History Administrivia / TypeLabelsAreNotExamples

!!! [[Wiki/TVTropes Show]] contains examples of these tropes

* '''The actual number/letter designation is irrelevant''' (or may be subject to change). In most cases the list is our creation and we're free to expand or reorganize it later if needed[[note]](we know this doesn't happen often, but it ''has'' happened before)[[/note]], and this may impact what letter describes which definition, in turn making references to the 'old' version of the type list look [[Administrivia/{{Sinkhole}} misleading]] (or [[SquarePegRoundTrope invalid]]) when interpreted according to the 'new' version of the list.

When dealing with {{Super Trope}}s and other broad story conventions that can manifest in a range of variations, the article will necessarily include a quick list (or index) describing these variations at a glance. A common, but unfortunate, side effect is that editors may start referencing the list solely by its letter or number designations, which naturally leads to citations like this:

!!! [[Wiki/TVTropes Show]] contains examples of these tropes
* MacGuffin: A '''Type 3''' example.

And what, to the uninitiated viewer, is a "type 3" supposed to indicate?

This is a [[Administrivia/ZeroContextExample bad citation]], and should be avoided for a few reasons:

* '''It doesn't actually explain the example.''' I.e. the 'who' or the 'what', the 'where' or 'when', the 'why' or 'how' of the example. A mere letter or number doesn't explain any of that; all it does is reference some item in a list, relying on said list to fill in the missing gaps for it.
* '''The actual number/letter designation is irrelevant''' (or may be subject to change). In most cases the list is our creation and we're free to expand or reorganize it later if needed[[note]](we know this doesn't happen often, but it ''has'' happened before)[[/note]], and this may impact what letter describes which definition, in turn making references to the 'old' version of the type list look [[Administrivia/{{Sinkhole}} misleading]] (or [[SquarePegRoundTrope invalid]]) when interpreted according to the 'new' version of the list.
* '''Individual types need not be mutually exclusive.''' Administrivia/TropesAreFlexible, and a given example may combine more than one variation at a time. A citation that reads, for example, "''[Character] is a Type 2 + Type 3 [Personality Trope], with a hint of Type 7''" is completely opaque to the reader, not just because it fails to explain what each number is supposed to mean, but also because it imposes an exercise on the reader.
* '''One should never have to visit page B to understand a trope example on page A.''' Since you're already painting a picture of how Bob fits a trope, it should (more or less) be a ''complete'' picture of Bob and his trope. Referring to vague labels that require reading a different page to understand something immediately relevant to the page you're already on, and readers who choose NOT to figure out the meaning of type labels will totally miss out on understanding it.

It's worthwhile to note that there are a few ways to prevent this problem from developing in the first place. The following tip is free, courtesy of (the ''original'') MurphysLaw:

'''Avoid assigning positional number/letter labels to a soft split or sliding scale.'''

E.g., rather than relying on positional labels (A, B, C or 1, 2, 3) to identify types, come up with descriptive phrases of your own for the distinct Administrivia/{{Internal Subtrope}}s. Descriptive labels provide fixed mnemonics which won't (usually) get mixed around if the list is changed or reorganized in the future, and unlike generic letters or numbers these labels actually ''say'' something at face value. In addition, they make [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/tlp_activity.php TLP's]] job easier should the subtropes eventually get [[Administrivia/LumperVsSplitter split out]].

For help fixing these, please consult [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13267783600A86808000 this]] project thread.

As a related issue, never use a sliding scale or sorting algorithm article as a trope example. Instead, use one of the tropes that it references for positions on the scale. Remember that trope examples are never speculative or theoretical. Don't hypothesize about someone's position in the SortingAlgorithmOfMortality on the work article.

SubTrope of the Administrivia/ZeroContextExample (the general faux-pas of poorly explained citations), and a SisterTrope to Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples (a similar rule that applies to external [=URLs=]).
----

SubTrope of the Administrivia/ZeroContextExample (the general faux-pas of poorly explained citations), and a SisterTrope to Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples (an eerily similar rule that applies to external [=URLs=]).

!!! [[TVTropes Show]] contains examples of these tropes

E.g., rather than relying on positional labels (A, B, C or 1, 2, 3) to identify types, come up with descriptive phrases of your own for the distinct Administrivia/{{Internal Subtrope}}s. Descriptive labels provide fixed mnemonics which won't (usually) get mixed around if the list is changed or reorganized in the future, and unlike generic letters or numbers these labels actually ''say'' something at face value. In addition, they make YKTTW's job easier should the subtropes eventually get [[Administrivia/LumperVsSplitter split out]].

To discourage tropers from using numbers or letters from the list to refer to "Type 3" or "Type B", use bullet points to list items instead.

As a related issue, never use a sliding scale or sorting algorithm article as a trope example. Instead, use one of the tropes that it references for positions on the scale. Remember that trope examples are never speculative or theoretical. Don't hypothesize about someone's position on the SortingAlgorithmOfMortality on the work article.

As a related issue, never use a sliding scale article as a trope example. Instead, use one of the tropes that it references for positions on the scale. Remember that trope examples are never speculative or theoretical. Don't hypothesize about someone's position on the SlidingScaleOfMortality on the work article.

* '''The actual number/letter designation is irrelevant''' (or may be subject to change). In most cases the list is our creation and we're free to expand or reorganize it later if needed[[note]](we know this doesn't happen often, but it ''has'' happened before)[[/note]], and this may impact what letter describes which definition, in turn making references to the 'old' version of the type list look [[{{Sinkhole}} misleading]] (or [[SquarePegRoundTrope invalid]]) when interpreted according to the 'new' version of the list.

* '''Individual types need not be mutually exclusive.''' TropesAreFlexible, and a given example may combine more than one variation at a time. A citation that reads, for example, "''[Character] is a Type 2 + Type 3 [Personality Trope], with a hint of Type 7''" is completely opaque to the reader, not just because it fails to explain what each number is supposed to mean, but also because it imposes an exercise on the reader.

SubTrope of the Administrivia/ZeroContextExample (the general faux-pas of poorly explained citations), and a SisterTrope to Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples (an eerily similar rule that applies to external URLs).

E.g., rather than relying on positional labels (A,B,C or 1,2,3) to identify types, come up with descriptive phrases of your own, as if they were separate SubTrope articles with distinct names already. (Hey, it could happen...[[note]](to the YKTTW!)[[/note]]) Descriptive labels provide fixed mnemonics which won't (usually) get mixed around if the list is changed or reorganized in the future, and unlike generic letters or numbers these labels actually ''say'' something at face value.

When dealing with {{Super Trope}}s and other broad story conventions that can manifest in a range of variations, the article will necessarily include a quick list describing all these variations at a glance. An unfortunate side effect is that eventually, editors will start referencing the list exclusively by whatever letter or number designation corresponds to a desired item. The end result is that when you browse trope lists on work pages, you'll occasionally run into citations like:

And what, exactly, is the "type 3" supposed to indicate?

This is a [[Administrivia/ZeroContextExample bad citation]] to avoid for several reasons:

* '''It doesn't actually ''explain'' the example.''' It doesn't answer the 'who' or the 'what', the 'where' or 'when', the 'why' or 'how' of the example; all it does is reference some item in a list, and rely on a ''separate page'' to fill in the missing gaps, when it should be giving a full explanation on the same page.
* '''The actual number/letter designation is irrelevant, or may be subject to change.''' What happens if somebody adds, removes, or reorganizes the list items in a way that impacts what number/type labels correspond to what? Doing so will render our references to that list [[{{Sinkhole}} misleading]] or [[SquarePegRoundTrope invalid]].
* '''Individual types may not be mutually exclusive.''' TropesAreFlexible, and a given example may combine more than one variation at a time. A citation that reads, for example, "''[Character] is a Type 2 + Type 3 [Personality Trope], with a hint of Type 7''" is completely opaque to the reader, not just because it fails to explain what those numbers are supposed to represent, but also because it's overloading the reader with several at once.
* '''One should never have to visit another webpage to understand a trope example.''' If you're already painting a picture of how Bob fits a trope, it should, more or less, be a ''complete'' picture. Referring to vague labels that force readers to go to a different trope page in order to understand something immediately relevant to the page one was already reading does not do that, and all readers who choose NOT to figure out the meaning of type labels will ''never'' understand.

It's worthwhile to note that there are ways to prevent this problem from developing in the first place. The following tip comes courtesy of (the ''original'') MurphysLaw:

'''Do not assign positional number/letter labels to a soft split or sliding scale.'''

Rather than relying on positional labels (A,B,C or 1,2,3) to identify the items, come up with descriptive phrases of your own, treating them as if they were separate SubTrope articles with distinct names already. For example:

!!!{{MacGuffin}}s can come in a few varieties:
* A '''[=Dismantled MacGuffin=]''': Pieces of an artifact that must be re-assembled.
* A '''[=Mineral MacGuffin=]''': A crystal or raw elemental substance.
* The '''[=Egg MacGuffin=]''': An egg that will hatch into a baby creature.
* Mr. '''[=Living MacGuffin=]''': A person of interest.

Descriptive labels provide fixed mnemonics which won't (usually) get mixed around if the list is changed or reorganized in the future, and even if it does they still provide ''some'' context to help interpret the example without having to leave the page to check. Meaning that our original "Type 3" citation (which was a problem) will instead look like this:

!!! [[TVTropes Show]] contains examples of these tropes:
* MacGuffin: Of an EggMacGuffin variety.

This still doesn't explain everything about the example (the "who" or "where", etc.), but it's worlds better than a mere number or letter designation.

For help, please use [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13267783600A86808000 this]] thread.

SubTrope of Administrivia/ZeroContextExample (the general faux-pas of poorly explained citations), and a SisterTrope to Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples.

* '''You should never have to visit any other page''' (off ''or'' on the wiki) '''to understand an example on the page you're currently reading.''' Yeah, this is basically [[DepartmentOfRedundancyDepartment repeating point number one all over again]], but it [[BestForLast deserves the extra emphasis]]. When you're explaining an example, you need to ''fully explain the example yourself''.

This is a [[ZeroContextExample bad citation]] to avoid for several reasons:

SubTrope of ZeroContextExample (the general faux-pas of poorly explained citations), and a SisterTrope to Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples.

SubTrope of ZeroContextExample (the general faux-pas of poorly explained citations), and a SisterTrope to WeblinksAreNotExamples.