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
I know what you're talking about. Those pages got stupid.
We should:
- Chainsaw every Zero Context Example we see. If you can't say why, then the example isn't good enough.
- Get rid of any drooling and examples that make no sense.
You have the go ahead from me.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
Yeah, you have my support, too.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
Hi
Terminate with extreme prejudice.
Cerina Vincent's page is almost entirely about her on-screen nudity and there's a whole paragraph about her sex scene in the movie Cabin Fever. I'm not sure how much of it violates our "no drooling" guideline but the whole page feels creepy and gushy.
edited 1st Jul '12 3:13:03 PM by djbj
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
... Ick. To be honest, I think we should cut the page altogether.
My goodness, what is it with these actress pages that always seem to attract such overly lewd crap?
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
I agree with the above. Cutlist it. If someone wants to make an actual page on her, by all means, but this crap has to go.
I cutlisted it.
I did a sweep of the video game subpages of Mr./Mrs. Fanservice, but I haven't played everything so let me know if I axe something that really did belong there.
What do we do with examples that are clear examples of Stripperiffic or Walking Shirtless Scene but don't mention any other fanservicey traits?
edited 1st Jul '12 5:20:04 PM by InsanityPrelude
Insanity is Relative...
I have a couple of concerns about some of the examples on the trope page for Memetic Sex God. First of all, there still seems to be a lot of gushing there about characters people harbor PSL for, and not just listing fandom in-jokes about how, ha-ha, this character will make anyone drop their panties, like the trope page was supposed to from the start. That seems like something that deserves at least a little bit of cleanup attention, but I'm not sure where to start and don't want to come off as a Blue Nose Bowdlerizer.
Second, I'm not sure if this counts as pedoshit, but I'm a bit concerned about the way that some of the examples are speaking about underage characters. One of the listed characters under "Literature" is Draco Malfoy from Harry Potter, who is underage for most of the series. That is true for the fandom, but the character is still underage and that is troublesome to me. Also, under "Comics", there is a section devoted to Robin from Batman - two of those Robins (Dick and Jason) are former Robins and adults in the series now, which is fine, but two of them (Tim and Damian) are underage. To be fair, Damian's example states that the character is "aged up" from ten years old by fans, but it's still really creepy to me that people are even mentioning that they feel attracted to a ten-year-old character to begin with. And the statement about "every girl (and some boys) [wanting] to be the first to deflower" Tim is just out of line for the tone of this Wiki. I'm concerned it looks a bit too much like pedo-pandering, or at least looks pedo-friendly, but that's just me.
edited 1st Jul '12 6:20:53 PM by InvisibleJester
It's like my momma always told me: "Troping is as Troping does..."
I wouldn't count it, but if it's going into way too much detail, just find the nub of the trope and cut out any detail that seems lewd.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'm not entirely sure… both of those tropes are invoked almost universally for the sake of fanservice, but not necessarily… there are some examples, like He-Man, the Thundercats, etc., where the design does genuinely seem to be just an innocent (or perhaps oblivious) design choice. Let's just set a rule where, for source material that's aimed towards children 12 and under, the work either has to insinuate that the creators are aware of the potential appeal or seem to be trying to give something for parents to enjoy or something similar. For works with a higher age range, I think most instances of these tropes would indeed fit.
I just perused the Memetic Sex God page and I agree, it needs some clean-up work. I'm less concerned about entries on young characters, because memes are memes and they're mostly jokes to begin with, but I can see the language needing some cleanup. My main problem is the lack of backup given to most of the examples; I understand that they're memes amongst a fan community and there really isn't any way to give the source, but I find it troublesome that I could easily just make an example up and it'd blend in perfectly fine. Even if we can't back examples up, perhaps we could try for more context?
Edit: I just made my way through all of the Mr. Fanservice subpages. There are a handful of examples which I considered questionable, but didn't have any actual familiarity with the series from which to challenge them, so I left those alone. Other than that, I gave them a good scrubbing.
edited 2nd Jul '12 2:21:48 AM by Wii
Felicia Day needs cleanup. We care about her acting career, not the person.
edited 2nd Jul '12 2:28:40 AM by lu127
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
You know, I think we should just go through all of my actor/actress pages again and clean up whatever lewd and irrelevant content that's in them.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
What about Author Appeal? Does that need a cleanup, and if so, what standards should be use in doing so?
Consider, for example, that 10 bullet points worth of material that seem to be primarly dedicated to implying that Piers Anthony is some sort of pedophile.
edited 3rd Jul '12 7:24:43 AM by Catbert
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
That needs to be implied? Mother of Odin, the guy wrote an entire book (Firefly) on the joys of paedophilia.
Ok, but maybe only5 bullet points about how much he likes writing about weird subjects.
In that case, we don't need 10 bullet points dancing around the subject.
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
Please tell me we don't have a page for that...
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
I don't believe so, fortunately, though his other works can get a bit skeevy as well (I believe Bio Of A Space Tyrant features the titular character reducing the age of consent to twelve, among other things). Here's an article on the subject, by the way. Anthony is one creepy, creepy dude.
edited 3rd Jul '12 3:59:41 PM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
The Demon Slayer
Ah yes. There's a reason he's among the creators on the Filibuster Freefall page. Or as I more commonly call it, "The Brain Eater."
edited 3rd Jul '12 4:08:04 PM by TwoGunAngel
Why on earth is that an alt-title for that trope?
This line might explain:
"The phenomenon was first noted by author James Nicoll on the rec.arts.sf newsgroup (and we're actually citing him properly this time) and dubbed "The Brain Eater" in relation to authors Poul Anderson and James P. Hogan."
(Emphasis mine.) Basically, The Brain Eater is a preexisting term from the looks of it, but it's too ambiguous to properly use for a page title.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Alternately, I don't know what I'm talking about, so...
edited 3rd Jul '12 4:14:19 PM by DarkConfidant
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
edited 3rd Jul '12 4:21:18 PM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
Actually, looking at the bottom of the page, it is an alt-title.
And I didn't notice that sentence before, so I guess that clears it up.
[/derail]
Sorry if I'm bringing this up in the wrong place, but I noticed this around the Wiki, and given the recent campaigns, I figured that it deserved to be pointed out: Somewhere along the line, it seems like the Mr. and Mrs. Fanservice sub-pages became the new examples bin for Perverse Sexual Lust. Both are real tropes, for characters whom the creators are genuinely exploiting for the sake of sex appeal, but there are a lot of quote-on-quote "examples" that are really nothing more than someone squeeing (or lusting) over a guy/girl they think is hot. And wow… it gets bad. Really, really bad. Seriously, on the Western Animation subpage for Mr. Fanservice, someone saw fit to include examples from My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic, which is wrong on oh so many levels. These are non-anthropomorphized ponies on a kid's show being given a label which, again, means the show is intentionally trying to use them for sex appeal.
In my personal opinion, all of these pages need a very vigorous scrubbing, or their entire examples sections need to be cut altogether. Either would be fine, but I think that something definitely needs to be done.