About/Trope Renaming Guidelines/Sandbox

Though we hate to admit it, the concept of renaming tropes has pretty much become Serious Business on this wiki. In some particularly bad cases, debates about renaming have even degenerated into Flame Wars, which is plain uncool. For this reason, we've crafted up a basic rename strategy to answer the questions of when, and how, tropes are to be renamed.

The first part of the strategy is that a trope should never be renamed without discussion. Discussion is done in the Trope Repair Shop. The idea is to hear everyone out, consider the relevant arguments and reach general agreement as to what should be done.

We're not big on rules, but we do have some guidelines about which arguments carry weight in the Repair Shop and which don't. If you're thinking of proposing a rename, you should first figure out whether you have a valid and concrete case against the current title. We don't change titles for no reason; all other things being equal, keeping an existing title is better.

Below is a list of commonly-cited good arguments for keeping an existing name, followed by a similar list of arguments of changing an existing name to a new name.

Good arguments for keeping an existing name

 * Renaming is not a magic solution to all of a page's problems. If some issue isn't the name's fault, there's little sense in trying to fix that issue by renaming. If renaming could help but there's another, better way to deal with the issue, that's still a good reason to try that way instead. Redirects Are Free, for example. If the main issues with a name are that it's overly long or difficult to spell, an intuitive redirect may be a better solution than renaming the trope.
 * A large number of inbound links indicates that the current name is generating "buzz", being linked from outside the wiki and generating traffic for us. If it can be further shown that these inbound links are resulting from bona fide conversational use of the name outside TV Tropes, this means the name has gained traction outside the wiki and is a very good reason to keep it. (See also: Analyzing Inbounds)
 * If the name is already an established term in the outside world, that's a good reason to keep it (assuming its outside-world meaning is related to the trope). When making this claim, it is recommended to show outside proof thereof; the strength of this argument depends on how widely the term is in use. The article should have the name with the meaning that reaches (is used by) the widest number of people.
 * No (or negligible) misuse in the wicks (in-wiki links) means that the title isn't confusing our editors into thinking it's something else. (See also: How to Do A Wick Check)
 * If a name is just evocative in a way that some bland alternative cannot hope to emulate, leaving it be becomes a more attractive option. This is often due to the Rule of Funny, Rule of Cool or Rule of Drama.
 * All other things being equal, keeping the current name is better - if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Lack of a good argument for renaming is a good argument for not renaming (and the converse is not true). This means that if someone brings up an argument for renaming, pointing out weaknesses in it stands on its own as an argument for keeping the current name.
 * A Catch-all category: If you feel a challenged name is especially good or beneficial to the wiki in some objective, concrete way that isn't listed here, go ahead and bring it up. Do your best to establish your reasoning using some objective basis beyond your personal opinion. Explain how keeping that title is helping the wiki or the trope (beyond inertia and so on; that's already covered above).

Good arguments for changing an existing name to a new name
There are various methods for a name to telegraph a trope; plain English, obviously, but also allusion, metaphor, wordplay and so on. It falls to consensus to determine whether the execution of such a technique is murky or lucid, weak or apt.
 * An unclear name - that is, a name which fails to telegraph what the trope is about - undermines our goal of making the trope as accessible to as great a portion of our readership as possible. If in the outside world a name just does not mean what we've decided it means, that's a good reason to change it.
 * Character-Named Tropes used to be standard, but are now deprecated and considered a form of Fan Myopia. Very few characters are iconic enough to truly personify a trope, and nearly all of them can be found in the dictionary (e.g. Pollyanna, Quisling). Using anyone else risks Pop Cultural Osmosis Failure and people thinking the trope is about some other aspect of that character.
 * If a name relies on familiarity with a particular work to make sense, tropers who are not familiar with that work will be excluded, and in particularly bad cases even fans who are familiar with it will be mystified. We are trying to make the wiki as accessible as possible, so this is a good argument for changing a name.
 * Everything's Worse With Snowclones. Too often the, ah, cleverness of a snowclone can obscure the fact that a name doesn't quite fit the trope it's supposed to describe. If the snowclone doesn't make sense outside of the context of the original, or doesn't make sense inside the context of the original, it's misleading and this is an argument in favor of changing it to something clearer.
 * If the trope name apparently just has nothing to do with the trope and even after having it explained to you it's a moment of "meh" rather than Fridge Brilliance, that invites a round of Guess That Trope and is a good reason to rename. Of course, this is inherently subjective; discussion will have to sort out how grounded in fact those objections are.
 * A trend of the name being misused -- as in, the trope's supposed "examples" are often not actually examples, or many of the wicks are wrong -- is evidence that the name is not pulling its weight in telling people what the trope is about (or worse, that the name is actively misleading). This is a strong argument for renaming.
 * If the trope is suffering from disuse - as in, it has significantly less wicks or inbounds than it's supposed to - that could mean that the name is not memorable enough or accessible enough. Deciding how many wicks or inbounds a trope is "supposed to" have can be a bit of a problem, so this argument is best used in clear-cut cases, or when there are other tropes we can compare against. The raw numbers are not absolutely conclusive, but it takes a very good argument to contradict them. (For instructions on how to support the above two objections with data, see How to Do A Wick Check and Analyzing Inbounds).
 * If the name seems unnecessarily subjective - that is, it's outright spiteful or laudatory, but the trope isn't a Subjective Trope- that's an argument to rename it to something more neutral. Sometimes the trope itself is unnecessarily subjective; in that case, it's better to first discuss what to do with the trope and only then get to the issue of renaming.
 * If a trope is named for a work of fiction -- e.g. From Dusk Till Dawn, Die Hard and The Parent Trap (the former names of Halfway Plot Switch, Die Hard on an X and Parent Trap Plot, respectively)- it's easy to get it confused for the actual work it's referencing. This is usually an automatic rename, but there are exceptions, such as the case of a strong "established term" defense -- If a name will make most people think of the trope and not the work, we use it for the trope. e.g. There's a book called The Paladin, but we don't go ahead and rename The Paladin, a trope at least 300 years older than the book; Choose Your Own Adventure was originally a work, but we use that name for the trope due to Brand Name Takeover.
 * We no longer name tropes after a line of dialogue or a Stock Phrase. It risks editors wikilinking the phrase every time that particular combination of words occurs, whether the underlying trope actually applies in that context or not. This is a firm rule.
 * "Trope" used as a placeholder word (e.g. "More [Tropes] Than God", "Gonna Need More [Trope] ") is now deprecated, as it misuses the word "trope".
 * If a trope was launched prematurely from YKTTW before consensus was reached about a title and a description, it should probably get sent right back.
 * A Catch-all category: If you feel a name is broken in some objective, concrete way that isn't listed here, you can still bring up your argument in hopes people find it convincing. Do your best to establish your reasoning using some objective basis beyond your personal opinion. Explain how having that title is harming the wiki or the trope.

