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
Redmess
Yeah, you can cut those. Reminds me of what the Labyrinth page used to be like. Some people like troping their personal sexual preoccupations a little too much.
Edited by Redmess on Dec 23rd 2023 at 5:21:42 PM
Optimism is a duty.
I can chase the wind, I can race the rain
SweetDreamsFuel.Anime And Manga mentions Bunny Drop. Given that the only thing I know about it is an extremely sus ending, should I cut it from there? The listing of something that ends with father-daughter marriage as Sweet Dreams Fuel makes me question the thoughts of the troper who added it.
She/her. Profile pic is by Richard Michael Gomez @StarmansArt. Please watch Fraggle Rock: Back to the Rock. https://youtu.be/Vm92JNgPbqk
the Retromancer
- Bunny Drop is like a more low-key Yotsuba&!, complete with requisite Heartwarming Moment per chapter.
Edited by Amonimus on Dec 23rd 2023 at 12:56:34 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Bunny Drop's a weird case where the majority of fans who talk about it do genuinely love the first half and praise its heartwarming family dynamic and story, but the second half and ending is so infamous that it's all a lot of people who haven't read the manga know about. For what it's worth, the twist was widely hated and quite a few people who liked the first part just pretend it ended before the time skip, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case with whoever added that entry.
I've been wondering why the band Lit has an entire page for a single music video for a song that's not very remembered compared to "My Own Worst Enemy" (Miserable).
Well, it turns out the music video shows the band being tiny and playing on top of Pamela Anderson. And then she eats them.
I have to say, there's a rather impressive amount of detail and examples for a page that was clearly typed with just one hand. But this entire page - and the VIP recap page where this video apparently debuted - was SOLELY made just for fetishistic purposes.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Er, do you have proof that it was made because of a fetish? Music videos have tropes too so there's nothing wrong with troping one, not even one that has a potentially fetish-y plot.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
I added an example a while ago to JustForFun.Trope Name about how entry pimp'd that music video is. But despite it being so fetish-y, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with the page other than the weird splitting and one misplaced YMMV example.
I mean, if it can stay, it can stay; it's just the tropes listed are seemingly clearly made to highlight things for vore/giant fetishists.
Redmess
As long as the tropes are accurate and written neutrally, it should be fine.
And if it all seems to lean towards vore/giantess fetishes, well, that tells you something about the video, right? The video is clearly about the fetish, but as long as it isn't outright pornographic, that should be fine.
Edited by Redmess on Dec 29th 2023 at 11:20:33 AM
Optimism is a duty.
Angry babby
A cursory glance shows that the tropes listed seem to be legit examples and not written in a way that seems overly gushy. If anything some examples lack context. There might be some shoehorning but I can't tell since I'm not familiar with the video.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Redmess
This is the video, for context.
Ok, having seen it, it is definitely those fetishes. At the same time, it never goes beyond risque imagery, and the video is certainly tamer in its imagery than this sort of song tends to be in its lyrics (as this one does, "you make me com..." indeed).
So yeah, if the page comes off as a bit fetishy, it is because the video is like that, too.
Edited by Redmess on Dec 29th 2023 at 11:29:38 AM
Optimism is a duty.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Speaking of trope pages filled with fetishes, the Epic Movie (2007) page and its subpages are filled with tropes relating to the scene where Mystique becomes a fat woman. Unlike that video this movie isn't supposed to be fetishistic (it's supposed to be a dumb "lol fat people ugly" joke since it's that type of movie), but most of the pages relate to that one scene (to the point where the scene is somehow both Heartwarming and Nightmare Fuel) and are clearly written by someone who has that fetish.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I really don't think we should be assuming the fetish of a random troper based on the works they trope. Reading the NF page, nothing about the way the scene is described tells me that someone got off to it, and on Heartwarming they just mentioned it in passing.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Very Spooky
TBF, the Nightmare Fuel entry is a bit overlong, but assuming it's fetish-fueled is still overreaching quite a bit. Even if it is motivated by a weird fetish, what ultimately matters is that the entries aren't lewd.
