidelines is not going to make TRS conflict go away. Wick/inbound checks will be done, not done, demanded, rejected, declared necessary, declared worthless, and so on and so on, because the rules of the game allow for it and people do their best to be convincing. So they'll try to keep the discussion away from their position's weak points and steer it towards their position's strong points. That's just the way it works.

The idea was to make the guidelines stop describing an imaginary TRS which actually didn't work that way at all, and start describing actual process. If we really need a paragraph on the whole misuse thing, fine, I'll add it, but it's going to describe how things are, not tell people how things should be.

edited 16th Oct '11 8:12:01 PM by TripleElation

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Eh...I honestly don't think they're all that divisive. Everyone agrees that misuse is a good reason to rename a trope. Everyone agrees that absence of misuse is a good argument against renaming a trope. Nobody believes it is the only factor to consider. Where's the controversy? :|

Clarifying something...Word Salad Title, character-named, and work-dependent are all subsets of "Unclear", right? Is there a reason why they shouldn't be grouped together somehow? I moved them together but TE just separated em again. I'm worried that if they're apart, it frames them as, like, "This is character-named, work-dependent, and unclear, so that's three strikes right there," when it's really all the same strike, said three different ways.

edited 17th Oct '11 1:11:54 AM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Huh. I didn't see the three "strikes" merged at any point; if anything, I believe the "pro rename" section is a bit too long so the edit you're describing was a good idea. I'll go look for your edit and restore it if I find it.

What's controversial is not the "misuse = no rename" thing, though I hear it still gets brought up. It's whether wick checks should be mandatory in all cases, or discouraged in some cases, or neither.

EDIT: Yes, I see now that my edit undid yours. Somehow. Even though I did not actually do that. How does that happen?

edited 17th Oct '11 2:03:02 AM by TripleElation

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

I think that's a very good idea. The primary purpose of the thread is to inform new users of how things actually are in TRS, so that they don't just jump in based on incorrect assumptions.

Also, I disagree that "unclear names" is the same thing as "character-named tropes". The latter is a common practice that is being discontinued on grounds of Fan Myopia, and leads to questions like whether there are other characters with that name (One Mario Limit) and whether the character is mainly known for the trope or for other traits. None of that is relevant to unclear names, and character-named debates are pretty common, so it should retain its own bullet point.

edited 17th Oct '11 4:42:55 AM by Spark9

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Well, at this point I don't really care one way or the other. An argument stays the same argument, no matter how many bullet points it covers. Just sort it out and let's get to the rest of the things we need to do before the page gets re-locked (I presume, and hope, that it does).

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

To those who are wondering about how often the "no misuse equals no rename" fillibustering happens: [1]

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I've gotten rid of the sub-bullets again; a simple list is clearer than a multi-level list. That said, I do agree that the list of reasons-to-rename is too long and verbose; I've made an attempt at shortening it a bit, but it could use some more. For example, the paragraph on placeholder words is clear and concise, and the paragraph on tropes named after a work is really not.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Character-named tropes are bad because they're unclear. If they weren't opaque, they wouldn't be a problem, no?

Both examples of the absence of misuse being used as an argument against renaming.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Fundamentally, every reason to rename on that page boils down to "it's unclear". But sub-bullets aren't particularly clear either.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Is that article at a point where it can be locked? Because I don't want to promote or encourage an Orwellian Editor type of Rules Lawyering where people actively change the rules that they don't like.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Good point. If people are ok with it, I'd like to reduce the verbosity a bit more.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Hm, I think we generally still run renames on tropes that are fresh out of YKTTW if we think the title is sufficiently unclear that it will result in misuse. Nipping it in the bud. If it's fresh out (and not a complete mess) it generally has little misuse.

Fight smart, not fair.

I think it's fine now. I propose this should get locked this weekend. IMO A few more days is enough for any last minute edits and objections.

When it gets locked there should probably be some sort of announcement. I don't know what kind, though - it looks like we're staying away from forum stickies.

edited 20th Oct '11 12:41:15 AM by TripleElation

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Apparently, there's at least one moderator who thinks "no abuse means no rename" is policy.

So anyway, based on a recent thread I thought about adding "acronymic titles" as a reason to suggest a rename; I believe that most people prefer them spelled out. For example, PWP and its TRS debate.

edited 20th Oct '11 2:30:28 AM by Spark9

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

You're reading too much into that. The trope has >25K inbounds, which is spectacular. We don't change tropes like that lightly, and we certainly aren't going to throw up a crowner on a 1-month-stale thread about an incredibly popular trope when the sides haven't even bothered to make complete arguments. It doesn't matter that no misuses was shown—it matters that nothing was shown with regards to on-wiki use (which thereby hints towards off-wiki use). Is the trope underused? Overused? Misused? Disproportionately used for the Trope Namer? Collecting shoehorned examples that belong on a broader trope? If it's misused, is that misuse consistent or mostly random? How does the use in wicks compare to the examples on the trope itself? Different combinations of answers point towards different solutions. If we run a crowner before we have such information, we'll collect many*

uninformed votes that would have gone in a different direction had the full data been presented. What you were trying to do was rush the crowner ("rush" being relative to the data and arguments presented, not the amount of time since the thread has been opened).

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Okay, that's a good point. Sorry about that.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!