Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Administrivia / HowToDoAWickCheck

Go To



When a trope gets brought up in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop for being repaired or renamed, the issue of its use around the wiki will not only need to be described, but also backed up with evidence. If your thread states that there's a problem with the trope, such as (but not exclusively) the title [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant confusing editors into thinking the trope is something else]], the trope [[Administrivia/RidiculouslySimilarTrope overlapping too much with another trope]], or the "trope" in question [[Administrivia/NotATrope not being a trope at all]], supporting such claims will involve investigating, how correctly, and generally ''how'' a trope is being used around the wiki. In other words, have a look at how its wicks are behaving. In other other words, do a wick check.

to:

When a trope gets brought up in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop for being repaired or renamed, the issue of its use around the wiki will not only need to be described, but also backed up with evidence. If your thread states that there's a problem with the trope, such as (but not exclusively) the title [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant confusing editors into thinking the trope is something else]], the trope [[Administrivia/RidiculouslySimilarTrope overlapping too much with another trope]], or the "trope" in question [[Administrivia/NotATrope not being a trope at all]], supporting such claims will involve investigating, investigating how correctly, and generally ''how'' ''how'', a trope is being used around the wiki. In other words, have a look at how its wicks are behaving. In other other words, do a wick check.


When a trope gets brought up in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop for being repaired or renamed, the issue of its use around the wiki will not only need to be described, but also backed up with evidence. If your thread states that there's a problem with the trope, such as (but not exclusively) the title [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant confusing editors into thinking the trope is something else]], the trope [[Administrivia/RidiculouslySimilarTrope overlapping too much with another trope]], or the "trope" in question [[Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs not being a trope at all]], supporting such claims will involve investigating, how correctly, and generally ''how'' a trope is being used around the wiki. In other words, have a look at how its wicks are behaving. In other other words, do a wick check.

to:

When a trope gets brought up in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop for being repaired or renamed, the issue of its use around the wiki will not only need to be described, but also backed up with evidence. If your thread states that there's a problem with the trope, such as (but not exclusively) the title [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant confusing editors into thinking the trope is something else]], the trope [[Administrivia/RidiculouslySimilarTrope overlapping too much with another trope]], or the "trope" in question [[Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs [[Administrivia/NotATrope not being a trope at all]], supporting such claims will involve investigating, how correctly, and generally ''how'' a trope is being used around the wiki. In other words, have a look at how its wicks are behaving. In other other words, do a wick check.


Often when a trope gets brought up in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop for being repaired or renamed, the issue of its use around the wiki will come up. Maybe someone will claim that the title is [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant confusing editors into thinking the trope is something else]], or someone will suggest that the title is lacking in the catchiness department and its proliferation is suffering as a result. To support or oppose such a point, you may want to look into how much, how correctly, and generally ''how'' a trope is being used around the wiki. In other words, have a look at how its wicks are behaving. In other other words, do a wick check.

to:

Often when When a trope gets brought up in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop for being repaired or renamed, the issue of its use around the wiki will come up. Maybe someone will claim not only need to be described, but also backed up with evidence. If your thread states that there's a problem with the trope, such as (but not exclusively) the title is [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant confusing editors into thinking the trope is something else]], the trope [[Administrivia/RidiculouslySimilarTrope overlapping too much with another trope]], or someone the "trope" in question [[Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs not being a trope at all]], supporting such claims will suggest that the title is lacking in the catchiness department and its proliferation is suffering as a result. To support or oppose such a point, you may want to look into how much, involve investigating, how correctly, and generally ''how'' a trope is being used around the wiki. In other words, have a look at how its wicks are behaving. In other other words, do a wick check.


Post to the existing thread in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop, or start a new one if there isn't one. Say you did a wick check. Explain what you were trying to check. For each article where you found a wick, '''copy and paste''' the line/sentence it appeared in (this allows other users to double-check your results) and state (preferably in '''bold''') which side of the case it weighs on. Conclude your findings with the relevant statistics.

to:

Post to the existing Start a new thread in the Administrivia/TropeRepairShop, or start a new one if there isn't one.Administrivia/TropeRepairShop. Say you did a wick check. Explain what you were trying to check. For each article where you found a wick, '''copy and paste''' the line/sentence it appeared in (this allows other users to double-check your results) and state (preferably in '''bold''') which side of the case it weighs on. Conclude your findings with the relevant statistics.


You can find a page's list of wicks [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/relatedsearch.php?term=Main/InsertTitleHere here]] (replace "[=InsertTitleHere=]" with the actual title). To do this, use the "related" button, the second option in the top left of most pages. It's a list of other pages which have in-wiki links to that page. That is, a list of its wicks.

to:

You can find a page's list of wicks [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/relatedsearch.php?term=Main/InsertTitleHere here]] (replace "[=InsertTitleHere=]" with the actual title). To do this, Another way to get to this page is to use the "related" button, the second option in the top left of most pages. It's a list of other pages which have in-wiki links to that page. That is, a list of its wicks.


You can find a page's list of wicks [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/relatedsearch.php?term=Main/InsertTitleHere here]] (replace "[=InsertTitleHere=]" with the actual title). If there's already a thread in the Trope Repair Shop discussing the trope, you can just press the "get usage counts" button above the first post in the thread and it will take you to the same page. Another option is to use the "related" button, the second option in the top left of most pages. It's a list of other pages which have in-wiki links to that page. That is, a list of its wicks.

to:

You can find a page's list of wicks [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/relatedsearch.php?term=Main/InsertTitleHere here]] (replace "[=InsertTitleHere=]" with the actual title). If there's already a thread in the Trope Repair Shop discussing the trope, you can just press the "get usage counts" button above the first post in the thread and it will take you to the same page. Another option is to To do this, use the "related" button, the second option in the top left of most pages. It's a list of other pages which have in-wiki links to that page. That is, a list of its wicks.

Added DiffLines:

!!What does a wick check look like?
(For convenience, it's recommended to start each wick check at own Sandbox page)

Opening argument about the problem, predictions about the check.\\
Wicks checked: Progress/Minimum Required.\\
[=[[folder:Correct use per trope page's description (X/Total, %)]]=]\\
[=* CheckedPage: The example with the trope wicked, copied verbatim. '''Checker's personal comment'''=]\\
[=* ...=]\\
[=[[/folder]]=]\\
[=[[folder:Other usage categories (X/Total, %)]]=]\\
[=* (Each category needs a separate folder depending on the alleged issue, like misuse, alternative interpretations of the trope, misplacements, potential splits, and etc) =]\\
[=[[/folder]]=]\\
[=[[folder:ZCE and Unclear use (X/Total, %)]]=]\\
[=* (Lack of context is also a valid reason to believe there is a systematic problem)=]\\
[=[[/folder]]=]\\
[=[[folder:Non-tropes, like a wick in an index page (X/Total, %)]]=]\\
[=* (Many prefer to test few extra wicks since this category is rarely useful)=]\\
[=[[/folder]]=]\\
[=[[folder:Unsorted]]=]\\
[=* (Since the check starts with picking random wicks, it's recommended to copy them first and arrange them afterwards)=]\\
[=[[/folder]]=]

Added DiffLines:

!!This is all still confusing- can I have help?

Sure! Wick Checks can be done collaboratively. Some tropers will leave their sandbox open for however long it takes to complete the check, which in turn allows other interested parties to add their own wicks. If that sounds better to you, feel free to stop by the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15887320850A64945100&page=1 Wick Check Project thread]], where you can do your wick check collaboratively and get feedback on it as well.


