Follow TV Tropes
What type of trope would Dumped Via Text Message be?
Why are tropes considered \"too common\" not allowed exactly?
Because even with the unwritten rule forbidding personal examples, those arerules on real life or not as meaningful as in a work.
Some of those in the impossible in real life folder might be possible in real life,like the one guy or the smurfette principle,with one male or one female in a group. however,those are plot tropes,but elemental powers are possible in real life. or at least some of its sub-tropes are.
Why is For Want Of Nail listed as not possible in real life? There are TONS of cases in real life where if some small thing went differently it could well have changed the course of history.
Because there\'s no way of knowing how things would go otherwise. We can\'t actually see other timelines; for all we know In Spite Of A Nail is in place and everything would have gone the same.
Can we please allow real life examples for Absolute Xenophobe? This one is listen as "Impossible in real life" but that isn't true. Here are the examples that were recently deleted from Absolute Xenophobe. Although the first example is only speculation, the second example is a real thing that we know exists.
Rice Burner should have Real Life examples deleted since this trope can attract flamebait amongst car fans. I dont think it's appropriate for Rice Burner to have a real-life example.
How is The Can Kicked Him "impossible in real life"?
How is Mind Rape a sex trope? I thought the word 'rape' there was just a metaphor, and it usually doesn't involve any literal rape.
As part of ongoing efforts to clean up misuse of Genre Savvy, why is it here?
And why is under "Tropes Impossible In Real Life"? I see it falling under "Too Common In Real Life To Trope", should I move there?
If audiences being Genre Savvy is not a valid example, this would be enormously helpful with cleanup efforts.
Maybe a bit late, but the very fact of it relying on a "genre" makes it a Narrative/Plot trope, which should never have RL examples due to the unconfirmed, and obviously controversial, idea that real life has an author/plot.
I added Purity Sue, Relationship Sue, God Sue, Villain Sue and Jerk Sue. Arrange them?
A bit late and maybe Anvilicious, but you shouldn't add tropes arbitrarily to this list. Also, tropes with Example Sectionectomy must not be listed here, since they don't allow examples of any sort.
Could someone add the new trope "Exactly Exty Years Ago" to the tropes that are impossible in real life?
Why? (Which section, I mean).
Shouldn't there be a reasoning next to each trope?
There was once, but it made the page too long.
Anyone thought about putting the lists in subpages? We have subpages for much shorter lists of stuff. Plus, like I brought up awhile back, telling people the reasoning behind a decision indicates respect, and feeling like the people who run the wiki respect you rather than that they're just arbitrarily deciding things goes a long way towards community spirit. If anybody feels similar, bring it up in the thread. I tried it, no one acknowledged that I was even a thing.
I did, but I didn't offer up that idea timely.
Why is Humans Are Morons listed as not possible in real life?
The trope relies on a comparison with a different sentient species.
Sigh, considering all villain tropes are stuck here, I'm guessing no people have ever done bad, yup, all just hugs, kisses, and kittens, heard this guy called Adolf was pretty cool, just like that dude Stalin. Honestly, why do the people that defend that policy always straw man it by asking about the Complete Monster trope, sure, nobody (except extremely depraved serial killers) are that, but what about other thing? Do you mean to tell me Hitler can't be considered the Big Bad of WWII, that the Spaniards weren't the Outside-Context Villain for the Native Americans? The pointless censorship is alarming, all so the particular out there folks (the kind that praise Hitler, apparently) don't feel bad.
Nope. This is a site about fiction. We aren't obliged at all to list Real Life material on tropes where it tends to be controversial. To interpret that as meaning that we think all these people were good is extremely insulting.
Not all villain tropes are protected from real life examples.
They are getting, though.
WHY did they delete all the explanations for why you can't use real life examples?
Because the page was overly long.
Still seems like a good idea
Having the reasons on the page showed a level of respect for regular editors wanting to know why something that seems harmless in regards to real life examples is on this list. Not having them makes the whole thing come off as "Because we said so." I'd argue that length isn't an issue in comparison.
As far as I know, pages that are over 500,000 characters long can crash the server when people try to edit it. That could be why, although I'm not 100% on that.
Maybe we should keep it somewhere else for now, before history got deleted?
Why not divide the categories into subpages? For those that need it anyway, I don't think the ones that are impossible to apply in real life would need a subpage.
Might want to discuss that here, although I feel it's too late.
Whelp, everybody just pretended I didn't say anything, so...great community spirit. Bleh.
Also: should Dystopia be included here, as it is (according to many definitions) fictional by definition in spite of those regimes (North Korea comes to mind) which resemble such? Also given any would-be "real life examples" would probably just be natter magnets?
Were the reasons for each trope being listed here removed for a reason? If so, what reason?
Check the page history, it's still there.
It seems like it's just to reduce character count and "improve" organization, based on that?
Um, I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. While I agree with some things that just straight up aren't real, why are all villain tropes put here? Sure, no one's capable of being fully evil (unless you count certain serial killers who outright care about nobody else) but, there certainly are bad people. Like, honestly, what could Hitler be called other than the Big Bad of real life/WWII? Or, with some things, like the Outside-Context Villain, sure, it's wrong to call someone evil (apparently) but, shouldn't that trope be viewed through the eyes of the invaded people, maybe? The whole No Real Life Examples Please, thing, is starting to be an example of what everyone refers to as being, "overly PC".
