Foreword: No disrespect is meant to the mods. AFAIK, tropers have the right to protest any decision/action regarding a trope's description/title unless it was made by a mod/admin due to an on-going Edit War that's not going to end anytime soon. As this is not the case, I should be allowed to make my case, right?

Originally, Lingerie Scene defined itself in its article as "a female character removes her shirt to reveal a bra or bikini top underneath". This definition was present since its YKTTW stage, before the trope title was finalized.

(...) However, females going shirtless while retaining a bra or bikini top is considered roughly on the same level as the barechested male (...)

Nevertheless, through a series of events that were unwittingly kicked started by an innocent question on my part, purely intended to make sure I got my tropes right, a couple of mods (which I will politely refrain from naming until express permission) have recently decided that "bikinis" don't count as underwear, or even as underwear substitutes. This goes against my long-held, common sense-based understanding that underwear is technically anything that one chooses to wear underneath normal clothes, whether or not they were actually designed solely for that purpose. Also, there are several tropes  ^*

Their solution to the aforementioned "incompatibility"? Axe 'bikini top' from the description. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but...

1. Since the title came after the YKTTW description was written, which included "bikini tops", logic dictates that the title be changed to match the description if it's supposedly unfitting.

2. Taking a very strict, literal interpretation of a given trope's title is, to my knowledge, not a standard TV Tropes policy on such matters.

3. Technically, there are two kinds of undergarments: Those that are specifically and solely designed as such, and those that can be equally used as either undergarments or outergarments. Bikinis and their variants clearly fall under the latter.

4. The Other Wiki's relevantarticles support me on the preceding point; and given that they aren't marked with any "lack of references"/"original research" tags, nor is there dispute on the discussion page about what constitutes "underwear", that should mean that it's safe to assume a reasonable degree of accuracy on the issue. To quote the undergarment article:

Some items of clothing are designed as underwear, while others such as T-shirts and certain types of shorts are suitable both as underwear and as outer clothing. The suitability of underwear as outer clothing is, apart from the indoor or outdoor climate, largely dependent on societal norms, fashion and the requirements of the law. If made of suitable material, some underwear can serve as nightwear or swimsuits.

So... Long story short: I disagree with the mods' stance literal interpretation of the title, i.e. that Lingerie Scene does not include instances that substitute bras (and panties, if we go by the wider trope definition, as exemplified by the article image) for bikinis. However, as I don't want to start an Edit War with the mods in question by unilaterally reverting the edits, I've decided to take this issue to the forums and allow the troper hivemind to voice their opinions.

My suggestions (in order of personal preference):

1. Merge with Shirtless Scene; both are " a character takes off their shirt/leaves open to reveal chest for Fanservice", and I don't understand why the two are kept separate.
2. Revert the edits, and retain the name, under the premise that bikinis still count as underwear, or at least accepted as underwear substitutes.
3. Revert the edits, and rename the trope to something more inclusive of both bras/panties and bikinis.

Again, I mean no disrespect to the mods. My sincerest apologies if I needlessly offended you.

EDIT: Ninja'd a typo, and added a third option.

edited 8th Oct '10 10:41:57 AM by MarqFJA

I'd have to agree. Regardless of whether it's a bikini top or a bra, it's likely to contain the same amount of material and be done for the same reason; it's effectively still her "undergarments" either way unless she's wearing a bra under her bikini top. The only reason Shirtless Scene doesn't have this issue is that a guy typically isn't wearing any upper body garments under his shirt.

Also, that picture seems a little...Young.

And while I'm one of the mods he's not naming in the OP, (And I was not speaking as a mod at the time,) I strongly disagree. A woman wearing a bikini top in public has a very different connotation — about the woman — from one exposing her bra (or bra and panties) in public. "Lingerie" does not mean "any skimpy clothing"; it means "clothing that is not intended to be seen in public."

This is a lingerie scene.

