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
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
Yeah, this is for stuff pertaining to the Panel for the Purging of Pornographic and Pedo-Pandering Content. Stuff that needs to be de-whined should be discussed in this thread.
> titular character reduces age of consent to twelve
> Filibuster Freefall mentions prepubescent kids "knowingly consenting" to sex with adults in the same book
> author is known for pedophilic Author Appeal so I'd believe a charge of deliberate pandering
... Is this something we need to flag?
(Also, I'm reading the article Iaculus linked. Pedophilia and honey as lube?! Tatham Mound was never on my to-read list to begin with but now it's really not...)
edited 3rd Jul '12 10:35:53 PM by InsanityPrelude
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
Well, unless all of his works are like that, I don't think we can cut Piers Anthony wholesale.
edited 3rd Jul '12 10:33:23 PM by Komodin
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
I meant Bio Of A Space Tyrant. Don't ask me, I haven't read any of the guy's work...
Edit: from the work page here, though, the guy making that 12-year-old age of consent law doesn't sound all that sympathetic. I'll leave it to someone who's read the thing to decide if it's a problem.
edited 3rd Jul '12 10:38:42 PM by InsanityPrelude
The Filibuster Freefall mentions prepubescent kids "knowingly consenting" to sex with adults in the same book bit sounds like it warrants at least a look over. The age of consent 12 thing doesn't, since they're all basically guesswork.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Uhh... you are aware of this site's policies on pre-teens fucking, yeah? As for 'he's not really that sympathetic', the whole purpose of the series seems to be suggesting that the titular Space Tyrant was just misunderstood - unfortunately, one of the ways Anthony chooses to demonstrate that is apparently going 'yeah, he didn't rape those kids, they came onto him'.
edited 4th Jul '12 3:36:51 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
Yes. That's why I said that the "pre-pubescent children" bit warranted a lookover.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Right, but wouldn't you agree that even an Author Tract on lowering the age of consent to pre-teen levels/ outright eliminating it would be a sign of paedo-pandering? I mean, c'mon, there may be some individual variation, but there's a pretty clear difference in physical and mental development between your average twelve-year-old and your average sixteen-year-old.
edited 4th Jul '12 5:14:24 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
Judging by the other wiki, there are places where it is that low or only slightly higher, and that's all what I am going to say as we are digressing here.
To get back on topic, Bio Of A Space Tyrant does not seem to be creepy.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I think Piers Anthony can be allowed but cleaned to keep any fans of his unusual tastes from talking too much about that.
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
Can we please find a better page image for Christina Hendricks? It's making us look like a bunch of perverts.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
Maybe there's one of just her face? The picture's not really all that lewd, it's just her bust is undeniably, uh, tractful.
I cut up one dozen new men and you will die somewhat, again and again.
Christina Hendricks has a problem where there is no image of her that doesn't immediately draw attention to her chest. This is because she is rather blessed in that department. I can't find anything where she's not busty.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Egad. Can we please take a chainsaw to the Real Life section of If It's You, It's Okay? So much of that is zero context examples that look like they're either memes or typed with one hand.
Rev up the chainsaw!
I'm going to cut all the Zero Context Examples right now, since they're hardly distinguishable from Troper Tales. The ones that are related to actual celebrities and have some sort of documentation can stay.
TV Tropes' Sonic Wiki Curator
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
Maybe THIS is the correct thread 
Are the gorn examples THAT bad?
And what, exactly, IS paedopandering anyway?
Paedopandering is stuff that appeals to paedophiles (i.e sexualized children) and comes off as creepy.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Correction: Stuff that is meant to appeal to pedophiles. Fanservice of twelve year-olds in a series aimed at twelve year-olds might make pedophiles happy, but that is clearly not the point of it.
I just took the nattersaw through To Love Ru after it was reported in NATTER ALERT. The troper reporting it meentioned that it might need lewdness cleanup, and since Septimus Heap has no such feelings as sexual creepy (as opposed to Nightmare Fuel creepy), I ask someone to check over the page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
If I wasn't so terrible with wiki work I'd do it myself, but the Accidental Pervert entry on there has to come back in some way, unless it became a character trope and I forgot.
edited 6th Jul '12 3:00:29 PM by TheFoxsCloak
I pulled that entry to discussion because it was too Thread Mode-y.
All of the "Author X" tropes could probably use some attention (particularly for making them sound less Complaining About People You Dont Like), but that's not necessarily a P5 issue.
edited 3rd Jul '12 10:15:32 PM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to Trump