Jump to content

Talk:List of female stock characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestions

[edit]

98.124.1.118 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amazons
  • Matriarch
  • Spoiled princess

untitled

[edit]

Where's the list of male stock characters? :) -- Kittenheel (Contributions) 12:47, 8 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Please create a different description for "Wannabe Gangster". I think the Wannabe Gangster type is entirely different from Ugly Sidekick. -- Kittenheel

Merger proposal

[edit]

I think there is considerable overlap between the List of tomboys in fiction article and the tomboy section in this article and they could easily be merged. --neonwhite user page talk 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article seems to be original research and has no sources. The tomboys list is potentially huge but is growing slowly as sources are demanded. The problems of this article need to be attended to before any merger is contemplated. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True but i still think it would help both articles. Or maybe it should be merged with Tomboy? --neonwhite user page talk 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to merge list of tomboys with something then that discussion would be best done at that article. This is not the place since we have no reason to give undue weight to tomboys here. I am therefore removing the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I have made a major cleanup by boiling this down to a list of stereotypes for which there are articles. Listing such articles is the main purpose of a list - helping readers to the detailed information. We don't need to list examples since they will appear in the target articles and will tend to overwhelm this one.

When the list was reduced, many omissions became obvious such as Mother-in-law and Pantomime dame. It seems best to work at this high level while there are still many gaps.

We might go on to list an outstanding example of each type once we have the master list down, for example Mrs. Hudson as the archtypal housekeeper, Widow Twanky as the archetypal pantomime dame or Mary Poppins as the archetypal nanny.

Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been continuing this programme but there is a disconnect with editors who cling to the unclean version. We should try to converge these formats to eliminate the flip-flops. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it exists is of little to no value. You've deferred to the "target articles" by linking, simply, to "Bride," "Aunt," "Virgin," etc? How does that give any information about the stock character types and how they're used in fiction? The target articles are irrelevant to the subject, and this article has no useful information. Cnanninga (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a list. The competing version tries to go into too many directions - listing stock types, describing them, listing examples. It does a poor job because it does not include well-known stock types such as the Bond girl and it is completely unsourced. The way I see it, if a stock type is not notable enough to have its own article then it doesn't belong here. And if it does have its own article then we should not duplicate that. The list should therefore just be a series of links.
I take your point about links to articles like Aunt being debatable. I'll prune my version to try to ensure the links go to articles or sections with some focus on fiction. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the whole concept is debateable, and this article could be accused of being based on a synthesis of different sources. Unless you can present a reliable test for stock characters, I would say this list is likely be deleted as it runs contrary to WP:OR and WP:NOT.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The test is, of course, to cite sources which describe them as such. This does not seem necessary in cases where the linked article obviously describes such a stock character as Pantomime dame. In other cases, such as an (over) protective mother, I have started citing. But you are welcome to take the matter to AFD as I 'm keen to draw in other editors so that the conflict may be resolved. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Au Contrare! It is just that I have used the description of stock character to describe certain Dungeon & Dragons characters, I wondered where you got the idea for the overall concept. However, if you have sources to unify the list. Then I am sure you will not encounter any problems. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forget my last comment, I have had an ephiphany. I think is article is a prime deletion candidate. The reason why I say this is that there is no reliable test to identify that any of these character types are stock characters. Even if Colonel Warden can cite a source which says "Alcoholic Mother is a typical stock character", the lack of definition for "stock character" casts doubt on the relevance of that source to this list. Since this article is likely to be objected to my editor who would claim this list is a misogynist construct designed to denegrate female kind, you might want to come up with a definition of stock character that would suggest that these stereo types genuinely fit the description of a fictional category, rather than being a WP:COATRACK for mysogony or Anti-Semitism. I recomend that Colonel Warden liquidate this list as soon as possible, lest he find that a lot of people will drop opprobrium on him from a great height. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cleanup continues but there are anonymous editors who cling to their old material despite the consensus in the AFD discussion that we were on the right track. We might have the article semi-protected to prevent their disruption but I am content to use their reversions as the opportunity to make another improvement to the new format. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not one of the people reverting it from the just plain list version to the more informative version but I think that the list version is as pointless as making a Dinosaur article that's just a list redirecting people to each article this encyclopedia has on dinosaurs & the version that tries to explain the stock characters is superior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.140.37 (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see List of dinosaurs for a counterexample. This has a preamble which explains the naming structure and then has a long alphabetical list of blue links to articles about each dinosaur. It does not attempt to explain each dinosaur because that would duplicate the content of the linked articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]