What to do if you think a rename is called for.
Bring it up in the Trope Repair Shop. Include your reasons for thinking it is broken.

What happens after you bring it up: Discussions, Crowners and Resolutions
First of all: As long as there is no consensus to rename, you should leave the name be. Consensus does not mean a simple majority. What does constitute consensus is hard to pin down, but unilateral action is easy to spot.

Discussions and Crowners
After you post your proposal, there will likely be an influx of arguments for it and arguments against it. In the very rare cases where there is no dissent at all, people may appeal for a "process override" of sorts where we just go for it and implement the change, and a moderator may approve it; but most of the time, the proposal has its supporters and detractors, and we take a vote to see where consensus stands, if anywhere.

Starting a vote early in the thread is not advisable. Good arguments are likely to come to light later that would have influenced voting. It's best to wait until both sides of the argument have had time to formulate their points before opening the vote. Anyone can start a vote, which we call a "crowner" for historical reasons (read: To confuse you).

The first vote will be about whether to rename at all, and to start it off you'll want to create something called a single proposition crowner. A single Proposition crowner is just that: one single question that can be responded to with a Yes (Up)/No(Down) vote. Such a crowner can be created here (change "InsertSubjectHere" in the URL to the title you want for the vote). It's recommended to add a summarized list of pros and cons for the proposal. Do your best to represent the arguments for both sides as honestly as possible while sticking to the facts.

After you create the crowner, post the link at the proposal thread and press the yellow triangle thingie in the ribbon above your post. That's the holler button- it calls for a moderator; you want to ask them to attach the crowner to the bottom of the thread so people can vote on it comfortably instead of having to go through the link.

People can later edit the arguments in the crowner to improve and refine them, or add new ones, but outright messing with them is not fair play. Basically, if you support a proposal you ought to stay away from negatively rephrasing or removing arguments in the "Con" section, and vice versa.

Resolutions
Crowners should run until they stabilize. There is no set minimum number of days that a crowner must be open or maximum number of days that it can be open, though we usually give crowners at least three days to run out of courtesy. Once the voting has stabilized (this may mean that no new votes are coming in, or that one option has an insurmountable lead), give it another couple of days to be sure. Last minute objections may come in.

Eventually, the proposition will either go through or be rejected, depending on whether there is consensus supporting it. Note that a majority is not always a consensus. It's not simply "how many" votes; it's "what proportion" of the votes cast that matters. 5 votes out of 6 indicates a consensus. 49 votes out of 95 does not, even though it's a majority. In general, we regard a two-thirds majority as the threshold for a majority to be called a consensus, but this number is not set in stone. In particularly heated discussions where the back-and-forth continues even after the crowner has stabilized - regarding how to interpret the results, what to do with them, and so on- a moderator will have to step in and make the call.

We've decided to rename a trope. Now what?
Well, obviously, you're going to have to decide what you want to rename it to. At this point people will start coming up with suggestions, and will point out strengths and weaknesses in the suggestions already made. After the surge of suggestions dies down, it's time to start an Alternative Titles Crowner - in other words, a vote on what the new name should be. The template is here, and it works much in the same way as a single proposition crowner.

Once the alternative titles crowner has stabilized, again, either discussion will die down with everyone accepting the winner, or a moderator will have to step in and sort things out. Either way, a new title will be chosen, which means that the trope will have to be moved from the old name's page to the new one. See How to Move A Page for instructions on how to go about that.

Oh, and one more thing...
Be civil. If people won't see your point of view, being abrasive will not make things go your way. It's just a trope, and if it ends up with a title you don't like, that's not the end of the world.

We've given you all the weapons you need to conduct yourself in a renaming proposition. Debate away! Have Fun!