Misused: He Panned It Now He Sucks

Sending it to Darth seems fine to me, albeit with some cleanup (do we have a thread?).

I was actually wondering about making this Flame Bait, possibly (though not necessarily) in addition to definition-only (if it's made Flame Bait but not definition-only, on-page examples would stay). I don't think moving it to Darth is necessary if we make it Flame Bait, but it could still be an option.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 18th 2024 at 10:28:46 AM

I'm in favor of Darth and/or Flame, whichever is deemed necessary. I don't feel comfortable weighing in on which I think is best though, because I don't fully understand what the difference is between them. I THINK Darth means "complaint magnet" and Flame means "known argument starter", but they seem to get used interchangeably a lot, so...

Darth I feel like is a bit less harsh since it also has some JFF content and is more just the "edgy and angry" side of the wiki, while Flame Bait is a subset for specific stuff too controversial to trope normally.

Flame Bait looks the most obvious choice for me

In a similar vein, I feel Reviews Are the Gospel deserves to be looked at as well; it similarly is often a vehicle for Complaining About People Not Liking the Show. I feel that one should probably stick to in-universe examples, as out-of-universe it's difficult to prove that a single review is responsible for a work's negative reception as that trope often insinuates.

Edited by Spyspotter on Apr 21st 2024 at 6:39:44 AM

This thread has slowed down, and it's been long enough that we can hook a crowner. Are we ready for one, and if so, what are the options?

Edit: It looks like Darth Wiki, Flame Bait, definition-only, and disambiguating were suggested (with disambiguating being mutually exclusive with the others, but the ones other than disambiguating not being mutually exclusive with each other). Did I miss anything?

Edit: Oh, right, and neglected to mention that if something needs to be done with Reviews Are the Gospel, it needs its own Wick Check and its own thread. It's outside this thread's scope.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 23rd 2024 at 10:02:01 AM

I don't think anything was missed.

Yep, sounds about right to me.

I just realized putting it under Darth Wiki sounds like it would be bashing real life people, which got many other DW pages axed or restricted. (Fallen Creator is only viable because all examples need to be approved before adding.)

Also, if Flame Bait would it still allow examples under its sub-pages (there's FB that does and doesn't)? Keep in mind Panned is still troping the reviewer and the FB that does allow examples are just about the work (We've cut/disallowed examples under reactions to audiences).

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 27th 2024 at 4:52:52 AM

Again I think there's a distinction between troping the person and troping reaction to what that person said

If about the reaction to the review as opposed to the person, that works. I'm concerned the current name still makes it sound like it's against the person not the review.

And do we plan on keeping examples? And if so will we sort them by medium of the review or the work being reviewed?

For what it's worth, we already have at least one creator-focused Darth Wiki Flame Bait page (Fallen Creator), and that's still about reactions to their work.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 28th 2024 at 12:31:48 PM

My concern is still like... is there an agreement on the "correct" way to write a He Panned It, Now He Sucks! entry? To bring up the wick check and original post again, entries rally between arguing why a person is "wrong" (as in, trying to frame them as being objectively incorrect in their assessment) and overstating the "panning" as a springboard to complain about someone (usually by targeting cases where someone didn't even dislike a work, let alone "pan" it). The dedicated He Panned It pages for specific creators like The Nostalgia Critic are a hot mess because of this, and I dunno how comfortable I'd be allowing it to stay as is just because it's Darth Wiki.

I think a valid entry would be something like:

• Bob criticized Tropestar the Musical!, saying it had a lackluster plot and bad writing. This attracted a lot of backlash online, both from his fans and critics alike, with much of the discourse centering around saying he missed the point of the story. The situation would only worsen when he gave the beloved sequel the same bad score. Overnight, his subscriber count dropped to half of what he had before, and his following videos had poor views.

Hypothetical obviously, but any good YMMV entry is meant to describe the reaction people had to a thing, not take sides on the matter. The other "___ so it sucks" stuff do this already, or at least should be.

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 28th 2024 at 2:19:31 PM

I agree with that being the way to write entries.

That sounds more workable.

That's good.

But where would the entry be sorted, by medium of the review or the work being reviewed? (I assume medium of review because it's a reaction to the review not the work which would be Critical Backlash.)

If the reviewer has their own page, put it there; if not, put it with the work.