Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
I'd actually question the entire example tbh, I mean the characters are definitely made to be campy in a way that touches upon Ambiguously Gay coding. Ursula was based on a literal drag queen. People aren't saying that the characters are literally gay, but that they're given stereotypically gay (or at least camp) mannerisms, and the fanbase notices these things.
I'm not sure what they're trying to say in the added sentence, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an "accusation" because I can't even tell what the accusation would actually be.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallRegardless of what it's trying to say is accurate or not, it seems not misunderstanding of the work, but their misunderstanding LGBT terminology that they don't realized gay isn't a catchall term.
That goes to a place such I say the whole entry is better off cut. Any objection?
If I'm honest, I'd say the addition seems to be trying to articulate what Warjay said. I agree with removing the example, since it feels like a very "um, actually" misunderstanding of what "queer coded villain" means as pertains to a Disney villain.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faerTo me it reads like the original example fails to understand what it means to be "something coded" and the addition tried to say that doing on-screen het attraction doesn't disqualify the coding but failed to tell it clearly. Plus one to cutting the whole example, but I have no antiqueer agenda suspicions.
Edited by AdannorSorry if it looked like I misunderstood Queer-Coding here, or seemed antiqueer in anyway. Since TV Tropes has a unique vocabulary, I was trying to make it clear that a character can be canonically straight and/or cis but still be queer-coded by Academic standards.
^Understood. It seems more a difference in terminology issue than a factual issue that Common Knowledge is about.
I'm thinking of adding it back in, just rephrased so it doesn't come across as confusing, or antiqueer or anti-intellectual. I think some people misunderstand what Queer-Coding actually means, thinking it means a character is literally meant to be gay rather than just reflecting gay stereotypes (or stereotypes of other queer identities for that matter).
We've got similar examples for Comic Strip/Peanuts, Arrested Development and SpongeBob SquarePants after all.
Well, no, I still think the example itself is wrong; it is written from the standpoint that queer coding means "they're meant to be literally gay", and is "debunking" that they're queer coded at all. It's inherently flawed.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall"other iffy examples are up" doesn't mean anything, other than that those should also be examined. Also, checking the Spongebob one now and it's not at all similar to this example. It doesn't talk about "queer coding" at all.
I genuinely think you're missing my point, honestly. The example is wrong. It's not an issue of people "misunderstanding the term", the example itself misunderstands the term and is debunking their own strawman.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallMaybe the actual Common Knowledge is that some villains are queer coded in terms of attraction and not flamboyance but I don't know if that's true. Everyone knows that Jafar has a goal to marry a princess for one example and most discussions of the queer coding refer to mannerisms even more than Ho Yay.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe."It's just some people misunderstand the term is all I'm saying."
Yeah but you shouldn't correct that with addendums to the entry, because then somebody else could counter you with another addendum and it will never stop. Repair, Don't Respond is a thing. If an entry is wrong from the root, change or remove the whole thing. Such as the example in OP was removed.
If you have come across other entries that try to disqualify queer coding because of on-screen het actions, please point them out specifically?
Edited by AdannorOther examples include this under the Comic Strips folder on Common Knowledge "Marcie and Peppermint Patty being a couple has been a recurring joke for decades due to Marcie's high respect for Peppermint Patty and Patty's tomboyishness. They've both been shown to have crushes on Charlie, which debunks the concept of them being exclusively lesbian (which is what the idea usually goes with)".
This one from Western Animation: "Many often consider Velma to be a lesbian, with Mystery Incorporated and Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo! portraying her as such, with people confirming it to be canon. However, the Mystery Gang are malleable characters that can be changed and reimagined in any number of ways as culture changes and evolves. While Velma being a lesbian is true for those shows, her sexuality can change from interpretation to interpretation. In fact, Velma (HBO) (which came out after Trick or Treat Scooby-Doo) portrays the character as being bisexual; dating Daphne while also having a secret crush on Fred and a minor one with Norville in the Season 1 finale."
I know Velma was based on a character from The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, Zelda Gilroy. The woman who played her, Sheila James, is a lesbian in real life. So I know the misconception partially came from that.
And this one from SpongeBob SquarePants: "SpongeBob and Patrick are sometimes claimed to be a gay couple, by both the LGBT Fanbase and Anti-LGBT Moral Guardians. While there is a lot of Ho Yay in the series, both SpongeBob and Patrick have been shown to be attracted to (or at least had Ship Tease with) several female characters"
Full disclosure, I was the one who added the SpongeBob example back when it was on the Western Animation page.
I guess we should check these over. I wasn't the one who added the bit about Queer-Coding though, Imperial Majesty XO was. The original version didn't mention Queer-Coding at all. The original version read as follows: "People frequently claim many Disney Villains are Ambiguously Gay, including Ursula, Jafar and Scar. However, each of them demonstrates attraction to members of the opposite sex, either in the films themselves or in Expanded Universe material, making them more Ambiguously Bi or Camp Straight".
Those are misconceptions about the material (which may be a better fit for Fanon as not sure if widespread outside fandom) as opposed to the use of Queer-Coding.
Imperial Majesty XO may have added the Queer-Coding part which had it's own issues, but it brought attention to the issues with the original.
Just realized Queer-Coding is a specific academic field, but Common Knowledge should be obvious to those watching the work without such specialized knowledge as the specificness means it's not common enough to qualify for "Common".
Yeah, it feels more like a meme than anything. Same with Velma, tbh, just as how people characterize Shaggy and Scooby as stoners and say that Fred and Daphne are banging. Maybe in some continuities it's true, but people don't seriously believe it's always true.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSo I guess they might need removing as well.
There’s also some on the Live-Action TV page. Do these need removing or can they stay due to context?
“Everybody knows that Tobias Fünke of Arrested Development is a closeted gay man who's hilariously in denial about his sexuality, and he's in a loveless relationship with a straight woman because he's not ready to come out. Except he's not. Mitchell Hurwitz has pretty consistently stated that Tobias is actually straight, and that he's just oblivious to the fact that he often says things that lead people to assume that he's gay. While Tobias and Lindsay do have a deeply unhealthy and loveless marriage, their marital issues have nothing to do with Tobias' sexuality. Season 4 makes this somewhat more explicit: Tobias ends up dating a woman named Debrie Bardeaux after he and Lindsay finally get a divorce, and they have a pretty obvious mutual attraction.“
“ A common misconception from Friends is that Chandler was originally going to be gay. Granted, Chandler has had his share of moments where he's Mistaken for Gay, but he has never shown any hints of being gay himself”
Under Sesame Street “The idea that Ernie and Bert were meant to be a gay couple. They weren't designed with any sexuality in mind, and were put in the show both for comedy and to show that people with different personalities can still be (platonic) friends. One longtime writer for the show was gay, and came up with some of their interactions based on interactions he had with his husband, but he didn't see the characters as a married couple”
^ I was just trying to bring up other examples that may need removing as the same. I guess the Tobias Funke entry can stay but the others need removing.
I added the "Ambiguously Gay Disney Villains" example to the Common Knowledge Animated Films page because I'd seen a lot of clickbait articles and videos about "Disney Characters you didn’t know were gay" so some people clearly take queer-coding literally, or don't explain it properly to laymen.

Tropers/tyrannobubs3110 added this last sentence to CommonKnowledge.Animated Films:
Besides Natter, I'm not sure what it's saying. That academic queer coding dosen't distinguish between gay and other LGBT orientations, or unintentional subtext, unlike this wiki? If so that accusation seems like a red flag.
Either way, that they're bringing this wiki into the issue seems something worth bringing attention to.
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught