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
RJ Savoy
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It's not the general public, and I don't think even the wider manga readership that made Metamorphosis famous, it was those who read doujins and eromangas for the... stimulation. They expected Metamorphosis to be another such manga that was just unusually long, but found themselves caught up in the pathos like never before. ShindoL himself said that he wrote it to attract attention to the issues, and making it an eromanga was the easiest way to ensure sales.
Angry babby
Fetish Retardant says to "be careful" with hentai and porn examples, but why are we listing them at all on that page?
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
RE: The League of Legends entries for Ms. Fanservice: yeah, a lot of those are just poorly written.
This one in particular struck me as gross. (emphasis mine)
- Jinx is a... very zig-zagged version of this trope. She wears a very Stripperiffic outfit, with only a skimpy bikini top, hot pants, a single stocking, and some belts. However, her skinny frame, small chest, unnervingly pale skin, and Ax-Crazy personality would very likely be a major turn-off for most, with it being more likely one would find her "creepy" instead of "sexy". In-spite of that, she's still managed to become one of the franchise's biggest Breakout Characters.
That's right, apparently being skinny or flat-chested (or even pale) doesn't just make you not fit the conventional standards of beauty, it makes you downright repulsive. Even taking the Ax-Crazy part into consideration, there are plenty of characters like that who are considered Evil Is Sexy or some other fanservicey trope trope.
The rest of them are also not great-a lot of them even start with "this character isn't really portrayed as sexy, but I still wanna gush about them."
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I can see being pale and skinny as a turn off if it's too unnatural, as in, skeletal. But the flat chest part makes no sense at all.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Logic Girl
There's a Forum Game involving having sex with avatars.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Eh, I think that one is OK since it's not much different than the other "sex joke" games, but we should keep an eye on it. Like, at least it's an entirely fictional scenario played for laughs and not actual horniness or sexual attraction.
Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 15th 2022 at 10:08:34 AM
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
x 4: Oh yeah I didn't even notice that that one spends more time describing what the editor considers turn offs than the fanservice, and just says that her outfit counts and a tiny bit mentioning that she's still popular. I just cut Jinx's entry since even if she's supposed to be one, it's just really poorly written.
I think a note should be made on the descriptions that if an editor feels the need to say a character is "sometimes" a Ms. Fanservice or Mr. Fanservice or "aren't this compared to the others," they likely aren't one at all. (The exception being like if there's a lot of adaptations and the character is subject to Adaptational Modesty or Adaptational Skimpiness in some, or in a Long Runner that increases or decreases their sex appeal.) The tropes are more about how the character is portrayed on average and not point in time snapshots. Plenty examples to me feel like tropers are trying to loophole fanservice being made in to an example-less index.
x 5: Yeah the fanfic and webcomic folders look like the cut Horrible/ page for fanworks, just filled with examples of some random shock content. The page in general could use a cleanup even for reasons outside of P5 or lewdness. There's a couple of intentional examples that are Fan Disservice instead (I moved some of them, others I weren't sure about) and it's loaded with snark, ZCEs, and general examples.
Confusing humour about sex with actual sex is a common kind of false-positive report in content policy related matters, seems like.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The thread on Don't Meddle with My Daughter! agreed on keeping the page, but only with a cleanup and removal of mentions of hentai/paedobait spinoffs.
Found this on Ms Fanservice for Anime & Manga
- Mami Tomoe of Puella Magi Madoka Magica is this, being a cute blonde with a large rack and shapely legs. Her Magical Girl outfit even emphasizes said assets. The Puella Wiki even has an entire page dedicated to her breasts, and only she has fanservicy shots during the third movie.
I'm unsure of this being an example, Mami is a 14 year old school girl, and while she is bustier then the rest of the characters in the main show it's never really focused on and the wiki is entirely made by fans so this just reads like "Fandom thinks X character is attractive". She may count in the third movie, but not in the main series. In fact the main series doesn't sexualize any character at all.
