TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Is this an example?

Go To

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.
    • Wrong: Big Bad: Of the first season.
    • Right: Big Bad: The heroes have to defeat the Mushroom Man lest the entirety of Candy Land's caramel supply be turned into fungus.
  • A character name is not an explanation.


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

Spacecoyote Since: Dec, 2017 Relationship Status: In my bunk
#19026: Mar 11th 2022 at 6:43:21 PM

No, because it doesn't fit those tropes.

Edited by Spacecoyote on Mar 11th 2022 at 6:43:54 AM

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#19027: Mar 11th 2022 at 6:45:53 PM

And it doesn't fit Incest Yay Shipping any better. See the issue here?

Also, I still say this shouldn't be debated on this particular thread.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Spacecoyote Since: Dec, 2017 Relationship Status: In my bunk
#19028: Mar 11th 2022 at 6:49:58 PM

At this point I'm not even suggesting it does, and also no it shouldn't. Posted under the page discussion and also D Med rva98014 so we can try and talk out this mess.

wingedcatgirl mys. minty from the silly dimension from lurking (Holding A Herring) Relationship Status: Oh my word! I'm gay!
mys. minty from the silly dimension
#19029: Mar 12th 2022 at 2:19:01 AM

On Miraculous Ladybug S04E26 "Strike Back (Shadow Moth's Final Attack Part 2)" (spoilers inside):

     
  • Series Continuity Error:
    • In all past instances, a Miraculous wielder detransforming takes their costume and equipment with it. Here, Ladybug's yo-yo doesn't disappear until she detransforms and transforms back to materialize the yo-yo on her person. This is to give Gabriel enough time to raid the Miracle Box through it.
    • On a more minor level, the Dog Miraculous' Fetch ability changes slightly in functionality for dramatic effect. Here the ball flies to the fetched object to teleport both itself and the item back into the user's hands.

We dispute that these constitute "errors"; they seem like incredibly petty nitpicking when both of them were clearly deliberate choices for dramatic effect.

Suddenly I'm... still rotating Fallen London in my mind even though I've stopped actively playing it.
Merseyuser1 Since: Sep, 2011
#19030: Mar 12th 2022 at 5:01:43 AM

Do these qualify as Hard Truth Aesop from what I added to Series.Holby City:

  • Hard Truth Aesop: A threefer of examples:
    • A 2014 episode had the moral "Older doesn't necessarily mean wiser, and if you can't reason with an elderly person, don't try to, let them suffer the consequences of their own making.", when an abusive elderly patient yelled at a nurse. This One-Shot Character, a grouchy old man seemed to treat the hospital more like a hotel than a hospital.
    • One episode in 2015 delivered the moral that "If you have to stand up for medical ethics but the board don't agree, then it's right to quit, even if your paycheck depends on it, and it's right to take another medical job".
    • A 2018 episode also had another moral that was unorthodox, with it about the Patient of the Week: "Being a Girly Girl is okay, and it's not just about fashion and makeup, and some girly-girls are badasses, and you shouldn't feel pressure to deviate from the look that suits you or try and be a Tomboy even if they pressure you to and make fun of you for being girly". OK, so the girly-girl was a One-Shot Character, but the moral was relevant.

laserviking42 from End-World Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
#19031: Mar 12th 2022 at 9:05:52 AM

[up][up] I would agree that sounds nitpicky to me. Some shows aren't as wedded to the idea of strict continuity (gasp!) as hardcore fans would want them to be.

[up]So my thoughts:

  • I would agree, the "respect your elders" is still rather prevalent even today, so defying it would qualify as HTA.
  • It sounds like the aesop is "Stand up for what you believe, even if it costs you", which I would argue is conventional wisdom, so no I don't think it's an example.
  • As written, it's very muddled and hard to follow. It sounds like the aesop is "Be yourself no matter how others judge you", which is a super conventional aesop and not an example.

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Merseyuser1 Since: Sep, 2011
#19032: Mar 12th 2022 at 9:25:35 AM

[up] I've split that into two entries as suggested for the Aesop.

Onto another medical drama, from Series.Nurses 2020, are these correctly used:

  • Artistic License: This was one reason the show got negative reviews in its first season, due to the nature of the series, with Willing Suspension of Disbelief being one of the things people said it went too far with because of believability issues around nursing. It proved controversial.
  • British Brevity: The series has one season of ten episodes (although it's actually nine due to a banned episode about Judaism), making this a fairly short season. The second season also has 10 episodes too.
  • Status Quo Is God: Zig-zagged. While it is a Medical Drama, it is the kind where things change with a major Wham Episode causing irreversible changes to the status quo, but the status quo of the same team working together is in play.

laserviking42 from End-World Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
#19033: Mar 12th 2022 at 9:36:16 AM

  • Artistic License is a supertrope, you would want to use one of the subtropes, most likely Artistic License – Medicine. Also you would want to explain how it is an example instead of just saying it has "believability issues".
  • I guess it applies, though ten episodes a series is quite alot for British shows, which normally run 4-6 episodes per series.
  • I personally hate the whole Zig-Zagging Trope concept, mainly because of entries like this one. It says it both is and isn't an example, like a form of Schroedinger's Trope. Anyways, the example says the status quo is irreversibly changed, so no it is not an example. The cast remaining the same is not the same as Status Quo Is God.

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
GoosefromWikipedia (Experienced, Not Yet Jaded)
#19034: Mar 12th 2022 at 9:56:36 AM

I found this example on Pokemon.Tropes J To R:

Going off from the trope description, Parody only applies to works that are parodies in themselves, not for listing the parodies a work has received. Is my understanding correct?

Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#19035: Mar 12th 2022 at 10:07:06 AM

Firstly, tropes in example list should apply from works and not to works, so it should be moved to Referenced by… subpage or removed. Secondly, while Parody is a trope, as a genre page, the example at tabletop's page should better be replaced with a subtrope like Affectionate Parody or Shout-Out.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Kayube (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19036: Mar 12th 2022 at 10:37:03 AM

I've been wondering about how to sort out the validity of these examples from New Pokémon Snap.

  • The Bus Came Back:
    • A lot of Pokémon that were excluded from Pokémon Sword and Shield such as Aipom, Pidgeot, and Toucannon return in this game.
    • In relation to the Snap spin-off series itself, many of the Gen I Pokémon featured are ones that were excluded from the original game. These Pokémon are Venusaur, Blastoise, Caterpie, Pidgeot, Ratatta, Arbok, Clefairy, Ninetales, Machamp, Tentacruel, Dodrio, Dewgong, Gengar, Onix, Exeggutor, Pinsir, Vaporeon, Jolteon, Flareon and Aerodactyl. An Alolan Raichu also appears; the original did not include the standard variety.
    • Also returning is Todd Snap, from the original game.
    • After all Pokémon games after Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 had made the non-Spring forms of Deerling and Sawsbuck unobtainable without importing them due to the removal of seasons, all seasonal forms can be found and caught on camera, in appropriate environments.
    • In terms of Pokémon who were in the first game but did not appear at launch, Diglett, Psyduck, Koffing, Gyarados, and Snorlax return in the game’s first update.

New Pokémon Snap is a spinoff, but most of these examples are relating the game's Pokémon roster to those of the main series.

  • The first example refers to Pokémon that appeared in previous main series games, did not appear in Pokémon Sword and Shield, and then appear in this game.
  • The second example refers to Pokémon that appeared in Pokémon Red and Blue, but not in the original Pokémon Snap (which was released during the era of the Gen I games being the newest), which then appear in this game.
  • The third example refers to a character who appeared in the original Pokémon Snap, didn't appear in any games after that, then appeared in this game.
  • The fourth example refers to a Pokémon's alternate forms appearing for the first time in a while. (Said Pokémon first appeared in the Gen V games with four forms; one of these forms could be caught in Gen VI, but the Pokémon could only be obtained through transfers/breeding in Gen VII and doesn't appear in Gen VIII.)
  • The fifth example refers to Pokémon that appeared in the original Pokémon Snap, did not appear at launch in this game, but were then added in an update.

I feel like if anything, only the last example should count, since it's the only one that deals specifically with the Snap games and doesn't bring the main series into it. (The Todd Snap example doesn't make any sense if you don't take the rest of the franchise into account, since there have only been two Snap games and Todd is in both of them!) Simply appearing or not appearing in a spinoff shouldn't qualify as getting off or on the Bus, otherwise pretty much every game in the franchise should have Put on a Bus and/or The Bus Came Back examples showing which Pokémon were in that game but not the previous franchise entry and vice versa.

laserviking42 from End-World Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
#19037: Mar 12th 2022 at 1:23:34 PM

I don't know much about Pokemon, but for The Bus Came Back to apply, it has to be about characters that were explicitly written out of a story. If characters were just not featured in an installment, it wouldn't count.

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Synchronicity (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19038: Mar 13th 2022 at 12:41:03 PM

^Agreed, anything that isn't that is a shoehorn.


WesternAnimation.Turning Red (spoilers for a movie that came out two days ago)

  • Abusive Mom: In the climax of the movie, Ming becomes this after her transformation breaks. She destroys the concert venue, and grabs Mei in a painful hold, yelling at her for being a disappointment. When Mei transforms and fights back, her mother hunts her down and outright tries to kill her. Even before that, her complete control over Meilin's life, her disapproval of and refusal to allow her to do anything with her friends, and lack of support were abusive too.

The context of the former statement is "through vaguely-defined ancient magic your mom gives into her emotions and turns into an angry kaiju". Even without the considerations of fiction I don't believe that single instance is enough to qualify her as abusive; overall, the film takes a very Parents as People My Beloved Smother approach to Ming — while she is a controlling tiger mom, it's made very clear that she and her daughter love each other very much and these are very much extraneous circumstances that neither is equipped to deal with. Thoughts?

