Strange that apperently everyone agrees with me, but one of the the relevant crowner options is still in the red, and the other one is only at 1.60 in the green.
Apparently, the majority wants to force YKTT Ws to accept crowner options leading by 1-2 votes, instead of just using it for measuring consensus.
edited 11th Apr '11 2:00:05 PM by EternalSeptember
No, but we are still talking about the difference between letting mob rule throw together a definition, or one editor leading it.
I mean, that these other suggestions are still based around the idea that one editor's vision of the trope should lead the trope-making:
For example if I have one YKTTW with a definition that I planned for it, and a title that I designed to reflect that definition, that should be a trope name, as long as there is no overwhelming consensus either against it, or in favor of something else.
Simply taking the leading options on crowners, would also create these frankenstein-tropes, where one random passerby who maybe didn't even properly read the description, or just misunderstood it, could end up deciding between two leading names.
In the crowner attached to this thread, both options that are specifically against trope "parenting" by the launcher are in the red.
The "Attach a name selection crowner to the YKTTW." option isn't (in my understanding at least) going to be a "take the highest voted option, whatever it is". The point of having the crowner is to see which proposed names are have the strongest support.
EDIT: Okay, it appears that a "crowner chooses which titles are viable and OP chooses from those" option has been added.
But still, I think something like choosing the title could go either way in regard to whether the OP troper gets to decide it.
edited 11th Apr '11 2:54:07 PM by JapaneseTeeth
Reaction Image RepositoryI think he's worried about the crowners that will be added to YKTTW, not the crowner options on this thread.
Which I totally ignored. Sorry.
edited 11th Apr '11 3:12:46 PM by DrStarky
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian
I'm aware of that, I'm just pointing out that most of the proposed options that reduce the OP's ability to name the trope are in the red anyway.
Edited the post to clarify.
For what it's worth, I do think that there needs to be a crowner for titles. The question is whether or not the crowner is absolute, or whether the OP can pick from the options that are in the green.
edited 11th Apr '11 2:55:49 PM by JapaneseTeeth
Reaction Image Repository
I added an option for that into the crowner, the one that says:
"The name selection, and page image crowners ( suggested in the above options) should only divide unacceptable suggestions from unacceptable ones based on consensus, but choosing one of the acceptable ones should be the responsibility of the page's launcher."
Now it's in the green, at least.
It's not that I'm complaining about it, it just strange that everyone considers that part evident, yet there are at least 7 voters against it.
edited 11th Apr '11 3:08:37 PM by EternalSeptember
I thought we were trying to cultivate a "parenthood" approach...
edited 11th Apr '11 3:29:49 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
![]()
And what about that "[tropers] are suiting stuff to the things that they are familiar with, making it ''theirs''?"" thing being encouraged?
But seriously, of course "ownersip" or "self-entitlement" can be made to sound like horrible, selfish things, but as we tried to say on the previous page, "parenthood" and "responsibility" are based on the same feelings, and these make us care about the wiki.
No one spends hours with perfecting a page of text, because they feel like donating to a faceless hivemind called "The Wiki", they do it because they want to share their thoughts with us the wiki.
Yes, in the end, the wiki itself must appear as a faceless hivemind, but if these feelings, like responsibility, can be used for good, to inspire people to write better articles that everyone will like, why does it matter to you, what the writers thought why they wrote it?
Even if we assume that ALL of our concerns, about how a YKTTW without O Ps would lead to no one taking care of anything, are all wrong, and things would turn out fine, why would it bother you that O Ps are proud of their tropes, as long as they keep the rules?
edited 11th Apr '11 3:32:51 PM by EternalSeptember
That's just a cosmetic name change. Adding the history function will make the YKTTW description essentially a sandbox page. The original poster doesn't get any override powers for images or anything else.
If we get people who won't collaborate sensibly in the creation of the trope, they'll get banned like any other troll.
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyHere's an idea: Incorporate "parenthood" into the YKTTW Guidlines as a form of recommended but not mandatory etiquette that has the purpose of fostering a cooperative spirit between tropers.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.It's not like any ownership/parenthood/sponsorship was official until now either, it's just a natural thing that no one but it's creator cares about a trope page.
And of course, going against troper consensus was always bad, those YKTTW launches were sent to the TRS and back to the YKTTW, now at least the veto option can stop these, but this doesn't mean that a random passerby should override the work of those who know what the trope is supposed to be.
