Yes. See: How Crowners Work
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanUpvoted the redefine options, but downvoted the YKTTW one since it will absolutely guarantee we never get this done.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI gave the option of cutting the page a one-up. I also bumped the YKTTW option down. The only problem I can think of with the current frontrunner (redefining it to "says matriarchy, obviously isn't") is that it would need clear and inarguable guidelines, which might result in a shortage of examples.
The whole description, I think, would have to be rewritten. A lot of the examples currently on the page seem to stem from individual opinions of what should happen in a matriarchy — clothing, who gets to join the army, etc. — as opposed to what would have to.
edited 10th Jan '13 3:28:14 AM by abloke
By making it "defined as, or called a matriarchy within the work", we sidestep a lot of the problems of defining 'matriarchy' ourselves; the question becomes "Does the author directly say that it's supposed to be a matriarchy, or does (s)he have one of the characters say that it is?" If the answer to that is 'no', then it's not an example. We'll still have some of the problem of tropers wanting to use the page to complain about the way some author did or didn't handle it, but we at least have a criteria that's clear to use to catch and cull those.
Theoretically the new definition is alright, but it's so restrictive that I can't see it finding many examples at all. Add to that the difficulty of getting people to supply really informative entries to YKTTW, and it just seems like too much work to be worth it.
I suppose that if someone was really willing to give the YKTTW the diligent curation it'd need, it might work, but could we cut the existing page in the meantime?
I can see YKTTW as an option, but only if the launch of that YKTTW isn't a prerequisite for the closure of this thread. Otherwise, it's just going to hold this thing up forever.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI'd say anything but cutting it would be too confusing to explain why a particular example should be included. I still don't think I've made clear how the Nobody's Princess example fits (in the first redefinition), but nobody has said that it doesn't either.
I believe whenever a TRS makes a YKTTW the YKTTW has to be finished before the TRS can be closed. I think it was lu127 who said so.
And that's the reason I am saying nay to YKTTW'ing this.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIt's been open for 12 days; "Cut" has a 5 to 1 ratio in favor, of 18 votes.
Calling the crowner with a final decision to cut, on the grounds that it is not clearly defined, and even the clearest possible definition is still subjective and will invite complaining.
edited 22nd Jan '13 1:56:28 PM by Madrugada
Crown Description:
Matriarchy In Name Only suffers from an insufficiently clear definition and was becoming "complaining about social structures you don't like".

While I do agree that shedding examples where there's no claim of matriarchy is a good idea, I think there's another problem. The support has to be something more substantial than 'women dress attractively' or 'men get to fight'. It can't be based on what individuals think would or wouldn't happen in a matriarchy. The only solution I can think of is to only include examples which say 'matriarchy' on the box, but are blatantly ruled by men or egalitarian (if I'm using that word correctly).
With all that considered, I'm leaning towards cutting it. The way this is going, there won't be any examples left.
edited 3rd Jan '13 11:43:30 AM by abloke