"It's a stupid name.": Bunny Ears Lawyer

...is what I would've said, so that it would catch more attraction. Hey, negativity sells.

Anyways, is there any reason why we keep calling this trope Bunny-Ears Lawyer, instead of infinitely and objectively more clear Quirky But Competent?

edited 4th May '11 5:33:19 AM by dRoy

Because if a name is working, we don't rename it. Working means that it has good wicks, good inbounds, and isn't being misused.

Those are incredible numbers. If you want to rename this, rampant misuse would have to be proven.

It looks like your "objectively" more clear title fails at being objectively more accepted.

It's Grandfather Clause, basically. We've got a lot of terribly-named tropes that get by based on a long tradition of existence, but which would never pass muster as new trope names. They have immunity from renaming in perpetuity, and it's just one of those immutable laws of TV Tropes that they will never, ever be changed.

, *sighs* of course...

If a huge portion of those were misuse, I'd be inclined to push for a rename, but I don't think I've ever seen this trope misused.

You say as this is a bad thing. And you say as "terribly-named tropes" are an objective easily observable definition. You are wrong. This name is well named. It is well named because people use it. It is well named because people don't misuse it. It is well named because people remember this trope exist.

IMO, it's more a case of "people remember and use it despite a terrible name."

It's a fairly academic point, though, as I basically agree that this trope (and other similar examples) shouldn't be changed. Custom and tradition are perfectly defensible justifications; I just don't think we should kid ourselves about these grandfathered names being objectively "good."

Well, by our standards, they are objectively good. They get good inbounds. They get good wiks. They aren't misused. Those are the only standards we have to objectively measure good. If it's good according to those, it's good. Everything else is personal preference.

The thing is, your opinion of "terrible name" is clearly not the same of the wiki. As shimaspawn just said, if the name is working, the name is good. This is how we define a good name. You can't have a "people remember and use it despite a terrible name" because if people are remembering and using, it is not 'terrible' by our definition.

Also, this is not Grandfather Clause either. If the trope was created recently and faired as well, it would be kept as the same. The age of the trope has nothing to do with it.

I have to admit, Quirky But Competent is a MUCH better name and it explains the trope to newcomers far better.

It already is a redirect. What the heck is the problem with that?

Also, until today I actually had the impression that Bunny-Ears Lawyer was a preexisting term, but now I have the impression that is a TV Tropes-born term instead.

I'm not saying we should rename this, in fact I don't think we should, but I don't agree with this notion that the quality or merits of a name don't matter if it is working. I know the quality of a name is subjective but there are legitimate arguments to be made over whether a name is good or not (like how descriptive and indicative it is) and we should at least have the discussion and not throw it out the window just because the name is "working". We should collect troper's opinions on the quality of the name and try to get a consensus in adition to checking the use for misuse, and then weigh the two against each other. I think the name "Bunny Ears Lawyer" is pretty good because it is memorable and indicative enough. The name could be better but it appears to be working well enough that we don't need a rename.

Some tropes do better when they have quirky names than if they had accurate, bland names. The reason being that quirky names catch your attention and I'm certain a lot of blandly named tropes are easily forgotten. I don't think Xanatos Gambit would be nearly as popular if it was known as Plan A Plus Plan B.

I would even venture that Quirky But Competent is not a better name because damn near everyone has a quirk and some sort of exceptional talent. The biggest problem with misuse is people ignoring the fact their quirks should have conflicting issues with their job position, and not what was described above. That has nothing to do with the name but an inherent difficulty keeping the definition clean.

edited 4th May '11 12:32:39 PM by KJMackley

There is a difference between "This bad title is protected by Grandfather Clause", and "This title isn't bad, because it works".

The former can only apply to forms that are categorically discouraged by our guidelines, like unrelated snowclones, character named tropes, and the likes. We really don't give anything these names nowadays, because we know that they tend to be confusing, in practice, and the one that gets the Grandfather Clause was only a freak accident.

