This thread is for cleaning up pages that violate the No Lewdness, No Prudishness policy.
Do not use this thread for reporting pages that need to be cut for violating The Content Policy. Report pages that appear too lewd or gushy to have on the wiki using the "Report Page" button on the sidebar, with the checkbox saying "The page may violate the Content Policy" checked. That will create a thread on the Content Violation Discussions subforum
. The thread will be opened by a mod if the report is valid, and if it's deemed necessary, the page will be cleaned according to the Content Policy. (The list of pages that were deemed problematic can be found on The Content Policy's page.)
No Lewdness:
"Lewdness" is more than just being about something sexual or potentially sexual. Here are some signs of lewd writing:
- Personal opinions on hotness. Examples should stand on their own without the introduction of YMMV material. Adding your own thoughts and feelings on an example is an opinion, same as calling an example good or bad. Don't do it. Don't try and extend your feelings to a larger group of fans either, e.g. "...and fangirls everywhere rejoiced". You're not fooling anyone.
- Overly detailed examples. The example doesn't need to be an exact sensory account of the event. Too much of that and you end up sounding like you're writing porn. When in doubt, drop a few adjectives.
- Unrelated fanservice mentions. If the hot bits aren't related to the example, they don't belong in the example.
- Pornographic writing. If you're writing porn, it should be somewhere other than the wiki. Keep it Family Friendly.
- Titillation links. Tell, don't show. We don't need screen shots to illustrate NSFW fanservice. If a reader is really curious, they can go look it up on Google. (See also Weblinks Are Not Examples.)
- Pedo gushing. We don't need to describe children sexually. This should be cut immediately. We're not interested in hosting pedophilia fantasies. Period. If a work contains children having sex, even if portrayed negatively, report it as a potential violation of The Content Policy using the "Report Page" button◊ in the sidebar.
- Talking about actors instead of characters. An actor is not the character they play. When you're writing an example about a work, refer to the character, not the actor. This applies to non-sexual references, but too often it's tropers writing about how they find certain actors hot. That doesn't fit in character examples.
- Thinking a page with a Not Safe for Work subject is license to be lewd. Even when we discuss porn, we are about just stating the facts.
- Fanfic Recs for underage sex. We will not host any recommendation for fics that have explicit sex involving people apparently or actually younger than 16. Period. We categorically do not recommend fics with sex in which at least one participant:
- This applies even if all parties are underage.
No Prudishness:
- Don't cutlist or gut pages just because they're about sexual topics. Sex exists. It's used in media a lot. You'll just need to cope with that fact. Relationships, fanservice, and sexual activity all fall into their own tropes as a result.
- Don't be a Bluenose Bowdlerizer. We're not looking to censor all sex off the wiki. If the sex and sexuality is an honest part of the work and relevant to the example, it belongs there.
- The wiki is not rated G. We aren't sanitizing the wiki for small children. Sex and sexuality are part of media and we aren't going to ignore them. This wiki is Family Friendly, not Unsupervised Small Child Friendly. This isn't an excuse to make work pages dirtier than the work itself, as the above No Lewdness section makes clear, but neither is it an excuse to make those pages cleaner than the work itself.
For further explanations, please read this thread
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 6th 2024 at 3:54:01 AM
The majority of the examples for Hot Scientist are gonna have to be moved to the discussion page. There's a lot gushing, a lot talking about actors, and zero context examples.
Edit: Hot Scientist is clean. I have to move the majority of the examples to the discussion but it's clean.
edited 10th Nov '12 3:37:47 PM by captainpat
I was looking at The Three Faces of Eve and there are pre-pubescents listed in the "seductress" role in some examples. Can those be cut?
Well, if the prepubescent are sexually agressive, they might need a trip to 5P, but otherwise I see no issue. Just remove creepy gushing and shoehorning.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Hi
Per a SE thread that I just closed (and tgoodrich's suggestion), SoBadItsGood.Fan Fic needs a check-over and possible scrubbing of fics that don't meet the content policy.
Should be reviewed: Out with a Bang examples from more than a couple of P5-cut works.
Hi
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I cut that down to a general-purpose one-line note about Urotsukidoji and added the hidden tag about it being cut...half of those don't count anyway since no one died.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Female Gaze is looking a bit drooly, and has a lot of examples that aren't 'the camera emphasises this character's assets' as much as 'my god this guy is so hot'. Didn't give Male Gaze a look - how's that doing?
edited 5th Feb '13 8:53:25 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
Cleric of Banjo
Blake Lively seems overall really drooly. I especially question the Celebrity Resemblance entry, but basically wondering about the page as a whole- most of the tropes are about the actress's legs or otherwise commenting on her being physically attractive.
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
What is the term used for this in the past? "Masturbatory shrine"? Also, way too many Zero Context Examples there for my liking.
I suggest to trim away all the bad examples, move it to Creator/ and change the page image.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Cleric of Banjo
I was going to use the term "one handed editing", but wasn't sure that was true of the page as a whole (although probably a fair characterization of the Celebrity Resemblance entry).
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki
Mopped the drooling off Blake Lively.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Hi
Lu's edits seem to have fixed the problems with that page. I don't see an issue with the image.
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
I think the page for Seitokai No Ichizon needs a de-lewding.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
I do not agree with mentioning ass size and drooling fan boys on Kim Kardashian. Agree/Disagree?
The Image Links page looks very fishy as well.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I removed the drool-y text. The images linked to are not nudes. Shouldn't be an issue.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Hi
I downsized the pic a bit, the page was forcing a resize.
Teacher/Student Romance might need looked at. I changed up one really gross (Fetish Fuel was mentioned while describing a situation that, in the work, is unambiguously sexual abuse of a teenager) example that I was vaguely familiar with, but it's a long page and I doubt that was the only creepy example.
There are a couple porn/hentai examples on the part of the page I skimmed too, but they're not explicit and don't link to the work so those are left alone, right?
Edit: Is that a page that should have a RL section (let alone multiple)?
edited 26th Mar '13 1:53:57 PM by InsanityPrelude
The RL section doesn't seem to be causing any problems.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
No complaints from this end, then.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Mentioned it a few months back, but Female Gaze still needs work. I'd do it myself, but frankly, I'm not sure where to start.
What's precedent ever done for us?
A TRS thread because I have no idea what exactly that trope is supposed to be and there is not a single line in that description that makes that clear.
The relevant sentence is: "The Female Gaze is a Gaze trope about the way a work is presented as from a female perspective or reflects female attitudes, either because of the creator's gender or because it is deliberately aimed at a female audience. "
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
That sounds really vague and somewhat similar to Eating the Eye Candy.
Well, Eating the Eye Candy is about the character reaction. Male Gaze and Female Gaze are similar to Viewers Are Morons - it's about how the expected audience reaction affects the work during the production process.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
nrjxll, I think it would be better to modify it to Seductive Villainy or some such.
Fight smart, not fair.