Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sandbox / Zce Page Rewrite

Go To

A Zero-Context Example is an example that fails to do the most important thing an example should do: explain 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 Fan Myopia.

Advertisement:

All tropes require context, even if they may seem 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 People Sit on Chairs. 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 Corrupt Politician:

  • Corrupt Politician
    This literally tells the reader nothing about the work or the trope. If you don't already know what Corrupt Politician is about AND how the trope appears in the work, this is completely worthless.
  • Advertisement:
  • Corrupt Politician: 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."
  • Corrupt Politician: 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.
  • Corrupt Politician: Alice is an example.
    Okay, but how is she an example? This is similar to the above example.
  • Advertisement:
  • Corrupt Politician: Alice, from the episode "Mayor of Troperville", is this.
    This still doesn't tell you why Alice is a Corrupt Politican.
  • Corrupt Politician: 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.
  • Corrupt Politician: 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.
  • Corrupt Politician: Alice, as shown in 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 Weblinks Are Not Examples.
  • Corrupt Politician: Alice: See Rich Bitch below.
    Related to 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 Rich Bitch example on this page, you have no idea why Alice is an example.
  • Corrupt Politician: 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.
  • Corrupt Politician: Alice is a subversion.
    How is Alice a subversion? Is she a Jerk with a Heart of Gold? 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.
  • Corrupt Politician: Alice combines this with Rich Bitch.
    Similar to the "see also" example, this one claims Alice is two tropes, but fails to explain either.
  • Corrupt Politician: Alice, clearly a satire of conservative politicians, has her moments, but that's all we can say about it.
    While we expect editors to abide by rules such as No Lewdness, No Prudishness and the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement, this still fails to explain the example. Either write it in a non-compromising way, or delete the example.
  • Corrupt Politician:
    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.

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

  • Corrupt Politician: 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 Corrupt Politician, regardless of whether they've ever read the trope's page or even know who the character Alice is.

If you see a Zero-Context Example and can't personally expand it, the 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 Edit Wars.

See also:

  • Pages Needing Example Context: A page with a high concentration of Zero-Context Examples can be put on this page and tagged to let future editors know to not add even more non-context examples, and to encourage them to expand said examples if possible.
  • Fixing zero-context examples thread: A forum thread for help or advice with cleaning up Zero-Context Examples.
  • Clear, Concise, Witty: Describing an instance of a trope accurately and fully takes precedence over needlessly long or humorous examples that do not explain the trope.
  • Fan Myopia: 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 context for their sake.
  • How to Write an Example: Contains further editing guidelines.
  • Just a Face and a Caption: The picture equivalent of a Zero-Context Example; namely, a page image which does not illustrate the trope, relying on Fan Myopia or the caption to connect the image to the trope.
  • Not Self-Explanatory: 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.
  • People Sit on Chairs: If a trope cannot be given useful, consistent context beyond "this happens", it is probably too meaningless to trope.
  • Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Language: 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 occurs in the work, including if it's replaced with something non-indicative, like "And That's Terrible" or "And this is all we'll say about it."
  • Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment: 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.
  • Type Labels Are Not Examples: Some tropes may have Internal Subtropes listed as "Type A" or "Type B", or something similar. These labels, on their own, do not explain the trope.
  • Weblinks Are Not Examples: Another form of Zero-Context Example involving linking to another page to give context.
  • Word Cruft: 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.

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report