I have a question for Randomized Title Screen. This may sound pedantic about some terms, but bear with me for a bit.
How flexible or strict is it, actually? Is the trope strictly about title screens? Or is it flexible enough to include menu screens as well? Because in video games, these two concepts are sometimes different (and they don't necessarily overlap).
I was about to update and crosswick the Devil May Cry 5 example to its game page (it's true that the menu screen randomly changes in New Game Plus, btw)... though I wonder if it's within the trope's scope, because that game has separate title and menu screens.
Nothing in the current description mentions "menu screen(s)" specifically, yet there are examples on the list (apart from DMC5) that include them. With a simple search, others with "menu screen" examples include Nightmare Realm, Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Bambi II, Home on the Range, Star Wars, and Wii U. Looking at the page's history, several of these examples were added when the page was freshly-created from YKTTW... so I assume they were "approved" in the first batch of examples.
At best, a part of the description has to be updated to mention menu screens as well, not just title screens.
With Great Power, Comes Great Motivation
Considered doing a rewrite of the description of Platonic Boy/Girl Heroes; the current one feels more skewed towards saying that platonic matchups are only done to broaden appeal. While that can be a factor in it, I don't think that has to be the main reason, so I tried to explain other potential factors.
Please let me know if there's anything I should add or correct. Both versions are below:
So why is it done so often in fiction?
One reason is to expand the potential audience. While some types of stories appeal primarily to one sex or the other, there are many types of stories, such as horror or adventure, that have appeal to both sexes. To try to rein in kids who might not want to read a story about a member of the opposite sex, a character of their own gender is included. Sometimes a story that appeals primarily to one sex will include a character of the opposite sex to expand an otherwise limited audience.
Another reason is because many authors simply like seeing the way kids react when paired up with the opposite sex. It can be fun to see the interactions of two people who at times see the opposite sex as being like space aliens.
While groups of friends may be a mixture of three boys and a girl or vice versa, or an equal mix of members of both sexes, that isn't this trope, despite often being done for the same reason. This trope only refers to when a single boy and single girl are the main characters of the story. Why? Because that's far less likely (unless they're siblings) than a group of mixed gender friends, and therefore more starkly obvious, more clearly done for the sake of the story.
Note that the relationship must be platonic. Romantic relationships don't count, since those involve a more believable reason for two opposite sex kids to get together. Siblings don't count either, since that's far more common in real life and less likely to feel "forced" for the sake of getting a girl and a boy together.
This sometimes leads to a Toy Ship from the fandom. Compare Platonic Life-Partners, which this trope also falls into if the boy and girl have known each other for a long time.
Named after Blogger Beware's tally of the "platonic boy/girl relationship" in every single Goosebumps novel ever.
So why is it done so often?
One reason is because many authors simply like seeing the way kids react when paired up with the opposite gender. It can be fun to see the interactions of two people who at times see their counterparts as being like space aliens, especially if their interests intersect at times. As for why it's kept platonic, romance is typically thought of as something kids avoid until they're older, so the kids wouldn't consider it when they interact.
Another reason is to expand the potential audience. While some types of stories appeal primarily to one demographic or the other, there are many types of stories, such as horror or adventure, that have broader appeal to both. To try to rein in kids who might not want to read a story about a member of the opposite sex, a character of their own gender is included. Sometimes a story that appeals primarily to one demographic will include a character of the opposite to expand an otherwise limited audience.
When done with older characters, authors may also do this to defy the expectation of mixed-gender duos needing to have a Token Romance. Young boys and girls are commonly expected to play with kids of their own gender, so if a boy approaches a girl or vice versa, it's often thought to be for a romantic reason; this is usually under the heteronotmative assumption that the kids would be attracted to the opposite gender in a way that a group of two boys or two girls wouldn't be. By portraying a healthy platonic relationship, it can open up opportunities for the readers to find things they may have in common or become more understanding of the other.
While mixed-gender groups do often appear in media and can be platonic, they are usually not considered examples due to the characters not being expected to have romantic feelings for every member of the group the way that close duos would. Similarly, this is also the reason why certain mixed-gender duos such as Sibling Teams or characters with differing orientations may get around this stigma; since they have a "reason" to not be attracted to each other, the pair staying platonic is acceptable.
This sometimes leads to a Toy Ship from the fandom. Compare Platonic Life-Partners, which this trope also falls into if the boy and girl have known each other for a long time.
Named after Blogger Beware's tally of the "platonic boy/girl relationship" in every single Goosebumps novel ever.
RJ Savoy
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I think it's better, but avoid "they are usually not considered examples". Trope descriptions have to be clear on what counts as an example, for editors to know.
Qipao has a sentence that feels a little wrong to me:
The pothole to Unfortunate Implications seems wrong, and not only because it's already linked in the same paragraph; simply put, what is being implied? It also seems a bit unfair to baldly state that the popularity comes entirely from the worst period of their mutual history. I would rephrase it as:
We could also just delete it. I find no mention of any controversy about the time of import on Wikipedia's article, which is much longer than ours.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
Trans Siberian Anarchestra (it/they)
That it fetishises Chinese period clothing from the enslavement of comfort women
by the Japanese military.
