Wow, they totally slaughtered that one. I just redirected it to Relationship Upgrade. Whether the couple is gay or not isn't anywhere near as important as they were making it. It is about relationships.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Ummm... Relationship Text Upgrade wasn't strictly about homosexual couples. It was about relationships going from subtextual to textual. Most of them weren't actual an Relationship Upgrade. They were always in a relationship. They just finally came out and said it in text. It's more likely to happen to gay characters as a result as the stigma against them is slowly melting.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
somewhat related Image Pickin' discussion
It seems like Relationship Text Upgrade is actually quite a bit different than Relationship Upgrade, and thus shouldn't have such a similar name, or be a redirect. Oh well!
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
When I think of the a Relationship Text Upgrade, I think of Willow and Tara. They were actually already in a relationship for a few months but it was only implied that they were until the relationship came out to the viewers. That specific point would have been their Relationship Text Upgrade. It certainly can't be a Relationship Upgrade as it's not a point where the two characters progressed from friends to lovers as they were already lovers at that point.
and that's how Equestria was made!
Subtext doesn't belong to gay people. Everybody else gets to use it, too.
A relationship is presented as subtext for some period, it is then made text-text. That is the trope. May as well just start over on this one with a new title and a better description.
I'll drop that redirect.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
And the trope didn't say it was only gay people. Just that it was one of the most common implementations and the examples seem to agree.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
No, it had been chopped down to be only about gay folks, and all the examples had been pared down to just the gay ones.
edited 30th Nov '10 12:06:04 AM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Isn't because it is more common with gay people? Because media is more likely to hide their relationship then hetero partners.
Could we at least have a posting of the old trope page before it got nuked? It's a lot more difficult to debate the trope without any of the original text on hand.
I'm certain there were heterosexual examples on that page before it got nuked. I'm also certain the trope text simply said it was more common for homosexual couples, not that it was exclusive to them.
If the trope name is confusing because of its similarity to Relationship Upgrade, we could have simply changed the name. If the trope text gives people the impression that the trope was exclusive to homosexual couples, then we could have simply changed the text to make it clearer that it's not exclusive.
and that's how Equestria was made!
Cure Candy
Huh? I dont remember there being only gay examples there. I remember seeing Odo and Kira from DS 9 there a few days ago.
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
The page history seems to show plenty of hetero examples. It's missing the entire page, but the ones that are on the history have them.
edited 30th Nov '10 12:58:11 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI found the original trope text from the Google's cache:
The point within a series where a couple goes from merely being implied (or Subtext) to being firmly entrenched in canon. This is mostly used for homosexual couples, probably to ease the audience into accepting them as a couple.
Not to be confused with Relationship Upgrade (although in homosexual cases, this can overlap). If a homosexual couple gets outed outside the series run, it's Word Of Gay. If there's no buildup, this can be a case of Suddenly Sexuality.
Considering this trope does occur in fiction, is a separate trope from Relationship Upgrade, and had at least three good examples, what will it take to get this trope re-instated?
and that's how Equestria was made!Just YKTTW a new one with a better title? You have the cache, apparently.
Pros: different name (name was such a big problem, it caused the article to be cut! whoops), input on title/description/examples from the Hive Mind, don't need permission, can start right away, not sure alternatives (e.g. restoring the old one) are even possible...
Cons: None? Slightly more work than asking someone else to restore the old one, I guess.
You could even skip YKTTW and just launch a new article. I think the outside input (pre-launch) might help though.
edited 30th Nov '10 6:30:05 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Alright, what I'll do is YKTTW the trope again and set up the original page to be a redirect to the new trope page. Any ideas on what would be a good trope name?
It seems like it would also be a good idea to put the old page back at least temporarily so that the wicks don't end up getting deleted because of being redlinked.
edited 30th Nov '10 6:38:15 PM by CBanana
and that's how Equestria was made!Alright, started re-launch here. However, I'm having trouble think of an alternative title. Any suggestions on how to improve the trope text would also be welcome.
As long I'm not stepping on anyone's toes, I'll try to put the trope back up to it's original page but just temporarily so that the trope doesn't lose anymore wicks because of the redlinks that are occurring.
and that's how Equestria was made!
Diagonalizing The Matrix
I'm not so sure about this trope. It relies heavily on "subtext". To give you an idea of how trusting we can be with letting fans have free reign interpreting this, I would like to note that "subtext" was the very favorite word of hardcore Harry/Hermione fandom until the very bitter end and beyond. It's shorthand for "Your mileage may vary depending on the model of Shipping Goggles you're wearing".
I'd be more keen on keeping this trope if someone could point out an aspect that sets it apart and isn't going to be debated back and forth all over the page by angry shippers in gigantic natter-fests.
edited 30th Nov '10 10:28:06 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
- this = subtextual relationship -> canon relationship
- Relationship Upgrade = canon relationship -> "deeper" canon relationship (e.g. dating to going steady, boyfriend/girlfriend to husband/wife, etc)
A good way to tell if it's this trope and not relationship upgrade is if they talk about having been in a relationship for a while. I know that when Sarah and Grissom on CSI were taken from subtext to text they mentioned that they'd been together for years.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickTruthfully, I don't follow Harry Potter so unfortunately I have no idea what you're talking about. A little bit of background perhaps?
and that's how Equestria was made!
There was a good deal of red herring subtext indicating Harry and Hermione were very close friends at the age where boys and girls start getting interested in each other. Harry ended up with Ginny and Hermione got a Relationship Upgrade with Ron instead.
Not sure how it's relevant.
BTW, I'm a chick.
Diagonalizing The Matrix
God knows I don't intend to resurrect HP ship debate here; I brought that up as some sort of canonical example people can at least agree on, and if it's not I'll drop it. The reason I did was that it has extensive Word of God to back it up. The author has come out on four separate occasions to say that Harry and Hermione are just platonic, there's nothing there and this should have been obvious by the time Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire came out. So no "red herrings" and no anything. You may be thinking of the movies, where they did take that angle and run with it for a while.
In spite of this there was a very active fandom which advocated that Harry and Hermione were not only possible together but that there was practically overwhelming evidence in the series "subtext" that they were going to happen. Like: She gave him toast. They rode a flying beast together at some point. This wasn't some sort of fringe lunacy movement, this was the other major school of thought in what's a contender for the biggest bout of Ship-to-Ship Combat in history.
A Lot of fans were convinced that this "subtext" was rife and ample, and it turns out nobody ever meant to put it there. That's justifiable with claiming Death of the Author or what-have-you, but it's the definition of YMMV, and we shouldn't be basing a trope on it if we can help it. The case study above should demonstrate that any lack of development is subtextual progression to a sufficiently adamant shipper, and by having the crux of the trope rest on this concept we're just asking for trouble.
There might be a valid trope here, but it needs a different definition to capture the right parts of it.
edited 1st Dec '10 4:37:45 AM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to
I don't see the problem with subtext—keep in mind, the key point of this trope is upgrade. Once the relationship has been made canon, all those little subtext-y moments that everyone debated over (as opposed to obvious UST moments) are canon examples.
Cases like the Harmonians claiming their ship was there all along are non-applicable, because the relationship never upgrades. They were just dreaming it up. In that light, the trope should make it clear that it's only after the relationship is made canon does the trope apply. Speculation is not allowed.
Cure Candy
I think Kira and Odo is probably a better example they went the whole path from trusted friends then to a one sided subtext crush (was never intended to be this way at the start it was something the actors played with) brought to light via the female changling, things came to a head when they have an argument over the fact that kira might date shakar and in the middle of like 100 people "why don't you kiss me?!" Which he does then it becomes full on text (which is this trope) and next season the 2 are kinda dating (which is the other trope).
edited 1st Dec '10 5:44:16 AM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
LOL. as a h/hr shipper i will keep myself out of that particular argument, but i will just say that i think subtext is always subjective... unless it has a Word of God fiat.
also want to point out that the definition of Relationship Upgrade is undergoing its own repair (thread here), as the definition doesn't say anything resembling what's been mentioned, it just says "not lovers to lovers." so i don't think it's a good idea to compare to that one right now.
all of his said, i do, however, think there's such a thing where a relationship goes beyond subtext and into the actual text, but without being outright stated. that's what Official Couple is, isn't it? they don't tell me syaoran and sakura started dating, but everybody knows there was a Relationship Upgrade there. if CLAMP released a new chapter of CCS today and some character in it said "well, back when syaoran and sakura started going steady four years ago...", that would be a Relationship Text Upgrade. does that make any sense?
Was the article always like this? Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't.
Apparently, someone decided this trope ought to be strictly about homosexual couples, despite the trope (despite the description trying to make it seem so) not lending itself to such a specific focus at all.
As a result, it has a fairly small fraction of the examples I remember it happening, and is generally much shorter.
A brief glance at the past few pages shows that there was no discussion here about it... am I going crazy? Was the trope always like that and I just didn't remember? If so, it shouldn't've been, but in any case I could swear it wasn't.
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.