Wick Check Project

So this is a place for people who are interested in helping out, or getting help with, wick checks. Maybe you just want people to double-check your work before you submit it to the TRS, or maybe you have a big project in mind and can't tackle it on your own. Either way, you've come to the right place!

Remember to check out How to Do a Wick Check for a run down, and feel free to browse Tropes Needing TRS if you need ideas for what trope to do a wick-check for.

For the list of current and completed projects, see Wick Check Project. Once your wick check is done and ready to go to a TRS thread, see the TRS Queue.

Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 4th 2022 at 11:55:13 AM

Sounds good. I’d be willing to help, but I have two questions:

1. I know the main problems with Adorkable are ZCEs and gushing, but how do we differentiate gushing from valid usage?

2. How is Deadpan Snarker being misused? I know there’s a problem with ZCEs, but I don’t know what kind of misuse is occurring.

Edited by jandn2014 on May 5th 2020 at 10:40:22 AM

People are using deadpan snarker for anytime a character says something sarcastic or even things that are just straight insults. The trope is supposed to be about a sardonic character who has a lot of their dialogue filled with snark/sarcasm.

On another note, is the deadpan part of the trope still relevent or is it just The Snarker now? Deadpan and snark dont always go together and most people use DS for characters that are prone to sarcasm? So if Deadpan Snarker is potholed like this from Cat Girl:

• Kansuke from Cat Paradise is a normal cat who can transform into a Catboy whenever he puts on one of his owner's goofy costumes. He retains his claws, ears, tail, some of his fur, and his snarky personality.

Is that correct use?

Edited by MacronNotes on May 5th 2020 at 10:46:59 AM

Oh, I see. Looking at the Adorkable wick check sandbox, I assume for an entry to be valid, a character’s adorkableness needs to be regarded and/or have an impact in-universe? How many more wicks do we need to check for it, anyway?

Right.

• Adorkable is being used for literally any character the audience deems cute and dorky. I'm genuinely unsure of what constitutes a valid example of the trope though- should we go for the in-universe factor? Or is it more about how when a character is made more endearing because they're so dorky?
• Deadpan Snarker is just used for literally any character who has ever said a sarcastic line. While I can go either way on whether or not the examples need to be "deadpan" or just generally snarky, it's misuse to label any character who occasionally makes a snarky joke as a Deadpan Snarker; it should ideally be more of a major aspect of the character.

I could have sworn Adorkable was made YMMV at some point like Moe but I guess I am misrembering. Either way, I don't think this is going to be easy to sort when we have a trope that accepts objective and subjective entries. But that's for TRS to decide whether to keep as either and audience reaction, an objective in-universe trope or both.

There was only talk about making Adorkable ymmv. Once quite seriously in Trope Repair Shop, but it was shot down pretty quickly in the page-action crowner. People obviously liked that they can gush and project their dorky interests on other characters. The TRS kinda fizzled out without any proper cleanup, too.

I think the idea of making it an audience reaction resurfaced at least two other times in Trope Talk or Ask the Tropers.

And I remember from that TRS that some people obviously thought it already is a YMMV-trope because it was put on YMMV tabs. But those were moved to the main work pages, mostly.

Personally I don't think making it YMMV is the way to go. Because the problem will remain the same — gushing, projecting and shoehorning.

Another problem contributing to the ZCE issue is that the portmanteau word is now used quite casually, and people substitute the use of the word with context. Alice is called this in many reviews of "Alice and Bob". Used verbatim to describe Charlie in promo of "Charlie's Choice".

Also what I noticed in the wick check is that people use the trope to mean adorable and they just feel the need to pothole it. Even though it does nothing special to the example write-up, which would be more readable without the pothole/sinkhole.

• TRS morgue of Adorkable
• even older TRS discussion
• Trope Talk "defend adorkable" about audience-reaction-ness of this trope
• ATT query about making adorkable ymmv

I'm pretty sure it also came up on the fixing ZCE thread, but I can't find the posts.

Adorkable used in-universe isn't too different from Nerds Are Sexy to me. Granted sexiness isnt the same as cuteness and dork and nerd arent synonymous but its almost ways linked to attractiveness when it is mentioned.

I'm too late for Adorkable, but I'll probably check 24 wicks for Deadpan Snarker (I think it's a valid trope, but perhaps too many characters who only say one line). That'd leave 144 wicks for others.

Though where I'd put cases where there are several not really counting examples and only one or two that really count, like on Characters.The Lion King 2019? Just want to make sure.

On second thought, I don't know if I want to. There are so many pages on the related page it makes the browser lag. I'll do what I can, but the admins should really split them someday as detailed here. Just a warning for the future - I ain't checking anything with 30000+ wicks, may drop to 20000+ depending on the performance here.

Edited by Piterpicher on May 6th 2020 at 1:38:11 PM

Well things that don't count go in the "Misuse" folder and correct use goes in that folder. But I suppose I can make "Other" for grey area things.

