History Administrivia / ZeroContextExample

--> '''It does not. Do not rely on the trope name. Imagine it's obscured or renamed. The example still has to explain how Alice is an example of the trope.

--> '''This still doesn't tell us how Alice is a Corrupt Politican.'''

* CorruptPolitician: Alice rivals [[Literature/StrangerInAStrangeLand Secretary Douglas]] in this department.
-->'''No matter how famous another work might be, or how perfect an example it might be of the trope, to assume everyone knows what you're talking about with a reference like this is FanMyopia. More likely than not, a reader has no idea who the other character is, and you have two zero-context examples for the price of one.'''

If doing so, you should add this note commented-out at the top. It can be edited as necessary to fit the page: [=%% Administrivia/ZeroContextExample entries are not allowed on wiki pages. All such entries have been commented out. Add context to the entries before uncommenting them.=]

--> '''How is Alice a subversion? Is she a JerkWithAHeartOfGold? Is she genuinely corrupt, but only pretends to have interest in politics and actually has her secretary do all the work? Explain, don't just say so.'''

* CorruptPolitician: Alice is a subversion.
--> '''How is Alice a subversion? Is she a JerkWithAHeartOfGold? Is she genuinely corrupt, but only pretends to have interest in politics and actually has her secretary do all the work? Explain, don't just say so.'''

All tropes require context, even if they may seem [[Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory self-explanatory]]. It is never wrong to explain even the most basic information, even if it's in the trope title. Redundancy is always preferable to leaving behind a list of Zero-Context Examples, and a trope title isn't context. [[Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory No trope is self-explanatory]], and any trope that seems like it may be is more often than not meaningless patterns, more commonly known here as Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs. Remember: tropes aren't just patterns, they're patterns with meaning, and a "self-explanatory" trope conveys no meaning.

All tropes require context, even if they may seem [[Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory self-explanatory]]. It is never wrong to explain even the most basic information, not even if it's in the trope title. Redundancy is always preferable to leaving behind a list of Zero-Context Examples, and a trope title isn't context. No trope is self-explanatory, and any trope that seems like it may be is more often than not meaningless patterns, more commonly known here as Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs. Remember: tropes aren't just patterns, they're patterns with meaning, and a "self-explanatory" trope conveys no meaning.

--> '''This is bad for the same reasons as the above example. All it tells you is that Alice is a character in the work.'''

--> '''This still doesn't tell you why Alice is a Corrupt Politican.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Bob once met Alice, who is an example of this trope, when he temporarily became the mayor of Troperville. She returns in the episode "President Charlie", but only for a brief cameo where she complains that Bob should not be a campaign manager.
--> '''Notice how this example, despite its length, never actually gets to explaining how Alice is corrupt or a politician.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice is a skilled and famous member of the Troper City Senate, winning election after election.
--> '''This seems OK at first glance, but on further inspection, this only mentions that Alice is a politician. No mention of her being corrupt is made.'''

--> '''Yes, the link leads to a 404 page on purpose. Even if it did lead to a valid video, you're forcing the viewer to go elsewhere to see what makes Alice an example. There are a number of reasons why Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples.'''

--> '''Related to [[Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples the rule about links]], entries should not point to other parts of the page. They should stand on their own. In this case, since there is no RichBitch example on this page, you have no idea why Alice is an example.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice is secretive, corrupt, and is a member of the city senate.
--> '''This makes the claim that Alice is an example, but doesn't offer any evidence. What secretive and corrupt things does she do? What kind of work does she do in office? If you don't already know who Alice is, this tells you very little.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice is a subversion.
--> '''How is Alice a subversion? Is she a JerkWithAHeartOfGold? Is she genuinely corrupt, but only pretends to have interest in politics and actually has her secretary do all the work? You can't tell unless you've already seen the work.'''

--> '''While we expect editors to abide by rules such as Administrivia/NoLewdnessNoPrudishness and the Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement, this still fails to explain the example. Either write it in a non-compromising way, or delete the example.'''

After all this, you might be wondering what an actually good example might look like. Here's one way it could be written:

With an example like that, anyone can understand why Alice is a CorruptPolitician, regardless of whether they've ever read the trope's page or even know who the character Alice is.

* Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment: For some tropes, there is such a thing as ''too much'' context. Examples should be as unbiased as possible, and should not go into too much detail about risqué or controversial subjects.

'''A good example should explain ''how'' it is an example.'''

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 Administrivia/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."
* [Name] did a lot of stuff completely unrelated to the trope but this example is going to ramble on about it with tons of Administrivia/WordCruft anyway and never even mention anything related to the trope.
* "[Character] has his moments". ("shades of this" etc.)
* "[Character A] is this/does this to [Character B]".

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 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.

Another variant that sometimes crops up is stating ''when'' an example occurs without explaining ''how'' it occurs. The ''how'' is what's important. A related mistake is using one of the various PlayingWithATrope tags by itself. Some examples of these are below.

* "In episode 5, [Name] does this."
* "[Name] does this. Lampshaded by [Other Name]."
* "[Name] subverts this trope."

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 [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 this Special Efforts thread]] dedicated to fixing these issues.

Frequently these examples are commented out with the [=%%=] markup so that editors visiting the page know to correct them.

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

See also 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. If you want to help fix them, go to Administrivia/PagesNeedingExampleContext.

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

* [Name] did a lot of stuff completely unrelated to the trope but this example is going to ramble on about it with tons of WordCruft anyway and never even mention anything related to the trope.

* "[Name]. That is all.

* "[Character] has his moments".

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

* "[Name] is depicted this way.
* "[Name] does this.

'''A good example must explain ''how'' it is an example.'''

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?

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

* "[Name] in [Episode]."

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.

SERIOUSLY, "ZERO CONTEXT EXAMPLE" IS ONE OF THE '''WORST''' POLICIES ON [[RuinedFOREVER THE NEW TV TROPES]] AFTER 2010!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! '''''NOT''''' ALL EXAMPLES NEED ''ANY'' FUCKING CONTEXT BECAUSE CONTEXT IS WAY TOO HARD TO EXPLAIN ESPECIALLY FOR CHARACTER-SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, AND IT'S NOT '''FAIR''' BLANKING OUT EXAMPLES FOR NO GODDAMN REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO ALL OF YOU WIKIPEDIA NEED TO '''STOP''' NUKING EXAMPLES AND '''STOP''' SPREDING YOUR "ZERO CONTEXT" SPAM ALL OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S ONE OF THE '''WORST''' ACTS OF YOUR {{MORAL EVENT HORIZON}}!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[WeAreNotWikipedia THIS IS TV TROPES, NOT WIKIPEDIA]]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 THE '''HOMEPAGE''' SAID SO, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SERIOUSLY, "ZERO CONTEXT EXAMPLE" IS ONE OF THE '''WORST'' POLICIES ON [[RuinedFOREVER THE NEW TV TROPES]] AFTER 2010!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! '''''NOT''''' ALL EXAMPLES NEED ''ANY'' FUCKING CONTEXT BECAUSE CONTEXT IS WAY TOO HARD TO EXPLAIN ESPECIALLY FOR CHARACTER EXAMPLES, AND IT'S NOT '''FAIR''' BLANKING OUT EXAMPLES FOR NO GODDAMN REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO ALL OF YOU WIKIPEDIA NEED TO '''STOP''' NUKING EXAMPLES AND '''STOP''' SPREDING YOUR "ZERO CONTEXT" SPAM ALL OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S ONE OF THE '''WORST''' ACTS OF YOUR {{MORAL EVENT HORIZON}}!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[WeAreNotWikipedia THIS IS TV TROPES, NOT WIKIPEDIA]]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 THE '''HOMEPAGE''' SAID SO, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!