A better consensus: Zero Context Examples

I would define it as an example that is only the name of the work or only the name of the work plus Word Cruft. If it has some substance, even a little such as 'X from Y work is this trope.' provides some context even if a minimal amount.

edited 31st Mar '13 8:40:44 PM by EditorPallMall

But take Character Sheets. A trope like Big Bad does not need to be expanded upon. By virtue of being on the Character Sheet you know exactly what this implies. Yes, you could go into detail about what the villain's motivations are, whether he has lackeys, etc, but that isn't even a part of the trope.

At the very least, unless the trope is inherently understandable (like Big Bad), it needs to at least explain for what and why it applies. For instance, The Lancer should come with an explanation to who the character is The Lancer to. Yes, it might be obvious when one character is labelled The Hero, but it can't hurt. Certain tropes really don't require expansion any further than that...

But then we get on to examples like, say, Ms. Fanservice. Sure, you could just say "this character is this", and that would suffice for The Lancer, but not for this trope. Ms. Fanservice is frequently misused, and it becomes a nightmare to try and clean up and contain when people don't make it clear how and why she is this.

That said, I support commenting out ZCEs. I think they provide motivation to make a page better, reduce misuse, and reduce edit warring when it's necessary for someone to explain a trope.

I hadn't given it a lot of thought, but since some are getting quite...passionate about it I would say zero context would be those that just list the trope. Those wanting would want details.

Let's use Bully Hunter as an example. Say it was added to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and it was left at that. Fans of the show, fans of the trope would be left hanging wanting to know more. Why not discuss examples of Buffy being a Bully Hunter? I know I would want to know them and I'm sure many others would.

Thanks for making a thread specific for this. I was originally gonna copy and paste my argument, but I think I'll go ahead and re-represent my case.

The first issue, as you say, is what determines a lack of context. Tropes sitting there by themselves, with no indicators as to why they are there. That makes some partial sense - there are definitely some tropes that could use a description or two, nothing too fancy. A character is a badass, for example. Good, but it might be nice to know why he's a badass. Maybe list a short example. But say that character is also the father of somebody else - of course, there'd be a separate trope for that as well, something like Papa Wolf, with an appropriate description. So, then, how would you go about describing Action Dad in that same character entry? Those two tropes right then and there already list as to why he's an Action Dad. Adding anything further is just redundant and unncessary.

Then we have the self-describing tropes. Arvin Sloane is the Big Bad of Alias. What description does that warrant? "He's the main antagonist of Alias?" ...That's even worse when it comes to redundancy. Big Bad on its own is as much of a context and description that it needs - those two words themselves explain the whole story behind the character (or a general summation), by just clicking on the trope itself. Some characters may require a "Of Season 1/2/3/" or whatever, but a lot don't.

Now, here are the negative implications of the ZCE rule. Like I said before, they're redundant. If you don't think they are, they will be. When half of the site is under the iron grip of the rule, the sheer redundancy of many entries will simply slap you in the face. The other half, you'll simply notice a lot of crap is missing. When you finally come down to that realization, you'll also realize that you will have to undo everything the rule created. You'll be spending just as much work fixing it as you did implementing it. And that's a whole lot of unnecessary time wasted.

Then there's the troper attitude issue. This rule simply doesn't present any positive thinking or reinforcement. What this rule SHOULD motivate is a desire to add onto the pages. When you see a lack of a description, a troper should think "Maybe I should elaborate on this, or that." then add the description - or if they can't or don't know the details, ask someone else. Instead, this rule reinforces a different mindset - just like that troper I had trouble with, he'll simply start slashing out all the tropes without descriptions of additional context without even realizing the precise situation(s) regarding the entires. He'll simply run in, and start tagging one after another. And if recent experience is any indication, this troper likely won't even have any knowledge of the work that they're editing. Like with the Alias page, there were some really obvious tropes that needed no context (like Big Bad for Sloane) get slashed out because of this ZCE guideline.

So, that in a nutshell, is why I'm against this. If you want more descriptive tropes, you need to approach it positively - not negative. Encourage adding, not removing - keep in mind, while in edit mode the tropes may still appear, but as regular pages, they're not there. And there are MANY casual visitors who simply don't edit, and are looking for a fun read. This impairs that - severely. It makes the pages look painfully incomplete.

For clarification, is this for examples put on a work's page and/or for examples put on a trope's page?

edited 31st Mar '13 8:59:17 PM by EditorPallMall

No context to me means that someone just says X character from X work on a trope page. In other words whenever someone doesn't explain why So and So fits a certain trope. You get this lot on Character sheets. While I do understand that some tropes are self-explanatory, putting context to their examples is still appreciated.

edited 31st Mar '13 9:00:22 PM by MissKitten

@Editor Pall Mall: I would think it's for both. Though, a trope's page by default would include some description in works listed, so for them it's less applicable. I guess it really depends on the trope.

405 ate my post.

Context Good. Goal to aim for. Some exceptions exist.

Context when on PC, not phone.

edited 31st Mar '13 9:12:51 PM by Rotpar

Just edited Jim Cornette with zero context in mind. Not sure how to add to Nerd Glasses but if you look that's basically what we're trying for isn't it?

People keep saying that Big Bad is a trope that is self-explanatory, to the degree that saying "Work X: Name" is sufficient. I disagree. How is the person the Big Bad? What do they do/what role do they play that makes them occupy that spot? Big Bad is only patently obvious if you're already familiar with the work in question.

For an example, compare the following entries from the Firebird Trilogy (which isn't actually a trilogy anymore), a series I expect most of you have never heard of. Which one is more informative, which one is a more interesting read, and which one would you rather come across if you're browsing the wiki?

Option A: Just the name, no other context

• Big Bad:
  • Firebird: Phoena Angelo
  • Fusion Fire: Eshdeth Shirak
  • Crown of Fire: Modabah Shirak
  • Wind and Shadow: Jahana and the Shadow possessing Tamím Bar'Baror
  • Daystar: Piper Gambrel and the Shadow possessing him

Option B: With context

• Big Bad:
  • Firebird: Phoena Angelo is the sponsor of Dr. Cleary's biological weapons research and thus the driving force behind the invasion of Veroh—which resulted in Veroh being rendered open-air uninhabitable—the disappearance of several merchant ships, the Netaian resistence against the Federacy, and the need for Brennen Caldwell and Firebird Angelo to infiltrate and partially destroy Hunter Heights, which got them both nearly killed (by Phoena) and Brennen court-marshalled and dismissed.
  • Fusion Fire: Eshdeth Shirak, as the leader of the Shuhr, is the mastermind behind the Sunton massacre (utter destruction of a residential town), the attack on the Sentinel College, the deaths of the two child princesses of Netaia, Phoena's departure to the Shuhr and her imprisonment by them, Brennen's captivity after he tries to rescue Pheona on the Federacy's orders, and the plan to kill Firebird to break Brennen.
  • Crown of Fire: Modabah Shirak, Eshdeth's son, takes over where his father left off. He orchestrates a number of plans within plans in an attempt to re-capture Brennen, including taking over the Netaian government from the shadows and several attempts on Firebird's life.
  • Wind and Shadow: This book features two Big Bads, one for each thread of the story.
    • The Shadow possessing Tamím Bar'Baror kidnaps Kiel Caldwell, thinking him the Boh-Dabar^note a long-expected spiritual leader who was supposed to restore all people and remake the world, in an attempt to corrupt him and causes or encourages a number of destructive events, including the destruction of the planet Three Zed.
    • Jahana is the leader of the neo-Shuhr group and is a cruel but powerful woman. She is responsible for a number of deaths and disappearances and intends to take over the galaxy through a combination of reviving ancient technology, bringing the Shuhr policies of unlimited use of telepathy back into play, and posing Kinnor Caldwell as Boh-Dabar and using him as her spokesman.
  • Daystar: Piper Gambrel, along with the Shadow possessing him (a different Shadow than the above), is determined to wipe out the Sentinels. To this end, he manufactures fear and persecution of the Sentinels, forcing them all to take refuge on their sanctuary world. Once he has them thus isolated, he comes up with a way to introduce a virus which will kill them and only them, plus he has several back-up plans in place in case that fails.

My general point with this post is that every trope can be explained in a non-redundant fashion. And if it can't be, it's likely not actually a trope.

I would define "zero context" as any example which doesn't give enough "hows", "whys", and/or "wheres" that someone unfamiliar with the work could understand the manner in which the trope is used (and could also make a reasonable evaluation as to whether or not it actually fits the trope).

edited 31st Mar '13 9:33:06 PM by Nocturna

I'm very much in the "If there's no way to provide context, there's something wrong with either the example or the trope itself," with very few exceptions. I wouldn't call Big Bad an exception; say whether he leads an organization or is alone, etc, etc. Yes, it's not a strict part of the trope, but it feeds into it better than "This guy is bad. The big one, in fact" which is what a ZCE basically is.

