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
The latest edit just created a General example, didn't it...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=TooIncompetentToOperateABlanket.Advertising
I'm working on adding a character for Characters.Red Panda Adventures, but there are two tropes I'm not sure apply. They're the closest thing I can find, however, so I don't know if this is a case of Tropes Are Flexible or I need a point in the right direction?
If it helps for context the character, the Grey Fox, is a Japanese-Canadian superhero during World War II.
- Commonality Connection: The Grey Fox and the Flying Squirrel become fast friends largely because they share many of the same personality traits, primarily being Blood Knight Action Girls. They start off hostile because their first encounter involves each of them learning the other's Secret Identity. The thing that de-escalates the situation is the two of them agreeing that the main reason neither of them are friends with other women is the fact they can't take them seriously. From there, they join forces to bring down a Nazi sabotage ring in the Grey Fox's city and, when the Squirrel needs help but can't ask the Red Panda, the Grey Fox is the one she calls.
- You Can't Go Home Again: The Grey Fox's treatment by the Canadian government in general and her hometown of Vancouver in particular has left her very bitter towards both. She's willing to work with the Danger Federation and do some freelance heroing over sitting in a Japanese internment camp, but after her privileges to superhero in Vancouver were revoked, the Grey Fox refuses to go back even if she could, even for a mission, and the city can sink into the Pacific for all she cares now.
Commonality Connection I'm not sure applies since their relationship works precisely because they're so similar, but that's also what made me think of the trope in the first place.
You Can't Go Home Again I'm not sure about because it's less a case of can't go home again and more won't go home again, but I'm not sure which trope covers that.
Edited by sgamer82 on Jun 27th 2020 at 9:16:50 AM
Reposting from the
previous
five
pages
,
so it doesn't get lost:
Is the following example from the Film section of Trivia.Artemis Fowl being used correctly as it seems closer to Detractor Nickname than Fan Nickname which I believe we don't allow because it's just an excuse for complaining:
- Fan Nickname: Much like Percy Jackson, fans of the books refuse to associate with an In Name Only adaptation, giving the movie, and by extension the titular character, bootleg-esque nicknames, the most popular being "Apollo Bird", though "Apollo Poultry" also pops up sometimes.
And along the same lines is this example from the Film section of YMMV.Artemis Fowl being used correctly?:
- Friendly Fandoms: Fans who were disappointed by this movie tend to get friendly with other fans who were disappointed by previous film adaptations of IPs from their childhood such as Eragon, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, and Avatar: The Last Airbender.
12102
: Yeah, that "lots of games do this, for example X" is a recurring general non-example format. This particular case is extra-silly because there's only one example so it's bad Example Indentation too.
In FernGully: The Last Rainforest, Hexxus manifests into his One-Winged Angel form once Zak shuts off the leveller and attempts to take down the forest in the Final Battle, only for Crysta to trap him inside a tree. In those scenes, however, he can't speak. Is it a true example of The Speechless or The Quiet One?
Edited by gjjones on Jun 27th 2020 at 2:21:31 PM
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.Does a Designated Hero have to be considered unlikeable, or just extremely morally questionable? I added this to YMMV.Triple Threat a while ago.
Designated Hero: While one can definitely sympathize with Jaka for wanting revenge on Collins and his crew for the wholesale slaughter of his village, there is a certain moral dissonance to the fact that he is willing to risk the lives of numerous police officers by using Payu and Long Fei as bait for the mercenaries. However, because the mercenaries, specifically Collins, are a whole lot worse, and because of Jaka's charisma and intelligence, this possibly makes Jaka one of the more compelling characters.
Edited by SkyCat32 on Jun 27th 2020 at 2:43:57 PM
Would Dolores Umbridge be an example of Good Powers, Bad People?
In the Harry Potter series, the Patronus Charm is an incredibly powerful spell that's fueled by the caster's happiest thoughts, and when performed successfully is able to drive off the dementors, dark, hooded figures that suck out the happiness from their victims and leave nothing but despair.
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Umbridge is wearing Salazar Slytherin's locket, a cursed object that makes corrupts the wearer and makes them more aggressive. Because Umbridge is already pure evil, the locket instead strenghtens her and allows her to effortlessly cast a Patronus while she happily condemns innocent Muggle-born witches and wizards. In other words, Umbridge's Patronus is literally powered by her own sadism, and the Artifact of Doom around her neck only makes it even easier to cast.
