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
I don't entirely agree with that, tropes should reflect what is in the work, not the particular fetish a troper has. No gushing also applies to things you happen to find hot.
Optimism is a duty.
the Retromancer
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Which is covered by "if they're misuse or worded in a suggestive manner or otherwise break the rules".
I recall at least two suspensions regarding someone searching for "crushed by female" tropes and someone consistenly troping the same character's appearance, so what tropers focus on may be worth mod's opinion.
Edited by Amonimus on Jan 1st 2024 at 2:47:55 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Angry babby
I assume those suspensions were for being too lurid in the descriptions or for ignoring other standards (i.e. edit warring or shoehorning) just to push their fixation. I recall some issues with people making the same kind of poor TLP draft surrounding their fixation, but I can also recall a presumably nonsexual equivalent with a prolific ban evader pushing the same poor TLP drafts about the same idea.
I'm speaking partly from the perspective of an autistic person who can fixate on certain tropes and concepts in a non-sexual mannernote , which I suspect is the case for some tropers here. I'm pretty sure tropers have been penalized for their fixations on certain tropes getting in the way of their ability to contribute fairly, which can be sexual or not. Fixating on a particular trope or work or whatever shouldn't be enough for a ban, IMO.
Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 3rd 2024 at 2:14:40 PM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
It'd probably be a ".....huh" moment depending on the fixation, but if all wiki rules are being followed, it's no issue. As with all things, a troper being "too interested" in a topic is only bannable if it harms the wiki.
Speaking of fetishes, I noticed The Perils of Enhancegirl has a page, and it definitely seems like entirely a fetish work, as the creator is literally called "Damselbinder", the pages notes that the characters get Bound and Gagged in every single chapter, and every single one of this work's entries on deviantart have a "mature content"/nsfw warning.
Redmess
I'm also not sure that meets the definition of published work.
Optimism is a duty.
I mean it is officially released by the creator so it would count as a "published work" by this site's guidelines.
Redmess
Skimming through a few chapters, I get the impression that this is a bit like those old adventure stories where the heroine gets tied up or knocked out on a regular basis, except here that seems to be all there is to the stories, rather than just a small element of it. It doesn't seem particularly sexual from the pictures or the text I saw, but it certainly indulges a lot in those chloroform and tie up scenes.
It seems to be the typical Deviant Art fare of not-quite-pornographic but definitely fetishized/sexualized material.
Edited by Redmess on Jan 6th 2024 at 4:36:43 PM
Optimism is a duty.
I'm not sure how you classify it then, since it's not inherently porn but it's clearly designed to be sexually appealing to people with those fetishes based on how it's written in titillating detail. I guess you could say works like Empowered also contain bondage fetishes, but something like that has more substance than "the girl gets tied up in great detail", and Empowered wasn't solely written as fetish material (in fact it was written as a response to the creator receiving bondage commissions), where as this clearly was.
Edited by BocchiTheRock on Jan 6th 2024 at 11:03:04 AM
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
My question is, why are we so concerned if these works pander to fetishes or not? If they don't violate the rules, it's not our problem.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
This. It doesn't seem like it violates the "no pornography" rule.
the Retromancer
Because pandering to fetishes is part of The Content Policy, and we've cut a few non-pornographic works for being fetish fuel? The better question if this one only panders or has nothing outside fetishes.
Edited by Amonimus on Jan 6th 2024 at 9:56:29 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Very Spooky
I suppose you could raise legitimate concerns if the work consists of nothing more than fetish material, but looking through the examples list, there seems to be enough of a plot for it to avoid being purely pornographic.
back lol
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I mean, there's a stark difference between "this work panders to a fetish" and "this work is nothing but wank material". And if there's a genuine policy concern we can't discuss it here.
Additionally since anything can be a fetish it's a hard line to draw, especially if a plot exists.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 6th 2024 at 2:00:46 PM
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Angry babby
There have been other works that were cut or at least significantly challenged for not necessarily being explicit, but because they were so fetishy there was little to keep beyond that content. I think it's at least worth a flag.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I mean, yeah like I said if there's a genuine policy concern it needs to be brought up with a report. The fact that it was brought up here specifically made me just think "OK, well, there's probably no rule being broken..."