[[The final frame of this◊ is not, despite the fact that she's wearing a far more revealing outfit.

edited 8th Oct '10 10:15:05 AM by Madrugada

^ Technically, "lingerie" means "women's undergarments" (and undergarments do not mean "clothing that is not to be seen in public"). That, also technically, includes bikinis when worn in place of bras and panties, which is what the original definition of Lingerie Scene was getting at: The girl strips off her shirt, but to avoid ramping up the rating, the artist/director has her wearing a bra or bikini top underneath.

Lingerie Scene is not about the impact of revealing bras in public; it's about Fanservice in the form of revealing as much of the female chest as possible without actually going into "nude breasts territory".

edited 8th Oct '10 10:43:18 AM by MarqFJA

In public, perhaps, but the trope is about scenes where clothing is removed for Fanservice reasons; the female character removes her shirt and is wearing something significantly smaller than a shirt underneath to get the heterosexual male audience's collective pulse racing. Given there's no shortage of swimsuit tops that are hard to tell apart from a bra and some that are significantly smaller than most (string bikinis in particular can get extremely tiny), it's as likely to be one as the other.

You're right that the final frame of the second comic isn't an example, but it's because she hasn't taken off anything she was wearing on top of it. I don't think it qualifies if you were never wearing anything decent in the first place, does it?

edited 8th Oct '10 8:04:25 AM by Evilest_Tim

^ Ninja'd. Glad to meet a like-minded troper on this issue.

Added a third option. Why is Lingerie Scene separate from Shirtless Scene, again?

edited 8th Oct '10 10:43:57 AM by MarqFJA

Lingerie is undergarments. Bathing suits are not undergarments. They are outerwear. The article isn't about skin exposed, it is about undergarments. Hence the title. Which refers to undergarments.

For simple exposed skin, see Fanservice.

Also: Wikipedia as an authoritative source? You must be kidding.

edited 8th Oct '10 10:52:27 AM by FastEddie

Um, but if you're wearing a bikini top under a shirt, surely that is indeed your undergarments for purposes of this trope? I can't really see what the difference would be (and given the links posted, Wikipedia can't, either).

^^ Are you speaking as a mod, or as a troper?

And unless there are explicit issues (i.e. problem tags) with the Other Wiki's referenced articles, I don't see why we can't use them as general indicators.

BTW, can the title be changed to "Retain original definition, Rename, or Merge"? I just realized in hindsight that the current title of "Mods being too literal in interpretating the trope title" wasn't well-thought out.

edited 8th Oct '10 10:55:59 AM by MarqFJA

The mod/not mod thing: What difference would that make? Address the argument, not the speaker.

Previous post was ninja'd.

It's apparently a big issue for Madrugada; she made it clear that unless a mod explicitly states to be wearing the mod hat, what they say should not be taken as the final word on the matter. Or at least, in her case.

^^^ What Tim said.

edited 8th Oct '10 10:59:11 AM by MarqFJA

^^ If the bikini was an undergarment and then exposed, it would apply. You'd have a tough time proving in court that it wasn't lingerie, in fact. Most bikinis look a lot like lingerie, to me.

A person just lounging around in a bikini, though, is not invoking the trope.

The article is perfectly clear. Not sure how this discussion is called for in any way.

edited 8th Oct '10 11:00:31 AM by FastEddie

If I say "I don't like this name", or "I like this page image" I do not expect to be deferred to just because I'm a mod. That's why there's no indication I'm a mod on any of my posts unless I put it there.

^^ Your axing of "bikini top" implied the exact opposite. Since it appears we both agree, then I believe we can revert that edit back.

PS: The main reason I called this discussion because I wasn't sure whether you made the edit as a troper or as a mod. There's a crucial difference, and I didn't want to risk breaking an unspoken rule against reverting a mod's edits.

edited 8th Oct '10 11:05:38 AM by MarqFJA

Well, the article (as I understand it) does call for undressing to be part of the scene, so anything that's revealed is an undergarment; I think that's the source of confusion, since the change made it seem like if you take your shirt off it actually matters if the thing under the shirt is a swimsuit top or an item of lingerie.

So basically you're agreeing with us on this. Also ninja'd.

Exactly. Now one last issue remains: Why is Lingerie Scene separate from Shirtless Scene?

Hell no. Just leave bikini out of it. Perfectly clear without it muddying the water.

What is so flipping important about bikinis?

What is the undergarment in a Shirtless Scene?

edited 8th Oct '10 11:11:24 AM by FastEddie

Because just leaving it as just "undergarments" would imply that only clothes that serve no other purpose than being underwear qualify; we need to make it clear that make-shift underwear are also valid.

And there is no undergarment in Shirtless Scene (as it is currently defined); actually, the only reason undergarments are in Lingerie Scene is because complete toplessness automatically ramps up the rating. Besides, before the trope was named "Lingerie Scene", it was originally "Shirtless Scene Female Version".

Suggestion: Merge under Shirtless Scene, rework trope into gender-neutrality/inclusiveness, make a note that most non-porn female examples have undergarments or bikinis under the shirt/top because it would otherwise ramp the ratings up.

edited 8th Oct '10 11:16:34 AM by MarqFJA

A man who takes off his pants and walks around in his y-fronts is this. This has nothing to do with Shirtless Scene at all. This is about undergarments. That is about the lack of shirt.

We don't need to do anything about Lingerie Scene. The title agrees with the text. Whether or not the undergarments are impromptu or not makes absolutely no important distinction.

No idea what the fixation is here with trying to wedge in a reference to bikinis.

Look, just write a trope up that is about whatever distinction you are trying to make and title it so that the title agrees with the text. Looks like it might be reporting that there are different levels of undress used for fanservice, due to bowdlerizer avoidance. A shirtless scene would be one of those those levels, as would a lingerie scene. A bathing suit scene would be another. 'Bathing suit', btw, is gender-neutral.

The article you really want to write, then, could serve as an index to all the costumed/un-costumed dodges in use.

edited 8th Oct '10 11:41:53 AM by FastEddie

I will repeat, before the trope was named "Lingerie Scene", it was originally "Shirtless Scene Female Version". The undergarments/bikini thing came in due to the realization that complete topleessness would be precluded by "mainstream" media's stringent censorship.

Quoting directly from the YKTTW in question:

Shirtless Scene reminded me of something: females going naked above the waist is for well-known reasons considered far more risque than males doing the same. However, females going shirtless while retaining a bra or bikini top is considered roughly on the same level as the barechested male (At least that is my perception). I am convinced this is a trope, but should it be added to Shirtless Scene or given its own page?

In other words, the trope was always "female Shirtless Scene for PG-13 audiences". AFAIK, that does not count as sufficient grounds for splitting.

edited 8th Oct '10 11:51:21 AM by MarqFJA

This isn't about what it used to be.

The article is fine like it is.

An article about degrees of fanservice would be interesting. This article is about one of the degrees.

edited 8th Oct '10 12:07:59 PM by FastEddie

What the article started as has no bearing on what it's ended up as. It's a clear trope as it stands now. I see no reason to merge it into something that it has little attachment to. Trope put into YKKTW evolve. That's the whole point of it.

edited 8th Oct '10 12:13:25 PM by shimaspawn

Marq, Shirtless Scenes has a very full list of examples. That is reason enough not to merge, since I'm assuming there are no shared examples between them. Also, if bikinis double as undergarments, which is your argument, then arguing that only mentioning undergarments excludes bikinis from the trope is broken logic.

That said, I do agree about bikinis contextually functioning as lingerie. It's a little unclear whether this trope is about A. The reveal of risque undergarments by a character, by means of removing existing clothing, or B. A scene in which a character wears undergarments as fanservice, however they get to that point.

If it's about A, which is my read, then some of the few examples listed show misuse. Does anyone else agree that the trope should be reworked to emphasize the moment of revealing undergarments, rather than the exact content of the reveal?