If, on the other hand, what you want to do is make some point about the ''quality'' of the wicks- the kind of context they arise in, whether they are using the trope correctly, whether they tend to be vague hand-waving or spot-on - you're going to need to actually go in there and look at them individually. Now, theoretically it would be best if you could just click on wick after wick and see how all of them are doing, but we do not recommend doing that if you value your sanity. Instead you're going to have to look at a representative sample.

to:

If, on the other hand, what you want to do is make some point about the ''quality'' of the wicks- the kind of context they arise in, whether they are using the trope correctly, whether they tend to be vague hand-waving or spot-on - you're going to need to actually go in there and look at them individually. Now, theoretically it would be best if you could just click on wick after wick and see how all of them are doing, but we do not recommend doing that if you value your sanity. Instead Instead, you're going to have to look at a representative sample.



* Inserting the wick numbers into [[https://www.random.org/ a randomizer]] and selecting specific wicks, based on the numbers, to check. This provides true randomization, but is also time-consuming, especially for longer wick checks with more counting to do.

to:

* Inserting the wick numbers into [[https://www.random.org/ org/integer-sets/ a randomizer]] and selecting specific wicks, based on the numbers, to check. This provides true randomization, but is also time-consuming, especially for longer wick checks with more counting to do.



* Scrolling up and down the list and stopping at random points. This is perhaps the least time-consuming option, good for collaborative efforts or checks done in bursts of activity. However, it takes some of the randomness away as the troper needs to still choose which wick to check. Care should be taken here to avoid unintentional bias or skewing.

to:

* Scrolling up and down the list and stopping at random points. This is perhaps the least time-consuming option, good for collaborative efforts or checks done in bursts of activity. However, it takes some of the randomness away away, as the troper needs to still choose which wick to check. Care should be taken here to avoid unintentional bias or skewing.


You can check a smaller number of wicks if you feel you're not up to the task, but unless your results are very conclusive, they will likely be challenged on the basis of your sample not being large enough to be representative. As to randomly picking wicks, this is because going in alphabetical order is more likely to run across the results of some clean-up attempt, and generally taking a wick's attributes into consideration will likely skew the results. You may want to use an [[http://www.random.org/integer-sets/ integer set generator]] (set it to: "Generate [1] sets with [desired sample size] unique random integers in each; each integer should have a value between [1] and [total number of wicks]", then check the wicks with the numbers it gave you).

to:

You can check a smaller number of wicks if you feel you're not up to the task, but unless your results are very conclusive, they will likely be challenged on the basis of your sample not being large enough to be representative. As to randomly picking wicks, this is because going in alphabetical order is more likely to run across the results of some clean-up attempt, and generally taking a wick's attributes into consideration will likely skew the results. You may want There are a few ways to use an [[http://www.randomize it, and each one has benefits and drawbacks:

* Inserting the wick numbers into [[https://www.
random.org/integer-sets/ integer set generator]] (set it to: "Generate [1] sets org/ a randomizer]] and selecting specific wicks, based on the numbers, to check. This provides true randomization, but is also time-consuming, especially for longer wick checks with [desired sample size] unique random integers in each; each integer should have a value between [1] more counting to do.
* Inserting the entire wick list into the randomizer
and [total number of wicks]", then check choosing the wicks with that come to the numbers top. This is less time-consuming than the first one, but still requires you to ensure that you didn't generate non-pages such as namespace dividers, and may require you to randomize the list in multiple batches.
* Scrolling up and down the list and stopping at random points. This is perhaps the least time-consuming option, good for collaborative efforts or checks done in bursts of activity. However,
it gave you).
takes some of the randomness away as the troper needs to still choose which wick to check. Care should be taken here to avoid unintentional bias or skewing.



* Does the trope actually apply to the character/situation described?
* Is there a clear, correct explanation of how and why the trope applies? Or perhaps an explanation that is RightForTheWrongReasons, or an explanation that gives a [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant false impression]] of what the trope is, or [[Administrivia/ZeroContextExample no explanation at all]]?
* What kind of fandom/medium did the wick come from?
* Is the trope relevant in that particular context or [[Administrivia/SinkHole did someone apparently throw it in just because they could]]?

to:


