Complaining: Snark Bait

I posted a Locked Pages request to remove it from Audience Reactions and add it to Flame Bait (since Flame Bait is a mod-only index).

Edit: Added it to Definition-Only Pages.

Edit: Removed it from Audience Reactions myself since it's already listed on Definition-Only Pages, so a mod just needs to add it to the Flame Bait index.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 6th 2020 at 12:55:48 PM

Wait a second, why does this need wick cleanup? We voted on making the page definition-only.

Flame Bait items aren't supposed to have wicks, except on indexes, in descriptions, and on other Flame Bait pages (like So Bad, It's Horrible).

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 6th 2020 at 12:56:55 PM

Don't some flame bait tropes have wicks? Honestly, I'm afraid there might have been some communication problems.

No, Flame Bait tropes don't and can't have wicks unless used in in-universe contexts. That's...the entire point of them being Flame Bait. They're too controversial or subjective to be used as examples.

Since it is now Flame Bait and DefinitionOnly, I guess we can remove it from No Real Life Examples, Please!, since if it is both of the above, no wicks are allowed at all^note Except in in-universe contexts on the wiki.

Edited by FridgeGuy2016 on May 7th 2020 at 9:24:11 AM

Plus, if a page doesn't allow on-page examples but does allow wicks, that page would go on No On-Page Examples instead of Definition-Only Pages.

Internet Backdraft pretty much had to be moved from the former to the latter when it was made Flame Bait; making it Flame Bait meant it couldn't have wicks, and there were no on-page examples to keep.

In Snark Bait's case, if it were made Flame Bait without being made definition-only, it would be set up like So Bad, It's Horrible, in that wicks would be forbidden, but on-page examples would be fine.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 6th 2020 at 1:57:35 PM

I'd like to point something out in the description for Flame Bait:

"Flame bait is a post that is intended to start people bickering. Okay, maybe it doesn't have to be the intention, but it is certainly the result. Bickering begins.

You probably already knew that. It isn't a new term. We bring it up for selfish reasons. Wikis are not immune to flame wars. We'd like to head them off by limiting Flame Bait.

Here is a list of things we call Flame Bait, the forbidden tropes, the ones that open the door to horrible things. Please don't list them anywhere, not even in YMMV tabs. Seriously. We're begging you. Don't do it, or you will be caught in the middle of an Internet Backdraft. These are things proven to start the bickering up."

How many flame wars have Snark Bait wicks caused? I know the trope's been misused, but I feel like designating it as Flame Bait is a severe case of overcorrection.

Edited by ImperialMajestyXO on May 7th 2020 at 7:46:05 AM

It's the misuse that got this thread started. This attracted complaining (in particular, using it as a non-Darth and less restrictive version of So Bad, It's Horrible) and came up multiple times in the complaining cleanup thread. It's not just offsite stuff that can get something classified as Flame Bait; how it's used on TV Tropes itself matters as well.

Internet Backdraft became Flame Bait for pretty much the same reason.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 7th 2020 at 10:20:48 AM

Well, I think designating something Flame Bait should be an absolute last resort, only to be done if it proves impossible to add a wick without it causing a major scene. Had I known exactly what designating it Flame Bait entailed, I never would have voted for it, and would've raised objections earlier.

I'm going to start dewicking it now.

Again, permission to remove Snark Bait from No Real Life Examples, Please!? I'm just asking to make sure it's okay before I do it.

I'd say go ahead with the NRLEP removal; I blew out some wicks in the YMMV/ namespace that I knew were prone to complaining or otherwise would have problems.

So we need to purge all of the wicks to this outside of indexes, right? Including from the "see also" sections on pages like Ashcan Copy?

I'm pretty sure at least one mod said that wicks to Internet Backdraft are allowed on So Bad, It's Horrible pages (after the former was made Flame Bait), so it appears to be acceptable to have Flame Bait wicks on other Flame Bait pages. I think they might also be allowed in page descriptions, along with YMMV and Trivia items on non-YMMV/non-Trivia pages, with only the example section(s) being off-limits.

Edit: Also, I agree with removing it from NRLEP, since being definition-only means that fictional examples aren't allowed either (aside from in-universe examples).

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 7th 2020 at 2:15:11 PM

@Imperial: Sorry mate, but this is what we voted for. You appear to be the only one who was confused over what turning it into Flame Bait would entail; and with you being the only one who voted for an option you didn't entirely understand the consequences of, the consensus still stands.

I heard Flame Bait wicks are allowed in trope, trivia, and YMMV descriptions but not in the examples.

Edited by ADrago on May 7th 2020 at 3:24:29 PM

Ok, I'll start by purging the examples of and potholes to it on YMMV pages. I've run into one pothole on YMMV.Supergirl 2015 that I'm not sure how to rewrite and an example on YMMV.Work Name that I don't know if I should delete or not, but we're already over 25% of the way done with the wicks.

Edited by Serac on May 7th 2020 at 2:40:46 PM

@Jay: Maybe you're right (though we don't know for sure), but is this really the best solution, or just the simplest? Why couldn't we have at least tried something else first?

The only alternative solutions we really had was your cleanup thread idea (I already gave my thoughts on why that wouldn't work) and keeping on-page examples (which still requires wick-cleaning).

If there were other potential fixes, I sure don't know what they would've been.

So I assume we need to remove wicks where the usage is like "this thing had become Snark Bait" that aren't on an actual Snark Bait entry?

Edited by jandn2014 on May 7th 2020 at 9:22:53 AM

Yep; though sometimes you'll need to rewrite a sentence because of it.

I've already fixed a few usages like that, but I wanted to make sure before doing any more dewicking.

TBH, now that I'm getting involved in the wick cleaning, I can say for certain that any other option would not have worked. Pretty much every wick I've removed so far (which is every wick I've checked) have been used exclusively to either bash the work or the work's creator (with the Music/ wicks especially), disguising the obvious bile by acting as if it's tongue-in-cheek; as if potholing to Snark Bait while calling the work horrible lessens the intent to bash the work.

So now, I'm convinced this was the only viable option.

Ok, that's all the YMMV pages except for two locked pages and a pothole on YMMV.Supergirl 2015 that I'm not sure how to reword. I'll start on the main work pages now.

Also, I saw one instance of a pothole being used to bash the fans of a particular work. There's no doubt in my mind whether this needed to be purged.