Zero Context Example: Exemptions for some tropes?

I noticed some Title Tropes relate to the title of the work itself in such a straightforward way that the title itself is enough explanation. I wonder if these tropes can hence be exempted from Zero Context Example enforcement: (This is an incomplete list; other tropers may suggest other tropes.)

• Character Title
• Excited Show Title
• Excited Title! Two-Part Episode Name! (as in: listing the episode name would be adequate in this case)
• Family Title
• Long Title
• Oddly Named Sequel 2: Electric Boogaloo (listing the title of the sequels will be adequete)
• One-Letter Title
• One-Word Title
• Questioning Title?

edited 19th Aug '14 5:34:02 PM by SamCurt

You know, searching for "zero context" in the forum title search would have brought up several un-archived and unlocked threads on the subject other than this one and the Long Term forum thread about fixing ZCEs on pages, one of which (the character page one) has been recently active. Yet another thread wasn't really needed...

... nor is it going to get any better reception than the rest of the "loosen up ZCE restrictions" requests that have been shot down in the past. Just the title of a trope does nothing for those not already familiar with the work, no matter how obvious one may think the title makes it. (And experience with editing suggests that one of the many ways to go wrong with confidence in wiki editing is to take trope titles at face value. )

OK, let's say: Questioning Title? is defined as "titles structured as question." How are you going to write explanations on both trope and work pages without sounding like a broken record? If the title is in a foreign language, of course I'd need to translate it, but how about if the title is in English...

I feel like those should be pushed to Trivia. They aren't really tropes, and they add no interesting information to the work article.

As can they be Trivia if they are not something external to the work?

edited 19th Aug '14 8:04:24 PM by MagBas

I tend to agree that making them Trivia entries would be sensible.

They're a way of presenting the work. I think they're tropes.

The title of a work is not part of the work itself, in the sense of acting, camera work, characterization, etc. Nor, for that matter, are cover art or promotional posters. I think those should all go to Trivia.

edited 19th Aug '14 9:40:09 PM by Fighteer

I personally won't go as extreme as Fighteer does, as some titles have the effect of Painting the Fourth Wall, and so are not completely external to the work—especially when the creator decides on the title. I do agree, though, some of these tropes I listed in the first place might be trivia.

That said, Trivia is still covered under ZCE, from what I know...

You really can't say that a title like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is not a trope relevant to the artist merit of a work and is just trivia. Granted, some are arbitrary but others have just as much thought and creativity applied to them as anything within the story itself. The episode names for Arrested Development almost always have double meanings.

edited 19th Aug '14 11:24:15 PM by KJMackley

At least I'm sure Double-Meaning Title wasn't included in the first place, as it needs some explaining.

If something can't have context it's not a trope. I believe context is less important if it's just Trivia. There's probably a number of pages that need to become trivia.

Work titles tell us something about works and are part of it. They are not Trivia.

Nor do I see why the Zero-Context Example guidelines shouldn't apply to Trivia.

On the subject of Title Tropes and ZCE, actually, yes, the title in question alone is context enough there.

The third point is exactly what I has been thinking all along—for the most straightforward of Title Tropes, the title suffices as the context. The issue is the lack of other text may make other reviewers think they're ZCE's.

Every book begins with its title.

For a lot of the title tropes, the title in question isn't the main work title, but a chapter or episode title or something like that, and that's certainly something that needs context. Not a lot of context, though.

The title having an exclamation mark is practically the epitome of something that's trivially interesting. It has no real meaning. It's not like your appreciation of the work is affected by the punctuation of the work's title, or at least I hope it isn't.

Sure, not all title tropes are trivial. Sometimes they form a theme, or a running gag, but at least that can be elaborated on in the trope example. Excited Show Title is not one of those things.

edited 20th Aug '14 7:15:37 AM by Fighteer

Designating a trope as trivial is not the same as the trope being trivia, neither is making a judgement about the artistic merit of the trope. Excited Episode Title! very well may amuse some people for the fact it is trying to get you pumped for the story by including an exclamation point. It is something factually evident within the work itself, especially being an anime trope and a good number of animes use title cards to introduce the episode.

It is a huge difference between that and something like Word of God, Throw It In!, Troubled Production, etc where you need external interviews, making-of featurettes and DVD Commentary to know about it.

Maybe we could just make it a rule that Paratext tropes are not listed on a work page. Paratext tropes would still collect works on their pages. Many of those do not need much context.

edited 20th Aug '14 12:39:26 PM by LordGro

There is no reason at all not to list Paratext tropes on work pages. "Some examples may sometimes look like ZCE while not being so" is not a sufficient argument by a longshot.

Paratext should be demarcated, I think. When mixed in with plot tropes and characterization tropes, it looks out of place.

"Looking out of place" is not a good argument, either.

Let's not rearrange deck chairs for the sake of it. The issue was whether certain Title Tropes need much context, and the motion that the title in question is enough context on its own received mostly (if little) support.

I also think that if something is explained by the title it should be separate from things that really need context.

Let's try it another way: if it's self-evident from the title, why does it need to be listed as a trope in the examples list? You might as well have Excited Show Title as dry list of all works that fit the criteria. After all, there's no context to be had there. There's nothing interesting, no useful information to convey. It's nothing more than a list of all works whose titles end in exclamation marks.

Tropes ought to at least be interesting.

edited 20th Aug '14 1:00:49 PM by Fighteer

It needs to be listed because it's a trope employed by the work. Most people coming here to read a work's trope list are not familiar with all trope concepts that exist and that may be applicable to a work.

Also, many of these tropes apply to episode titles as well and there you do need to cite the context - the episode title.

So, to teach people that the quasi-trope Excited Show Title exists, we have to list it everywhere that it occurs, even when the context is trivial? Do we list The Hero for the same reason?

edited 20th Aug '14 1:07:20 PM by Fighteer