It hasn't really anything to do with political correctness. Also, not calling Hitler evil would be an example of political incorrectness rather than the opposite.
"Good" and "Evil" are very much a characterization thing. You'll notice that in fiction, even heroic characters sometimes kill a lot of people and evil people do good things sometimes as well - you can't reliably tell one's alignment from their actions especially in more morally ambiguous works. Thus, in Real Life, there is no consistent indicator of good and evil. Especially once you leave the realm of people like Hitler and enter the more questionable examples where natter and arguments erupt - not helped by some instances of people flat out misusing tropes.
Since Redshirt Army is in this list, shouldn't Mook be here, too?
Uh, yeah, I've reported it.
Need some help figuring this out guys.
The Creator guideline page says we shouldn't list character tropes for real life people e.g. Actors or Musicians.
So if 'Adorkable' is a character trope, and it's on this list here of tropes where real life examples are not allowed, does that mean it should never be listed on a Creator's page?
Yes, no examples of that.
Thanks! So if someone has added it to a Creator page, what's the etiquette? Should I remove it, email the person who added it to have them do it, or if it's harmless, just leave it?
It is pretty harmless. No need to be enslaved to the rule.
Thanks Eddie. That's the bit I'm working on :-). Haven't been here long, really enjoying the site and its purpose, want to contribute while following the rules, but not be a curmudgeon.
The Back From the Dead trope actually has a RL counterpart. As the Other Wiki points out, though rare, Lazarus Syndrome exists and has happened to people who were legally declared dead (both respiratory and cardiac activity were stopped for an amount of time (varying between cases), only to be found alive later on.
This whole page has got me thinking. And it all boils down to the fact that people are opinionated egotistical monsters, when they want to be.
To say we can't list real-life examples, on utterly trivial mundane things, like, Light Is Not Good, (i.e. my clothes got bleached by the sun for example) yet can use an escape clause and list works BASED on real-life, sounds rather absurd, because it is absurd.
I notice too many people seem to get so melodramatic, childish and offended OVER EVERYTHING. People can't handle criticism. If they could, well, there'd be no need for this page! These whiny lemon-grabs who complain endlessly of being "offended" are counter-productive to our race and the site as a whole. They'd have us back in the dark ages if they could, where no one is allowed to discuss ANYTHING that disagrees with them. So you're offended. Okay. Big deal. NOW GET OVER IT.
Controversial topics such as real-life need to be addressed if we as a borderline-cooperative species stand to have any remote hope of maturing and/or evolving any further. We NEED to communicate, not be silenced by the idiots out there. Real life is not going to go away because we choose to ignore it or are too cowardly to address it.
That's a pretty weighty responsibility to attach to a website that's only supposed to be about analysing fiction.
Besides; describing real life in terms of a narrative is subjective. Describing a narrative in terms of a narrative is not (even if said narrative is based on real life, the author's filtered it through their mind and made it fiction).
Not being allowed to post RL examples on one specific wiki doesn't prevent you from discussing it on another site (or discussing it in this very wiki's forums, for that matter).
"I notice too many people seem to get so melodramatic, childish and offended OVER EVERYTHING"
Pot, Kettle, Black...
Like Bisected8 said, this is a website that focuses on fiction.
There are plenty of websites out there that deal with controversial topics in real life, but that is beyond the scope of this site.
"To say we can't list real-life examples, on utterly trivial mundane things, like, Light Is Not Good, (i.e. my clothes got bleached by the sun for example) yet can use an escape clause and list works BASED on real-life, sounds rather absurd, because it is absurd. "
Based off a real story is not the same as the real story, one is a work of fiction which is within the purview of this site, one is not. Also you misused Light Is Not Good there.
You want to be a opinionated, egotistical monster because as a site discussing fiction we do not attribute controversial tropes to real life?
And we shouldn't even be attributing tropes to real life as it is; tropes are literary devices and real life isn't a work of fiction. That there are pages that allow real life examples is a testament to the involved tropers not being jerks and writing things to annoy or insult others and then pass it off as "you just can't handle it."
Don't feed him, folks.
The problem is, fiction often emulates real-life. The reason the site has tropes attributed to it is to help us differentiate the difference between fact and fiction. Which is sometimes required to avoid confusion and dispel "urban-myths".
'Hollywood Science' and 'Real Life is Unrealistic' articles are prime examples of these.
Differentiation of fact and fiction belongs on Useful Notes pages or in trope descriptions. Tropes do not exist in Real Life. 'Dispelling urban myths' is tangential to the wiki's mission at best.
Incidentally, your OP example for an "unproblematic" Real Life example ("Light Is Not Good: My clothes got bleached by the sun") is a totally irrelevant, boring Troper Tale that lacks any understanding of the trope it claims to illustrate. Fine example for what we do not want, and why we are restricting Real Life sections.
