Fight It Out!A while ago it was decided to rename the "You fail X Forever" tropes to, I believe, X Goof (ie: Biology Goof). This hasn't been done yet, so, any news on that? Are we still renaming them or has this been scrapped.
edited 1st Nov '10 4:53:29 PM by Ghilz
I see the Awesomeness.Shall we start? Do I need to bring rum?
edited 1st Nov '10 5:31:52 PM by Deboss
ZzzzzzzzzzIt got derailed by the whole "aarrrrrrrrrrgh we're gonna go broke if we don't fix the ads!" thing.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
Okay GuyNecrobump becuase this is necesary.
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian
Am I the only one seeing this as an unnecessary change? I think "You Fail X" sounds a lot better than the alternative.
Alicorns AnonymousI prefer X Does Not Work That Way but Fast Eddie vehemently opposes that one. And I agree that the current name is too inflammatory.
Fight It Out!There was an extensive debate on the issue, since it's pretty much Admin enforced (or very Admin-encouraged) its happening. I'll begin working on it Should we rename Artistic License - Indexes to Index Goof or Indexing Goof?
edited 13th Nov '10 11:25:56 PM by Ghilz
Fight It Out!Done with all the Physical Sciences one and their subpages. Gonna grab some rest and then work my way down the list. Did not touch the tropes that aren't "You fail X Forever" as I am not sure if we are renaming those.
edited 13th Nov '10 11:52:10 PM by Ghilz
Wait, what? When was this decided? Why was the discussion (according to the link above) apparently in some thread called "Subjective Trope Deletion, " which seemed to be about The Scrappy or something, as opposed to a thread called "ATTENTION EVERYONE: BIG GIANT RENAME COMING, PLEASE SHARE YOUR OPINIONS!!!"? In what way is "X Goof" better than "You fail X forever?" It sounds worse, adds no clarity, adds... pretty much nothing. What? What? This change makes no sense whatsoever. Also, according to the crowner, "X Does Not Work That Way" won, not "X Goof"... So, uh... Again, what? ... What?
edited 14th Nov '10 7:03:55 AM by girlyboy
When not to rename a Trope:
Fight It Out!About a month ago. Fast Eddie Vetoed "X Does Not Work This Way". Read the thread
Please read the 21-page-long thread that sounds like it's about something else entirely. Yes. Coming up next: A thread called "Do you like fuzzy puppies?" which discusses the deletion of every trope starting with the letter "A" somewhere on page 73.
When not to rename a Trope:
On closer examination, the first time that thread mentions anything about
edited 14th Nov '10 7:44:35 AM by girlyboy
When not to rename a Trope:
Alicorns Anonymousgirlyboy. Almost everyone agreed on X Does Not Work That Way. Except for Fast Eddie. And I wondered why the disscussion didn't break off until its own thread.
We needed to find something that did not sound condemnatory. "Does not work that way" doesn't meet that requirement. 'Goof' is more like good-natured teasing than condemning and has good potential to be much more widely adopted than the present naming, which has very sucky off-wiki use. BTW, "everybody" did not agree to diddly.
edited 14th Nov '10 7:52:03 AM by FastEddie
Only Sane FoxThis was handled very badly. For a change as major as this, there should have been a thread named "Rename the 'You Fail X Forever' family?". That would have caught people's attention. I'm very disappointed in The Management on this matter. I strongly suggest going back and starting again in a manner which makes it clear exactly what is being proposed before any action is taken. EDIT: Ninjaed by Fast Eddie. I'm leaving the rest of my post alone, though, just so my thoughts on the matter stay on record, if nothing else.
edited 14th Nov '10 8:05:07 AM by Roxor
Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.
