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
Don't know about a cleanup, but sounds like people can't differentiate Dancing Bear from Just Here for Godzilla, Watch It for the Meme, Retroactive Recognition (note that the scope was recently expanded) and Vindicated by History, even though what they are about it pretty clear. If there are way more examples than these, maybe there's some problem or unclear description the other threads may want to check.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I take this to mean many but not all of the works are dull or pointless.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me![]()
![]()
There are several questionable examples in the Literature folder, for one thing. Not sure what the threshold is here.
True enough. Not sure where that leaves things though.
Maybe there's no problem here, but examples like these strike me as potentially different enough from the trope description and some of the more obvious examples listed. Tropes Are Flexible for sure, just wondering how far that goes here.
Edited by BoltDMC on Feb 22nd 2022 at 10:15:45 AM
At the very least, Dancing Bear is supposed to be "notable production features" and the mentioned examples don't sound like it.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupSo looking at the examples:
- Don't know about Wegman's work, so won't comment.
- Toy Story wasn't exactly billed as "Come see the amazing CGI film", and if I recall correctly, it was one of many CG films coming out around then. Cut away.
- The Winnie the Pooh one is clearly misuse, 2D animation from Disney is not a gimmick or dancing bear (and they always bring it back eventually), I'd say cut that one.
- The 50 Shades of Grey I believe is an example, by most accounts it is a lackluster movie (and quite offensive to the BDSM community), but the "sexy" aspect was super played up, definitely needs a re-write though.
Edited by laserviking42 on Feb 22nd 2022 at 1:53:38 PM
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose meEdited by MichaelKatsuro on Feb 22nd 2022 at 12:45:52 PM
Toy Story was one of the very first CGI Animated films. It was a huge deal.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI think Dancing Bear is flexible enough to be, "This work wouldn't be nearly as memorable if it wasn't for this meta aspect." Toy Story is a fantastically written film, but the CGI was a huge selling point, if I'm correct, and it may not have been as groundbreaking if it was in 2D. I also pretty much only hear the 2011 Winnie the Pooh film come up in the context of being the studio's last 2D film and being sort of Screwed by the Network.
I don't think we should limit it to when works are only worthy because of their gimmicks cuz that may invite unnecessary complaining.
Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 22nd 2022 at 3:55:13 PM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Is this a History Repeats shoehorn? The villains had a multi-stage plan, which consists of attacking each academy in turn, the heroes were still playing catch-up at the time on finding out what's going on. This isn't really what History Repeats is about, is it?
- History Repeats: Volume 2 ends on an upbeat note with the successful battle against Grimm, but with the heroes unaware that villainous forces are setting up to bring about the fall of Beacon from within, which came to pass in Volume 3. Volume 4 ends with Team RNJR winning their battle and the heroes beginning to re-assemble in Mistral - unaware of the treacherous element in Haven Academy seeking to destroy it in the next volume. In both cases, the protagonists are allied (or seek to ally) with people they don't know are working against them. Volume 2 ends with Cinder's team helping the heroes contain the Grimm, with the heroes completely unaware that the villains are connected to the threat they've been investigating. Volume 4 sees Team RNJR arriving in Mistral with the hope of receiving advice from Haven's headmaster, unaware that he's an informant for Salem. In both cases, the adults knew the Academies were in danger from a known threat; the difference between Volume 2 and Volume 4 is that Team RNJR know about the secrets of Remnant, and the rest of Team RWBY know various details about the pending attack.
If they've planned ahead for it, don't think it's an example.
e: I've answered with poor word choice, I've meant that I agree with you.
Edited by Amonimus on Feb 22nd 2022 at 2:33:30 PM
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupYes, they had. Each Academy is hiding an Artifact of Power that the Big Bad needs to collect to achieve her goal — and she needs all four of them. She also has some personal reasons for wanting all four academies destroyed. It's just that the audience and heroes were playing catch-up to learn about the villains and what they were after.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.- In the UK, Science Ninja Team Gatchaman, which was dubbed and titled G-Force: Guardians of Space, was a Saturday Morning Cartoon complete with assassination, monsters that only ate women, and some fairly spectacular violence. They also aired, not just Evangelion, but the Shinji and Kaworu Bath Scene, at 10 am.
This was on Animation Age Ghetto... completely failing to mention that these airings were on Sci-Fi Channel and were aimed at adults.
As long as this flower is in my heart. My Strength will flow without end.This is on Better on DVD:
- M*A*S*H: The DVD releases for M*A*S*H gave the viewer the ability to watch each episode without any of the canned laughter on a separate English language track. The DVD sets also boasted the untrimmed versions of each episode, since they didn't have to fit into a half-hour block for broadcast.
Shouldn't this be on Enhanced on DVD since it's an added feature?
Reposting from a few pages ago
:
Is this example from Batman And The Outsiders valid cause, I thought the reaction is when there's a disagreement about a works quality between critics and audiences, whereas this is saying that the sales of one run on a comic didn't reflect the opinions that fans of the previous runs had; which if anything seems more like Vocal Minority to me?:
- Critical Dissonance: For all that the Judd Winick iteration of the team is disdained by fans of the original series, it lasted longer than any other run on the team.
Is the following example from Decomposite Character being misused seeing as how the work is not an adaptation, but a Sequel Series:
- The Legend of Korra while it mostly has Composite Characters of the original Avatar cast, does have a Decomposite Character when it comes to Katara who’s character and archetype is split into Korra and Asami. Korra the eponymous heroine has the similar appearance, name, tribe and Making a Splash powers as well as Healing Hands to Katara, while Asami has Katara’s gentler qualities such as being Cool Big Sis and Team Mom in addition to being the Love Interest.
Is the following example from And Just Like That... being used correctly?:
- Alternate Universe: Played with. The series takes place in a version of the present where the COVID-19 pandemic is apparently over (its existence is briefly acknowledged in the first episode), with face masks and social distancing non-existent.
![]()
![]()
Isn't Animation Age Ghetto about the belief that animation is solely for children? I really don't see how that entry even comes close to talking about that.
![]()
Yes, it does sound like Enhanced on DVD is the better fit for that.
So:
- Critical Dissonance: Is supposed to be about how critics and audiences don't agree (i.e. a critically panned movie is a big hit or a critic's darling makes no money). That entry sounds more like Fan Myopia to me.
- Decomposite Character: I agree, a sequel may have new characters that take the same role as the original (a new tough guy, a new hacker, etc) but composite and decomposite characters are for adaptation only.
- Alternate Universe: That example is way out, cut away.
Sorry, it does seem like a shoehorn and I would support cutting it. The description given didn't really seem like something that was just for kids, or marketed only to kids, etc. Pairing it with Evangelion just confused me more.
But to summarize, IMO: Not an example.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose meSo I ran across this one on Tactful Translation:
- A notable inversion occurs in the final season of The Wire. After a prolonged behind the scenes political struggle, the new mayor of Baltimore Tommy Carcetti manages to get rid of Police Commissioner Ervin Burrell, who Carcetti long considered a hack but was unable to fire due to Burrell's political connections. When Carcetti gives a standard making nice political speech honoring Burrell, the Baltimore Sun line edtor Gus Haynes translates the speech into the truth. Even Gus' workplace enemies are amused by the routine.
Tommy Carcetti: I chaired the public safety subcommittee, and I called upon him (Burrell) many times. We worked closely together then, and when I became Mayor, we formed a strong relationship...
Gus Haynes: "He feared and hated me, and I merely wanted him dead."
Tommy Carcetti: ...making Baltimore a safer city...
Gus Haynes: "Don't stray from the Inner Harbor."
Tommy Carcetti: ...I know that the criminal justice coordinating council need a new...
Gus Haynes: "It took a while, but I finally put his ass out to pasture."
This doesn't really seem like an inversion, or even a proper example at all. Thoughts?
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose meWould these be appropriate on Status Quo Is God as subtropes?:
- Christmas Episode: Not always an example of this trope, but then again, there are some characters like The Scrooge, the Alpha Bitch or a Rogues Gallery character who learn the moral of the story or temporarily have a change of heart, but outside of Christmas specials, return to their normal personality via a Snap Back or there's a Reset Button next season.
- Christmas Every Day: When Christmas becomes the status quo, but just for one episode to deliver An Aesop on how it's not all that great.
- Holiday Volunteering: Some cases, the character has a change of heart, stopping being a Jerkass due to this. In other cases, by the next episode they're back to normal.
- Filler Villain: The villain only appears once, never mentioned again, and everything seems to be back to normal.
- Merry Christmas in Gotham: Superhero universes go temporarily Lighter and Softer just for one episode or Story Arc... then it's back to the darker and edgier Arc Villains.
Sega Saturn has Americans Hate Tingle listed along with objective tropes. That's not allowed, right?
Edited by NitroIndigo on Feb 24th 2022 at 11:37:16 AM

Is there a clean up thread for Dancing Bear? The YMMV main page describes it this way:
A Dancing Bear is any work of media that attracts viewers not because it’s particularly entertaining — many of them, in point of fact, are dull or otherwise pointless — but because of some gimmick involved in the production: Any work for which the method by which it is created is more interesting than the result.
To me, this suggests the work needs to be ineffective or unsuccessful but noteworthy for something odd and gimmicky. Problem is, there are several examples of work which is indeed successful while also having something which people see about it as odd and gimmicky. A couple examples:
(While they are known for this, they are considered noteworthy enough to appear in art anthologies and within the world of visual art, they’re considered quality art)
(The first film and its sequels are well regarded and popular, and this aspect of the film hardly matters regarding the way they’re perceived today)
(The example even says it’s “considered a good movie in its own right” and the “distinction” doesn’t seem all that meaningful)
(This is in fact considered a successful book, and these two “distinctions” aren’t something that overshadow the work. In fact, a lot of the Literature examples have this problem).
Would love to get some feedback on this issue, including whether to cut these specific examples or not.
Thanks!