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
Logic Girl
This is from YMMV.The Loud House, under Ho Yay:
"A Fair to Remember" has Bobby, Lori and Lincoln act like a formerly monogamous couple finding a third partner, completing with Lori getting jealous because the other two are getting along too well with each other without her.
Bobby is seventeen in that episode, and Lincoln is eleven. That's way too big of an age gap.
For every low there is a high.
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
It's YMMV for a reason. Yes, it's creepy, but if this is what fans choose to think...
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Bringing up the following examples from Mario Strikers:
- Ms. Fanservice: Both Peach and Daisy wear Stripperific sports bras in the first two games, as well as each sporting a pair of hot pants that may as well be painted on for how skin-tight they are. In fact, because they're wearing sports uniforms rather than ballgowns, their long, shapely and flexible legs are on full display.
- Charged makes it a point to show off the goods too, as both princesses have goal animations where their butt is front and center the whole time. And the girls seem to love indulging the viewers.
This is a game for children, so this strikes me as someone seeing what they want to see. Is there anything salvageable here or can I cut the entire thing?
Nintendo Fanatic Extraordinaire
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It could also be Parent Service.
Infinite Ideas, Zero Good.
A tiny part might be worth keeping or putting under Parent Service like said but the way it's written right now is way too one-handed. ("Long, shapely and flexible legs?") Also, that sub-bullet is misusing Shameless Fanservice Girl to mean "Any sexy character that's self-aware," a pet-peeve of mine. I'll try something like:
- Ms. Fanservice: Both Peach and Daisy wear revealing sports bras and tight hot pants, with goal animations that highlight this.
That rewrite can definitely be improved further but at least it takes out the gushy bits.
I write stupid crap about naked people.
Found under Power Perversion Potential:
- Bartleby Tales covers an amazing variety of fetishes, but the most obvious in this sense is that everyone in Hell can reassemble himself or herself after extreme injury. In other words, if you can find a willing partner, you can engage in completely nonlethal Guro fantasies. (This is explored as early as the first chapter, when a character gets off on swallowing a live grenade.)
The parentheses and the first half of the first sentence need to go. Here's a rewrite:
- In Bartleby Tales, everyone in Hell can reassemble themselves after extreme injury. Some people utilize this to engage in risk-free Guro fantasies.
Anything beyond that?
Infinite Ideas, Zero Good.
The rewrite looks good but I'm not sure if that's even salvageable, because it sounds like the entire thing is just a fetish work (the lack of a trope page makes it look like it wouldn't or didn't pass P5 and the way the entry opens up with mentioning the fetishes is another red flag). Not sure what the protocol here is on things like that (I know that P5-cut works are okay to trope as long as it's not the cutworthy content but this feels borderline on that) but I personally think this would boil down to context. Like, if it's just a gag throwaway line or part of the entire premise of the work. If it's the former then the rewrite looks okay, if it's the latter that might lean too hard on troping porn.
I know Power Perversion Potential by its definition has that sort of element to it but there's a difference between it being a minor gag and the whole work being centered around it as a fetish. At least that's how I see it. I'd like another opinion though.
Edit: Okay I did a quick Google search, apparently it was cut on this wiki before and it's Porn with Plot with a Vague Age protagonist that skirts the line of being underaged. With this in mind I'm leaning more that the whole bullet point could probably go.
Edited by greatpikminfan on Oct 26th 2022 at 8:34:49 AM
I write stupid crap about naked people.
Cut the whole entry. Don't even bother to do a rewrite.
Angry babby
- This Hazbin Hotel parody has Katie absolutely mortified to see herself dressed as a baby for a diapers ad on a billboard.
It does fit the trope, but it's also blatantly diaper fetish art. Should the entry be cut or is it okay?
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
the Retromancer
It literally says it's a fetish art, so I'd lean on ![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_down_emoticon_3571.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
. Also I'm not sure if individual fanarts count as fanworks.
