It's a broad rule of thumb, mostly to avoid long lists of shows, names and episodes with nothing more offered. The nature of tropes is that they are templates, and that means depending on the diversity of the trope there may not be a whole lot of context without going into unnecessary detail.
As an example, in Buffy The Vampire Slayer the character of Angel was a Mysterious Protector for a handful of episodes before his role and backstory was revealed. With regards to the trope this was not a huge part of the show beyond adding an air of mystery and didn't amount to much. While you can always go into more detail it wasn't a particularly interesting use of the trope. Writing it as "Angel served as a Mysterious Protector to Buffy for the first few episodes" is all there really is to say, it's borderline ZCE but doing an episode by episode recap of the miniscule things he did in those few episodes doesn't help illustrate the trope any better.
...Oof buddy, sit down so I can rant about context for a minute.
Zero-Context Example breaks down why these are bad to use. They assume all readers know the work or the trope, and that the readers aren't interested in knowing how the trope manifests in a work.
- Big Bad: Bob
Tells us nothing, besides that a character named Bob exists. No interesting information is given, no reader has the context to understand why Bob is a Big Bad, and its a sure sign of laziness. If you can't be assed to spend 30 seconds saying:
- Big Bad: Bob's plan to defund the orphanage is why the plot even occurs at all.
Then you're too lazy to contribute properly to the wiki.
Besides, what's interesting is how and why a trope applies to a work, not just that it does. Readers don't care that a work is in the trope, they care about the details of how the trope is used.
Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 21st 2020 at 1:05:58 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSure, but what about more descriptive tropes where any explanation is just redundant? For example, if you have ten entries in some character's page detailing his ruthless villainy, and then add Bald of Evil, do you have to specifically state, once again, that he's bald and evil?
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
Yes you do. Each trope example should stand on its own. Though I could perhaps forgive not describing his evil deeds in detail if they're already covered elsewhere.
Edited by Zuxtron on Jan 23rd 2020 at 5:22:51 AM
Yeah, and also, people tend to think appearance tropes are self-explanatory when its the context that makes them tropeworthy.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallWe have a rule about cross-wicking. The example should be both on the trope page and on the work page or a Characters/ sheet.
So if you have a villain on Characters/ and you keep listing all the villain tropes, then perhaps you can make the example context a bit briefer than it is on the actual trope page and you don't have to list everything evil that the character did or does. But just dropping Bald of Evil without an explanation or just "he's bald" is bad example-writing.
Examples that say "Alice does this" or "Alice does this to Bob" or "Alice and Bob end up in this condition", with no mention of what "this" is, are my pet peeve types of Zero Context Examples. It doesn't matter that the trope name seems to be Exactly What It Says on the Tin. The context has to be self-contained.
My rule of thumb is if a Wiki Vandal can change the link and imply an entirely different scenario with the exact same words, like this...
(insert recap here)
Examples:
- Bag of Kidnapping: Alice does this to Bob. Bob is not amused.
- Cluster F-Bomb: Alice does this to Bob. Bob is not amused.
- Kiss Up the Arm: Alice does this to Bob. Bob is not amused.
- Refrigerator Ambush: Alice does this to Bob. Bob is not amused.
- Unscrewed Salt Shaker: Alice does this to Bob. Bob is not amused.
...then that's nowhere near enough context. Incidentally, all the tropes in that short list except for Cluster F-Bomb are on the "Pages Needing Example Context" index for precisely the problem I just pointed out.
- Bag of Kidnapping has some examples with no mention of bags
- Kiss Up the Arm has some examples with no mention of arms or kisses or where on the arm the trail of kisses ends
- Refrigerator Ambush has some examples with no mention of refrigerators
- Unscrewed Salt Shaker has some examples with no mention of whose meal was ruined or which (if any) condiment was tampered with, it could have been salt or pepper or ketchup or mustard or Alien Lunch sauce for all we know
Edited by Miss_Desperado on Mar 16th 2020 at 9:46:18 AM
If not for this anchor I'd be dancing between the stars. At least I can try to write better vampire stories than Twilight.Yeah, if I'm cleaning a page, one of my tricks is to do a CTRL-F for "this". I try to reword examples that aren't even Word Cruft to eliminate the word "this" in example text, just because "this" is often used to refer to the trope name without giving an explanation.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.Even tropes that seem self-explanatory... aren't. For example:
- On a work page you have this: Winged Unicorn: Alice
- Or on a character page for a work, in the folder for Alice, you have: Winged Unicorn
In both cases that example only works if you are already familiar with the work and character in question, or if you assume that the trope is played straight. But if you make no assumptions, then it tells us nothing useful:
- Is Alice a winged unicorn?
- Or is Alice trying to become a winged unicorn?
- Maybe she is transformed - temporarily or permanently - into one?
- Was Alive mistaken for a winged unicorn due to some reason(s)?
- Is she only pretending to be one (possibly using magic and/or technology to help with the lie)?
- Or is Alice insane and believes herself to be a winged unicorn when she's a regular human?
- Or maybe it's misuse? Perhaps Alice is a pegasus, but the troper that added the example couldn't think of (or didn't know) the correct trope, so added the first one that came to mind?
- Perhaps Alice was not a winged unicorn in the original, but then the work was translated in another language and as a result of (mis)translation she's one in the translated version of the work? Perhaps the example was added by a troper who was only familiar with the translated version and mistakenly thought that she was one in the original too?
- Or perhaps the winged unicorn is (part of) Alice's family's crest?
Without sufficent context it's impossible to know how the trope is used - or even if the trope is used at all, or if the example is a shoehorn.
My rule of thumb is that if you can't tell whether an example is used correctly or not based on the example itself, there's not enough context.
I also think there's a different amount and type of context needed depending on where the example is. On a character page, you probably need less context about the character, and more context about the trope, while on the trope page it's more often the other way around. Reason being, on the character page you can assume a little bit of familiarity with the character, as well as the context from all other tropes adding to the understanding of the character. On the trope page, on the other hand, you have context from the trope description and all examples, so you might not need to explain the trope in as much detail, but the character might need more description.
If you crosswick and don't want to just copy and paste the example, that's something to keep in mind.
Check out my fanfiction!

Single word entries and ambiguous implication seem to be commonplace. While scant specification may confuse, I quite enjoy how it may also leave certain things to the imagination, and perhaps encourage further pursuit of the work in question. Simple mention of a character's name may, coupled with earlier mention of age, setting, occupation or demeanour may show, or at least imply, how the trope applies. Differing views on the required amount of specification suggests, to me, that it's generally a matter of taste. Since ZC Es abound despite correction, might an effective incentive to clarity be more exposure of the relevant editing tip?