Ask The Tropers

I don't think that's obviously enough addressing the fandom concern. Maybe if they changed that specific character's costume back in response to fan complaints, but introducing new characters who are considered sexy doesn't seem like enough. Video games including fanservice is considered the norm.

That "Get ready to see lots of mentions of them down below." line, coupled with their past issues, makes it clear to me that this is a just way to include lewd gushing.

So is it alright to delete the entry on grounds of misuse?

The reasoning feels a bit odd. I'm sensing some sort of wonk about outfit changes.

There definitely does seem to be some sort of wonk there, especially since this is not the first time this particular troper has been brought up in ATT regarding edits involving female characters' clothing.

Bumping this to once again ask if it is alright to delete the entry in question on grounds of misuse.

Go for it, citing this thread

Agreed, it's a ginormous stretch.

Done. Thank you all for the feedback.

Why are you people so antagonistic towards other bringing up controversies regard female clothing? There's nothing wrong with the guy's edit. Jill's new attire was a mixed reception in the fandom. Do you guys condemn female fanservice or something? Do you at least do your research, @dragonfire5000? What about the LGBT Fanbase about Lady Dimitrescu? That one is baseless. She doesn't have a lot of female admirers, at least not yet.

^ Let us take you on a little history lesson, then. Start at The Google Incident and then check out The Second Google Incident. Then hop over to The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit.

Long story short though: We're tough on sexualized examples like this because they could quite literally cost us the wiki. Granted, fanservice examples aren't as bad as outright porn, but we also run on No Lewdness, No Prudishness- and we don't appreciate tropers adding their examples, er...with one hand.

Also, as has been mentioned by others in this query, the example...isn't a good one. It doesn't fit AST, and any example that references other ones on the pages should not be on there.

And in this case, it's not that we have an agenda against "controversies regard [sic] female clothing," it's also just not an example, Emeriin's edit reason was misleading, because it would be an Author's Saving Throw if the character's design change was reverted to add back in fanservice, but they're Right for the Wrong Reasons — adding in more characters with fanservice is not necessarily a response to criticism that a single character had her design altered. Additionally, the "see lots more of them below" is Word Cruft.

As for "Lady Dimitrescu doesn't have an LGBT Fanbase," I don't go here but I googled "Lady Dimitrescu lesbian" and one of the first results is an article about how sapphic women liked her so clearly that example does have validity.

(ninja'd)

So you people not only outright said that you're against having female fanservice in your "wiki" but you insulted people who enjoy it. You're going to pretend a controversy doesn't exist because you don't like it and because it makes men go "one hand". Just another place enforcing the stereotypical "no female fanservice allowed" or "boobs bad, gore good" trend.

"As for "Lady Dimitrescu doesn't have an LGBT Fanbase," I don't go here but I googled "Lady Dimitrescu [sic] lesbian" and one of the first results is an article about how sapphic women liked her so clearly that example does have validity."

Maybe but one (1) result is not good enough. Just because a single article mentions a few girls like her doesn't mean it has "validity". Besides, those girls only like her, not in love with her. This LGBT Fanbase for her is such an exaggeration and "Lady Dimitrescu has attracted as many female admirers as she has male" is just ridiculous when 90% of her fanbase are male. The one about Jill's costume change had more than three articles, so that has more validity. So that example mentioning about "female clothing" is bad because it's exactly about that but that LGBT example is good just because a single article says so?

You really need to calm down, this hostility towards the wiki over us generally not indulging sexual content — which if you'd read the linked articles you'd know is a necessary policy to prevent the wiki from completely losing its only source of income and going defunct — isn't productive.

And regardless of that issue, the initial example is still blatant shoehorning. Author's Saving Throw is for when the creators deliberately and specifically address a previous complaint or controversy surrounding the work. "They made a heavily sexualized character less overtly sexual in the previous game" and "the new game has ladies the fandom finds sexy" do not seem in any way related, especially in that context.

Can you provide a single source for this or are you just assuming that no homosexual women are actually attracted to this character because you personally don't think homosexual women would be attracted to this character? For the record I have several female LGBT friends who find her sexy as fuck.

Anybody else suspicious of somebody with zero edits to their name coming onto a thread just to get super defensive of horny edits?

BTW there's more than just that source of an LGBT fanbase existing for the character, but that's irrelevant to the main point of shoehorning anyway. Even if LGBT Fanbase was misuse, it wouldn't make the Author's Saving Throw entry any more valid.

I didn't want to be the first one to say it, but now that you've brought it up:

Yes.

100% yes.

Oh totally.

Side note: this made me look up Lady Dimitrescu, and wow she's one tall lady.

The whole "Lady Dimitrescu is tall..." (I'll leave the exact wording out) meme was literally started by Spherehunter.

Xx Hellox X is confirmed to be a sock of 123ninja and will be bounced. 123ninja is now banned.

Wow, how utterly predictable. Thanks Berrenta