This list is in serious need of a rewrite/clean-up. This list of stock characters includes practically every role possible for a female character in fiction. And entries like "queen" or "princess" make no sense. Firstly, those characters are female by default, and secondly, those aren't really stock characters. Now, specific types of queens or princesses may be, but in general, a character having that position does not a stock character make. I may work on it later if no one else does. --CF90 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to defend this "female stock characters" [FSC's] list as a list per se- +as hella useful. Certainly I appreciate it more than this overwhelmingly Antiquarian Stock character article- Yeow. In any form the article needs mass quantities of our contemporary input. And the FSC list will be practically referenced elsewhere- including numerous feminist-allied articles. But I came here as I was tidying an article Rolling Thunder (film) which refers to at least three apparently undefined FSC's.
Unfortunately as I'm not an informed English-Lit person I was compelled to add two terms to the cleaned-up list. These are 'types' which I din't recognize as previously represented in other list entries- as well as unfortunate orphaned women w/o linking WP articles. They are:
> "Good-time girl" (no article yet, links to FSC)
> Party Girl (Stock character)- Actually Party Girl is a disambiguaion page. But there's no def. of any putative FSC.
And then there is
> Texas belle. Who is...? She has a talk page- but no article yet. I supposed 'Texas belle' latterly refers to some proprietary Beauty contest or to these contests' competitors, but somehow I find no appropriate online def of this term. As I've never been to Austin nor crossed the Mason-Dixon, I have no clue what Texas is about beyond 'tude, a record prison population & Republican scandal-dynasties, & as I suspect I rilly belong far beyond Texas-- I have not added 'Texas belle' it to this FSC list. But still it does seem to be some American FSC.
More discussion @ Talk:Rolling Thunder (film)#Undefined terms . . . Thanks! Hilarleo (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

g

Companion

[edit]

Which of the many senses of Companion is meant here? (Please look at that page before answering.) The example is for a sense unique to one franchise. The footnote is useless. Why does the entry exist? —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the OED, a companion is "One who associates with or accompanies another". A good male example might be Dr Watson - the usual companion of Sherlock Holmes. For an example of more general usage, see this review, "A host of stock characters soon join the fray, including the obligatory "reluctant female companion"...". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the literal answer to my first question is: none of them. I'll delink the word. —Tamfang (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article Companion did you find "One who associates with or accompanies another"? Supposing that I do not know the ordinary meaning of the word, will I correctly infer it from that list of special senses? Will I even guess that a more general sense is intended here? Or, considering only the subhead Fiction, do Companion (Doctor Who) + Companion (Firefly) + Heroes of the Lance add up to enlightenment? Will I accurately guess which senses listed do not describe 'female stock characters'? If there is no link I'll turn to a dictionary, and – guess what! – find the intended meaning, which is not listed in Companion. If we must have a link, wikt:companion will do the job better. —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the reluctant companion is a stock character does not imply that companion-in-general is also a stock character. Trophy wife is on the list; Wife is not. —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and as for the footnote

[edit]

How is "Gesture and Expression in Eighteenth-Century Fiction" appropriate here? The first page does not mention any sense of companion. The rest of the article is not freely available. If it were, I'll bet that it's relevant only to lady's companion; a reader hoping for illumination of Sarah Jane Smith would be bewildered! —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Character V. Profession

[edit]

A stock character is generally defined as a template which multiple characters follow. These templates mean that individual characters have similar traits and story arcs. An example would be the spoiled little rich girl who is young, petulant, and and through the course of the story learns a lesson about the real world. We could call this template "The spoiled princess". The individual character in the story doesn't always appear as a princess. Veruca Salt from Charlie and the chocolate factory may fit the template of the spoiled princess even though Veruca was not a princess. By the same token not all princesses are spoiled. Wonder Woman was a princess and yet she does not fit the spoiled princess template.

There are multiple instances on this list where a person is listed as fitting a template because that is their title or profession. A given character may be a goddess or dominatrix as part of their back story but are they really in line with the template story arc of "goddess" or "dominatrix"? I believe that in many cases the answer is no.

Another point is that there are many stock characters listed which overlap one another. A geisha, a prostitute, a madam, and a courtesan are very similar in function and in a given work of fiction they may all have similar story arcs. These should be combined under one stock character title with multiple examples listed.

