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
Googling inurl:https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/
"loli" does find a lot of "loli", so it looks like some cleanup is needed.
"Loli" as a word has always had sexual connotations, given its origins, but it's often used in a non-sexual sense to refer to a character with a child-like build in a stylised design (usually in contrast to an otherwise taller, leaner cast). While I approve of changing the wording to "child-like" or similar, it is not by itself skeevy.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.it's a difficult case because it originated as a clearly sexual term (lolita complex as a synonym for pedophile > lolicon for short > loli to refer to a character designed to appeal to lolicon) and is most often used within that context, but it's become so widespread that it's occasionally used innocently without understanding the context it came from. it's not always a red flag if someone does use it, but given how loaded it is, it's preferable to avoid it.
There is a strong non-sexual culture in Japan, mostly focused around fashion, if I'm not mistaken, but I can see how it would be conflated with the sexual part in the West. This is just a bit of cultural dissonance.
Isn't Lolita Complex based on the Japanese non-sexual fashion trend, though?
Edited by Redmess on Aug 12th 2022 at 2:48:18 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesvery big distinction between Lolita Fashion and lolita complex, yes. it's generally agreed that the two developed separately, with the name being the only real connection. lolita fashion always uses the full word lolita, whereas lolicon is almost always the shortened term, and lolita fashion doesn't have any pedophilic connotations to it. watch out for false positives; describing a character as a lolita, like Elegant Gothic Lolita, is different from describing a character as a loli.
Edited by NoUsername on Aug 12th 2022 at 6:08:59 AM
Not all "loli" means "lolicon", even some works call it when they mean Token Mini-Moe. Still, like certain slurs discussed recently, it's best to not use it unless it's mentioned in the work.
And yes, "lolita" is completely unrelated.
Edited by Amonimus on Aug 12th 2022 at 4:13:11 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanupright
is closer to what i was trying to say. given the spread of "loli" divorced from its original context and confusion with lolita fashion, it is sometimes used innocently, even if it shouldn't be.
so yeah to circle back to the original point, in this case i assume it wasn't meant sexually given the context, but it should still be swapped out, because the term really shouldn't be used if it isn't being directly invoked by the work.
I think the problem with "loli" is that most people are not hardcore anime fans. These people either will have no idea or will hit "lolicon" first while investigating and think that "loli" means "paedobait". So it's either unclear or creepy.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Aug 12th 2022 at 4:27:31 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanIf my sparse understanding is correct, "lolita" is a less problematic term when it's used as a fashion concept, since the "lolita fashion" is well known.
Using it as a synonym of "girl" runs into the same problem as "loli", though.
So, I'd submit that "lolita" should only be used when discussing fashion, and never to mean "girl". And that "loli" shouldn't be used at all.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI don't think drastic action is necessary. Lolita is already often used with terms of fashion, or when it is a discussion about the lolita complex, etc. I don't think there's a need to do anything about those, it's just when child-like characters are called loli without any contextual basis that its weird.
Edited by Adannor on Aug 12th 2022 at 7:02:41 PM
![]()
agreed. you generally have enough context with mentions of lolita fashion that it doesn't need to be disambiguated, i think. push comes to shove you can link the useful notes page. the standalone term "loli" on the other hand really doesn't need to be used if it isn't being directly discussed.
Edited by NoUsername on Aug 12th 2022 at 9:09:14 AM
Let's put this officially. "Lolita" is only to be used in the fashion context, and "loli" not at all. Unless you are directly referencing the words, such as in discussions of Lolita.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI know biographies are allowed on No Real Life Examples, Please! pages, but Lover and Beloved has a lot of examples that read like this: "John Doe wrote in his memoirs/depicted in his autobiographical film that he had sex with young boys A, B, and C." At what point does this kind of thing cross the line into a NRLEP violation?
Edited by MonaNaito on Aug 12th 2022 at 5:52:55 AM
If you mean the majority of Literature folder, I now wonder if authors writing from personal experiences is a Loophole Abuse of NRLEP in general.
e: to avoid off-topic
Edited by Amonimus on Aug 12th 2022 at 12:57:45 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupWait, this isn't Real Life Examples Cleanup, which both questions would suit better. I don't think this fits 5P issues. I've got mixed up by the post topic.
Edited by Amonimus on Aug 12th 2022 at 12:59:14 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupThanks for the heads up, I'll move it there. I wound up here because Lover and Beloved was one of the pages the original P5 announcement said needed cleanup.

hey so. was looking through Characters.Upotte after stumbling upon the show and reading through its wiki page, and i found this questionable bit under Empi (an elementary school girl):
even if it's in reference to another character, i feel icky describing an elementary school girl as a loli version of another established character, for obvious reasons. it's just one word, i know, but of all the words to use (younger, smaller, pint-sized, mini...), whoever added that went with the term used to describe sexualized younger girls...
Edited by worldwidewoomy on Aug 11th 2022 at 7:49:51 AM