Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11 →

Ummm...

I realize I'm new here, but isn't the "did you know" section on the front page really nothing more than a collection of trivia? Why is it ok there, but not in the articles? Legotech (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... Good point. Someone needs to tag the main article for trivia. I dare someone. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are tidbits from articles, selected to get you to look at articles, trivia? Not really. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, I wouldn't go ruling on that so easily. Seems debatable to me. According to this guideline, it is the very definition of trivia. It's a disorganized, non-selective, miscellaneous list. It's exactly what everyone complains about, too, in the worst way: a list of interesting and fun factoids that furthermore would never exist in an actual encyclopedia. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

AKA a double standard . Garda40 (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The "did you know" list is the most indiscrimiate kind of list possible, because it's scope limited to facts that you either did or did not know, which is every possible fact. More seriously, the DYK list is an example of a long collection of connective trivia, which seem to be the more problematic kind. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page isn't an article, it's considered a Portal. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a technical explanation. The point, and what we should be discussing, I think, is that if such a thing exists and is accepted as useful on the main page, then it may have value in other places too. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They can't be compared. Portals are completely different from articles. Portals make self-references, they contain links for editors as well as readers, and their intention is to pull people in and give people a sample of what we have. If you want to say, lets include a mini-portal within an article, well, that might be a good idea to explore, but it still wouldn't be considered article content.

Although, people should note that we have portals for almost any subject, and if we don't, we can make them. Portals might be a great place to have such trivia lists, and would be appropriate there. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As Nick points out, the DYK list is connective trivia, which is essentially why it's useful. It pulls the reader in, as you say. Connective trivia lists in articles would do the same thing. If you're looking at an article on a Family Guy episode and you read an interesting factoid abut the mention of Zorro, you may be inclined to click the Zorro link out of curiosity. Why should the desire to do things that "pull people in" be limited to the main page? Why not continue to do that throughout the encyclopedia? Social networking and shopping sites like MySpace, Facebook, and Amazon become addictive by using similar tactics: every page has another list of links that someone looking at "this" page would also be interested in checking out. We aren't a shopping or social networking site, so we don't necessarily need to addict them or even pull people in, but then why have the list on the main page? Such a tactic is either useful or it isn't; it's not a "sometimes" thing. The benefit on the main page would be the same for any other page. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it would be great to explore the idea of having that information be shown when just viewing an article, but we still probably won't see it as article content. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the difference would be. Trivia is already separated into its own section. Are you suggesting a different method? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I could see it like a sort of infobox, where it would repeat information that is found in the article. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value that would have, or even if it did, how it would replace the benefit of a list of trivia items that don't occur in the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The DYK is a summary of existing content, but organized in a list of "fun facts". The intention wouldn't be to include information that is actually trivial (as in, by the real meaning of the word). -- Ned Scott 08:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

← Well, perhaps it should be, insofar as those "fun facts" pull people in to other articles and areas of the encyclopedia. Besides, they wouldn't need to be "trivial" per se, just as long as another article can be linked to them in some significant way. Like if the topic of an article is mentioned in a TV show or has some other kind of relationship to another topic somehow, list that relationship. If the Liberty Bell is mentioned in a Simpsons episode, put that relationship in both articles with links to each other. We could even make these lists "smart", with a bit of programming -- make the section display a list of 10 items maximum, have them shuffled/rotated for each page load, and include a link so that people can see the complete list if they want to. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be the solution to the trivia dilemma. Perhaps we should invent a new type of portal that opens the trivia section. The already existing internal links of the trivia section would link to the articles and this would provide the portal action. Legotech you're brilliant! You're a lego maniac! Ozmaweezer (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good solution for lists of connective trivia, but it would do little to improve lists of standalone trivia, which generally refer to the subject of the article in which they are found. Standalone trivia are good candidates for integrating. However, I think this might be an interesting solution to apply to "in popular culture" type lists, which are the most prominent examples of connective trivia lists. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you're making it too complicated. What people hate is the name "trivia". So rather than put a "trivia" tag on the main page, we should tip our hand about our purpose of trying to make lists of interesting connected and educational links fun. If you can stand education being fun. I suggest instead that we go though all the Wikis and change every trivia section which contains linked factoids in bullet lists, to a header: Did you know? How can that fail to satify everybody? ;) S B H arris 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose below proposed the name: Additional information.DGG (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All reasons to avoid trivia are illogical

The seasons given so far are:

1) Trivia can overwhelm an article with a large, unsorted list of facts that is often unreferenced and is usually not notable.

2) Trivia sections can encourage casual editors to add yet more facts, leading to huge amounts (even 50+ pieces in some cases) of trivia.

3) Generally, they are a bad way to present info.

4) Trivia can be non-neutral because the editors generally are only interested in adding that one fact and don't really care about neutrality.

In response to: 1) Of course trivia can overwhelm an article, so can ANY other way or presenting information

2) I believe encouraging casual editors is a good thing. If information is relevant, it is relevant, no matter how it is presented.

3) Why? A bullet pointed list is the most concise way to present information, rather than attempting to string it into clauses, sentaeces and paragraphs. Information stands by itself.

4) Of course trivia can be non-neutral. So can any other form of information.

I've got to say, I think the Wikipedia guideline of "no trivia" is the worst guideline it has. The degree to which it is overlooked is a good indicator of how irrelevant it is. When it comes to things like books, films and architecture trivia is interesting, people want to write about it, and people want to read about it. If a particular trivia entry is pathetic, let it be removed; not all trivia sections. It's just like saying "sentences are bad". Some sentences are bad, but you shouldn't get rid of all of them. Let each trivia section be judged by its content and relevence. Bilz0r (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all these arguments. I have already tried to argue them in a logical fashion here. See all the threads titled "Discussion of the 'con' about..." But I'm happy to shoot them down here too. Ozmaweezer (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Trivia Sections are great. I don't want to read whole article to find some funny facts. Trivia sections are useful and save time. Also, trivia sections encourage the adding of trivia things because it's easier to form it into a couple of sentences that don't have to relate to any other sentences before or after it. 85.146.76.80 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Then don't come to Wikipedia. We priorities putting information in its most logical place in a page over the shallow we-don't-care-we-just-want-some-omg-weird-shit-to-talk-about-with-friends. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You can have "weird shit to talk about" given in either in trivia lists or paragraph form. Again, if what is in the trivia section is poor then delete those points. The point of an article is to get across relevant information in the most easy to digest and efficent manner. Sometimes that will be paragraphs, sometimes that will be a list. Bilz0r (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read any mythology articles lately? A disturbing number of them have "trivia" or "other media" sections which go on 2 or 3 times as long as the meat of the article with nothing but a list of anime and video game characters. Or automotive articles where you get similar lists of every character that ever drove one in a movie ever, or even times where it appears in the background.

Banning popcult/triv sections entirely in an effort to solve that problem is like cutting off one's hand to solve the problem of a sore thumb. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is banning them, and no one should be deleting them without moving the information first. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about the former. In some cases the sections have gotten so big that they have their own articles. I'm okay with that, though it isn't always reasonable. (Maybe omnibus "references in popular culture" articles for every major mythological system would be a good idea)

The latter, though, I cut out any movie appearance where the particular model of car was not an actual plot point. If you could replace a character's Mustang with a Taurus with no significant change to the plot or dialogue, for example.

Regardless, trivia sections aren't all useless, they can make an article more interesting (I tend to like them in biographical and historical articles), but in some cases they are less about the subject of the article and more about the writer's favorite anime.Andy Christ (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removals getting out of control

Okay, I've avoided the trivia debate for the last two years because no reasonable compromise is going to develop that all sides will be satisfied with.

However, I'm going to take exception to edits like this one made by User:Pinkadelica, who is justifying removing entire sections from the encyclopedia based on the essay at WP:HTRIV, which doesn't appear to be in a position to advocate razing entire sections of the article just because it has an objectionable header. It had been tagged with a trivia tag by an anonymous user just a couple hours before the whole section was removed. The issue here is that roughly half of the article's contents were removed without any effort being made to integrate that information as prose into the rest of the article, and a casual read without any knowledge of the subject will show that some of the removed details are actually interesting and relevant (like how many people watched the show).

I'm not seeing how removing this improves the quality or informative value of the encyclopedia. Can someone explain this to me? -/- Warren 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just an example of someone who basically made a bad decision, perhaps because he didn't actually read the essay or this guideline. It doesn't make any sense and you were right in reverting it. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:31, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it was the case here, but frequently you will see a guideline referenced and it may in fact not support the action taken. That essay is clear, 'Practical steps' says integrate. Do we know if actions like this are really common? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how common it is now but if anyone remembers back a few months there were major edit wars leading to a number of people being banned and blocked, and one admin de-sysopped over the issue. I have reviewed this editors trivia deletions going back to December 1 and restored about 80% of them, the ones that seemed to contain any amount of useful encyclopedic content. Some of the deleted content was quite important and just happened to be in a section titled "trivia" or the like. By restoring, I don't mean to say all that material belongs here, just that it has to be evaluated item by item to decide if it should be kept and integrated, or discarded as unsourceable or irrelevant. It was a bit of a chore because there were also loads of helpful edits mixed in there with the trivia deletions. Wikidemo (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is without question the one policy here that I absolutly disaggree with to the utmost degree. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

This isn't a policy.. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's useful to point that this isn't a policy when the user probably meant (correctly) that it is a policy.--Father Goose (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it might be best not to nitpick people's language. That's the weakest form of argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:08, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It's not really useful to just drive by and bitch about something, without giving it any context. Who wants to bet that Jason is just mad that someone blanked a trivia section, which we specifically discourage on this page? I could be dead wrong, but again, it's hard to tell when someone just comes by to bitch without any context. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Best to ignore it then. This page gets plenty of pro- and anti- one-liners.--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

An acceptable "trivia list" concept

I've been thinking a bit more about something we talked about a little bit ago, about having a form of DYN/trivia list that would be acceptable, like what is used on the main article, in articles themselves. As long as content is added to the article first, I can't really think of a reason why this would be a problem (assuming we can figure out some other details). I can think of a few different versions of such a box: DYN for that article, DYN that contains facts about another, similar article, or DYN for an article series. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, putting it in a box might help improve its presentation, and a collapsible box in particular might help to forge a truce between those that hate seeing trivia on Wikipedia and those that love it. I wouldn't go with the DYK name or format though ("Did you know..." "...that Abraham Lincoln had two nostrils?"); that's a "blurb" style that works okay for the front page but would be dopey in an actual article.--Father Goose (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently made a post at the village pump about something along these lines. There has been a little discussion about the issue, but nothing favourable to it as of yet. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been consistent feeling against using collapsing sections within articles. But anyway, I think, personally, we need more integration of this material, not its segregation. DGG (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I would only support something that would tell editors to add content to the article first before being allowed to place it in the box. I'm not sure if the idea is practical, but worth exploring if we can actually do this. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw a collapsible section used without controversy in 2007 Writers Guild of America strike (that version is from before it was spun out into a subarticle). I'd be willing to try trivia boxes; since trivia sections already have an "appendix" quality to them, putting them in a box might help to improve their presentation. And it's not a segregation if they're collapsible but not collapsed by default (see Wikipedia:Collapsible tables).

I agree that this is an idea worth exploring.--Father Goose (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's pretty limited, it's not a bad idea. One or two well-encapsulated facts would not be particularly distracting. Another idea: I find that image captions are an especially good place to put details that are hard to integrate: images and their captions aren't expected to flow with the text. Mango juice^talk 16:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I could see this as a float-right box that starts with "See Also" or "External Links" (eg the same place you'd put a Wikiquote box). It may be templated as "trivia-box", but I agree don't call it "trivia" or "Did you know...", but it still would be a place that new editors that are unsure where to add material could add material to be distilled later. --MASEM 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking about that a bit. "Additional information"? That would better cover the range of content (both trivial and not) that I've seen in Trivia sections.--Father Goose (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you found the perfect wording! DGG (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would be somewhat different from what I'm thinking, since this would be for things that were already in the article, but would satisfy people who wanted "fast/fun facts". Although, at the same time it might not be bad to think of an intentional "dumping" section/box for, like Masem says, new editors who are unsure where to put stuff. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it could do for both. Of course, just as now, experienced editors have to then look at the miscellany that gets added and try to integrate what should be integrated. My experience is that usually about half of what gets stuck on at the end has a proper place in the article. And some of the rest is just interesting miscellany for which such a section might prove best permanently, and some of it is inconsequential, and should be deleted. DGG (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruins articles

Seriously, who eliminated trivia sections? Articles will never be the same. An example is the B-52 article. It had an excellent trivia section which contained a lot of amusing and interesting facts. Now all that article's got is an endless rant about what is a B-52 and stuff that everybody knows. please bring trivias back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.27.187 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Trivia sections for movies and music articles are always interesting. They're almost what defines wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.231.96 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is when trivia sections go the other way. A lot of times they're integrated with "lists of popular culture references" (which are almost the same thing). You end up with lists of every TV episode or movie or (especially) anime or video game in which the subject has ever appeared. I can see keeping trivia sections, under the following conditions: The "integrate the info into the body of the article, if possible" rule still applies. And any trivia item which appears in an article must be more significant to the subject of that article than it is to whatever else is mentioned in that trivia item. For instance, the Datsun Z in the movie "Bruce Almighty" is more a trivia item for "Bruce Almighty" than it is for the Datsun Z, and yet shit like that is showing up in car articles all the time. So items that appear in movies, if they're going to be trivia items, should be listed in the article for that movie, not the item. The only exception would be if the movie really was significant to the CAR and not just the other way around. (Like "Transformers" being the first introduction most of the public had to the new Camaro) Anyhow, this would save the hell out of a lot of mythology and automotive articles.Andy Christ (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This guideline doesn't support removing relevant information, only organizing that information in a better way. We prioritize placing things in their correct spots over having a "fast fun facts" section, but we are currently discussing the possibility of having both. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

it is unfortunately true that in the past the information has indeed been totally removed, or moved to separate articles which were then deleted. Once we are sure we agree how to deal with them, we should start restoring some of this material.DGG (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You should make exceptions for articles which center entertainment stuffs, such as cartoons, videogames and fictional characters.Brazilian Man (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one-liner for this discussion page. The pedantic push to remove trivia sections is saddening for two reasons. 1: Wikipedia should be taking advantage of its more informal standing as an internet encyclopedia and presenting this culturally and historically significant and interesting informationn, even if traditional encyclopedias do not. The goal should not be transforming Wikipedia into Encyclopedia Brittanica. 2: Much of this information simply does not belong in the main body of the article, and claiming that every trivial fact should or can be incorporated such is ludicrous. The proper format for miscellany is a list. If this list becomes very long it might be worth further organizing into sections, but certainly not eliminating for style's sake. Frankly I see the elimination of salient fact after salient fact to be little less than a tragedy for this site. 129.105.122.65 (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Give me an example of trivia that you believe is relevant and that couldn't be integrated in the body of an article, and I'll show you where it can be. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposition to remove {{trivia}} from almost all Movies, TV shows, Bands, Songs etc.

I propose that the {{trivia}} tag be manually removed from almost all Movie articles, TV show articles, musical band articles, album articles, song articles, et cetera.

Trivia sections are the best way to organize facts about obscure connections between events in a movie or between production of movies.

I am not saying that the {{trivia}} section should be removed from all Movie articles, but I think that:

The {{trivia}} tag should be removed from movie articles on a case by case basis (which will probably result in it being removed from practically all movie articles).

and

Every movie should have a trivia section (even if a couple movies still have the {{trivia}} tag).

VegKilla (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Has my vote S B H arris 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, every trivia section in a movie article could be integrated in some way. Most obscure connections are usually related to the cast, crew or production and so can be moved to those sections. Other connections could be put into a well sourced cultural impact section. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We can consider that after you attempt to integrate the material and demonstrate why this can not be done in most cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"most cases"??? You want me to go through more than half of the movie articles and sort them? I don't even have time to read that many articles!!! I'm not going to go through even one article and try to integrate anything. I'm too busy. I am proposing an update to the guidelines. What other people do with that is up to them. VegKilla (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the worst thing we could do would be to move the trivia sections to the summary of the movie. People reading the summary are not interested in trivia, and even if they are, interrupting the plot of the movie for little tid-bits of info that really were never part of the script just interrupts the flow of things. So here is a proposal of what to do with items:

Please feel free to edit or update the bold list below as you see fit:

Items to keep in the trivia section (to be sorted in chronological order—the order in which they appear in the movie):

Things that happened in the movie that were unscripted or accidental.
Cameos
Mistakes in the movie.
People who died while making the movie.
Financial, censorship, or other obstacles that the creators of the movie overcame in order to produce it.
Famous people or groups who supported or objected to the movie during it's release.
Records or "world's firsts" achieved by the movie.

Items to be moved to a culture section:

References to other movies or literary works etc.
References to historical events or to famous people.
Rare slang used in the movie, esp. historical slang.

Items to be moved to the main plot summary section:

Aspects of the plot, or foreshadowing, that is not apparent until you watch the movie several times.
Jokes or references to culture or other movies which are essential to understanding the film.

Items to be moved to the cast section:

Trivia about an actor, or about how an actor got the role in the movie.

Items to be moved to the biography article of a specific actor:

Trivia about the actor that is not specific to this movie.

Items to be moved to a historical context section:

Information about the political and social climate in which the movie was produced (ex: Westerns were made in the 1950's).
Information about the historical context in which the story is set (ex: Westerns took place in the 1800's).

What do you think of that? VegKilla (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW: If you think something in the bold list above needs to be changed, just change it. I'm not going to be upset that you edited my comment. I am hoping that everyone in this discussion will take part in revising my sorting list of where trivia items should be moved to. VegKilla (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this information that you suggest be kept in trivia sections can be integrated into other sections. Some information may not be worth keeping at all, but that's down to editorial decision. Here's a few comments on your points

Accidental incidents during production would be best put in the production section.
Cameos can be mentioned in the cast section if notable.
Mistakes are generally not covered unless there's independent coverage of them as there can be many mistakes in a movie. If they are notable they may have people criticising or reacting to them. This means they could either go into the production section or reception section.
People who died while making the movie is certainly not trivia, and would either go in the cast section or a section of their own.
World's first would probably go into production, but that'd depend on what it was about.
Obstacles would also fit into production, possibly in a sub section.
Objections would fit into reception.

Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can I be listed as a mistake since you see my face on the screen and then 5 seconds later I'm walking 50 feet away? The real problem here is that while this happened, is it encyclopedic trivia? This is a the problem with most of this. Aren't there several sites that gather much of what is proposed here and they don't have the problem of writing an encyclopedia. So they may be better places to contain this knowledge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the items BillPP has mentioned--if they are worth mentioning, then the ones he says to put into production is indeed the way to have them--the production of a film is realworld content and not trivial in the least--lacks of continuity are exactly the thing that does get discussed quite a lot in RSs. What actor was on the set on what day is normally fancruft--but for some films and actors it becomes quite significant. DGG (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be a great idea to remove pages from being listed on CAT:TRIVIA, however it would just be ignoring the problem rather than solving it. Although some facts may seem "best suited" to a trivia type list, I have yet to find a fact that can never be integrated into another part of the article. Remember that there is no deadline, and although it will take a long time to integrate all of the trivia lists on Wikipedia, it doesn't need to be done over night, and certainly not by only three or four editors. I do not think making certain article exempt from this guideline is a good step towards eliminating indiscriminate lists of disconnected facts, which is what this guideline is all about. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's a valid approach to create new sections containing more focused lists for trivia section content. Many of the bold items listed above would be suitable as sections. Dcoetzee 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the items BillPP

Okay, well let's use the Being John Malkovich trivia section as an example. That is my favorite movie, and I really enjoy the trivia section of that article. You guys are talking about "production" sections and a bunch of other sections that don't exist for most movie articles...so let's create a "production" section or whatever for the Being John Malkovich article and it can become an example.

In the end I am pretty sure that there are going to be sections that contain only one sentence, and it is these sentences that I purpose stay in the trivia section, but if they belong in a section that does not yet exist, then that would work too.

VegKilla (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look at the section at some point, but a lot of the trivia points are copied from the Being John Malkovic trivia page on IMDB and so will have to be removed due to copyright infringement. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To address that issue I created a new template and replaced the one at Being John Malkovitch. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:00, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

uncontroversial pertinent material copied from IMDB needs to be rewritten, not removed DGG (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten and sourced. And IMDB can't be the source on that stuff. Mango juice^talk 06:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So basically, VegKilla, you're arguing that trivia sections should be kept and encouraged because you like them, correct? Pairadox (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a very good reason to retain something, alphabet soup notwithstanding.--Father Goose (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Being John Malkovitch has the potential to be a much better article than it currently is. Those things listed in the trivia section could easily be the start of production information. There is a lot of really interesting stuff to be said about this movie, and a good number of sources for that information. I'd say there's probably be enough to warrant subsections within a production section, to talk about different interesting aspects of the movie. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cultural blindness

It is amazing you do not see that for all of us who are not of american, english speaking cultures, the fact about having the trivia is absolutly enlightining about many cultural issues. The best part about wikipedia is it doesn't make distinctions between the pokemon's moster list and Kant, precisely many times this is the function of trivia facts, to go further into the detail. To bann this, the trivia 'genocide' talks about even here, even know there are people thinking in the 'book' oldtimes way instead of the wiki ways. Many times like in the page about Fads and trends, older comprehensive version full of 'trivia' where much more better for people like me dedicated to study culture from a complete different cultural ambiance. Hopefully some of you should be aware of this, and of a much more important issue: we are not only talking to our time... in the future this list will be vital to UNDERSTAND!!!! that should be the guide of wikipedia: human knowledge !not discriminative! for all huimanity, accesible free and forever...we do not have the perspective to know now what is really significant -please reconsider this fundamentalist view about trivia lists!!! All information is important and trascendent. In history theory we must remember [Annales_Schooll], Michel de Certeau etc. they focus in the trivia and change forever what history is.....not about the so called great man.. about the little issues, the common places forgotten because narrow minded people thought it was not neccesary to explain the little... wait 500 years... just trivia would make sense!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geape (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This guideline isn't above removing that information, but avoiding a dump-all "misc" section on the article. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Following on from Ned's comment that this guideline doesn't advise on what content is suitable or not (ie, what to remove). The removal of content is at the editor's discretion. If you have a problem with information that an editor has removed and you believe that the item is worth keeping in the article, then you could revert it or start a discussion on whether or not the information is appropriate for the article. This guideline does not attempt to identify information to be removed. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You will be glad to know that people aren't using this guideline as justification to remove trivia anymore they are just removing it .Garda40 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a step forward, because now people can't remove items and hide behind some vague, all-encompasing policy; they actually need to justify their actions with reasons. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "cultural issues" you mean lists of every TV show and movie that a Norse god has appeared in, then yeah, I guess you're right. People are using trivia sections as an excuse to overwhelm articles with piles of information that isn't about the subject of the article, but their favorite anime. I think it's a good idea to come up with a permanent solution to that. In the mean time, I'll be trimming down, integrating, or removing trivia sections wherever I can.Andy Christ (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This policy is misguided

The trivia sections are one of the top 5 things I like reading on Wikipedia. Get rid of those sections and you are damaging a lot of what makes Wikipedia what it is, a mostly complete resource of information about subjects. Trivia helps provide links with other subjects where it wouldn't necessarily make sense in the body of the article. -- Suso (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's doubtful that most of that information wouldn't make more sense in another section, but you should note we are looking at the idea of having an acceptable "trivia" section/box at #An acceptable "trivia list" concept. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

[1] Okay, I've avoided the trivia debate for the last...(months), but now i took a quick look at the talk page, and i see no evidence whatsoever that there is currently any kind of debate about disruptive edits here! I marked my edit as *minor*, because it really is a miniscule change, and i stand by it. No biggie though. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, User:Wikidemo, were you meaning this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion of pop culture lists (until it is archived)? That was just one editor you disagreed with. I think, if you read through that thread that the final comment, which reads in part trivia sections should be dealt with... with a scalpel, not a meataxe. sums up the debate reasonably.

Perhaps such a phrase should be added to the Guideline? which, at this point in time, looks rather poorly-written and even amatuerish to me, style-wise. It is all hedged about and yes-but, so how can that be considered useful advice to anyone new to the Trivia Question? Anyway, I have no intention of editing thepage any time soon, I guess it will do, so good luck—Newbyguesses - Talk 21:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I like that phrase. It's a good analogy for dealing with Trivia sections. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Or how about (from the same thread at AN/I) you can only prune an overgrown bush when you've actually got a bush, that's a good turn of phrase and states a reasonable case–Newbyguesses - Talk 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A bush need not become overgrown in the first place. To redirect the metaphor somewhat, a valuable plant growing where it is not wanted should be replanted elsewhere. And while some of us may be sentimental about weeds, their invasive, pertinacious nature does not demonstrate their value. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This project has had some very nasty fights over trivia sections. At the moment we have yet another person going hog wild deleting encyclopedic content from dozens of articles because it happens to be about popular culture or in sections so titled, while a number of people are egging him on and rehashing debates that have been had many times, which is more or less as it has played out before. The change is significant and we should be very cautious about changing a guideline section while it is at issue in a significant content / behavior debate. The present version, "it is better that [otherwise suitable information] be poorly presented than not presented at all" is a categorical admonition to avoid deleting encyclopedic content, whereas your proposed version, "it may be better that it be poorly presented at first than not presented at all" tilts the balance towards deletion of encyclopedic content by leaving it up to the editor's discretion, and by suggesting that if poorly presented information is in the article for a while it is more acceptable to delete it. Wikidemo (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Wikidemo, point taken. I was trying to adjust the bolding (a minor edit) however–point taken, thanks for the explanation—Newbyguesses - Talk 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The bolding is unsightly, but it draws attention to something that really does need to be emphasized. We've seen lots of people remove trivia sections with the summary "delete per WP:TRIV", which is contrary to the actual guideline (and the consensus that underpins it). The emphasis is useful in discouraging that very behavior, which stirs up drama in the most minimal cases, and may be regarded as vandalism in the most extreme cases.--Father Goose (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Father goose, I was removing all the markup from that section while you were writing this comment. Personally, I have a pet peeve about bolding and italicizing policy and guideline sections, for a few reasons. First, as you note it's unsightly and it makes things harder to read instead of easier. Second, because it doesn't involve words there's no reasonable way to interpret it. It's kind of like saying that all policy is important but this one policy is extra important. Well, how extra important? What extra do you have to do when something is bolded than when it isn't? It's just not useful. And finally, it may be an indication that the section isn't written properly. If something has to be bolded in order for people to get the point, maybe the wording just isn't clear, or strong enough. But as I said that's just a peeve. I wouldn't have removed it if I had noticed your comment first. Wikidemo (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, without the bolding, the policy *reads* the same, and the page, being cleaner, actually seems less amatuerish now. (Just a minor change.) Can't garantee that users will read and understand, though, that is still gonna be on a case-by-case basis.Newbyguesses - Talk 23:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We already have "Such sections should not be categorically removed" at the top of the "Guidance" section, so we'll have to depend on editors actually reading the guideline before they take any actions "per" it. I endorse the removal of the bolding.--Father Goose (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes

Might I suggest that the second paragraph (Guideline is not) go above the paragraph (Guidance). No big change, maybe one or two words would need adjusting.

Then the section headings are clunky, how about (Guidance) become (Practical steps) or (?????). Just small changes, I remember at one time I moved (Other Policies apply) to the top, (which got reverted); dont need that. Any comments on these small formatting suggestions, that hopefully won't add to dramas elsewhere, and may possibly even help avoid drama?Newbyguesses - Talk 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that a statement of what the guidance is should come before a statement of what it isn't. The "guidance" section furthermore opens with "don't categorically remove trivia sections", which emphasizes that point quite sufficiently, in my view.--Father Goose (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally, yes, I would agree with that. However, a syncopated kind of emphasis is achieved by occasionally where appropriate reversing the natural order, and this might be a situation where that can be taken advantage of. Try looking at the changed order in a sandbox or something, could it be made to work?

