Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators
213,897
edits
All The Tropes:Examples Need Context: Difference between revisions
All The Tropes:Examples Need Context (view source)
Revision as of 18:24, 19 January 2022
, 2 years ago→Examples: added "* Nightmare Fuel: TBA" as an even worse actual example than our listed Policy Dodge example
m (→See Also) |
(→Examples: added "* Nightmare Fuel: TBA" as an even worse actual example than our listed Policy Dodge example) |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{policy shortcut|ATT:CONTEXT}}
[[All The Tropes:Examples Need Context/Laconic|Laconic version]]
'''Examples Need Context''' is a wiki policy intend to keep reading the wiki more informative for everyone. A '''Zero Context Example''' is an example with with insufficient explanatory text, even if it isn't entirely absent.
Line 10 ⟶ 12:
== Improving Zero Context Examples ==
{{policy shortcut|ATT:ZCE}}
If you see an example that needs context, but don't know the answer yourself, go ahead and tag the entry with {{tl|context}}. This makes a little button like this <sup>[''[[Template:Context|<span title="{{
Note that we are not Wikipedia -- we don't require citations -- but we do want explanations. And remember, a Zero Context Example is simply an example waiting to be expanded. As always, [[All The Tropes:There Is No One True Way|There Is No One True Way]].
Line 19 ⟶ 21:
:* [[Fiery Redhead]]
On a work page, this conveys essentially no meaning. Even if there is only one redhead in the story, at least go ahead and label the
This classic Zero Context Example is ''barely acceptable'' in certain places where the context is obvious, like on a character sheet. But really, wouldn't it be much better
;The policy dodge:
Line 29 ⟶ 31:
This kind of example is not acceptable anywhere.
;The lazy policy dodge:
:* [[Nightmare Fuel]]: TBA
An example that was rejected in moderation here. It's awful in every way that the "policy dodge" example above is, ''and'' it says that the troper hasn't actually done the work yet.
This kind of example is not acceptable anywhere. If you're going to write the example later, then write the entire example later; don't leave people hanging.
;The [[Shaped Like Itself]] work:
Line 35 ⟶ 44:
This is even worse on a page like [[Crazy Awesome]], which is subjective anyway. It may well be a superlative example, but if the reader hasn't seen it, he has no way to judge if you're correct or not. Best to <del>pierce the heavens</del> add a longer example.
There are other variants of this, like "[[Self Explanatory|Self-explanatory]]" (nope), or "and HOW!!" (how exactly?),
This is also not acceptable anywhere.
;The example that's missing vital information
:* While fighting the reborn Emperor and his forces, the Skywalkers came across a cyborg Jedi Knight named Empatojayos Brand who had survived the Purge (barely). He followed them and helped defeat Palpatine, but, as the Sith Lord had transferred his soul from cloned body to cloned body to escape death, he launched his spirit at the infant Anakin Solo. Brand interposed his damaged body in between Palaptine and Anakin and used the Force to bind Palpatine to him as he died, thus ridding the galaxy of the Emperor forever.
The above was listed on "Heroic Sacrifice/Comics", and discovered by a mod while that page was being prepared to be split into "Heroic Sacrifice/Comic Books" and "Heroic Sacrifice/Newspaper Comics". The problem with this example is that ''it doesn't say which work it's from'' - ''[[Star Wars]]'' had both comic books and newspaper comics back in the day. And if it is from one of the comic book runs, which one? As a result, "Heroic Sacrifice/Comics" could not be cleaned up without identifying this work first.
Examples that don't identify the work that they're from are not acceptable anywhere.
;The [[Wiki Walk]]ing Stick
Line 44 ⟶ 60:
In theory this says a great deal, but it forces the user to click to see something else if they don't have [[Eidetic Memory]]. Just go ahead and explain what the [[Internal Subtrope]]s are, if you're going to use them. Also avoid image or offsite links -- people shouldn't have to click to get the general idea of the trope. Instead of showing off your mastery of trope categories (or image macros), just take the time to explain it in a few words.
Also, if somebody re-writes the trope page to name the subtropes instead of numbering them, "Type 3", "Type 2", and similar cites become worse than useless. ([[MacGuffin]] is an example here; it has no numbered subtropes on its page, but it has a long list of named subtropes with their own pages.)
Barely acceptable on a page that classifies the examples; otherwise not acceptable.▼
;The bare essentials:
:* [[Fast Roping]]: The clone troopers in Episode III employ this trope.
Okay, this tells us something, but not much. Still, it's enough to justify its continued
Not acceptable on subjective pages -- particularly on YMMV trope pages and subpages. Because those examples inherently need a justification, you're going to have to explain why you believe the trope is justified. Otherwise, some editor might come in after you and decide that you were completely wrong.
Line 78 ⟶ 96:
* [[Pop Cultural Osmosis Failure]] -- why you shouldn't do "[[Self Explanatory]]"
* [[All The Tropes:Style Guide/Spoilers]]
* [[Just a Face
* [[Small Reference Pools]] -- why things that are obvious to one person are not obvious to somebody else
And needing to be reviewed:
* [[All The Tropes:How to Write An Example|How to Write an Example]]
* [[Pothole]] and [[Sinkhole]]
[[Category:Wiki Policy]]
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
| |||