Retool into an Administrivia Page: Multi Part Picture

Not sure about the etiquette for this; I looked for examples and didn't see any that were clear-cut. (No pun intended.)

So... what is this? Not a trope... not an index... not administrivia...

It's part of the Wiki Tropes. What that means is that it's a pattern on this site. The purpose is that often a picture can be shown in more than one frame. It's not vital for most tropes, but it's a viable option to illustrate the trope.

And for some tropes that require multiple elements shown at once (like Most Common Super Power and Loads And Loads Of Characters), a collage might actually show it better than rare instances that there is a Canon picture that does it all one one frame.

So it is a trope? Doesn't seem like it.

Wiki Tropes are patterns and tools particular to this site. That means the purpose and use applies mainl here, not with other works.

And if you don't see the reason behind it, I already stated it in the previous post.

I don't think it really needs the list.

Don't see any reason to cut it, though, since it works as a Predefined Message if nothing else.

Well the list is for anyone curious, so they can see various examples.

Eh, I say cut it. Most wikis have multiple pictures, we apparently were the exception, except not anymore. People Sit On Chairs

This page seems inoffensive and borderline useful to me. I don't see a reason to cut it.

PSOC does not mean "unique". It means "no purpose", and the reasons are explicitly spelled out in the description.

That's not really a defense of this page as much as calling on on yet another Square Peg Round Trope use of PSOC.

edited 23rd Jan '12 7:52:35 PM by DragonQuestZ

I really don't see how we need a page to explain this.

And the list is SO out of date and incomplete.

By like... several hundred picture. As a conservative estimate, considering the popularity of multi part pictures on Image Pickin.

1. It's a common convention on this wiki and others. That's the need to explain.

2. When is being not extensive a strike against a page? It just shows more pages need to be added.

It's a common convention everywhere. Anyone who's finished kindergarden should understand this. I have elementary school schoolbooks with multi-part pictures in them! Having to explain this borders on an insulting "Viewers Are Morons" territory.

Explaining idioms or terms is one thing. But that's explaining a basic RL functioning skill.

edited 23rd Jan '12 8:09:18 PM by Ghilz

You seem to be assuming that 1) it's claiming this only happens in this wiki, and 2) if we are explaining something that is Truth in Television, it can only be because Viewers Are Morons, and not because it's about explaining the particulars of why it happens here.

edited 23rd Jan '12 8:20:08 PM by DragonQuestZ

Um, an action can't be shown with one picture, so someone uses a sequence of pictures to show it. If that's not chairs? What is?

• Weight loss commercial: I used to look like this...now
  • Acne commercial
  • Skin lightening commercial
  • Skin tannin commercial
• Toilet cleaning commercial:Watch as our product does its work
  • laundry commercial
  • drain cleaning commercial
• Our product is nothing like the other guys:here is a side by side comparison
  • Sports news:this shows just how far apart they are
    • See the similarities in the way they kick the football
• School Book:here are the different types of triangles:two lines the same, all lines the same, no lines the same.

So yeah, I'm not seeing the point of here we used more than one picture to describe something. Maybe if we were documenting multiple pictures as a story telling trope like Sign Language but we're not, we're basically tooting our own horn over chairs.

"Um, an action can't be shown with one picture, so someone uses a sequence of pictures to show it. If that's not chairs? What is?"

That's not chairs at all. Plenty of legit tropes are based on necessity instead of plot, characterization, Rule of Index, etc. Plus not all of these examples are for that reason anyway.

Yeah, I'm not really seeing the point of this page.

This is as People Sit On Chairs as:

No need for this.

That counts as Dialog, which is a trope (it's listed as an index, but that's because it's too broad to have any specific examples, and this isn't any where near that common).

Not claiming this page is vital, but it's not chairs. That means no purpose. Giving information about the trope through more than one image is the purpose.

A sequence of words is not dialogue, it is either sentences or phrases (which of course can be dialogue). There is no need for a page on phrases or sentences as entities in and of themselves, just like there is no need for a page on Multi Part Picture. Yes, we have Stock Phrases and Catch Phrases, but those are about a very specific type of sequences of words and the role they play in media, rather than just "yes, phrases exist, look they exist like this, [explanation]".

Also, as an aside out of genuine curiosity, why is Dialog spelled that way, instead of Dialogue?

edit

I get what you mean about it not being chairs, but I don't see how this conveys information about storyelling conventions in a meaningful or useful way, particularly when it has one reason it exists as "No Reason". I guess it is more meaningful to, as others have mentioned, point out this assumes Viewers Are Morons.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:01:39 AM by Ckuckoo

Coz he's using the redirect for Dialogue.

Dialog is a valid alternate spelling of Dialogue and is thus a redirect to the main page.

"There is no need for a page on phrases or sentences as entities in and of themselves, just like there is no need for a page on Multi-Part Picture."

That is not a valid argument. It's just "X has attribute Z, and so does Y". That doesn't follow that Y is invalid. It only shows it shares an attribute with X. It's a form of association fallacy.

No, no, like, the frames are like words. You might have a trope about a way words are used to say something, but "words" isn't a trope. The sentence they make might be.

It's still using that association fallacy, and ignoring the fact that pictures, regardless of how many, are still to illustrate tropes. Therefore sharing an attribute with something that isn't a trope doesn't work, because it does not discredit the point of multi part pictures.

That is part of what makes that argument an association fallacy. It pretends the shared aspect is all that is relevant here.

@DQZ

It's not an association fallacy. When a formulation is invalid, it doesn't matter what you put in it, the formulation is still invalid. In this case, the formulation is sequencing something and assuming this provides meaning. Sequencing words, like "pill flower pot wet desert fascist old old old young old young garnish" is not meaningful in and of itself. Sequencing pictures is not meaningful in and of itself.

Like Rodney says, the frame or formulation of these things isn't inherently meaningful.

—edited for clarity

edited 24th Jan '12 12:11:00 AM by Ckuckoo

"In this case, the formulation is sequencing something and assuming this provides meaning. Sequencing words, like "pill flower pot wet desert fascist old old old young old young garnish" is not meaningful in and of itself. Sequencing pictures is not meaningful in and of itself."

You're implying that this is nothing but "sequencing pictures". That is another invalid argument. This is showing a trope in more than one illustration in the same picture. That is the point of this. That makes a purpose. This is not PSOC, because it has a point on this site. Your arguments against it makes me wonder if you even looked past the thread title.