Created By: DragonQuestZ on August 18, 2012 Last Edited By: MiinU on March 17, 2015

Fanservice Characters

An index of characters and characterizations dealing with fanservice.

Name Space:
Main
Page Type:
Trope
Community Feedback Replies: 98
  • August 19, 2012
    partner555
    Is this necessary when we already have the Fanservice index?
  • August 19, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Well we have Fanservice Costumes, so it's not as though splitting it is unheard of. This is just to help give a more specific listing, the way Costume Tropes splits by type.
  • August 19, 2012
    jate88
    Does World Of Buxom count? I can't think of any other reason why the author would make their world so obviously unlike reality.
  • August 19, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Well that's more an attribute than a character or characterization. It's why I didn't list Most Common Superpower either.
  • August 21, 2012
    Duncan
  • August 21, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    To the tags:
    1. The closest we seem to have is A Pretty Boy Index, so we really don't have this.
    2. If someone has a better description, feel free to write one up in a reply, and I'll incorporate it.
  • August 21, 2012
    Routerie
    To clarify, all these tropes will be removed from the Fanservice index, right, as happened with Fanservice Costumes?
  • August 21, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Yes.
  • August 22, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Would Naughty Nuns and Sexy Priest fit here?

    EDIT: Screw it. I'll put them up.
  • August 23, 2012
    NoirGrimoir
  • August 23, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Most of those fit, but Stacys Mom seems to be more about the reaction to the character, and while Grandma What Massive Hotness You Have had attractive older characters, I'm not sure it's directly for fanservice.

    Though if someone can show otherwise, they will of course go on the list.
  • August 24, 2012
    Routerie
    Soon after this is launched, I'll open a TRS discussion on it to see which of its articles must be cut. Not cut from the list - cut from the wiki.

    Hello Attorney is another one
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Do it in "Trope Talk", since there is a similar thread about badasses.
  • August 24, 2012
    turina
    Isn't there a better picture than Team N Chick? Yes they were dressed nice, but they had far more to do than just that and you can't accuse them of being one-note characters. Would Bayonetta or Catwoman work?
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ The description explicitly states it can include well-rounded characters, who happen to include some fanservice aspects. If I included Bayonetta, it would just reinforce the misconceptions that this index was just about one-note characters.
  • August 24, 2012
    emeriin
    At least change the caption? It comes off as just trying to justify putting them there.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ It was meant to be silly. I meant the context of "they sure are characters". But if not many are familiar with that one, I'll fix it.

    EDIT: How's this?
  • August 24, 2012
    emeriin
    Better, though I could still look for pictures with more fanservice elements than just corsets and feather boas if you want.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ The picture doesn't need to encompass as much of the index as possible (it can happen, but it's not required). It just needs to show a clear example to give an idea of the main theme of the index.
  • August 24, 2012
    emeriin
    Shame, because this could have been good and still safe for work, with the boots, red hair, mini-dress, stocking and gloves.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Actually, that could go on Stripping Tropes, and still be safe for work, since it's just showing her taking off the glove.

    EDIT: And it wouldn't work here anyway, as what you stated are fanservice elements, not characters. This isn't trying to just re-purpose "Fetish Fuel Station Attendant".
  • August 24, 2012
    emeriin
    Wait, I'm confused, isn't that the same thing happening in the picture? The fanservice is in their clothes, Lindsay/Elisa/Nella act like normal people (relatively speaking) in the review, not Ms Fanservices.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    The fanservice is also in how they are acting in that scene, which is them goofing off in a fanservice-like way.

    Plus your picture was just a pin-up, not really a character.
  • August 24, 2012
    emeriin
    Ahh kay, I get it.

    [down] I usually would, but this is just a draft post so redlinked comments don't matter so much.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    BTW, if you want to pluralize a trope, it's best to pothole it, or use curly brackets.

    [[MsFanservice Ms Fanservices]] or {{Ms Fanservice}}s.
  • August 24, 2012
    Routerie
    The picture... they don't even look like characters. That looks like some Facebook photo, "the guy with glasses" watermark notwithstanding.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Okay, I'm honestly confused. How do you think the picture is supposed show a character in this context?
  • August 24, 2012
    Routerie
    By default, no picture. It's just an index after all. If we find a good picture, add it.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ That's not what I asked. I asked what you think would show a characters in a picture as opposed to showing people. That way I would know what kind of thing you'd like the picture to show.