YKTTW editing habits can't work completely like main page editing, for a very simple reason: A YKTTW doesn't have a canonized definition.
On a launced trope page, the core definition can't be modified without TRS consensus, and edits on the page should fit the core definition, or face being removed as misuse.
But on a YKTTW, often the whole description is a semi-comprehensible stub, and we need an original poster who tells us what it is supposed to be, and help him make that more clear in the description. Otherwise, a bunch of tropers will just stuck together their own various interpretations of it, and no one can call them wrong for mixing it up, (as there is no "right" definition), so they could even launch the whole confused mess.
Oh, and by the way, note that in the crowner option, I wrote "the page's launcher", not "the page's starter". For all I care, the two can be different, It's not that I want to give special priviledges to the OP solely for being first, it's just that we need someone who guides the YKTTW, and normally it is the OP.
edited 11th Apr '11 4:12:08 PM by EternalSeptember
I think we need to define exactly what is meant by "Owner/parent/sponsor/whatever", and try to rig this so that we encourage the positive aspects of it while downplaying the negatives. We want people who are going to stick with the trope and make sure it's developing in an organized fashion, but was also don't want to give the troper who starts it too much power to veto changes. I see that it can be frustrating if you start a trope with one definition and it gets changed into something else, but I think that's an unavoidable byproduct of the process.
Reaction Image RepositoryAnother isea about the titles: Why don't we treat them in the same way as in the TRS?
For example, if a YKTTW is started with a bad title, it should be treated as an existing trope name, that needs to be renamed, and there should be a single proposition crowner to tell that this one is bad.
It would feel less OP-power based, but it would do the same thing, ensue that the YKTTW would only stop bad suggestions.
edited 11th Apr '11 4:28:10 PM by EternalSeptember
Would there be a way to rig the "suggested" Spell Check to correct to Wiki Words that exist?
I assume that this is what the name selection crowner would be?
Fight smart, not fair.A user griped to me about "don't edit my YKTTW" the other day. To be fair, I had reordered a few sentences, rewrote one example (out of several in the list) and sorted another somewhat more alphabetically. Not exactly a minor edit, but not a major one either.
... What point was I trying to make again? Something along the lines of "Ownership" = "don't edit my OP", since YKTTW has no real distinction between an article draft and personal OP.
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.Generally, the few times I've editted a YKTTW OP I did not create, I've always tried to PM whoever did so to make sure I did not ruffle any feathers. Or ask in the replies section.
Be sure to mention that Works Pages Are A Free Launch.
One popular browser doesn't - guess which.
On a launced trope page, the core definition can't be modified without TRS consensus, and edits on the page should fit the core definition, or face being removed as misuse.
But on a YKTTW, often the whole description is a semi-comprehensible stub, and we need an original poster who tells us what it is supposed to be, and help him make that more clear in the description. Otherwise, a bunch of tropers will just stuck together their own various interpretations of it, and no one can call them wrong for mixing it up, (as there is no "right" definition), so they could even launch the whole confused mess.
"On a launched trope page, the core definition can't be modified without TRS consensus." I don't see why there can't be something similar for YKTTW. Unilaterally editing the trope name or description by anyone other than the OP is frowned upon; the only difference with a launched trope is the addition of the clause "other than the OP". Hashing out the name and description is something for the discussion thread, just like it is now.
Only if the OP doesn't say Needs A Better Title or the title isn't obviously a placeholder. (Actually, we do have similar "skip the single prop" rules on TRS...)
In my opinion, children most definitely do not belong to their parents.
But yes, I know that some people consider kids to be the property of their parents. :-(
Sometimes even including adult offspring. :-(
Regardless of metaphors and interpretations: Possessiveness and "my turf"-mentality is bad, while attachment and responsibility is good. Surely we can all agree on that?
Also, I'm quite certain that every single person who is here is here because we care. We may care in slightly different ways and for slightly different reasons, but in the end we wouldn't be here if we didn't have some kind of emotional attachment to the whole thing. (If anyone disagree with me on this, my guess is that s/he probably define the word "emotion" slightly different than I do.)
edited 12th Apr '11 2:34:48 AM by Xzenu
Crown Description:

I think Eternal September basically hit the nail on the head in that last post.
Reaction Image Repository