I get what he's saying, not everyone only reads this site for fiction, in fact, many people find the most interesting things here to be the real life examples. Honestly, why is so much censored here, what, to avoid "offending people"? Some of the things here make no sense.
There are many reasons why Real Life examples are disallowed. Some were just too controversial. Some tend to attract misuse (there is no such thing as "evil" and "good" in Real Life, and pinning it down usually just causes arguments). Some turned into creepy fawning.
It's also worth noting that this is TV Tropes, so if people are here for Real Life examples they probably are on the wrong site.
Proposal to add Magical Girl to the list? If Talking Poo is there as it can't happen IRL (seriously, someone tried to make that happen?)...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we only add trope here either when it start causing trouble (people use too much Square Peg, Round Trope in Real Life section), or if it's highly possible to cause trouble (those on the page's list).
I put [[noreallife]] on the sandbox page and it didn't do anything.
Which sandbox? I've added it to the Wiki Sandbox and it works fine.
Don't forget, it will only do something the next time you are editing the page.
May I say this page is stupid.
Seriously if you don't want flame wars why not just get rid of editing all together?
Some things are more likely to lead to flame wars than others, as I am certain you know.
If you have something productive to contribute to the discussion about these instead of mere complaints, please go here.
And you wonder why people hate this site?
... because they are envious of the site's popularity?
Because we don't fall for arguments like "why don't you just forbid everything while you're at it"?
Real life examples are being used to sneak in Troper Tales. I miss troper tales, but they began to eat the wiki from the inside. This site is supported by ad revenue (If you're using an ad blocker it's easy to forget this) and it's hard to sell the site to legitimate advertisers when it's got people drooling over Jailbait on Jail Bait Wait or sharing best panty websites on Panty Shot.
Where do I contest NRLEP examples? "Soldiers at the Rear" isn't controversial at all, it's an everyday military occurrence and role. There are jokes and there is a divide between front-line soldiers and non-combatants, but it's not so controversial as it'll case flame wars.
In the Real Life Maintenance topic in Long Term Projects.
I really, really think this page is far too long. It desperately needs to be cut down to size.
Red Eyes, Take Warning already has the NRL tag, the RL examples eliminated, but it's not included here yet.
You can take the request here.
I commented on the article page ages ago and received no reply. Why, I ask, was the Outside-Context Villain trope added to the no real life examples list?
Because Villain tropes don't get RL examples.
I seriously think that we should have freedom to express our opinions on this site, or it least make it a seperate wiki. Many of these things do exist in Real Life, but we are too wimpy to confess it. Face it. Complete Monsters exist. Look at Adolf Hitler.
No, sorry, Adolf Hitler did love his mother. Loving someone is incompatible with Complete Monster status.
Nobody in Real Life can be a Complete Monster.
Adolf Hitler isn't a complete monster because there are many others who did the same things he did, though not always on the same scale. Furthermore, a Complete Monster cannot have supporters, and though it may be nice to pretend Hitler fits that criterion, he clearly doesn't exist. Face it, Complete Monsters don't exist.
I'm actually more annoyed at the fact that we cannot list the ways real-life evil people parallel tropes such as the Dragon. Real-life people engaged in evil often make use of similar elements to characters in a work of fiction For example, examining the Manson "family" or the inner workings of the Hussein family shows interesting parallels with fictional villains. If those are too soon, perhaps a waiting period could be used to give time for the historical facts to settle, or a similar trope equivalent for real-life villainy
I'd also say it's an open question on the matter of complete monsters. Certain serial killers with truly amazing levels of depravity could hit that level. This isn't the same as made of evil or something supernatural, it's just a lack of any redeeming value in the horrible person's life.
Ah, but Complete Monster can't really exist in RL. Redeeming qualities and Freudian Excuse abound in RL.
That sounds like a straw argument, but, whatever.
There's a misspelling in the page. In the list of tropes, one trope is titled: Jumping off the Slipery Slope, but "Slipery" has two P's, not one. I'd fix it, but the page is locked.
You can request edits locked pages over in this thread. I've done so for you; it should be fixed soon.
Should we add White Hair, Black Heart to this? Sure, white/silver hair usually only occurs in the elderly but it is not an impossible hair colour without Dye Hard applied.
Discussion about a trope's NRLEP status takes place in this forum thread.
Just make all Real Life Example for a Trope automatically be considered YMMV.
That way no edit war because if you don't agree then it's YMMV.
I don't think this is a good idea because YMMV are audience reaction tropes — a Tear Jerker might make you cry, but not The Other Troper. It happens, but not for all.
However, Examples Are Not Arguable. They either happen or not. All totalitarian regimes use I Will Punish Your Friend for Your Failure in Real Life. That is a fact and no-one's mileage varies on it. Calling it an audience reaction would be false.
The page for A Degree in Useless has a note asking people not to add real life examples despite not being on here. I'm not sure what to do about that.
Add it on here.
I'd just like to point out that a true Hindu would never brush off Christianity or Islam as "wrong" religions as Hinduism contends that all religions have truth in them as well as untruth. Hindus believe that all other religions are essentially part of it and as such, there is no such thing as apostasy, heresy or blasphemy in Hinduism.
