Embarassing crap on the wiki

Does this affect the work pages of fanfics that include teenage smut?

These typically have links to the works themselves.

^ Well, we aren't supposed to be directly linking NSFW content anyways. (Though that rule doesn't seem to be widely followed—just today, I deleted a bunch of links off of Agony In Pink.)

Edit: On a side note, I'd like to make that my project for the moment—going down the index of Explicit Content works and deleting direct links. I'll start with Cats N Cameras.

edited 31st Mar '12 6:07:08 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I though the guideline was that links to explicit works were OK so long as the specific page linked was SFW?

Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.

To my understanding, the links should be removed, and the page should be made to follow the second rule (no prurient descriptions), but the page is supposed to stay.

Eddie's stance seems to be that if you're here, you can clearly use Google, if you're interested.

edited 31st Mar '12 6:17:36 PM by BadWolf21

I think we're allowed to link SFW pages of works that also have NSFW content. (For instance, I wound up keeping the links in Cats N Cameras, since they were all SFW.) But come to think of it, I'm unsure whether we're allowed to link NSFW content behind an SFW splash page of the "Do you really want to see this content?" type.

Maybe someone else should be doing some of this—I don't really want to check whether the links for stuff like Birthday Gift are SFW or not.

Edit: I'll compile a list of all links I was unsure whether to delete.

edited 31st Mar '12 6:20:46 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I believe the stance is that it's OK providing you're not linking NSFW content directly.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

My running list (incomplete):

Straight-up deleted the link to Birthday Gift. Someone who cares can find a SFW link to it.

Kit N Kay Boodle is officially Somebody Else's Problem. I damn near threw up the last time I tried to read it.

Not sure what's SFW and what's NSFW with Darwins Soldiers. Could someone who knows the series edit the page?

I'd rather leave Collar 6 to someone who more readily tolerates that sort of thing.

The Crowning Moment Of Funny page for Fluffy Bunny Domination contains only NSFW links (although they're very funny NSFW links.) Should I ask a mod to just blank the page?

I'm unsure of our policy on violence, so I'm not sure how to handle the links to gory imagery in Freak Angels.

I'd like to find a guaranteed SFW page on HATEFARM to link (most likely the first page), but I can't figure out how to navigate the site. For now, I'll just delete the link.

The website for Jack is currently down, so I can't check the SFW status of links. I'm not sure if it's permanently down or not.

I'm in the process of cleaning MenageA3, but I strongly suspect it will accumulate more NSFW links. The only way to stop it would be to lock it, which might be overkill.

As a side note, I am currently not deleting links to Panty Shots.

edited 31st Mar '12 9:06:30 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Trying to classify the fanfic recs policy: it looks to me like it says recommending porn fics it's kosher as long as they're ot identified as such, which can't possibly be right. Is it?

edited 31st Mar '12 9:08:04 PM by HersheleOstropoler

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

As long as they are identified as such, not recommended creepily, and don't involve underage characters having explicit sex.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I think those are good standards.

Alt account of Angeldog 2437.

Ok. But that looks like the opposite of what Fast Eddie said.

(Also, the April Fools joke: cute)

The child is father to the man —Oedipus

I thought that it was pretty much the same, just worded more specifically (I think).

Alt account of Angeldog 2437.

Yes, it's what Eddie said in simple English.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Cool.

Alt account of Angeldog 2437.

Thank you, Eddie. I've been waiting a long time for this to happen, and now that it has I have one less thing to be (perhaps disproportionately) irked and uncomfortable about.

edited 31st Mar '12 10:26:07 PM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

I know, I just to be sure to avoid the Rules Lawyering trap from the beginning.

Unfortunately, people got the impression that your ruling mean "No recommendations for Lemons. Period." I think I've said it many times before, to you or to one or more mods: What is 100% clear to you isn't necessarily 100% clear to everyone else. We can't read your mind, Eddie. Some people, including genuinely well-meaning contributors, will need it spelled out for them in unambiguous wording, especially on such controversial issues, and more especially when a ruling is made by Admin Fiat; it makes people paranoid (or, in case of the ultraconservative, overeager/overzealous) enough to go the Prudish route, which obviously violates the second half of our No Lewdness No Prudishness rule.

edited 1st Apr '12 7:19:42 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

That is why I only added the "no recs for works with sex between apparent under-16 year olds" law to No Lewdness, No Prudishness and left the part "No prurient recommendations" out - the rest of No Lewdness says quite clearly that prurient stuff isn't wanted anyway, not just on recs.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Ninja'd previous post for minor tweaking and clarification.

I've changed "between" to "involving", because the former wrongly implies that the prohibition is limited to "minor-with-minor" sex.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I changed the OP of the cleanup thread accordingly.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Ah, whoops.

edited 1st Apr '12 11:21:39 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

For all those people who wish to clean up stuff or get help with it: This is the thread for that.

Take your requests there, please.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Edit; Oops sorry

edited 1st Apr '12 1:20:16 PM by Akagikiba

Please read the post . That is the place to decide. Here we only discuss policy.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I'm worried we're going a little overboard. I mean, high socks are being discussed as too sexy to have examples on the wiki. I don't want to know what will happen when they discover we have a trope for short shorts.

It's not that the trope is creepy. It's the way some of the examples are being written that are creepy.

Be not afraid...