DISCUSS pages that MIGHT have to be dealt with

FYI, I removed the page image from What Were They Selling Again? for gratuitous use of the F word in a normal trope page.

Don't you think that was a bit premature? We should at least wait until we have some guideline of what have to go, instead of randomly deleting whatever we personally don't thing suits the page.

It's a valid action. If we want to maximize the portion of the wiki that's covered by Google ads, we need to clean out any gratuitous profanity and other objectionable stuff. No need for Precision F Strikes on The Care Bears, or even Star Wars.

If you want a guideline, keep the page content consistent with the rating of the work(s) it describes.

Incidentally, Our Super-Strict Language Policy and a number of other administrivia pages will need to be revised.

edited 28th Oct '10 9:40:55 AM by Fighteer

I was afraid that would happen.

I suppose it's not a bad thing if the profanity/adult content really is gratuitous.

I'm actually morally against moral objections to things like profanity, but if we need to adopt a "there's a time and a place" attitude to it then fair enough. People do not need to apply a Precision F-Strike on the Care Bears page, even if it were to (hypothetically) make the given example funnier.

With a Quentin Tarantino film though, we wouldn't ban mention of Cluster F-Bomb, and with In Bruges (which has a montage of every incident of swearing in the film as an extra on the DVD - those words and those only amount for 2 full minutes of film time) we could still talk about it. Etc.

What about work pages that double for Hgames, and their Bleached Underpants anime adaptions?

edited 28th Oct '10 10:08:22 AM by EternalSeptember

Either we could put the whole thing under NSFW flag, or we could split the pages into their appropriate namespaces so that the Video Game page would be under the NSFW, and the more tame one would not.

The former has the problem of blocking some of the most popular anime out there, and the latter would be impractical as most of these are faithfrul adaptions, the same as the originals, but with a few gratuitous sex scenes cut out.

I would think that if they're pretty much faithful, splitting them would be even easier... just cut and paste all the SFW trope examples, then add in the NSFW trope examples that exist only in the source material.

edited 28th Oct '10 10:21:24 AM by Meeble

Also: it is not determined that we'll have to physically move pages offsite. It's possible that we can simply flag NSFG pages so the wiki software can automatically segregate them. The question then becomes one of which pages need to be so-tagged.

Okay, I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but supposing that what you said happens, would that mean we can finally rename Turn On Tropes to Fetish Fuel Tropes? IIRC, the latter was only changed to the former because of Google's "no ads for pages containing objectionable words like "fetish", "loli(con)", etc.", after all.

edited 28th Oct '10 10:43:27 AM by MarqFJA

Just as an FYI—I originally had an image for Please Put Some Clothes On that showed just a biiit of a hint of a bare rear end. I don't really think it was anything beyond PG rated (since that sort of trope has shown up in Disney kid movies) but just to be safe I went ahead and cropped the example image so it doesn't show anything beyond a bit of bare shoulders. It should be SFG now. I also saved the old image to my computer just in case we decide to revert back to it.

I think the trope itself should be okay—like I said, it's a trope that's shown up in family films—but it might be good to be reminded of its existence, just in case.

@Marq, debates on the nature of the changes to the wiki should go in the other thread. Discussions of individual pages can stay here.

Forgive me if I've missed something, but would trope titles like Scenery Porn have to be changed? Has porn in the title, but the trope itself is as innocuous as could be. Or is the mere mention of pornography enough to send Ad Sense into a frenzy?

(At the moment, I'm thinking yes).

edited 28th Oct '10 3:50:53 PM by apassingthought

I don't see a reason to.

Before Google pulled Adsense, there was the publicservice ads they reserve for NSFW pages on Scenery Porn. We may as well move it, since we wouldn't be getting revenue from it anyways.

It might be possible to appeal for it (since the exclusion is automatic, and they might be able to make an exclusion for it since it's not actually non-worksafe, but I doubt they'd do so)

So...

What's Google's stance on homosexuality? Are they okay with our Queer as Tropes, do they consider homosexuality as NSFW, or are they fine with it as long as they're not being shown in a serious light and acting like a G-Rated straight couple (i.e. kissing and such)?

As Get Back in the Closet shows, several places have a Double Standard on censorship in regards to gay couples, so I'm wondering where Google stands here.

edited 28th Oct '10 5:09:06 PM by Servbot

The {=~It's Not Porn, It's An Index~=} tropes should really be safe. They're a case where they would fail the algorithim check but pass a human check.

Optimistically speaking, of course.

If we have to, we can rename the index.

Also, would Sexy Santa Dress be okay? What about Fur Bikini? Those aren't explicitly sexy tropes, but such obvious fanservice, that I still think I should ask.

^ They should be fine.

Okay, then.

What about Lousy Alternate Titles? The text in those would likely put it in this category.

And on that note, what if I made a Safe For Work version, something like "Sugar Wiki/Better Alternate Titles"?

Would it be more trouble than it's worth to split Fan Fic rec pages into SFW and NSFW versions?

Is there any real need to worry about keeping Lousy Alternate Titles on the SFG side, considering it's Just for Fun?

^ I would err on the side of putting stuff like that behind the fence for the same reason the forums are going to be put behind it - so people can have their fun without worrying about it being sanitized.

^ That's the idea. The barrier isn't going to be difficult for a user to get through, either. Known tropers will be able to set their profile to let them right through without even mentioning it when they open a page that's behind it. "Barrier" and "wall" sound too severe, it's really going to be more of a "curtain" or "veil", as far as human users are concerned.