History Administrivia / ZeroContextExample

When reading a trope's description or working on a work's page, sometimes one may think of an example that fits so perfectly [[FanMyopia and seems so obvious]] that it doesn't seem all too necessary to explain how it fits; the editor can just provide the name of the work/character (or trope) and quickly move on to something else. Short, sweet, and to the point, right?

''Wrong!''

Providing only the name of a work/character or the name of a trope does absolutely nothing to actually explain the example. Remember, examples are supposed to explain ''how'' (or ''why'') a trope is used and provide a rough idea of ''where'' within the work itself the trope appears. Citing only the name of a work/character or trope doesn't do that[[note]]Unless the trope is a convention involving the names of works or characters, like AlliterativeTitle and AlliterativeName, but these kinds of tropes are still a clear minority[[/note]]; after all, [[FanMyopia there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with the work/character]] and [[PopCulturalOsmosisFailure who don't understand the trope]].

Thanks in no small part to WordCruft, there are many ways these citations can commonly occur:

* "[Name]"
* "[Name]. Just... [Name]"
* "[Name]. And HOW!"
* "[Name]. Full stop."
* "[Name]. 'nuff said."
* "[Name] loves this trope."
* "[Name]. That is all.
* "[Name] all the way."
* "[Name] ''is'' this trope." ("trope incarnate", etc.)
* "[Name] is the biggest offender."
* "[Name]. [[Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory Self-explanatory]]."
* "[Character] from ''[Title of Work]''."
* [[Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples "[Link to a youtube video that has been taken down for copyright infringement] by [Name]."]]
* "Any scene with [Name] in it."
* "The entirety of [Episode]."
* "Every single thing [Name] says."

This is by no means limited to trope pages, however, and can also show up on work pages, with "[Name]" often replaced with "[Trope]" in this regard. This may in fact be even ''more'' common on work pages, because many that add examples there automatically assume that anyone who reads it must already know everything there is to know about the work in question and so don't bother putting in any amount of detail.

As for the examples where no explanation is given ''at all'' because it's all right there in the trope name, remember if it really is that simple then it probably won't take you long at all to type up the explanation. It is neither redundant nor a waste of time to do so.

There are also a few varieties that can be sufficient explanation in rare cases, but are considered bad style just the same:

* "[Trope]: ''[short line of dialogue]''" (Quoting dialogue usually only helps those who've already seen the work; it's meaningless to everyone else.)
* "[Trope]: The TropeNamer (TropeCodifier, UrExample, etc)." (It's okay to mention a TropeNamer on its own merits or on a {{Trivia}} page; just remember it doesn't ''explain an example''.)
* A variation that is endemic to work pages is to only provide a trope link on the work page and leaving the explanation of the trope being used in the work on the trope page, in a way both fully writing out an example description while still creating a Zero Context Example all the same. Please don't do this. Examples should be listed on ''both'' pages, and it saves the reader the extra trouble of having to look somewhere else to get any context.

Any trope examples found on a page that fit the description for a Zero Context Example should either be moved to that page's discussion space, or, if this represents a much bigger problem throughout an entire page, brought to attention in [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 this Special Efforts thread]] dedicated to fixing these issues.

Compare Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples and Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples for slight variations on this premise.

See also TwoWordsObviousTrope and Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory for other faux-pas.

For the image equivalent, see Administrivia/JustAFaceAndACaption.

To learn more about what you ''should'' do, instead, see Administrivia/HowToWriteAnExample.
----

For the image equivalent, see JustAFaceAndACaption.

* "[Name]. [[NotSelfExplanatory Self-explanatory]]."

See also TwoWordsObviousTrope and NotSelfExplanatory for other faux-pas.

To learn more about what you ''should'' do, instead, see HowToWriteAnExample.

* "[Name]. And HOW!" [[note]]"How?" indeed.[[/note]]

* "[Name] is the UrExample." (which is a SquarePegRoundTrope)

* "[Trope]: The TropeNamer (TropeCodifier, etc)." (It's okay to mention a TropeNamer on its own merits or on a {{Trivia}} page; just remember it doesn't ''explain an example''.)

* [[WeblinksAreNotExamples "[Link to a youtube video that has been taken down for copyright infringement] by [Name]."]]

When reading a trope's description or working on a work's page, sometimes one may think of an example that fits so perfectly [[FanMyopia and seems so obvious]] that it doesn't seem all too necessary to explain how it fits; the editor can just provide the name of the work/character (or trope) and quickly move on to something else. Short, sweet, and clever, right?

WRONG!

This is by no means limited to trope pages, however, and can also show up on work pages, with "[Name]" often replaced with "[Trope]" in this regard. This may in fact be even '''more''' common on work pages, because many that add examples there automatically assume that anyone who reads it must already know everything there is to know about the work in question and so don't bother putting in any amount of detail.

To learn more about what you '''''should''''' do, instead, see HowToWriteAnExample.

* "[Link to a youtube video that has been taken down for copyright infringement] by [Name]."

* "[Link to a youtube video that has been taken down for copyright infringement, with only the most basic of information] by [Name]."

* "[Link to a youtube video that has been taken down for copyright infringement, with only the most basic of information]."

This is by no means limited to trope pages, however, and can also show up on work pages, with "[Name]" often be replaced with "[Trope]" in this regard. This may, in fact, be even more common on work pages because many that add examples there automatically assume that anyone who reads it must already know everything there is to know about the work in question and so don't bother putting in any amount of detail.

* A variation that is endemic to work pages is to only provide a trope link on the work page and leaving the explanation of the trope being used in the work on the trope page, in a way both fully writing out an example description while still creating a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample all the same. Don't do this. Examples should be listed on ''both'' pages, and it saves the reader the extra trouble.

Any trope examples found on a page that fit the description for a Administrivia/ZeroContextExample should either be moved to that page's discussion space, or, if this represents a much bigger problem throughout an entire page, brought to attention in [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 this Special Efforts thread]] dedicated to fixing these issues.

* '''[[BoldInflation "[Name]"]]'''

* [[BoldInflation '''"[Name]"''']]

* "[Name]. And HOW!"

Providing only the name of a work/character or the name of a trope does absolutely nothing to actually explain the example. Remember, examples are supposed to explain ''how'' (or ''why'') a trope is used and provide a rough idea of ''where'' within the work itself the trope appears. Citing only the name of a work/character or trope doesn't do that[[note]]Unless the trope is a convention involving the names of works or characters, like AlliterativeTitle and AlliterativeName, but these kinds of tropes are still a clear minority[[/note]]; after all, [[PopculturalOsmosisFailure there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with the work/character and who don't understand the trope]].

Providing only the name of a work/character or the name of a trope does absolutely nothing to actually explain the example. Remember, examples are supposed to explain ''how'' (or ''why'') a trope is used and provide a rough idea of ''where'' within the work itself the trope appears. Citing only the name of a work/character or trope doesn't do that[[hottip:*Note:Unless the trope is a convention involving the names of works or characters, like AlliterativeTitle and AlliterativeName, but these kinds of tropes are still a clear minority]]; after all, [[PopculturalOsmosisFailure there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with the work/character and who don't understand the trope]].

* "[Name], Full Stop."

Providing only the name of a work/character or the name of a trope does absolutely nothing to actually explain the example. Remember, examples are supposed to explain ''how'' (or ''why'') a trope is used and provide a rough idea of ''where'' within the work itself the trope appears. Citing only the name of a work/character or trope doesn't do that[[hottip:*Note:Unless the trope is a convention with the names of works or characters, like AlliterativeTitle and AlliterativeName, but these kinds of tropes are still a clear minority]]; after all, [[PopculturalOsmosisFailure there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with the work/character and who don't understand the trope]].

Providing only the name of a work/character or the name of a trope does absolutely nothing to actually explain the example. Remember, examples are supposed to explain ''how'' (or ''why'') a trope is used and provide a rough idea of ''where'' within the work itself the trope appears. Citing only the name of a work/character or trope doesn't do that; after all, [[PopculturalOsmosisFailure there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with the work/character and who don't understand the trope]].

Note that just as JustAFaceAndACaption does not apply to tropes about faces, ZeroContextExample does not apply to many TitleTropes and NamingConventions which don't involve any other facet of the work/character except the title/name, such as AlliterativeTitle and AlliterativeName.

Providing only the name of a work/character or the name of a trope does absolutely nothing to actually explain the example. Remember, examples are supposed to explain ''how'' (or ''why'') a trope is used and provide a rough idea of ''where'' within the work itself the trope appears. Citing only the name of a work/character or trope doesn't do that; after all, [[PopculturalOsmosisFailure there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with the work/character and who don't understand the trope]]. Note that just as JustAFaceAndACaption does not apply to tropes about faces, this does not apply to many TitleTropes and NamingConventions which don't involve any other facet of the work/character except the title/name. These are tropes like AlliterativeTitle and AlliterativeName.

* A variation that is endemic to work pages is to only provide a trope link on the work page and leaving the explanation of the trope being used in the work on the trope page, in a way both fully writing out an example description while still creating a ZeroContextExample all the same. Don't do this. Examples should be listed on ''both'' pages, and it saves the reader the extra trouble.

Any trope examples found on a page that fit the description for a ZeroContextExample should either be moved to that page's discussion space, or, if this represents a much bigger problem throughout an entire page, brought to attention in [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 this Special Efforts thread]] dedicated to fixing these issues.