Outdated Administrivia Pages

Eh, but it'd catch people who didn't fully read the page. I say we try updating How To Create A Works Page first and then see about adding content to NamespaceGoesHere.Title Goes Here if the confusion persists.

I think that an one-two sentence statement on NamespaceGoesHere.Title Goes Here makes sense. Anything more should be on the "How to" page.

Something like:

Hey, looking to create a page? This isn't the place- try replacing the namespace and title in the URL to get to the page you want.

I'd be fine with that. If there's still confusion, we can consider further improvements.

Edited by Piterpicher on Aug 29th 2020 at 10:21:41 AM

RE: Red Paint Argument:

This needs a better name, imo. Even if it were only permitted for the IP issues of illustrations, it would need a better name, but I think it also applying to TRS renames means it shouldn't have such a specific name. The name could be more clear about the concept, and "Red Paint" Argument seems to be a TV Tropes term. I've never heard it used in the wild or on TV Tropes (despite having seen examples of it for myself). And a Google search comes up with little to nothing for the fallacy.

This type of argument concerns those people who rely on an appeal to probability that is absurdly unlikely, making a small probability seem like a high one. Note that we do not yet have a page for Appeal To Probability (or Appeal To Possibility, which is listed on Logical Fallacies).

To be fair, this may be distinct from Appeal to Probability in that this type of argument relies on inflating a probability that itself is absurdly unlikely (e.g. "Someone might see this image on Bloody Tropes that depicts a splash of red in a blood splatter pattern as just red paint"). Or "deflating" a probability that itself is very likely. I just think there could be a better name than using a highly specific scenario for a generalized issue.

An example I can think of (that isn't blood related) would be with trying to illustrate Nightmare Fuel pages where someone argues that X is scary to a lot of people when the chances are that X-as-illustrated is not very likely to scare most people.

Edited by WaterBlap on Aug 29th 2020 at 3:37:05 AM

It is a TV Tropes term. It was created by people on IP to describe something on IP.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use a more clear title, but we're not trying to describe an actual, pre-existing term or fallacy; we're just recording something that gets discussed on IP, where it originated.

I never said it was not created by TV Tropes. In fact, I implied that it was one of those terms TV Tropes made up. I've always suggested generalized names for generalized concepts, and "Red Paint" Argument is a specific name for a general concept.

And it doesn't just apply to IP, as mentioned above about TRS renames.

And on top of that, I was saying "Why not make a page for Appeal To Possibility since we don't yet have one and this is pretty much the same concept? Also that would be a good name for this, but maybe it would be distinct."

Edited by WaterBlap on Aug 29th 2020 at 3:42:04 AM

Right, but the way you asked made it sound like you thought we were trying to discuss some sort of logical fallacy, when we're mostly just trying to define a term that might pop up on IP. Appeal To Possibility, while a good idea for a page, just wouldn't fill the role we're looking for as a term-definition page for a weird phrase that gets tossed around in a specific area of the site.

Red Paint Argument might be a type of Appeal To Possibility (maybe, Idk), but I don't think we should lump them together since doing so sort of misses the point of why we're looking to make the page. It's not about policy or even describing a phenomenon, it's just for the sake of definition.

The definition on the page is a definition for a logical fallacy. "An argument that relies on irrational conclusions" is a fallacious argument, where the "support" doesn't actually support the conclusion.

Do you not agree that "Red Paint" Argument is a logical fallacy? The current page itself describes itself as such.

What made me think of Appeal to Possibility specifically was our Logical Fallacies page, which states "Claiming that if something can't be shown to be completely impossible, it must be true," which is what this type of argument does. "It's not completely impossible that the image will be misinterpretted, so it is likely to be misinterpretted." Inflating the probability.

Edited by WaterBlap on Aug 29th 2020 at 3:49:59 AM

I'm not disagreeing that it's a logical fallacy, I even said it's probably a type of one. But what I am saying is that the page we want is to define the term as used by IP, which means we need to use the name the IP regulars use, because that's the purpose of the page; something to direct people to if they don't understand the term we're using.

If we make the page and don't call it "Red Paint" Argument, then cool, we have a page on a logical fallacy, but it's not going to help with this specific thing we're trying to deal with- which is people not knowing what "Red Paint" Argument means.

