Every time I see this trope, I think Straw Feminist. Yes, I know it explains right up at the top that it has nothing to do with women's liberation, but consider what it means that it has to say that right up front! So this fails the One Mario Limit in two different ways. Not only is it a common name, but it's confusingly close to a common slang term (libber) that actually refers to something you might expect to see a trope for!
I get the feeling that some people are a little too proud of the fact that TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Vocabulary. I think they're afraid this place won't be fun or funny any more if some of the obscure non-sequitors disappear. Well I don't find obscure non-sequitors all that funny, but I think this place is plenty funny, and I think it'll remain plenty funny without some of the random in-"jokes" that only on in ten thousand get. So I think what we ought to do while the crowner is running is see if we can come up with names that are clear and funny!
How about Bitchy Bra Burning Babe, with the word "babe" deliberately chosen to undermine and poke fun at the whole stereotype ... oh, wait, sorry, wrong trope. :)
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.This title has brought 7,679 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
This title has brought 6,540 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
This title has brought 2,358 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
I dont have a problem with them (sans Nakama since that had other reasons like it doesnt mean the trope) really but, If we do rename though I like Alpha Bitch.
edited 16th Jul '11 1:54:33 AM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!![]()
I can. Even though I hate the name, I don't think Nakama really should have been renamed (I said as much in the thread). And I believe the reason for renaming Nakama was not because it was confusing nor because it was obscure: it was because people here really hate that name.
The Libby has been proven to not be obscure nor confusing. It is not broken in any way, as far we can see. It is, in fact, above average concerning misuses. This really shouldn't be renamed.
Really, I think people overestimate how much 'character named' is bad. Yeah, it is bad, but for reasons that, surprisingly, do not apply to this particular trope. The reason a character named trope is bad is not because it is character named, it is because it causes confusion and obscurity. If a trope perform well even though it is named after a character, then need no rename.
We're not here to discuss Nakama.
And another thing. It's not true that there's no context. It's not some nonsense word like "Burgwurggagarglfargle". Libby is a name. It's clearly referring to a character. That's some pretty important context right there.
All we have against the current name is Guess That Trope, and we've established very firmly in the past that failing Guess That Trope is not a valid reason for renaming a healthy trope. We need a demonstrable problem, and we just don't have one.
edited 16th Jul '11 1:34:22 AM by troacctid
Hey guys, don't forget there's something else to consider with this rename *cough*
Thats going to need a rename too.
I actually thought we had a third Libby trope, or did I imagine that?
Thats in the con section already... we have Lovable Libby, Knifing The Libby In The Back, Libby My Old Friend
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!![]()
Maybe you should have thought backyard? For me, it was the reason for downvoting Nakama, as if it was any other trope, I would have downvoted off the bat. (I actually stayed neutral, 'cause I also really hate the name, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for the rename for these reasons).
Re: inbounds:
Just spitballing here, but don't all of our oldest and most-used tropes enjoy decent inbound partly as a result of our persistence in using them?
I know this will sound like a fussy argument, but considering how absurdly common and easily understood the trope is and that we've been using it all over the place since early in this site's history, I was actually surprised the inbound count wasn't higher. Given the circumstances it's bordering on faint praise.
To be even fussier: it occurs to be me that in quite few years of troping, I've actually never caught anyone using the term "libby" except when directly talking about us. As a professional obligation, I read lots and lots and lots of media criticism. I hear people adopting our terminology all over the place. "Libby" just doesn't seem to have any traction at all in the larger universe, which is bothersome when the page quote is Ebert spelling the trope out exactly. Not that I can truly quantify this last point in a way that makes it a 100% objective case for a rename, but at this point I kind of suspect that if the name were really working, I'd be running into "the libby" more often then I do "queen bee" or "alpha girl".
It doesn't help anything that the latter term seemingly dates to 1994
, either.
edited 16th Jul '11 2:31:35 AM by Bailey
If that were an issue, we would likely expect the growth rate of inbounds to be weak. If we come back to look at this rename again in several months, we can look at the growth rate and make another evaluation there with that new evidence in light. That's a legitimate reason to reopen a discussion. We shouldn't try to make that kind of judgement without the information, though.
