X Just X/Sandbox

You read a trope's description or are working on a work's page and suddenly you think of an example that fits so perfectly that obviously you don't have to explain how it fits, you can just say the name of the show or trope, stick a "just" in there and say the name again for emphasis and you're done! Short, sweet, and clever, right?

No, no. Just no. As far as examples go, saying "[show] just [show]" or "[trope] just [trope]" is worthless as it lacks descriptions of why, just why, an example is such an epitome of a trope. Remember, just remember, examples are supposed to explain how the trope was used. Saying the name of a show or trope twice with a "just" in the middle doesn't do that; after all, there are a lot of people who haven't seen [show] or understand [trope].

In spite of the name, there are many other ways that an example can become X Just X. Common variations include:
 * "[X]. Full stop."
 * "[X] loves this trope."
 * "[X] is this trope" (or "[X] is this trope incarnate", "[X] is the Patron Saint of this trope")
 * "[X]. And HOW!"
 * "[X] [Character name]" (or "[X] [episode]" or any other way of just saying where the trope comes up)
 * "[X]"

These alternatives aren't any better, because none of them actually explain why and where the show provides an example of the tropes.

Also see Two Words: Obvious Trope and Self Explanatory for other things you shouldn't do, and How to Write An Example for what you should do instead. As for the biggest cause of this... Fan Myopia. Just Fan Myopia. For the image equivalent, see Just a Face And A Caption.

To be absolutely clear, Do not pot hole to this page, and delete any such reference if that's how you got here. It might be true that Tropes Are Not Bad, but when it comes Wiki Tropes, we're holding ourselves to a higher standard. And if you want examples of Wiki Tropes we won't tolerate, well. X Just X, just... X Just X.