Do you have trouble remembering the difference between Deathbringer the Adorable and Fluffy the Terrible?
Do you have trouble recognizing when you've written a Zero-Context Example?
Not sure if you really have a Badass Bookworm or just a guy who likes to read?
Well, this is the thread for you. We're here to help you will all the finer points of example writing. If you have any questions, we can answer them. Don't be afraid. We don't bite. We all just want to make the wiki a better place for everyone.
Useful Tips:
- Make sure that the example makes sense to both people who don't know the work AND don't know the trope.
- Wrong: The Mentor: Kevin is this to Bob in the first episode.
- Right: The Mentor: Kevin takes Bob under his wing in the first episode and teaches him the ropes of being a were-chinchilla.
- Never just put the trope title and leave it at that.
- Wrong: Badass Adorable
- Right: Badass Adorable: Xavier, the group's cute little mascot, defeats three raging elephants with both hands tied behind his back using only an uncooked spaghetti noodle.
- When is normally far less important than How.
- A character name is not an explanation.
- Wrong: Full Moon Silhouette: Diana
- Right: Full Moon Silhouette: At the end of her transformation sequence into Moon Princess Misty, Diana is shown flying across the full moon riding a rutabaga.
Other Resources:
For best results, please include why you think an example is iffy in your first post.
Also, many oft-misused tropes/topics have their own threads, such as Surprisingly Realistic Outcome (here
) and Fan-Preferred Couple (here). Tropers are better able to give feedback on examples you bring up to specific threads.
For cleaning up examples of Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard, you must use their dedicated threads: Complete Monster Cleanup, Magnificent Bastard Cleanup.
Edited by Synchronicity on Sep 18th 2023 at 11:42:55 AM
Found this on Characters.The Idolmaster Shiny Colors
- Knight Templar Daughter: She's very protective of her mother due to witnessing her try to get away from the paparazzi after retiring as an idol.
I feel like this is stretching way too much because the trope being used is a parent trope, not a child trope.
She/Her | Currently cleaning N/A
It's either real or it's a dream
Been a while, any further thoughts on this?
She / Her
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
(x4) I feel it fits Once Original, Now Common more than Fair for Its Day too.
(x3) I don't feel that counts because Knight Templar Parent involves the character doing questionable things, which the entry didn't mention.
I'm not 100% sure if Two Decades Behind has to be unintentional, but Retro Universe sounds like it might fit more assuming the setting is otherwise modern (to the time period the films were made in that is).
I don't feel it counts because Special Effects Failure seems to involve special effects and maybe visual effects. Because there's no trope covering audio recordings (if there is one I don't know about it and I couldn't find it), I feel it can be removed.
It's a Long Story: Does this not count because it is explained / summarized, instead of just being left in the air?
- Lost Ruins: When the Heroine first meets Astarte, she doesn't explain much about her seeking followers of the Dark Lady:
Heroine: It's a long story... But, basically, I have to defeat them to get my memories back.
♀ | Small ripples lead to big waves
It's a Long Story is a Stock Phrase, so technically any use of the phrase is a straight example... but if you feel like it doesn't fit the spirit, I say you should remove it.
Officially intimidated
Is Paper Talisman strictly limited to Japanese paper slips? I'm watching an episode in a TV series that tells about a pre-Columbian civilization that used gold sheets to drive away spirits in the exact same way the Ofuda are in Japan (including placing them in front of homes and sacred temples).
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
IIRC they also show up in Chinese mysticism—and probably originate there... and yep, they originate with Chinese Taoist talismans called língfú.
I brought up the following example in ATT because it was deleted from Conviction by Contradiction without an edit reason, but someone suggested it might actually be Conviction by Counterfactual Clue:
- Monk:
- In another episode, Natalie's parents talk about a couple of friends of theirs who died in a car accident. When Monk hears that the car involved was a British Morgan, he becomes suspicious because the British drive on the left, and this doesn't square with the positions of the bodies at the scene. Apparently, Monk doesn't know that most British car manufacturers, including Morgan, make left-hand-drive versions of their cars for countries that drive on the right.
What do you, the viewers at home, think?
Bumping the part that didn't get answered.
Questions.
I deleted the Paper Master examples mentioned earlier because they apparently don't fit, which is fine. My question is whether they would qualify as Comedic Spanking because a rolled up newspaper is the item used to threaten a spanking. Not sure how comical the first example is, though.
- While scolding Bolt for his bad behavior in "The Coffee Shop," Penny threatens to spank the dog with a rolled-up newspaper if he continues to misbehave. It's an empty threat, as it's stated that she has never hit Bolt — but it has kept him in line in the past.
- In "The Party," Leonard the poodle dashes for the bedroom to avoid what he expects will be a spanking with a rolled up newspaper from his owner when he is caught playing loud music.
Leonard: Hide, hide, hide, hide, hide! I gotta hide before he catches me and whacks me with a newspaper! Outta my way, cat!
There's also this, which clearly illustrates its trope. However, it might also come under Comedic Spanking, but am not sure.
Kinky Spanking: In "The Party," it's suggested that Eddie the Basset hound enjoys having Jo whack his backside with a rolled up magazine.
Appreciate feedback on this, and thanks!
Discarded and Feeling Blue
it actually did. Anyway, I agree, it's not Paper Master.
From Aquaman and The lost Kingdom
- They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: A number of fans were disappointed that the film didn't commit to having Black Manta kill Thomas like he infamously did in the comics.
