Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Administrivia / ZeroContextExample

Go To


Added DiffLines:

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.=]


Added DiffLines:

Another way to tell if an example lacks context is when the example would still make sense when the trope is replaced with another. Let's say we replace CorruptPolitician on the last point with...

* OnlyInItForTheMoney:
-->'''Citizen''': How are you voting?
-->'''Alice''': Who's paying me?


--> '''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.'''

to:

--> '''How '''A common problem is Alice a subversion? Is she a JerkWithAHeartOfGold? Is she genuinely corrupt, but only pretends to have interest using PlayingWithATrope labels in politics and actually has her secretary do all place of context. How is the work? Explain, don't just say so.'''trope set up to be subverted? How is the subversion shown to the audience?'''


* 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.'''



* 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.

to:

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]], 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.

to:

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. [[Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory No trope is self-explanatory, 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. \n

----



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

to:

--> '''This is bad for the same reasons as the above example. All it tells you us 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.'''

to:

--> '''This still doesn't tell you why us how 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.'''

to:

--> '''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 See Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples for why Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples.this doesn't work.'''



--> '''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.'''

to:

--> '''Related to [[Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples the rule about links]], entries '''Examples should not point to other parts of the page.examples for context. 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,
Even if there were, it could be changed or deleted, leaving 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.
example unexplained.'''



* 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.'''
* 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.
--> '''This example, despite its length, never actually explains 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 okay at first glance, but on further inspection, only mentions that Alice is a politician, not how she is corrupt.''' [[note]]There may be an implied assumption that all politicians in Troper City are corrupt, or that politicians are corrupt in general, but this needs to be stated in the example, with details.[[/note]]
* 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 we don't already know who Alice is, this tells us very little.'''



--> '''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.'''

to:

--> '''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, an appropriate 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:

to:

----

After all this, you might be wondering what an actually a good example might look like. Here's one way Here are a few ways 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.

to:

\nWith --> '''With an example like that, anyone can understand why Alice is a CorruptPolitician, regardless of whether they've ever read the trope's page article or even know who the character Alice is.
is.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice is the richest and most powerful member of the Troper City Senate. In Episode 28, she offers to use her influence to force a vote through in exchange for millions of dollars in payouts for herself and her friends.
--> '''Another good approach is to describe a specific instance when Alice does something corrupt. This shows her actually doing what the example claims about her.'''



----



* 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.

to:

* 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 risqué; or controversial subjects.subjects.
* ShowDontTell: One of the governing principles of example context, you should always try to show the reader what's happening, not merely tell them.


'''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.

to:

'''A good A Zero-Context Example is an example that fails to do the most important thing an example should do: explain ''how'' how and why it fits the trope. All examples must explain how they apply, as this wiki isn't just for the editors to post whatever makes sense to them and other fans of their pet work, but for an audience looking for information on how tropes work in practice. Zero-Context Examples can appear on any page, but work and trope pages are the most common places to see such examples, with work pages being particularly prone to FanMyopia.

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.

But how do these problems occur in practice? Well, let's take a look using theoretical examples of CorruptPolitician:

* CorruptPolitician
--> '''This literally tells the reader nothing about the work or the trope. If you don't already know what CorruptPolitician is about AND how the trope appears in the work, this is completely worthless.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice, full stop.
--> '''This is marginally better than the above in that it at least tells us who the trope applies to, but still useless to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the work. If you don't already know what makes Alice a Corrupt Politician, this example only tells you that the work contains a character named Alice. And if the example is on Alice's character sheet, it's redundant to specify that the trope applies to her, so this goes back to being completely worthless. Similar phrases to avoid are "period", "natch", and "X. Just... X."'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice is one.
--> '''This is bad for the same reasons as the above example. All it tells you is that Alice is a character in the work.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice is an example.
--> '''Okay, but how is she an example? This is similar to the above example.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice, from the episode "Mayor of Troperville", is this.
--> '''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.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice, as shown in [[https://www.youtube.com/boguslink this clip]].
--> '''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.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice: See RichBitch below.
--> '''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.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice combines this with RichBitch.
--> '''Similar to the "see also" example, this one claims Alice is two tropes, but fails to explain either.'''
* CorruptPolitician: Alice, clearly a satire of conservative politicians, has her moments, but [[Administrivia/RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement that's all we can say about it.]]
--> '''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.'''
* CorruptPolitician:
-->'''Citizen''': How are you voting?
-->'''Alice''': Who's paying me?
--> '''Quotes are rarely acceptable as examples on their own, though they can support an existing example. As quotes can be taken out-of-context, be mis-remembered or even mis-interpreted, they aren't always reliable. In general, they fail to give necessary context for any non-dialogue trope, being just a single moment of the work and lacking in details.
'''