Edited by MacronNotes on Nov 7th 2022 at 8:55:14 AM

I indeed ended with "murky" folder for the adorkable wick check.

For some examples, it was impossible for me to decide — it looks almost correct, but not quite. Something feels absolutely right but not complete. Or something feels missing from being a clear cut example. Many examples have the frustrating amount of half-context that could go either into almost-correct or straight up misuse.

It's also hard to say what Adorkable is even supposed to mean at this point, too. After reading those examples, I feel like anything and anybody can be called cute and dorky.

A character loves and appreciates classical music? Ooh, so cute and geeky. He squees over his favourite musical interpreters? Ooh, such a dork. He loves his cute dog? He's so very cute. Loves his husband? Cute! Never mind that he's a no-nonsense badass cop Bald Black Leader Guy most of the time. Yes, Captain Holt from Brooklyn Nine-Nine can be adorable despite first impressions and his "robot" persona. Yes, he has some high brow interests that he treats like serious business (not unlike many Holywood Nerds treat comic books and popculture)... but does that make him Adorkable? I'd say no, but I don't know anymore.

So, just to be clear, Deadpan Snarker is not just "character makes sarcastic comments a lot", right? Does the example need to list what the character's love of sarcasm says about their personality to be valid?

“Character makes sarcastic comments a lot“ is what Deadpan Snarker is; it’s just that the snarkiness needs to be a major trait of the character, not just “character makes a snarky joke occasionally”.

Right; Deadpan Snarker should ideally be more along the lines of "This character makes sarcastic jokes a lot, to the point where it's a recurring and well-known trait of their character". Nowadays almost everyone is being snarky at some points, so the line is drawn based on how often a character does it.

Bummed I couldn't add anything to the Adorkable wick check, but whatever...Deadpan Snarker it is.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 6th 2020 at 1:21:34 PM

The problem may be that XFllo works too much, too fast? I don't know, she has already covered 30 wicks for Deadpan Snarker and pretty much singlehandedly did Adorkable, and she just makes dozens of edits in a row, rather than in one go like I intend to. Let others work sometimes.

By the way, I've done 8 out of 24 target and have it in a Notepad++ file. Blame the big-ass Related page and my procrastination.

Edited by Piterpicher on May 6th 2020 at 7:24:14 PM

Yeah, Xfllo I'm stunned at how much work you're doing, but the rest of us want to check some wicks as well. That's the entire reason for this thread's existence, so please let us finish Deadpan Snarker as a collective.

Two more quick questions about Deadpan Snarker:

1. Should I file sinkholes to it under misuse or ZCE?
2. I'm seeing a lot of examples that just say "this character makes a lot of sarcastic comments" without elaborating further or giving any examples of snarky comments they made. Is that enough context?

Personally:

• I'd file that under a ZCE. It's too context-light to tell if it is misuse or not.
• Hmmm...it's a bit skimpy on the context, but might be passable. It's really a judgement call.

Anyway, I'll try and get about 15-20 wicks done soon.

I hope I don't need to apologize for doing tedious cleanup work and TRS stuff. :-D

I didn't know you planned to do a wick check for Adorkable. I've wanted to try to open a TRS discussion for this trope for about a year, and recently, I've reached a point when I couldn't take the constant misuse and ZCE anymore. And I happened to have some time on my hands yesterday (and today, too). So there's that.

So the first post for TRS for Adorkable is done. Fingers crossed for it being opened soon.

As for Deadpan Snarker — I really, really don't plan to do the whole wick check. 170 wicks is a lot. But almost no work was done on the Sandbox besides three initial examples, so I wanted to contribute just a bit. And I kinda got to that flow state, you know?

Btw, a second opinion is always welcome, so if you feel like some "murky examples" (both on adorkable or on deadpan snarker) are actually okay for you, or if you think it's clear misuse, or if it's clearly insufficient context, feels free to move it.

Nah, I'm not upset, like I said I'm amazed and impressed by how much you've done...I'm just bummed because I thought we'd all end up contributing smaller-scale wick checks to the larger project and then by the time I wake up...the TRS thread was already made.

OK, that I understand. And honestly, now I'm bummed how much time I wasted on TV Tropes. :-D Yet again.

Btw this flow will not last, I'm sure, so all this energy can be done during cleanup. It will need massive manpower, if only for tackling all the ZCE. And if we end up removing vague almost-zce examples like "Bob is dorky but adorable", it'll be never-ending.

Fair enough ~

Anyway, once I'm done crosswicking my new trope I'll tackle some wicks.

Yes, that was a plug :P

I usually put sinkholes in the "Misuse" catagory because we aren't supposed to be doing them to begin with according to Administrivia.Sinkhole.

I have been busy on a million other things on the wiki so I only started 3 examples just to have something. Will try to check at least 30 later.

Edited by MacronNotes on May 6th 2020 at 2:06:09 PM

Hmmm... that's why I usually make a "Misc" category for my wick checks.

This is an in-progress post that will be updated as I check the wicks.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 6th 2020 at 3:13:42 PM