I agree with the second paragraph. I was saying that I don't think the TRS' problems are a reason to try to keep the process of reaching decisions on individual issues more "streamlined" than they necessarily should be.
As for the first part, the "least bad" option is not necessarily a "good" option, which is part of the topic of this thread: People want a rename, a single-prop crowner was passed, but none of the suggested alternative names are actually good, to the point where some people who voted for a rename might actually find the original name was still better than any of the suggested alternatives. It would be good to have a system to ensure that an actual "good" option is chosen in the end, not merely the "best" out of a series of options that may all be actually inferior to the broken original, or problematic for one reason or another. I think a crowner that takes the winner of the multiple-prop crowner and then asks, "is this actually clear + concise + witty (in that order of priority, of course)" would be one way to do this.
edited 15th Mar '12 11:53:55 AM by girlyboy
That would be solved if we brainstormed names before and during the single-prop. Which people still oppose. No way to satisfy everyone.
And bureaucracy in TRS is looked down upon by the rest of the wiki. It is not an unrelated problem. People tell me that they're not in the mood to participate in TRS because they have to go and wait for all those crowners and procedures. We're trying to make the place more accessible, not add more layers to procedures.
Also, there's no guarantee another round will give a better name. Most of the time, there won't be agreement on a single option.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerJust because a good name didn't occur to someone yet, doesn't necessarily mean that the options in the multiple-prop crowner are the best possible choices.
Another reason for my suggestion: Once a name has been changed from a broken name to one that is "not broken," it is unlikely to ever be changed again (unless the new name has some really obvious problem, which the current system hopefully ensures is rare enough).
This means that once a rename process is complete, we're stuck with the new name for a long, long time.
For example, if a rename resulted in a name that passes the requirement of being "clear," and later someone comes up with an alternative name that's "clear, concise, and witty", we're obviously not going to change the name again.
It's in the wiki's interest to ensure that the name chosen during the rename process is a good name. Not merely "not broken," not merely "the best from the ideas that have been thrown out so far, even if none of them were actually great" but really, really good. A third stage crowner might help with this.
That is my thinking, anyway. I admit it has drawbacks.
No argument there. We follow those procedures. I simply think more layers will not help with that problem.
I dunno. I don't necessarily think there's a problem with too few people being in the TRS. I think there's a problem with too many threads in the TRS, and if we could cut down on that, maybe that would keep people from being overwhelmed, and more would participate.
In my dream world, the TRS is limited to like ten or so threads at a time, and no new issue may be brought up before one of these is resolved, and which tropes are brought up next is decided by some voting mechanism where people can up-vote any trope they come across that they think is broken.
And also there'd be more stringent limits of some sort on the YKTTW to ensure there isn't a million new tropes being added to the site every day, overwhelming any attempt to bring order to the chaos.
Ah well, I can dream...
edited 15th Mar '12 12:06:52 PM by girlyboy
One of the reasons the TRS moves slowly is that people don't want to take the time to do the actual work required to carry out decisions.
I don't think adding a third and fourth crowner would help. It's better to put Keep Until Better Name Is Suggested or None Of The Above on the alt-titles crowner, and if that wins then new names need to be suggested.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.Voting that a trope could use a better name isn't the same as agreeing that the options you are presented for a new name better than the current name. Changing an imperfect name for a worse name is breaking a trope even more, not repairing it.
I can vote that I'd rather not have to eat peanut butter sandwiches every day. That doesn't mean I want to eat mud pies every day.
And if no one can think of a name that is better, just keep the current name and try other approaches like cleaning up misuse and clarrifying the defintion.
edited 15th Mar '12 1:49:17 PM by Catbert
I don't know why people upvote renames if they don't see any better suggestion.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAlmost everyone who upvotes a name does it because they like it and they think it will work. There's a lot of people who after a rename crowner have sour grapes about the result because it's not what they wanted. That's the biggest source of this sort of complaining from what I can tell. It only seems to show up when someone doesn't get the solution they wanted.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThe problem with "just keep the current name" is that renames usually (or are supposed to) happen when the current name is causing problems and should not stay. Just keeping it because the new suggestions aren't witty (read: don't reference a show you watch) or funny (read: incomprehensible and/or a pun) does not somehow make the old name not-broken.
