History Main / ZeroContextExample

10th Dec '12 7:41:44 AM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Namespace move
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! 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. Thanks in no small part to WordCruft, there are many ways these citations can commonly occur: * "[Name]" * "[Name]. Just... [Name]" * "[Name]. And HOW!" * "[Name] loves this trope." * "[Name] ''is'' this trope." ("trope incarnate", etc.) * "[Name] is the biggest offender." * "[Name]. [[NotSelfExplanatory Self-explanatory]]." * "[Character] from ''[Title of Work]''." 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. 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, 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 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. Compare Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples and Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples for slight variations on this premise. See also TwoWordsObviousTrope and NotSelfExplanatory for other faux-pas. For the image equivalent, see JustAFaceAndACaption. To learn more about what you '''''should''''' do, instead, see HowToWriteAnExample. ----
to:
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! 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. Thanks in no small part to WordCruft, there are many ways these citations can commonly occur: * "[Name]" * "[Name]. Just... [Name]" * "[Name]. And HOW!" * "[Name] loves this trope." * "[Name] ''is'' this trope." ("trope incarnate", etc.) * "[Name] is the biggest offender." * "[Name]. [[NotSelfExplanatory Self-explanatory]]." * "[Character] from ''[Title of Work]''." 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. 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, 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 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. Compare Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples and Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples for slight variations on this premise. See also TwoWordsObviousTrope and NotSelfExplanatory for other faux-pas. For the image equivalent, see JustAFaceAndACaption. To learn more about what you '''''should''''' do, instead, see HowToWriteAnExample. ----[[redirect:Administrivia/ZeroContextExample]]
29th Nov '12 12:27:59 PM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Namespace shift
Compare WeblinksAreNotExamples and Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples for slight variations on this premise.
to:
Compare WeblinksAreNotExamples Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples and Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples for slight variations on this premise.
29th Nov '12 12:18:34 PM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Namespace shift
Compare WeblinksAreNotExamples and TypeLabelsAreNotExamples for slight variations on this premise.
to:
Compare WeblinksAreNotExamples and TypeLabelsAreNotExamples Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples for slight variations on this premise.
9th Nov '12 5:10:56 PM TorchicBlaziken
Is there an issue? Send a Message
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.
to:
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. title/name. These are tropes like AlliterativeTitle and AlliterativeName.
9th Nov '12 5:09:32 PM TorchicBlaziken
Is there an issue? Send a Message
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 JustAFaceWithACaption 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.
to:
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 JustAFaceWithACaption 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.
9th Nov '12 5:09:03 PM TorchicBlaziken
Is there an issue? Send a Message
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]].
to:
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]]. trope]]. Note that just as JustAFaceWithACaption 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.
19th Oct '12 12:55:54 AM eroock
Is there an issue? Send a Message
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 is 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.
to:
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 is 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.
9th Sep '12 8:04:50 AM SeanMurrayI
Is there an issue? Send a Message
There is [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 a forum thread]] dedicated to fixing these issues.
to:
There 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 is represents a much bigger problem throughout an entire page, brought to attention in [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 a forum this Special Efforts thread]] dedicated to fixing these issues.
31st Aug '12 11:57:20 AM troacctid
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Moving the link markup around a little
There is [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 this forum]] thread dedicated at fixing these issues.
to:
There is [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 this forum]] thread a forum thread]] dedicated at to fixing these issues.
30th Aug '12 9:05:28 AM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added link to relevant thread
Added DiffLines:
There is [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400 this forum]] thread dedicated at fixing these issues.
This list shows the last 10 events of 45. Show all.