To-do list:
- Since Panty Shot is now a Definition-Only Page, examples are not allowed and must be removed, but references to the term can stay. Sandbox.Wick Cleaning Shot is being used to list which namespaces have already been cleaned.
Panty Shot seems to be suffering from an assortment of problems at the moment. It's defined as being a gratuitous shot of a (female) character's panties/underwear explicitly for Fanservice reasons, but it has a tendency to be used for "any time underwear are visible" or non fanservice underwear displays (ie: Comedic Underwear Exposure). There's also an issue of it attracting ZCEs, likely out of fear that going into detail will sound creepy or weird (which it can be at times).
The wick check gave results of...
- Correct Use 12/51: 23.5%
- Misuse: Panties/underwear visible without being fanservicey 8/51: 15.7%
- Other misuse 2/51: 3.9%
- ZCE 19/51: 37.3%
- Unclear/Other/Pothole 10/ 51 19.6%
And I was being generous with correct use too, if we cut correct use down to only correct onpage examples rather than correct uses of it with clear context as potholes, it goes down to only 7 correct uses ( 13.7%), and if we include only completely played straight examples, it goes down to only 4 (7.8%) correct uses.
I'm not sure exactly what fix will solve the issues here, myself... but there are definitely several problems plaguing the trope at the moment. Perhaps a rename to emphasize the gratuity would help? (Gratuitous Panty Shot?)
Edited by GastonRabbit on May 17th 2022 at 7:35:35 AM
Yeah...judging by their edits and their last post, they aren't someone we want around so I bounced them. So, let's just move on from this...
Macron's notes(I'm so curious about the content of the previous post, only just missed it. Darn.)
Is this thread going to attract more, uh, negative attention from particular people invested in its continued existence now that its entries are being cut? And if so, has this sort of thing happened before for any other TRS threads?
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker MailDon't worry, I'm pretty sure that was just Lonerrr again, which is why I hollered it. It's only attracting negative attention from this one person with their wonk, let's not let it slow us.
Current Project: The TeamYeah, I can confirm that that was just Lonerrr ban evading.
People aren't always going to like our decisions (and they don't have to) but that's fine. If they act out of turn, they will be dealt with swiftly.
So, anyways let's rerail back to cleanup
Macron's notesI'm assuming Sandbox.Wick Cleaning Shot is the wick cleaning sandbox for this thread, so I'll add it to the pinned post. (There was a missed opportunity for wordplay like "Shooting Panties Down" or "Panties Shot Down".)
Edit: And I shot down another sock registration attempt.
Edited by GastonRabbit on May 17th 2022 at 8:13:42 AM
2 ÷ 0Let's focus on cleanup instead of engaging in popcorn posting and speculation regarding ban evaders.
2 ÷ 0I've gone through Recap and Roleplay. Bit difficult to do the large pages via mobile, so I was looking for generally smaller articles to verify.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.I added those namespaces to the wick cleaning sandbox.
2 ÷ 0Down to 1.8k wicks
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker Mail~Yindee : Just pm'ed you about this, but I'll post about it here, too. Not all the wicks need to be removed, only the ones that are being listed as examples. Definition-Only Pages can be linked in descriptions (with the exceptions noted there, which Panty Shot does not fall into), they just can't be listed as examples.
I thought I was only removing examples. Goes to show how much I know :')
Apologies!!! (I should uh, probably stop attempting to clean wicks because every time I try to, it turns out I've caused a blunder that requires other people to fix my mess. Seriously, I'm so sorry for always screwing up. I'll lay off.)
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker MailI mean, you can ask for further details how wick cleaning works when in doubt, as in how to-remove-examples look like, what namespaces to leave alone, if invoked examples count as exceptions and etc. We appreciate people having a grasp of how the process works, though I wouldn't pressure you if you don't feel confident and want to leave it to someone else. I too mostly do "just remove" or "just rename" cleaning because it requires minimum thinking.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupDefinitely if you stick around and continue asking questions you'll learn the ropes. Don't be so hard on yourself; Wick cleaning is hard and at the end of the day this is just a hobby for all of us.
Current Project: The TeamI guess my problem was I didn't think I was in doubt because I was leaving stuff in trope descriptions but deleting potholes/entries on work and trivia pages. Therein lies the issue. I want to help with every fiber of my being (as dramatic as that sounds, but seriously, I live to help) but maybe I'm not cut out for it. You're right; I should've asked before touching anything. And I'm sincerely sorry for not having done so. Is it too late to ask for clarification, after I've laid waste to hundreds of wicks that are probably awaiting reinstatement? When I make a mistake of any level of severity I tend to just shut down, so I'll probably leave this trope for others to complete regardless of clarification, admittedly. I just hate that my errors force other people to spend extra time fixing my mess when they could've been making forward progress.
(Also I'm getting into my own head because it's late here, so apologies for the nearly-off-topic emotional wreck that this post has become.)
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker MailThe proper way of handling mistakes is going back to them to check how they happen, but I'm no therapist.
In TRS it's common to quote suspicious wicks, others can explain if it's fine to cut or it needs to be rephrased in some way.
Edited by Amonimus on May 29th 2022 at 7:53:12 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupPlus, while we definitely want to keep as much as possible, it is sometimes best to err on the side of caution and cut anything we're not sure about. Someone might reinstate them later, which is fine if they're valid, but "when it doubt, throw it out" is a valid strategy in TRS cleanup. It's why we're allowed to delete ZCE.
Current Project: The TeamSo was I only supposed to have been deleting things that started with "* Panty Shot:"? Should I have left all the potholes?
I'll clean up my mess to the best of my ability tomorrow (probably basing off what I'm seeing in Twiddler's corrections). Again, I'm so sorry for causing this confrontation to have to happen with every clean I misguidedly attempt.
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker MailAdministrivia.Definition Only Pages can have potholes and references to the term as long as they are being applied correctly. If the pothole or wick reference isn't using Panty Shot the way we define it on the wiki, I think it's fine to delete.
Macron's notesRight, like I reworded one on Funny.Atelier Ayesha The Alchemist Of Dusk that described an offscreen incident, because it's not a Panty Shot if the audience doesn't see it.
Similarly, if it's not being used for fanservice, it's not an example (although some might fit Comedic Underwear Exposure instead). If there's not enough context to tell whether it's being used correctly, it's fine to remove the wick (though in these cases I would also reword them to avoid using the term "panty shot", since that has a specific meaning).
Edited by Twiddler on May 29th 2022 at 10:52:56 AM
I'm working my way back through my 900+ wicks I removed, so it's currently back at 1118.
Vehicle-Based Characterization | Grief-Induced Split | Locker Mail
Crown Description:
What should be done with Panty Shot?
Lonerrr's edits seem to exclusively consists of adding low context and vaguely creepy Panty Shot wicks.
Macron's post pretty clearly states why it's def only, and Animation Goofs and such were never correct uses of the trope anyway, it's got nothing to do with "wokeness", the trope was either context anemic or came across as super creepy.
"Grandmaster Combat, son!"