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. We don't discuss Complete Monster or Magnificent Bastard examples; please don't bring them up.
Edited by SeptimusHeap on Jul 17th 2025 at 8:59:01 PM
Noticed this entry under "Romantic" Two-Girl Friendship:
- The Legend of Korra: Korra and Asami developed this kind of relationship in season 3, after spending two seasons as rivals for the affection of the same man. In the Grand Finale the ending is so filled with Homoerotic Subtext that it's a Relationship Upgrade. Confirmed by the writers that Asami and Korra are now in a legit romantic relationship which carries over into the sequel comics.
I may be wrong, but doesn't that make them an actual budding romance, thus violating the definition of this trope? I also saw an entry for the fanfiction The Saga of Avatar Korra, which seems even more ridiculous as in that their relationship becomes not only romantic but explicitly sexual.
YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 8 E 14 A Matter Of Principals:
- Character Rerailment: An unfortunate case. Discord is causing rampant chaos for his own amusement and some vague, ill-defined way of 'helping'. This seems like something he'd do in Season 5 and ignored all the character growth he'd had since then.
This sound more like complaining about ignoring character development than this trope. Cut?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Aug 5th 2018 at 6:48:23 AM
![]()
Could be put as a subversion since it actually was Ship Tease. After the show, there has been debate on the nature of the relationship.
The debate I'm talking about was whether it was a last minute hook up or it was a gradual process. The two are a couple regardless.
In YMMV.Hanebad.
Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy: The anime adaptation has been hit hard with this. In addition to toning down the comedy from the manga and adding in more drama, several of the characters have all gone through Adaptational Jerkass in the making.
From my understanding the setting has too be really dark and with no hope. Having some characters going though adaptation Jerkass with more drama doesn't make this DIAA. Maybe Angst Aversion?
I agree. DIAA is horribly misused.
![]()
But regardless, isn't part of "Romantic" Two-Girl Friendship that it remains a friendship? The description seems to disqualify any examples that are explicitly literally romantic, at any point.
Does this example need slightly more to qualify (from Creator.Milestone Comics):
- Story Reset: As per joining the DC Universe, they performed a sort of "soft reset" on the world.
I'm not familiar with the source material, so asking here.
I've wick-checked and this trope only has 14 links, and isn't that widely used.
From Darthwiki.DLD
- Story Reset: Episode 256 reverses and nullifies everything that happened after episode 120, by making them never happen. Thus the newbies were never introduced and everyone that got Killed Off for Real or Put on a Bus is back.
I know it's Darth Wiki, but still need to check the trope's used properly.
From Film.Thor Ragnarok:
- Soft Reboot: Ragnarok acknowledges the previous Thor movies, but goes in entirely its own direction. The straightforward High Fantasy take is dropped in favor of an '80s/Jack Kirby aesthetic (with a side-order of Jason Aaron), Thor's human supporting cast is nowhere to be found, the Asgardians outright call themselves gods, and there's a lot more slapstick.
—-
I wasn't sure if that was the correct trope.
I'm still wick-checking Soft Reboot (anyone want to help?)
From VideoGame.Soulcalibur VI:
- Non-Linear Sequel: Officially titled Soulcalibur VI, the game is a Continuity Reboot that takes place around the same year as the first Soulcalibur, meaning it's actually set over twenty years before when V would take place.
and:
- Spiritual Antithesis: VI is a stark contrast to V. Both stand as attempts at revitalizing the series, but whereas V was about deviating from the source to evolve the franchise.
—-
I wasn't sure how a Continuity Reboot could be a Non-Linear Sequel.
If you could help, I'd appreciate this!
Edited by Merseyuser1 on Aug 6th 2018 at 4:58:15 AM
Given that Fandom Berserk Button and Narm are frequently misused, is there any chance someone could confirm whether these examples from Mowgli are being used correctly - especially as the film has not been released yet:
- Fandom Berserk Button: People asking why this film is being made when "Disney's version came out two years ago?" erupted with the release of the trailer and have many people leap to defend that 1) Disney's 2016 remake was based on their own 1967 version while Mowgli is based on the actual book and 2) Mowgli was already in development a whole year before the 2016 version was.
- Narm:
- The trailer outright calling the film the darkest take on the story ever. It comes off like the studio begging you to notice how cool and edgy they are. There's also the fact that the Disney versions were pretty light-hearted, so being the darkest take on the story isn't exactly a high bar to clear.
- Similarly, in all of Andy Serkis' interviews, he repeatedly states that he wants to differentiate the film from the Disney versions, even though there have been many adaptations of the source material and him drawing constant comparisons to the Disney version only comes off as giving it more attention. He also does not seem to consider that Mowgli being made by a completely different studio should make the explanation of differences unnecessary. Of course, it is justified with how many people know more about the Disney version and less about the other adaptations.
- The animal character designs, which are oddly cartoony for a work taking a more serious approach to the story. For example, Akela has eyebrows that make him look like something out of a Furry fan art, Kaa has an oddly human-like face and Shere Khan has angular designs like he came out of a 90's animated series. In comparison, The Jungle Book (2016), despite being a more lighthearted and humorous adaptation, had fairly realistic animal designs apart from their ability to talk. Thus, the animals in this movie ended up looking more similar to how they looked in Disney's 1967 film than those from the 2016 remake did. Compare for instance the Kaa and Shere Khan designs of the 2016 version to the ones in this movie; the former look like a fairly realistic python and tiger respectively, while the later are much more stylised.
I always read "Romantic" Two-Girl Friendship as deliberately ambiguous about whether they're just friends. If their relationship is explicitly sexual it doesn't count, but if they're kissing, telling each other they love each other, and doing everything but saying "you're my girlfriend", it counts. For a lot of historical real life examples, there's a lot of debate among historians about whether they should be considered lesbians, but many LGBT folks have claimed people known to be in such relationships as their own.
With regards to the Korra example, I think it doesn't count if they get together in the end as an official couple. The lack of acknowlegement of sexual orientation or formal relationship markers is important to the trope.
"It's just a show; I should really just relax"My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic S8 E14 "A Matter of Principals"
- Karma Houdini: Discord spends the whole episode making Starlight's life miserable and walks off scot-free. Though he does end up losing his position as "vice-headmare", which he only had for a few seconds, once the Mane Six get back from their bogus friendship mission, making his entire plan a "Shaggy Dog" Story for him.
The last part sounds like some form of karma. Cut?
That seems to stretch "ambiguity" a bit far. I would consider kissing and declaring love a pretty solid confirmation of romance, unless it is clear from context the creator definitely doesn't intend a romantic reading. My understanding is that RTGF is not ambiguous as to intent, and that our reading of it as a potential actual romance is due to Values Dissonance.
Edited by TheMountainKing on Aug 6th 2018 at 7:49:15 AM
@Andrix
Nix the Fandom Berserk Button for the reasons given above.
The narm stuff is just complaining. Nix it as well.
Yeah, I totallly agree that Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy is very much misused. I mean The Flash (2014) has multiple DIAA entries because later seasons have some bad things or drama happening despite still being a lighthearted and optimist show.
I think a big part of the problem with Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy has to be the name. It sounds like a much more general (and probably untropable) concept than what the description actually says.
Apologies if this is the wrong thread to ask, but most of the entries in Changeling: The Lost seem to be Troper Tales. Is it alright to get rid of everything except for the very last entry?
"I squirm, I struggle, ergo I am. Faced with death, I am finally, truly alive."

Another example from Horrible.Music Soundtracks: the German Naruto opening. As far as I know, it's nearly universally considered So Bad, It's Good. So Bad, It's Good and So Bad, It's Horrible aren't mutually exclusive, but SBIH has to be a widespread opinion and I think the people who find it hilariously bad vastly outnumber those who just find it unbearable.