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

* CorruptPolitician: Alice is the richest member of the Troper City Senate, and uses her enormous wealth to buy not only her seat but also the opinions of her fellow delegates. She spends an equally large amount of money to cover up her various scandals and silence her victims, who occasionally disappear altogether. Her policies aren't any better, as she pushes ideas that benefit herself and her benefactors, even if it hurts innocent people.

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

If you see
a work's page, sometimes one may think of an example that fits so perfectly [[FanMyopia Zero-Context Example and seems so obvious]] that it doesn't seem all too necessary to explain how it fits; can't personally expand it, the editor common protocol is to hide it using double-percentage markup ([=%%=] at the start of a line). This allows someone else who knows the work better to add context while keeping it invisible for the reader's sake. It is not recommended to delete these, since this has been known to lead to Administrivia/{{Edit War}}s.

!!See also:
* Administrivia/PagesNeedingExampleContext: A page with a high concentration of Zero-Context Examples
can just provide the name of the work/character (or trope) be put on this page and quickly move on tagged to something else. Short, sweet, let future editors know to not add even ''more'' non-context examples, and to the point, right?

''Wrong!''

Providing only the name of a work/character or the name of a trope does absolutely nothing
encourage them to actually explain the example. Remember, expand said 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.

possible.
* "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
php?discussion=13226024250A77804400&page=1 Fixing zero-context examples]] thread: A forum thread for help or advice with cleaning up Zero-Context Examples.
* Administrivia/ClearConciseWitty: Describing an instance of a trope accurately and fully takes precedence over needlessly long or humorous
examples are commented out that do not explain the trope.
* FanMyopia: Your favorite work is so amazing and popular that surely everyone will immediately recognize how this trope applies! There's no need for context, right? Wrong. No matter how popular a work is, there will always be people who aren't familiar
with it. Write out the [=%%=] markup so that editors visiting the context for their sake.
* Administrivia/HowToWriteAnExample: Contains further editing guidelines.
* Administrivia/JustAFaceAndACaption: The picture equivalent of a Zero-Context Example; namely, a
page know image which does not illustrate the trope, relying on FanMyopia or the caption to correct them.

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

See also Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory for other faux-pas.

For
connect the image equivalent, see Administrivia/JustAFaceAndACaption.

To learn more
to the trope.
* Administrivia/NotSelfExplanatory: No matter how obvious a trope name seems, it is not exempt from needing context. Even if you think it's obvious how it applies, write it out anyway; if it's really that obvious, it shouldn't take much effort.
* Administrivia/PeopleSitOnChairs: If a trope cannot be given useful, consistent context beyond "this happens", it is probably too meaningless to trope.
* Administrivia/PrescriptiveVsDescriptiveLanguage: We write
about how things are, not how they should be. This issue can create context problems if someone changes or removes valid information due to their own distaste at what you ''should'' do, instead, see Administrivia/HowToWriteAnExample. If you want occurs in the work, including if it's replaced with something non-indicative, like "AndThatsTerrible" or "And this is all we'll say about it."
* 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.
* Administrivia/TypeLabelsAreNotExamples: Some tropes may have Administrivia/{{Internal Subtrope}}s listed as "Type A" or "Type B", or something similar. These labels, on their own, do not explain the trope.
* Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples: Another form of Zero-Context Example involving linking
to help fix them, go another page to Administrivia/PagesNeedingExampleContext.give context.
* Administrivia/WordCruft: Cruft is bad enough when it's in an example entry that does have full context, but when an entry is nothing ''but'' cruft, it can make what's essentially a Zero-Context Example hard to spot.


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

to:

Thanks in no small part to WordCruft, Administrivia/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.

to:

* [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 Administrivia/WordCruft anyway and never even mention anything related to the trope.


* "[Name]. That is all.

to:

* "[Name]. That is all."



to:

* "[Character A] is this/does this to [Character B]".


* "[Character] has his moments".

to:

* "[Character] has his moments".
moments". ("shades of this" etc.)



to:

* "[Character] has his moments".



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

to:

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


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

Added DiffLines:

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



to:

* [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.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 53

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report