Examples referring to other examples

I've been here a while and I keep seeing things like this "This can happen to bad guys, too. In the Danny Phantom episode "The Ultimate Enemy", we learn that—at the age of about twenty-four—Danny is now an evil half-Vlad, half-Danny mutant who has taken over Amity Park and rules it with an iron fist. And by "rules," of course, we mean "punches." Hell, as the movie starts, it's heavily implied that Amity Park is the only place he hasn't taken over. Managing that is merely his Establishing Character Moment. Similarly, in "A Sitch in Time", Kim Possible villain Shego has taken over the entire world at the ripe young age of about thirty-five or forty (possibly). It helped that she used time travel to amass a fortune and break up Team Possible. At that point, she and Danny are both ridiculously successful—though not, you know, in a good way." (sorry, don't know how to get it to display right) and I was curious what the policy on referring to other examples in an example was. Should the Kim Possible entry not include a reference to Danny Phantom, or is this ok? EDIT: added quotation marks to make the example readable

edited 10th Apr '13 7:29:11 PM by raithe

Each work that examples are given from should be able to stand alone, without the reader needing to have read any other example on the page.

In that case, the sentence that starts "Similarly..." should be removed. That sort of opening assumes that the order the examples are in is fixed and won't change and that the example immediately before it will always be the same.

The Kim Possible section should also be broken out into its own example. Kim Possible and Danny Phantom are two different works and should each have their own example.

edited 10th Apr '13 8:08:04 PM by Madrugada

Agree with the general principle, but there's one case I've seen a few times that seems all right to me, and I'd like a second opinion. When a work has been adapted to another medium, I've occasionally seen the example for the adaptation refer to the example for the original. Like, under film, it could say "Foo: see Literature." And then under Literature, there's an entry for Foo with a detailed description.

Ideally you wouldn't do that. If it's the only alternative to multiple redundant walls of text, then it's at least somewhat acceptable. What I try to avoid (and added to Word Cruft a while back) is what I call "positional" and "hyperbolic" comparatives. That is, referring to another example by its position in a list ("Similarly" would count here), or in terms like "If you thought that one was great..."