Splitting: My Name Is Not Durwood

Bad title, lousy stats.

I dunno, maybe Dissing The Name ?

edited 23rd Dec '11 7:00:19 AM by FastEddie

I wouldn't think to call 870 wicks and 152 inbounds in one year "lousy" stats.

I never fully understood the "Durwood" part, either, but I always thought this was one of those "grandfathered" pages. Is there any way to check it's pre-2011 inbounds?

edited 23rd Dec '11 11:34:42 AM by SeanMurrayI

Durwood seems to be a placeholder name. In any case I don't really see anything wrong with the title. It sounds like "you got my name wrong", and the trope is about that. Any reason to rename it other than not liking the name?

That's Not My Name for the simple, direct route? Although I don't have anything against the current name.

edited 23rd Dec '11 11:05:31 AM by ArtemisStrong

We could just add some redirects, That's Not My Name being one of them. Maybe You Got My Name Wrong can be another?

While 152 inbounds may not be lousy per se, neither is it an impressive amount. The last time a page was considered to have too many inbounds to rename, we were talking about 70,000 inbounds.

X Is Not Their Name

70,000 inbounds since what date? Those tallies (originally from January 1, 2009) now only record inbounds from January 1, 2011 onward. I'm not sure if any pages would even record tallies as high as 70,000 anymore, if that was supposed to be the accumulated inbounds over, roughly, three years, instead of just the past year alone.

That's why I'm asking to know if there's any way of finding out the original recorded stats from 2009. For a page that has been around as long as this one, the number of inbounds the page has accumulated over three years would be a better gauge than just the most recent year alone.

Does someone want to say another reason for the trope to be renamed, or can we add some redirects and be done with it?

I don't think so.

That the inbound count no longer counts from the page creation date but from January 1st is a deliberate change by Eddie. That means that he thinks that recent inbounds are more relevant than all the inbounds ever. And that's a very good point - we want page names that are working, not names that used to work and then stopped working.

(oh, and it was 70000 inbounds in a month's time, in case you were wondering).

edited 23rd Dec '11 12:00:03 PM by Spark9

Do we at least know a rough "average" of how many inbounds pages got in the past year? That would be a good way for us to measure a number like 152; otherwise, on the whole, I would figure that to be a pretty modest number for a page.

edited 23rd Dec '11 12:07:33 PM by SeanMurrayI

Arbitrarily picking the first five links from that page, I get 4934 for Cloud Cuckoolander, 1009 for Most Writers Are Male, and 282 for The Ditz, 134 for Malaproper, and 589 for The Ditz. Does that help?

Arbitrarily picking the first five tropes with the 'Random' button, I got Nice Guys Finish Last—75, Night-Vision Goggles—25, The Sky Is an Ocean—22, Socialization Bonus—1, and The Wonderland—118, averaging 48.2 inbounds.

Another search, again, first five tropes hit with the 'Random' button: Fear Is the Appropriate Response—22, Classified Information—5, Ascended to Carnivorism—8, Deconstructed Trope—147, Honor Among Thieves—11, averaging 38.6

Fun Personified—95, Creepy Cathedral—28, Obi-Wan Moment—30, Cutscene Incompetence—2,475, Diagonal Cut—237, averaging 573

I'd recommend we establish a larger reference pool than just five pages.

edited 23rd Dec '11 12:32:22 PM by SeanMurrayI

Mocking Nickname?

Alright, what are we doing right now? Do people agree to just add redirects or not? No one said why should we change the name, so I assume people liked my proposal, is that right?

We should do a proper wick check (the 50 or square root of the wicks rule), and then see how much work the trope needs.

I don't think anybody has agreed to your proposal so far. And, well, Eddie said this a bad title; considering it's his wiki, that's a pretty solid reason to rename it.

That said, I don't see how the same title but with X as a placeholder is an improvement.

(edit) we could start by considering whether "Bob forgets Alice's name because he's an idiot" is indeed the same trope as "Bob intentionally misnames Alice because he's being mean".

edited 23rd Dec '11 1:29:41 PM by Spark9

X Is Not Their Name or something similar works for me.

Yeah, well, excuse me but "I don't like it" doesn't seem like a good reason to me. The name has nothing wrong with it. Redirects wouldn't hurt, but unless someone shows some misuse related to it then there's no reason to change a perfectly working name.

Besides, I don't know how the thread went from "let's change the name" to "let's take some totally non-related action about the trope". Why don't we keep threads to their purpose, and finish them, before moving to other matters?

edited 23rd Dec '11 1:46:40 PM by DrMcNinja

I would like to see a Wick Check before we start pushing a rename. If there's no misuse, there shouldn't be a problem here.

Renaming is not a magic solution.

edited 23rd Dec '11 1:56:07 PM by troacctid

Yeah, I know it isn't. What does that have to do with anything? What did I say that you thought I needed to be reminded of that?

What is the definition exactly?

"Out of meanness, daftness, or fondness, Bob refers to Alice by a name other than her own-Laconic

Um, would these differences be enough to split? I mean, malicious and non-malicious reasons have the same form, but different reasons and results.

I mean, one is mostly Rule of Funny, while the other is a Real Life bullying tactic.

edited 23rd Dec '11 5:00:37 PM by DragonQuestZ

I'm leaning towards splitting, myself.