I may attempt some clean up in the future but was curious as to what other editors thought of this feedback. PPI (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]
  • This chapter of the book Facing difference: race, gender, and mass media, entitled Asian Women in Film, No Joy, No Luck lists and analyzes many sterotypes. Quite probably the other chapters have more. Abductive (reasoning) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A whole book on Femme Fatales. Abductive (reasoning) 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of the limited roles for women in detective stories; [1], analysis continues for several pages. Abductive (reasoning) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody could get ahold of a copy of this book; Bitches, Bimbos, and Ballbreakers: The Guerrilla Girls' Illustrated Guide to Female Stereotypes, it would really help. The blurb says "Whatever life a woman leads, from biker chick to society girl, there's a stereotype she'll have to live down. The Guerrilla Girls, notorious for their outrageous take on women's issues, now tackle the maze of stereotypes that follow women from cradle to grave. With subversive use of information-and great visuals-they explore the history and significance of stereotypes like Old Maid, Trophy Wife, and Prostitute with a Heart of Gold. They tag the Top Types, examine sexual slurs, explain the evolution of butches and femmes, and delve into the lives of real and fictional women who have become stereotypes, from Aunt Jemima to Tokyo Rose to June Cleaver."
I see no evidence that source is about stock characters, as opposed to steriotypes of women. Characters and steriotypes are different things. Please don't assume that because there is a steriotype, there is also a character without a very clear source. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples are all made up

[edit]

All of the examples - every single one of them - is just a wikipedia editors opinion. They must all be sourced or removed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true per checking on Google Books and adding sources. Some of these might be an editor's opinion and in those handful of instance, I would agree after thoroughly checking for ourselves on Google Books and Google Scholar then we should remove them, but a good deal are verifiable and as such myself and others as seen in the section above on this talk page are actively searching for and sourcing those that can be. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not verified a single example yet. The examples are where it is stated as unreferenced fact that "Kate Reed in Anno Dracula" is an "Adventuress." Source or delete. All of em. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you checked for sources? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get assign you work, so you don't get to assign me work, unless you are paying my consulting rate. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic then who are you to tell us what to do? If you are not willing to help out, then it seems counterproductive to just template and remove stuff without checking to see if it can indeed be sourced. --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't source it, I'll delete it. I'm not assigning you work, I'm merely following WP:V. I consider removing unverified information to be "helping out." Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make a whole lot of sense. I am not going to the ends of the earth to find sources after all. You are fully capable of going to Google Books and discovering that T. J. Wray writes, "From Bianca in Shakespeare's Othello to Vivian from (played by Julia Roberts) in the 1990 film Pretty Woman, the hooker with a heart of gold is a common stock character in literature, poetry, and film." SeeT. J. Wray, Good Girls, Bad Girls: The Enduring Lessons of Twelve Women of the Old Testament (2008), 45. Here we have a scholarly source that cites two notable examples of a particular type of female stock character. My concern here is that you imply none of the examples can be sourced. You say "all." I have just proven that some of the examples on this list are indeed referred to as the type of stock character listed and that that type is indeed referred to as a "stock character" in a secondary source book. Adding templates and removing stuff that can be improved (and with relative ease) just creates unnecessary extra work. Why template Vivian in the list, for example, as unreferenced, only to have someone else come along, look for sources and add them as I did when we can remove the unnecessary template or tagging or removal step by doing a two minutes search on Google Books and then adding the source which again only takes but minutes (seconds if you type fast)? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I don't assign others work that I'm not willing to pay them for. If you're willing to pay for my time, I'll look for sources for this article. I'll document my time down to the minute, and give you a very reasonable quote given my current employment status. I do what I can to improve articles in the time I feel like spending on them. You feel free to do what you can. When you're done, I'll just remove all the unverified content. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are volunteers here. If you have no interest in this article, hey, that is fine, but there is no need to interfere with the efforts of others to improve it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not interfering to remove unsourced info. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to have something actively being sourced deleted altogether is. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a unique definition of active. Before I removed those sections, nearly nothing had been done to source them in... forever. The last edit to the article before I removed those sections was almost 8 hours prior. Perhaps we disagree as to the definition of "active." Could you explain what "active," means, in your mind, such that I can accept your definition of "active," or reject it as overblown? Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see below. All of those examples are covered in published books for which we can expand the definitions and add verifiable examples, something I am in the process of doing. I agree that that which is not verifiable and is just an editor's opinion should ultimately be removed. I hope that you will agree with me now that we have the basis for further improvement and that redlinking is not the only option. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, I still support the deletion of this travesty. If it must exist, however, it must be verifiable, regardless of how NN it is. As long as you are actively improving it, however, I'll refrain from deleting the unverified information, so long as you leave the tag noting that such information exists up. When you are done being active, please note that, or just don't edit this article for, say, 36 hours, and I'll remove all the unverified info. Hipocrite (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Travesty"?! We can lay off the hyperbole... Anyway, I do not believe in having others do what I can do myself. As such, I have already removed all of those I am not finding good academic sources for (those that remain in the article are ones for which I have found sources, but now have to add them. To do a good rather than rushed job, i.e. to actually revise the sections and not just toss in copy and paste content, I anticipate it taking about a week to finish. Take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, enough of the members of the list have good secondary sources; these are not our opinions, but of the sources. It takes very little time to Google them up; try searching "Femme Fatale" in Google Books. Then try searching some of the others. Abductive (reasoning) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ones User:A Nobody could not find book sources for

