It is an opinion in that it is why that person feels a trope should not be renamed.
Simply stating an article has a good inbound count, for example, does not immediately end the discussion. It is simply giving a reason to keep things as they are. Others can disagree with that reason, and if enough do the article will still be renamed.
Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!No, it would only be a statement of the standing principles that are generally followed when renaming things.
If a statement about the renaming guidelines is compounded with another personal remark, such as, "...and I believe this page meets our criteria for a rename," then that would be a personal opinion.
A mere observation of how things typically get done around here is NOT an opinion.
![]()
Yes, but that's an uphill battle.
And heck, try saying that to the crowd who insists TRS is biases against renames. Point is, if those criterias aren't present, to get a majority of users to agree, you need very good arguments. Examples of other arguments:
- The Trope Namer is not an example of the trope. (For example, it was shown that Moriarty was not an accurate example of The Moriarty)
- Named after a work that has a page *
- The trope name makes no sense even if you know the source material (There was one called mysterious pond lady or whatever that was like this)
edited 22nd Dec '10 10:53:03 AM by Ghilz
If a statement about the renaming guidelines is compounded with another personal remark, such as, "...and I believe this page meets our criteria for a rename, " then that would be a personal opinion.
A mere observation of how things typically get done around here is NOT an opinion.
I'll grant you that, however the vast majority of the time someone cites those guidelines, it is in conjunction with their opinion either for or against the proposal at hand.
Which it should be, in my opinion, given that the default assumption is to take no action unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. If there is evidence that an action should not be taken, it is up to those in favor of it to convince enough people to agree with them.
edited 22nd Dec '10 10:55:09 AM by Meeble
Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!^^And both of those criteria are extremely flexible. For one, we actually keep an index on pages where trope namers aren't actually examples (though some are more suitable than others), and there are several exceptions made for tropes sharing names with work; namely, if the trope name predates the work in question, (like Cliffhanger) or if the name is particularly broad (like Man on Fire).
Naturally. But what's your point?
edited 22nd Dec '10 10:57:14 AM by SeanMurrayI
![]()
Well duh. If the people have no opinion on the debate, they aren't gonna take part in it to begin with. So they sure as hell arent going to randomly enter threads, list guidelines, and leave.
And that is only partially true. I've seen people multiple time cite the guideline simple because the OP who brought up the rename proposal failed to address them. (Rename X. The OP gives no real reason why). Heck, I've done it myself. Citing the guidelines so I can be given enough info to make an opinion is no crime.
That they are, and I am not saying it should not be this way either. I am just citing why it's an uphill battle.
edited 22nd Dec '10 10:57:10 AM by Ghilz
Well, yes, but do you really expect someone to advance an argument that hurts their case? It goes the other way, too — people who are opposed to a rename shout "Prove misuse!!!"
We don't have any hard and fast "In this case, this action MUST be taken without exception" rules. What we have are guidelines and criteria that have proved in the past to work fairly well for determining whether a name is broken or not. It's not required that all of the criteria be met, but it is required that there be a reason other than "I like this new name better", or "The old name is boring", or "I think it should be named after this character in a show I like".
The thing to remember is that we are building this wiki — but we aren't the only people who read it and use it. We wouldn't get 400,000 individual inbounds and between a quarter and half-a million page views nearly every a day if there were only 7500 (the number of contributors who have a Contributors Page) people reading it. Not even if there were double that number, or triple, or quadruple it of contributors who don't have a page. Do the math: if there are four times as many regular contributors as have pages, that means 30,000 Tropers. Each one closing and reopening the site 10 times a day is still nearly 100,000 fewer inbounds than we get. Look at the Inbound Counts page — look at how many inbound links come from Stumbleupon (456 so far today), or Reddit (656 today so far) or Fark or Twitter or Deviant Art or the GitP or Darths and Droids or xkcd forums, or i09. Hell, we get inbounds from Wikipedia, and SA and ED.
Renames are not done lightly, because there are people other than the active contributors to consider.
So, we seem to have rolled around from the OP complaining about stuff being renamed too much to the concern that it's really hard to get a rename through. Which is the typical direction these discussions take (it's not like we haven't had them before). So what, exactly, is the point of rehashing it for the umpteenth time. Do we need a sticky or something? "Why TRS Exists and What To Do If You Don't Like It"
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Was the OP actually complaining about renames or about the fact that decisions are made without getting enough feedback from a sufficient number of people? Cuz, I kind of think it was the later part rather than the earlier part that was really bugging them.
