Cutting the main page: Incest Yay

I am increasingly convinced that the name was the biggest problem. It really does read like enthusiasm for incest is being expressed, despite the trope itself being largely neutral.

Shouldn't it be the same for all the Yay tropes, then?

There was a definition drift.

As pre-existing terms, the yay tropes were about enthusiastic shipping, but on the wiki, people used them at least as much for in-universe subtext.

When we started making a big deal out of subjectivity, there was a crowner, and it was elected that the yays should be the subtext tropes, and the audience reactions should be split out of them, with the word "shipping" added to their title's end.

Maybe it would have made more sense the othr way around, splitting out the tropes as In Universe Incest Yay, or something.

Oh, never mind cutting the Rape and Incest tropes. Since this wiki's new mission statement is apparently never to offend anyone ever over anything, lets cut all the sex tropes and the religious, racial and political ones as well.

Calm down as it is not like that either. This is a completely separate matter. This was cutting a 'Squicky' trope, not an offensive one.

Don't strawman. Laculus was right, the name and possibly the over-zealous Jalex shipping gave the wrong impression that we were squeeing over incest, not documenting siblings with heavy subtext.

This is justification to fixing and maybe locking. Not cutting. Never cutting, if it s a valid trope.

edited 17th May '11 11:40:18 AM by Heatth

How about Accidental Incest Subtext? Or just Incest Yay Shipping? A lot of it a bit Accidental Innuendo, particularly on the part of Jalex as the writers can't really write a convincing bro/sis relationship. Apparently Supernatural has a lot of this as well.

Oh, Incest Yay Shipping is a trope. Never mind. Maybe just Accidental Incest Subext?

edited 17th May '11 11:54:19 AM by MegaJ

That would work although I would like to point out that the difference between Squee and Squick is a purely subjective one. There's a reason why the incestuous ships are the most popular ones on both {{Supernatural}] and Wizards Of Waverly Place.

edited 17th May '11 12:01:51 PM by tricksterson

It's NOT accidental. Accidental is always an audience reaction.

Audience reaction Incest Yay is at Incest Yay Shipping, where fans see things into all random relationships.

Subtext is, by definition, there: it was placed by the writers, as a form of fetish-pandering Ship Tease.

edited 17th May '11 12:07:23 PM by EternalSeptember

I thought the point is it was not accidental.

Ninja'd

edited 17th May '11 12:07:37 PM by Heatth

Indeed. For instance, the metric boatload of incestuous subtext in Code Geass. It's seldom overt (well, except for Lelouch describing his half-sister Euphemia as his 'first love'), but undeniably present. Likewise, it is never stated outright that Viserys from A Song Of Ice And Fire wishes to jump his sister's bones, but their scenes together are just suggestive enough of sexual abuse past and present that the impression is conveyed anyway.

It's NOT accidental. Accidental is always an audience reaction.

Sailor Moon has two lesbians. The dub, in a classic example of Dub Text, changed them into cousins but didn't remove the romantic scenes.

The result is incestuous subtext which is accidental in the sense that nobody wanted there to be incest. But the romantic scenes were put there on purpose, and the audience isn't imagining the fact that they are romantic scenes.

I'd call this accidental but not an audience reaction.

Still, outright cutting a trope out of the blue does set a bad precent, not to mention create some Paranoia Fuel for the fans of the more riskier tropes.

Oh okay, I stand correct. Incest subtext... In Text? Sub Cest?

Ok, it may be accidental, but this is not required for the trope. The case you mentioned is more of an exception then a rule.

Haha, good catch. I meant, that by Accidental Incest Subtext, Mega J meant that it's about how "the creators were just creating, minding their business, and then, shippers found some line that could be interpreted as Incest Yay". That is not what the trope is about, it's about things that are clearly there according to every party.

In that example, the subtext was actually put there, by the dubbing studio, in an irregular example, in a similar way to how a video game bug can turn a normal sword into a BFS, or a cut last episode can make a Gainax Ending, even if the tropes themselves are, by definition, in-universe, and intentionally used for a purpose.

By the way, for a title, I would suggest Not Quite Incest.

The original purpose of the page was to reduce the misused potholes of Incest Is Relative for events when there is something between relatives, but they aren't directly confirmed to actually have sex.

edited 18th May '11 6:08:46 AM by EternalSeptember

How's about Implied Incest for the Added Alliterative Appeal?

Ok, it may be accidental, but this is not required for the trope. The case you mentioned is more of an exception then a rule.

What happens if the actors are or were dating in real life (Justin/Alex on Wizards of Waverly Place, Claire/Peter on Heroes)? That can sometimes affect the on-screen portrayal in ways which are not exactly intentional, but are more than just audience imaginings.

edited 18th May '11 8:01:43 AM by arromdee

That's just Cast Incest, (a trivia page), and even if you think that it appears on the screen, it is Incest Yay Shipping until you can point out scenes that were played that way.

It was one of the lines that we drew in the thread where we split them, that on it's own "Claire and Peter have lots of chemistry" can't be an objective trope, because it doesn't really cite anything from the work.

I'm no supporter of incest. But some works objectively do have that subtext. Take Avatar The Last Airbender. Although it is never stated that Azula harbors other-than-sisterly feelings for Zuko, when you watch the scene in her bedroom where she calls him "Zu-Zu" is hard to escape the implication.

True, and as some tropers pointed out this was a valid trope that only had to get rid of the ambiguous or shipping examples. And now I learned that it waqs Fast Eddie who cut it suddenly. Now I'm not surprised at all.

I wonder why he is so biased... Many things get cut without any consensus recently.

edited 19th May '11 12:21:23 AM by artman40

I honestly can't blame him due to the kind of reputation the more risqué pages give this wiki, but I really do question his methods.

This, and this.

The problem isn't with setting a direction for the wiki.

Cutting down on risqué stuff could make sense as a direction. The problem is, when he happens to be around here in the TRS, or the Image Picking, and he just randomly decides what to do with the a specific page, when we are only a few posts into the thread, because he is so sure that he:
a) properly understood the page
b) found the Best Solution Ever and no one could hope to find better.
c) isn't allowing his own arbitary tastes and preferences to dominate over the common opinion, and even the guidelines that he sets.

Like a few weeks ago, with "if you know what I mean", that was reported for bad potholes. Second post of the thread, Eddie already custom titled the title as "nudge", even though it doesn't actually solve the potholing problem, causes new ones, not to mention, that even though most of us agreed that there are problems with the name, we almost certainly wouldn't have chosen Nudge as a new title.

I guess it makes sense from his perspective, that he wrote a rule, he is the best man for deciding whether it applies here, but as we can see in practice, it is offen muddied by his questionable understanding of actually what the specific page is about, or about his random opinions like arbitarily preferring a page image, or a term over others.

We already have a great institution for fixing pages, and it works on consensus. If he just randomly goes around overruling consensus, this basically takes away all legitimacy from all other TRS threads, that are apparently powered by their luck of Eddie not being there and having Great Ideas about them.

edited 19th May '11 8:54:05 AM by EternalSeptember