Follow TV Tropes
I am pretty sure we don't list disambiguated tropes here if they were split instead of renamed.
I thought we had finally solved this dispute as "yes, we do include them"... Let's just correct Barbarian Long Hair and put it back.
There is a dispute about whether this page should contain mergers.
My stance is yes, since the only difference between a merger and a rename is that the new name was already occupied, which doesn't affect the status of this page.
Uh, no. That is not the only difference between a merger and a rename.
A rename is when a trope has its name changed. A merger is when two existing tropes are lumped together. It is not the same thing.
There are two types of mergers. One is when trope A and trope B are merged under new name C. The other (the kind we're discussing) is when an existing trope A is discontinued and has its examples moved under existing supertrope B.
The former I can understand listing here, since a new name does, in fact, emerge as a result. However, examples of the latter variety should not be listed. They aren't renames. The old trope doesn't even exist anymore, and the trope it was merged with still has the name as it did before the merger. No new name was created. It doesn't qualify as a rename.
EDIT: To alleviate confusion: When I said "new name" I meant "different name." I am not saying that Renamed Tropes is a list of newly-created names or anything along those lines. Just clarifying.
I do not see where you are coming from with that definition of why we need this page.
^^But you miss the point of this page. It's not to list newly created names, it's to list names that were destroyed/replaced with redirects. People add this page to their watchlist to be notified which names stop being valid and which names they should use instead.
If I wanted to know which new names appeared, I'd watch the "recently new" page.
I did not give a "definition of why we need this page." "Why we need this page/the point of this page" did not come up in my previous post at all. Don't put words in my mouth.
I am not missing the point. I know what the purpose of this page is. It's to keep a history of old trope names that we had to change because they just didn't work. It gives tropers a general idea of what kinds of names tend to fall flat, which can be observed by browsing through them.
To simplify, this page is to document examples of the name being the problem. Not the trope itself being too poorly-distinguished from another that it ended up getting lumped. Sometimes these issues can overlap with one another, but they are not the same thing. At all.
To me, it just sounds like common sense that an article called "Renamed Tropes" should list tropes that were RENAMED.
Name problems are often factors in mergers. Thus, why I support having them listed here.
We could create a page named Merged Tropes, though - I'd be willing to sponsor a YKTTW for it.
I don't see why we can't use this page for merged Tropes too.
@Septimus Heap: Yes, name issues are sometimes factors in mergers, but not always. Usually it's more about the trope itself, even if the name is bad. Furthermore, listing mergers where no renames occur doesn't really show what was wrong with the name, and it's not what the page is for. If we must document mergers, we can create a page for Merged Tropes, like you suggested.
@Frank75: Because that's not what this page is for. If it's not a rename, why list it on Renamed Tropes? It's like listing trivia on a YMMV page.
Because in both cases the user sees the same thing: Old name no longer works and redirects to another page. Whether this page already existed before has no consequence.
This isn't a list of redirects. It's a list of Renamed Tropes. Furthermore, not all trope names that get replaced become redirects. Sometimes the old name will get a new trope attached to it. Sometimes the old name simply gets cut. Your argument is logically flawed.
OK, to put it bluntly, the fact that there was an article at the new name already doesn't sway me.
So, from my vintage this discussion is at 3-1 for keeping unless someone can provide an argument for a split.
That was not my argument. Are you even reading my posts? Instances of renames where the new name already had an article on it have an entire page dedicated to them. I never said that was the problem. It's fine that you disagree with me, but it's poor form to misrepresent somebody's argument like that.
Here is a list of reasons why I am opposed to this:
#1: Renames and mergers aren't the same thing. More than anything, it's just a straight-up misuse of the page. If a trope is renamed, that means it's name was changed. If a trope is merged, that means it was combined with another trope. They can overlap, but they're entirely different things. Allow me to elaborate:
"Fandom Berserk Button was merged from "Nerd Rage" which was too ambiguous and "Gannon-Banned" which was an obscure The Legend of Zelda reference."
This is an example of a listed merger that makes sense, since a name change, did in fact, occur. As an added bonus, it states the problem with one of the old names. On the other hand:
"The Ditz absorbed "Ralph Wiggum", which was The Same But More."
Listing this makes no sense, because no name change occured. It doesn't tell me anything about why the old trope's name was bad, just that the trope attached to it wasn't distinguished enough, so we got rid of it and redirected it. The new name is still attached to the same trope it was before, and the old trope doesn't even exist anymore. It's gone. In that respect it's more similar to a trope getting cut than a trope getting renamed, we just keep the old names for the inbounds.
#2: It begs the question: what else we can put here? If we're putting mergers on this page, are we going to include splits as well? Which leads to my next point:
#3: This list is already massive. Quite simply, the list of Renamed Tropes is huge - so huge it had to be split into subpages. The list will only get longer over time, and including mergers, splits, of whatever else on this list will just clutter it up. In my opinion, it's just not worth it.
No, I am ignoring your posts because you are repeating yourself. Sometimes, you really need to know when to drop an argument.
Also, re #1: There was a name change. For The Ditz.
EDIT: Actually, forget it. Just... forget it. I'm getting awfully tired of this. It's just not worth the trouble anymore. I did not join TV Tropes because I wanted to get into bitter, frustrating arguments with other tropers that go nowhere, so I'm going to drop this discussion from my watchlist.
"Ascended Extra was formerly known as 'Super Grape'. Renamed mostly because Super Grape barely made sense even when explained."
This was so insane sounding that I had to go to check Archive.org, and... XD Flimsiest justification for a trope name ever?
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?