Why did the I See London examples get cut? Those are underwear examples for comedic effect.
Sorry if the answer was already given earlier in this thread but I'm not reading through 35 pages.
edited 22nd Mar '12 4:03:03 AM by KaiserMazoku
So Pokegirls has an Eddie-approved trigger warning above the examples section. Think we should consider spreading those out to some of our other articles on... uhh... innovative works like United States Angels Corps?
edited 22nd Mar '12 4:10:17 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?![]()
"Trigger warning"? All I see is a warning passage before the tropes list.
We're not supposed have Trigger warnings, we had a thread and discussion about that. That should be removed.
Well, Eddie wanted it there, and it's his Wiki.
Honestly, in my opinion: Shit like this makes my stomach do backflips. These are works utterly devoid of meaningful content, (*Unlike, say, things like Salo, which actualy have legitimate content*), and we shouldn't have pages on them.
edited 22nd Mar '12 6:21:42 AM by inane242
The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.Then he should edit the Trigger page to accomodate that, because it clearly says "no Trigger warnings on any page except Fanfic Recs".
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.@inane 242: That's not how TV Tropes rolls. Because some people don't like certain works or find the contents of some works objectionable doesn't mean they can't be documented here.
All your safe space are belong to Trump
True. Otherwise, we'd never have any works up here. I'm sure someone wouldn't want Fruits Basket because they don't like anime or crossdressers...
Anyone who cares for the story? It's policy here that we don't deny a work a page just because it's offensive, pornographic, violent etc. We just can't show the incriminated content.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanKilling offensive works isn't a good option. We open up all cans of worms about what kind of work passes and what doesn't if we do. Anyone can be potentially offended by anything. Just look at our Unfortunate Implications pages.
By that reasoning, one can make a case about nuking Mein Kampf or anything similar. We are just documenting stuff. Isn't that the mission of the wiki?
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - FighteerYes. Our job is emphatically to document the use of tropes in media. All media, not just the media we find sufficiently mainstream or tasteful.
Edit: To elaborate, it is our mission to present the facts as they stand. It is up to our readers to decide if they approve of the works or not. If a work features reprehensible sexual content, well, those are facts about it.
edited 22nd Mar '12 7:41:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Mein Kampf is a historically relevant document.
I don't have a problem with offensive material, I have a problem with offensive material that has no other salient qualities than appealing to prurient interest.
Why don't we trope pornos?
edited 22nd Mar '12 7:40:31 AM by inane242
The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.Why? It's still a story, and we are all about that. Doesn't matter if Fanservice is the only thing that makes the story up, it's still a story.
Never mind that objectionable content is usually subjective.
We DO trope pornos. Porn Tropes, anyone?
edited 22nd Mar '12 7:42:07 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
We trope H Games, and our Porn Tropes make reference to a number of well-known porn films. In the end it comes down to someone being willing to write an article for the work in question that meets our standards.
It's not that Debbie Does Dallas 34 isn't notable, it's just that it's probably not distinctive enough that anyone thought it merited an article.
edited 22nd Mar '12 7:45:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Say, what is TV Tropes' policy toward pornography?
It's only a question, but what if someone wants to make a page for a video that undoubtedly porn? It's called "XXX" porn, it's on a porn site, and it's like any other porn video, except it possesses a story structure of some sort. Or not even that. It might just have a few Costume Tropes or character types.
Is it allowed if the creator of the page manages to write a decent description and find at least three non-omnipresent tropes for it?
Personally, I wouldn't object, but I'm not sure how other people would. I'm not the type to really react to some of the iffier works, like Pokegirls, but we must have some sort of line where people start getting too uncomfortable.
edited 22nd Mar '12 7:46:39 AM by chihuahua0
The question is whether it's possible to write an article that meets our editorial standards. As most porn lacks any kind of meaningful plot, that's rather difficult and most people don't bother. Never mind the embarrassment of being identified as the person who wrote the article.
edited 22nd Mar '12 7:49:19 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
Well, sure, hereafter, but I can't do anything about the note I left yesterday.
The child is father to the man —Oedipus