I just wanted to point that out as it was sort of peeving me. And also I'm a pseudo-know-it-all when it comes to religion. So if someone could switch that up it'd be pretty swell and would make more sense as an example. Maybe with Judaism?
Hm, interesting. I think that the fact that none of them are exactly being kind/following their religion completely is part of the point. However, I have swapped it out for Sikhism because to my knowledge that one, like Islam and Christianity, does consider itself the only true religion, so it does make more sense. I do not have anything against Sikhism or Sikhs, it's just more variety than having the main three Abrahamic religions.
On White Man's Burden, it is... ok to help someone in real life regardless of the race relations, right? (And no I don't mean in a "Stop Helping Me!" sense)
How about we create a Real Life Examples wiki? It worked for Troper Tales and Fetish Fuel?
There are plenty of pages which DO have real life examples without leading to edit wars, so I don't think that's necessary.
Why can't any trope stating someone to be a villain have real life examples? Is there any other term to describe the Likes of Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Gaddafi, Charles Manson or the Westboro Baptist Church? And before anyone mentions that real-life people aren't void of any redeeming qualities, how do you explain any psychopath that sees no problem with killing and raping whoever they please? Also, the whole idea behind Well Intentioned Extremists is for there to be a group of villains who have a noble cause in mind, but go about it in ways that are beyond unethical to achieve it.
The thing is: Even using those examples, by whose standards are we determining what is good and what is evil? In a society where "killing and raping whoever [you] please" is the norm, these people wouldn't be considered villains themselves.
(Note that I'm someone who does believe in objective standards of right and wrong. I'm just stating (what I believe is) this wiki's rationale for the policy.)
I'm sorry, but who thinks this has gotten way out of hand? I wholeheartedly agree with some of the trope pages being permanently hammered here, but it's gotten to a point where in the efforts to carve out Natter generating things that would harm the credibility of the site, it's starting to do more harm to it than leaving them up would.
I propose a moratorium on any and all new moves to this folder, and very careful examination of the ones that were removed to determine if they really fit.
For one, The Empire was added here by the justification of "Natter Magnet." In doing so, it cut out a wonderfully thorough and *objective* list of real life Empires and Superpowers that had considerably less natter than several other pages not redlinked.
Secondly, Permanently Elected Official's justification goes beyond that and into downright insulting. The idea that this is "Impossible in Democracies" is utterly and completely false. At the very least, a history of late 19th century local machine politics in the US shows this. And less corruptly, we have several *Very* long runners who could readily qualify. A certain recently-defeated Australian Prime Minister comes to mind. And even if we disregard that, we also have several that'd fit if they died in office or otherwise retired of their own accord, such as de Valera, Henry Clay, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Now, I'm not going to say I'm an overly big fan of any of the latter three for the sake of disclosure, but that's just a matter of political leanings. They were by no means "Dictators." And then we have classical examples like those in Rome and the Greek City States, or even arguably Elective Monarchs (or for a more modern example, Supreme Court justices and analogous for-life appointments). So even if we held a "No Examples earlier than 300 years ago" or so example, it would still be suitable.
Those are just the more concrete ones I can think of off the top of my head. Others listed as "Too many to List" at minimum strikes me as spectacularly unlikely, given the fact that several healthy and objective segments like the one for We ARE Struggling Together have grown to have their own subpages. Primarily because of enthusiastic troper participation. That seems to indicate that it's being used as a substitute for the real reason these pages are cut. At the very least, if we're going to keep them blocked let's be up front about the reasons rather than assuming that the horde of tropers somehow won't feel up to doing what they do.
Finally, let's be frank here: there is zero justifiable reason to wish to eliminate the Real Life section as a whole, everywhere. I've heard some people claim it as their mission to do exactly that, but isn't that incredibly selfish and detrimental to the health of TV Tropes as a whole? A large part of the context is seeing at least in some places where tropes fit (to the extent they do) in real life, and thus being educational in addition to everything else.
I will not be taking my own initiative and illegally going against the decisions of the moderators by pulling them off the page here and re-adding them myself, but that is simply my opinion.
You're not alone in this. Half these issues are social justice wonks and the other half is the dread of natter that always can be shredded by diligent tropers.
True... I removed the RL section from Happiness in Slavery because a year ago it had been full of vehement arguing, was heavily pruned, and since then accumulated more contributors arguing with each other. Anyone think it should be put back?
Completely agree. Obviously those examples that slander real life people/organisations should be out, but the justifications for a lot of these tropes being on the list are incredibly vague and flimsy. Things like "too depressing" or "too squicky". Firstly, I think I should decide what I find inappropriate for reading. If a topic is potentially upsetting then why not put a warning at the top of the page that we can heed or ignore as we choose, rather than unfairly denying examples to those not bothered by the topic. Secondly if someone is going to be upset by depressing tropes, taking out the RL examples probably isn't going to help. I mean I often get a bit down reading sadness tropes, but I don't suggest removing them do I. Thirdly the justifications are pretty inconsistent. Absurdly Youthful Mother is banned for being "squicky and overly sensitive" whereas Body Horror (which I think we can all agree is vastly squickier.) has an entire page of real life examples last I checked.
I agree with the above troper. This list needs to be severely shortened.
YES - this tag is severely overused. perhaps a using only historical examples (i.e. "no living examples/current controversys") rather than "no real life" would cut down on the arguing?
Problem with that is that certain dead people are still relevant. You could get posts of "Hitler was right" and stuff like that.
That's a flimsy argument, such people tend to be few and far between. It's sad that all must sacrifice freedom of speech and reality so the over-sensitive or downright psychotic can feel good.
Looks like the "No Real Life Examples" trope has been added ever since Troper Tales left Tv Tropes.
I have an idea: How about we just obliterate having a "Real Life" section altogether? It's quicker than just taking all of it away bit by bit, which is exactly what's going on right now. Lets just get it done with.
We're simply taking out examples that would attract a flame war.
any discussion what so ever could lead to a flame war - lets shutdown the internet!
Soapboxing, crusading and edit wars about real life subjects are available over at Wikipedia. Direct your energies there.
it just seem like a weak reasoning to me - "it might attract a flame war" could be applied to anything. that is not pro "Soapboxing, crusading and edit wars" so much as this website is about stories, and real life provides the building blocks of stories - it is sad that so many have lost sight of that.
It doesn't seem weak reasoning to me. There are countless tropes for which real life never provided the "building blocks". The very concept of "trope" is one of fiction/storytelling analysis. Real life has no tropes.
is hard to believe in art created from nothing.
We aren't talking about art.
So story-telling is not an art? Tropes are not a techniques, but the bones of story-telling. Well, I've put out my opinion, and will now let you rant on your own.
Because many people enjoy reading the real life examples. Honestly, being as apparently making things with no real life examples, like villain stuff (because we all know Hitler was a great guy) is all about making everyone happy, right? Pretty sure eliminating the real life examples altogether would anger many people.
Yep, the forum has not agreed to removing Real Life sections altogether in several polls.
Also, the villain stuff is not just about making people happy. It's because in fiction, the story itself tells what is "good" or "evil", while in Real Life it comes down in most cases to some people making an arbitrary distinction that is meaningless for troping purposes.
while a reason could be given for more puzzling cases of no-real-life tropes, I think explanations for tropes that OBVIOUSLY can't have real life examples.
but they can have real life inspirations and troopology. pliny the elder's misunderstandings of accounts of wildlife, or who came up with the concept of a Transporter/teleporter, or was beowulf based on a real person, who kept the tail alive - the real life side of the troops.
Blonde Republican Sex Kitten needs to be added. The Real Life examples have been broadened to include the brunette equivalents, which means that every remotely attractive Republican woman is now on the list. It's a sister trope to Strawman Political, which is already on the list.
Take it to this thread.
Okay, i think the only tropes that should fall under no real examples are one may be offensive. "More Dakka" removed for "Natter Magnet"? What? if the person who moved it felt angry for humorus writing (a encouraged writing method in TV Tropes) they should just fix the grammer, and make it lifeless and soulless.
For sex tropes, how would having real life examples make it any more unsafe? Have the entire thing or drop the sex tropes.
It's kind of sounds like an understatement to simply say it's wrong to call them evil or villains in some of those tropes. Those reasons needs to have details in them.
We have at least three people on the discussion page who think Dumbass DJ should belong on here.
Take it to this Special Efforts thread.
Step Three: Profit is TMI??
In my opinion, I really don't see the point in real life examples when majority of the examples are fictional
Some of the reasons are a bit debatable:
Not all (wo)men are big and beautiful. Well, yes, but some may be.
Matzo Fever: Stereotyping isn't cool, okay? How is saying someone's hot stereotyping?
Karma Houdini: Calling someone a villain because they got off free from something bad would have attracted flames. Um, not saying that person's evil
We don't want lists of "hot women" (neither men). Simple.
Alright, fair enough. But what about Karma Houdini?
And some tropes need reasons.
It would appear a "villain" is usually "evil". Anyway, any tropes about "villains" or "villainy" are No Real Life Examples Please by default, whether the epithet "evil" is involved or not.
Edit: If you want to dispute a trope's NRLEP status, or want reasons for the tag added, you should take your concerns to this thread.
Why is Chainmail Bikini on this list?
Apparently it's NSFW. No, I don't get it either.
Would Took a Level in Jerkass count since Jerkass and Jerkass Woobie are here?
This has been bothering me for awhile now. Maybe it's just me, but I often find the Real Life examples to be some of the most interesting on any given page. Not only is it potentially informative, but it goes directly into Life Imitates Art and vice versa. I understand why a lot of pages are given the tag (they're controversial, or highly subjective, or there really is no way for there to be an example, etc.) but I'm not sure I agree with the idea even then. Especially with the controversial ones, because, while it's important for the wiki to avoid edit wars, I think it's at least as important for it to be interesting. And often the tropes that are banned from having real life examples would probably have some of the most interesting ones.
I guess I'm saying that I understand the common sense behind it, but I think that in this case common sense is holding us back. Does that make any sense?