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.
Well, that's useless snark. Witty names help the wiki by being more memorable and thus more likely to be used, more likely to attract inbounds, and by giving the trope, and the wiki as a whole, more of a personality.
There's also the proposed names that read more like laconic wiki descriptions of the trope, rather than names at all. Those are never good.
When presented with a list of options, I'm going to guess most people will choose one or two options that they like best compared to the other options, and then up-vote those...
edited 15th Mar '12 3:05:50 PM by girlyboy
If no good names are suggested at the time, then it would be silly to change it to a worse or equally bad name. Another suggestion and crowner helps circumvent that.
Quest 64 threadYou are assuming that just because the suggestions aren't witty, that they are as bad as the previous name. If the previous name is rejected for not being clear, for causing misuse, for being misleading, or for being named after a work, then if the suggestions don't have those problems then they are not as bad as or worse than the previous name. There is a middle ground between "perfect" and "broken" and I cannot understand why "broken" is preferred to "not perfect, but not broken."
What's happening is that people want witty and don't care if it is clear or causes misuse. I like witty too, and find some of the newer names a bit stale, but I don't care for misuse and am sick of reading it and cleaning it up.
As Fast Eddie has said, clear is required. Concise and witty are preferred, but not required. If the previous name is demonstrably not clear, then it has to go.
edited 15th Mar '12 3:26:23 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.If a better one doesn't come up, though, then choosing ones that are as equally bad doesn't help either.
I never said better ones don't exist. Just that sometimes we can't find a better one. That's why we can have more than one attempt at a rename. It won't always work out the first time, respectively.
Quest 64 thread... Okay, what's the mechanism for changing a clear, but stale name to a clear, concise and witty one once someone comes up with one?
Oh, there isn't one?
Hmm, then perhaps we should make sure that when we change a trope's name, perhaps forever, we are changing it to something good? Even if this takes time? Because, you know, no matter how long the TRS discussion lasts, you can be sure the new name it comes up with is very likely to last far, far longer.
edited 15th Mar '12 4:37:50 PM by girlyboy
![]()
Again, why are you assuming that "not witty" automatically equals "just as bad as a broken name that demonstrably causes misuse" ? If that's the assumption on which you are basing your argument, then your argument is fallacy.
Witty is not the same thing as clear. They are two separate things. Fast Eddie has stated that clear is required and witty is not. Clear > witty. A clear name is automatically better than a witty, unclear name because Fast Eddie has declared it so. Unclear names are always bad.
If none of the suggestions are witty, then it makes sense to brainstorm for more. It does not make sense to go back to the broken name that will inevitably cause more misuse. If people prefer witty names, they should suggest some that are witty and clear, instead of complaining that clear is always bad. Why are you so dead-set against suggesting more names? What is so horrible about making suggestions?
edited 15th Mar '12 6:10:06 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.When did I say state anything about "witty"? I never said that. I never even implied that at all.
What I said was that not every crowner will have a good choice. So we go with more, sometimes requiring more than one crowner. Sometimes a crowner will not get any good choices. It happens. We figure out more.
Quest 64 thread
Then what do you mean by the vague and unspecified "bad"? I'm using "bad" to mean "unclear, causes misuse, or named after an older work." Most of the people who complain about renames, including on this very thread, complain because the old name was witty, the new one isn't, and that's all they care about.
edited 15th Mar '12 6:16:27 PM by ArcadesSabboth
Oppression anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere.I'm talking about how some of the suggested names, and even sometimes all the suggestions are just as bad or worse.
Which is probably not what you're referring to at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll leave.
Quest 64 threadWhat I was saying was accidentally off-topic anyway. Please ignore it and move on, thank you.
Quest 64 thread

People upvoting the least bad option are still upvoting the best option.
Also, the problem of TRS being used for not-TRS-worthy issues is a known problem. Fixing it would require either a) a list of TRS-worthy problems in the create-conversation system - I drafted one in the pinned thread in FAQ - or b) someone going around and checking new TRS threads for non TRS-actionable issues and either locking or hollering them, or a system just like the system we use in OTC to prevent flame-risking threads. And this all would require a detailed walkthrough of TRS procedure, which to my mind doesn't exist anywhere.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman