Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles/poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Archived poll

This was a poll to discuss adopting [[Wikipedia::Avoid trivia sections in articles]]. I found a consensus to exist for the adoption of the proposal. The voting saw 43 votes cast, 27 in favour, offering a 62% majority. Although at the weak end of establishing consensus, I note Rje appears to have amended his vote, which would alter the result. It also appears a number of objections are grounded on the idea that people will continue to add trivia sections. I think those opinions can be somewhat discounted, since they don't address the proposal itself, which offers advice on how to deal with such circumstances. We don't abolish WP:AFD because people continuously add articles which require deletion. Hiding Talk 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. I very much agree with eliminating trivia sections. This does not mean eliminating the information within them. The problem is, a section entitled Trivia looks extremely amateurish, and strongly implies that the information within it is irrelevant. Sometimes it is irrelevant; then it should be removed. Often, though, it's perfectly relevant information, and then it should be incorporated into the text rather than placed in a section which marks it as irrelevant. Worldtraveller 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    PS 'Avoid trivia in articles' is a bit of a misnomer, and 'Avoid trivia sections' would be more accurate. I think that Deco's suggested guideline below is ideal; I'd support its inclusion into the appropriate 'How to write great articles' pages. Worldtraveller 11:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support the guideline as rephrased by Deco. Encouraging to bring structure to a loose list of trivia will improve the quality of the concerned articles. −Woodstone 12:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Per Worldtraveller. The information can be good sometimes, but a trivia thing makes it look, well, trivial, and that's where you get a lot of IPs putting in information that either shouldn't be there or is written poorly. I guess it could work as a net of sorts, but I've a feeling it will be reduced if the section just isn't there. --Niroht 12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    PS I forgot to mention explicitly that this support is for Deco's suggested guideline.Niroht 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support as above. If there's interesting information, it should be merged into the article, not just thrown in a random list at the end. It makes Wikipedia look like an indiscriminate collection of information. I largely agree with Deco's suggested guideline on this page, but I am in favour of removing the section whenever possible (not deleting it and removing the information, but merging it in, then removing). -- Mithent 14:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Very unencyclopedic section, which should be included in the main article. Judgesurreal777 19:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Even though some of the people against the topic say the Wikipedia should not be a "stuffy encyclopedia", the fact remains that it is an encyclopedia and we need to make sure it stays one. Balso Snell 02:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Trivia suggests virtually irrelevant or a comic sidebar related to (say) objects of cult of personality. If it's irrelevant it should be omitted. Humorous sidelights can be included as part of a perspective. Statistics should be included in body. User:frostfree 20:21 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support fully per changes to deco's version. -Quiddity 19:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Can't really disagree with my own proposal. It does have some overlap though with "Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate facts". Deco 19:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Doesn't comply with FA criterias nor the WP:NOT guideline. Lincher 05:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Yes, most trivia sections are completely uncyclopedic like She likes cats, easy WP:NOT. Jaranda wat's sup 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Trivia sections make articles look so amateur. We're an encyclopedia folks, not an indescriminate repository of facts. Material in trivia sections should either be incorporated into the rest of the article smoothly where important, and deleted where unimportant. That has been extremely long standing practice on WP:FAC. I can't believe there aren't more people supporting article quality and good professional form. - Taxman Talk 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Trivia is, by definition, trivial, and trivial information isn't fit for an encyclopaedia. --Rory096 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - This is an encyclopedia, not a trivia book. Trivia sections are good to start, but ideally should be replaced with real prose. Imagine seeing a stub, then a trivia list taking up several pages. That's what this proposal is for: eliminating that. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 04:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strongly support Deco's version. Alternatively, I think this could easily be made part of WP:NOT or WP:MOS. — BrianSmithson 14:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Serious Support, considering how much these sections have to be avoided at all costs in high-quality pages before they possibly make it to peer review and featured candidacy. Let's make it policy real soon! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support as part of viewing Trivia sections as the proposed "facts pending integration".Agne27 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support as Trivia sections are bulleted items that can't be integrated to text (or else there wouldn't be a need for trivia). Lincher 02:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support in principle.--cj | talk 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Trivia is unencyclopedic. I'd also lump in "In popular culture" sections as well, which attract all kinds of cruft. Megapixie 14:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. If the info is worth keeping, it's worth integrating into the article without a trivia section. JPD (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. I support this with every fibre of my being. Dysprosia 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. I support. Everybody else has already said what I would say though :) JPD comes closest to what I would say. Jacqui★ 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong support. Yes please. JPD & Taxman said it best. It can either be incorporated or discarded as trivial. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Absolutely. Trivia = trivial = unencyclopedic. The content of many trivia (or similarly named sections) is crufty and offers nothing substantial in understanding the subject at hand. Wikipedia should not be a repository for every random fact about every subject, and information should be included because it's relevant, not just because the fact exists. If the information illuminates the subject it should be incorporated into the article text (and the more relevant the information, the easier it is to incorporate it) and if not, deleted. Rossrs 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support. The addition of endless amounts of trivia is the single biggest reason why good articles in Wikipedia become mediocre or even poor articles. This guideline is definitely needed. Kaldari 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support yep. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose. Often part of what makes an article engaging and more tasty than dry toast is the inclusion of "did you know" type facts, especially in biographical pages. The observation that such facts can (and should) be incorporated into the main text undercuts the proposal on its face. Not sure such a guideline is required.--BradPatrick 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I rather enjoy the trivia sections of many articles. They may not be encyclopedic like we're used to, but they add something a more stuffy encyclopedia can't. But Wikipedia shouldn't be a stuffy encyclopedia, it should be an interesting and engaging one. Tiro de Aethra 06:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose per BradPatrick, although perhaps a better name than "Trivia" can be thought of for these sections – Gurch 08:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. It is the content of a section that needs regulating, not the name. Batmanand | Talk 09:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I am not sure that having a trivia section actually hurts us or our articles. As has been mentioned above, it can be a useful place for some editors to "dump" information they do not know how to incorporate. What seperate Wikipedia from other encyclopedias is the very fact that we are able to include extra bits of trivia as we are not limited by space. Rje 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    I really like Deco's suggested changes to the proposal, I think this is far more in the spirit of Wikipedia. I would certainly support these alterations being made. Rje 11:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Have you read the past discussion on the Pump regarding these? The proposal is not at all well thought-out, in that it attempts to make silly concrete restrictions that are easy to get around and don't drive to the essential point. I believe trivia sections are useful for organizing an article or in progress or for collecting small miscellaneous facts that don't belong anywhere else, but would sure attempt to minimize them. I've drawn up a guideline below that I think gets more at the root of the issue. We do not need a policy on this. Deco 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC) (moved to support)