Should we remove Ms. Fanservice or Mr. Fanservice and related related tropes from anthro or furry characters too? I've seen characters like Krystal and Fox McCloud get the MF trope on them for example. Though it's clear she was designed to appeal to furries like Lola Bunny.
Edited by Klavice on Sep 17th 2022 at 12:09:21 PM
Angry babby
No, because if they were designed to be attractive to audiences, then they're examples of the trope. Just make sure the text doesn't get too prurient.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
I wanna be a cowboy, baby
“large rack and shapely legs” being used to describe a 14yo is “ew” in and of itself… and then there’s the mention of the fan wiki having an entire page dedicated to Mami boob shots. yeet the entire thing with extreme prejudice.
There was a past consensus that Koihime†Musou should only list versions w/o paedobait content (=clean versions), but I am not sure if the trope pages currently comply with this rule.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I don’t really want to get into this topic too often, but does this just mean if you ever see “loli” in any text work on this site, no matter what it is, you should rewrite it to be condemned or just remove it altogether?
So for instance, the Cyberpunk anime: there was a behind the scenes issue where the original creators wanted a blatant loli character removed. Trigger insisted “no” and they relented. That’s documented in the trivia. But I just added “unfortunately insisted” from “insisted” on the context.
Basic stuff like that. I’m only here so I don’t step on the wrong feet and look like I’m pushing an agenda subtly by accident.
Edited by Sung-Hwan on Sep 17th 2022 at 1:59:07 AM
Redmess
No, as discussed earlier, there are very specific circumstances where you can use "loli", but only for certain works.
Optimism is a duty.
I wanna be a cowboy, baby
Hi sorry to interrupt! I wasn’t sure if taking this here or to ATT was my best bet, but I decided to take it here instead.
So I want to add an entry on Characters.UTAU for the new(?) UTAUloid Himekishi Riyona, who also has rather lewd origins not unlike Acme Iku. (Yknow, same company and all.)
Now I personally can attest to making sure to trope both girls responsibly, but my main concern revolves around adding images for her. Specifically Riyona’s original artwork, which is… well, Stripperiffic may be an understatement. (I’m not sure if trying to link it myself would get me into trouble and to be honest I don’t wanna risk it.)
Problem is that now I ended up confusing myself on what to do regarding a character image for her. Of course there’s her considerably more SFW redesign, obviously, but do we hide her original art under a warned “click here to see her OG art” note? Or just leave it off entirely?
ETA: New Riyona artwork for reference. Yes it’s SFW I promise.
Edited by worldwidewoomy on Sep 17th 2022 at 10:35:39 AM
Stan GaruKaru for clear skin
how old is she?
I wanna be a cowboy, baby
I can’t find any confirmation on how old Riyona is, but I’m pretty sure she’s an adult based on her appearance.
Stan GaruKaru for clear skin
hmm, i feel like if she were Younger than She Looks they would have said so, so we'll assume adult. you could DM me the picture and i could tell you my opinion? (and whether i think it's safe to post)
I wanna be a cowboy, baby
e:oh bugger that was meant to be a DM
Edited by ChloeJessica on Sep 17th 2022 at 9:51:39 AM
x 6 I did a quick Google search, and assuming I found the right image, I think the art of her old design with a warning note saying it's suggestive would be okay. She's not really any more Stripperiffic than some characters who have images just fine in their character sheets (IE the protagonist of Code of Princess). There's nothing like visible areolae that would bring an immediate NSFW concern in my opinion. And she clearly looks like an adult.
EDIT: I miscounted the posts.
Edited by greatpikminfan on Sep 18th 2022 at 1:39:19 AM
Sad Satan may need cleanup to remove tropes based on/references to versions with child pornography; the discussion in the Content Violations Discussions forum decided to keep the page, but only conditionally.
I believe Metamorphosis is a another case of "general public discovers 18+ and posts about it out of context for meme value". I don't know how much is plot/porn ratio as just tagged as Hentai is still discouragring.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup