Not opinion-related: Adaptation Decay

Call it, I don't think it's going to get any more attention.

Is it axing time?

Yeah, no point in stalling any longer. Only question now is do we keep the existing examples or kill them with fire?

I would like to preserve those in Troper Tales or Darth Wiki if we could

Darth Wiki would be the better choice, since they aren't technically written in the first person or anything like that.

edited 25th Jan '11 10:03:49 AM by Killomatic

If we're moving the thing to Darth Wiki, should it get the flamebait banner? Will we need to clean the wicks?

Okay, here's my plan. Tell me if you think it's any good.

0) Close the voting. Not sure if there's any official procedure here.

1) Go through all entries on the main page and subpages, looking for any in-universe examples or Gag Series adaptations of serious works and such. If you find any, dump them in the main page in a "Show Within A Show" and "Parodies" folders.

2) Make Darth Wiki versions of all the pages and copy what's left there. Not sure if they need flame bait since we have a standing "no links to Darth Wiki" rule. The ones for the main page can just be called "Others". The related tropes sections needs to be moved to the main Darth Wiki article or dropped entirely.

3) Rewrite the definition so it doesn't referenced non-fictional use, non-parody use or names of real shows. Put a warning at the end to add anything you or other people consider a "bad adaptation" in Darth Wiki. Change the Laconic description.

4) Ask for the the YMMV banner to be dropped. Clean inappropriate examples from the main page, cutlist all the other subpages that are not in Darth Wiki, since they have no wicks.

5) Start cleaning out wicks, again making sure it's not something that meets the new definition. Anything that does meet it and is in YMMV, move back into Main. Leave an edit reason explaining the changes and possibly linking to this thread. It might speed up the process if we make a thread for it in Special Efforts and possibly even ask for a Headline to discourage people from reverting the changes.

edited 25th Jan '11 10:41:08 AM by Killomatic

Some feedback would be appreciated about now.

There's only one positive result, but it's worth nothing that the vote is extremely close. A decent amount of people voted but it's still fairly non-conclusive.

edited 25th Jan '11 3:33:26 PM by KnownUnknown

Oh God I hate it when polls stall...

And how is "we'll need several pages to store subjective examples" a downside? Lots of subjectives have several sub-pages.

Heck, if we just zapped 'em, we won't even have that problem.

edited 25th Jan '11 3:57:21 PM by SpellBlade

I had to add some downside to my suggestion, or it would be little suspicious, right?

<rant> Oh, God damn it, it's going the other way now! Not a single person posted in this thread to defend the "take no action" option beyond "It's too much work." or "This will piss off people, who don't like change." It just makes me sad when the most compelling argument is "We've been doing it wrong for so many years, no point in stopping now!"

Well, like it or not, the wiki is changing, going where it is going as Fast Eddie would say. We may not win the battle this time, but you better believe that tropes like that will continue to be sent to the Trope Repair Shop every few months until the will to accept that change is found. </rant>

edited 25th Jan '11 4:24:01 PM by Killomatic

Dammit, this is a fundamental flaw with the crowner system: it emphasizes drive-by voting over making a strong argument. Something like this happened with Humans Are Bastards a while back, and that one literally had NO ONE come out and openly oppose renaming, despite all the arguments that it needed one.

Exactly. Especially with the rule for consensus over a simple majority. It makes implementing any decision a chore. There's a private thread right now called "Limiting Crowners", so we can only hope Eddie and the other mods have come to the same conclusion and we'll be seeing some improvements in the system soon.

I really hope that's the case, it's nearly impossible to take large-scale action on anything as it stands.

@ few above posts: I feel your pain; I once pushed for renaming a trope, bringing up arguments regarding needless negativity and proof of heavy misuse, which just sort of hung in the air with nobody bothering to make a counter-argument. A lot of drive-by voting in favor of keeping the current name flowed in, and it was unceremoniously shut down.

But even given this frustrating experience I'm not so sure limiting crowners would be a good idea. If not by using crowners, how are we going to decide what to do? By "who has the better argument"? Who's going to decide that? Delegate it to a person, and you end up being a dictatorship; delegate it to a set of rules, and you end up being a bureaucracy. I'm sure there's a smart way to theoretically go about this, but in practice we might end up breaking the TRS if we're not careful. Crowners net us reasonable decisions the vast majority of the time.

I mean, wikis live and breathe the wisdom of crowds. If the majority is supporting something, there's a decent chance they're seeing something you aren't. As much as it pains me to say this, maybe that was the case with the trope I was trying to rename, too.

Well, we have no idea what the mods are planing on other then the title.

Here's an idea: how about you'll be required to explain why you support/oppose an option? You'll write a sentence, then it'll be placed in one of two columns listing the reasons, so we could tell why something's winning.

You might have a point there, but I can't help but feel there's a certain attitude of contentment permeating the wiki. Very few people bother to get involved in disputes like this (myself included until recently, I'm ashamed to say), and many of those who do have a kind of hardcoded Grandfather Clause in their minds, where anything new is deemed unnecessary, despite evidence to contrary. Look for example at the YMMV tabs, which were introduced months ago, yet the movement of subjective tropes to them has been painfully slow.

Okay, enough derailing for now. Once again I'm urging anyone who hasn't voted yet, to do so for any option other than "do nothing". And if you can leave a comment with your motives, so much the better.

edited 25th Jan '11 5:10:34 PM by Killomatic

I think a lot of the examples of Adaptation Decay have value, but their inherent negativity should put them in Darth Wiki. I'm voting to limit the main page to in-work examples and move the examples to Darth Wiki.

I modified the option, so it just says move to Darth Wiki now, as that seems to be the best compromise.

I'm just going to take executive action, here. Setting the article to fanspeak-no-examples and zapping the examples. The "examples" are just complaints about how much "everything is ruined!"

Aren't the show within a show examples okay at least? Cause they already had a folder and everything.

Edit: Who says a dictatorship can't work!

edited 25th Jan '11 5:39:04 PM by Killomatic

Fair enough.

Also that kind of leaves the problem of 2000+ wicks that are also basically complaining.

Edit: Okay the banner doesn't say anything about moving to YMMV. Is that a custom thing or do all Fan-Speak tropes get insta-zapped now?

edited 25th Jan '11 5:44:54 PM by Killomatic

Thanks, Eddie. Can someone start a crowner over Wallbanger now?

I'll get started on cleaning the Wicks.

Edit: Not doing anything until I understand what we're supposed to do. Move to YMMV or zap?

Edit 2: Does this mean that all fanspeak stuff gets example-zapped? I'd like to know before I start mass-exterminating.

edited 25th Jan '11 5:50:08 PM by SpellBlade