Not Tropeworthy: Shining Goodness

Note: This thread was proposed by Adept.

Problem: The trope has barebones description and its definition basically boils down to "Good/holy characters, things and/or factions have the word "shining" (or other light-themed words) in their names". This seems redundant to Meaningful Name with not enough examples to justify its existence (it only has 35 wicks including sandbox and 15 on-page examples).

Wick check shows that the usage is all over the place. I checked all the wicks excluding sandboxes, and of the 31, only 8 clearly demonstrates the association between goodness and the name "shining" (2 of which come from Pantheon pages about the same character). 6 is just the name with no further context. 4 describes people who literally emits light who may or may not be good. 5 are work pages with the word "Shining" in the title, and the trope entry has no further context on what the Shining in the title actually refers to. 7 are miscellaneous misuse, while 3 are part of Indices or mentioned in other tropes' description.
Proposed Solution: Cut this trope. It's useless.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 18th 2023 at 2:12:30 PM

Paging ~Adept to the thread. Anyway, I agree with cutting. It seems redundant with Light Is Good in addition to Meaningful Name.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 18th 2023 at 2:13:28 PM

Well, I've said what needs to be said in the OP.

Basically this trope is not thriving, misused, and is a duplicate to other tropes. There's really not much of a point keeping it.

Edited by Adept on Jun 19th 2023 at 2:18:34 AM

Disambig between Light Is Good and Meaningful Name.

Due to low use, cutting is also an option.

Either is fine with me.

Edited by BlackMage43 on Jun 18th 2023 at 1:02:24 AM

Just cut, I don't think we can save this.

I agree that this seems redundant with Light Is Good and Meaningful Name. I tend to favour disambiguating over cutting, but this one has so few wicks that I don't mind cutting.

Edited by MathsAngelicVersion on Jun 18th 2023 at 4:33:48 AM

Cut.

Cut

Cut

Yes to cutting.

Neglected to mention this since it was past 2 AM at the time, but the reason I'm willing to cut the page completely is because 274 inbounds for a page from 2009 is pretty low. I also tend to prefer disambiguating or redirecting, but that's usually saved for healthier tropes (for which full-fledged cuts are generally off the table), since those tend to have more inbounds.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Jun 18th 2023 at 4:35:13 AM

Cut

Cut.

Eclipse this Shining Goodness!

Throw a mistletoe at this fellow!

Edited by Nen_desharu on Jun 18th 2023 at 11:01:34 AM

Personally, I look at it the other way: I'm not a fan of disambigs (the chicken's way to cut a page) unless a) there's a clear commonality between the pages linked to beyond "this is what the page was used for", b) the name is something someone would reasonably search for if we never had a page by that name, or c) the off-site inbound count is high enough that we should give them some guidance as to what they're looking for.

I guess that's kind of off topic, and with regards to this topic, it kind of lands in the same place of voting for a cut, just from the other direction.

Inbound counts being too high for a full-fledged cut is the most common reason for disambiguating. The reason cutting is on the table in this case is because the inbound count is low enough that cutting shouldn't be a problem.

Are you sure you intended to post this here and not on the Does Not Like Shoes thread?

Alright, I pruned everything except Pantheon, since they've got a deity for this.

Pantheon thread has been informed and the trope is on the Cut List. We can close now.

Locking