This thread is for cleaning up pages that violate the No Lewdness, No Prudishness policy.
Do not use this thread for reporting pages that need to be cut for violating The Content Policy. Report pages that appear too lewd or gushy to have on the wiki using the "Report Page" button on the sidebar, with the checkbox saying "The page may violate the Content Policy" checked. That will create a thread on the Content Violation Discussions subforum
. The thread will be opened by a mod if the report is valid, and if it's deemed necessary, the page will be cleaned according to the Content Policy. (The list of pages that were deemed problematic can be found on The Content Policy's page.)
No Lewdness:
"Lewdness" is more than just being about something sexual or potentially sexual. Here are some signs of lewd writing:
- Personal opinions on hotness. Examples should stand on their own without the introduction of YMMV material. Adding your own thoughts and feelings on an example is an opinion, same as calling an example good or bad. Don't do it. Don't try and extend your feelings to a larger group of fans either, e.g. "...and fangirls everywhere rejoiced". You're not fooling anyone.
- Overly detailed examples. The example doesn't need to be an exact sensory account of the event. Too much of that and you end up sounding like you're writing porn. When in doubt, drop a few adjectives.
- Unrelated fanservice mentions. If the hot bits aren't related to the example, they don't belong in the example.
- Pornographic writing. If you're writing porn, it should be somewhere other than the wiki. Keep it Family Friendly.
- Titillation links. Tell, don't show. We don't need screen shots to illustrate NSFW fanservice. If a reader is really curious, they can go look it up on Google. (See also Weblinks Are Not Examples.)
- Pedo gushing. We don't need to describe children sexually. This should be cut immediately. We're not interested in hosting pedophilia fantasies. Period. If a work contains children having sex, even if portrayed negatively, report it as a potential violation of The Content Policy using the "Report Page" button◊ in the sidebar.
- Talking about actors instead of characters. An actor is not the character they play. When you're writing an example about a work, refer to the character, not the actor. This applies to non-sexual references, but too often it's tropers writing about how they find certain actors hot. That doesn't fit in character examples.
- Thinking a page with a Not Safe for Work subject is license to be lewd. Even when we discuss porn, we are about just stating the facts.
- Fanfic Recs for underage sex. We will not host any recommendation for fics that have explicit sex involving people apparently or actually younger than 16. Period. We categorically do not recommend fics with sex in which at least one participant:
- This applies even if all parties are underage.
No Prudishness:
- Don't cutlist or gut pages just because they're about sexual topics. Sex exists. It's used in media a lot. You'll just need to cope with that fact. Relationships, fanservice, and sexual activity all fall into their own tropes as a result.
- Don't be a Bluenose Bowdlerizer. We're not looking to censor all sex off the wiki. If the sex and sexuality is an honest part of the work and relevant to the example, it belongs there.
- The wiki is not rated G. We aren't sanitizing the wiki for small children. Sex and sexuality are part of media and we aren't going to ignore them. This wiki is Family Friendly, not Unsupervised Small Child Friendly. This isn't an excuse to make work pages dirtier than the work itself, as the above No Lewdness section makes clear, but neither is it an excuse to make those pages cleaner than the work itself.
For further explanations, please read this thread
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 6th 2024 at 3:54:01 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That's a lot clear that the current description. This is just from my experience working on a lot of the fanserivice/boobs/hot character tropes but the ones least amount drooling are the ones with descriptions that are crystal clear on what trope is.
Just noticed this page could use some cleaning up.
I noticed that the image caption for The Man Who Fell to Earth is a bit... well, it is David Bowie, but it feels a bit too lewd by our policy.
Cut it or replace it? I guess it doesn't really need a caption, unless we come up with something better.
edited 4th May '14 4:49:11 AM by DoktorvonEurotrash
Hi
It's not really adding anything, I'd be fine with cutting it.
the cat who wanders
I was planning to make a page for the Tsubasa Chronicle fanfic Shatterheart but then I saw the No Lewdness, No Prudishness page and I want some clarification. The pairing is Kurogane and Syaoran, who in story are 27 and 21 but Syaoran has the appearance of a 15-16 year old, which is stated in story. I want to know if it violates the rule or not because he borders on the no Older Than They Look Rule of No Lewdness. If he violates the rule I will not make the page and get rid of the Fan Fic Rec I made for it. If doesn't can I make the page?
