: Come on, let's don't load it down with a bunch of anime jargon. At least not right at the top.
: I hope the potholes I made releaved some of the jargon. Man, it's not easy to define Tsundere
Did I miss seeing the crowner poll that resulted in the renaming, and the decision that Tsundere - despite being one of the more common tropes itself - is disallowed?
Or were the decisions unilateral?
:Okay, found the crowner poll. But to be honest, splitting the issue into two separate
questions "should it be renamed" and "what?" to get around the previous crowner poll that ended in 20x "we can't think of anything better", then using 8 votes in a couple of days with only two options given (scads were mentioned in discussion) as a rationale, comes across as pre-emptive and unilateral.
: More than two options were given for alternative names. There were, in fact, scads of them. The reason you can't see them is that they were all in the negative numbers (click the button on the crowner that lets you see them and you'll see). In fact, Belligerent Sexual Tension
was the only one with positive numbers. Also: crowners are always
split between "Should we rename?" and "To what?" If the first crowner was defeated, we would have ignored the second, but it wasn't. And Tsundere wasn't "disallowed," it was just too cumbersome within the name - it's fine within it's own article, because that's where it's defined, but it wasn't defined within this
article, so it was sort of confusing.
: Got it; I see the others now. Thank you for pointing that out. I still think a couple of days is unhelpfully short to resolve an issue that's been running for this long, but I suppose if I felt that strongly about it I could make my own poll next week to get a new result. (Don't worry - I don't, and I won't, because that would be dumb. Just making a lame joke.)
- Wrt Tsundere not being defined in this article, and thus instances of it inside this article are better removed... are we going to start doing that with all tropes that are referred to in an article that's not explicitly about them?
: No, this was because Tsundere was in the title
of the article. It's still potholed within the article itself (although it's made more clear by giving a more specific pothole).
: Meh. One person's "removed the term (except when the person mouses over the right spot)" is another person's "made more clear by giving a more specific pothole." But again, I'm not one for righteous causes or holy wars.
- One quick point about the meaning you gave dere when you potholed tsundere out of the lead sentence, which I'll also leave to your discretion for the above reason - there's a very distinct difference between "sweet" (temperament) and "lovestruck"/"fawning" (behavior). A good case in point would be Yandere = obsessively fawns on someone, not crazy and sweet.
: Ah, this title finally got changed. This title works well.
: I agree, this is wonderful. It links up with an old trope (UST) in a nice way, it reflects what the relationships are, and it doesn't limit things. Not EVERY Takahashi Couple or "arguing relationship" in comics was Jerk/Tsundere, after all.
: I was kind of upset when the name got changed from Takahashi Couple to When A Jerk Loves a Tsundere, not only because I believed Takahashi's characters codified the trope well, but also because the new title was obnoxiously long. However, "Belligerent Sexual Tension" is an excellent title, and I fully approve.
Yes, it links up with UST in a very
nice way. "Belligerent Unresolved Sexual Tension". I like it!
: Vitriolic Couple
isn't appearing in the alt-title bar. I tried to fix it by removing and then manually reentering the redirect, but it didn't work. Can someone see what's the problem?
: Fixed now.
Griffinmills: About the evil overlord quote. I realize the evil overlord quote is, how to put it... "on topic" and has a quipy definition of sorts in it of the actual trope, but it doesn't seem to be about the trope itself. It's likely to point people who are unfamiliar with the trope (or Takahashi style couples) in the direction that the trope is about evil overlords killing couples that bicker or criticize each other, rather than about the couples themselves. It's like the quote for Most Common Superpower
where it's more lampshading it than about it, read the discussion at Most Common Superpower
for more details if you don't understand my point. Also, it's no biggie since, hey, Most Common Superpower
still has the Calvin and Hobbes quote, they just have to clean up the examples and text frequently.
: This. Does. Not. Happen. In. Pride and Prejudice!
Neither Elizabeth nor Darcy fall in love with the other because they enjoy fighting, regardless of how readers insist on filtering the story through our modern culture's fixation with this trope. They both genuinely dislike each other in the beginning — Darcy because Elizabeth is not pretty and her family is beneath him, Elizabeth because Darcy is a rude, meddling jerk (which was not
attractive in those days
, at least not to Jane Austen
). The novel is not about belligerent sexual tension but Hidden Depths
— they both realize there's more to this person they dislike than their first impressions
(original title) indicated. Elizabeth can only fall in love with Darcy when she begins to like him and sees her hate was unfounded (beneath his cold exterior is a heart of gold, the stories about his mistreatment of Wickham were false, etc.). Their romance is a Take That!
at Love at First Sight
— which Elziabeth tried with Wickham and found how deceiving appearances can be. Feelings can change; someone you initially find charming can turn out to be a total cad, and someone you initially hate can turn out to be very charming. The point is that dislike can turn to love, not that dislike=love... a common misconception which Elizabeth herself tries to disabuse Mr. Collins of!