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Knight In Deep-Fried Armor
So, upon wiki surfing, I stumbled upon a page for The Transformistress. Now, there might be tropable content from said creator, but two things immediately had my alarms go off, first this entry:
- Animorphism: While some of Mira's works involve anthropomorphic animal people (ex. "Two Smol Mice", "Voodoo-ed", "Mascot Mask Off", "The Queen Bee", "L L Toe Beans"), "Gym Rat" (a Sequel Episode to "Hit the Showers") has a jealous witch curse a popular woman (who used to be a guy that she had already cursed once after he accidentally wandered into the women's changing room while distracted) into the form of a mouse; this comic used to have both a "furry" and "feral" version of the transformation publicly available, but the latter has since been delisted.
This site defines Pornography as "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter solely for the purpose of sexual arousal". I believe that this creator's content does not fit that description, as sex is not always involved, and not solely for titillation when it is. Therefore, I do not believe that I am violating Content Policy by creating this page.
AFAIK, even if there is a plot (which, for the most part, seems to be "Karmic Transformation overload"), from what little I am aware of, it appears to be in service of the paraphilia.
Any opinions?
Edited by GearFriedTheKnight on Jan 6th 2024 at 9:10:21 PM
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
This is another issue that needs a report or discussion at this forum. But I will say that if the part about non-explicit versions of her work existing is true, then we'd just need to trope that.
Knight In Deep-Fried Armor
Aye, thanks WarJay.![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
EDIT: Erm... forgive me, because I'm still figuring stuff out, but isn't that forum mod-only to start threads? Or is there a "Report" button I'm missing somewhere?
EDIT 2: Nevermind, I'm an idiot.
Edited by GearFriedTheKnight on Jan 6th 2024 at 10:33:53 AM
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Updated the OP because it was outdated. I replaced information regarding the old system with information about the new one.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
The page should have a report button on the sidebar, under the important links.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Made a mistake with my previous revision of the OP. I overlooked the fact that this thread is in Long-Term Projects and not Content Violation Discussions.
Edit: And changed the title since the 5P no longer exists, so simply "Fixing lewdness issues" should work instead of calling it the 5P's cleanup pile. (But send another holler if the title or OP needs further changes.)
Edit: Made some more changes. (Again, holler if I missed anything.)
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 6th 2024 at 3:52:21 AM
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Biggest ZeroLenny Stan
Quick question; Ms. Fanservice is not just when a female character has exposed breasts, right? Because I've noticed a lot of recurring language on the character pages for the Greek-era God of War games that seems to think so. The most confusing one is Lahkesis the Sister of Fate, since the entry boils down to pointing out that her outfit exposes her left breast, which the game doesn't call attention to at all.
Also, this is part of a larger problem with all the character images being concept art rather than in-game models, but the image for the Empusa enemy has completely uncensored nipples.
It's not about the gold; it's about the glory.
Ms. Fanservice and Mr. Fanservice are horrifically misused tropes in general. I think you're good to cut any character that isn't portrayed in a particularly fanservicy way, although it's hard to tell what is and isn't a legit example if you're not familiar with the work.
Honestly, if a page happens to focus on a lot of trope examples for one specific scene, or if someone otherwise pays suspicious attention to a specific trope, I only care if they're misuse or worded in a suggestive manner or otherwise break the rules. If they're legit examples written in a totally objective way, then I don't care if the person who added them has a fetish, because why is it my call to speculate on another user's sexual thoughts? Reminds me of the shit on Twitter that assumes every single fart/butt/foot joke in a cartoon is fetish mining.
Hell, there's some tropes I like a lot, and I may focus on them a lot when editing, but not in a prurient way. Sometimes people just have Author Appeal.
Edited by mightymewtron on Dec 31st 2023 at 2:40:40 PM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.