Alliterative Name is one of the exceptions, though I do still try to provide context, especially for the Asian languages where it might be alliterative in one language but not in another.

I would say that a "zero" context example is one where there is either no description or the listed description doesn't add any context (e.g. "And how!").

This is just a subset—in my mind, at least—of the insufficient context example: an example that requires strong knowledge of the work to make any sense. That is, listings that fail at being actual examples and are more along the lines of an affirmation that an example exists if you're willing to track down the work and pay close attention. Sure, some tropes may seem self-explanatory and not require any description, but 99% of the time, it's one of three cases:

• The trope is about a name (i.e. listing the name is itself full context)
• The "trope" isn't actually a trope (e.g. Blue Eyes, which was just "a character has blue eyes")
• The editor doesn't understand the trope.

Edit: And both Discar and Norctura already stated my position better than I could.

edited 31st Mar '13 9:34:26 PM by Ironeye

Option B, without exception.

edited 31st Mar '13 9:33:48 PM by tehnubkilr

That's a description that belongs in the actual character's description, not on a trope's description. Once again, with Arvin Sloane, his character description is "The ultimate Big Bad, he's the head of SD-6 and does this and this and that." Why on earth should that be repeated just a few lines down?

Most Big Bad's reasons and actions are already present and accounted for. So yes, it IS another example of redundancy.

But I don't think that is actually necessary. In fact, I think it discourages adding examples. That's an incredible amount of detailed required. It might be nice, but actually needing all that? The trope is as simple as "the main villain".

I'm saying pursue this from the point of view of the reader—is he going to disregard a trope or be confused by it because it is only labelled Big Bad? The nature of the trope itself explains what this character is.

More context is better, but just because it's better doesn't mean it should be required.

edited 31st Mar '13 9:35:55 PM by helterskelter

Except Big Bad isn't "the main villain"—the laconic doesn't match the description—so some context is necessary. Also, there is a middle ground between Nocturna's A and B—one that doesn't overwhelm with information. That being said, while the middle ground is best, B is still way better than A.

edited 31st Mar '13 9:38:09 PM by Ironeye

Count me for Option B as well. Examples whenever, wherever possible. If not possible, something is probably wrong.

"More context is better, but just because it's better doesn't mean it should be required. "

I agree. In fact, that's pretty much my whole argument. So the reader sees the character is a Big Bad without context. He may not know why, but he does know the character's position. However, if the trope is blanked out due to this rule, then the reader won't know at all that the character is the big bad.

Like I said, we need to encourage adding descriptions in, not removing tropes altogether just because they lack one.

edited 31st Mar '13 9:40:42 PM by JohnCasey21

Option B is a bit wordy, but a significantly better option. I have no clue what the hell this Firebird trilogy is but I can at least understand how the example is an example. Ironeye is spot-on though with the "middle option is best" remark.

Alright, how about something like The Ingenue? Most trope descriptions are going to read like "She's innocent, young, sweet"—basically an exact description of any ingenue.

As I said, I don't think anyone is saying that ZCEs are somehow better. Just that sometimes it's actually not necessary to describe in detail. In fact, sometimes it's actually going to be difficult to. Sometimes all you'll be doing is reciting the trope description.

Speaking of that lol...I'm gonna go with Option C. :3

The people coming here are looking to read up on tropes, not essays. This and this and that may not be sufficient, but summarizing an entire plot point for a single trope is overkill. You need to find a middle-ground. And that middleground is reason. Don't summarize the tropes - simply state it's reason for being there.

To give an example of Option C (I have no idea what this story is about, so I'll try my best to shorten it up):

• Crown of Fire: Modabah Shirak, Eshdeth's son, orchestrates a number of plans to re-capture Brennen, from taking over the Netaian government to numerous attempts on Firebird's life.

Option C, ladies and gentlemen.

A listing for The Ingenue should perhaps give a concrete example of the character acting innocent; otherwise, the character being The Ingenue is just an Informed Attribute and should be described as such.

Technically every article on this wiki contains an essay.

Option C is poorly explained and may be a golden means solution. It sounds like this:

"Well, it seems there is some controversy about whether or not some tropes require context. I can see the logic of both sides, so how about we do give context but give as little context possible. After all, who has time to read all that text?"

Still going with option B.

@Editor Pall Mall: Actually, you're not all that wrong about it. XD This is, after all, TV Tropes, not TV Editorials.

The golden ground is the middle ground. Secondly...you're kind of going into spoiler territory if you go over-board. If we go with Option B, half of our tropes will be marked for spoilers. Since, you know, we're going into so much great detail. Ever thought of that one?