Edit because much as I like using latter and former in a sentence I usually get it backwards.
Edit again to add: In that case it would be a sticky of "What to do if you feel powerless in the face of the demon wiki". And at some point we will have so many stickies that scrolling down to the actual threads will take half a day.
edited 22nd Dec '10 11:30:27 AM by blackcat
He was mostly complaining about the latter, but failed (as is typically the case with these threads) to offer any means by which we might gather additional troper opinions on these matters.
It nearly always boils down to, "You TRS folks are a bunch of cliqueish insiders who stamp out the fun of the wiki with your crowners and your rename guidelines, but I'm not willing to participate to help alleviate the perceived problem."
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Diagonalizing The Matrix
So you're asking what we should do in order to avert the situation where threads get hijacked by TRS-savvy people? Well, all right. Here's my idea.
1. Take away all the "end of argument" tone stuff from the renaming guidelines. Put it more in the spirit of Madrugada's post above. Stress that everything can, and should be, discussed on a case-by-case basis.
2. Change the "Trope repair shop discussion" notice to something more along the lines of, "We are discussing whether to rename or redefine this trope here" or some such. This might actually get some passer-by to participate.
3. Suggestions should not be resolved quickly, either by locking the "obviously hopeless" thread or going "all right put a crowner wait a day we have consensus go!". Let a crowner be open for votes for at least a week as a sanity check before the thread gets dominated by one faction or the other, so we can get an idea of where consensus is (or isn't) that isn't influenced by who's shouting the loudest. In fact, I'd suggest new posts should come compelte with built-in hooked crowners for people to add options. This will also take a bit of work off the mods' shoulders.
4. Have it worked into the guidelines that no matter how one-sided a thread or crowner seems, we're always looking for a second opinion, and who knows- maybe if you speak up you'll find out that actually a lot of people agree with you, but they were also reluctant to speak up
.
edited 22nd Dec '10 1:04:34 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toYou still haven't demonstrated that "threads get hijacked by TRS-savvy people" is either actually occurring or is a problem. Don't fix what ain't broke. You also haven't demonstrated that having "TRS-savvy" people contribute to a thread is in any way a bad thing.
1. I don't see any such tone in the renaming guidelines. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
2. Why do you think that changing the tag would induce people to participate more? Why do you think that a random passer-by has any interest in the trope title to begin with?
3. This is the general rule. There are specific cases where we fast track a rename/redefine, but these are usually extremely clear cut and not contested. Cases where someone jumps the gun are very quickly rectified by the community as a whole.
4. I don't see how this is relevant. It should be obvious. We're always interested in new opinions, if those opinions are relevant, as opposed to rehashing the same arguments from page 2 or accusing TRS of being "Stop Having Fun" Guys. Crowners can swing back from a consensus, and have done so many times. I can't imagine why you think we need to specially point this out, unless you are operating from the belief that the pro-rename crowd steamrolls everyone's opinion, which is blatantly false.
Edited to add: I maintain a belief that the majority of the perception that TRS steamrolls general wiki opinion stems from cases where some very popular trope names got changed by admin fiat. Unfortunately (or not), it remains the case that what Fast Eddie says, goes, and that's not something that's ever going to change. Fortunately, it is the case that most TRS decisions don't come down to this.
edited 22nd Dec '10 1:18:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Diagonalizing The Matrix
I think you mistook me for the OP. I'm not. I'm actually from the opposite end of the pro/anti rename spectrum from that guy, and I'm trying to address things that apparently bother us both.
I can't "demonstrate" that threads getting dominated by one side of the argument shouting down the other is a problem. How do you even do that? I think it's enough to note that yes, it happens: Sometimes a thread can seem, for the first few pages, really one-sided, and people will be all "it's OBVIOUS that this is the correct opinion and there shouldn't even be a discussion here". When this happens, opposing opinions will be reluctant to involve themselves, especially if some sort of policy or guideline or what-have-you has been cited. This is a well-documented psychological effect.
1. If you don't see any such tone in the guidelines, well, bless you. A lot of TRS folks do (I'd quote some less-than-civil exchange I recently got into; I'm not particularly proud of it, but if you're curious, go look for it in the "The Last DJ" thread in the TRS). Currently the guidelines are saying that if an article doesn't meet all of our renaming criteria, you shouldn't even BRING UP the proposal. If that's not actually how things are supposed to work around here, why is it in the guidelines?
