Getting Crap Past the Radar cleanup

No sense in having separate radar pages for the later games.

There's a separate page for the Bleach radar entries. There were an awful lot of examples on that page, but I've been looking at the page over time (I've gone back to look over the scenes in the anime/manga to make sure I know what's going on there before editing any entries, which is why it's taken a while).

There are four entries left that I don't want to touch, although I'm dubious about the one which talks about a Japanese porn kink that occurs in the manga (the third entry on the page), and is changed in the anime (the villain holding the girl sticks two fingers into her mouth to silence her; the anime team changed that to him just placing a hand over her mouth). It seems like the manga editors would have recognised it and let it pass, but an argument can be made that the Western manga company involved (Viz) wouldn't recognise it to edit it any further (something they've done for other scenes - for example, one character on a volume cover is flipping the bird, so Viz edited out what the middle finger is doing in the original).

Anyway, aside from that example, given that there are four entries left on the page, should I move them to the main Anime & Manga page and Cut List the separate page? Unless I've been too zealous in cleaning the page of misuse, that is. I don't think I have been; the creator has joked in the past that he likes putting things into the manga that kids might not understand but which parents will get embarrassed about, so he seems to want adults to spot these things.

edited 2nd Dec '16 4:43:16 PM by Wyldchyld

I think that putting these examples back to the main page makes sense. I get the impression that having a work specific subpage will encourage people to fill it (with bad examples).

Makes sense.

I tried to do that with Pokemon X And Y and Pokemon Sun And Moon but the request was denied.

Perhaps we needa detailed breakdown of why all examples there don't fit (or which do) before we can do the cut.

Perhaps it's also the amount of in-bounds the page has attracted? Looking at the Related pages, the one has thousands of in-bounds, and the other has over a thousand in its own right.

I'm not quite sure of the role of in-bounds, but I have seen people mention that if a page has too many in-bounds it might not be cut?

edited 28th Dec '16 4:29:08 PM by Wyldchyld

Yes, redirecting it also works.

Is it okay if I make them into redirects, then?

Yes.

I see that this is done now. Now: Radar.Kid Icarus Uprising, the previous page says that it is rated too high for any material currently on the page to qualify.

I don't know the work, but the first example is basically saying 'the content was changed when translated into another language', so that doesn't look like anything slipped under a radar. The last example is an Examples Are Not Arguable violation and everything in between is either a Zero Context Example or doesn't look like it should be an example (but would need someone familiar with the work to confirm).

The first, last and zero context examples probably shouldn't be there at the very least.

edited 3rd Jan '17 4:03:03 PM by Wyldchyld

"Needs someone familiar with the work" sounds like...Zero Context Example!

(I was saw a ZCE that was over half a dozen sentences long, explaining when and where and who—but neglecting to ever mention what or how!)

Actually, I wanted to talk about this a little: What is an appropriate measure of context for Getting Crap Past the Radar? Because I think the trope is complex enough that "this naughty bit" is not sufficient. In fact, I would expect any example to describe the censor's standards and how "the naughty bit" fails them, not merely describing "the naughty bit".

In fact, what do we think about locking pages and cutting them when they have no correct examples? I am thinking of Radar.Maken Ki, Radar.Kid Icarus Uprising and Radar.High School Of The Dead which were discussed in this thread and deemed to be unsuitable when it comes to cutting, and of pages that keep collecting bad examples after cleanup - or keep being recreated - despite cleanup such as Radar.Kingdom Hearts and Radar.Steven Universe.

I've always thought that it should be clear that the content was intentionally snuck by the censors, preferably with some sort of Word of God confirmation. And I also have no problem with perma-locking problem subpages.

Works like Maken Ki and High School of the Dead are more about pushing the limits (closer to Refuge in Audacity) than trying to cross them and dodge detection. Most examples aren't even subtle, and nothing indicates they aren't par for the course. I mentioned before that I think those and the Kid Icarus Uprising page can be cut.

If problems keep appearing even after cleaning, locking sounds like the right procedure. The other option would basically be to cut the page and keep it cut, since cleaning them over and over again isn't a good option.

