Embarassing crap on the wiki

It was removed as a non-creepy concept which devolved into creepiness for some reason.

Regardless, I prefer trying to salvage things before we nuke them. Most of the time.

That "trope" was a list of times when (mostly?) underage characters' underwear was exposed on-screen. We most certainly don't need a page on the subject.

The method I'm doing is clean and lock. Not cut. Innocent Panties had devolved into outright paedophilia. That's why it was cut.

The underlying concept was that in olden days, the thought of children's underwear was not associated with moral panic as it is now, but instead was seen as innocent and wholesome. It's the trope that led to such things as the Coppertone girl.

What it turned into was looking at little kids panties and being creepy about it.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:45:55 PM by shimaspawn

Bingo.

That being said, there are things out there that aren't pedophilia but also take a lot of cleanup and are tropes. Like O Ring Orifice before it was cut.

These are the problem.

Solutions implemented so far are shimaspawn going around and cleaning and locking these pages, Eddie cutting those who were unsalvageable, but I'd say we need a more durable solution for these problems - like that in @199.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:46:57 PM by SeptimusHeap

Then why not just cut the pedo stuff, retain the original clean stuff, and then lock?

edited 4th Mar '12 1:46:13 PM by MarqFJA

I'm working on that. Eddie is just a bit more proactive than I am.

The original clean stuff on that probably needs to be written from scratch at this point and sadly is tainted by the modern lense.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:47:47 PM by shimaspawn

That's a good idea.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:46:51 PM by Bookyangel2438

EDIT: Nevermind. Realized my comment was moot.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:47:27 PM by DragonQuestZ

@ shimaspawn: We already have Values Dissonance and Have a Gay Old Time, though.

I am going to point out that O Ring Orifice was never meant to be a trope entirely sexual in nature. It was also for things like Dagwood stuffing an eight foot tall sandwich in his mouth.

So, which of the already-cut tropes do not stand a chance of ever returning in a cleaner form?

Suggestion on that: Could renaming it to Impossibly Elastic Orifice help? Perhaps the "O-ring" has too much of a similarity to the phrase "O zone"*

edited 4th Mar '12 1:52:41 PM by MarqFJA

@Shima: Then perhaps a new trope with a new name that is based around the same idea could work? That in itself sounds good to me.

Foot Focus has far too much gushing. "Possibly the only good thing to come out of the…" And lots of it is fapping to underage feet. The thing is, looking at the Video Games and the Western Animation folder, I don't think there are any examples of a trope on that page.

@261: Innocent Panties would be no. O Ring Orifice, maybe. The rest, I am not sure.

That is TRS stuff, I think.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:52:08 PM by SeptimusHeap

Yeah, Foot Focus I maintain would be better served as a page about camera shots that just show a character's feet. That very low shot. I know Serenity used it a few times.

Ninja'd.

Then it appears that only the Expository Panty Styles YKTTW will cover the "white panties = innocent personality" concept.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:53:52 PM by MarqFJA

But not for children specifically - that would be asking for it to become about pedophilia again.

Anyway, that is YKTTW stuff.

I never linked O-Ring Orifice with orgasm, but I'm no native speaker. I just found it a neat, Added Alliterative Appeal-using name. But whatever.

BTW I remember back in the day seeing Minnie the Mouse as an example in Innocent Panties, that's somewhere in-between the children and not children.

edited 4th Mar '12 1:57:33 PM by lordGacek

The content of the page was the problem. Not the name.

I was just brainstorming hypothetical explanations there. I'm not sure if the rename would solve it; then again, a fresh start under a clearer name may be what the trope needs. What did "O-ring" have to do with the impossible elasticity aspect, anyway?

edited 4th Mar '12 1:58:16 PM by MarqFJA

@Iu: Very true. However, the name actually suggests it's not about putting large things in smaller openings. So a rename as well could help.

I support a rename, and more of an emphasis on the non-sexual aspect of the trope.

Bring that stuff to TRS or YKTTW, people. We are talking about general policy here.

Let's see an example that was there:

You are free to doubt me, but that was an actual example on the page. This kind of stuff will most likely get a page cut. Especially a page full of them.

edited 4th Mar '12 2:02:37 PM by lu127

Yes. In that case, an Example Sectionectomy is still preferable unless the description is screwed up as well. Was this the case with Innocent Panties?