Retool into an Administrivia Page: Multi Part Picture

So far the best anyone else has had to say is that it's not worthless.

Which involves sequencing pictures. In a trope. You're point being?

Calm down, dude.

That ignores that there hasn't been a good reason to cut it either.

"Which involves sequencing pictures. In a trope. You're point being?"

Not all of them are sequencing. That, and your post in #24 shows you think that word means "putting on thing after the other with no rhyme or reason". That's not what it means.

"Calm down, dude."

That's your response to "our arguments against it makes me wonder if you even looked past the thread title"? If you did read the page, just tell us so.

So why do we even need wiki tropes anyway?

Well, Wiki Tropes are tropes. They are just tropes that get used by wikis, like Blue Shifting or Spelling Nazi.

"Different colored backgrounds" is also a characteristic wikis tend to share, but it's not a trope.

Also: Ignores what? I think you are reading something that isn't there.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:56:51 AM by rodneyAnonymous

To explain Wiki Jargon (what is Natter or an Entry Pimp for example) and procedures.

This one I honestly don't see why we have it. It's explaining a basic skill people learn in kindergarden.

"So why do we even need wiki tropes anyway?"

For the same reason we have tropes for message boards, an other stuff related to new media. Some things are distinct to this site and its sisters, so we list them and what they are about.

"This one I honestly don't see why we have it. It's explaining a basic skill people learn in kindergarden."

How does knowing how to paste picture together not make the use of it here, for the purpose of illustrating a trope in more than one frame, not a trope? That's basically saying that any skill we learn as kids is not a trope.

EDIT: Are you seriously thinking this page is only to note that multi part pictures exist? That seems to be what you are implying.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:44:57 AM by DragonQuestZ

Of course that's not what sequencing means. That's an example of a type of sequencing which has no meaning. This type of sequencing is referred to on the Multi Part Picture page as if it's worth noting or in any way meaningful. It's right there on the page, as I referenced earlier (yes, I have already referred to stuff actually on the page).

Pointless.

Agreed.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:46:11 AM by Ckuckoo

Well strictly speaking, it's not. Ever read whats the meaning of the word trope? To quote our page Tropes: "Tropes are storytelling devices and conventions." A trope page is not a story, nor does it use storytelling devices. The multipart image used to illustrate a trope page? Not a trope. A skill we learn as a kid is not a story, nor does it use storytelling convention. Interpreting multi-part images (A skill you need to do everyday stuff like learning to drive or shop) is no more a story telling device than learning to not spill food over your shirt while eating.

A trope isn't just "A pattern I happen to notice" or "something that happens a lot".

No, I am also implying the page is there to explain a skill most people acquire before they even learn to read.

Again, look at the Fora index. Those don't fit your strict definition of "trope", because this site hasn't really been strict on that for a while.

A "pattern that happens a lot for a reason" actually qualifies to make a trope, and that is what the point of this page is, to note that some pictures are done with more than one frame, because the tropers think that picture works.

Calling the "no reason" one pointless shows you need to look up tropes like Rule of Cool. That is what that line actually referred to.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:53:35 AM by DragonQuestZ

"No, I am also implying the page is there to explain a skill most people acquire before they even learn to read."

Illustrating a trope is a skill most people acquire before they learn to read? You really do seem to think this page is only going "hey, pictures can be made of more than one picture", because that is what your lines about this are implying. This is about WHY multi part pictures are used on TV Tropes, not THAT multi part pictures are made at all.

Rule of Cool is not "no reason". That's just a bad pothole.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:56:43 AM by Ckuckoo

So should we have a page about why words are used on tvtropes? Oh! Why Icons are used!

Instead of talking about how the other people in the thread are behaving, you should focus on discussing the issue.

I disagree, and the "no Reason" category is demonstration enough of that.

Can we crowner this, or vote or something?

edited 24th Jan '12 1:04:47 AM by Ckuckoo

, That only means that line was worded poorly (as in those two words can just be striken from the line). It does not mean this trope has a strike against it.

That's the begging the question fallacy.

Then again, why not have a trope about icons? They apply to a lot of things, from wikis, to early GUI based computer programs.

edited 24th Jan '12 1:07:11 AM by DragonQuestZ

As I've said before, this is about sequencing pictures (yes, on Trope pages). I fail to see how this is informative, useful, or meaningful.

Because your definition oversimplifies it. It's that some tropers, for various reasons (because many tropes don't have the same reason), think a picture with more than one frame is better at showing a trope than a single picture.

That is the definition, and claiming it's less is not going to actually make less than that.

edited 24th Jan '12 1:23:07 AM by DragonQuestZ

I disagree, but I'll leave that for the moment. How this is informative, useful, or meaningful?

It actually says that on the page description. Claiming it's less than what is on the page actually does fall under oversimplifying.

As for your question, the basic reason is the same for the same reason as putting an picture on a TV Tropes page, which is to help illustrate a trope/work/index/etc. This has the addition of showing more information with the addition of extra pictures.

That's basically the whole point in a nutshell. It's about information, which is the point of this site, but in a certain way compared to other forms this site uses.

edited 24th Jan '12 1:39:41 AM by DragonQuestZ

So you have no explanation as to how this is useful or meaningful.

sorry, i made an error in my post, i am quite busy now so i shall respond properly later

edited 24th Jan '12 1:45:57 AM by Ckuckoo

The description and examples are the use and information, same as any trope page on this site.

That's not me trying to dodge the question. That is the point of trope pages. My definition in the previous post is simply to note the specifics of this trope. The page use and information is otherwise the same as other trope pages, to describe the trope and give examples of it.

edited 24th Jan '12 1:45:43 AM by DragonQuestZ

But I still don't get why you need trope pages for wikishit. Surely tropes are for narrative devices and, excluding SCP foundation, wikis don't have narrative, or plot or literary devices. It just seems like trope is being used here for shit that happens, in this case not even in fiction. I mean, you don't have real-life tropes, because life doesn't have them. You don't have bowling tropes, because bowling does not have them. You don't have jam making tropes, because jam making doesn't have tropes. So why have Wiki tropes when wikis don't have them?

OK, so when is a trope pointless and, basically, not a trope? According to People Sit On Chairs:

Multi Part Picture is not meaningful. Currently, it provides us with information about how pictures can be sequenced on a Trope page, perhaps because they think a picture with more than one frame is better at showing a trope than a single picture, or perhaps (as remains on the page) because of "Rule of Index" or for No Reason at all. If the 'no reason' section is removed, it still is not a useful page which any troper will find practically helpful.

What you appear to be saying is that the use of the description and examples here, is that they provide description and examples. This seems circular. Maybe this is even the circular logic upon which Wiki Tropes are based, but it is still circular.

I kind of agree with this.

—edited for clarity

edited 24th Jan '12 3:43:31 AM by Ckuckoo