Unclear Description: Older Than Television

The obvious answer would seem to be that people don't read descriptions. (Which is why we require more than 10% misuse to rename a trope. It doesn't matter how clear the name or description; some people will ignore it in any case.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "tone". I am honestly confused how you could possibly think the current description's not clear. But if you want to rephrase it to mean the same thing, then no, I have no objection whatsoever. I seriously doubt it will help, but I can't see how it would hurt.

Bump.

Any other opinions? Should I start a crowner?

I don't see anything to crowner. No valid arguments for a rename have been brought. Attempts to redefine the year ranges along some sort of "rational" lines have all been shown to leave us with too-small eras somewhere, and rewording for clarity doesn't require a crowner.

Those are your opinions, but in this thread others have disagreed. There is no consensus here, but a lot of folks who don't seem to want to "do nothing." That's exactly when a vote is a good next step.

Personally I don't want a rename, but I think "do nothing" is a bad decision too.

As for the rename, it's more than my opinion. We have standards for when a rename is allowed, and those standards have not been met.

As for the other stuff, nobody has objected to clarifying the dates, and that doesn't require a crowner. If you want a crowner about changing the dates, feel free, but I'll certainly be voting against, as none of the new date proposals that have been raised work very well at all. And I say that as the person who started proposing new date ranges.

I wasn't going to put Rename on the crowner because as you said, and as I already know, there isn't sufficient reason.

But there most certainly is not any consensus against moving the dates. You oppose moving the dates. Others support it. I'm still indifferent, but I don't see the consensus.

edited 15th Oct '12 9:44:57 PM by ArcadesSabboth

Several people supported my idea of moving the dates until we found that it made the period between radio and television too short. Then, I think, most people, including me, gave up on the idea. Who's still supporting it? Has anyone made a concrete proposal that doesn't make the period between radio and TV smaller than about 20 years? 30 at most?

I made a mistake, and misled some people, and I'm sorry. But unless you really think we need to change the dates, I don't see why you should be so insistent on making a crowner to support my mistake. Especially since you say you don't even particularly want the dates to change. If there really is still someone who wants the dates to change, why not let them make the crowner?

Which is better? Keeping this discussion going for another week or month for a very minor issue that most people probably don't care that much about, just for the sake of...I don't know what? Or closing this down because the problem is too minor to justify holding open one of the all-too-few TRS slots we have available? (Especially now that we're down to 100 TRS threads max.)

Crowner hooked per request.

Frankly, I was suggesting renaming only as an alternative to changing the cutoff dates. If some people don't want to change the cutoff date, what other obvious solutions does that really leave us?

The two simplest, most sensible options for us, as I still view this issue:

• Keep the current name but move the date to a clearer and more historically accurate cutoff which more closely corresponds with when the named innovation is actually thought to have first been first discovered (no different than the other indexes this is grouped with, and which, in the case of television, was well before any part of the 1940's)
• Keep the current cutoff date and let the name reflect something that actually began at some point during the 1940's (unlike the invention of television) that also significantly impacted Western Civilization

Basically, the one question that needs an answer from us is, "Do we view the title or the cutoff date as the principal problem for the index's anachronistic outline?"

edited 16th Oct '12 9:41:40 AM by SeanMurrayI

I don't think moving the dates necessarily requires narrowing things to a 20-year span. Realistically, what tropes are we going to find from the 1930s television series that were never recorded or preserved in any form?

I mean, somebody could hypothetically argue that Older Than Feudalism should start sometime around 1400 BCE, because we know the bronze age Mycenaeans wrote in Greek and probably had mythology... but none of it is around to read, so we can't trope it.

Well, one trope that's right on the borderline of being affected is Hardboiled Detective. Of course, it's a trope that started in literature, not radio or TV. But that's the point. These aren't about "tropes that arose in a particular medium" (though that would be an interesting set of categories to have); they're merely an arbitrary-but-amusing way of dividing up historical epochs.

