It seems like the majority of uses of Adorkable that I see appear to be YMMV fan reactions, instead of being objective and in-universe. I've cleaned up a few of these, but I keep coming across them. Reading the example subpages doesn't exactly encourage me on this one.
So the question I have is if we want to make this a YMMV item, or do we want to engage in some heavy wick cleanup?
I don't think it's a YMMV trope, but I remember thinking recently that the description needs to be tightened up. It's really supposed to be about characters that have social awkwardness and nerdiness played for cute points, but it's not uncommon to see it used to describe a character who is merely embarrassed or the like.
It's one of those tropes, like Moe or Badass, that writers certainly aim for but are ultimately an audience reaction. And can happen where it was particularly intended. I think it should just be made YMMV, unless there is some reason to narrow it down to in-universe (for which it might be better to start anew with an "Adorkable Reaction" article).
I think it used to be YMMV as I sometimes see it on YMMV sub-pages. Can you give specific examples of pages or wicks that misuse it? I haven't noticed it myself. But I for sure do see it with zero context a lot, which is problematic in itself, so troper hive mind cannot decide whether it fits or not.
Well, on this page the protagonist is described as adorkable when he's actually kind of a jerk and his eccentricities are played for laughs rather than cute points. Lower down on the page is the awkward, nerdy Shiori whose whole character seems to be basically built around the idea of Adorkable.
So I'd say it's used by people to describe a YMMV reaction, but is not a YMMV trope.
We can't have a trope (or audience reaction) that's "dorky and attractive" or even "dorky therefore attractive." Because everyone (especially if dorky) is considered attractive by some troper. And tropers, many of whom proudly self-identify as nerds, are all too ready to label the objects of their affection as dorky.
We should limit this to those cases where a character is portrayed as attractive because of their awkwardness. We've done similar cleanup with other perverse sexual lust pages.
Right - I meant social ineptness. But if adorkable overlaps strongly with other tropes (and it may), I would also support making this an exampleless definition page. "The word 'Adorkable' is a portmanteau of 'Adorable' and 'Dork.' Here are some details about the term. For examples, see: Clumsy Cute, Nerds Are Sexy, Weakness Turns Her On."
Or we can have an examples section consisting solely of people explicitly describing / invoking the concept. Stuff like promos of New Girl, which said "[Zoe Deschanel's character] is adorkable!"
If this were just a page for tropers to post about perverse affectionate love, we'd definitely have to cut examples or even cut the page altogether. But the word "adorkable" has been deliberately used in actual ads for shows, so there could be a concept there worth documenting.
Well, the problem is that to clean this up correctly, it would have to be in-universe reactions only (with the possible exception of critics invoking this trope for characters on their shows). Hence why I proposed just making it YMMV, which would be a little simpler on the cleanup end, at least from what I can tell.
Incidentally, comparing it to Moe only strengthens that argument, since Moe itself is YMMV.
I think this is one way a character can be moe, but that doesn't make it YMMV. I mean, is it YMMV that most moe characters tend to be young females? A trait used to build up an audience reaction like moe doesn't make the trope an audience reaction as well.
The name might be adding to the confusion, so let's put that aside for a moment. Now, what is the trope about? It's about a socially awkward character that ends up in situations that emphasize their awkwardness or nerdiness and portray the situation as charming. Whether or not the audience actually thinks it's cute doesn't really come into it.
The trope isn't ymmv, it's the use of awkward mannerisms and behavior to make a character endearing instead of overbearing. "Sexualized" is probably not the right term but certainly all examples need the characters to become attractive because of those mannerisms. If it was ymmv it would basically be Draco in Leather PantsBut More Specific.
On something as subjective as attractiveness, bringing writer/creator intent into it is just asking for trouble.
Ultimately, it boils down to a simple issue. If the way the audience sees it is part of the concept, it's an audience reaction and thus belongs in YMMV. If we want to keep this a trope, it's going to have to be in-universe (as in one character is attractive to other characters because of his or her innate "dorkiness").
Well, I'm not sure. It seems a lot of people here think that "this gets X specific reaction from the audience" is neither a problem nor a case for YMMV, despite this being a personal appearance trope (and we have had tons of issues with those before).
So, I guess I'll start a crowner soon (probably tomorrow) and see what comes out of it.