[edit]

Below are ones in the definition section that I could NOT find sufficient book sources to sustain their inclusion. I am posting them below should others be able to find sources to better facilitate ease of possible reinsertion after sourcing into the article. We should only include examples that are outright called a "stock character" in a secondary source. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Girl

[edit]

The California Girl is usually a sun-streaked blonde-haired, tanned, light-eyed girl who only eats health food and loves the environment more than anything else. Examples include:

This is in contrast to Valley girls.

Defensive Hopeless Romantic

[edit]

The Defensive Hopeless Romantic, as a lead character in a Romantic Comedy context, is usually an attractive female that supposedly does not believe in true love, usually from being left heartbroken many times. Some Defensive Hopeless Romantics are players, some are single, and some are just plain man-haters, as a means of defense against any more emotional pain associated with a relationship--that is, until they meet their match. Examples include:

Drama Queen

[edit]

The Drama Queen is an overly self-centered, popular, vulnerable, and dramatic person. Her sensitive side contrasts with her tendency to be controlling. Examples include:

Female Triade

[edit]

The Female Triad is a group of three girls who are mostly seen together. Often used in fantasy fiction as three women in magic (i.e.: witches, deities, etc.) or at least with different "special abilities", like Dylan, Alex and Natalie in Charlie's Angels, but may alternatively be three girls who have different tempers that play off each other. They are usually differentiated by distinct hair colours: blonde, brunette and redhead. The Three Fates and the Weird Sisters are examples of the former; the Plastics from Mean Girls, The Powerpuff Girls and Josie and the Pussycats are examples of the latter. Occasionally qualifies as both, as with the Halliwell Sisters from Charmed.

Inga from Sweden

[edit]

Inga from Sweden, often named Inga or Ulla, is a blonde, tall beautiful girl from Sweden. This comes from the myth that Sweden is a country of sin and free sexuality. Examples include_

Ingénue

[edit]

The Ingénue is a sweet, beautiful, and virginal maiden, in mental or emotional rather than physical danger, usually a target of The Cad. Usually a fawn-eyed innocent. Examples include:

It Girl

[edit]

The It Girl, sometimes a Girl next door or simply the girl that everyone wants to be. She has everything that you want so you tend to envy her, however, she isn't mean as a Queen Bee. Her presence is always appreciated, all the guys want her and all the girls want to be her. Although she looks perfect, she's hardly happy and has a lot of issues. Examples include:

Make Over Girl

[edit]

The Make Over Girl is a female stereotype who is the typical ugly duckling, usually initially ignored, unnoticed or downright ridiculed, at times on account of being homely, but later transforms into a lovely or elegant swan. Examples include:

Motor-mouth

[edit]

The Motor-mouth is a female character who just doesn't know when to shut up, hold her silence or keep a secret, regardless of whatever harm that could befall her or her companions. Either for truth be known, uncontrollable urge, wanting to gain the approval of a certain person or group, or simply because they want to, these women will not simply put a lid on it. Examples include:

Nerd Girl

[edit]

The Nerd Girl differs from the Pretty Ugly Girl by being less wholesomely mainstream. She doesn’t dress fashionably and may be intensely interested in some specialized area or notable for her intelligence. Examples include:

The Nerd Girl is often kind and goodhearted, and may be quite attractive, or have the potential to be so with some “tidying up” like:

Like the Pretty Ugly Girl, she is explicitly contrasted with the beautiful but shallow popular girl.

