Very odd name (New Crowner 2.12): I See London

We already had a rename-or-not crowner, there's no need to do that again.

I was just wondering. I thought the point of the rename was to encourage people to use the trope - and I just don't see that happening anymore, so it seems kind of pointless.

The new name is very nice and clear, and this is definitely a trope. It should have examples, since it's not creepy or lewd. It's an incredibly common comedy trope, and it would be wrongheaded not to use it.

The trope is neutered anyway, so I couldn't care less what we call it.

edited 15th Mar '12 9:46:33 AM by Catbert

Yeah, another trope name that reads like someone simply picked four words at random from a dictionary of legalese. Or worse, Simple English.

I mean, come on, Seeing Underpants was as clear, and at least it hinted at the reference. "Comedic Underwear Exposure" is a laconic, not a trope name.

But the trope is about revealing underpants, not seeing them. Which actually bolsters the case for the rename (I say this even having helped coin the original title).

edited 16th Mar '12 7:40:40 PM by pawsplay

Can we have a crowner for reinstating the examples?

I'm not sure if it can have examples... *killed by the anti lewdness canon*

But it's a purely comedic trope, not like Panty Shot.

From a trope perspective there is no reason why it can't have examples. The problem is it could be confused for simply "the underpants of character X are shown". Anyone checked the examples previous to the kill sat for that?

Yea, I was just joking that someone would think that Character A's boxers are shown after his belt is cut by character B and everyone laughs is too pervy.

Well, looks like Fast Eddie was the one who gave it an Example Sectionectomy. Come on, Eddie. Underwear exposure isn't that perverted. It's not like a Panty Shot. Really, I'm beginning to think we're taking this anti-lewdness thing too far. After all, it's called No Lewdness No Prudishness for a reason.

edited 22nd Apr '12 9:20:40 AM by MadMan400096

If you want to get technical, the examples were deleted before that page was made.

Still, why would we get rid of a classic comedy trope? Like I said, it's not for Fanservice, so why the Example Sectionectomy?

Because it looks like something that attracts creepiness, I think. You'll have to ask FE for that.

It may seem like that on the surface, but when you dig deep enough (which isn't even that deep), it's just an innocent, non-perverted comedy trope.

And that's why one needs to read through the articles in full before making assumptions.

edited 26th Apr '12 6:07:11 PM by MadMan400096

I fully agree with the Mad Man. There's nothing off-colour about this trope whatsoever.

Bump. This has been kinda sitting here. I kinda just want to re-add the examples myself.

What is left to be done here?

cut the page since it's a pointless stub?

good thing we changed the name tho. That'll stop anyone from getting confused about the contents of the page and hastily deleting the exmplewait a second...

edited 6th Jun '12 11:07:22 AM by abk0100

Maybe vote to add examples back?

I feel that would maybe fall under the jurisdiction of the P5, though. You know, just to get the official stamp of approval that this trope and examples people can write for it are appropriate for this wiki.

It isn't listed on Pages Cut Under The Policy Change, so it looks like the No Examples Please status of this page is outside the purview of the P5. As I understand it, only pages that were cut in the purge itself are eligible for appeal under that system, so if a TRS thread determines that examples can be restored here, we may or may not need to also get their approval.

Also see no need for a no-examples policy, though in practice it would largely replicate the goofy print underwear examples.

Thanks to Dark Confident picking up the slack, the wicks have been moved.

Is there anything left to do here?