Zero Context Example guideline and Trope Page Splits that may ensue

I have noticed the new Zero Context Example policy includes the following as bad style: "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. Don't do this. Examples should be listed on both pages, and it saves the reader the extra trouble. "

Looking in my very small editing portfolio, I have noticed two instances of this issue:

• Cell Phone/Detective Conan
• "Shaggy Dog" Story/Daily Lives of High School Boys

However, I have noticed the work page have listed so many examples (both in the double-digits) that would necessitate hard spliting that work's examples into its own subpages under the trope. Since neither trope have subpages yet, what should I do?

This also brings up a question on the bad style listed above: Some works have so many examples of a single trope that there're trope page subpages just for that work. Is it still bad style to just link to that subpage in a work page? For example, I'm not feeling like copying the entirety of ShoutOut.Lucky Star back to Trivia.Lucky Star.

Neither of those situations you posted have anywhere near the number of examples that would necessitate a hard split. The information should just be copied over.

Also, ShoutOut/ is a subpage to the work, so there's no need to copy it onto the Trivia page.

Thank you for answering the first question. (I probably got the impression of being needed to split at that example size due to the influence of several more controversial pages, such as Memetic Mutation)

But as for second... do you mean single-work subpages of a trope page is, in fact, a subpage of a work?

[edit] Nevermind what was here before, confused.

What you could do is simply insert a line on Manga.Lucky Star like so:

• Shout-Out: So many it has its own page.

edited 12th Mar '12 4:13:21 PM by lebrel

This is already what we've been doing for years—of course, since Shout-Out is a trivia trope, it belongs to Trivia.Lucky Star.

In any rate, I think this guideline should not apply to some trope, esp Appearance tropes where the "context" may only be proved by an image link. What I have in mind are Cute Little Fangs or Meganekko. On the other hand, I have also noticed the meaning of Student Council President may be so clear that context may not really be needed.

That said, as I traditionally copy what I wrote to the work page to the trope page (or vice versa), with small grammatical changes, this guideline may not be all that relevant to me...

I don't know where you got the idea that Shout-Out is Trivia. It's not and, AFAIK, never has been. Please don't put it in the Trivia tab.

Agreed. Shout-Out is not Trivia.

At the very, very beginning of segregating trivia Shout-Out was tentatively trivia, and it got put on a few Trivia pages. I'm not sure it all got pulled back off.

It seems to me that this new policy, as well-intentioned as it is, is rife with incipient misuse and abuse. I already posted about it on the discussion page for Zero Context Example, but to encapsulate it in a format that may be easier to address: there are many tropes which, as Sam has stated, are self-explanatory by their very nature, and others which would require only a name, a very small snippet of explanation, and so on because the alternative is making pages that are way too long and full of redundancies and spoilers, or going into far too much detail about the trope itself (when the information for that would be on the trope page) or the character/situation in the work (when everything about the character or the situation is the trope and therefore can't be referenced).

So I would suggest that the page for Zero Context Example should include a list with it of tropes where it is, in fact, all right and even necessary to not provide explanations beyond a name or a few words. This would keep tropers from removing examples from pages just because they seem to lack context (because they would be noted here as exceptions to the rule), while also telling those who create work pages or add to them and the trope pages which ones it's okay to not provide context for, so they will do it for all others. It would be some work, considering how many tropes there are, but since the majority of tropes do need explanations, it probably wouldn't take too long. But we'd all have to agree on which ones don't need context.

I don't think we have that many tropes where a Zero Context Example would be adequate or are used so similar between works were it wouldn't warrant an explanation about how a specific work uses the trope. For the one's that are, it really begs the question about why that trope has an example section in the first place.

edited 6th Jun '12 6:17:32 AM by captainpat

We've been through this. Show me any case of a Zero Context Example that you feel is justified and I'm pretty sure I can come up with something for it.

Even if no elaboration is "good enough" (though I am skeptical that this is ever true) there should be some anyway. Zero Context Examples are always bad, no exceptions.