I don't know if you'll find an offsite source alleging a connection (Wikipedia wouldn't help, it's outside their scope), but I'm sure that's the intended reference.
Edited by Noaqiyeum on Oct 5th 2023 at 10:22:15 AM
The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable
Officially intimidated
The pothole to UI should be removed on the basis that Flame Bait pages cannot be linked to.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I think they're allowed in descriptions, just not elsewhere?
Officially intimidated
Oh, my bad.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
RJ Savoy
Looking back in the history, it used to be worse, seeming to say that the sexualisation of the qipao lead to the mass rapes in Nanking.
If anyone can provide some backing for any controversy regarding portrayals of the qipao by Japan, it would help a lot. Otherwise I'm thinking of cutting most of that sentence, instead noting that the fashion is most associated with the interwar period, and fiction set in this time and place often touches on the political turmoil and the occupation that came after.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
Har har har
Hi. I originally asked this question on the relevant trope's discussion page, but then I found out that this thread exists, so I'll ask my question here as well.
The first paragraph on the article for Paralyzing Fear of Sexuality says:
... Except the rest of the article (including and especially the paragraph right after this one) clarifies that a person can have any number of reasons to be nervous about sex, with Internalized Categorism being far from the only one. They could just be nervous, they could be insecure, they could be facing rape-induced trauma, et cetera.
But the opening paragraph seems to hammer in the point that this trope arises from people being judgemental prudes who just hate sex, despite the rest of the article seemingly saying that this isn't the case.
So which is it?
Please visit the "AITA" forum game
RJ Savoy
That article was made by Xzenu, an editor known for launching tropes with all kinds of writing issues. I agree it should acknowledge the various causes, and maybe not start off with "Alice is..."
Come to think of it, the title may be too narrow, too. Some of them are not afraid of sex, but rather disgusted by it from some association.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
RJ Savoy
Real Men Hate Sugar has a description that is both too long and a bit hyperbolic:
Then a later one-sentence paragraph admits this is only true in some quarters of Japan.
I suggest cutting back a lot of the commentary to simply note that the attitude exists in Japan, to varying degrees, and there is some in the West regarding drinks. Also the association with mother's milk seems speculative, I would cut it to being a possible cause instead of revealed truth.
I invite any input.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
Disasturbator
I support cutting the sentence
New theme music also a box
RJ Savoy
I cut back a lot of the description to leave what matters.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
the Retromancer
Engaging Chevrons uses a single example as the entire description.
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Flanderization goes on and on, and it doesn't need to because the trope is succinctly described in the very first paragraph. At most, the first three paragraphs covers everything you need for the trope itself, with the seventh paragraph covering the trope relationships. Absolutely everything else is just analysis. Certainly everything from "Here's a list of cases of Flanderization:" needs to be on an Analysis page, but this could easily include paragraphs 4-6 from the trope description as well.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
Engaging Chevrons should probably go on the TRS list. I can't see how it's not Padding But More Specific.
Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Oct 22nd 2023 at 3:38:55 AM
I found this little note at the end of Forceful Kiss's description a bit odd and saw it was added by surgoshan back in June of this year. I couldn't find any discussion supporting the addition, so I'm bringing it up here to see if it should stay or go.
Sounds like Righting Great Wrongs to me, even if I don't disagree.
I think it should just be cut. I think tropers can be counted on to know not to commit sexual assault.
Hollywood Apocrypha is a Self-Demonstrating Article, and thus is very difficult to read. I think that that the current description should be moved into the Self Demonstrating namespace, and a proper definition be written for the main article.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.
Is being a Green Thumb, a usual part of being a druid, and therefore should be listed as a typical power? Or is that mainly due to Dungeons & Dragons influence and therefore possibly doesn't count?
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
I don't know a lot about DnD druids, but near as I can tell, that (and derivative works) are the only place where druids are portrayed as plant manipulators.
I found this sentence on Drop the Cow:
"For the less zany versions of punctuation via vertical impact, see Flower-Pot Drop and Anvil on Head (which incorporates items like the 16-ton weight). For the anime equivalent of these, see Drop the Washtub."
I'm not a fan of it, since it seems to imply that Drop the Cow is about literally dropping cows on people, which contributes to misuse of the trope.
Any objections to me retooling it to:
"For cases of items literally falling on characters, often for comedic effect, see Flower-Pot Drop and Anvil on Head (which incorporates items like the 16-ton weight). For the anime equivalent of these, see Drop the Washtub."
Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Nov 2nd 2023 at 6:49:47 AM
RJ Savoy
Agree, though now I'm wondering about misuse (or rather underuse).
Have changed it.
I can do a wick check later. I've already come across and changed a few misuses (including one pothole that seemed to use it for "cows exist").
I personally find it funny, though that's because my friend and I IRL had both developed an inside joke relating to this song since it came on constantly at work (and yes, nothing in it counts as irony). But I agree it's a needlessly bashy reference to make and has no actual purpose.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness