Retool into an Administrivia Page: Multi Part Picture

"But I still don't get why you need trope pages for wikishit."

That's not really a question for this thread. You'd have to ask that about Wiki Tropes in general, and likely even Fora and other New Media Tropes. You can't just ask for one page to be cut based on something you are applying to all tropes on an index. At the very least, it means you'd have to do this for every other trope listed, one at a time.

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

Tropes allowed here aren't limited to storytelling. If they have a reason that applies in the relevant field (like many Video Game Tropes with storyless games), they are still a trope.

"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."

That still assumes tropes can only be about storytelling. As we have Wiki Tropes, with their own uses and information, that reasoning doesn't make this invalid.

"What you appear to be saying is that the use of the description and examples here, is that they provide description and examples."

Wrong. You wanted me to show you "how this is useful or meaningful". That is what the description and examples do. But instead, you misstate the context of my comment to claim I'm answering something else. And again, you can't claim they are not useful or meaningful by a narrow definition of what makes a trope here.

No it doesn't. I was arguing this page is not useful or meaningful. At all.

Why is it wrong? What else did I claim you were answering? All I did was parse your statement for its meaning. It is always better to be clearer in expression, rather than assume everyone else is being petty or dense. Even those who are genuinely stupid should at least be given the courtesy of proper clarifications so they can understand what is being said.

The statement in post 48 did indeed appear to mean that the description and examples here are useful because they provide description and examples. Please explain why this interpretation is incorrect.

edited 24th Jan '12 5:33:44 PM by Ckuckoo

"No it doesn't. I was arguing this page is not useful or meaningful. At all."

Well you haven't given a reason. You've just used either a narrow definition of what tropes we allow here, misrepresented the definition, or just claimed it's not useful or meaningful. Two are invalid, and the last is just insisting something.

"All I did was parse your statement for its meaning."

No, you claimed my answer to your inquiry was an answer to something else. That isn't parsing. That's trying to make my answer look like something other than it is.

"The statement in post 48 did indeed appear to mean that the description and examples here are useful because they provide description and examples. Please explain why this interpretation is incorrect."

It's bad because it's assuming the usefulness to be a tautology, instead of the very point of this site. I've already stated that the usefulness and meaning of trope pages is to provide information about tropes. That is what descriptions and examples are for, and that is what this page does.

And how is giving information, on why something is done a certain way on this site, "deadwood"? If you mean it's not about storytelling, that argument does not belong on this one trope. It belongs on a thread about Wiki Tropes in general.

The claim I am deliberately 'trying' to 'make' posts look like anything other than they are is presumptuous and baseless. It is possible to disagree without deliberately distorting something, and the failure of post 48 to adequately convey what you now claim to be your views is not my responsibility.

The information is neither useful nor meaningful. I repeat, People Sit On Chairs includes, as a proscription for what is pointless, recurring entities in media that are not meaningful. This is not meaningful. Therefore, it is People Sit On Chairs.

Please confine any disagreement with this argument to the quality of the argument itself, rather than relying on fanciful claims that assume deliberate misinterpretation or misunderstanding on my part.

"The information is neither useful nor meaningful."

That only is true if no one would care about this. Unless you can show that (as in something like a genuine statistical survey), that is an opinion being presented as fact.

Just because you don't find a use for it does not mean it doesn't have a use.

It says multi-part pics are okay and then gives general examples of why they are used. I found that sort of useful.

Neither you, nor anyone else, have given any reason to think it is useful or meaningful.

Discussion Recap

Informative, useful, or meaningful?''

So it is informative.

Useful, or meaningful?''

Note that while I made an error in my initial post here, you never further clarified your position other than here:

And here:

Which again, is explaining why it is informative, not useful or meaningful.

edit

Ok my post is a bit out of date already.

@Final Starman

I feel that is something that could be picked up just by going through this wiki or other media that use this kind of technique. However, if you disagree and find it useful as a piece of information in how to use the site, then I won't argue.

edited 24th Jan '12 7:02:23 PM by Ckuckoo

"Neither you, nor anyone else, have given any reason to think it is useful or meaningful."

It's about giving information on why a common thing happens on this site (which I have stated, repeatedly). And as has been shown, some think that's useful and meaningful.

"It's about giving information on why a common thing happens on this site" is a bad argument. Words happen on this site. A page on words wouldn't be useful or meaningful. I would hope that Final Starman wouldn't advocate a page on Words either.

As I said, I feel that is something that could be picked up just by going through this wiki or other media that use this kind of technique. If Starman disagrees, s/he is yet to say so, although s/he probably will.

"I feel that is something that could be picked up just by going through this wiki or other media that use this kind of technique."

What makes you think that tropes are about information we couldn't get any other way?

Besides, that method is how we note tropes are happening, so we can put them on ykttw.

