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
![]()
- I guess the editor thought it was just "Boobs used in a gag", not "Boob size humor"
One misuse is not TRS worthy, but the name sure doesn't talk about size.
Edited by Malady on Sep 7th 2022 at 8:01:43 AM
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
(x3) While I agree that that's a shoehorned example, a dub can add a Gag Boobs example via adding in jokes about the character's chest that weren't present in the original.
DeconstructionFic.Film: Is it really a deconstruction if the cause changes from the Prince to Snow White?
- Fairest deconstructs the ending of the original story. In the fairy tale, the prince orders the Evil Queen to dance with heated iron shoes until she died. Fairest changes it so that Snow White is the one who orders it.
Btw I found this on Decon-Recon Switch for Game of Thrones. I don't think this is an example? Something about it reads off. This doesn't really read like a reconstruction /deconstruction. Unless I'm missing something.
- In the season 1 episode "Baelor", Shae points out that a girl who'd almost been raped wouldn't be inviting a man into her bed two hours later in response to Tyrion's story about Tysha who had sex with him the same night he and Jamie "saved" her from a gang of rapists. The event turned out to be a Confidence Building Scheme orchestrated by Jaime for Tyrion to lose his virginity. However, in the season 5 episode "The Gift" Gilly is cornered and almost raped by two Nights Watch recruits, only to be rescued at the last minute by Sam (who they beat the living crap out of) and Ghost (who they flee from). While Sam is recovering from the beatdown, Gilly thanks him for his bravery by having sex with him which reconstructs the trope.
I feel like a Decon-Recon Switch has to be the same event. This seems more like trying to fit inconsistent writing into a trope that'll make it seem intentional
Anyone else have thoughts on this
? I'd like more opinions than just mine and Hello's before I remove it
![]()
![]()
Doesn't look like a deconstruction to me. Maybe there's more to it in the actual story, but from the way the entry is written, the ending is simply changed, not deconstructed.
edit: though I went to the trope page and the full example is:
- Fairest (Afterandalasia) deconstructs the ending of the original story. In the fairy tale, the prince orders the Evil Queen to dance with heated iron shoes until she died. Fairest changes it so that Snow White is the one who orders it. She saves her stepmother, has her healed, and invites her to her wedding. She then forces red-hot shoes onto her and makes her dance so that Snow White will remove the shoes. Instead of being a just punishment, Snow White's new husband is horrified by her cruelty. The entire thing is depraved and makes the prince rethink his Fourth-Date Marriage.
So the deconstruction is not that it's Snow White who does it instead of the Prince, but that the action is shown as horrible and cruel rather than the just comeuppance.
Edited by kundoo on Sep 9th 2022 at 3:45:11 AM
I don't know if there's a cleanup thread for redundant examples or not, but there's not one but two What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids? examples on Aggretsuko, one for the franchise as a whole and the other for the Netflix series.
In Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Johnny Depp reprises his role as Jack Sparrow. He also plays the multiple Jacks in the scenes where the real one is in Davy Jones's Locker and on the Flying Dutchman. Does this fit under the Acting for Two trope?
Edited by gjjones on Sep 8th 2022 at 12:06:44 PM
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.I've been considering for a while if Otus from the videogame Owlboy fits the definition of a Pinball Protagonist and/or Little Hero, Big War. The key contention is this: Otus has agency, but nothing he does ends up being meaningful to the overarching plot. His actions do not accomplish anything but he gets a full character arc.
There's also a section where he and his companions have to navigate a battlefield, but the intent there is not to participate in the battle but to get to safety (or possibly steal a McGuffin, I forget which).
Basically: Otus does not affect the plot (it's a Just Before the End kind of thing), but he is an integral part of the story (it's about him and the impact he has on those close to him — but once again, that impact does not affect the plot). Does he qualify for Pinball Protagonist status? Maybe as a Downplayed Trope ("you can try but your actions might not matter"), or as a Deconstructed Trope ("a Pinball Protagonist still matters to others")?
Edited by Whitecroc on Sep 9th 2022 at 1:46:34 PM
Does the Adaptational Job Change trope apply to hobbies? In the book Mary Jane by Judith O’Brien, Mary Jane is a ballerina instead of being an actress (MJ is in high school during this book series). Similarly Peter in the first book took up basketball for a time but later he quits (I don’t recall if there’s any other adaptations of Peter Parker that took sports)
Very cool videoThis was recently added to The Sneetches and Other Stories.
- Animal Motifs: Unsurprisingly, Sylvester McMonkey McBean has a monkey motif visible in his design. It’s not clear if McBean is an anthropomorphic monkey (similar to how the Sneetches are anthropomorphic birds) or if he’s just a human or humanoid with a vaguely monkey-like face.
Both in the original book illustrations and in the animated adaptation, McBean doesn't look any more monkey-like than your typical Dr. Seuss character, and AFAIK he doesn't have any Animal Stereotypes in his personality commonly associated with monkeys. (He's a con artist who exploits the Sneetches' Fantastic Racism for money.) The only thing monkey-like about him is his name, which can be explained by just being a bizarre Seussian name.
![]()
![]()
I did say this in the ATT query, and I'll say it again, the statement:
Is inherently contradictory. If they didn't affect the plot, you could lift them right out and the story would essentially be the same (a maker of the Pinball Protagonist).
The trope is specifically about professions, but we do have a handy Adaptation Deviation index.
Closest I could see to applying is Adaptational Skill. Maybe Adaptational Backstory Change if the hobby figures in to their origin at all.
For an Animal Motif, there would have to have some sort of explicit monkey type imagery, or sounds or the like.
The example is actually zero context, because it says the character has a "visible monkey motif", but doesn't explain how at all.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose meSo apparently there’s a special Disney logo for their 100th anniversary in the trailers for Hocus Pocus 2 and Disenchanted. Do these count as Logo Gag examples?
You’re Gonna Carry That Weight.So I found this on Bing Crosby.
- Grave Humor: Not intentionally. The year of birth displayed on his grave is incorrect. (1904 instead of 1903.)
First of all, I don't see what's so hilarious about a number typo. Secondly, is getting the date of his birth off by one year really an Epic Fail? That sounds like a pretty minor mistake.
If it's not intentional or funny, it's not an example.
Edited by Fighteer on Sep 9th 2022 at 9:03:41 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On Characters.Mage The Ascension, the Celestial Chorus has:
- Artistic License – Religion: Not exactly a good representation of any faith, particularly in how they work off the claim that all faiths are effectively the same. Unitarian Universalism is probably the closest, but the Chorus has its own unique flavor of monotheistic universalism.
Is this really Artistic License – Religion? It's an entirely fictional faith, not a fictionalised representation of a real one. There may be some misconceptions about religion in the sourcebooks, but the context does not indicate that.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.Fictional Religion is what you want.
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576A troper wrote this for Hidden Agenda Villain (did some tweaks, but the meaning remained the same). Does it fit the trope? Because the laconic description is "A villain and their actions are known, but not why." This is the exact opposite, we know the aim but not the actions, maybe an Inverted Trope?
- Hidden Agenda Villain: A bit of a weird case as his goal of course is to become the King of the Pirates like so many but unlike most of the others he actually has a very specific plan on how to do so. Said plan is pretty ambiguous though and has only been revealed in bits and pieces.
- Teach had his eyes set on the Dark-Dark Fruit for some unknown reason and didn't make a single move until he found it. He also planned to steal Whitebeard's Devil Fruit to use alongside his own and while the power it could grant is obviously tempting Blackbeard sought out that specific combination for still unclear reasons.
- One of the only clear parts of his plan was becoming a Warlord. He did that so he could go to Impel Down to recruit powerful fighters for his crew.
- His ascension to being an Emperor consisted of claiming Whitebeard's old territories and hunting down Devil Fruit users with powers that caught his attention to steal them for his own crew to use. What all of this is building towards is still unknown.
I don't think "villain's plans are known" is a notable inversion of Hidden Agenda Villain
Someone just added this to Translation Nod:
- The heroes' Transformation Trinket in Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters announces "It's morphin' time!", and the evil giant robots are called Megazords. Both are references to Super Sentai's Enlgish frankenslation, Power Rangers, in which "It's morphin' time" is the standard heroes' transformation cry, and the heroes' combined mechs are designated Megazords.
Problem is, Power Rangers is an adaptation, not a dub. Should I remove it?
Hmmm, not sure.
I was going to change this on Trivia.Final Fantasy IV to the current trope name Accidentally Correct Writing, but I don't think "bad translation used an obscure word" really fits the trope.note
- Accidentally Accurate: The SNES version's English localization is very rough, so Tellah calling Edward "[a] spoony bard" initially comes off as just another weird translation error. However, spoony is actually a word that means foolish or lovesick, which describes Edward perfectly. Thus, the bard IS spoony; they checked.
Edited by rjd1922 on Sep 10th 2022 at 1:26:28 PM
Keet cleanup

For what it's worth, I've removed it for now as a shoehorned example.
Edited by gjjones on Sep 7th 2022 at 11:01:30 AM
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.