Why are you asking for the wick checks which are at the top of the thread, again?
I did a quick-n-dirty report that gives the top 1000 inbounds. Here it is.
Not sure how many more we'd need to get all the way down to 2400. Only 200 is way, way down there.
edited 28th Jun '11 7:19:15 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyBecause that's not a check, that's a count. That's just a list of what pages link to Girls' Love. We don't know if they're right or wrong unless someone checks them, and since you're the one saying they're wrong, its on you to do so. Fifty is the rule of thumb.
Of course, we still haven't quite nailed down the definition, so a wick check might be pointless. But if you want to check if its being misused as a trope rather than a genre, then that might be worthwhile.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Wait a minute, do you mean the "get usage counts" button, or the beginning of the thread? From a quick check of the first five pages or so, I don't see a wicks check from anyone.
I'm not feeling like doing a wicks check right now. I have other stuff more important than this discussion.
This. Apparently we're confusing TRS lingo right now.
edited 28th Jun '11 7:18:43 PM by chihuahua0
Double ninja'd, so here is a repeat:
I did a quick-n-dirty report that gives the top 1000 inbounds. Here it is.
Not sure how many more we'd need to get all the way down to 2400. Only 200 is way, way down there.
If 2000+ inbounds is not significant, and wiki usage means nothing, why in the hell of blazing fires are we keeping utter crap titles like Narm around?
Regulated fun - the best kind! I don't make the rules, just enforce them with an iron fist.But the problem is you're yet to provide evidence that Girls' Love is being misused to whoever is linking to it. For all we know, maybe the misuse rate is only 10%. If it's ain't broke, don't fix it. That's one of the core reasons not to rename a page.
Eddie, we have about 80,000 pages on the wiki. If the lowest number of wiks in the top one thousand pages is ~3000 as your list shows then that would put Girls' Love in about the top 2% of wiked pages.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickAnd for Girls' Love, the inbounds (~2400) outnumber the wicks (~700).
![]()
![]()
Tangent: If the wicks (on-wiki use) outnumber the inbounds (off wiki use), a big problem is indicated. We are only talking to ourselves.
We've already established that this is not the case, so why are you bringing it up?
And again, you must demonstrate misuse if you want your proposal for a rename to be taken seriously. Otherwise we should just ignore it and go back to what we were trying to do originally, which is clarify exactly what does and does not belong on this page.
edited 28th Jun '11 7:57:46 PM by SakurazakiSetsuna
Okay, I did a cursory wick check—I grabbed the first twenty examples on the usage page and looked at them. All but one (Greys Anatomy, for the record) used them in the context of a genre. And if you squint, that one fits too.
I'll publish the check if it gets disputed, but I hate doing that. It takes forever, and at the rate this thread is going I'll get ninja'ed fifty times.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.The wicks outnumbering the inbounds being bad is just a general remark, an observation. Hence the 'tangent.'
Use on the wiki has little significance in this discussion. Whether we use it as intended is just us talking to us. Serious off-site adoption numbers indicates other people either talking about us or adopting our language. Either of which is good.
Here is a report ranking all articles with over 200 inbounds
.
If you look at the math at the bottom, you will see that about 90% of our inbounds are to these articles.
edited 28th Jun '11 10:28:21 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty![]()
I think you're supposed to do at least 50, and pick them at random or something like that.
But those are numbers for two very different things. Inbounds show the number of people (judging by unique IP I assume) that have entered the site through that page, wicks show the number of articles that link to the page. A single Entry Pimp could be responsible for dozens of wicks, so you can't draw the conclusion that there are more people using the term on the wiki than off. Furthermore, all tropes have more wicks than they have inbounds for at least the first 6 months and the wicks are an added number from all the redirects. You might as well be comparing apples and oranges for all the valid conclusions you could draw.
We need some kind of cutoff point for when the number of inbounds is high enough to protect the article from renaming unless there's serious misuse. And I don't think it should be 3000.
edited 29th Jun '11 4:06:51 AM by Killomatic
Regulated fun - the best kind! I don't make the rules, just enforce them with an iron fist.I suppose you could look at it that way. Or you could look at as things with 200 or fewer inbounds are essentially useless in terms of spreading the message.
No sure I follow your argument, Killomatic. A single person can cause the term to look like it is more widely adopted among tropers than it actually is. That's the entry pimp effect. Inbound counts reflect the number of unique people (not too roughly) who have been exposed to the term elsewhere well enough to pay us a call.
Take something like Good Bad Bugs, which has 147000 inbounds and 866 wicks. That's a groovy ratio.
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyI'm saying that what is important is the actual degree of adoption (or as close to it as we can get with our means), not the perceived one that you get by just comparing the two numbers. They use principally different criteria to measure that degree, so having more wicks than inbounds does not necessarily mean more people are using the title on the wiki, unless it's a rather large ratio. (And even then it may just mean that it needs more time to catch on.) The opposite case (more inbounds) is somewhat more clear-cut, though you can still argue whether multiple people clicking on the same link means they have all adopted the term.
So 200 seems like a good line to draw between statistically meaningful and non-meaningful inbounds when it comes to renaming, right?
Wow, I just realised I sound lick a goddamned mathematician here.
Regulated fun - the best kind! I don't make the rules, just enforce them with an iron fist.On the wicks vs inbounds thing. For Genre indexes like this I don't really see the whole issue, the main usage of the pages is more to get the inbound on a works page then the person wants to see more like said work so they go to the index page.
Is there a way to see intra wiki inbounds? (How many times a wick has been clicked on, maybe divided up if it's coming from a works page or trope page ect.) that might be helpful in various ways. As well as a search engine inbound to know if if said title is attracting people searching for the term and that people actually search the term.
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!We might be able to start capturing search term landings. I'll look into that.
Let's pull a ratio out of the air for wicks to inbounds that seems indicative of a problem. I'd say 2 wicks for every inbound (after some time has gone by since first created), indicates a term we use more than the world will. Good circle-jerk indicator.
I'll say, though, that there is no wick number that directly reflects off-site adoption. Wicks will always have to be compared to real-world use in some way.
And, no, I don't think 200 is good boundary number. Let's at least put the bottom 20% under the line. 200 is at about the bottom 10% demarcation.
edited 29th Jun '11 9:49:21 AM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyI put the a-wriggle-matic at the bottom here
.
Looks like the boundary should be 600.
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyOk, that's saying that fully half of our pages don't have enough inbounds to count as "healthy". Assuming that the name is good if it's above 600 inbounds and not good if it's below 600, that means Better than a Bare Bulb is a better name than Self-Made Orphan or Contest Winner Cameo.
How many inbounds is a reflection of a lot of things, not the least of which is how big the population that's interested in that trope is on the net. This means that anime and videogame-related pages are going to have more inbounds than say, detective-story related pages, because there's a larger population of people interested in anime and video games than people interested in mysteries.
At any rate, since there were no objections, I posted the draft to the Wiki page with a few changes:
- Bara is explained without needing to read a different article.
- The Japanese paragraph was moved to second last which also de-emphasized it a bit.
- Sempai/Kouhai is hidden under a pothole.
If this debate stalls, at least we now have an article that's more accurate and explanatory to readers.
edited 29th Jun '11 11:04:30 AM by CBanana
and that's how Equestria was made!Actually, that's a good description. I can live with that.
Now, I consider the renaming of Girls' Love to be less of a priority (since the changing of the description could possibly lead to a change of policy), but I feel like Fast Eddie stills not have a valid argument. From last I heard, proposing a rename because people possibly may be confused about it is only valid for unhealthy or new pages. From what I know, there is no valid reason to rename Girls' Love.

Where is the wicks check again, because this discussion won't go anywhere if you don't link to it, if you even done one. If not, you have no validity except for your personal opinion.