RIP KissAnime.Greetings, I've been working on a Tropes Article for Totally Not Mark. I'm confused if these examples are valid:
- You Keep Using That Word: At least in a way that is confusing for some viewers, Mark uses the term “Flat Character” for a character that doesn’t go any meaningful change in the narrative, but instead allows other characters to change because of him. This would be a Static Character by Tv Tropes definition, and not what this site describes as a character without a personality or depth.
- Pet the Dog: Even though he will in no way say Dragon Ball GT’’ or Super Dragon Ball Heroes’’ are good, he does commend on them establishing plot points in an arc to be followed upon in the next arc, something he criticizes ‘’Dragon Ball Super’’ for not doing.
- Random Events Plot: Mark’s review of ‘’Super Dragon Ball Heroes’’ is less him analyzing the series and more recapping the show and its absurd random plot with a deadpan manner.
‘’’Mark’’’: This is such a weird show. And, time and time again I’m reminded this isn’t trying to tell a good story but to cram as many things as possible to sell toys, games and cards.‘’’Mark’’’: This is such a fever dream of a series.
- Static Character: Described as a "Flat Character Arc", meaning a character that doesn't change meaningfully in the narrative but instead allow others to change.
- Mark describes Goku as a character that doesn’t change significantly, using the “Flat Character Arc” term. In it, Goku as a character already knows “the truth” and in turns guides others to find what the truth is, allowing the Character Development the Dragon Ball cast (Piccolo and Vegeta mostly) received.
- In turn, Mark considers Vegeta a negative example of a dynamic character in ‘’Vegeta: Super Boring Sequel’’. Since a major contribution to Vegeta’s effectiveness as a character was his Character Development in ’Dragon Ball Z’’ and his gradual change, he feels that since in ''Super’’ he doesn’t change anything about him to make any spectacle or cool scene with him to be meaningless and dull.
'Mark’’’: I ask you, what has changed about Vegeta or his current situation since the end of Battle of Gods]’’? The answer is very little. And the troubles with that can be seen very easily. All of Vegeta’s monumental moments in the series are rooted in this archetype of archetype of change, often times positive changes and sometimes a negative one, but a change none the less. He isn’t forced to change any meaningful emotional way in ‘’Dragon Ball Super’’, but the writers place him in circumstances that are reminiscent of his highlights in ‘’Dragon Ball Z’’ in the hopes that they will achieve what it did for him in the past. But they won’t. They can’t. Structurally speaking, narratively speaking, and logically speaking they can’t work the same way because they are, in the most fundamental way, different.
- You Keep Using That Word: Mark has a problem with Whis statement that Goku is overconfident in Goku isn't overconfident. He argues that overconfidence is confidence that is unwarranted, something that better fits Vegeta who has underestimated his opponents multiple times. Goku by comparison, due to the lessons learned with Master Roshi that there is always someone stronger in the next corner, wants to keep challenging himself, which is quite the opposite of being overconfident. His Fatal Flaw would instead being his naivety and honorable way of fighting, thinking that everyone would try the same way of thinking as he does.
- Before the creation of the video, Mark asked his followers on Twitter instances in which Goku has been overconfident. During the video, he has argued that none of the instances fans remember aren’t examples of overconfidence.
- Goku’s decision to fight the androids is not him being overconfident. Goku was the most capable of to fight them, and they were after him; he was under the impression Vegeta would show up sooner than later and was right about it; and he was unaware of the heart disease happening to his body, which isn’t overconfidence but ignorance from his part.
- Goku’s decision to put Gohan to fight Perfect Cell and give a Senzu Bean to the villain to even the odds isn’t overconfidence. Goku was correct in trusting Gohan’s power, his flaw was not understanding how Gohan would react out of his naivety and way of thinking, something Piccolo calls him out.
- Goku telling Vegeta he is stronger than him is cocky, but correct due to the way Goku and Gohan trained in the Room of Spirit and Time surpassing Vegeta and Trunks’s own training.