* Does Is the trope being used correctly? Does it actually apply to the character/situation described?
way the example claims, and is it correct about what the trope means, or does it fit into Administrivia/SquarePegRoundTrope as a shoehorn?
* Is there a clear, correct explanation of how and why the trope applies? Or perhaps an explanation that is RightForTheWrongReasons, or an explanation that gives a [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant false impression]] of what the trope is, or [[Administrivia/ZeroContextExample no explanation at all]]?
* What kind type of fandom/medium did work is it? Does the wick come from?
medium, region, and/or genre match the trope's intended usage, or is it more broad/narrow than it should be?
* Is the potholing relevant to the example, or is it referencing the trope relevant in that particular context or [[Administrivia/SinkHole did someone apparently throw it in [[Administrivia/{{Sinkhole}} just because they could]]?it can?]]




to:

* What namespace is it being used in? Is it correctly sorted as per Administrivia/WhatGoesWhereOnTheWiki?
* Is it describing the title, but not the actual trope?
* Is the trope being used as Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs, with examples that feel like meaningless "X exists and does some thing" which has context and plot relevance, but doesn't ultimately convey information?
* If the tropes page is soft-split, are the wicks able to be crosswicked back? Or is that impossible?



An alternate method of posting results is to sort the results by verdict so that e.g. all "correct" wicks are organized in one list and all "misuse" wicks are organized in a second list. This makes the results easier to visualize at a glance, unfortunately it takes a lot more work to do it this way.

to:

An alternate method of posting results is to sort the results by verdict so that e.g. all "correct" wicks are organized in one list and list, all "misuse" wicks are organized in a second list and all the "unclear" wicks where you aren't sure in a third list. This makes the results easier to visualize at a glance, unfortunately it takes a lot more work to do it this way.


You can find a page's list of wicks [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/relatedsearch.php?term=Main/InsertTitleHere here]] (replace "[=InsertTitleHere=]" with the actual title). If there's already a thread in the Trope Repair Shop discussing the trope, you can just press the "get usage counts" button above the first post in the thread and it will take you to the same page. Another option is to use the "related" button in the bottom right of the cluster at the top of most pages. It's a list of other pages which have in-wiki links to that page. That is, a list of its wicks.

to:

You can find a page's list of wicks [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/relatedsearch.php?term=Main/InsertTitleHere here]] (replace "[=InsertTitleHere=]" with the actual title). If there's already a thread in the Trope Repair Shop discussing the trope, you can just press the "get usage counts" button above the first post in the thread and it will take you to the same page. Another option is to use the "related" button in button, the bottom right of the cluster at second option in the top left of most pages. It's a list of other pages which have in-wiki links to that page. That is, a list of its wicks.


A "{{wick}}" is an in-wiki link to a page. For example, here is a wick to the "Protagonist Centered Morality" Trope: ProtagonistCenteredMorality. Wicks can also be {{Pot Hole}}s, where the text linked to the page is not the page's actual name, [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality like so]].

to:

A "{{wick}}" "Administrivia/{{wick}}" is an in-wiki link to a page. For example, here is a wick to the "Protagonist Centered Morality" Trope: ProtagonistCenteredMorality. Wicks can also be {{Pot Hole}}s, where the text linked to the page is not the page's actual name, [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality like so]].


* Is the trope being used for either [[GushingAboutShowsYouLike Gushing]] or [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]] about the work?

to:

* Is the trope being used for either [[GushingAboutShowsYouLike [[SugarWiki/GushingAboutShowsYouLike Gushing]] or [[Administrivia/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike complaining]] about the work?


* Is there a clear, correct explanation of how and why the trope applies? Or perhaps an explanation that is RightForTheWrongReasons, or an explanation that gives a [[IThoughtItMeant false impression]] of what the trope is, or [[Administrivia/ZeroContextExample no explanation at all]]?

to:

* Is there a clear, correct explanation of how and why the trope applies? Or perhaps an explanation that is RightForTheWrongReasons, or an explanation that gives a [[IThoughtItMeant [[JustForFun/IThoughtItMeant false impression]] of what the trope is, or [[Administrivia/ZeroContextExample no explanation at all]]?

Showing 15 edit(s) of 27

Top