Question about Trope Entries & Cut Series

If a series has been cut by P5, does that also mean we should remove any entries concerning that series from trope pages from the wiki?

For example, even though we no longer have an page for Insert P5 Cut Series Here, does that mean we remove any of the series' entries from other trope pages or can they remain in place?

I was under the impression that a page being P5 cut did not mean entries for the series had to be removed as well, but I've seen scattered cases of people (not moderators or the question would be open & shut) removing entries for Cut Series altogether while others simply removed the redlink.

Was wondering what the official line on this was.

You don't need to do that.

I do know that at least the red link has to be removed, but I am not sure about the example itself.

I think the entry can have the work's name in black text instead of red, since red encourages people to make a page on the work.

It should be red because that's what we do for works without pages. Don't worry about anyone trying to make the page, since all cut pages are locked.

We want the redlink even though the page can't be created because people learn by example, and we want them to learn that works without pages are supposed to be redlinked.

On Special Efforts and in Content Violation Discussions, the current agreement seems to be "remove all redlinks, kill creepy examples". In particular, if a work was killed due to pedophilia concerns, it's quite likely that all fanservice tropes, sex tropes, rape tropes and romance tropes examples involving minors will be removed.

Still, I would love to have an official moderation position on this.

If people really want to, they can find a way around it; for example, after Kodomo no Jikan was cut, someone put the page's contents in Main/KnJ.

Those people will have their editing privileges suspended and the pages will be cut.

But still, it creates extra work for the mods.

But not really related to the redlink.

edited 20th May '12 4:41:18 PM by troacctid

If a work is too disgusting to have its own work page, then it's too disgusting too have any examples on trope pages. At least, this is what I assume is the case. I don't see why we'd have examples for works so disgusting we had their work pages cut.

What does the moderation say?

...some works were like 99% cute stuff and 1% pantyshots.

[1]

Well... wow...

I wasn't expecting that.

So I guess we leave them redlinked to remind readers that they're not going to get a page for being whatever.

My understanding is that we are removing all examples linking to articles cut according to the content policy. All examples, not just the ones that fall under questionable tropes.

That's the thing though, is there anyplace that actually says that?

I remember when this started a post somewhere saying that we weren't removing entries for works under review, but to my knowledge there's been no definitive answer on whether or not to keep the entries after they're cut. While the only moderator in that thread didn't go either way, the consensus seems to be at least to keep the clean entries where possible.

Until something definitive and unquestionably saying "this is the rule" comes up, I'm just not sure if cutting everything is right.

Didn't say in the new content policy that we were to remove trope example for cut works. It doesn't seem to leave room for any SFW examples.

I can't see any reason to try and delete the wicks. Those clean examples aren't hurting anyone, and attempting to go through all the wicks and purge them seems obsessive and unnecessary. Not to mention a waste of manpower that could be spent cleaning up Natter or something.

edited 21st May '12 9:25:53 AM by troacctid

If a work is under review, we don't touch anything about it. If a work has been voted Total Cut (as opposed to lock and purify) then we should at that point remove the examples. We're basically Unpersoning such works as far as the wiki is concerned. That's what I thought the policy was, but I admit that the Content Violation threads have been moving faster than I am able to follow.

Eh... pretty sure that's not (and should not be) the policy.

I disagree with this as well. I don't think that a total unpersoning here is wise, if for no other reason than the Streisand Effect.

Regardless of whether a total Unpersoning is the right way to go forward, I would like to ask to moderators to come to a binding decision - I've heard from four different mods now, and got three different opinions (see also here for shima's position, and further upthread for posts by Willbyr and lu).

I'd think as much. Keeping traces of works like Kn J would detract from the seriousness on why we don't want them around.

edited 21st May '12 10:54:40 AM by Akagikiba2

I think it's fair to cut examples for cut works. Our policy is to either have a work or not have it. It should not be to have works only to punish and belittle them.

IMO, it actually feels worse to the reader if a user clicks a redlink to an example, and then get hit in the face with "We do not want a page about this" message. Just having it out altogether creates a clean policy of disagreement, where the idea is "Our site is not suitable for this content."

By the way, the "just un-wick the redlinks and remove the questionable examples" approach would mean that there is essentially no difference between "clean and keep" and "cut", as far as P5 options are concerned - the only difference would be whether we have a page on the work or not.

edited 21st May '12 12:37:37 PM by jkbeta