  6. Oppose --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Most Trivia makes an article more interesting.
  7. Oppose There's nothing unencyclopaedic about having a "trivia" section, titled accordingly. Reshuffling a whole article to incorporate a single miscellaneous fact is foolhardy. A trivia section adds completeness to an article, whilst ensuring that trivial or miscellaneous factoids are not mixed up with the more weighty and noteworthy matters dealt with in the rest of the article. Waggers 11:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Allowing editors to put miscellaneous facts at the end of the article allows future editors to incorporate what useful tidbits there are into the article when appropriate sections are created. Removing trivia sections will slow down the pace at which interesting bits of information can be assimilated, thus limiting the pace at which any given article can grow. That and trivia sections can be interesting by themselves. Bastin8 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above, trivia sections can make the article more interesting, and while they often could use cleanup and better integration (we should never need to split trivia sections into seperate articles like the ones currently on AfD), I see no reason to avoid them altogether. BryanG(talk) 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Trivia can occasionally be interesting, but even if it's not, it's a productive way to get people involved in the project if don't know anything much of actual use. It should be in its own section because, well, it's trivial. If it gets too long, make it a subpage and only keep a few notable tidbits (if there are any) on the main article page. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • To clarify, that means I don't care what the section is called ("...in popular culture" is common), but it should exist if anyone wants to make it. It shouldn't be merged into the rest of the article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Amusing little factlets are fun to read, and should be preserved. Yes, they are unencyclopedic, and that's exactly why they should be isolated into the trivia section so that they do not disturb the serious text.Punainen Nörtti 12:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, the trivia itself is encyclopedic, but the header Trivia is. Sorry if the title of the guideline is misleading. --Osbus 13:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    A basic fact about wikipedia is that it's an encyclopaedia. All else is secondary. Therefore, unencyclopaedic information cannot be included, no matter how fun to read it is. That's simply not negotiable. The problem here is that encyclopaedic information is being put into a section whose title screams 'unencyclopaedic!'. Worldtraveller 15:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly...this guideline seeks to eliminate the title of Trivia or Did you know. --Osbus 16:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    Note to all oppose:This is intended to be a guideline for editing, defintely not a policy. Even if a Trivia section is renamed to Did you know..., I feel that is better. Again, it is a guideline. --Osbus 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Oppose. theres no need for this, the trivia section is fun to read especially to someone who doesn't want to read 10 pages of text and just has a glancing interest in someone. the trivia part could then make the reader read the rest of the article.
  13. Oppose. People add this stuff any way so it's better that trivia gets isolated into its own section.
  14. Oppose. It would be weird to be reading an article about a movie and then suddenly talk about a continuity error in the scene described in the plot section. Just one example. Bob the Phoenix 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    We can just remove it Jaranda wat's sup 04:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I think they provide a good area for information tidbits that are notable but not easy to categorize. Sunhawk 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. chocolateboy 09:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral or undecided

  • Undecided for the simple reason that while I see good reasons for this, I also see good reasons against it. Sorry I can't break the current tie. Here is how I see it, after reading an article that is so loaded with information and impecable grammar and words that require me to open a dictionary, a trivia section is a nice place for my mind to unwind. The grammar may be a bit looser with the wording a little less formal. Sure, there may be few who care that a politician owns a dozen cats, that a city's underground has a reputation for some small little local thing that may only be known in that city's county, or that a game was redesigned in the home of one of the programmer's grandmother. Those tidbits are not really significant, but they are a way to unwind after reading the details of that politician's political career, the city's rich history, and the game's myriad of features. Who knows, one day that politician may vote on a pet bill that is important and the vote cast was for the cats, the city's underground may produce a notable band, and the programmer's grandmother (well who knows about that lady's past). These tidbits might then come to the fore and be very important. Leave them in for now, but make sure to keep the trivia section clean.
    —Lady Aleena talk/contribs 02:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    PS. Sorry for carrying on so long.
Something similar could be said for every non-notable band and vanity page. —Centrx→talk • 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)