(Side note: I can't believe that's a page that exists.)
back lol
I mean it's not just those 2 pages, it's on every single one of them. Like for example, on Peter's character page, every single entry is related to the Mystique sex scene and not any other scene, and his page is stuffed with entries compared to the others who only get one or two. (granted this movie does not have much character depth due to being poorly written but still, there are examples you can make based on other scenes.)
Edited by BocchiTheRock on Dec 29th 2023 at 11:45:18 AM
Very Spooky
Ok... I will admit, there does seem to be quite a weird obsession with the moment across the pages. Seems like many of the entries were added by Goog 213, who's done most of the edits across the Seltzer and Friedberg pages. A select history from 2019:
- Chubby Chaser
- Power Is Sexy
- Big Ol' Unibrow
- Fetish Retardent
- Comically Cross-Eyed
- Kinky Spanking
- Perverted Drooling
...and so on.
While the entries aren't overly perverted for the most part, they absolutely seem to have an serious obsession with this one scene from a widely-hated parody film. Just look at Characters.Epic Movie 2007; the tropes for Peter and Mystique massively outnumber all the other folders combined. Someone could be a massive Epic Movie fan (lol) and I still cannot imagine in any universe the page having an image of a obese, nude Mystique for any reason that isn't at least a bit lewd. Many of the entries for the latter are sex-related or could be perceived as fetishistic, and while she does seem to be a Ms. Fanservice, I ultimately have to agree that it's very weird. While we ultimately shouldn't delete legitimate examples, many of them could use some trimming.
Edited by jandn2014 on Dec 29th 2023 at 12:11:39 PM
back lol
Redmess
That sounds like a serious case of Single-Issue Wonk, yes.
And yes, Mistique's entry sure seems to have a bent towards sex/fetish tropes, to the point that it mentions almost nothing else about her. Also, we get entries like this banger:
A fig leaf, indeed... This sounds like Author Appeal under a thin veneer of denial, considering how the rest of the entries are written.
This work definitely needs to be scrubbed clean.
Edited by Redmess on Dec 30th 2023 at 11:33:55 AM
Optimism is a duty.
Gerald McBoing! Boing! on Planet Moo
There is an ANAL PROBE joke on the description of a very kid friendly and cute animated short.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
It's a single line that can be axed with no consequences.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Good. I would have removed already but I wanted to share to the "entries that make you lol" but wisely realized it would make me look awful if I pointed it out without removing it.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Sorry about the over detailed stuff on the Mystique scenes from Epic Movie. I wrote those a while back and I agree that the way I wrote some of it came off as a bit weird. All of the examples are legitimate, but I definitely agree that they need to be trimmed, and other details should be added to the pages about the characters that go beyond that scene.
Very Spooky
Alright, thanks for responding.
In regards to what should be changed: - I don't think the larger Mystique photo needs to be removed? I mean, it's kind of weird to allow her normal form, but not the other one. - Some elements in the Mystique section don't apply I think? Gasshole only applies to the Breaking Wind version and it's not actually in effect here tbh. - Some stuff seems to be inferences based on her original X-Men counterpart and doesn't apply to this version, so should be removes. - Tropes of these characters from other scenes should definitely be added and the overall section needs to be expanded.
Sorry, didn't mean to hyper focus on just one scene.
Very Spooky
Just try to keep examples apt and with the detail necessary for what the example is about. No need to remove the photo. (Also, remember to alphabetize.)
back lol
Just Here for Godzilla, Popular with Furries and Signature Scene all sound way too interested in Templeton (and in a weird lurid way), axe em.
also it may have been a while since i've seen/read Charlotte's Web, but who is out here claiming that scene is signature? instead of, yknow, something like the "Some Pig" web?
(of course this is a pagetopper)
Edited by worldwidewoomy on Dec 23rd 2023 at 9:44:47 AM
Stan GaruKaru for clear skin