    Besides, indexes can still have pictures. Where is there a "indexes have no pictures by default guideline"?
  • August 24, 2012
    Routerie
    It should look like it comes from media such as a film, a TV show, a comic or a book cover. That picture looks like a photo someone took of three of their friends.

    All pages have no picture by default. Then you decide to add a picture if you have a good picture to add. Indexes have especially little need for a picture because there's no single trope to illustrate, and they're particularly hard to assign pictures because we must find one picture that describes multiple tropes.
  • August 24, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ 1. So you mean it could easily be mistaken for just some photo. I give that one.

    2. That's really broad, and thus makes me go "And?". The point is to get a good picture for the page. Going imageless is for when we can't find one (or when a page is behind the veil, if we still have that), and we haven't gotten anywhere near that.

    Now there is this picture, which I was considering before I thought of that one. Think this works better?

    Even Princesses are better with fanservice.

  • August 25, 2012
    Routerie
    But we always begin by having not found a picture. So all pages begin imageless. Then, when we find a good picture, we add it.

    This latest picture - it's an example of fanservice, sure. But what it is, beyond that? A character exhibiting fanservice? (Yes, as is the case with every example of fanservice.) And the caption just says Everyones Better With Fanservice, which isn't the point of the index at all.
  • August 25, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "But we always begin by having not found a picture."

    What? Where did you get that idea? Lots of ykttws have pictures on the OP. I've done it before, and while some thought the pictures could be better, they didn't mind that I posted a picture. I think you're confusing "default" with "preference". The preference is to have a good picture illustrating any page (which is why going imageless is usually treated as a last resort on Image Picking).

    "So all pages begin imageless."

    No, they don't. Again, there are ykttw posts that have images, which are carried over when the page is made and the text is added.

    "A character exhibiting fanservice?"

    For a page that might be launched with the name "Fanservice Characters", that is the intention of the picture.

    "And the caption just says Everyones Better With Fanservice, which isn't the point of the index at all."

    That just says the caption needs work, not the picture is bad.

    Beyond that, do you have a picture suggestion? Asking not to have a picture is not a valid suggestion, as there is no rule forbidding pages to launch with them.
  • August 25, 2012
    Routerie
    All pages begin imageless. And exampleless. And title-less. And definitionless. Once we come up a name and some sort of description, we have a YKTTW draft. Once we have examples, a proper definition and a full description (and ideally an image) we're ready to launch a trope.Once we have tropes, criteria for inclusion and a quick description (and ideally an image) we're ready to launch an index.

    Sure, let's include an image before launching - if we can think of a good one. Till then, no image.

    I don't have a picture suggestion. One option would be a single picture containing several fanservice characters. In all likelihood though, such a picture would show ordinary characters dolled up to play to specific fetishes rather than actual fanservice characters.
  • August 25, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "All pages begin imageless. And exampleless. And title-less. And definitionless."

    If you mean the blank state, what does that have to do with this ykttw? Why bring that up at all?

    "Once we come up a name and some sort of description, we have a YKTTW draft. Once we have examples, a proper definition and a full description (and ideally an image) we're ready to launch a trope.Once we have tropes, criteria for inclusion and a quick description (and ideally an image) we're ready to launch an index."

    Um, I don't think any official order for these has been set, and despite my problems on the forums, I've made sure for a long time that my ykttw posts are in solid form.

    "Sure, let's include an image before launching - if we can think of a good one."

    That's WHY I'm asking if you have a better one. Why do you think I've repeatedly asked you what you think would make a good image (which you still haven't answered)?

    "Till then, no image."

    No, there is no such rule. If I post an image, and you don't think it's good, you propose a better one. You don't just declare we can't have an image, in a ykttw, at all just because you don't like what's there. That is stupid. Pictures should illustrate pages well, but you're making a False Dichotomy.

    "I don't have a picture suggestion."

    Well you do seem to have one, which is you want it imageless, but are trying to pass that off as some kind of rule. I have a problem with that, especially since you still haven't pointed to any official post somewhere stating it's a rule.