All the people who supposedly wanted this to happen were only because of sarcastic memes, and in reality there are almost no fans who sincerely wanted the baby to be killed.
Edited by Luisdalas on Dec 28th 2023 at 6:39:50 AM
The Moron
My issue is that, sarcastic or not, just about all of the online discourse I've seen about this movie has been about the baby. It started as a joke but it picked up a lot of steam after there were reports of people walking out of the previews out of horror. Jokes or no, a lot of the main complaints I've seen are about the movie adapting an infamous arc like that but then cutting out its most famous moment.
Weaponized Offspring or Children in Tow, or both?
- Lost Ruins: The Spider moms give birth to Spiderlings to attack the Heroine.
♀ | Small ripples lead to big waves
Sounds more like Weaponized Offspring to me.
Thanks. I saw the reply, but it looked like the only part answering my question started at the two-arrow paragraph, which deals with the Paper Master part of the question. No idea what the rest of their reply addressed, but assumed it was the post immediately above. Maybe I’m misunderstanding this?
As I understand it from the trope page, Combination Attack only applies when two characters work together to create a new attack combining the properties of both, but the Dota 2 page is chock full of examples that are just 'these two characters work well together on a team since character A's move X has good synergy with character B's move Y'. Are these examples misuse?
he/him
From Literature.A Caribbean Mystery:
- Late-Arrival Spoiler: Anyone who reads Nemesis before reading this book will know that Jason Rafiel and his efficient secretary Esther Walters are both innocent of the murders in this story.
...but Agatha Christie published A Caribbean Mystery in 1964 and Nemesis in 1971.
The Miss Marple books are largely standalone, but if you read them out of order it's no surprise that returning characters aren't killed or guilty in previous books. If either character is prominent in marketing for Nemesis that might be different, but I'm not sure that's the case - and it's definitely not in the example.
On that basis I'm tempted to cut this. Any concerns?
I'll try posting here as a continuation of an ATT query I made about some clean-ups or edits that seemed questionable...
It's about this Voice-Only Cameo example that's still on Trivia.Honkai Star Rail.
- Voice-Only Cameo: In the beginning of the Belobog Underworld, there are three suspiciously sounding miners complaining about their job. One is sleeping and the other two you can fight. If their voices sound familiar, that's because they are voiced by the hosts of Trash Taste, that is: Connor, Garnt and Joey.
Long ago, it was deemed a misuse of Shout-Out and was moved as a Voice-Only Cameo entry per this edit by troper Vintage Emma after they cited this discussion from this very thread.
But is it really a valid example of Voice-Only Cameo?
The Voice-Only Cameo page says it's about "This is the type where a famous person or a lesser-known VA gives their voice to...The Voice".
The in-game NPCs which are voiced by Connor, Garnt and Joey are not characters that can be considered The Voice because they have in-game models whenever you talk to them. If we stick to what's mentioned above, the Voice-Only Cameo example is misused.
There are other more-fitting tropes that can be used to list the fact that these three internet personalities have voice acting roles in this game. In fact, I have already listed a Promoted Fanboy example on the Trivia page that covered the same info, but with a longer context to also mention how the three have a history of being fans of miHoYo games before they had voice acting roles in this specific miHoYo game.
Initially, I would've sent a PM to troper Vintage Emma to contest their edit. But because they mentioned in their page that they have "left TV Tropes permanently", it's likely impossible to receive a response from them now.
With Great Power, Comes Great Motivation
Got something to ask on Surprisingly Realistic Outcome after I finished Season 3 of Slow Horses.
The scene is that Roddy commandered a bus to crash into a house that was raided by a crooked contractor and a MI:5 officer acting on order to kill anyone for prying eyes into something they shouldn't. Roddy was asked on what he did and he says that insurance can cover the damage. Jack says no insurance company will do it since Roddy crashed a bus on purpose and he calls him an idiot for doing it.
Not sure if it wouldn't be counted.
Edited by Ominae on Dec 29th 2023 at 7:55:35 AM
I don't get how that isn't Late-Arrival Spoiler? You read a later book earlier and it spoils the solution of the earlier one?
Christie was infamous for spoiling her early books in
Even if you expect it, isn't that still the trope? And as they are standalone you wouldn't necessarily expect returning characters to be suspects in previous books or to return at all.
Thoughts on the Helluva Boss Fake Brit example I posted on the last page?
Does Fling a Light into the Future count if the character doesn't know/intend to do that? The example I'm thinking of is from A Thing of Vikings. In the backstory, a Jewish man named Dror ben Ezra joined the Hooligan Tribe and helped them immensely, by teaching them all to read and write. Half a century after his death, the Hooligans return the favor by giving Jews sanctuary on Berk.
he/him
Reading the sequel before the earlier instalment is inevitably going to spoil (even if the 'sequel' is largely standalone).
The trope is defined as "spoiled by official sources and merchandise" - if you actually have to consume the work itself, I'm not sure it's the same thing?
From YMMV.The Man In The Glass Booth:
- Fair for Its Day: Nowadays most audiences know the enormity of Nazi crimes, after having watched films which get into far more detail on the Holocaust, thus the film seems like its giving a Captain Obvious Aesop while also glazing over details of the Holocaust given more coverage in other works. At the time, however, this was not as widely known to the American audiences, and it was one of the first films about the subject to reach a wide audience.
This sounds more like Once Original, Now Common Valdo