Ask The Tropers

It'd be easier to answer if you provide an example of the writing that was considered "not enough".

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Here's one Afrojack

Edited by surname4u

I'll be honest, I just don't hold Sugar Wiki pages to the normal troping standards (which is the actual reason they are in own Sub Wiki).

But let me be critical here and pretend it's a regular YMMV. The first of these is a rhethoric question. I dunno how can one resist, I've never heard the song, so it's up to you to convince with-text that it's irresistable. In the second, why would someone play it more than once and why is it understandable, what's in the song that makes that so?

In both cases you use second-person writing. Don't, examples are to be written in third person, where the subjects are 1. the contents/composition of the song 2. An abstract listener or known parts of the fandom, not the article reader. If this wasn't Sugar Wiki/, it needs to be a documentation and not a review.

Edited by Amonimus TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

The wiki (first-person) is writing to an audience (second-person), about a work and their fans (third-person). Most of the time, the difference between second and third in this context is just phrasing and doesn't really matter. In cases where we use "first" (such as Administrivia articles), we use a collective pronoun.

All that to say that second person is okay, so long as it refers to the article reader, not existing fans or assume that the reader is already a fan.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Here's another example of an Awesome Music page I wrote for the music page of R3HAB

• No, I do not know it already hits hard. Assume nobody have heard the Blondie song.
• I'll parrot mlsmithca because it being epic is something to be proven.

In this rewrite, I've highligted the part I'd be searching for "Awesome Music". The first one is clearly an example of Awesome Music because the example says the music contains likable parts (and it says they're likable). Can't personally say that about the second one, it does analyze the song, but which of it is supposed to explain what makes it epic to an unfamiliar reader?

Edited by Amonimus TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup

Amonimus has already covered what I'd consider the key points: don't just say that a track is awesome, and don't just analyse a track, explain why it's awesome. Is it the lyrics? The melody? The performances? The instrumentation? The production? Two or more of those?

Two other pitfalls to avoid when writing these entries are hyperbole and repetition.

For hyperbole, it's easy to get carried away when writing about a track you like, but taste in music is a very personal thing; assume the reader is unfamiliar with the track and explain it accordingly, but don't assume that they will like it once they hear it. They may, they may not; don't say, for example, that a song will become an "instant personal classic". (This is part of the thinking behind forbidding Sugar Wiki/ entries that say "If you don't think [X] is awesome/funny/heartwarming/sad/scary/shocking, you have no soul.") By all means let your own love of the song inform the entry, but don't go all the way to declaring that it's one of the best ever written and that to listen to it is to love it; that's a form of Fan Myopia.

As for repetition, don't constantly re-use the same adjectives. The entries should convey something about what makes the songs unique rather than describing every single one as, for example, "catchy" or "epic"; otherwise, it feels as though the only thing that changes from one entry to the next is the title, and if you've heard one of those songs, you've heard them all. (This goes double for "perfect"; perfection should be difficult to achieve. If every entry on a page is described as "perfectly [doing X]", the idea of perfection loses all meaning. Use it sparingly, if at all; the word "perfectly" can nearly always be dropped without harming the entry.) Try to think about what separates the song from others in the work (if it's a film, TV series, or video game page) or in the artist's catalogue (if it's a music page), and write the entry around that - and if what makes it awesome is its similarity to other works, write the entry around that.

Above all else, quality is more important than quantity. Putting entries on the wiki isn't a race. Create a page in the Sandbox/ namespace (in your case, that would be at Sandbox.surname4u) if you want to draft the entries before adding them (to quote the first entry under "General Guidelines" on How to Write an Example, 'Aim for "Final Draft" Quality' when actually adding them to the main wiki). I would also recommend running them by the "Get Help With English Here" thread in the Frequently Asked Questions forum to sort out problems with grammar and redundant wording.

To add on, some context might also be helpful. Is a song awesome because it's associated with a particular scene?

For example, I might say that this track is awesome, because it is associated with this this Gunship Rescue.

Or is it something else? Is it epic because it's a cinematic rendition of a typical track, and is used as part of a Theme Music Power-Up?

Edited by techno156

Good points, although to add on to that, when adding examples of music in films, TV series, and video games, don't just identify when it's used and leave it at that; otherwise, a reader unfamiliar with the scene will have no concept of why the music that accompanies that scene is awesome. Does it help to build tension during a dramatic scene? Does it heighten the energy of an awesome scene? Does it tug at the heartstrings during an emotionally charged scene?

So I simply describe the song's description and then say why it's good.