Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Well, of course they are in one sense. What I meant was more writing out like "We don't want this character any more. Let's come up with a way to get rid of them."
But that aside, I think there's a problem with authorial intent here. Without Word of God, we can't know whether the character's really "used up" and as it were naturally retired (the visiting vampire hunter has caught the vampire, so, mission accomplished, she leaves - that's not what I'd normally call "written out") or whether the authors just made it look that way, but intend to bring her back (that is, they are putting her on a bus in a clever way).
Written out in the sense of "this actor has another show," I'd say, but with a specific arc closed. So the character could come back, but wouldn't have to, necessarily. Personally, I wouldn't use Put on a Bus for that, because at some point, it becomes Put on a Bus for every supporting character who hasn't shown up for a while (for whatever reason).
I think the confusion here is Gnome seems to be under the impression that Put on a Bus is a negative trope... that the character is written out because people don't like them and want to get rid of them.
That's not the case at all.
Put on a Bus can be for any reason. It could be because the character is disliked, or it could be because the actor has other obligations, or because the writers can't think of anything else to do with them... regardless, the point is that a RECURRING character (not just a one-shot minor character) is written out in such a way that they can easily be brought back if the situation that drove them away in the first place ever changes.
^^No, I'm not under that impression at all. Sorry if I expressed myself badly. The impression I was under (which was apparently wrong) is that it's a matter of dramatic necessity vs arbitrariness.
Say, for example, that the protagonist, Alice, is shown as happily married to Bob in the first season. Then Bob is drafted, sent off to war and goes MIA.
If this was done by the writers because Bob's actor wants to pursue a stage career, then he's put on a bus, we can agree on that (and if the producers don't want him back and have him outright killed, then they may be dropping a bridge on him).
However, if the intention all the time was that the second season should deal with how Alice copes with his absence and her fear that he's dead, I wouldn't say that Bob has been put on a bus, I'd say that his absence is dramatically necessary because they show just wouldn't work with him around.
That's the distinction I had in mind. There's nothing negative or positive about it; it's a matter of dramatic necessity.
But this may very well be a misapprehension.
Put on a Bus is a very broad trope for whenever a character is written out of a show in such a way that they could easily return. There are more specific tropes for what happens afterward: does the character die, does the actor die, do they come back, do they start popping in whenever the writers feel like it, etc.?
Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Gnome Titan: that totally makes sense to me! In my case, it was a recurring character who didn't have to stick around necessarily, but could technically come back at any time, so by wrm5's explanation, Put on a Bus fits really well.
Fighteer: Thanks for the more in-depth explanation! We'll see what - if anything - happens to my guy.
Edited by hollygoolightlyJust bear in mind that even though what I wrote makes sense, it seems not to reflect the way the trope is actually used :)
Also, as I wrote earlier in this thread, it also makes sense to let the trope inlcude the "dramatically necessary" cases, because in the absence of Word of God we can't really tell whether the writers put somebody on a bus because they considered it dramatically necessary or because the actor wasn't available. We want to avoid making the trope subjective.

Is it really Put on a Bus when a character's arc is by all appearances over? They've gone through the plot, they survived and they leave. I always thought Put on a Bus was more for the cases where the character would still have business in the narrative, but is written out for whatever reason.