Complaining: Snark Bait

Considering we’ve decided to not allow fictional examples, I don’t see why we should allow RL examples as well.

In a sense, every Audience Reaction example is a "real life" example since we're talking about how people feel about media, not about what happens in the media itself. Since Snark Bait, a former Audience Reaction, is now Flame Bait... yeah, it's not getting those examples.

Still missing the flame icon.

Checking the "related" wicks might be necessary, since quite a few pages pothole to it as another way of saying "[work] was mocked by many", which is no longer a valid use.

That's...what we're doing. We're going down the related page and removing every wick we have to remove, which is 90% of them.

Oh, okay. I deleted a couple myself. At least all the YMMV wicks are gone, which is a good start.

The flame icon is finally appearing next to the wick for me.

So a quick question: What do we do about Snark Bait wicks in trope descriptions? Should we remove all usages like "this trope often becomes Snark Bait"?

Edited by jandn2014 on May 15th 2020 at 4:45:49 AM

Yep. A trope can't be Snark Bait anyway according to the definition of the trope; if nothing else, they should be cut as misuse.

Well, there's always the page history for me.

I'm not implying putting them back in at all, I'll respect the current situation by keeping them out.

It's locked anyways.

As I said in the complaining cleanup thread, I removed a wick from the Advertising section of Distinction Without a Difference. I also brought up the whole section in that thread, since it appears to just be complaining about phrasing used in advertising, but all except the Snark Bait wick are a matter for that thread and not this one.

I need a mod to cut its use in F.A.T.A.L. because that page is locked due to the game being too NSFW/L. Replacing "Snark Bait" with "mockery" is all that's needed there.

Already requested that in the locked pages requests thread; still waiting for a response.

I didn't know that forum was a thing. Thanks for the tip, might come handy in the future.

Is this usage on DethroningMoment.Work Name okay? It doesn't refer to any work specifically, and these pages are joke pages anyway.

• Obligatory Troper: "Obligatory" example from a work widely considered to be Snark Bait.

Edited by jandn2014 on May 16th 2020 at 11:05:23 AM

DMOS is itself flame bait, so this is fine.

Flame Bait pages are allowed to be wicked on other Flame Bait pages, as long as it's being used correctly.

That wick's fine.

Plus, JustForFun.Trope Name and its various subpages are joke pages anyway, and that example isn't talking about a real work.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 17th 2020 at 4:47:51 AM

Down to 200 wicks; currently working my way through the trope wicks.

Snark Bait wicks should be kept on all Dethroning Moment pages (unless perhaps it's in the description), since editing other tropers' signed entries is forbidden.

Flame Bait pages are allowed to be wicked on other Flame Bait pages, which Dethroning Moment of Suck is, so that shouldn't be an issue.

About the quotes, can we get rid of the real life quotes now that this is Flame Bait?

Quotes.Mary Sue has real life commentary on works. (Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it should.)

Are Flame Bait pages even supposed to have Quotes subpages? Well, maybe it would be fine for pages that allow examples (like So Bad, It's Horrible), but Mary Sue and Snark Bait are Definition-Only Pages.

It kind of strikes me as an attempt to sneak past the ban on examples in Mary Sue's case; obviously, Snark Bait's subpage predates its definition-only status.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 28th 2020 at 6:27:48 AM

A lot of the Main/ wicks seem to be describing the tropes or specific concepts as Snark Bait, or using it in a sentence like "In a Snark Bait work..."

What should be done with them? I'm removing the wicks that clearly don't belong, but...

A So Bad, It's Good work? A derided/ridiculed work? A work that draws derision/ridicule?