People are saying this name isn't confusing. I already explained how and why it's been confusing me for years! (Probably in part because the trope doesn't occur all that often in the types of fiction I prefer, but still.) If it's so not-confusing, why is the very first sentence an attempt to deflect the obvious point of confusion?
(*mumble*, tell me I'm not confused, will they? *mutter* I'm easily confused! *grumble* I can spend all day in a state of confusion!)
But, again, that's just Guess That Trope, which has never been a valid reason to rename. One person's I Thought It Meant doesn't prove that it's a confusing name. We haven't seen anyone misusing it that way.
edited 16th Jul '11 3:01:31 AM by troacctid
Diagonalizing The Matrix
Lack of misuse is an indication of clarity. It is correlated with it. It does not ensure it and it certainly does not define it.
A term can be unclear without causing any misuse. If it's so obscure as to require reading the trope page to get any idea- mistaken or otherwise- of what it is, it's unclear, and will not cause any misuse. If we've had our editors learn it by constant exposure so they use it correctly, but no one outside of our body of editors has any idea what it means, it's unclear, and will not cause any misuse.
Having lots of inbounds is an indication of a term catching on. It is correlated with it. It does not ensure it and it certainly does not define it.
A term can fail to catch on while gathering good inbounds. If it's collecting a lot of "hey look, a link where TV Tropes talks about exactly this subject" links from people who will forget the Word Salad in the title two seconds after they read the article- it's failing to catch on while gathering good inbounds. If it's wildly popular in some vocal fandom which uses it non-stop but it's completely obscure everywhere else, it's failing to catch on while gathering good inbounds. If you can't find anyone, anywhere, actually using the term to describe the trope- it's failing to catch on, even if it's gathering good inbounds.
Statistics sometimes- often- don't tell the whole story. Maybe there are other statistics that show them in a different light. Maybe there's an argument that renders them invalid. Or maybe they happen to be right. We don't know. We need an open discussion to let the different arguments fight it out. We need less of this "la la la I can't hear you" stuff.
edited 16th Jul '11 5:27:10 AM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toFrankly, if Nakama is a bad trope title (and it is) then The Libby really isn't any better and I don't have a good reason to make some kind of exception for it.
This is why I said that Nakama needed to be changed, but shouldn't be taken as a precedent.
Nakama isn't just a trope named after something that people haven't heard of. It's not even just a Japanese term or a fandom-specific term. It's a mistake, and moreover, a mistake that can be traced all the way back to a particular fansub and the (inaccurate) claim that "Nakama" is an untranslatable word.
Given that, Nakama is a precedent for almost nothing else.
Also, when we did a wik check on Nakama it actually had more misuse than average and more misuse than this trope does. In general, the older the trope, the more likely it is to be misused and decayed.
This has no misuse and no decay.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Diagonalizing The Matrix
In general, citing precedent is not a good move around here. Things change, people come and go. That we did something some way yesterday doesn't mean we can't change our minds today. Just bringing up the relevant arguments, even if they've been gone over before in a different thread, is much better. It gets the same effect without derailing the thread into people quibbling the finer points of whether the analogy holds.
Was the "it's not even right in Japanese" thing what made the crucial difference in deciding to rename Nakama, or was the time ripe for it happening one way or the other? I'm not sure of the answer myself. That's a big, difficult discussion, and we're better off not having it here.
edited 16th Jul '11 8:02:22 AM 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
Also, to clarify, my objection wasn't "I Thought It Meant" (although I mentioned that); my objection was: someone felt it was necessary to start off the page by explaining that it's not the obvious meaning. So it's clearly More Than Just I Thought It Meant.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.If the disambiguation is the most important part of the name that it must be mentioned first, there's probably something wrong with said name.
If the name truly does pass the One Mario Limit then no disambiguation should even be necessary.
edited 16th Jul '11 1:38:02 PM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
Crown Description:
Vote up for yes, down for no.

High inbound counts argue against obscurity. If it were only a wiki thing, we'd expect high wicks and low inbounds. The Libby has high stats in both, showing that it's popular both inside and outside the wiki.
So, it's not too obscure.