~Fighteer: Unless I missed something, virtually none of the examples are in that form; pretty much all are "this looks vaguely sweary/sexual if you tilt your head just right" akin to Accidental Innuendo with not a hint of intention or any explanation of why it should be an example.

~Another Duck: Primarily thinking of ~Insanity Prelude's cleaning of Radar.Steven Universe, ~What Art Thee's cleaning of Radar.Western Animation, these pages have both been edited after the cleaning.

I accidentally posted this elsewhere, with respect to the requirements for this trope. Reposting it here.

Word of God is not an absolute requirement. However, there are almost always details of production that become generally known about a work, whether it's through tweets, DVD commentary, interviews, or whatever, in which the creators acknowledge certain decisions, like the attempt to slip material past censors. The only time we'd want examples that don't have this supporting information are for absurdly blatant ones, where the content should not have passed the rating board by any rational standard, and this becomes part of the work's memetic culture.

The problem here is that "blatant" is in the eye of the beholder. A rock can look like a giant penis to some people and not to others. If we go around looking for phallic (or sapphic, for that matter) imagery in every work, we'd be at it all day. This is why the criteria must be as follows:

• The work must be in a format or delivered via a method that has active censorship or ratings review. Not self-censorship, like in webcomics, or post-censorship, like forums.
• The content must exceed the notional rating of the work by enough to cause notice or disturbance. Mere mentions or implications of sex in a work aimed at pre-teens don't count.
• The content must be obvious. It is not Parental Bonus, Accidental Innuendo, or anything subtle. If the child goes to their parent(s) after seeing the show and asks, "Why is that man doing that thing to that woman," it's blatant.
• There should be evidence that the censors overlooked or missed the content or that the creators deliberately attempted to evade censorship.

Edit: One classic, and oft-cited, non-example is an episode of Spongebob Squarepants in which Sandy Squirrel and Spongebob engage in a protracted session of karate dueling that is a deliberate metaphor for sex addiction. The creators specifically bragged about slipping that one in — however, it is not an example of GCPTR, because it was written in such a way that kids would not notice. It's Parental Bonus.

Another is the infamous PG rating given to Airplane!, despite the film's repeated and blatant references to drug abuse, masturbation, fellatio, bestiality, and paedophilia — plus, for the old-fashioned folks, marital infidelity, miscegenation, religious bigotry, abortion, and racism. And let's not forget actual nudity. The creators publicly stated their astonishment that they were allowed to get away with so much, making it a valid example.

edited 4th Jan '17 2:13:05 PM by Fighteer

I would generally say that those "Word of God" requirements as they're frequently called are really about solid or objective evidence of the trope being used. A mention by a character or creator, a lampshade, or something like that, in or out of universe, that explicitly draws attention to the trope. It's important that it's not something that's up for interpretation or reading between the lines.

For this trope, anything that's obvious enough that most people would find it odd to have passed the radar would also qualify. If there's any doubt about it, it doesn't pass that requirement. That is, it's not up for discussion, because if there is discussion about it, and there's not a complete agreement on it, it's not obvious enough.

I was being pretty generous with the Pokemon and Steven Universe cleanups, btw. Wouldn't hurt for another person to take a look. But that does remind me, because it came up in a few examples: Do "this got Bowdlerized in a later version" or "this got censored in other countries" count as evidence? I'm leaning towards yes to the former (it got past the radar at first) but no to the latter (that's just different radars having different standards. Not all tropers are from any given work's country of origin.)

The problem with the former is that standards can change over time, too. Tom and Jerry was harmless slapstick, until the Moral Guardians decided that violence in children's cartoons was a problem and it came under tighter scrutiny and was censored in later releases.

It's not that T&J should never have gotten past the radar in the first place; it's that the radar's standards changed.

I think telling the difference there is relatively easy (compared to other aspects), though.

It's amazing how the easiest distinction gets blurred when tropers break out their shoehorns. (-:

The examples of Radar.Where On Earth Is Carmen Sandiego are unconvincing.