If I recall, the only truly acceptable cases of Zero Context Examples are in cases where they are part of the technology used to produce/show the work in question (and basically there is no real variation in how the thing is played; it's either there, or it isn't). Most of these cases are going to be video game specific tropes.

There are a few borderline cases where attempting to describe it would violate the "concise" bit of "clear, concise and witty", but those are typically signs that a trope is too broad and needs to get some subtropes or be split.

edited 6th Jun '12 5:35:47 PM by TotemicHero

Because I raised this issue first, I'd list one example: Tsurime Eyes. The trope is on a particular eye shape, which, while a shorthand for some personality trait, the trope did not require such personality traits to be listed under that trope.

Since this is mainly an anime trope, it is commonly listed as "Character from Series" without further elaboration, as that is impossible without a picture link.

For that particular trope, there should always be some indication that the character with it fits the personality and that other characters in the show don't have it or there's a contrasting character with tareme. The trope is more than just a way of drawing eyes, it's drawing eyes that way to show someone has strong will/arrogance/pride.

edited 7th Jun '12 12:58:17 AM by Telcontar

I have to disagree with that. If it's a visual characterization trope, then no explanation of how they fit it outside of Playing With won't be redundant. Let's take most of the examples on Ambiguously Brown. Most of the descriptions are full of cruft info, speculation or Fan Wank. Very few examples have any plot-relevant information or Word of God rationale. The rest of them that aren't redundant are subversions, aversion, etc.

I've always felt that the Zero Context Example is a very bad rule for broad strokes.

edited 7th Jun '12 4:47:43 AM by KingZeal

I think I mentioned that while that trope is often associated with some personality trait, such personality trait is not necessary to be listed under that trope.

Those sound like issues that should be discussed in a trs thread. The description says it's a fandom issue than either relevant to the character. It makes me wonder whether it should be an audience reaction instead.

edited 7th Jun '12 12:23:05 PM by captainpat

If it's just a thing thats get the fandom all tingly but doesn't have any relevance to the plot, then one does indeed wonder if it deserves to be an objective trope.

edited 7th Jun '12 12:25:04 PM by Fighteer

In the case of Ambiguously Brown, if it has anything to do with fandom at all, I'd arguing if that's a different trope than what I thought it was.

My understanding was that it was "a character is brown-skinned, but this is not explained given the context". For example, the poster character, Yoruichi—the majority of the other characters are of Japanese descent. She, on the other hand, is brown-skinned for reasons that are never offered or explained.

That's a trope, because (in aggregate) it allows "diversity" in a cast while making sure the character is not too ethnic.

Let me modify my previous post: an artistic choice designed specifically to pander to an audience meme is entirely valid as a trope. However, it ought to have some relevance to the character or the story or something.

Here's a relevant quote from the description of Blue Eyes:

In short, it's not just for anyone who has a particular appearance; it has to mean something, and that meaning is what you should be talking about in the trope description. For example, if all you can say about a character is that they have Blue Eyes, then it is Not An Example.

edited 7th Jun '12 1:27:26 PM by Fighteer

But that's not the same thing. Eye color is not tied to diversity. No one has a cast of all blond and blue-eyed people, then throw in someone with brown eyes and call it diversity. However, they DO do such things with a character that's ambiguously brown.

Blue Eyes, even by the trope name, is devoid of context. Ambiguously Brown is not, since the purpose of the trope is right there in the name.

Another example would be Curtains Match the Windows, which is EXTREMELY rare in real life.

In general, I think the wiki is undecided and inconsistent with how it wants to handle visual tropes.

edited 7th Jun '12 1:42:14 PM by KingZeal

I'd really take Ambiguously Brown to a trs thread. It seems poorly defined right now.

edited 7th Jun '12 1:41:59 PM by captainpat

Well, Curtains Match the Windows happens in people with brown eyes and brown hair, and there are an awful lot of those...

True, and it's also rare for blue eyes and blue hair. However/also/mybrainisfriedandIdon'tknowifthisisrelevant, precise shades of brown are nigh-on impossible to discern as tehy change with the light.

edited 7th Jun '12 1:44:32 PM by Telcontar

But it's rare that a person's hair color will perfectly match their eyes, which is the trope.