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
Unexpected Virgin has an issue with a lack of Wiki Words. Being what it is, it also has attracted some Fanfic examples that I'm a bit concerned about. These aren't so much problematic in themselves, but I'm worried about the links to the fics. Warning: some of the following links may be NSFW. I have not read these fics, and would rather not.
- In Blue Paste
Harry serves as the May Queen in a Beltane ritual and, due to having been a virgin, ends up bonded to Snape, who was portraying the May King.
Snape: You said when it happened to Miss Cunningham that you would take precautions!
Dumbledore: Well, we did. Only... We didn't think boys would be in any danger in that matter.
- In Chapter 35 of The Command Quarters
, Starscream is preparing to lose his virginity to Megatron, only to learn, to his surprise, that Megatron is also a virgin.
- ''Science: Saving Humanity without regard to Morals or Ethics
: Mari Makinami certainly plays the part of a total man eater and does nothing to dissuade the rumors about how promiscuous she is, but just before having sex with Shinji, she internally mentions that she had never even kissed anyone before him.
So, my questions for each entry:
- Would these works in themselves violate P5? (Means that they should not be Wiki Worded when I fix the page)
- If above is "No", Are the links okay?
I read part of the fic in the Transformers example (don't ask) and it definitely violates P5 because it's just a collection of smut. So yeah, do what you need to do with that.
YMMV.Total Trauma has a picture of an ahegao hoodie linked to contextualize one entry. Is this okay? It's just faces but they're suggestive.
It's not the example, it's a link within a contextualized example. It's on the second Narm entry.
Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 20th 2022 at 6:44:24 AM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.So, The Wiki Rule was reported
to the CV forum because there was a least one porn site link on it. I didn't see any other problematic links but I thought bring it up here anyways.
I haven't checked them, but something tells me that the succubus and Fifty Shades of Grey wikis are not appropriate either. Should I remove them?
We can trope Fifty Shades of Grey itself so that's probably not an issue.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.I removed the anime bath scenes wiki from the Anime & Manga subpage because it had a NSFW warning on it.
Macron's notes
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
For a while now, there's been an example of Mr. Fanservice in Koichi's folder on Characters.Jo Jos Bizarre Adventure Diamond Is Unbreakable Heroes that's been making me kind of uncomfortable on top of being dubiously valid:
- Mr. Fanservice: For the audience and the actual characters in the show. He's the only one to get a girlfriend at the end of Diamond is Unbreakable and is the first one to be shown only in his boxers. It's also shown that's he's quite buff despite his size.
If you don't know who Koichi is, he's the tiny kid in green with white hair, third from the left
◊. He IS Older Than He Looks, but he's still just 15, so calling him a Mr. Fanservice feels really weird to me. I also don't believe that he's portrayed in an especially sexualized way by the narrative.
EDIT: This is his example on MrFanservice.Anime And Manga:
- Surprisingly, Koichi Hirose, despite his height, is shown to be quite handsome and muscular, something that's acknowledged in-universe.
Edited by Zuxtron on Jul 28th 2022 at 1:58:57 PM
I have only had minimum exposure to the series but I agree that they don't really sexualize Koichi and muscular thing isn't that remarkable as that's what JoJo is known for.
Edited by MacronNotes on Jul 28th 2022 at 5:51:59 AM
Macron's notesI feel like Mahou Sensei Negima! could use a bit of scrubbing given that several characters are 14 or younger and while a few are Older Than They Look like Asuna being Really 700 Years Old. I noticed a LOT of Ms. Fanservice on several characters pages including Asuna so while I do believe Asuna being RSHYO means it's not that creepy she kind of has the body of a 14 year old girl.
Edited by Klavice on Jul 28th 2022 at 4:11:32 AM
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
Also found this on YMMV.Labyrinth:
- Best Known for the Fanservice: In this case, "Best Known For David Bowie's Pants". They probably exaggerate a little, but this is the reason most anyone remembers this movie if some fans are to be believed. Either that or Jennifer Connelly looking very nice in that white princess dress she wears at the beginning. Or the Pimped-Out Dress from the ball scene later.