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Fluffy Pony is still on the cleanup pile, and still as horrible as ever. I'd give it a chainsawing myself, but I'm really not sure where to start. Part of this is due to my unfamiliarity with the source material, and part of it is that the page is most ghastly in aggregate - many of the individual entries are theoretically defensible when taken in isolation, but combine to create something worse than the sum of its parts.
What's precedent ever done for us?
vigilantly taxonomish
Could someone take a look at Niels, please? It seems worryingly positive for a page about a comic that portrays rape and black slavery as cute, funny and sexy.
Wasn't sure where was the best place to ask about this, sorry if this wasn't it.
edited 7th Jan '15 7:01:54 PM by BobbyG
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Sorcerer in training
Hey, Bobby! Are you back as a mod or regular troper?
Usually questionable works are reported and discussed over here. And I see what you're saying about that page. Urk.
vigilantly taxonomish
Hi, i'm not really back as anything, and just a normal troper, not a mod.
And OK, thank you, i'll flag it and post there.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Like reflections in the glass!
From ATT I decided to direct your attention to Tales Of Schlock.
edited 21st Aug '15 5:54:07 PM by MorningStar1337
I took a look at the content and it's pretty much pure porn/fetish. I think there may literally not be a single work-safe page.
Dread Sorcerer of Auchtermuchty
It's hosted on imagefap, for FSM's sake. it's absolutely porn. Must close it down, my mum's coming this afternoon!
Will make a P5 complaint now.
edited 22nd Aug '15 3:03:40 AM by TheOneWhoTropes
Keeper of The Celestial Flame
The Unknown
In YMMV.Pokemon Diamond And Pearl, the Fan-Preferred Couple examples all include Lolicon.
I assume I should axe them with extreme predujice?
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Nobody is mentioning lolicon there at all. Are you referring to relationships between young people?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
OK, nevermind. I missed the pothole. Take it out, for sure.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Only one example has Lolicon as a pothole, but the Cynthia/Dawn example technically counts, as Cynthia is an adult woman while Dawn is no older than Ash Ketchum and co. (or any of the main-line video games' protagonists, for that matter), i.e. around 10-12. I have no idea how or why the pairing came about, but I can vouch for the fact that Cynthia/Dawn shipping-themed artwork is surprisingly prolific, whether it's obviously a pretty innocent kind of romance, borderline-NSFW (as in, Cynthia is strongly implied to be rather predatory/creepy in her attraction to Dawn), or straight-up porn.
edited 26th Aug '15 3:56:45 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Sorcerer in training
One thing I found out several years ago was that if two characters exist, someone will ship them. It doesn't matter how far apart in age or worlds they are, or how much lack of logic applies, or how much their personalities or cultural upbringing would normally make them hate each other. People have their ships, and will sail them right into the teeth of logic.
But a kid/adult "romance" goes against Content Policy, I believe, so it should be removed on that basis. (Since Squick isn't enough.)
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Yes, but more often than not, a popular pairing tends to have a comprehensible reason behind either its popularity or the choice of characters involved, e.g. an existing connection between the two (teacher/mentor, superior/subordinate, VIP/bodyguard, traveling companions, sworn rivals/enemies, etc).
And it's not like I was saying that the pairing doesn't violate the Content Policy's taboo against sexual/romantic relationships between underaged characters and adult ones. I even went as far as pointing out the actual age of the underaged character.
edited 26th Aug '15 8:52:16 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
The Unknown
I axed all of the examples.
Also Dawn (the underage kid) is listed in Launcher of a Thousand Ships. I assume I should axe that too?
edited 26th Aug '15 11:02:17 AM by Karxrida
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Axe away.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
The Unknown
Done.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
Film.August Underground, cut by P5 long ago, still needs dewicking.
Delinking, that is. Removing trope examples is not part of 5P cleanup.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Part-Time Omen of Death
Should Evil Is Sexy be removed from the YMMV page for the movie Orphan? While the character in question is chronologically 33 years old she looks like and is played by a young child. Asking here on advice from the Discussion page.
Stupid doomed timeline...
Yes, Female Gaze is when the 'camera' behaves in an unusually sexualised manner around male characters, like how a work with Male Gaze will have lots of upskirt shots, the Boobs-and-Butt Pose, and lingering pans of its female characters' cleavage. It's pretty straightforward. Just that our examples are way too drooly.
edited 29th Jul '13 11:19:14 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?