2. I think a random passer-by might go "Ah, I liked that title" or "ugh, what is that title supposed to be". I think they have a better chance to understand "we're arguing whether to rename/redefine this" than to spontaneously realize what a "trope repair shop" is.
3. Well, that's good. We should help make sure that this general rule doesn't get bypassed, then.
4. In theory, of course people know that their voice has the same weight no matter how things stand, but in practice it's easy to see a really lopsided poll or a really one-sided discussion and go "meh, lost cause". That extra nudge might make a difference.
edited 22nd Dec '10 1:41:40 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toIf the situation is that lopsided, then the dissenting voice probably feels, correctly, that they wouldn't make a difference anyway. If consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of (or against) a change, it's typically a demonstration that it really needs to happen (or not).
If you see TRS actions being fasttracked before countering opinions can come up, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. Honestly I haven't participated in TRS in quite a while due to disinterest.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Sometimes this is really the case- the dissenting opinion is just genuinely outnumbered and consensus disagrees with them. Some other times, a Vocal Minority can have the same effect (again, especially if they're armed with official-sounding guidelines). That's the sort of situation I'm talking about.
So, yes, I've come across this sort of thing a few times, which is why I'm suggesting the above. I find chasing threads on an individual basis to report them just impractical. If we can have some solution that doesn't involve bothering moderators, that would be better.
edited 22nd Dec '10 1:52:30 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Again, the bandwagon effect is well-documented, and I imagine that all of the above are also well-documented as factors that affect how powerful it is. You encourage dissenting opinions, that helps. You take away the "guidelines say we win" stick, that helps. You appeal to the outsiders in a more accessible way, that helps. Basically this has already been demonstrated for us WITH SCIENCE.
Also, if complaints will stop "shifting with mathematical regularity from the anti-rename crowd protesting that renames get by too easily without proper support to the pro-rename crowd protesting that renames are too difficult to push through even when they have proper support" and go to the next level of complaining about less fundamental issues, that would be a good sign.
edited 22nd Dec '10 1:57:20 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to"Reasons not to propose a rename: It ain't broke. If the title has good inbound links, it is working. If the title is being accurately used around the wiki to refer to the trope, it is working."
If the title is being accurately used on all of 5 pages, and isn't spreading because nobody knows it's there because the name is so unintuitive, the current guideline says don't bother proposing a rename. If the title is being underused, but correctly so, no rename. If someone cleans up the wicks before the proposal, no rename.
All the reasons TO suggest a rename are moot if you can't prove that enough people have misused it. An incoherent title quoting absolute gibberish from a work in Swedish will stick if you can't PROVE that it's being misused. If that's not an anti-rename bias what is?
FE has said before we have an anti-rename bias because renaming things too often can confuse readers. I don't see how this is disputable...
BTW, I'm a chick.
Except according to the OP, we have a bias going the other way. Which further shows that point that no matter which way we change, theres always going to be malcontents who go "Aaarg TRS changes everything/nothing!!!!".
That's not just what TRS does. I mean, I don't mind the notifications getting more detailed, but I doubt it will change anything. (If you care about the article, you should visit it whenever it has a tag, not just if it's for a rename. Unless you somehow care more about the title changing than the definition changing)
edited 22nd Dec '10 3:22:22 PM by Ghilz
Non-intuitive names get changed all the time, even without there being any signs of definite misuse.
The Alexander is currently in the middle of being changed without there being any sign of misuse, only many strikes against it for being a truly bad name.
Same for The Cruella which became Cruella to Animals too. Eitherway we can find examples going "Haha! Renames are too easy!" And examples of "Renames never happen!".
Diagonalizing The Matrix
![]()
Well, again, why do we have guidelines that are not representative of what happens in practice?
![]()
![]()
If people don't have a valid point, then they complain anyway; this doesn't mean that anyone who complains doesn't have a point. Anyway, complaints from both sides actually seem to have some elements in common which might be fix-able. I agree that "Renames never happen!" and "Renames always happen!" Are useless and empty accusations, but I'd like to think there's more to this whole issue than that.
IIRC the only reason the "TRS discussion" tag was ever added in the first place is to draw traffic from people who are visting/curating the article. I suggested more accessible tag text for the benefit of people who might care but stay away from anything that reeks of administration (I know I've gone through that phase here, and on most sites I'm still in it). Maybe for something concrete like chiming in for/against renaming or redefining a trope they'll make an exception.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Can't we just directly limit how often something can get renamed?
edited 22nd Dec '10 4:10:32 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Blackcat is correct.
Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!