Needs Help: Logical Fallacies

(thread-hopping a bit here but some possibly relevant context on how Logical Fallacies got into this state is that it started off as You Fail Logic Forever)

Should we call the crowner? It's almost unanimous.

Did you holler to ask the mods?

No, but I'll go ahead and do that.

Anyway, how should we determine which pages to merge? Should we vote on everything, or use my alternate suggestion in this post?

I think we should go with the alternate suggestion you posted in that post. It's mainly the wick-starved stubs we're concerned with.

So here's what we're looking at based on wicks alone:

We would be keeping 29 pages, merging 12 pages, and voting on 45 pages. (There are some other things indexed here that are only tangentially related, such as The Big Lebowski or More Dakka, but I'm not including them here.) Overall, the pages here have more wicks than I thought they did. So it's not going to remove that many things from the voting pool.

I wonder if we should merge Appeal to Nature and Appeal to Inherent Nature. The latter is stated to be a subset of the former.

As for the rest of the vote options, are we using a sandbox page like we did for Wiki Tropes?

I think a crowner would be doable since The Con's crowner had quite a few options, and since we'd be doing a simple yea-or-nay vote on whether to merge, but if everyone else would prefer a sandbox, that's fine with me.

Hmm... I guess it's not that many more options than The Con had (someone said on the previous page that the crowner for that thread had 37 options, while this one would have 45). So I don't know. A sandbox page would be easier for me to set up, but a crowner would be easier to vote on.

I probably should have said this sooner, but part of why I would prefer a crowner over a sandbox (if possible) is because the sandbox for Wiki Tropes has gone quite a while without sufficient activity to take action on some of the entries.

In contrast, crowners can easily be advertised on ATT, making it easier to get options within consensus range, while the Wiki Tropes sandbox wasn't a simple yea-or-nay vote, and the reason consensus couldn't be gauged with some of the options is because different people had different suggestions for what to do with the individual entries.

If a sandbox for Logical Fallacies ends up being a simple yea-or-nay vote even with a sandbox, I suppose advertising on ATT is still doable, but if a crowner can handle that many options, I think we might as well use one.

Mmm, that's a good point about the sandbox approach. Though if it is just done in "Merge / Don't Merge" fashion, maybe it'll be okay?

Here's the crowner. I guess it's not that bad, but I don't think I'd want to make a crowner any bigger than that.

Also, here's some interesting things I noted about the pages as I gathered the on-page example counts:

Looks like the crowner got attached without a mod post, so I'm just going to bump the thread so people see it.

Voted on everything.

For transparency, I want to explain my mindset. I didn't just pay attention to the wicks and example count, but also how the examples were written, how the page was written and organized, and how easily it'd be able to be reformatted as a proper trope.

I want to say that I think a lot of these pages, keepable or not, are obnoxiously formatted and buried in jargon, and definitely aren't written as tropes. So even the ones we keep will need to be fixed IMO to make them standardized with the rest of the wiki, because a lot of them I was tempted to merge for the formatting alone (but I had other factors that made me decide beyond that issue).

I think it's worth mentioning that Everything Except Most Things already went through TRS once because it was misused when it was called Overwhelming Exception, and I'm pretty sure the wick check showed that it's already used as a trope for examples from works, so I voted against merging it. The reason it was called Overwhelming Exception in the first place is presumably because Wikipedia calls it that. (As a side note, since the Wikipedia article in question is a stub with only one citation, I pointed out that there's a lack of evidence for "overwhelming exception" being a preexisting term in its TRS thread.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 7th 2021 at 9:36:06 AM

Thinking we should advertise the crowner in ATT. The vote count as of this post is...pretty lacking.

Yeah, I fully expected some things to be downvoted (in fact, I downvoted a bunch of things in there, like Slippery Slope Fallacy). I only put Everything Except Most Things on the crowner because it's indexed under Logical Fallacies and its wick count was within the established threshold.

That's what I was thinking, too. I'll go ahead and do that.

Edit: Done.

Edited by Serac on Aug 7th 2021 at 10:42:34 AM

I'm seeing a few that could be merged into their supertrope/super-fallacy instead of a UN.

What happens to fictional work wicks of a fallacy article that is merged?

I'm assuming we'd just replace the wicks with wicks to Logical Fallacies itself.

I want to say that I think a lot of these pages, keepable or not, are obnoxiously formatted and buried in jargon, and definitely aren't written as tropes.

Aye, that's because they weren't originally tropes but sections on the Logical Fallacies page that served to explain the fallacies. They were never really intended to be tropes.

Were they supposed to essentially be Definition-Only Pages, aside from the fact that we didn't have a definition-only page category at the time?

So... it's been well over a week, and some items have 10+ votes while others don't. I already advertised it in ATT, so I don't think that will draw in any new votes. Should we just call it?

It can likely be called now.

Hmmmm...

My only concern with calling now is that there's some options that are right on the cusp of being within consensus range. It feels weird to exclude those ones just because less people voted for them, but I also agree that we need more people to vote for them before we can call it.