[002]
troacctid
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
So I\'ve added notes to the \
to:
So I\\\'ve added notes to the \\\"Unclear\\\" and \\\"Character-named\\\" sections saying that if you propose a rename of a trope (with healthy wicks and inbounds) for reasons of clarity, you should be prepared to present a WickCheck showing a pattern of misuse (or similar evidence).
This is in line with the [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13290420940A05740100&page=1 recently-instated policy]] regarding rename threads opened without evidence. Threads that start out with \\\"This name is horrible in spite of its healthy usage statistics\\\", historically, are one of the biggest time-wasters in the TRS. We absolutely do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' want to encourage them. Yes, even if the name really \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' objectively unclear. This is a matter of courtesy and efficiency. Don\\\'t waste our time--if it\\\'s that bad, you should be willing to do some legwork to prove it before you start a thread for it, because we\\\'re not going to take it for granted.
@/TripleElation, you toned my messages down somewhat; I\\\'ve toned them back up. We don\\\'t want people pointing to the rename guidelines and saying \\\"But I gave a whole bunch of reasons why it\\\'s unclear! That\\\'s evidence!\\\" That would completely defeat the purpose of the new policy.
I don\\\'t think we need to be worried about \\\"Too bad, no misuse, discussion over\\\". There are multiple qualifiers: unhealthy usage stats are a problem in themselves, and it\\\'s not implied that a WickCheck is the only possible proof you can give.
This is in line with the [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13290420940A05740100&page=1 recently-instated policy]] regarding rename threads opened without evidence. Threads that start out with \\\"This name is horrible in spite of its healthy usage statistics\\\", historically, are one of the biggest time-wasters in the TRS. We absolutely do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' want to encourage them. Yes, even if the name really \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' objectively unclear. This is a matter of courtesy and efficiency. Don\\\'t waste our time--if it\\\'s that bad, you should be willing to do some legwork to prove it before you start a thread for it, because we\\\'re not going to take it for granted.
@/TripleElation, you toned my messages down somewhat; I\\\'ve toned them back up. We don\\\'t want people pointing to the rename guidelines and saying \\\"But I gave a whole bunch of reasons why it\\\'s unclear! That\\\'s evidence!\\\" That would completely defeat the purpose of the new policy.
I don\\\'t think we need to be worried about \\\"Too bad, no misuse, discussion over\\\". There are multiple qualifiers: unhealthy usage stats are a problem in themselves, and it\\\'s not implied that a WickCheck is the only possible proof you can give.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
So I\'ve added notes to the \
to:
So I\\\'ve added notes to the \\\"Unclear\\\" and \\\"Character-named\\\" sections saying that if you propose a rename of a trope (with healthy wicks and inbounds) for reasons of clarity, you should be prepared to present a WickCheck showing a pattern of misuse (or similar evidence).
This is in line with the [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13290420940A05740100&page=1 recently-instated policy]] regarding rename threads opened without evidence. Threads that start out with \\\"This name is horrible in spite of its healthy usage statistics\\\", historically, are one of the biggest time-wasters in the TRS. We absolutely do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' want to encourage them. Yes, even if the name really \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' objectively unclear. This is a matter of courtesy and efficiency. Don\\\'t waste our time--if it\\\'s that bad, you should be willing to do some legwork to prove it before you start a thread for it, because we\\\'re not going to take it for granted.
@/TripleElation, you toned my messages down somewhat; I\\\'ve toned them back up. We don\\\'t want people pointing to the rename guidelines and saying \\\"But I gave a whole bunch of reasons why it\\\'s unclear! That\\\'s evidence!\\\" That would completely defeat the purpose of the new policy.
I don\\\'t think we need to be worried about \\\"Too bad, no misuse, discussion over\\\". There are multiple qualifiers: unhealthy usage stats are a problem in themselves, and neither of the notes say or imply that a WickCheck is the only possible proof you can give.
This is in line with the [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13290420940A05740100&page=1 recently-instated policy]] regarding rename threads opened without evidence. Threads that start out with \\\"This name is horrible in spite of its healthy usage statistics\\\", historically, are one of the biggest time-wasters in the TRS. We absolutely do \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' want to encourage them. Yes, even if the name really \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' objectively unclear. This is a matter of courtesy and efficiency. Don\\\'t waste our time--if it\\\'s that bad, you should be willing to do some legwork to prove it before you start a thread for it, because we\\\'re not going to take it for granted.
@/TripleElation, you toned my messages down somewhat; I\\\'ve toned them back up. We don\\\'t want people pointing to the rename guidelines and saying \\\"But I gave a whole bunch of reasons why it\\\'s unclear! That\\\'s evidence!\\\" That would completely defeat the purpose of the new policy.
I don\\\'t think we need to be worried about \\\"Too bad, no misuse, discussion over\\\". There are multiple qualifiers: unhealthy usage stats are a problem in themselves, and neither of the notes say or imply that a WickCheck is the only possible proof you can give.
