Ambiguous Name: Frickin Laser Beams

Maybe we could use another Single Proposition crowner for that after WarJay's crowner is done.

Warjay, your crowner only covers half of the proposition, which is already causing confusion. I move that we replace it with this one.

You wanted a Single Prop crowner and the only thing I really saw being discussed recently was the disambig part, so that's what I made. We can't make a single prop crowner with more than one thing to vote on, so...

If we need to vote for both things, we need a Page Action crowner, because someone might want to disambig but not rename and vice versa.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 1st 2020 at 12:21:08 PM

It's a package deal. Turning Frickin' Laser Beams into a disambig page without renaming it first means de facto cutting the trope, which no one has suggested.

The trope would still have to be cut though? All the wicks would need to be cleared, whether we rename the page or not, if it's becoming a disambig.

There's a pretty big difference between renaming the trope and cutting it altogether. To my knowledge, no one is suggesting the latter.

I'm just seriously not getting your argument here. I'm not talking about cutting, either. Why would making this a disambig with the same name be "cutting the trope", and renaming it not still be cutting the trope? Either the trope is cut in both cases or it's cut in neither, or I'm seriously misunderstanding you, but you're not explaining yourself very well.

The way I see it:

• FLB is renamed and disambiged. The wicks get cut- because we can't wick to a disambig; they're there to catch mistakes, not to be linked to.
• FLB is just disambiged. Again, the wicks get cut- because again, we can't link to disambig pages.

In both cases, we'd still be disambiging this and cutting the wicks. I'm not sure what you think would happen differently if we don't rename it. Why would that specific scenario be "Cutting the trope"?

The former option results in the trope still existing under a different name. The wicks that are misuse get cut, and the ones that are used correctly get changed to the new name.

The latter results in the trope no longer existing. It would be an ex-trope. It would have ceased to be.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about the distinction.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 2nd 2020 at 2:34:07 AM

Not if we're disambiguating it. If we are, the trope ceases to exist regardless. It's no longer a trope.

Unless you mean to say that the FLB disambig would co-exist with the renamed trope? Because that's not made clear by the crowner, which says that we'd rename and disambig it- as in, rename it and turn it into a disambig at the same time.

This is the issue with using a Single-Prop Crowner when we're actually voting on more than one thing- it leads to unnecessary confusion like this.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 2nd 2020 at 5:39:01 AM

The crowner is quite clear. The trope gets moved to a new name, and the old name is used as a disambiguation page.

Okay, I misread the crowner, but that's still two different things being voted on. It just shouldn't be single-prop, as it assumes that the voters either want to do both or neither.

Maybe someone does want to cut the trope, or maybe they disagree with disambiguating.

These are two mutually exclusive options and shouldn't be on the same crowner option.

There is nothing mutually exclusive about the two parts of the course of action being suggested.

If anyone is in favor of cutting the trope altogether, they are welcome to say so and downvote the single prop, and then we can have a conversation about the merits of cutting.

So far, no one has done so.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 2nd 2020 at 2:46:12 AM

Sorry, I misspoke, I meant to say they aren't mutually exclusive, but there's still different options here:

Because:

• Both options could be done; the FLB becomes a disambig while we rename the original trope.
• We only disambig it; FLB effectively gets cut, while the disambig takes over.
• We only rename it; no disambiguating happens, but the trope itself stays.
• We do neither: Worst case scenario that is very unlikely, but still possible; we keep everything as-is.

These things don't have to both happen, so having people vote for them at the same time will lead to a lot of ambiguity if downvotes show up.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 2nd 2020 at 5:50:41 AM

If the crowner fails to reach consensus, we'll need to have a conversation about what to do instead.

Considering it is currently unanimous, I'd call that a bridge we can cross if and when we come to it.

What's the harm in making a new crowner with different options, though? Why did you want it to be single-prop? What's the point in making another crowner afterward if downvotes show up, instead of just fixing any ambiguity before it can occur and letting people voice their thoughts on both options?

I see nothing a single-prop crowner can do here that a page action crowner wouldn't do better.

Does literally anybody have another course of action that they believe merits serious consideration?

At the time I proposed the crowner, there was only one course of action being considered and support for it appeared and continues to appear unanimous.

The crowner is just a formality to confirm that.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 2nd 2020 at 2:59:42 AM

Listen man, all I'm saying is that since people may want to do only one of the two options here, there's zero point in not just making it a Page Action crowner with the options being:

• Rename FLB
• Turn FLB into a redirect
• Do Nothing

and making it clear that the options aren't mutually exclusive.

Why do you want to allow the possibility of any ambiguity, instead of just making the crowner votes as clear as possible?

That is more ambiguous, because there is no option for "use Frickin' Laser Beams as a redirect, but ONLY if the existing trope is renamed, because to do otherwise is to de facto cut the trope."

A single-prop crowner has no ambiguity, because there are only two options:

• Pursue the course of action described
• Do not pursue the course of action described

If we choose the latter— which, again, literally no one is in favor of— then we can discuss alternatives.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 2nd 2020 at 3:06:47 AM

Then we add that as an option, whatever.

I just don't see why you'd want to go through the trouble of not knowing what people are actually voting for, especially in the case of downvotes.

But I'm going to step out of this. I made my case, and I asked on the TRS Policy thread for others to come and give their thoughts, so let's see what other people say. We're going in circles here, so I don't see any point in trying to keep convincing you of anything.

If there's multiple courses of action, we usually do multiple options. I don't think it hurts anything. Most of the people that posted on this thread agree on doing the same thing yeah but most of the votes won't be coming from people involved in this thread (it doesnt help that its not easy to get TRS threads noticed to others not involved) I think it's best to try to represent more options than not.

This getting a little too heated.

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 2nd 2020 at 6:15:30 AM

I ask again: is there literally anyone out there who has a different course of action that they feel merits serious consideration?

The whole reason I announced "hey I would like to put up a single prop crowner" instead of just doing it was to give folks a chance to speak up.

I'm not a fan of putting options on crowners without discussing the pros and cons first. If there's more to discuss— not on theoretical "well I don't know maybe somebody somewhere wants this" grounds, but on practical "this is something I actually want to argue for" grounds— then let's discuss it so that folks can make an informed decision based on an actual conversation in which the pros and cons are weighed.

If not— if there is still only one option that we are seriously considering— then let's put it to a vote, establish consensus, and move on.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 2nd 2020 at 3:21:08 AM

For the record, I only made the first Single Prop crowner because I was under the impression we were just crownering the disambig part. If I knew the full story, I'd have made a Page Action crowner, 100%.

It doesn't matter if we're only tossing around "one option" (which isn't even one option since there's two parts to it). Lurkers and passerby also vote on TRS crowners, and they may disagree with one of the options.

There's literally no reason to not just make a Page Action crowner. Even if it really is unanimous, that just means both options will get upvoted. If literally anyone has any disagreement though, they'd be able to express it.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 2nd 2020 at 6:22:44 AM

I invite anyone who cares to do so to express disagreement or propose alternative courses of action. I did it implicitly before when I announced my intention to put it to a crowner, and I do it explicitly now.

I say keep it safer and use a Page Action crowner.

Page action crowners are for when multiple courses of action are being considered.

As of right now, only one course of action has been proposed. If anyone would like to propose another course of action so that we can consider it, now is the time.

Edited by HighCrate on Mar 4th 2020 at 9:49:02 AM