Aren't they all? New Crowner 10/17/11: Incredibly Lame Pun

As was mentioned earlier, Incredibly Lame Pun was made to be potholed like it is. The trope came later.

So shouldn't we keep the trope part and cut everything else?

Crowner says the current situation is fine. Unless Fast Eddie bans puns, we're probably going to end up with a Pothole Magnet no matter what we do here.

There has been a call to lock the page but it looks like discussion is starting again. Is that the case? Clocking

The crowner has been stable for weeks. I don't think that rehashing the arguments for/against making this only for in-universe examples is going to change that.

You know what, who don't we ask Fast Eddie about what to do with editor-made puns being potholed/sinkholes?

Because edicts handed down from the Word of Mod tend to get highly criticized?

The crowner is stable, but one option has a higher number of positive votes while another has a higher postive-to-negative ratio, and the two are incompatible.

That's why I asked the mods what the policy was in that case. But no one answered.

This started as Incredibly Lazy Pun which had the same "problem" plus an issue with the name, so it got slit into Stealth Pun and this trope for the potholes. Now it is true a seperate trope has emerged from the pot holing, the question is what that means for the trope. The precident seems to be to split off the pothole usage and the seperate trope. I am not sure this is necissary, but lets assume it is. The current trope name fits the trope much better than the pothole use. In fact I got to this discussion after having to look up this trope cause I couldn't remember the name of the trope being used for potholing puns made on this wiki. Now I believe that the potholing use is itself tropable, the general patern for which seems to be; I saw a chance to make a pun, so I made. This is not the same as Just For Pun which is about using a pun for an article title, this is about puns in the text of the article itself. While this differentiates the two tropes it also shows that logically this trope would be even more common, and thus every bit as tropable as Just For Pun, if not more so. Having considered it now, perhaps the pothole magnet does need to be moved to its own page, one with a better name and description that will prevent it from spawning off into yet another new pun related trope.

I created a runoff crowner here.

Hrm. Single proposition with two options to choose from. That's...odd. Shouldn't it be a double proposition?

edited 17th Oct '11 5:08:08 PM by troacctid

Why would the pun intended page have to be exampleless? Couldn't it be a crosswicked collection of all the puns used on this wiki?

"Tropers already embraced Incredibly Lame Pun as the main, generic pothole for puns"

so why should we support this?

A single-prop runoff crowner was the solution given when I asked, so a single-prop runoff crowner is what I made.

Exactly. What good does a bunch of memetic sinkholes to Incredibly Lame Pun do for this wiki? If sinkholing Understatement isn't acceptable, sinkholing Incredibly Lame Pun shouldn't be either. It's not like we need a place to pothole puns to. Puns are just fine not being potholed to anything.

edited 17th Oct '11 7:08:03 PM by Insignificant

I'd just like to say that in my opinion, the current crowner is misleading in two significant ways.

First, the options were not "split". The option currently represented by a "down" vote was ahead with a stable lead of about 30 votes for months, and for most of that time its ratio was comparable to the runner-up.

Second, tropers didn't "embrace" Incredibly Lame Pun as the page for potholing to puns: it was created with that intent, and over time editors began to use it for something else as well. In short, its current function is its secondary purpose.

(While I'm at it: it was created to be the solution to this problem with a previous page: people were potholing to Incredibly Lazy Pun incorrectly, and it was created to stop that. I still don't believe there's any reason why shifting it to a new page would not lead to the same problem again.)

It was split because, while the first option had a higher total positive, the second option's approval ratio was about 0.4 higher (1.4 vs. 1.8 IIRC), which is relatively significant. That was split enough that, when I asked, several mods told me that a runoff crowner was the best solution.

And I put the options for up/down how I did because standard practice has "change" as the up vote and "leave the trope be" as the down vote.

Also, as to the wording of the options, I copy-pasted from the previous crowner.

Since we have a few users noting the alleged Definition Drift of Incredibly Lame Pun over time, that's probably worth mentioning in the crowner.

I'll ask again about my earlier question:

^ Considering the fact that ILP is a longstanding Pothole Magnet for arbitrary puns for puns' sake, I have to say "no".

Do we need consensus to call this crowner in favor of change?

Yes. It's a single proposition crowner.

bump.

It's been a month since the crowner was put up. We don't have consensus for change, and I really don't think we're going to get it, as the numbers have been hovering at about the same point for the past few weeks.

Does anyone object to me hollering for a lock?

edited 17th Nov '11 4:12:47 PM by Nocturna