Does Not Illustrate: Ambiguously Bi

The page in question is, as said, Ambiguously Bi.

The image in question does not fit, as it shows the exact moment in the story where the character's sexuality ceases to be ambiguous, and becomes a stated thing. At this point, she has a boyfriend, and is claiming to also have an interest in girls. Additionally, the background behind her is that of the bisexual flag, which the author uses to signify sexuality across her work, and there is also Word of God from the author confirming that the character is indeed bisexual, which was done as a response to the page this image originates from. There is nothing ambiguous about it, and so it doesn't fit the trope it represents.

Edited by TheLovecraftian on Dec 23rd 2020 at 9:43:40 AM

Going ahead and opening this one. The pic was selected here. We do have This Image Is Not an Example...I could go either way.

Keep Until Better Image Suggested.

The primary reason I personally think this should be changed is that it runs counter to the author's own intentions. Her works, especially more recently (which includes the period this picture was made) have been focusing heavily on making LGBTQ+ characters more represented, and that includes both the characters present in the picture. So having it represent Ambiguously Bi feels to me, even if not by intention, like it gives an idea the author is specifically trying to avoid.

I find it would be better to keep it without an image than keeping one in a situation like that.

Edited by TheLovecraftian on Dec 27th 2020 at 7:11:03 AM

The fact that this is not an example (and as noted, images don’t need to be examples) was already covered in the previous thread, so I’m voting Keep Until Better Image Suggested on what’s otherwise a decent image for a hard-to-illustrate topic.

This is tough to illustrate in a static image, and This Image Is Not an Example exists, so Keep Until Better Image Suggested from me.

This Image Is Not an Example is precisely the issue here, though. This image is specifically an example of the opposite thing the page is saying. The character is explicitly saying she likes both, a thing that's only not being shown because the two panels in it are being used out of context.

And in doing so, it's also misrepresenting the comic and the character in it. People dealing with the administrative part of Tv Tropes may know images are not necessarily examples, but that's not everyone who looks at a page, and those people are then going to get a wrong impression of the work this image is from. I'd say the image there is causing more problems by being there than there would be if there wasn't a picture at all.

I'd support keeping the page without a picture, especially since it's not an article that requires a picture anyway.

The vast majority of the people reading the page don't know that and don't need to know that. What mainly matters is that it *illustrates*. That index page already lists tons of pages that aren't examples at all, because illustration is the priority.

Edited by Synchronicity on Dec 27th 2020 at 5:26:57 AM

Even if the thing it's illustrating is the opposite of what is actually happening, is only an illustration by a specific interpretation that requires taking it out of context, and goes directly opposite to the intention of the author of showing more explicitly LÇGBTQ+ representation in her work?

I'm not familiar with the work, but from these two panels my impression is that she is explicitly bi, so I'd say pull.

Yes.

Well then we might as well use any image we find. That doesn't seem like a good use of image to me. You could easily pluck an image from any work and use it contextless in any page.

I mean...here's the thing you need to understand about images. They need to be illustrative of the trope first and foremost. I can see an argument to be made that the dialogue in this scene isn't at all ambiguous, which makes it a poor illustration.

However, concerns about creator intent, in-universe context, and the work's fanbase aren't relevant in discussing if an image should be used for a page-image, because 9 times out of 10, all we need is something that depicts the trope at a glance, even if that depiction only exists out of context.

Well... I have issues with that, but ok.

I would propose, then, that we use this image◊ for Stupid Sexy Flanders, since it's literally the image of that moment, and move the image currently on Stupid Sexy Flanders to Ambiguously Bi instead, since it represents that moment much better.

Especially since, as petersohn exemplified, the current image is more easily interpreted as it's actual meaning, which is the character confirming herself as bisexual.

Edited by TheLovecraftian on Dec 27th 2020 at 8:45:06 AM

Like I said in the previous thread, there's a difference between "implying" and "ambiguous". Even out of context, this is just implied bisexuality.

I feel it's better to have no image than a misleading one, especially on a trope that sees as much misuse as Ambiguously Bi.

See, that reason I can get behind. But have got to chill.

On a similar topic, is the quote on the page really Ambiguously Bi?

Wait, what? I just pointed out that it's weird the Stupid Sexy Flanders image isn't on it's namesake page. I'm sorry if I came across as rude, that wasn't my intention.

Agreed, that's a fair criticism of the current. But demanding that an image should be pulled because it isn't an example ain't it. The index functions as a policy page; we aren't going to change that because OP doesn't like this one, and we're not going to pull the image *just because* it isn't an example .

Edited by Synchronicity on Dec 27th 2020 at 5:50:31 AM

What's the point of having images if they're not examples of the things they're there to illustrate, though?

It is explained in This Image Is Not an Example, which I *keep bringing up*. Please read through that description.

Because "namesakes" and "quality illustrations" are two very different things, and Stupid Sexy Flanders already has a good image. The reason I think you need to relax is because you seem very adamant about changing the images here but you don't seem to really understand our image policies and why we do what we do.

We can remove images on the grounds of:

• Not being illustrative
• Being poor quality
• Being copyright violations
• Being better fit for another page, or perhaps just not being better than the suggested replacement

But we can't replace images because they aren't in-universe examples, simply because images are intended to illustrate, not to be examples. For a run-down explanation though, if someone not familiar with the work can look at the image and get an understanding of what the trope means and how it's used, then the image is serving its purpose. It's not about being 100% accurate, just about illustrating tropes well.

Edited by WarJay77 on Dec 27th 2020 at 6:54:32 AM

Ok. I'm sorry if I mistook the point I should make. I disagree with the policies, but that's not an issue I should be bringing up here. So, in according to what you've said:

This image is not illustrative. It shows a moment of a character confirming herself bisexual. Petersohn, a few posts above, showed that it can be interpreted as such even without the context of the comic. Thus, I would suggest it's a better idea to leave the page without that image, than to keep it there.

Edited by TheLovecraftian on Dec 27th 2020 at 8:58:36 AM

Close?

I am in the "respect the creator's intention camp".

Suggestion 1

Suggestion 2

Edited by eroock on Jan 3rd 2021 at 6:42:12 AM