I was seriously doubting that people actually use the phrase "red paint argument" anywhere, hence mentioning Google not really coming up with anything. But it looks like it comes up sporadically every so often. Not often enough for regulars to know it just by regularly participating in IP, mind, but often enough to pop up in 2015, 2016, 2019, and this February.

Edited by WaterBlap on Aug 29th 2020 at 3:59:14 AM

Like I said, it's an Image Pickin' term used in Image Pickin' and nowhere else. You won't find it anywhere outside of TVT or even outside of IP. That's why I'm concerned about lumping it with the other page concept- it's a niche idea and obscure term, and that's exactly why we want to define it.

Okay.

I highly doubt that a lot of people use the phrase "red paint argument" even in IP considering how rarely it's used in IP but I don't care about the name anymore. You win.

At the very least, the definition should mention that it's a type of Appeal To Possibility (wicking to the yet-to-be-made page to encourage its creation) so as not to confuse people into thinking this is the more general concept.

Mate, I even said I think your idea is a good one. I just disagreed that we should turn a potential "Red Paint Argument" page into a page about Appeal To Possibility, simply because that'd be a different solution to a different problem and wouldn't help in this very specific case.

Why not just have both pages? Because I see the merit in what you want to do. I see how it can be helpful. But our idea for the "Red Paint" Argument page is literally just as a definition for a term that might confuse newbies to IP- and Appeal To Possibility is far broader than that and deserves to be something more than just an IP policy page about an obscure phenomenon. Not making the Red Paint Argument page, though, will just not solve the problem we're looking to solve.

That said, I've seen it get mentioned several times, personally. It just depends on context; it only comes up when a Red Paint Argument is actually made.

Edited by WarJay77 on Aug 29th 2020 at 5:15:06 AM

I really don't mind keeping NamespaceGoesHere.Title Goes Here redlinked, because frankly there are too many people coming here who apparently scooped out their brains and replaced them with Jello® brand pudding. Coddling them goes against everything I stand for.

That's why I think we should expand How To Write An Example first and see if it has any impact.

I don't see why the name Red Paint Argument can't exist as-is alongside more widespread IP terminology, like BUPKIS and Keep Until Better Image Suggested (abbreviated as K-U-B-I-S without the hyphens, but the acronym automatically gets expanded when typed normally).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 30th 2020 at 2:27:19 PM

"Red Paint" Argument isn't a trope, it's literally just a term we sometimes use in Image Pickin. Titling the page something else would completely defeat the point of making it in the first place. We're not just gonna suddenly start using a different term just because somebody said to.

Edited by Primis on Aug 31st 2020 at 5:48:16 AM

In that case, maybe Bibble Bobble shouldn’t be a page either.

The Bibble Bobble link is created by a site bug. The page exists to explain it. There's no user error involved in visiting the page — if it coddles anyone's mistakes, it's, uh, the admins.

I agree.

I'd imagine there are Logical Fallacies behind at least some of the other things the Administrivia index says not to do, but since Administrivia pages describe TV Tropes terminology and not tropes, it doesn't matter what they're called offsite. (Either that, or the term(s) mean something slightly different offsite, such as how Wikipedia's Edit War policy includes things like the three-revert rule, while ours doesn't.)

Also, the reason why the term isn't used often is partially because it was created by Image Pickin for Image Pickin, and partially because one of the few places it's listed on the site is relatively far down the list on the glossary page (meaning it probably won't be seen by someone doing a Ctrl+F for more commonly used terms), meaning people don't know to use it to begin with, not because of any inherent problems with the term's name or definition.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Sep 1st 2020 at 3:16:32 AM

Sometimes I wonder if a redirect to TV Tropes Glossary would be a better idea than to have a dedicated page.

It would certainly be better than having a red link. Examples Are Not General redirects to How to Write an Example, for example.

That said, I'm still leaning toward having a separate page.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Sep 1st 2020 at 3:14:51 AM

Yeah, the issue is that the glossary is just too long and people won't want to scroll just to learn what Red Paint Argument means.

I wouldn't mind splitting the glossary actually, like into smaller ones- TLP Glossary, IP and TRS Glossary, etc.

Seriously? You don't scroll through a glossary; you search in it. Unless you're weird like me and make it your casual afternoon read.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 1st 2020 at 5:06:44 AM