"Such sections should not be simply removed", (or whatever exact words we have got there now) always seemed a bit clunky to me ie (allitaration) (S)uch (S)ections. How about These sections?Newbyguesses - Talk 00:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It would look something like this Newbyguesses - Talk 00:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes shown here. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, doesn't work for me. However, I did change "such sections" to "trivia sections" just now, to try to address that point.--Father Goose (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How did this policy originate?

Without wishing to wade through the archives, perhaps someone could explain how this particular guideline came into being. Was there really a broad consensus that trivia sections are bad (I happen to think they often aren't), or was it more a case of a few forceful editors - of which there are many in Wikipedia - imposing their point-of-view on the rest of us. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was proposed in 2006 and then there was a poll to make it a guideline. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. It was a weak consensus, as stated in the summary. Is it perhaps time to review the issue again? 82.20.28.142 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. 27-16 is not a strong consensus. Far more importantly, there is no established procedure to determine how a particular essay or proposal becomes part of the official Manual of Style. I don't understand how anyone can, with a straight face, claim this "guideline" enjoys strong or widespread support among editors. I think it's fair to say its status as a guideline is hotly disputed, particularly the ghastly What this guideline is not section.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Looking over that poll--which I should reiterate was far from unanimous--I tend to fall on the side of the 26 "support" voters who favor limiting or discouraging trivia sections. The problem is that since it was decided this is a guideline, the notion of limiting trivia sections is watered down and ultimately rendered completely impotent by the What this guideline is not section which contains ridiculous proclamations like:

"it is better that [trivia] be poorly presented than not presented at all"
"This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in a list format."

What respectable editor actually agrees with these statements? Ultimately this guideline is muddled, contradictory and without teeth.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Who wouldn't agree with the statement that sometimes information is better presented in a list than in paragraphs of prose? Why else did humans invent the list? And while I can understand people disagreeing with favoring poor presentation over non-presentation, this is a broad choice that Wikipedia seems to have made long ago: c.f. our deletion process. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so how do we proceed? Is another poll in order, or is there some other mechanism to re-visit this issue? 82.20.28.142 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, rather than starting another poll (which is likely to conclude with similar results as before), I would recommend raising the issue on WT:MOS to solicit the input of editors who are interested in the good of the Manual of Style itself--and whether they think this guideline should be improved or struck down.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've raised it at WT:MOS. Let's see what happens. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've weighed in as well. It would be lovely to get some input from editors apart from the regular editors of this page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "weak consensus" 27-16 in the poll which established this page as a guideline (2006), is probably not unconnected with the changes (watering-down), which this guideline has gone through since then. The guideline represents a compromise between views, some extreme, held by various proponents. At Wikipedia Talk:Manual of style, discussions over arcane matters such as "dashes" or "dates" can often take megaBytes of discussion.

As here on thispage, the resultant guideline text represents a compromise, and the fact that various editors take up different "interpretations" of the guideline, whilst others seem to either in some cases ignore it, or go against it, is not an indicator that the guideline has completely lost support; that would be the case if there really were massive flouting of the guideline, by many editors, which isn't happening. Instead, there is the occasional editor who goes too far in deleting items (or adding items), and then it becomes some sort of "edit skirmish" as other editors weigh in to preserve their interpretation of the guideline. If two sections of the guideline(s), or two editor's interpretation of the guideline do not line up, this is still a minor issue to be dealt with between the editors of an article, and it probably also means that the issue is relatively unimportant to overall article or encyclopedia quality. As it happens, in this case, that is essentially what MoS-central says (it permits either approach).

The guideline should continue to reflect the (weak or strong) consensus, and extreme positions adopted by various editors at any particular article get dealt with by other interested editors, at the article or talkpage. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "weak consensus" and the watering-down are unconnected events, at least chronologically. While this policy was never popular with editors who want Wikipedia's house style to resemble TV.com's, it only came under steady attack after several thousand articles were bot-tagged with {{Trivia}}.

Compromises since then are not stemming from WP:TRIV's advocates admitting the adoption was questionable. The current state of this guideline is more like the mid point of a tug-of-war between parties that simply want trivia sections, and parties that do not. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guideline that basically says it's not okay to have trivia sections, but it's not okay to remove them either isn't much of a guideline at all. We really need to make it clearer, or stop claiming it has anything to do with policy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that some editors especially some admins use the guideline to remove edits which do not reflect their particular world view. Albatross2147 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad edits justified by misquoting policy are not the fault of policy. (Since I have not seen the edits in question, I do not know they were bad ones). To the best of my knowledge, this guideline has always clearly favored integration of quality data.

In many cases an entire Trivia section can be deleted because it is entirely (in the deleting editor's judgement) trivial, with nothing worth including in an encyclopedic article; this is not a bad practice, and when I see good stuff in a deleted mass, I usually grab it from History and integrate it, rather than reverting the deletion. Restoring entire trivia sections, and justifying this by saying WP:TRIV says not to delete trivia, is not very helpful, and foot-drags a necessary cleanup process. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But who determines what is trivial? To a non-sporting fan, the entire industry of sporting statistics is trivial, but to the fans they are an important aspect of the game. (e.g. "This pitcher strikes out 80% of left-handed batters when a runner is on 2nd base with 2 outs.") And when a contributer adds a Trivia section, they are always fans, and it is therefore important to them, and it is therefore not trivial but an important aspect of the topic. Ergo, none of the Trivia sections should be deleted, they should all be allowed, Wikipedia should modify their guidelines, and some editors should learn to relax. End of discussion. NefariousPhD (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The solution is simple. Get rid of the part of this guideline that says it's not okay to delete trivia sections, and this foot-dragging would no longer be a problem.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those two positions are hardly contradictory; the guideline makes clear that trivia sections are generally not ideal but that simply deleting them is not an effective way to solve the problem and often is more damaging than simply leaving the trivia section alone. A more careful approach, which retains useful information and presents it in the most appropriate way, is needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of editors willing to implement "a more careful approach" (which actually requires work), simply retaining these ugly, amateurish lists--which this bogus "guideline" seems to espouse as the lesser of two evils--is to degrade the quality of articles. Getting rid of irrelevant garbage is never harmful; those who wish to scavenge the garbage for useful material (which, in my experience, is extremely rare in "trivia sections") are welcome to peruse the edit history, or to start from scratch.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always felt that Trivia sections are acceptable in early-stage, essentially pre-written articles, but should be outgrown. Bits of valuable metal should be extracted from the ore, with the remaining toxic pile either deleted or shipped to Wikia. In the past year, I've seen a few editors add Trivia sections because "every article has one". My objection has always been the giving of precedent to such sections as de facto style on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could look at taking the debate forward to action. The possibilities seem to be 1. Accept that trivia is not good and therefore the policy stays (but perhaps re-worked in some way). 2. The is no consensus on the pros and cons of trivia sections, in which case the policy would need to be substantially re-written to be more of a general "guide". 3. There is no need for any policy in this matter, in which case the policy can be discarded. I've done a lot of editing in the past, but have not been involved in policy formulation and debate. So where do we go from here? 82.20.28.142 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a modified version of this MOS, with some content integrated from WP:HTRIV (see the section above this one on this talk page). Perhaps someone would like to comment on the merits of that, and where there are difficulties, it can illuminate places where we do not yet have concensus. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New section - header

This debate has reached a fruitful point. However the traditional next move forward is to focus on any minor edits which might b done to the projectpage, which is where it began in the first place.

No more than minor changes will normally be accepted by the talk-page participants on such a short guideline as this so, any suggestions?

Which of the (four) paragraphs needs work? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to integrate some content from WP:HTRIV

The idea of a merge between WP:TRIV and WP:HTRIV has been kicked around a few times, and in general it's been agreed that there are two seperate issues: formatting and content, which is discussed in WP:TRIV and WP:HTRIV respectively. The main reason against merging the two is to prevent the introduction of specific removal criteria, with the assumption that this can and will be used excessively/abusively.

However, I still do think there is some content in HTRIV that would make more sense presented in TRIV as opposed to HTRIV. I think WP:TRIV would benefit from an edited version of Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Should trivia be allowed on Wikipedia?, which works as a general recap of the long standing trivia debate.

I am less certain about integrating other content from that essay. Perhaps the Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Different types of trivia might be useful here as opposed to there, but with some "creative imagining", that could easily be misconstrued as criteria for removal. The "Recommendations for handling trivia" section would, of course, not be suitable for integration into this guideline at this point in time. Thoughts and comments? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say in the abstract - I'd have to see a proposal. In general, I would be for anything that helps guide people who sincerely care about an article on how to deal with the article's content. However, I would oppose anything that would encourage any more mass deletion campaigns. It's actually quite easy to deal with trivia on an article-by-article basis if you have some rapport with other people working on an article. Wikidemo (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is my first attempt at updating this guideline by integrating the content from Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Should trivia be allowed on Wikipedia? Compare the diffs between my suggested version and the current version. EDIT At the suggestion of another user, I have created a draft page at WP:TRIVIA/draft--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of first proposed update

Nick: I haven't looked at WP:HTRIV to see what changes were made, so the following is intended as suggestions for improving on this draft, and not as criticism of your writing:

Trivia sections: "... and refering the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found." I don't know if this conflicts with WP:EL, but it suggests an ideal that WP articles should be smaller and less comprehensive when external links can be found to carry the load. I don't think this should implied as a style or content goal. (And if it were, WP:TRIV would be the wrong place anyway.)
- "a better way to organize an article ... whether in text, list, or table" should emphasize seamless, well-organized prose a bit more. Changing a trivia section to well-ordered lists of different types of trivia is not desirable. Neither is turning such into a table.
Trivia articles is a good start, but needs to be more concise and easily readable. Maybe pull one or two really good points to explain why these articles should be avoided. And snip the "title" piece entirely; in the event such a judgment need be made on an article title, this can already be inferred logically from this section (and also because freestanding articles specifically about trivia are not notable).
Guidance is also grown overlong, four paragraphs to say "don't delete good stuff over style issues" and "not all bullet lists are Trivia sections" (which may be 2 useful subsection headings). Also, the sentence "Trivia sections should not simply be categorically removed" will be misinterpreted by people who ignore the word categorically; some trivia sections can be removed in their entirety. (Incidentally, the word categorically may speak to intent, and thus good faith.)
Other policies apply is as redundant as ever. While WP:NOT#IINFO is worth a mention, the section basically attempts to encapsulate all Wikipedia policies that advise the removal of information from an article. It's too much to include here. This section could be renamed Exclusion standards (but that is not in the spirit of watering down this guideline), with a bullet list of perhaps 3 key policy overview pages. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, by wither, I think what's meant is whether, or possibly whither (not recommended). Similarly, detracts should probably be distracts.

My biases: I don't favor the elimination of WP:HTRIV, since it contains specific suggestions that could never be included in a policy (which I believe WP:TRIV should be written as, regardless of its status). I am also agnostic about the need (beyond political) to address only style, avoiding issues of content. (Other policies apply as currently written seems to address content). / edg ☺ ☭ 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made some modifications to reflect your first 4 suggestions and corrected those spelling errors. I am not certain HTRIV should be eliminated entirely, but I do think this content in particular is more useful here than there. EDIT And I just removed the Other Policies apply section, as it's pretty much covered by the link in the opening to the content policies. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The integration of "Other policies applies" into the body works. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of this material

Other section apply - This section, with a more appropriate HEADER, as User:edg says, basically just encapsulates the exclusion policies, and so runs counter to the prevailing mood of (watering down). However, I don't think the links themselves, or even the section, is redundant. It just needs to be delicately integrated, maybe, into other sections. As it stands, it just slots into the slightly split-personality style of the current text. Still think the merge is a positive, (see section below), and that the Trivia/Draft page (see below) can be a step forward. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge of both guidelines

That was a good move, in my h/opinion this works. More comments? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall I think that's a great effort. I'll hold my detailed comments until I can take more of a look but I think it gets to the point of why trivia sections themselves are to be discouraged, but the content within them has to be judged as content anywhere and either used or not.Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Two of the merged sections are off the mark

(This is in reference to Wikipedia:TRIVIA/draft.)

Trivia sections: Invoking WP:IINFO is problematic; while it is certainly true that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that phrase tends to be indiscriminately invoked to justify deletion of just about anything (including trivia sections and/or content). While there is consensus for the five specific types of information listed under IINFO, any other applications of it are contentious.
Trivia articles: Pure trivia articles are certainly frowned upon -- they're the opposite of integration. Popular culture sections and articles, on the other hand, should not be lumped in with trivia. Though there are plenty of "pop culture" entries of questionable significance, pop culture sections in general are not necessarily discouraged -- see, for instance, the featured articles Chicago Bears#The Bears in popular culture and Vampire#In modern fiction and the former featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc.

--Father Goose (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already states emphatically that it is a style guideline, so WP:IINFO is worth invoking for how it speaks to style and organization. As for trivia articles, articles not organized as trivia sections (see WP:TRIVIA for what those are) don't apply. There is no reason to shield editors from the content implications of those guidelines. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FG makes two good points here. Editing continues, on the Trivia/Draft]]. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Even by mentioning WP:NOT#IINFO, I don't think people could run around with this guideline and claim the ability to delete; when questioned they would actually hold up WP:NOT as their justification, not WP:TRIVIA.

With regards to the In popular culture article mention, the current reading of WP:IPC says that "Such sections [IPC section/articles] are discouraged but not forbidden; see the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections." Thus, the current wording of this draft is consistent with the current version of that essay. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, no-one is going to get away with a mass-deletion campaign. Editors of articles would put a stop to it. So the guideline should be improved if possible, without worrying about a mythical flood of deletions.Newbyguesses - Talk 14:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'll notice, the current version of WP:TRIV (not the draft we're working on) doesn't lump "popular culture" sections in with trivia sections. Some editors may display the same intolerant attitude toward them, but how we must approach them is very different; the integration advice doesn't apply. A workable consensus for how to address popular culture sections and/or articles on Wikipedia has not yet formed, and the IPC essay reflects a time from a year ago when an aggressive campaign to purge IPC articles was underway. That's more a reflection on the bull-in-a-china-shop that is AfD than an expression of a consensus position.

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is also a bull in a china shop. As a principle, it's fine, but as a policy, it's disastrously open-ended. Including such a broad reading of it in WP:TRIV just invites trouble, and overly-broad statements in WP:TRIV in the past have caused plenty of trouble. We should certainly describe the principles of organization in WP:TRIV, but not drag IINFO into it, since WP:NOT (its parent) covers content that is flat-out not permitted in Wikipedia, and does not do nuance.--Father Goose (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the current draft we already direct readers to the relevant content policies (in the lead, no doubt), so perhaps we can remove direct linking to WP:NOT entirely. As for mentioning IPC articles in this guideline, I am ambivalent. It just happened to be the example used in the paragraph I copied and edited from WP:HTRIV, and I have no particular attachments to it or any other particular sentence; it is the mood/feel/spirit we're looking for here. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to change NOT into a guideline. It's inherently absurd for the basic policies to be worded negatively. The truly core ones, the ones that should be policy, can be accommodated elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the direct referencing to WP:NOT and WP:IPC from the draft. In the case of the latter though, I think pretty much everyone will know what that paragraph is making reference to, and thus I question it's accuracy. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is under loads of guidelines, I dont know about many but think that dissolving Trivia section is what they ought. I have a sort of personal( and rational) request of reviewing this change as Trivia is often the best way to look into an artcle in an encyclopedia. Rest is Wiki's popularity is in hands of you strategics...203.78.221.48 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)MADHUR PARIHAR,INDIA

Further reflections on the draft, some action

After taking another look at this draft and the guideline, I used the draft as inspiration for some structural/wording changes to the guideline. I have integrated a few sentences here and there, and merged one section into the rest of the guideline. And now that some editors have done some copyediting to this guideline, I am not so certain that my original proposal to integrate the content from WP:HTRIV is necerssary. If anything, it seems that many of the ideas are duplicated and said in a slightly different way. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I like name changes!

...and since we haven't had one in a while, I thought it was time to shake things up again, as I'm so good at doing. I notice that most style guidelines are named "Manual of Style (something specific)", as is shown from a look at Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. I don't think that would be such a bad idea for this guideline as well, since its status as a style guideline still seems to be something many editors tend to miss. Post your ~~flames~~ opinions on this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:39, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. However, be aware of this conversation.--Father Goose (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah! Two people! Seriously, that doesn't seem like cause for concern, but we'll of course discuss things with them should they object here. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:17, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Bit by bit removal

Can someone point me the part of the trivia guideline ( or whatever we are calling it this week ) that covers someone removing items bit by bit .Garda40 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be the Guidance section, though I assume you're concerned about a particular article. Items shouldn't be removed simply because they reside in a trivia section; they should only be removed if they don't belong in the article at all. If you tell us which article you're concerned about maybe we could offer more specific advise. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:25, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives