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
Lost in Space
I don't think that "more favored by fans" is a trope. It's certainly not an objective one. The very nature of such games is to support player choice and/or creativity, and so the fact that players exercise that choice is not noteworthy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Yes, it's not a trope. It's an Audience Reactions which goes to Trivia or YMMV page. Ensemble Dark Horse is also an Audience Reactions.
Games with Story Branching and player's choices will create situations where one choice is favored by the fanbase more than others. That's fact. Do we have any thing to record them?
...
- Values Resonance:
- The Chocho centric Anime arc of Episodes 67-69, in which Chocho becomes slimmer and more attractive, how the actor who was interested in Chocho only liked her for her physical appearance, and how the rest of the characters point out that Chocho is "not being herself"; despite having the Stock Aesop of "what matters is what's inside of the person" has been interpreted by some viewers as promoting a body-positivity message.
- Orochimaru's answer to Mitsuki to his question of whether they are his mother or father, saying that it doesn't matter since there have been times when Orochimaru has been a man, other times a woman, and other times something not of this world, has been widely praised by members of the Transgender community in the fandom.
Do these count? The episodes came out just this year.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
What is that even from?
- YMMV.Boruto.
Wouldn't it count more as Society Marches On?
Edited by WhirlRX on Oct 17th 2018 at 11:54:02 AM
The timing is irrelevant, so long as the values are resonating with not-the-intended-resonator. The first one comes across as "the aesop landed," but I highly doubt that a Japanese kid's manga was written with the transgender community in mind so the second could count.
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
Audience Reactions are factual in that we sometimes record how the fanbase/critics/pop-culture will respond to a work, but we are not (yet) exhaustive. Our mission prioritizes the intended tropes, so there might not be a record of what you're looking for (yet). Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I will keep an eye out for similar examples. If they happens frequently enough I will start drafting an entry for the Trope launcher. Cheers.
...
The laconic says "A work's moral or themes are as relevant in modern times as they were in the past."
The actual page also has the following (emphasis mine):
YMMV.My Little Pony The Movie 2017
- Badass Decay:
- This movie supposedly takes place after season 7 of the main series, so this is far from the first crisis the G4 ponies have encountered, yet they don't put up any more resistance to the Storm King's invasion than the G1 ponies did against Tirek in Rescue at Midnight Castle.
I intend cut since this is the same about of resistance as opposed to decay (specific examples of decay are listed below this entry), and you can't call it decay if it's from a different continuity.
The trope who added this has been trying to shoehorn this entry in for awhile now. Per this thread, It was removed as an example of Adaptational Wimp since it's not an adaptation. They the listed it as Badass Decay on the main page, which I removed as it's YMMV. I worry that any more of this would constitute an edit war. What to do?
Since they've tried to horn it in multiple times, I think it already technically counts as an exit war.
Jawbreakers on sale for 99ยข
Can Expy apply to a fictional character resembling a real life person instead of another fictional character?
On Characters.Fantastic Beasts New York City, the fictional Henry Shaw, Sr. is listed as an expy of real life William Randolph Hearst. Isn't a character resembling a real life person another trope than Expy?
Goku Black
Your actually looking for No Historical Figures Were Harmed which is the actual trope.
Well, that certainly seems to apply better than Expy, which IIUC only applies to resembling another fictional character. Will change it accordingly.
Reposting from a couple of pages ago, so it doesn't get lost:
Do the following examples from Wizards Of Once look like they have enough context?:
- Badass Adorable: Wish is small, kind-hearted, and rather clumsy, but she possesses a rare and powerful Magic-that-works-on-iron, as well as the ability to return from the dead.
- Star-Crossed Lovers: Although a young Queen Sychorax and Encanzo—at the time known as Tor—fell in love and wished to be married, Sychorax had to become queen and Warrior queens do not marry Wizards.
- Talking Animal: Caliburn is a talking raven or something of that nature.
Also is this example from Elseworlds (2018) being misused since the work isn't out yet and therefore it's not possible to know whether the controversy will overshadow the work?:
- Overshadowed by Controversy: The casting of Ruby Rose led to a quite bizarre backlash about her not being gay enough...or something (along with the expected gay bashers making an appearance). She was bullied so badly on social media that she ended up leaving it entirely. Some also took issue with Rose not being Jewish like Kate is.
And a couple of concerns regarding two examples from The Nutcracker and the Four Realms:
Girls Show Ghetto is supposed to be about when an audience views a work to be of lesser quality just because it's aimed at a female audience or features a female main character. Yet the example here only talks about the film's marketing has not hidden the fact that the protagonist is a girl and appears to be emphasizing that fact:
- Girl-Show Ghetto: Zig-zagged. The Secondary Character Title refers to the most important male character in the story when the protagonist and villain are both women, but from the original novella onwards the titling convention has always been the case, as the protagonist has always been Marie/Clara. Certainly, the marketing campaign makes no bones about who the main character is and plays up the "girliness" of the story and setting; one would hardly know the Nutcracker's significance at all!
Also given how often Narm is frequently misused on this wiki, could I get some confirmation as to whether it's being used correctly here, especially since the work hasn't been released yet:
- Narm: The Sugar Plum Fairy's voice is a very annoying sickly sweet "baby" voice, not all what audiences are accustomed to hear from Keira Knightley. Granted, she's a literal living doll who represents a literal candyland and due to events in the backstory is actually the Big Bad putting up a front but still.
- The Star-Crossed Lovers example could elaborate more on how S. becoming queen prevented a relationship between them (at least I assume that's how it worked out, don't know the work). This example also is an All White Entry, which is a no-no. Could part of the spoiler-tagging be removed?
- Talking Animal: "talking raven" seems o.k., though maybe it could be specified that he talks like a human. The "or something of that nature" seems annoyingly vague and word-crufty though; if this character's exact bird species never was revealed why not just refer to him as a bird?
- The Narm entry: The "Granted...but still." sentence seems like a Justifying Edit or natter. The entry as a whole doesn't really explain how "it was meant seriously but came out as unintendedly funny" applies.
Should this be removed, since it doesn't happen, and isn't even implied, but only relevant 'cause Disney did use it?
Literature.Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs:
- Dude, She's Like in a Coma: Although, the prince actually thought she was dead. In the original tale, he doesn't kiss her. Instead, he falls in love with her beautiful corpse and takes it home. During the journey, the bit of apple in her throat is dislodged and she wakes up. There isn't the squick of him kissing someone he thought was dead, but it still raises some questions.
Cut. Not the in-universe reaction = not this trope.
Characters.Soulcalibur VI has five characters with Ms. Fanservice attached to them. That's 5/7 of the female cast. I was under the impression that Ms. Fanservice was for the fanservice lady rather than every fanservice-y woman.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
No, the other one.
It would help if you mentioned which characters.
Anyway, Ivy, Taki, and Sophitia probably qualify, as they've all usually been in the forefront at it, with different appeals. Mi-na and Tira don't, and it's more that they happen to have sexy outfits by someone's standard. It is a bit difficult considering the frequent sexualisation of especially female characters, but it's more of a primary trait for those three.
Check out my fanfiction!
Values Dissonance: Some articles have complained about the use of the heavily sexualized female fighters as being more befitting of the '00s culture the series was most popular in than today's more "politically correct" standard. Whether that standard they cite is "good" has been hotly debated. And that's all that needs to be said about it.
Shouldn't it be more about an older work that doesn't fit modern times? While Soul Calibur isnt new, the new entry just came out.
Edited by WhirlRX on Oct 18th 2018 at 8:12:26 AM
Hi fellow tropers. I have a question. In games with customization option, how do we treat a main character option that are more favored by fans? Example include Fem Shep from Mass Effect, Cassandra from Assassin's Creed: Odyssey and Darth Imperious from Star Wars: The Old Republic
I hesitate to classify this as Ensemble Dark Horse or Breakout Character because they are main characters. Story Branch Favoritism also don't apply because that trope is from developer's standpoint.
Edited by Terrialstrasz on Oct 17th 2018 at 5:30:47 AM