Eh, I think it is better to err on the side of caution. Interesting examples mean nothing if they're obscured by a number of sub-bullets of counterpoints and arguments. There were points where the real-life examples section eclipsed the rest of the examples combined. Avoiding real-life examples puts a lot less stress on those who have to clean up after whatever flame wars occur after opening those cans of worms.
I also want to be told how to unlock entries.
Not readding this example during vandalism cleanup:
Sorry, but you need to specify clinical or brain death before adding this - the latter's correct, the former isn't.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, vandal. I deliberately removed this entry because the matter of CPR. The other entries you re-added will subsequently be removed, as per my orders.
Cats Are Snarkers - Cats can't talk.
And as we all know, snarking requires the ability to speak. What about Silent Snarker?
I'm calling the shots around here from now on guys, because it's clear to me that someone has to take control of this website. I've had a change of heart upon observing some of the examples here but I think this index has started to develop too much power which is why I'm now trying to downsize it. The examples I've removed are to have their real life sections re-added immediately. If there are any examples I have removed that you disagree with feel free to message me or bring the issue here and we will be happy to explain the reason for its removal but for the time being, NONE are to be re-added. Goodnight all.
^This, dear tropers, is an example of a way to get banned from the site instantly.
"Stop Having Fun" Guys
What about it?
Although it sound like ironic, but can't Real Life trope pages listing tropes in No Real Life Examples Please?
I mean, while it's call Real Life, those pages are Just for Fun.
NRLEP - Complete Monster...
Yeah, I hear Adolf Hitler was a pretty nice guy...
Yeah, same with Stalin. Oh, and there's always those lovely politicians in Africa who give kittens and kiss babies. I'm sure Kony would love to invite you over for a spot of tea.
Hell, lets get even more personal. John Wayne Gacy. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy...I can go on.
A Complete Monster is a character who utterly lacks any kind of redeeming qualities, existing purely to act as a malevolent force within the story. Real life is not this simplistic, even in the case of someone like Hitler - he helped to pull his country out of a major economic depression, he cared about animal welfare, he genuinely seemed to believe that what he was doing was right. Does this excuse all the things Hitler did? No, far from it, but at the same time he wasn't some force of pure evil that rose from Hell and set about with the expressed purpose of causing as much suffering as possible.
Also, if we did allow real life examples the page would quickly degenerate into "That politician I don't like". The fiction pages are bad enough for this kind of thing.
Right, so its okay for people to get away with something and to lessen exposure and wrongdoing because we aren't willing to expose people who have done terrible things? Just because we're narrative analysts who use tropes and look at stories doesn't mean we can't also look at what we see is wrong and say something about it. After all, we do mention more than a few tropes we consider Bad Writing. And yeah, Hitler did do those things to help his own country, but it sounds like we're ignoring the millions who died.
And again, I go back to more personal examples like the serial killers. Some people just choose to snap and kill people because they get a thrill or completeness our of it with lack of morality. I'm not saying that I want a site-wide Edit War, but I'm saying that there are some things that are simply unacceptable. If we don't accept Bad Writing and their tropes, we shouldn't accept bigger things.
Tropes effect our lives and daily ideas as much as they do a narrative.
Be a little less dramatic. Just because we don't list them as Complete Monster doesn't mean we think they're good guys or that we're implying such.
Strange thing, really. You can think that Hitler, Kony, and Stalin are bad, even if a website about fiction doesn't explicitly say so! Who knew?
Fair enough; I'll simply be blunt - This website is more than just fiction. We have Real Life down with tropes, meaning they apply. Our Useful Notes page deals in things most people do not understand about Real Life and what it means to learn from it, so therefore we are also a knowledge source.
We have people in this world who are willing to torture, rape and kill for their own amusement and profit. Yeah, we don't like them. Do we say anything about it? No. Should we? Maybe, because as a community of people, people listen when in large groups.
We're not a campaigning site for social justice, the internet already has a surplus of those. Lets keep the drama to them.
Aurabolt, do you go on knitting blog and comment about Syria?
This website is about narrating devices in fiction. Real Life examples are tolerated only as long as they don't violate wiki policy or threaten to.
"Do we say anything about it?"
YES!! OBVIOUSLY, you are doing it right now!!!!
Saying Hitler was bad is hardly an act of bravery-in fact, it takes a lot more courage (I AM IN NO WAY RECOMMENDING THIS) to praise him than to criticize, considering you actually risk arrest by doing that. Cut out the melodrama. You're not shocking anyone by having the nerve to say "I think Hitler and Stalin were bad people."
I removed Married at Sea from the list, because this trope was too hastily added on a hunch. I don't see any potential for controversy, and there is nothing on that trope's Discussion page archive or in the page history to suggest the Real life section was purged; it just seems like no real life examples were ever added, perhaps because the practice is already pretty well explained in the description. There might be a case for arguing that there are too many RL examples to list, but more evidence would be needed for that.
Meh, I was thinking that there was a RL section and got cut, hence why I added it to the page.
After all, the list of pages without RL examples is growing exponentially, hence why it's far easier to zap the ehole RL from TV Tropes. It's quicker and painless. =/
SNDL, if you want RL examples banned entirely, Take It To The Forums where it can be properly discussed.