The difference that tropes meaningfully impact the media they are in, rather than just existing in it. I don't think this qualifies as this, although obviously there is disagreement here. Furthermore, if all Wiki Tropes are about is "giving information on why a common thing happens on this site", which I am confused about (but there is no room for a new TRS thread on it), then Words is a valid trope, as is Sentences, which seems ridiculous.

Trope descriptions and examples are made up of words and sentences, which do make up these pages.

And you're still trying to insist that a form of page image is no better than words and sentences. Again, pictures are to illustrate the trope. Multi part pictures are about illustrating through more than one picture.

edited 24th Jan '12 7:36:06 PM by DragonQuestZ

Words are used to describe a trope. Word Sequencing would be about describing using different types of sequences of words - for example, dot points as opposed to sentences - and why this is done. It genuinely seems identical to the "Pictures are used to illustrate a trope, this is about the different ways multiple-picture sequencing can be used to illustrate a trope, and why this is done".

Why is that a bad thing? That's pretty much the definition of this trope. Why is that not enough for a trope?

Again, it's about illustrating the trope. Since page pictures could be a trope (we have other pages about them), then why does this not qualify as a Sub-Trope?

"It says multi-part pics are okay and then gives general examples of why they are used."

Actually it says in some cases they are necessary. Tried editing that out, but it was put back, gave up instead of edit warring.

1. There wasn't any edit warring. For some reason, your edit didn't register. You can see it on the page history. It was just a glitch.

2. The description doesn't claim that they are necessary, at least not claiming they are vital. The description notes that a single frame isn't always the best option.

If you mean the line "they often cannot be reasonably shown in a single frame", it doesn't mean they can't ever be shown, just that it's not always practical. And I realize reasons for that should be put in the description.

edited 24th Jan '12 7:57:44 PM by DragonQuestZ

Would you support Word Sequencing as a trope? IMO both of these are a waste of space.

edit

Again, it's not enough for a trope because it's not meaningful. Tropes are supposed to be meaningful analysis of phenomenon in media. This is analysis, but it's just not meaningful.

edited 24th Jan '12 8:37:11 PM by Ckuckoo

You are just giving your opinion that's it's not meaningful.

Plus trope aren't about "meaning". They are about "purpose". There is a difference. Showing the trope with more than one picture is the purpose.

Yes it did. Not the blank edit.

And yes, "cannot be shown" is a bizarre (and false) claim to make. "Are not shown"?

edited 24th Jan '12 8:47:16 PM by rodneyAnonymous

No one in this whole thread has given a reason that this is a meaningful page. No one. Things are not meaningful simply because you can't prove they're utterly useless. They are meaningful when it is demonstrated they provide valuable meaning. That is what the word actually means.

No one has given reason to believe this is meaningful, although Starman suggested it is useful. Therefore, no one in this thread has any business claiming this page is meaningful until they can back it up. If you think whether it is meaningful or not is irrelevant, you are welcome to argue this line. But do not make claims you cannot support.

—edited for clarity

edited 24th Jan '12 8:57:23 PM by Ckuckoo

"they often cannot" is an acceptable term, as it just means sometimes it happens. If you are contesting that it never happens, that's a different issue.

The meaning is explaining this trope on this site. If you are using "meaningful" in any other context, then it doesn't apply here, as tropes are not about being "meaningful". They are tools (Tropes Are Tools is called that for a reason, and page pictures are tools of this site), not some kind of items of truth.

Good grief, the whole point of People Sit On Chairs is to separate something meaningful (reveals something about media, has contextual importance, is of technical value) from something that is not (is arbitrary, ill-defined has no contextual importance, etc.)

Otherwise, why not make People Sit On Chairs an actual trope?

To requote you:

So if I was to create a new page, called Sitting On Chairs, give description and examples, that would make it meaningful and/or appropriate as a trope?

edit

And again, why no endorsement of Word Sequencing, when it's the same as Multi Part Picture?

edited 24th Jan '12 9:23:58 PM by Ckuckoo

Illustrating a trope is not what putting words in a sequence is. This trope still involves that. So calling it the same is a factual error. Illustrating the trope is the meaning here.

I notice you do not seem to be addressing the "illustrating the trope" part, even though I've mentioned it several times. And don't give me any claims that it's irrelevant, since that is the very point of page pictures in general, which means that this meaning is carried over to this one.

Until you can prove that illustrating the trope somehow is not meaningful, then the claim that this is PSOC is not valid, as there is a purpose, use, and meaning to illustrating a trope.

Illustrating a trope, and "oh look, sometimes you can illustrate a trope with more than one illustration" is not the same thing. I never said illustrating a trope is not meaningful, nor do I see how it's relevant to the existence of this lone, poorly-thought-out page.

edit

Trope description requires words, and there are various ways to sequence those words. Trope description may also involve pictures, and there are various ways to sequence these pictures. Same thing.

People Sit On Chairs.

edited 24th Jan '12 10:05:06 PM by Ckuckoo

Keep it civil. The arguments here are starting to get a bit too heated.