The far simpler thing to do would be to popularize both MCVE and MVCE as valid representations of the concept. There's not reason why the C and the V have to be in that order anyway. Dealing with this common typo directly would be far easier than trying to popularize a new name and insisting everyone change a good name they've been using for years. If you can make help/mcve and help/min-reprex work at the same time, you can do this for help/mvce. Add a note to the page that it's also sometimes abbreviated "MVCE," and you're done with minimal disruption.

It is worrying to me that you did not come to the realization that each word bore particular significance yourselves. It shows me that you didn't examine why each term was included originally. You did not take the time to understand the intentions of the people who developed the original name and understand what it was trying to communicate. Instead, you railroaded it into what you thought was important. This is a common trend among modern SO employees, and it undermines my trust in the organization. Doing that goes against SO's core values, both in terms of how to treat other people and in terms of improving your own understanding of a problem.

The far simpler thing to do would be to popularize both MCVE and MVCE as valid representations of the concept. There's no reason why the C and the V have to be in that order anyway. Dealing with this common typo directly would be far easier than trying to popularize a new name and insisting everyone change a good name they've been using for years. If you can make help/mcve and help/min-reprex work at the same time, you can do this for help/mvce. Add a note to the page that it's also sometimes abbreviated "MVCE," and you're done with minimal disruption.

It is worrying to me that you did not come to the realization that each word bore particular significance yourselves. It shows me that you didn't examine why each term was included originally. You did not take the time to understand the intentions of the people who developed the original name and understand what it was trying to communicate. Instead, you railroaded it into what you thought was important. This is a common trend among modern SO employees, and it undermines my trust in the organization. Doing that goes against SO's core values, both in terms of how to treat other people and in terms of improving your own understanding of a problem.

If you had approached Meta about this change before implementing it, any number of users could have explained this. By implementing it before coming to this understanding, you have again demonstrated that you do not value your established community's thoughts on these matters.

You haven't defended your claim

There's a simpler option you didn't consider

This change reduces the clarity of the term

You don't seem to have understood the term

• Complete: The code example should be complete is that it is fully function. Another user should not have to add missing variables, functions, classes, etc. to make it work. They also shouldn't have to make guesses or assumptions about the environment the code is being run in; all dependencies and any specific environment conditions should be articulated. This is a common problem when users post questions.
• Verifiable: The example should reliably reproduce the problem. Another user should be able to see the incorrect output immediately after they've executed the code. It should do exactly what the author says it does when they run it. It should not throw other errors that are not the subject of the question.
• Minimal (for completeness): It should not be a code dump of 2000 lines. It should be a short, easily read block with as little logic and as few dependencies as possible. This reduces the number of possibilities other reads need to check to identify the problem.

Dropping these two words makes it more difficult to communicate the common problems that led to the creation of the term "MCVE." Having them separated out makes it easier for someone reading about the concept to understand its purpose and intentions. This is vastly better than "Minimal, Reproducible Example," which doesn't articulate these common errors as clearly.

• Complete: The code example should be complete is that it is fully functional. Another user should not have to add missing variables, functions, classes, etc. to make it work. They also shouldn't have to make guesses or assumptions about the environment the code is being run in; all dependencies and any specific environment conditions should be articulated. This is a common problem when users post questions.
• Verifiable: The example should reliably reproduce the problem. Another user should be able to see the incorrect output immediately after they've executed the code. It should do exactly what the author says it does when they run it. It should not throw other errors that are not the subject of the question.
• Minimal (for completeness): It should not be a code dump of 2000 lines. It should be a short, easily read block with as little logic and as few dependencies as possible. This reduces the number of possibilities other readers need to check to identify the problem.

Dropping these two words makes it more difficult to communicate the common problems that led to the creation of the term "MCVE." Having them separated out makes it easier for someone reading about the concept to understand its purpose and intentions. This is vastly better than "Minimal, Reproducible Example," which doesn't articulate these common errors as clearly.

It is worrying to me that you did not come to the realization that each word bore particular significance yourselves. It shows me that you didn't examine why each term was included originally. You did not take the time to understand the intentions of the people who developed the original name and understand what it was trying to communicate. Instead, you railroaded it into what you thought was important. This is a common trend among modern SO employees, and it undermines my trust in the organization. Doing that goes against SO's core values, both in terms of how to treat other people and in terms of improving your own understanding of a problem.