    If you don't think any image suggestion works, please just state you don't like those suggestions. Please don't claim that a freakin' ykttw, which is not meant to reflect the final launch page, shouldn't have an image on the OP, when that image is not even guaranteed to be on the page.
  • August 25, 2012
    Routerie
    This is ridiculous... I'm saying that we should include an image if we get a good one and should include no image otherwise. What is so controversial about that? If you propose an image, and we agree it is inappropriate for whatever reason, we'll exclude it. We'll try to think of a better one, but if we can't, we won't stick with the bad image.
  • August 25, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    Guys,
    1. YKTTW is not meant to launch a beta stage. Of course, including images, quotes, example, indexes etc. is permissible here. If you can't find a good image, you can still search for it after launch here or in Image Picking.
    2. This discussion is getting aggressive. Can you tone it down?
  • August 25, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ I noticed I was doing that. I'm sorry, and I'll be civil now.
  • August 25, 2012
    captainpat
    Considering the many different types of fanservice characters, not all of whom are female, should this even have an image? Personally, I prefer the princess one.
  • August 25, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Well a picture can include both genders. See the picture on Standard Superhero Suits.
  • August 26, 2012
    troacctid
    For the record, I don't think the image up there is good.
  • August 26, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
  • August 26, 2012
    rodneyAnonymous
    No image is better than a bad image. That is a bad image.
  • August 26, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Then what about the other suggestion I put in a reply? Or do you have an even better image in mind?

    EDIT: And I agree that "No Page Picture > Bad Page Picture", but "Good Page Picture >>> No Page Picture", so let's get a good one, and then I'll gladly launch this page.
  • August 26, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Still, since enough have stated they don't think it's a good picture, I'll swap with the other one (until enough either say it's good or say it doesn't work either). Posting the picture here for reference.

    Some characters do fanservice for fun... in their case, on every third Thursday of the month.

  • August 27, 2012
    rodneyAnonymous
    That is also not a good picture. It is Just A Face And A Caption. Even if you assume "look at her clothes!" is a good argument, it says "this character is currently fanservicey" and not "this character is often fanservicey". See also: MsFanservice.Video Games.

    The best image suggested so far is no image. There is nothing wrong with an article, especially an index, not having a page image. The fact that it is theoretically possible to find something that is better than nothing should not affect any decision-making.
  • August 27, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "The best image suggested so far is no image."

    Actually, the link in your previous paragraph gives me an idea. A collage might be best here. But perhaps a composite more akin to the pictures on Mini Dress Of Power and Disney Princess than a multi-frame picture.
  • August 27, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ... or this cast shot from Final Fantasy X 2.

    Was watching some The Spoony Experiment videos and remembered that game.
  • August 28, 2012
    Routerie
    Yes, those are characters exhibiting fanservice. We have no shortage of such pictures. But does it illustrate this index? Which Fanservice Characters tropes do they represent?
  • August 28, 2012
    rodneyAnonymous
    This sort of thing is actually very difficult to find a good image for, if your bar is higher than "an example". If an article already had that image up, maybe it wouldn't be bad enough to remove without replacement, but it doesn't make sense to add an image that's not as good as no image.
  • August 28, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "This sort of thing is actually very difficult to find a good image for, if your bar is higher than "an example"."

    But some indexes can do with just that. Stuff Blowing Up just shows one explosion. Guns And Gunplay Tropes just shows a couple guy with guns.

    "but it doesn't make sense to add an image that's not as good as no image"

    You seem to be implying I'm putting up images that I know are bad. How about I'm trying to put up good images.
  • August 28, 2012
    rodneyAnonymous
    "You seem to be implying..." It's a trap!

    Implying no such thing. Talking about what I think, not what you think.

    Evidently nobody agrees they are good.
  • August 28, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    I think we can just can the discussion on an image until it's actually launched.
  • August 28, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "Implying no such thing. Talking about what I think, not what you think."

    If you don't mean that, then tell us what you do mean. But the words "to add an image that's not as good as no image" does feel to me as though you think I'm deliberately putting up bad images.

    "Evidently nobody agrees they are good."

    Actually, I only got a couple comments on all but the Nostalgia Chick image, and most of those seemed to involve some assumption that pictures need to illustrate the index, which is not a rule, or even a guideline. Index pictures that show loads of tropes in one are the exception, not the rule.

    "I think we can just can the discussion on an image until it's actually launched."

    Well I wouldn't mind (even my not being able to post in such a thread wouldn't be an issue), if it not for this apparent assumption that an index picture is supposed to show most of the index, when that isn't the case. Most index pictures just show one trope, but it clearly shows the main theme of the index from that one picture as well.

    Basically, if that assumption was carried over to the IP thread, it wouldn't get an image chosen, as some would slap down any picture even when it still works.
  • August 28, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Firstly, sorry for that little wall of text above.

