The Kids trope is just any show aimed at adults that could be mistaken for a show aimed at kids.
The little girls trope is a trope about a show with a very specific aesthetic aimed at adult men but easily mistaken for a show aimed at seven year old girls.
It's basically standard subtrope/supertrope relationship. The big difference is that one has a more uniform aesthetic, target audience, and mistaken audience than the other.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Yeah, this one's a specific aesthetic, the supertrope's more about the general unintended confusion.
Gentleman Troper!
Okay, that makes sense. Now is it just me or is that difference not particularly clear from the page's first paragraphs?
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
I'm pretty sure it's just you. The opening paragraphs between the two are rather distinct. I'm not seeing the similarity.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Rabid Fujoshi
I've been noticing a trend in people trying to axe subtropes lately.
SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)
Subtropes for being too narrow. Supertropes for being too broad. Likely for the same issues that we have all these missing Supertrope issues.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
I'm having trouble seeing any difference between What Do You Mean, It's Not for Little Girls? and its parent trope, What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?. Both are for shows that, at a first glance, appear to be suitable for and/or aimed at children, and at a second glance are absolutely not.
Is it a good idea to merge the two, or is there a real distinction here that just needs some clarification?
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!