This trope is in the second category, because it isn't any of those. Yes, it uses an analogy in the title, ("bunny ears" stands for "quirk", and "lawyer" stands for "professional"), but analogies are not a banned title form.

If Bunny-Ears Lawyer would be a new trope, arguments could be made why it could be confusing, but also why it wouldn't be. And in retrospect, evidently, those latter would be right, since it doesn't confuse anyone. So if it would be new, we should still give it that name, because it does the job of spreading the trope's existence better than any other name could.

The thing that makes me curous is, why use a misleading title? Be honest with yourself, how many of you actually got what it's supposed to mean first time hearing the trope, without description or the picture?

People keep using "Nobody uses the redirect" defense. The thing is, it doesn't get as much wicks because, well, it's redirect. If something is a main title, even if it's misleading, people will use it, because honestly, I don't think most people don't even see the redirects, what's with their not very immediately visible font sizes and such.

We had titles like The Cedric, Spikefication, and The Boo Radley for a long time, because they were more accurate? No, because nobody took the initiative. Bunny-Ears Lawyer, that's more or less a same kind of name with those.

It's not so much of an objective to say that Quirky But Competent but it's common sense. It's immediately more friendly to the newcomers, as we all were at some point, as well.

There is one significant difference between Bunny-Ears Lawyer and the tropes you listed: all of those tropes are named after characters, with all of the according problems with that. Bunny-Ears Lawyer is a concept - whether it's an intuitive concept is one thing, but it's not nearly as meaningless to people not in "the know". I wouldn't say that I figured out what Bunny-Ears Lawyer meant from its name alone (although I did figure it out from the context), but I was able to guess. Compare that to something like The Cedric, where if you don't get the reference it's impossible to even guess what the trope is.

Well, there you go. You had to guess it's meaning. Would you, and anyone on that matter, had to guess if it was titled Quirky But Competent?

You're missing the point. The default position is "do not rename unless it's needed". Bunny-Ears Lawyer is an objectively bad name by our modern standards, but it's a very healthy trope with no signs of misuse, and while the name is bad, it's not incomprehensibly bad like The Cedric or your other examples.

So wait, now doing brain work is a bad thing? Considering that, from a troping perspective, unless you happen to previously known many other characterization tropes near to Bunny-Ears Lawyer in context, any sensible guess for Quirky But Competent would, due to expectations of Exactly What It Says on the Tin, cover much more than what the trope is actually about and invite misuse.

"Why use a misleading title"? Because it works. You say it is misleading, yet, no one is being mislead. If the only problem is people are mislead by the title, but in the end not one is mislead anyway, then there is no problem, right? This is what 'good name' means.

The difference from this trope to the others you listed is this trope works, the others did not. You are making a confusion in why we rename trpes. We don't rename because 'it is bad' (which is subjective, thus no one has the authority to use this argument)) but 'because it doesn't work'. If it is not broken, we don't fix.

No, no. It is a objective good name by todays standards.

edited 4th May '11 4:20:52 PM by Heatth

If there's an improvement that can be done, why not hold it? Look, you said it yourself, it's objectively bad for modern standard. That's more than enough.

Brevity is wit, and simplicity is virtue.

edited 4th May '11 4:22:01 PM by dRoy

Nobody's linked to Everything You Wanted To Know About Changing Names yet?

edited 4th May '11 4:24:42 PM by SpellBlade

I disagree - it would not survive YKTTW today. My point is that it's working anyway - and as Silent Reverence points out, that means we keep it. I mean seriously, folks:

(bolding mine)

edited 4th May '11 4:29:14 PM by nrjxll

The fact it wouldn't survive a YKTTW today doesn't mean the name is bad. If anything, it shows a weakness in the current YKTTW standards. The YKTTW guidelines are just guess of what make a name good, not definitive rules.

Your statistics only prove my point, btw. These are what make the name objectively good.

edited 4th May '11 4:34:14 PM by Heatth