Edited by Synchronicity on Mar 13th 2022 at 2:41:26 PM

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#19039: Mar 13th 2022 at 12:42:09 PM

Yeah, that's definitely uncool, but abuse is a pattern.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
mightymewtron Word Up from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Word Up
#19040: Mar 13th 2022 at 1:14:11 PM

Agreed, I could see people arguing that her smothering is emotionally abusive, but I don't think it's really the case. She never does anything truly cruel to Mei, even verbally (it's more that she loves Mei so much it's embarrassing), and the kaiju thing is symbolic of her pent-up emotions breaking out and even then she never really attacks Mei, just whatever she believes is "corrupting" Mei, i.e. 4*Town.

Edited by mightymewtron on Mar 13th 2022 at 5:14:27 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
johnnygreenspark Since: Feb, 2022
#19041: Mar 13th 2022 at 1:59:49 PM

From Pokémon Scarlet and Violet

  • Put on a Bus: As with the previous generation, the games won't be compatible with every Pokémon in existence, limiting player options to those within the currently-unnamed region. How many Pokémon that will be exempt from the games are still unknown.

Looking at Put on a Bus, it looks like that's for characters that explicitly get written out of the story, right?

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#19042: Mar 13th 2022 at 2:01:14 PM

Right.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
GenericGuy2000 I’m here, I guess. from a generic place. Since: Jul, 2021 Relationship Status: Cast away
I’m here, I guess.
#19043: Mar 13th 2022 at 2:13:18 PM

So on the page for Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aang's character page lists him as a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds.

Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds: Aang isn't evil or villainous in any way, but it is scary when he gets upset and goes into the Avatar State.

The trope's page describes it like this.

This is a character with omnicidal and/or Ax-Crazy tendencies, or a character who wants to destroy everyone in the story, and is suddenly in a position to do so (on a small or large scale); but in contrast to other characters, he/she has some plausible, outright tragic reason to do so. In some cases, the other characters outright sympathize with this one (whether or not the audience does too is out of the equation here), all the while accepting that they must be stopped. Sometimes, the character is even portrayed as likeable, just... not with the right mindset.

I wouldn't say this description fits Aang very well, to say the leastnote , unless his brief Avatar State tantrum against the sand benders counts as "omnicidal and/or Ax-Crazy tendencies".

Edited by GenericGuy2000 on Mar 13th 2022 at 6:16:04 AM

I’m gonna put some Gloom in your eye.
Amonimus the "Retromancer" from <<|Wiki Talk|>> (Sergeant) Relationship Status: In another castle
the "Retromancer"
#19044: Mar 13th 2022 at 2:14:58 PM

"Aang isn't evil or villainous in any way, but" should already be a call that it's not an example.

TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
mightymewtron Word Up from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Word Up
#19045: Mar 13th 2022 at 2:18:04 PM

I know we have a cleanup for Older Than They Look but I can't find it and it's inactive, so for now I want to check this example on BoJack Horseman (we have a cleanup for that show too but it's less active):

  • Diane looks like she's in her late 20s but she's in her mid-to-late 30s.

This really doesn't feel like a significant enough difference. It's less than a decade. She looks like she could be in her thirties to me.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
laserviking42 from End-World Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
#19047: Mar 13th 2022 at 2:24:03 PM

[up][up][up][up]I'll quote from Tips Worksheet:

If you feel the need to preface your example with "Not really an example but…" you know in your heart it's not an example. Don't add it.

[up][up]I would call that misuse. I've seen plenty of it in other age related tropes where the examples occasionally devolve into "Character is born in 1986 but the actor was born in 1985!!!".

Edited by laserviking42 on Mar 13th 2022 at 6:26:41 AM

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
nw09 Since: Apr, 2018
#19048: Mar 13th 2022 at 8:48:39 PM

Non-Indicative Name has an example for white tigers, since they have black and white fur. They're only black on the stripes, as other tigers have. Is this a stretch?

Edited by nw09 on Mar 13th 2022 at 8:48:58 AM

MrMediaGuy2 Since: Jun, 2015
#19049: Mar 13th 2022 at 9:01:32 PM

[up] Yes. I'm pretty sure it's not inaccurate to refer to regular tigers as orange.

laserviking42 from End-World Since: Oct, 2015 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
#19050: Mar 13th 2022 at 9:03:30 PM

I had to dig through the Real Life sub page on Non-Indicative Name, in the Living Things - Animal folder to even find the example (there is a lot of nattery mess there).

It simply reads:

  • White tigers have black and white fur.

It does not say how the name is non indicative, because white tigers are in fact actual tigers with white instead of orange/red fur. That example can go, and probably a whole lot more from that page as well.

I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me

Total posts: 36,649
Top