I don't see how "goof" sounds less condemnatory than "x does not work that way". I also can't imagine anyone taking "x does not work that way" as a particularly serious, hurtful condemnation. I can see how it's a potentially subjective statement that can lead to natter, but again I don't see how "goof" solves this problem. "It wasn't a goof at all, because..." etc., etc. On the other hand I'm sure none of this matters since the decision has already been made, one way or the other. I wish it were made in its own thread, and people didn't tell me to read 21 pages of discussion about whether The Scrappy should be deleted from some pages, or whatever that thread was originally supposed to be about, when I ask "when was this big giant huge re-naming decision made?" Also "everyone" rarely agrees on diddly, but it's certainly true that more people disagreed with "goof" than agreed, at least according to the crowner. Not that I'm arguing crowners are the best way to make a decision, but "can you use that trope name in a sentence?" doesn't sound much less arbitrary as a standard for naming to me than "do most people like this?" The latter seems more fitting for a wiki, at least.
edited 14th Nov '10 8:06:08 AM by girlyboy
No, the in-favors for 'goof' greatly outweighed any other option. I agree that issues should be in a thread with a title that reflects what the discussion has evolved into when that evolution calls for a big change. The wiki culture has to bend to the quality of the content, not the content to the culture. Evidence that only-as-the-crowd-wishes results in poor content can't be ignored.
edited 14th Nov '10 8:11:39 AM by FastEddie
The Good TroperThe major advantages that Foo Goof has is that it is brief, still comprehensible and only implies 1 mistake as opposed to repeated mistakes.
Mathematics Is A Language.
I phrased that unclearly, sorry. I meant, the number of people who wanted a name other than "goof" was greater than the number of people who wanted "goof." You vetoed this. Do you have every right to do this, being the admin or what-not? Yes, sure, absolutely. Is it a good thing for you to do? No, all things considered, probably not (but that's just my opinion, of course). The point is, you arbitrarily decided what "quality" means. I would think the whole point of a crowner is that different people may have different opinions on what "quality" is. I, for instance, don't at all think that "easily used in a sentence" out-weighs other considerations when it comes to quality, or that "goof" is a less harsh criticism than "x does not work that way." Anyway, perhaps when a discussion starts to be about making some big giant change, some mod should simply come in and say "let's take this to a new thread, with an appropriate name."
edited 14th Nov '10 8:16:40 AM by girlyboy
I'm A Dirty CowboyWhilst the disadvantages are that it's a horrible, cutesy name that I have never heard uttered by a fully sentient individual, and really doesn't convey the size of the mistake. Which X Does Not Work That Way does. I'm saying I prefer X Does Not Work That Way. A lot. I really do hope we get another chance to vote on this. One with an Indicative Title.
The Good TroperThe size of the mistake is immaterial to the trope though, na? A person who confuses Maupertais's Least Action Principle with Hamilton's ought to be as listed as someone who denies the existence of gravity.
edited 14th Nov '10 8:21:24 AM by CTrombley
Mathematics Is A Language.
I'm A Dirty CowboyBy 'size of the mistake', I really meant 'is an actual mistake, not an unclear communication'. Sorry, that in itself was unclear. Whereas a 'goof' could involve the information being garbled or lost in transmission, this trope always struck me as being about a mistake that had no excuse. I hope that's more clear.
I am saying that "fails" and "does not work that way" are too negative, attracting snide examples, and that snide examples are just a whole lot more fun to write than they are to read, especially if there is more than one on a page. I suppose that can be thought of as an arbitrary position, but I have not heard a compelling argument that more snide-ness will increase the quality of the content for the readers. eta: We're shooting for cutesy and good-natured, not "the writer's knowledge sucks and he should feel bad."
edited 14th Nov '10 8:27:39 AM by FastEddie
and What they said. What's the point of crowners, if in the end, Fast Eddie decides to pick up the losing option, with reasonings that pretty much boil down to the level of any other voter's "I prefer this one"?
edited 14th Nov '10 8:27:07 AM by EternalSeptember
"X Does Not Work That Way" does not distinguish between a single or multiple mistakes. Someone who makes one single mistake about X still thinks that X does not work in the way in which X actually works. I think the main question now is whether the discussion will be re-opened or not, which is up to Eddie. Then the next question, if it gets re-opened, is the extent to which the opinions of the members of this Wiki community will play a role in deciding on the final outcome. To be fair, I have to admit I'd love if my personal definition of quality trumped majority rule here. There's a whole bunch of re-names I would undo in a heartbeat.
edited 14th Nov '10 8:32:36 AM by girlyboy
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.