[edit]

The Popular Girl is a girl who is well-liked and appreciated at her school, but is often mean and prissy to less popular girls. She is usually very attractive and often has sidekicks following her everywhere. In recent times, this character type has gained the appellation Queen Bee. In many high school Cinderella stories, the Popular Girl is the initial love interest of the male lead character--until she reveals her "evil qualities", which is usually midway through the story or near the end. Examples include:

Prep

[edit]

The Prep is a superficial girl whose biggest preoccupation is with wealth and the appearance of wealth. More often WASP, blue-blooded and from aristocratic family. Her characteristics include particular subcultural speech, vocabulary, accent, dress, mannerisms, etiquette, and entitled life view. More generally, preps attend elite college preparatory schools, often boarding schools. Preppy culture idealizes intelligence, athleticism, sociability and wealth and in fashion the term "preppy" is associated not with dramatic designer fashions, but with classic and conservative clothing and accessory brands. Examples include:

Spoiled Princess

[edit]

The Valley Girl is young, rich, and spoiled but usually sweet and not as mean as the Popular Girl, The "Val" is a typically blonde-haired and tan-skinned (not necessarily a natural blonde), bright eyed Caucasian woman, although many other women of different nationalities are devoted to the trend. The typical style of dress was often garishly loud and colorful—a combination of pastel and neon colors, ruffles and lace. Tutus, leggings and bodysuits were more rare, but represented the extremes of the trend. The 21st century version typically carries such technologies as cell phones, iPods, etc. A typical Valley Girl is usually considered to be attractive and sexually promiscuous. Examples include:

The Jewish-American Princess (JAP) or Black American Princess (Bap). It is referring to a stereotypical spoiled somewhat snobby young, rich, wealthy, materialistic and selfish girl. A pampered female of African American or Jewish American descent born to upper-middle- or upper-class families. Her life experiences give her a "sense of entitlement" and she is accustomed to the best and nothing less. Examples include:

Ugly Sidekick or Wannabe

[edit]

The Ugly Sidekick or Wanna Be is a female character that isn't necessarily ugly, but is referred to as such for being inferior in looks to the Popular Girl. The Ugly Sidekick idolizes and emulates the Popular Girl in manner of speech, dress and attitude. Out of envy and with a goal to someday outrun The Popular Girl in the rat race, the Ugly Sidekick has a tendency to backstab her idol. Examples include:

Warrior Heroine

[edit]

The Warrior Heroine is a female hero who has many characteristics of traditional male heroic stock characters. The Warrior Heroine is sometimes prejudiced in her line of work by misogynist male characters, but always manages to come out on top. Many Warrior Heroines are Adventuresses. Some are also Femme Fatales or Tomboys, but do not necessarily have to be either. If the Warrior Heroine is of royalty, she is also a Warrior princess. Examples include:

Sometimes, if caught in a turn of events, this warrior heroine will leave her wild, spiteful, cold ways if rescued by a handsome/main character/newly introduced male and transform into a loyal, loving Barbie doll for her new crush. Shampoo from Ranma 1/2 again is an excellent example for this, but another great example is the Native American Princess "Tiger Lily" from J.M. Barrie's [the author] & Disney's version of Peter Pan.

Path to improvement

[edit]

The following have potential as examples as the ones for which book sources most seem to exist for the definitions section:

Becasue the above have the best available sources, I strongly urge focusing on them first. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

[edit]

Just a note that, if the merge goes ahead, I'd mark all these characters as "female" in the table, so that we can easily separate out the female ones any time we want them. Also, the stuff that doesn't appear in the table I'd keep, although I might move it to articles such as "Widow (stock character)". --TimNelson (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be a category, rather than a list?

[edit]

This looks to me like a category than someone created in list format by mistake. No such list can ever be complete, and it's questionable whether references or examples are needed here when most of the listed articles contain them anyway. Wouldn't this information be better conveyed with a category than a list? Robofish (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tough Grandmother

[edit]

I think that this should be added, but I am having dificulties finding sources. A tough grandma would be an old lady, usually a grandmother, who is really strong, athletic, and a good fighter. Examples include Gran'ma Ben in the Bone Comics and The Grandmother from Hoodwinked. `99.174.92.174 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_female_stock_characters&oldid=1212516587"