- Before the creation of the video, Mark asked his followers on Twitter instances in which Goku has been overconfident. During the video, he has argued that none of the instances fans remember aren’t examples of overconfidence.
Edited by Tomodachi on Jun 28th 2020 at 8:27:55 AM
To win, you need to adapt, and to adapt, you need to be able to laugh away all the restraints. Everything holding you back.On the advice of this thread I recently removed removed a Draco in Leather Pants entry from Shre Ra And The Princesses Of Power. It was readied with only a slight change:
- Catra is a fan favorite. The writers made her deliberately sympathetic, and often pit her against the unilaterally detestable Shadow Weaver, so Catra naturally appears more sympathetic by contrast. That said, Catra is also incredibly selfish and vindictive and with almost no sympathy for anyone, with her moments of kindness to others being just that - moments - and she openly cares very little that the Horde goes around destroying the world and killing innocent people. Even after she tries to destroy Etheria and all life on it including herself just to deny Adora victory, you will still find fans who think she is justified in her actions.
The entry removes the reference to fans being wrong for wanting Catra to be redeemed, but still essentially describes her as irredeemably evil, which ironically falls into Ron the Death Eater. Is this entry salvageable or should I delete again?
Ultimate X Men introduced Jimmy Hudson, the son of Wolverine, shortly after his death. It is listed in YMMV as an Ass Pull, as there was no foreshadowing about him having a son in previous stories. Is this a correct use? I understood that an Ass Pull took place during a story, not between a finished story and its sequels.
Ultimate Secret Wars
Dont think a character having a son can be seen as a Ass Pull. If so, Long-Lost Relative would be entirely seen as Ass Pull.
An Ass Pull is "a moment when the writers pull something out of thin air in a less-than-graceful narrative development, violating the Law of Conservation of Detail by dropping a plot-critical detail in the middle, or near the end of their narrative without Foreshadowing or dropping a Chekhov's Gun earlier on."
A Long-Lost Relative is when a main character meets a character who turns out to be a blood relation "they may never have known they had, or had believed gone forever."
A character could be a Long-Lost Relative without it being an Ass Pull; the author could have foreshadowed it thoroughly to the audience from the beginning of the story while keeping it a surprise to the character. And in fact the LLR trope description specifically says that it is often hinted at beforehand.
A LLR could, of course, totally be an Ass Pull, or at least a Retcon. One of most famous LLRs in fiction— Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's long-lost father Anakin— was famously not planned as of Star Wars, only being retconned in as of Empire.
For reference, the text of the (now-deleted) Ultimate X-Men Ass Pull entries:
- Ass Pull:
- After conclusively killing off Wolverine permanently in Ultimatum, Jeph Loeb introduces his never-before-hinted-at son, who just happens to have nearly the exact same powers as his old man, including claws which can somehow turn metal.
- And then two issues after, Jeph Loeb introduces the son of the Blob, who also has his father's powers, and joins the Brotherhood of Mutants. Odder still, his daughter Liz Allen/Firestar, is rarely mentioned, despite being well-established elsewhere in The 'Verse.
As written, the first one seems fine; it says that the character is "never-before-hinted-at," which fits the trope description. However, Ass Pull is supposed to be clumsy in some way. Considering that Wolverine is famously an amnesiac and very long-lived, it seems to me that it would almost be more surprising if he didn't have kids he didn't know about. So I question the validity of the example.
The second entry does not establish that the Blob's son lacked foreshadowing, so it's, at minimum, a ZCE as written.
TL;DR, I'm fine with the deletion of both.
Edited by HighCrate on Jun 29th 2020 at 8:17:01 AM
Reposting from two pages ago
, so it doesn't get lost:
Are the following examples from Legion of Super-Heroes (2020), being used correctly?:
- Adaptational Dumbass: Blok, normally interpreted as being intellectual despite his outward appearance, has a much more simplistic form of speaking here.
- The Ageless: Rose (and her split personality Thorn), as established in the Millennium prelude. She breezes through the worlds of President Supergirl, Batman Beyond, and Kamandi without looking a day older.
- Running Gag: One with the Legionnaires insisting that Superboy watch the orientation video they prepared for him.
