Query: Would it be good to add something in the Tips Worksheet about this, to help encourage tropers in general to clean up skeevy examples as they see them?
Ah, yes. PM me the bad ones and I'll see if there's anything salvageable. Some of them were real tropes at one point. Gushing on sexuality tropes is really unnecessary though. We don't need your opinions on how hot something is.
Something on the tips worksheet might not be a bad idea.
edited 3rd Mar '12 9:09:38 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
On Fast Eddie's cut reason:
Or, alternatively, someone could respond to the query and find a way to take a chainsaw to the creepy stuff. Would that be likely and should it be happening?
I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!
If you PM me with it, and it's actually bad, I will clean and lock the page. I am taking it on as a project to preserve the tropes while cutting the juvenile gushing. If you post it on Ask The Tropers, I will see it and likewise take care of it. Thank you.
edited 3rd Mar '12 9:33:46 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Hm, perhaps I'll help you guys in looking over said pages for creepy stuff. Or rather, pages filled with creep. If I find such, I'll let ya know shima.
I think it's a culture thing. People see it often, but since they're so numerous, they believe that Tv Tropes accepts those kinds of examples, so they don't report it.
That's why I asked if adding it in the Tips Worksheet would be a good idea. Some tropers will see that TV Tropes does not advocate such practices, which would lead to a few tropers cleaning those examples up since they have the word of the site itself to back such actions, which would lead to more tropers seeing that Tv Tropes does not advocate those practices, which woulod lead to more tropers cleaning up, and so on and so forth. That seemed to work for things like Natter and Repair Dont Respond as they're now actively cleaned up and not left alone.
The only problem would be wording it just right so that we encourage people to clean-up the perverted gushing examples without making it sound like we're promoting the removal of politically sensitive tropes (I could, for example, see a Moral Guardians type troper using a poorly worded tip as a reason to go on a misguided LGBT example deletion spree).
edited 3rd Mar '12 9:53:35 PM by Servbot
Exactly. It's something that's tricky to do. We don't want to censor or be blue nosed bowdlerizers, but we don't need to gush about how hot something is. Just removing the personal opinions and some adjectives makes a big difference.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
what are you doing
Not to mention a majority of those tropers are long gone, even when that series began.
Someone should have shown Madrugada this when we were still debating the removal of Troper Tales.
The video itself was Accentuate the Negative, anything can sound bad and perverted when you read it with a creeper voice.
I'll admit for myself a lot of it comes down to proactivity. I see a typo but don't bother making an edit just to remove an excessive "R," I don't bother reporting some things cause I don't feel strong enough about the page to really take matters into my own hand.
Of course this whole thing is really an extension of a similar thing done not too long ago (maybe a year) with regards to actor pages and eliminating the drooling. It makes more sense there because it was about real people, it just took a little while to make it's way to the tropes themselves.
what are you doing
@Booky - Don't watch the rest of the series. They're all hilarious Tough Guy shit or psuedointellectual masturbation when it's not incoherent fear at the perversity of the Troper Tales.
It's the drooling that's really the issue. What we need is less drooling and more troping.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Perpetually Confused
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Partial Nudity Tropes And Porn Tropes probably contain entries for you to look over then, Shimaspawn. Not sure exactly what creepy content your looking to remove or cut (as KJ Mackley said, the video is mostly just reading shit in a creepy voice).
Absolute Cleavage probably has similar stuff.
edited 3rd Mar '12 11:32:54 PM by Ghilz
oh 
Generally what I'm working on cutting are troper reactions in place of actual examples as well as overly detailed accounts of fanservice. Generally if the example starts talking about how sexy it is, or goes into things like the colour of panties it can be reworded. A lot of times just trimming the audience reactions alone does a lot.
Cure Candy
Wait we just cleaned up Panty Shot... why did we chop the whole thing?
We should put the Anime and Manga examples back this trope is so blatant in it is crazy some series use this as a selling point. like Agent Aika yes that is the DVD's cover
◊ Or at least limit to exaggerations, lampshades and such just a single Panty Shot would not qualify for the examples list.
Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei has a character that is literally called InUniverse the PantyShot Character
◊ as a
◊jab
◊.
edited 4th Mar '12 3:41:57 AM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
I didn't even know Sideboob existed until now.
Not to sound anal, but empty spaces were left in the folder labels in Dangerously Short Skirt.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
All this seems to have gone under the radar for quite a while. Think this is a sign that we need some more manpower monitoring the wiki?
What's precedent ever done for us?
^What would manpower mean here?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Out of curiosity, what would this mean for Memetic Sex God and Memetic Molester, which by their YMMV natures, are audience reactions that talk about how sexy so and so is.
edited 4th Mar '12 5:19:39 AM by Servbot
I still simply don't understand what qualifies as "creepy" and "gushing". If you want people to start participating in cleaning the page up, it would help if you had a list of rules which defined the clear line when an entry becomes "embarrassing crap". As it is now, I read so many entries (not just on sexual pages, but everywhere) which exuberantly describe an example that most of the time, it just seems normal to me, especially since for years we basically described ourselves as on "the silly side of silliness versus seriousness".
I'm a very literal-minded person, and I despise vagueness or gray areas. I don't understand exactly what I'm supposed to be doing here.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Personally, I think a fair bit of High Octane Nightmare Fuel, Accidental Nightmare Fuel, and Tear Jerker are each fairly embarrassing.
First off, High Octane Nightmare Fuel has lots of hyperbole about examples, and arguably diminishes it, (think, "like Complete Monster, except even more widespread either because of more misuse or because of less cleanup") and on top of that the way many examples are written is questionably dependent on anecdotes. (See statements like "when I first saw this scene" etc...) It even has real life section, the kind of thing we often discourage for somewhat similar tropes. *
Accidental Nightmare Fuel has all the problems of the above plus the problem that it's probably more misuse than use. At least High Octane Nightmare Fuel examples tend to be approximately in the right direction, even if of the wrong magnitude, while Accidental Nightmare Fuel tends to not even be in the right direction; it's about accidental horror, not mild horror, yet many tropers seem to use it for the latter.
Tear Jerker, while not quite as bad as either of the above, still seems to have a trace of that annoying reliance on anecdote.
edited 4th Mar '12 6:36:09 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Diagonalizing The Matrix
On the flip side, I still don't understand why we need these 90%-audience-reaction "tropes" at all. As a point of comparison take the Executive Meddling trope, which has plenty of questions to answer: Who was being pressured to make changes? By whom? What changes? What were the effects on the work?
The "fanservice" tropes have no storytelling content or merit whatever. All the examples are exactly the same thing. What happened? Some character was clearly showcasing their "assets". For what narrative purpose? None — it's there to attract viewers, because Sex Sells. I appreciate Shima's efforts here and I can see where she's coming from, but honestly, of all things to be voluntarily investing work in, and this time being a moderator's time on top of it all...
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
What would manpower mean here?
Put simply, the wiki is outgrowing its administration. We have a total of fifteen mods and admins for a site with thousands of pages, meaning that creepy/otherwise questionable stuff like this has a bad habit of getting overlooked until it grows into a major problem.
One might assume that this means that the contributors need to self-police more, but in a site this big, it can be unclear what needs fixing, especially without a visible, proactive moderator presence to guide the way and consistently enforce the rules. Put simply, I think that more mods would result in a wiki that is more consistent, adheres more closely to the administrators' vision, and is less tolerant of creepy bits.
Not sure how it became our job to police up after every creep out there who can manage to free up one hand for some typing, but I guess we have to do it.
To be blunt, that's a mod/admin's job in a nutshell. If you're not comfortable with doing too much of it (and I really can see how it's less than fun), it seems logical to spread the load.
edited 4th Mar '12 6:55:17 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
I read, "Just put it on the Cut List," and assumed that sentence applied for pages like Innocent Panties that really were nothing but creepy shit. Not every single page with one creepy edit or tropes like Buxom Is Better.
I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!