Rename: ambiguous: The Mario

These numbers are very good. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

As for the misuses, the examples worth nothing if you don't say how many wicks you checked. A small number of misuses is normal, even expected.

Furthermore, from the 9 different 'misuses' you listed, 4 are actually correct. Both Super Mario RPG lists Mario as The Mario because he is The Mario there. Mushroom Kingdom Fusionis an obvious good pothole, even you noticed that(why you listed it? the editor crealy wasn't confusing the trope with the character). Combat Medic is kinda ambiguous if the editor was aware, but it is ultimately an appropriate pothole (Mario is The Mario in Super Mario RPG, and the example was talking about stats).

Incidentally, the fact that he's an example in nearly all Mario spin-offs is exactly why he's the trope namer.

"pretty much anywhere where this trope could be reasonably misused, it is getting misused." This has not at all been shown so far, even if all the examples posted were actually misuses, and it's been made clear that many of them are not.

"This trope has been used in hundreds of articles and brought in thousands of people, but in my opinion it should be doing even better, so obviously it's broken and needs a rename" is also not a particularly convincing argument, IMHO.

Also, how many times has this trope been brought up for a rename? Have there been any major changes since the last time this was done?

I think there needs to be some sort of mechanism that prevents tropes from being brought up for renames more often than, say, once every six months... If we've had this discussion before, and there's no evidence anything's particularly changed since the last time, why are we having it again?

I don't see how the name is broken, and for all the other things Mario is renowned for we do have tropes already if I am not mistaken, so I don't see a reason to rename the trope. Getting a better searchable redirect (like Jack of All Stats)? Definitively. While not very grammatically helpful, what about All Regular Stats?

Evenly Distributed Stats?

.... Those are exceptionally good numbers. We don't have an issue here.

Those just mean we don't cut the name unless absolutely needed. Redirects are not only free, they keep any inbound links valid. Plus we should check if those links are being used correctly.

Um... we never cut a name unless absolutely needed. Renaming is always supposed to be a last resort. Those numbers mean we shouldn't cut the name, period, because those numbers tell us that by definition a rename is not needed (the main reason tropes ever do need a rename being if they're seeing little, or incorrect, use).

I'd be interested in seeing misuse numbers, but so far there's been nothing shown to indicate much misuse. Didn't a few people mention that when discussion of this trope came up in the past these numbers were already checked, and there was found to be very little misuse?

edited 18th Apr '11 1:52:37 PM by girlyboy

You seem to be confusing "cut" and "rename", and your argument is faulty anyway. Renaming would not lose the inbound links, and I Am Not Making This Up was cut with even better numbers.

And some of us hold that to have been a faulty decision, as well as a totally different situation. If The Mario starts being used as a troper meme, you have a basis for comparison.

"If The Mario starts being used as a troper meme, you have a basis for comparison."

That's only if I want to cut the name, which isn't the case. girlyboy was arguing that the numbers are automatic against renaming or cutting, and IANMTU was only to show that high numbers are not an ironclad defense.

I don't remember that thread too well, but wouldn't it being used as a meme within this wiki be misuse? I am not necessarily against renaming tropes if they're widely misused. So far it has not been shown this trope sees much misuse, and there have been several statements to the effect that previous discussions about it found little misuse. Unless that has changed, then...

I'm not sure what "cut the name" means. In the context of a discussion on renaming, I assumed you meant changing the name. Are you saying a good number of inbounds only means we don't cut the trope?

I have read the guidelines for renaming and they say pretty unambiguously that if a trope is being used widely, and correctly, then that is a good reason to keep its name. I am sure there are exceptions, but renaming is only supposed to be considered in extreme situations in the first place, and it seems to me that renaming against the guidelines would need an extreme extreme situation. If these guidelines have changed, someone needs to update their page, but I certainly hope they haven't, because they seem sensible to me just as they are.

If a trope is being used correctly and widely on this wiki, then its name is working. If the trope's name is working, then it should not be changed. The basic guidelines come down to that.

edited 18th Apr '11 3:27:26 PM by girlyboy

I would call being used as a meme "abuse" not "misuse".

Just as bad though.

It also is misuse, since one of them it's using a trope as an audience reaction.

Also, using the With Video Games page as an example misses the fact that it's an All Blue Links silly page. We should be looking for misuse on pages that aren't already shit.

edited 18th Apr '11 3:33:27 PM by Scardoll

Whoa, excessive negativity alert. "Shit", seriously?

The problem was you were only using the "widely" part. You did not prove the "correctly" part.

I checked some wicks, specifically all the "E's", and there wasn't any incorrect wicks. THAT proves the name it working, not just the wick count alone.

Heck, I've even held back some rename proposals because they have little misuse despite how unintuitive the names are.

"Heck, I've even held back some rename proposals because they have little misuse despite how unintuitive the names are."

Then... good job on... doing what you should have done anyway?.. (Or rather, not doing what you should not have done anyway?..) Your behaviour was... adequate and not... bad? Yay for not doing wrong things?..

Seriously, you're not supposed to propose renames for tropes that aren't suffering from misuse, and that are being used correctly. So I'm not sure what the point of that was. You make it sound somehow extraordinary.

Etc.

And yes, I suppose I should have emphasized lack of misuse when I said it shouldn't be changed, but then, it was already mentioned by others in this thread.

edited 18th Apr '11 4:09:16 PM by girlyboy

You're missing the point. I'm stating that it's better to check for misuse than argue points that not everyone agrees on, and aren't even proper guidelines.

I checked for misuse, which is more than what most of you did here (who just claimed it without checking).

edited 18th Apr '11 4:39:44 PM by DragonQuestZ

You're right, shit is not the right word. I was just trying to convey "silly and not made with any intention of quality".

Okay, so how is wick check preformed?

Do we need a random number generator?

edited 18th Apr '11 4:44:32 PM by DrStarky

Thank you for doing that. However, I disagree with the implication that considering guidelines for renaming is somehow an irrelevant point that no-one agrees on. I think we have proper guidelines, and they should be followed except in extreme situations. We already have people proposing renames based on nothing more than the "guess the trope" game and "I personally found this confusing" and what-not. I think if anything, those guidelines we have should be taken more seriously. Especially if the wiki is generally moving towards enforcing its rules more consistently, as has been mentioned in other threads.

As for misuse, again, I was under the impression that it was already checked in the not-too-distant past? But yes, no-one bothered to check it again in this thread, least of all me, so I agree that it is a good thing that you did.

edited 18th Apr '11 4:49:25 PM by girlyboy

I meant using that a trope is widespread, without noting if it's also correctly used. That's a two part guideline, so both should be used.

Alright, I know I am increasingly taking this off track, and I am sorry, but I would like to point out that I don't think I ever actually disputed that. Even in the post of mine that I believe you are referring to, I did say, "(the main reason tropes ever do need a rename being if they're seeing little, or incorrect, use)."

I meant just use both, not one. That even applies to misuse alone when the link count is lower than it should be (some of my own tropes have been renamed due to that).

edited 18th Apr '11 5:08:37 PM by DragonQuestZ

I won't disagree. Would it be fair to say that this particular trope does not show evidence of mis-use? Or is further checking required?

edited 18th Apr '11 5:11:28 PM by girlyboy