![]()
Actually, a later story revealed that yes, Wolverine knew about Jimmy Hudson the whole time, but he was keeping his mouth shut on purpose. He gave him for adoption after birth and never returned to check on him because he wanted to Give Him a Normal Life, a life he would never have if his ancestry was known. So yes, there was no foreshadowing, but not because of clumsy writing.
As for Blob, he was usually just The Big Guy, who made his part in superhero fights, but never developed as an actual character. He was basically a blank slate. Any reveal about him would have had no foreshadowing, the narrative focus had hardly ever been over him.
Is Blok still The Smart Guy, regardless of the way of talking? As for Rose, those are alternate dimensions or timelines, are we talking about the same Rose in all of them, and not just alternate variations of a character?
Found this on Characters.Scream TV Series, for Jake Fitzgerald. I am stripping the spoilers for this post.
- Asshole Victim: It isn't hard to feel sorry for him, knowing he was a total asshole to a number of people, including Brooke. So, naturally, the New Ghostface Killer offs him in the season 2 opener to establish Nothing Is the Same Anymore and Anyone Can Die.
The main page is inconsistent with this:
- Jake's death is debatable, as he showed shades of being a Jerk with a Heart of Gold.
Now, Jake wasn't my favourite character (I thought he was a "doosh" for the most part, and yes I know I spelled "douche" incorrectly), but I don't believe the narrative wanted to paint his death in the most unsympathetic light possible. The reason being, even with his character flaws, he has his moments of human decency, his friends are shown to be upset by his demise, and the narrative seems to be sympathetic towards them. Additionally, I do not believe that Jake's death was meant to be completely unsympathetic. I believe that his death was meant to be a horrific display of sadism on the part of ghostface, and that the narrative seems to take the position that for all his jackass behaviour, his murder is still tragic. At least as far as Brooke and the focal characters are concerned, even if the audience says otherwise.
Edited by SkyCat32 on Jul 7th 2020 at 7:58:22 AM
A trope entry I'm writing for Hail to the Thief:
- Mohs Scale Of Rock And Metal Hardness: "2 + 2 = 5" starts at 2 but bursts into 6. "Sit Down. Stand Up" goes from 2 to 5. "Sailing to The Moon" and "I Will" sits around at 1, "Backdrifts" hangs at 3, "Go To Sleep" is around 4. "Where I End and You Begin" is a 3.
Does this seem adequate? I also don't know if I should go into more detail.
- Nexus
See Type Labels Are Not Examples — an example has to be comprehensible to someone who has never visited the trope page.
I added this to Series.Code Black, how could I make this better:
- Grey-and-Grey Morality: There are no traditional heroes or villains amongst the characters, and good or bad doesn't come into play as much in this show's universe. Then again, this is a series with No Antagonist.
Edited by Merseyuser1 on Jul 1st 2020 at 2:31:22 PM
Does anyone wish to address my concerns re: Asshole Victim?
This got buried, so I'll ask again.
Would Dolores Umbridge be an example of Good Powers, Bad People?
In the Harry Potter series, the Patronus Charm is an incredibly powerful spell that's fueled by the caster's happiest thoughts, and when performed successfully is able to drive off the dementors, dark, hooded figures that suck out the happiness from their victims and leave nothing but despair.
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Umbridge is wearing Salazar Slytherin's locket, a cursed object that makes corrupts the wearer and makes them more aggressive. Because Umbridge is already pure evil, the locket instead strenghtens her and allows her to effortlessly cast a Patronus while she happily condemns innocent Muggle-born witches and wizards. In other words, Umbridge's Patronus is literally powered by her own sadism, and the Artifact of Doom around her neck only makes it even easier to cast.
RIP KissAnime.I'm calling the title of Webcomic.Amazoness, Role Called and Epunymous Title...
Because "It's the story of Ess, an Amazon."...
But I'm not sure how much of a job, being an "Amazon" is... nor if it's actually a pun...
Also not sure about Epunymous Title for ComicBook.Chew.
Edited by Malady on Jul 2nd 2020 at 5:45:24 AM
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

Joy's entire character development is learning that the other emotions are just as necessary to Riley's well-being as she is. No, she's not a Designated Hero.
Suddenly I'm... still rotating Fallen London in my mind even though I've stopped actively playing it.