Edited by Amonimus on Nov 3rd 2022 at 4:27:30 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Considering it's blocked with a mature content warning on my end, I'd say cut it on that alone.
Edited by MurlocAggroB on Nov 3rd 2022 at 7:28:52 AM
Hi
Eeeehhhhh...yeah, probably best to play it safe and cut that, especially if it's giving people a content warning.
Angry babby
Okay, cut with a link to this thread.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Any pronouns
On Doraemon: The Main Five, I noticed that it listed Shizuka as a Ms. Fanservice. It says "She gets too many Panty Shots to count and her infamous Furo Scenes become a lampshaded Running Gag later on. Averted in the 2005 series where the fanservice is totally downplayed." Oh, and she’s TEN YEARS OLD.
I never actually watched Doraemon, and I know that Japan has different standards than the west. But really? A child character providing fanservice in a children’s show???? I don’t think so.
We are the best friends, we stand as one. Whatever life may bring, we are never alone.
the Retromancer
I haven't watched Doraemon, but I assume it's in a childish Butt-Monkey way and nothing actually related to fanservice.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Any pronouns
Does the Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann entry for Beware My Stinger Tail really need to mention Yoko being rendered topless, especially since she's 14?
the Retromancer
- Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann has one of the Beast Man's generals Adiane the Elegant, who actually looks just like a normal woman besides her long, thick, scorpion tail. In the main series, she doesn't do much with it besides beating up Viral, since she does most of her fighting from within her Humongous Mecha. In the Compilation Movie, she uses it to great effect in a Designated Girl Fight against Yoko, waving her tail to deflect bullets, smacking Yoko around and even ripping away Yoko's top before Yoko uses her hairpins to stab Adiane's tail, pinning it into the floor.
The trope is about having weaponized tails, so "doesn't do much with it besides", "since she does most of her fighting from within her Humongous Mecha", and "before Yoko uses her hairpins to stab Adiane's tail, pinning it into the floor" are irrelevant to the trope.
Whatever Stripping Snag should stay, as-written it doesn't sound too offensive.
Also "Beast Man" should be plural.
Edited by Amonimus on Nov 4th 2022 at 6:59:37 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Better?
- Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann has one of the Beast Men's generals Adiane the Elegant, who actually looks just like a normal woman besides her long, thick, scorpion tail. In the Compilation Movie, she uses it to great effect in a Designated Girl Fight against Yoko, waving her tail to deflect bullets, smacking Yoko around and even ripping away Yoko's top.
the Retromancer
I've thought along the lines
- Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann has one of the Beast Men's generals Adiane the Elegant, who actually looks just like a normal woman besides her scorpion tail. In the main series she beats up Viral with it. In the Compilation Movie, she uses it in a Designated Girl Fight against Yoko, waving her tail to deflect bullets, smacking Yoko around and even ripping away Yoko's top.
Sin Kids AU needs to have any mention of plot-free porn stories and paedobait stories excised.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Found this Don't Meddle with My Daughter! (which has serious one-handed troping issues) example in Defeat by Modesty:
- In chapter 9, Artemis challenges her older sister Athena to a duel. They were evenly matched, until Athena suddenly makes out with her to gain the upper hand. Then Athena capitalizes on Artemis' shame and confusion, going so far as to 69 with her 'til she climaxed. Artemis concedes the match, but she calls her sister out for using such a shameful tactic.
Second to last sentence looks rather one-handed to me, but I'm at a loss on how to rewrite it.
Edited by badtothebaritone on Nov 30th 2022 at 5:17:24 AM
The LEG From Now On
The page for Pain Mistaken for Sex has this as the second paragraph:
Should this be cut? I get the feeling that it should probably be cut.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
my line of logic was that consolidating the “loli” example issues to it’s own cleanup thread (maybe short-term) would ease some of the burden on this thread.
Stan GaruKaru for clear skin