If you don't, try to be a little less gleeful when another page is put here.
Of all the tropes about media — nearly all of them — why was Amicable Exes singled out for being NRLEP on that basis? Is there an actual reason and it was just badly worded? Is the trope something other than "Alice and Bob get along after splitting up" that doesn't apply to Real Life (e.g., the visible presence of some kind of authorial intent)?
The page says "this is a trope about how the media represents divorce," but isn't Knife Nut a trope about how the media represents people who like knives? And that's just the adjacent open tab. So what's the difference?
If it's flamebait, after all, there's no shame in saying so.
Ok, this has been answered on the discussion page at Amicable Exes, and I changed the explanation here accordingly.
Corrupt corporate executives are real, right? So why NRLE?
NRLE comes up when examples would be inflammatory, not when examples don't exist.
The problem is with calling real people corrupt. This will almost certainly lead to edit wars; I live in a country where a significant and vocal portion of the population takes the position that almost anything a large corporation does, and almost anything its executives do, is probably moral and ethical. Best to avoid the whole thing.
Hershele.. What country is that? I want to open a business there.
Why is Ho Yay here? Just, WHY? Is it because it's offensive? While you're at it, why don't you just cut Real-Person Fic?
And Bi the Way, it's not listed here, but the page requests no real life examples. It's like saying there's No Bisexuals in real life.
I was wondering about Ho Yay as well, but I think it might be one of those People Sit In Chairs tropes where it's so common that putting examples isn't necessary.
As seen on the Permanent Red Link Club page, HoYay.Real Life was cut because it "Was filled with Natter, This Troper and bad examples." Bi the Way I'm not sure about, but it probably invited natter. Point is, a trope not having Real Life examples section doesn't mean this site is denying it exists in real life, it just means the section was problematic for one reason or another. It's basically an example of Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things.
Should we include a note where the tropes on this page also should not be cited on pages about figures and events from Real Life? I've seen a few cites to Small Name, Big Ego on individual pages, even though it's on this page for good reason.
I skimmed through the tropes covered by this, and the only one that confused me was Hell Is That Noise. Any particular reason?
too much temptation to descend into Troper Tales syndrome. Like-Oh-Em-Gee I was totally freaked out by this noise which happened when I was fourteen and had taken my first drink of beer....etc and so on.
So, what is going to happen to the real life examples anyway?
Alot of tropes are completely incoherent because the real life example is what truly defines it.
Double Standards and all of the tropes relating to it or under it especially took a hard hit. For now, some tropes have just decided to bypass the No real life example thing with "other" because the trope is prolific in real life that the page would be empty if you removed the examples.
It's like the change was created to cater to specific groups: For example, hot wife, ugly guy. That's a perfectly true statement and no matter what happens, you can't delude yourself into thinking it doesn't happen in real-life. So why censor it out of the website?
I just can't wrap my head around why this would be removed in order to be "Politically Correct" while keeping other more offensive pages around.
For the record, I'm not personally offended by anything- I feel I have to point this out, as other people are offended by things that don't bother me.
The Most Triumphant Example there has to be Love It or Hate It, a page which is now only about things on which there is no middle ground in universe. Huh? If we're not allowed to talk about that in real life, I'd make a case for cutting the page altogether.
I've been having this suggesting for months.
(Copied and expanded from my latest edit summary): '' [Xzenu is] assuming that all tropes in existence have universal medium functionality (and, thus, RL presence). Substract from the overall list the video game-only tropes, anime-only tropes, Wiki-Tropes (obviously), etc. and you'll notice I'm right. This is irrelevant anyway, since this list / index will sadly grow higher over time, hence why I've repeatedly suggested exterminating the whole RL thing.
And it's not something I actually WANT, it's all matter of logic. A defeatist logic, if you will. In the same way enthropy and disorder will grow higher over time in universe, so will this list due to the principle of only tolerating RL examples within pages, rather than encouraging them''.
EDIT: Heck, I had actually wanted to TRS Real Life for this very reason. Unfortunately, new TRS threads are a no-go as long as those 501 existing threads continue open and unresolved. =/
That's [SNDL:s Strawman Political of Xzenu], not [the actual Xzenu].
My opinion is that:
SNDL has the agenda that he wants to forbid all Real Life examples on this entire wiki. This is his stated intentions, not something I interpreted. In his own words, 9:th of February: "I've repeatedly suggested exterminating the whole RL thing"
I disagree with this agenda of his, and he seem to believe that this mean that I have an equal but opposite agenda. That assumption is incorrect. The idea that I want all pages to allow RL examples is actually quite amusing, considering that IO'm the one who started/sponsored/launched the No Real Life Examples Please page in the first page. Many of the tropes I launch comes with the NRLEP tag built in.
Then what would you think about the workaround of using a news report about a Real Life event as an example?
Even though looking upon those five words on a trope's page always makes me sick to my stomach, there is one trope that I would like to see marked as this. Namely, High Octane Nightmare Fuel. As long as that page allows real life examples, this wiki cannot reasonably be considered family friendly.
It is just a plain act of complete censorship to prevent meaningful discussion of certain tropes.