Now, David Bowie's pants are the main thing I've heard about this movie, so that part can stay, but Jennifer Connelly was underage when the movie was released (and so is her character).
re: Koichi Hirose. I'd be hard pressed but I really can't recall even a moment the series portrayed him as attractive, even in a manga where everything is overthetop glamour, so he can't be Mr. Fanservice.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup![]()
Cut out the Jennifer Connelly part if only because, even if she wasn't underage, the "Bowie constrictor" pants are far more famous. (It could probably use a little more context though... but not too much.)
Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 28th 2022 at 7:59:26 AM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.i feel like there's a persistent issue with Mr. Fanservice and Ms. Fanservice where the definition has shifted from "a character whose clear and primary purpose is being fanservicey" to "any character this troper thinks is hot". obviously most of the fanservice tropes attract issues with gushing anyway, but it feels to me like these two might really benefit from a "confirmed by the creators" and/or IUEO qualification
Ugh, I skimmed through some of them recently, mainly the Ms. Fanservice ones. There's an uneasy number of "As the oldest, X is this by default" in MsFanservice.Anime And Manga (I'm unfamiliar with those works so I don't know how old is "the oldest," even if said characters are adults there's a less creepy way to write that), and MsFanservice.Live Action Film has an entire section categorized by actress instead of work or character, which comes off as trying to weasel around No Real Life Examples, Please! and it's creepy celebrity gushing. MrFanservice.Live Action Films has one too, even if it's a lot shorter. In hindsight I shouldn't be too surprised by the actor/actress lists, I've noticed a habit on this wiki of feeling the need to mention what actor or actress played what character that ends up naked on several Nudity Tropes. I just did an edit that tweaked some of the more glaring ones in the Ms. Fanservice Video Games page, but I admit it's just taking a pebble off a mountain.
Making it so that there has to be some creator-acknowledgement or that the character is in-universe regarded as attractive doesn't sound like a bad idea, the worst shoehorns I could think of under that is that there could still be some "Main character finds their love interest cute, I'll go off and explain why I personally think they're sexy even if they're not meant to be fanservicey" but that should be easier to scrub out than the pages as they are now. Not sure if this is overboard and I know this is more of a TRS thing, but I personally think actor/actress sections should be nuked entirely since that's more about the real person and less about the character(s), and even if a person is typecast a lot as a fanservicey character, it wouldn't hurt to just list said characters by their film individually.
I made my username back in 2009 when I had no idea how capitalization/camel case worked. That's why it's in all lower case.
You cleared a lot of natter, but not the parts about either Bowie or Connelly, just rephrased them a little.
![]()
My own stance is that our fanservice entries should not talk about how attractive a character or an actor are, but rather how they are used visually: are their bodies emphasised by framing, poses, outfits and so on? Are they prominent on covers and promotional material? Writing the entries around these sorts of questions would make them far more objective.
I feel like this example on Baby Talk should probably be cut? Both for referencing porn and for not even including a work title.
Web Original
- In one VERY NSFW story, a bunny girl gives birth to five hundred bunnies. PER WEEK. Her firstborn, however, turns out to be so cute that she breaks out of character as a heartless bitch and utterly snuggles the baby tigress in baby talk.
Yeah I'd cut it for many reasons.
Edited by Amonimus on Aug 9th 2022 at 5:06:04 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupWhile I'm here, I took a look at the original P5 thread from years ago and noticed that they listed The Human Centipede as needing cleanup. As of now it seems OK, with one exception:
- Fan Disservice: Lindsay has some lovely breasts, but the first time you get to see them is also the first time she feeds after the operation. Did we mention she's the middle segment? In general, you've never had less fun watching topless women on all fours.
This could easily be cut down to something like "Lindsay is seen topless, but only after becoming part of the human centipede". Set fire to the rest.
Edited by MonaNaito on Aug 9th 2022 at 10:44:15 AM

Oh, I agree, the part after that should definitely be cut.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times