I'd certainly rather change the names than the dates. In fact, I was all set to support your arguments when I realized that the usual rules about renaming still have to apply. I also can't support changing the dates because it makes the period between radio and tv too short to be useful—insofar as these rather silly pages can be called useful. I would, however, support adding some redirects that are a little more logical, like Older Than The Bomb.

edited 16th Oct '12 12:53:24 PM by Xtifr

If we still want to come up with an excuse to claim misuse, I might as well just say in so many words that the phrase Older Than Television is "misused" as its corresponding page's outlined intention has grown and evolved into a catalog which includes items that are actually not actually older than television. The name is, therefore, either not completely appropriate and needs to be changed or the catalog's parameters need to be amended.

Although I do believe that changing the name to something more time-appropriate would be the simpler of the two options I've laid out, it wouldn't be that much more difficult if we lower the higher cutoff ten or twenty years, and then do the same for lower cutoff (albeit at the expense of needing to rename Older Than Radio, like Older Than Lightbulbs or something).

I also view the crowner options to amend either cutoff as allowing the possibility of specifying one year within the named decade, rather than just broadly estimating an entire decade.

edited 17th Oct '12 6:51:48 AM by SeanMurrayI

Bumping for votes. This only needs 10-11 total votes to call.

I really don't see a problem with the divisions as they stand now, To me, this is a nitpicky insistence that the years be absolutely precise.

As to changing it to something like "older than lightbulbs", why? We deal in storytelling, and lightbulbs have nothing to do with the way storytelling changed, or even really much to do with how society changed (like Older than Steam and Older than Feudalism do).

edited 22nd Oct '12 10:54:07 AM by Madrugada

The lightbulb doesn't have "much to do with how society [specifically, Western Civilization] changed [and grew and developed]"? Uh huh, sure.

You could have made a lot of remarks after asking, "Why?" (several that I can think of myself have been brought up here already), but I'd never expect that as a justification.

edited 22nd Oct '12 11:50:41 AM by SeanMurrayI

Not really. Artificial light (in the form of gas lamps) had been available for decades previously. The big change came when candles and oil lanterns (limited duration, need to be replenished or replaced, limited area of light) were supplanted by gas (on demand, works for as long as you kept it turned on, easier to have fixtures with multiple heads for more light).

Alright, can I holler to have this called now? Is saying that the 1890s end in 1899 and the 1940s start in 1941 acceptable? (That's not how I wrote the crowner, somebody changed it, but whatever)

I think most people would consider the 1940s to have started in 1940, and any counter-argument would mean that the 1890s ended in 1900. You can't have it both ways. (Even though I celebrated the changing of the Millennium on Jan 1, 2000, with the normal people, and on Jan 1, 2001, with the pedants. I cheat.)

eta: Waitaminnit. Why the end of the 1890s? Why not the start of the 1890s? I.e. start with 1890, and end with 1939? That's certainly how I would have interpreted the current description.

edited 23rd Oct '12 7:14:15 PM by Xtifr

Well Older Than Radio says "before the 1890s" and Older Than Television says "after the 1890s" which apparently means the entire decade is covered by neither? I'm afraid I still can't perceive/comprehend the obvious meaning you find in these descriptions.

And yeah, I don't know why Sean Murray I changed the dates on the crowner, because they made more sense when I wrote 1901-1940. (1900-1939 would make sense too.)

edited 23rd Oct '12 7:21:15 PM by ArcadesSabboth

Older Than Television says "after the invention of radio", which happened in the 1890s, therefore I assume that the 1890s are included.

....OK, yes, the invention itself should be in the Older Than Television section. That makes sense. But that means the current description definitely needs rewording.

So it should be 1890-1939, right?

edited 23rd Oct '12 10:00:15 PM by ArcadesSabboth

So can I go clarify the description to say 1890-1939 and sort examples/wicks?

Or should I instead use 1900-1939?

edited 28th Oct '12 7:53:55 PM by ArcadesSabboth

Yes. :p ;)

Aside from Sean Murray, who wanted to change the name, you seem to be the only person with a strong concern about the minute details here. I'm certainly fine with leaving the choice up to you.

Well I cleaned up all the examples, and the Older Than Television wicks. Can the thread be locked now or wait until after I finish the Older Than Radio wicks?

edited 10th Nov '12 9:44:41 PM by ArcadesSabboth

There's not much else to do here.