It's NIGHTMARE FUEL. What do you expect? Bunnies and flowers?
You might as well as censor the whole internet. :/
One section of one trope on one wiki is not the whole Internet.
Every page that's marked with this should have an explanation as to why.
I agree, TV Tropes is reaching a point where soon we won't be talk about real life examples of ANYTHING. At least we could use an explanation to why we are not allowed Real Life Examples in some tropes anymore
Changed my mind. Having an explanation doesn't dull the pain at all. AT ALL!
If you want a place TO Write real-life examples, you know where to find it. TOW-tally.
Thirded. Even though I disagree w/ some of the reasons, at least it's explained.
But some of the explanations don't make enough sense for me to even say whether I agree with them or not.
Some of these I don't get. 0% Approval Rating makes sense. Culture Justifies Anything makes sense.
But why Due to the Dead? Why Big Beautiful Woman? Due to the Dead is especially confusing for me here, since burial rites and death rituals are extremely varied across the world. If it's because the examples section is divided between good and evil examples, just add a separate real life section.
I was thinking of adding the real life example of dogs being shot by law enforcement officers under Kick the Dog, since it's used by activists for greater police oversight in that way. That is, I'm not making the Real Life example the actual shooting of dogs, but rather that other people see it as a Kick the Dog moment.
I think it should be reasonable to allow real life examples if it's made clear they relate to someone notably percieving it as such. For example, the Lusitania could be used as the Americans seeing it as the Germans Kicking the Dog, or the War of Jenkin's Ear, or the Boston Massacre. Now there are all reasonable explainations for these, but the propaganda was that Germans love shelling neutral shipping/Spaniards love mutilating people/Redcoats love shooting Americans because they're so evil.
Find a documentary of the event and add it under the documentary's media category. NRLEP tropes are effectively an exception to There Is No Such Thing As Notability.
A topic related to the previous one is where we draw the line between a work and "not a work".
The way I see it, this line is based on quantity, coherence and distinction.
Some random guy posting a poem on his home page is not a work. Same guy writing a lot of poems and making a poetry site, that's a work.
Some random guy making a drawing with political satire hardly qualifies, but if he expand it into an entire webcomic then it's definitely a work.
Someone posting an "annoying customer" story on a forum is not a work, but the sites Acts Of Gord and Not Always Right are works.
And so on.
Also, whether or not a work make claims about Real Life or not is irrelevant. Penn And Teller Bullshit is a valid work, and so is The Turner Diaries: Readers who consider one of these works credible will not consider the other one credible.
And that's one of the major differences between valid works and random statements: If something is randomly from the web, you have nothing to compare with. If a random forum post is taken as an example, it's simply "accept it or not". But if an example is taken from Penn And Teller Bullshit or The Turner Diaries, you can take an overview on the work and decide for yourself whether or not you find it credible.
And of course, those examples should always be "This work use this trope in this and that way", not "This is how it is in Real Life, because work so and so said so." Of course, this applies just as much for tropes where real life examples are allowed.
Starting a thread for the distinction between works and real life.
For me it's so frigging obvious. What's in a work is in that work, period. Whether or not the author claim to talk about this world or not is irrelevant.
Take for example who is right in politics: The Democrats, the Republicans, both or neither. The Real Life truth in this matter is highly YMMV, while it's a simple objective fact that in Book A the republicans are right, in book B the democrats are right, and in book C the Real Life republicans and democrats are BOTH space lizards in disguise. Allowing examples from these books doesn't mean that we are conspiracy theorists who are confused regarding what party we're cheering for. :-D
The reason I start this thread is because of a YKTTW thread where some random guy claimed that TV Tropes must not write about war movies, because wars happens in real life. In my eyes, he have totally misunderstood the whole thing. Already told him as much - this thread is not for him, but for the similarly confused people who may come after him.
Can't we just put an alternate page or something? Sometimes I only visit a trope page to see real life examples.
I suggest having a real life entry for Crapsack World. Why? Think. The Permian-Triassic extinction. A lava flow that lasted for half a million years. 90 per cent of all life on earth going extinct. Would THAT be a Crapsack World to you?
That doesn't have the moral connotations of the trope, so it wouldn't fit on that basis alone. Besides, as far as "really bad world" goes, it could be matched by all sorts of other uninhabitable environments. It'd get half a dozen bullet points all saying stuff like "what about Mars, and Venus, and this or that even worse exoplanet". And then, of course, someone would inevitably come along with something like "what about Somalia?" or "what about the Aztec Empire?" and from there someone else will get defensive, counter that with "oh yeah, well what about *your* country/era?" and that's when it turns into a natter-filled, flame-bait'y political free-for-all.
Edit: The post I was responding to has vanished. But seeing as similar questions seem to be raised here frequently, I'm going to let the following stay here:
Real Life examples sections are a pain in the ass to curate. Experience shows that we can't rely on the Cautious Editing Judgement of editors or on their ability to avoid Square Peg, Round Trope and to resist the temptation of Righting Great Wrongs.
To discuss the NRLEP status of individual tropes, please go to this thread..
Community Showcase More