    Secondly, with a couple more suggestions (there are four so far), we could just get an image crowner (and ykttw has had crowners before), and settle this here without need for further argument.
  • August 28, 2012
    Routerie
    Stuff Blowing Up is easy enough to illustrate. Show stuff blowing up. It's a trope as well as an index.

    Guns And Gunplay Tropes is easy to illustrate. Show guns or gunplay.

    Fanservice Characters is difficult because it is not a trope and because it is a subindex of a larger index (one that is a trope). So the hypothetical image must illustrate the concept of fanservice characters and not just illustrate fanservice. Which is hard.
  • August 28, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you want to see character trope showing in the pictures, as well as their fanservice? If so, then I get your point.

    So in that case, and ideal picture would show like, say, a cheerleader, a vamp, a dominatrix, and other characters that are obviously for fanservice. Is that the kind of picture you'd prefer?

    Although the FF X-2 picture does show different character types. On the left is the perky, youthful hottie. In the center is the strong, confident hottie. And on the right is the serious, brooding hottie. Heck, the caption could just be "Do you like your fanservice perky, athletic, or brooding?".
  • August 28, 2012
    Routerie
    I suggested that sort of thing earlier in the thread. I specifically had this picture in mind. But the problem with that picture (and with similar pictures) is that those aren't fanservice characters. Those are ordinary characters dolled up a specific situation to appeal to particular fetishes.

    As for FF X2, "perky, youthful," "strong, confident" and "serious, brooding" are not fanservice characters. Those are just types of women - which people find attractive. Note that none of the corresponding tropes for those characters are on the proposed index (nor should they be). The fanservice in the picture comes from displaying these perky, strong and serious women in skimpy outfits - and that fanservice applies equally no matter what sort of character wears them.

    The ideal picture would show a Reluctant Fanservice Girl, a Shameless Fanservice Girl, Ms Fanservice and Mr Fanservice. Don't know how we'd come up with a picture like that though. Heck, those pages don't even have their own pictures.
  • August 29, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    I'll give you that the Desperate Housewives picture doesn't really work (as for one thing, Bree would be a conservative hottie), but your claim about the FF X-2 picture assumes that "types of women" are not characters or characterizations. Works do use such things for fanservice.

    Furthermore, that the tropes they represent are not on the list right now should not be a mark against the picture. You're seriously claiming that a list on an index is comprehensive about either pages we already have or about pages we will have?

    The description starting with "Characters and characterizations where Fanservice is the primary aspect" is actually meant to be the main theme of this list, and in that regard, the FF X-2 picture certainly shows characterizations where fanservice is the primary aspect (even people who haven't played the game assume that just by looking at the covers, trailers, and promotional art; and people who have played the game know they are just about that).

    Finally, to your claim of the ideal: Two of those tropes listed don't have any page pictures, so it will be difficult to show those tropes if we don't even know what would work on their own pages. The other two have some pictures on their sub-pages, and they only are women in skimpy clothing, or guys with their shirts off. Those are basically about what characters are wearing, which you've been claiming makes a bad picture for this index.
  • August 29, 2012
    captainsandwich
  • August 29, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ That's a genre, not a character trope.

    Crap, are enough of those to make an index? Someone else can do that one.
  • August 29, 2012
    Routerie
    Characterizations cannot be fanservice. They can be attractive, or fetish fuel, but fanservice is the "gratuitous display of characters in skimpy clothing, or none at all."
  • August 29, 2012
    SeptimusHeap
    Guys, this is getting hot again. Can we leave the image on Image Picking so that we don't have to fight here?
  • August 29, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Well there shouldn't be a fight either here or on the forums (which is why I say again that a crowner might be the best thing here). I will keep my discussion short and calm from this point.

    EDIT: Plus the discussion seems to be covering what should be a fanservice character, and that would also include a TRS thread, and even a Trope Talk thread. It would not be good to just fight there as well, but just try to have a clear and amicable understanding.

    ^^ Characterization can be fanservice if it provides a reason for why one wears such clothes, or what kind of skimpy clothes they wear.

