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
(she/her)
Alright, this current line of this discussion doesn't have much to do with the cleanup thread. Please re-rail.
Macron's notes
Is it okay to get a consensus from another person before I delete it? Since I don't want to remove it if it is considered blanking.
Blanking is deleting everything on a page and leaving it that way. In p5 context it'd be something like if there's a subpage that's only perving on a show and you delete all examples. Proper course of action would be to cutlist the whole page so the blank isn't sticking up afterwards. But you're talking about just one example on a full page so this doesn't apply.
And rerailing, for this example, yeah this is about the gross sex part of a cut work so it's green light to delete.
Edited by Adannor on Sep 7th 2023 at 9:59:10 PM
Redmess
Did you find the cut reason? I couldn't seem to find it, though I may have overlooked it somehow.
Optimism is a duty.
Here's a relevant discussion. Our page at August Underground was probably mainly about the first film in the series and the specific example brought in now is from the second but I do not think it would contain any less extremes.
Redmess
Oh, I see, hence why I couldn't find the title then.
Optimism is a duty.
Thank you, It took a while to remove it since I was having on-and-off migraines for a bit.
Redmess
No worries, take your time. No one is working on the clock here.
Optimism is a duty.
Also if a work was specifically deleted for Pedo-pandering is it OK to delete the entire example involving it instead of just dewicking?
Redmess
I think it would make sense to delete the entire example in that case.
Optimism is a duty.
Angry babby
I think if the example isn't related to the sexual stuff it's okay to keep. Like the note on 1000 Origami Cranes says.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
So in other words, if the example is about the aspects of it that got it banned.
Redmess
But isn't the point of the work being banned that we don't want it troped at all?
Optimism is a duty.
^ So far, examples from otherwise-blacklisted works were allowed on the trope pages, on condition that they have no traces of content which got the work blacklisted, and the work's name doesn't form a red link. I don't recall it being changed.
Redmess
Alright, thanks for clarifying.
Optimism is a duty.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That’s what I was thinking too but you stayed way better than I could.
Logic Girl
This is from YMMV.Lazy Town:
- Portmanteau Couple Name: The fandom has come up with portmanteau names for the show's two most popular pairings: SportaSteph for Sportacus/Stephanie, and SportaRobbie for Sportacus/Robbie.
- Self-Fanservice: Oh, the things the fandom does to Sportacus and Robbie Rotten, as well as Stephanie.
Stephanie is eight in Season One, and even if the show averts Not Allowed to Grow Up, she's still only eleven by Season Four (presuming each season is a year). Even if some fans do ship her with Sportacus (an adult) or draw rude fan-art about her, that's too gross to mention here!
For every low there is a high.
Angry babby
I think we're allowed to acknowledge creepy age gap ships as long as we don't promote them or go into detail, but the Self-Fanservice entry is both ZCE and veering close to discomfort, particularly since it's a live child actor. But the fandom probably has kids in it so I'll be very generous and assume there are also other children crushing on her and thus making her more attractive in fanworks?
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
i'm at the combination she and it
i do think in this case it's referring to a more adult fandom. stephanie has had persistent problems with creepy entries, since in-universe the character is a child, but the actresses playing her were older teenagers edging into adults (we had to cut examples relating to people making "jailbait wait" jokes about her first actress), so it's better to err on the side of caution for her i think. i would cut.
found example describing pornographic fanart in Forgot the Disability
- Used in a piece of NSFW Avatar: The Last Airbender fan-art by Sequestro: Seeing Ty Lee "cleansing her aura" naked, Katara covers Toph's eyes with her hands entirely by reflex.
Toph: You know I'm blind, right?
i'm just removing this. this is porn made by a porn artist.
yarisflat is a pretty cool ship lol
On the subject, from Fanwork-Only Fans:
- Kid Icarus: Uprising: For a lot of people, the game has a Hot Goddess with Palutena, and that's about it. Palutena's already attractive design gets exaggerated in Rule 34, without much regard or care for what she actually does in the game or her actual personality. This isn't helped by her playful "pole dancing" taunt in Super Smash Bros.. Pit also tends to appear in Rule 34 as Palutena's timid and constantly on-edge boy toy and "prey", rather than the brave goofball and trusted subordinate he actually is.
- Metroid: The series is often Best Known for the Fanservice, as despite Samus Aran spending the majority of her games wearing Powered Armor, people who don't touch the games know her best for her jumping around in the very flattering Zero Suit in the Super Smash Bros. series, leading to copious Rule 34 and other fan works involving Samus.
The Palutena example was cut under YMMV.Kid Icarus Uprising as Pit is effectively a minor, but I'm not sure if/how that warrants cutting Palutena's entry as opposed to just Pit's part. If there was reason to cut Palutena's entry what about Samus's?
Also, Memetic Sex God was cut for content and because Rule 34 means every character is/could be subject to this such it stopped being meaningful. The same issue seems to apply to FOF.
With that, I see reason to ban any Rule 34 examples of FOF. Thoughts?
Redmess
Depends, I'm not familiar. Is it a site that tends to just produce porn?
Optimism is a duty.
I'm Sad Frogerson.
Rule 34 is an old internet adage that says "if it exists, there is porn of it", and is often used a short-hand to refer to any fan-art that's NSFW. And yes, there is a Rule 34 website (several, in fact) and they act as large archives of fan-drawn porn.
I have noticed a few entries on Fanwork-Only Fans that lean more towards "these fans only like the porn and haven't actually watched/played the source material", and I'm not sure if that's what the trope is supposed to be about.
Edited by chasemaddigan on Nov 25th 2023 at 8:24:05 AM
I dont think that's what the trope is supposed to be at all. I one of those fans and I just love the fanfics for the media AND not dirty ones.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
And then theres effing Neon Genesis Evangelion with the ever infamous scenes of Shinji tripping and groping Rei by accident, Asuka's "explanation" of thermal dynamics, Gendo Ikari groping Rei only for his hand to go into her body and get assimilated, "Giant Naked Rei"... among many other skeevy scenes in both the original series and the Rebuild films given the main trio are all only 14. Jeez, there's even calendars and visual novels that show the characters off naked (without Barbie Doll Anatomy) and a visual novel where Asuka hooks up with Kaji...? What the... ugh...