Well, the third is obviously losing—it's far in the negative, unlike the first two, which are tied at zero. Part of the problem might be that the second isn't very clear. It's not even really mutually exclusive from the first.
I made that a separate option because unlike the other redefinition options, the examples are untouched, and only the description is modified. It is the opposite of the option to clean up the examples to match the current definition.
The redefinition option allows it to be redefined to anything, determined by discussion or another crowner.
My personal preferred solution would be to make the current page Just for Fun, possibly under a new name. But that's not doing so well either.
Personally, I'm for a combination of the two options that are in the green right now. I think we can all agree about cutting out the sound-effect-type death sounds, but I also think an adjustment of the definition would best clean up the trope. That would help to eliminate things like random background characters (see the Whoniverse subpage for a frankly stunning list of these types of entries). In my opinion, and this is probably something for a further discussion or new crowner, this trope ought to be more about the last words of actual characters, not wordless shrieks or the random words of one-shot characters without plot impact.
I'm in support of all three options in green: remove sfx, redefine, rename.
Ditto.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I downvoted the rename, as a) it's a fairly established term and b) I do not have confirmation that we are willing to do a 1190+ wick rename.
I also downvoted redefinition, for the standard "redefine to what?" reason.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Captain of USS Bajor
Just a theory, maybe people downvoted the redefine option because it didn't say what we were redefining it as. Usually a good idea to know where you want to go before you leave, if you will.
EDIT: Like Septimus said.
edited 21st Oct '13 11:13:03 AM by StarSword
Which would be discussed and maybe crownered later. If all the redefinition options were placed on the crowner, it would make the crowner more complicated than it currently is. No problem with finding out whether an action is needed before finding out how.
That's like opposing rename for the reason, "rename to what?"
edited 21st Oct '13 11:14:41 AM by mikurufan
Thinking out new definitions is much harder than new names. Which means that if a crowner is called for a redefinition and interest has waned, there won't be anybody there to write a new definition, causing the thread to stall. That's why I don't apply the logic of a rename crowner to a redefinition crowner.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Issues with the definition are concerned with certain attributes, like whether it is important that the character comes Back from the Dead. If those are applied in a crowner, attributes that should apply are listed as separate options. Voting up supports that attribute, but more than one can apply.
Once upon a time in the past, we did crowners to determine whether certain traits were required for a trope.
Anyhow, if you run a redefinition in the same way as a rename, it's much harder to fill the 2nd crowner than with a rename. I have noticed plenty of redefinitions run like that stall, and it's not even the favoured way to do a redefinition. Which is why I oppose it.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
That's interesting.
It would seem that downvoting the redefinition option says the voter completely opposes any redefinition.
Ah well, I was not sure on how the crowner would be structured in the first place. It may be late, but the separate options on redefinition could be added and the current redefinition edited out, if that makes sense to more people.
edited 21st Oct '13 11:28:44 AM by mikurufan
That makes sense to me. And for what it's worth, I'm sure at least a few of us who've been posting throughout this thread would gladly work out a redefinition if that ends up being what we do.
Closing crowner. "Pare out the sound effect misuse" is the only thing with consensus.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
So... what're we going to do about the fact the description and the usage are completely different?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Nothing, I guess.
So what was the point of all this???
Seriously, I really think things like this make the wiki look bad.
edited 25th Oct '13 12:21:32 AM by Leaper
This is definitely the kind of thing that makes you lose a little faith in crowners.
Can we have another crowner between the options I posted in 76? Because at least one of those needs to be done to resolve this.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I'm all for that. This has gotten ridiculous; we ought to be able to get this resolved.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Since there was no consensus to change the definition, cleaning out examples that do not match the current definition is not something that requires TRS permission. It's standard wiki housekeeping.
Therefore, the sound effects entries go, as do any other entries that do not match the current definition.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Also, something to keep in mind: An option like "redefine to something else to be determined later" is a pretty useless option. I know that I, personally, would downvote that choice immediately. It's simply saying "change it to something else, but we don't know what to change it to" — change for the sake of change. And that's virtually always a foolish choice to make.
The big difference between "Rename y/n?" and "Redefine (to something to be determined later)" is that we have solid criteria for what constitutes a bad name or a poor name. Definitions are far more nebulous. A single prop rename crowner is asking a single question: "is the current name BAD?"
edited 25th Oct '13 8:57:21 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
If we can come up with an alternative definition (between "change to match use" and "clean up use to match definition"), then we should have another crowner. Otherwise, there would only be two choices, and the second one lost pretty completely on the crowner. If we want to put a crowner with just those two options, then fine, but we can't go cleaning up the use to match the definition, according to the current crowner's outcome.
This was just a poorly organized crowner, and that "redefine (to be determined)" option didn't help.
The issue with the crowner is that one of these has to happen:
If none of them happen, then the usage and the definition won't match, which isn't acceptable.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.