    Plus being reluctant or shameless are characterizations, yet you claim those would make a good picture. If those can work, so can other characterizations that aren't merely reactions to being in fanservice.
  • August 29, 2012
    rodneyAnonymous
  • August 29, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Putting that on the OP.
  • August 29, 2012
    Routerie
    Yes, certainly, characterization connected with fanservice form fanservice tropes. "Person who proudly shows off her fanservice" is a fanservice / fanservice character trope, as is "person who reluctantly shows off their fanservice." But "proud person" and "shy person" aren't fanservice tropes. Nor are "intelligent woman" or "funny guy" or "caring individual," no matter how appealing the viewer might find those characteristics. So, "brooding" etc aren't examples of fanservice character types.
  • August 29, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ But doing those characterizations in fanservice ways is possible. Really. Watch just 5 minutes of FF X-2 if you think that game doesn't do that.
  • August 29, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    Who deleted some of the options from the crowner? Unless it was a mod, that was not cool.
  • August 29, 2012
    rodneyAnonymous
    That is not possible. The "missing" options are hidden because their ratio is low, which can be set on any crowner but defaults to true when you view it unhooked.

    "Total number: 6. Number shown: 3. To include items with lower scores, click HERE"
  • August 29, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Oh, forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.
  • August 30, 2012
    Routerie
    What do you mean by "in fanservice ways"? Do you mean putting them alongside fanservice? Yes, you can do that with anything. Do you mean Portrayed As Sexually Appealing? That is not what fanservice is.
  • August 30, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    "Do you mean putting them alongside fanservice?"

    No, I specifically wrote "provides a reason for why one wears such clothes, or what kind of skimpy clothes they wear". That is important, as it's why the FF X-2 girls are wearing different outfits (which was meant to reflect their personalities, despite the dressspheres making clothing changes a thing).

    EDIT: Also, the page for fanservice defines it too narrowly. The term means more than that, as it's a term coined outside this wiki. Heck, some meta shows have described different characters in terms of being fanservice, without them wearing skimpy clothes.

    Of course that's for TRS, but I bet if we checked the wicks, we'd see the term used in a more general context.
  • August 30, 2012
    Routerie
    Yes, I agree there's tons of misuse. And outside the wiki, the term is much broader - fanservice needn't even be sexual, but fanservice the trope is a concept we've chosen to define in a certain way.
  • August 30, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    ^ Well that's not a good idea, when people outside the wiki think of it as something else, and thus use it that way here.
  • September 3, 2012
    Routerie
    Yeah, that's bad. We should rename fanservice. I'm not optimistic about success...
  • September 6, 2012
    rodneyAnonymous
    Crowner started more than a week ago, and has been the same for days. Low vote count, but not that many people care. "Launch with no image" is the only green option, and is favored 4:2.
  • September 6, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    I remember mods stating that some Crowners, like renames and images, need more votes than that, or they can't be called.

    Otherwise it's just a handful, not really enough users to make a fair vote.

    Note that's still me allowing for no picture on launch (even though I haven't really seen a good argument against all but the Nostalgia Chick picture).
  • October 7, 2012
    captainpat
    Bump
  • October 7, 2012
    DragonQuestZ
    I should add that the FF X-2 girls are basically each a variation of Ms Fanservice. The point was to show just how varied the fanservice from characters can get.

    Other than that, eh. This is Up For Grabs.
  • October 7, 2012
    MiinU
  • March 2, 2013
    Noah1
  • March 2, 2013
    lexicon
  • March 29, 2013
    Quag15
  • March 29, 2013
    Stratadrake
    If this is simply characters and tropes about fanservice, then this is just a listing of Fanservice Tropes (currently a redirect to Fanservice by itself). Note the already existing list/index on the Fanservice page - how is this distinct (i.e. not duplicating a majority of that list) ?
  • August 16, 2013
    Noah1
  • October 25, 2013
    DAN004
    Launch?
  • October 25, 2013
    Paradisesnake
    ^ Not before that (^^^) question has been answered.
  • October 25, 2013
    DAN004
    Well this is distinct in that this index lists specific characters. Non-specific concepts such as World Of Buxom or Buxom Is Better goes to Fanservice.
  • October 25, 2013
    WeAreAllKosh
  • October 28, 2013
    Tomodachi
    I demand this Index to be called "This index is full of sexy"!
  • October 28, 2013
    AmyGdala
    No, because it isn't for all sexy things. It is for fanservice characters.
  • October 28, 2013
    MorningStar1337
    Is there a difference?
  • October 29, 2013
    AmyGdala
    Many pages about sexy things aren't characters. Like, all the pages listed in Fanservice Costumes. Or nearly all the pages listed in Rule Of Sexy. Or all the pages listed in Fanservice other than the ones in this index.
  • September 11, 2014
    Noah1
  • September 11, 2014
    DAN004
    Add Hot God
  • September 12, 2014
    MiinU
  • March 17, 2015
    Noah1
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=rwybz3w8lgwwznrhtcjtfd2b