Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Trivia

A lot of people have said here that they like trivia, and in response people have said, 'this is an encyclopedia not a mass collection of random facts' or something similar.

Lets analyse that.

An encyclopedia is a collection of entries about unlinked topics, a mass collection of fact, organised only through the fact that it is alphabetically ordered. In a written encyclopedia what connects several articles? Nothing. Wikipedia is different, there are links.

An encyclopedia is a collection of entries which in turn contain a series of information about said entry; if said entry is a person, what will follow is a short biography in essence. Trivia is information about the said entry, that simply does not easily fit in context in the rest of the entry. But is information that is still relevant because it is about said entry.

Plus the idea that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia is a flawed one: while it ultimately wishes to be a notable encyclopedia (+ free), it is simply not held in that light by the users (note differences between users of the site, and editors of the site, which essentially makes none of us/you users, because we/you edit it, and also have bias about the medium itself). Wikipedia is simply a useful collection of information that people casually use to look up facts due to its available nature, and 'instant' search advantages over traditional mediums. It is not considered to be trustworthy or a secondary source on any matter. Wikipedia holds no weight as an encyclopedia.

But this is an advantage, it allows Wikipedia to transcend a typical encyclopedia and be packed full of information, on many things. Trivia can be amusing, and is a section I am more likely to read in an article about a film say, rather than reading the plot section. This is not a place of educational esteem, and Wikipedian values shouldn't be so strict as to have to get rid of trivia, the idea of strong values over a website also strikes me as amusing.

Wikipedia is web 2.0, and web 2.0 is all about the user, and social media, and moving away from the idea of the computer. Wikipedia's social hierarchy, anti-elitism and power-hungry administrators give people a bad taste about the site, and stop them from making edits to articles. People bitch continuiously and people often feel slapped around the face when they try to make a contribution on something they are interested in, and then is deleted by people through AfD.

This 'Trivia' malarky is just another example, people spend time finding out these facts and 'write' them down for people, and then someone comes along with a condescending tag saying things like 'delete'.

While I do not want to stress the feelings of the user, a social networking site should make this a priority, and try to give me a reason why not.

One such editor above said that removing trivia is the same as fixing an article; I would like to know exactly why that is so.

But even though there has been complaining about this, once something like this is instituted, does it ever get changed? Has a piece of policy ever been deleted?

82.43.111.162 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Policies generally aren't deleted but they are sometimes ultimately rejected. Although, it's pretty rare: all the examples that come to mind are cases where the page was never really a guideline, but someone claimed it was, and this was corrected. As for the rest of your rant, I agree that if we don't think Wikipedia should aim to be trustworthy or hold weight as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't bother removing or cleaning up trivia. But as for your "Wikipedia is web 2.0", you might want to actually join the community and see what building Wikipedia is really about before you make that kind of incorrect conclusion. Mangojuicetalk 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
WP, as an encyclopedia, is organised into articles. That is, if Lee Leeps is a notable person, there will be an article containing all notable facts about Lee Leeps. The Leeps article does not contain information about A Smith, B Jones, or bottle-tops or what was on TV last night. Any notable facts about an incident where Leeps and Smith interacted would appear or be summarised in either or both articles. But Smith's life story does not appear on Leeps articlepage, nor should information about what Leep may have watched on TV last night, or what color his granpa's underpants were, or who stood next to Leeps in an elevator once. And, especially, not every mention of every time someone mentioned or referred to Leep on TV needs to be included. This is trivia. —Newbyguesses 06:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
As a member of Wikipedia I look forward to trivia sections in articles, I enjoy them and it really separates them from other websites Wikimindless 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia and not a 'website' so a bit more formal prose is to be expected. There are no members, it is open to all. Vegaswikian 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is a key interest subheading that many users look forward to in an article. Remove it and you lose a part of peoples interest. Although i am just one person i still think that trivia should stay. The facts are sometimes rare and amazing.

I would like to support those Wikipedians who enjoy and desire trivia. Toleration of (accurate) humor in Wikipedia would be good too. Granted, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: surely Wikipedia should try to avoid pompousness and blandness. Just because Britannica is stiflingly Serious, should we be also? And are there no subjects that cry out for humor and a light touch? Compared to Dr. Johnson's definition of a lexicographer as a "harmless drudge," Wiki's trivia lists seem absolutely harmless. Wikipedia should be apt and accurate, but it should not fear to be entertaining. Wikipedians may recall Plutarch's remark that trivial events and actions in a biographical subject's life often superbly reveal character. Please, please, may we have trivia, o revered and august masters? (And in a little list at the end of the accurate article -- that seems the best way to present it.) Yours respectfully, your 'umble obedient servant.Grantsky 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The guideline is broken

Although the current policy advocates "integrating trivia", in practice, trivia is often completely purged. Since the policy states "irrelevance is a criteron for deletion" but doesn't place any limits on that criterion, all the language about "integrating trivia" is, sadly, posturing. More often than not, the bar for relevance is set to "all trivia is junk", and as a result, the guideline serves a smokescreen for the wholesale deletion of trivia.

Recent attempts to close this outsized loophole have been vigorously resisted. No rationales have been offered for this resistance, just dismissals: "obvious"; "unnecessary"; "self-explanatory"; "not needed". The motivation behind the resistance is plain: "it is unnecessary to deprive me of the ability to delete trivia as I see fit." I know I am being audacious in expressing it so plainly, but the behavior of others has made it clear that the existence of this loophole is deliberate.

A policy which says one thing but enacts another is broken.--Father Goose 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not broken at all, you just disagree with what's going on. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm with the group that thinks the current wording is fine. Trevor GH5 07:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The guideline isn't broken; in fact, it does not endorse the wholesale deletion of trivia sections without justification. If certain editors ignore the guideline, well ... that's a different issue. If any editor is being obviously disruptive by removing trivia sections in a manner which clearly indicates no serious evaluation of the section's content or an attempt to integrate it ... by all means, caution the editor and, if necessary, request that he or she be temporarily blocked. This guideline leaves a lot of room for editorial discretion, but disruption is disruption, no matter the form it takes. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this guideline (as it is phrased right now, with the list of what constitutes a "trivia" section shortened a bit) is probably ok, as it makes a general suggestion that may not apply to all articles. The problem has occurred with the mass-tagging of "trivia" sections, with a tag that referred back to this "guideline", and with what appears to be a directive to integrate the trivia section into the article. It also appears that this tag was added blindly to articles with trivia sections, without a review of each one to make sure it was necessary in that particular article. So the problem was really that someone misinterpreted this guideline (that's being charitable) and spread the misinformation all over Wikipedia. 6SJ7 14:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
If the policy is being widely misinterpreted, it's a good idea to add otherwise unnecessary words to clarify it. --Coppertwig 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What Coppertwig said. I concur with what Black Falcon said, but it would be easier and less explosive to handle editors who over-interpret the guideline by making the guideline more clear. If they're misreading the guideline, this could help. If they ignore it, there will be explicit language in the guideline to help make the point to them. We *could* just go straight to an RFC or mediation, but assuming these are disagreements between reasonable people, I'd rather avoid that unless it can't be avoided. Mangojuicetalk 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Certainly ... my suggestion to temporarily block applied only to editors who deliberately ignore (and not just misinterpret or over-interpret) the guideline and who continue to do so after the issue has been brought to their attention (i.e., once the option of discourse has been exhausted). In particular, I was thinking of obvious cases of disruption where an editor is making several edits a minute and refuses to stop and discuss the matter, though less blatant cases may also require action of some sort (perhaps a warning) if it seems that discussion leads nowhere. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the better solution than blocking editors or changing this guideline (which IS helpful and useful and shows support of consensus) is best exemplefied by the SOFIXIT principle. If another editor deletes the entire trivia section, and you think the facts can be integrated, then go back, take out the facts that need to be integrated, and add them to the article in the appropriate places. Problem solved, no one gets blocked, no guidelines get broken, and the article is a better article for it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a small portion of the guideline (one sentence, actually) for which there is no present consensus -- but this small portion has potentially large ramifications. The reason why it's being addressed at the policy level, and not just as a Sofixit matter, is because material can be deleted with only one indication that this has happened -- an entry in the edit history, which may or may not have an edit summary. It's hard to fix an action which is hard to spot in the first place. Users might take this action whether or not there is a policy governining it, but if the guideline says "don't do it unless you want to", then the guideline needs a bit of Sofixing itself.--Father Goose 20:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I've run into this problem a lot recently, there's an editor who likes to go around deleting trivia sections to increase the perceived quality of Simpsons episode articles. A big problem is that it works -- an article without a trivia section seems to always look better to the "1.0" editors than one with a trivia section. The 1.0 editors might not know that in order to get to that good-looking article, a lot of information was simply removed because someone was lazy and didn't want to fix it. And yes, Father Goose is right, the place in the edit history where the info is removed is often hard to spot.
But you know what, I'll go even further to say such blasphemy as: there may be a place in many articles for a trivia section. When there actually are a bunch of interesting factoids, as is very often the case with cultural references in comedic fictional material, integrating them into another section of the article almost always results in something that sounds very forced, and is really a vast degradation in the article's quality. Cultural references in something like a Simpsons episode just aren't always related to the plot in such a way that you can mention them along with the synopsis. They are random jokes that really DO belong in a list. They really, REALLY do. I think this guideline needs to emphasize the term "Avoid," as this word must have been chosen for a reason; Trivia sections are to be avoided, yes, but that means they sometimes are warranted, and editors who consider articles for quality ratings and for featured article discussions should be reminded of this. Take a look at Last Exit to Springfield#Cultural references, as an example. People are so afraid of making list sections now that you wind up with a section like that -- which is basically still a list, only without separate lines and little blue squares.
By the way, I wholeheartedly support a temporary block of editors who remove entire Trivia sections without integrating the noteworthy material into another section. I think it's a great idea, because as the guidline stands now, removing Trivia sections is really the easiest and quickest step towards improving an article. Many editors don't think past that. 14:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on trivia

Just for the record, I like trivia sections and enjoy reading them. Most of the prose on Wikipedia is too long-winded and formal. What I want is interesting information fast, and lots of it... which I do get from many lists that are marked "trivia."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.169.21 (talk)

Perhaps you should find a trivia Wiki then. Lolipops. Matthew 07:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. As you can see from my wiki user bio page, I think wikipedia takes itself WAY TOO seriously at times and the movement to remove trivia is but one example. Chanceinator 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
What does "Lolipops" mean in this context? / edgarde 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Lolipops is a whimsical expansion of "lol", analogous to "roflcopter". Dcoetzee 09:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Too long-winded and formal? Go read some webcomics or something, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. DreamGuy 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries, anon. Plenty of articles will always have trivia sections. This guideline does not ban them at all. It does state that the information would be better presented in the article, which is true, but this doesn't amount to a ban on them, despite what several very vocal, anti-trivia-sections-in-all-situations editors keep insisting on. Tempshill 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's only your opinion... and an opinion that happens to be wrong. DreamGuy 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, opinions can be wrong. Way to be open minded there. Just another wikipedian who takes himself way too seriously :D Chanceinator 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Paragraph form is better for some readers and worse for other readers. --Coppertwig 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:FIVE says WP is not a trivia collection. Corpx 06:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Trivia section is one of the first things I look for from Wikipedia. While I agree that if the information can be incorporated into the main body of the article it should be but as long as they are properly sourced, I'd regret having the trivia information lost. SSJPabs 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting removing most of the trivia. Just that most trivia really fits well into other sections of the articles and that moving it improves the quality of the encyclopedia both in terms of content and readability. Vegaswikian 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My 2cents is that this whole project ought to be shelved. I like trivia sections as they are, and I find the project tags distracting. If someone wants to take a bit of trivia out of a sectin and put it in the article, why not? But making a systematic project of this is too much. 70.83.122.184 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Someones gone and removed a the triva out of the Simpson episode pages. I think we need a lot of it because it helps connect the episodes together and avoids confusion.--Steven X 05:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, removing trivia in this sort of context only diminishes articles. What purpose is served by removing trivia in an article on the plot of a cartoon show? It could be argued that the Simpsons is largely about trivia, at least the episode to episode continuity. Moheroy 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. Trivia that does serve to connect episodes and/or is important to the episode ought to be included. Episode articles may admit much more trivial information than would be included in the series article because of their narrow focus. Dcoetzee 08:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In support of Trivia

Some people use Wikipedia for academic research, and some for fun. Some facts are fascinating, yet pointless. Forcing the "fun" facts into the body of the article risks that the most captivating things become deleted because some academic pedant deems them irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.160.203 (talk • contribs)

To quote Dystopos above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. There are a multitude of online communities that collect the kind of information we deem 'trivia' — consider reading or contributing to h2g2, Everything2, or a Wikia, for example. Feezo (Talk) 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And why is it you get to dictate that when most wikipedia users want it? --IceHunter 22:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you source that? I expect it's just you under the (mistaken) impression everybody is like you. Matthew 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Citing Dystopos, saying:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Uncle John's Bathroom Reader.
is of course true, but trivial and as irrelevant as "wikipedia is a bunch of editors collecting facts, not a whole gooey pond of quacking frogs". Its funny, it's kind of short-term rhetorical, but it's not factual. Now, the advantage of allowing trivia to a certain degree should be that it can serve as a raw material for writing new article of some kind of seriosity, I have elsewhere defended punch card art in the trivia section of punch card, since more than one artist have used punch cards for art, and then (for me) it is a phenomenon, albeit rare. The trivia shall not be allowed to disturb the main article (I'm mostly serious, despite indications to the contrary), in relevant cases it should be integrated into the main article, but in most other cases be prepared to be moved to other articles. However: in many cases I've seen that "this topic is deserving its own article, but there is not yet enough text". I think the anti-Trivia policy allows arbitrary fact removals. I would rather that the concept trivia is dropped in favor of a certain degree of article coherency. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 09:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

Maybe this has been already said, but I think there are trivia sections mainly in movie and TV articles because of IMDB. Anyone who does not know too well how to edit an article (where to add relevant things, etc.) will just make a trivia section and basically add anything there. I don't see a mention of IMDB's trivia on this guideline, but it needs to be mentioned. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a footnote that specifically reminds users that IMDB pages are copyrighted and shouldn't be copied to Wikipedia. Mangojuicetalk 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Revised Relevance guideline

Based on feedback that the initial draft got, I've done a full rewrite of Wikipedia:Relevance. I hope to make it an "official" guideline in the near future, and have this guideline link to it when mentioning the subject of relevance. If you have objections to the proposed guideline -- or any other comments to offer -- please state them at Wikipedia talk:Relevance.--Father Goose 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with trivia sections

In my opinion, the guidance is ALL WRONG. Some information just can't fit together to the article and needs to be in a separate section. Some trivias are very interesting to the reader and needs to be included but just would be better in a separate section. Brave warrior 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Again, this is an encyclopedia and we should present the facts relevant to an article, not content that readers might find entertaining. Corpx 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between "interesting" and "entertaining". If the problem is that you fear that people may be entertained by the section, just rename it to "very boring isolated facts that are linked to the main topic of the article, but which do not naturally fit into the narrative of the main text". Personally, I think "Trivia" is as good a title, even though it may be slightly misleading. Mlewan 08:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Bad word choice by me :) Corpx 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Even if some information is useless, a Trivia section is not a bad idea. Without one, I wouldn't know that Esmerelda/Phoebus and Pocahontas/John Smith are the only two interracial couples in Disney animated movies. I usually learn a lot more in the Trivia then I do in the whole article. No substitute for you 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest instruction to not delete trivia

I reverted this because it is yet another instruction to not fix trivia sections. Quote:

It therefore takes work to get rid of a trivia section; do not simply delete them without first finding some other home for the information contained.

This tells most editors to not even bother fixing trivia sections, since now the editor is required to review multiple articles for potential new homes before beginning cleanup a one article.

While it should be recommended to find appropriate homes for useful information found in an inappropriate article (regardless of whether it's found in a trivia section), this admonition goes further, requiring that (all?) trivia be preserved. This is both impractical and beyond the scope of this guideline (which, I remind everyone, is about how to eliminate trivia sections, not about the definition or value of trivia).

Much information should simply be removed. When another, more suitable article is not immediately known, the editor should not be tasked ("work") with researching other articles in the field. In this situation, deleting is probably better practice than letting a trivia section stand.

Since Wikipedia does not allow original research, information deleted from an article is not gone forever — someone else is reading the same source and knows to what article that item should be appended. There is no need for an endangered species act for Wikipedia trivia. / edgarde 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right although I'm prepared to believe that the person who added that did not think it right through. Some trivia (the most minor and irrelevant of trivia) cannot be relocated to an "other home". There is just nowhere for it to go, except out, and it should not be our aim to find a home for every tiny little factoid that ever gets added. It also contradicts the template which currently says "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items." Some trivia absolutely should be removed even if it's not contained in a trivia section. The instruction that you reverted basically said that all trivia should be retained, moved into the article body and hidden if necessary, but retained just the same - and that's certainly not desirable. Rossrs 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It was a completely ridiculous edit completely unsupported by consensus added by someone who thought his or her personal opinion should become policy. It definitely needed to be removed. DreamGuy 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Rossrs. The page already limits the scope, and that nutshell reminder was going much too far. We do not need to preserve everything. Mangojuicetalk 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes trivia is removed without an attempt at integration, and it may be worth a reminder that sometimes the best place is in another article, but no policy can or ought to prohibit us from deleting any material if we believe it improves the encyclopedia. Dcoetzee 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia bigotry

Indeed. I made the change after some trivia-kill warrior decided to delete an entire trivia section in a film, figuring that this article gave him permission, even instruction, to do so. So there needs to be some kind of nutshell thing for people who don't have the patience to read an article.

Second, may I point out what I hope is obvious, which is that trivia lists are merely one type of embedded list (see WP:EMBED) and they have the same reasons for existing as any other embedded list, despite the many (IMHO) false arguments against them at WP:TRIVIA? I see no particular reason to persecute them, and the "concensus" to do mystifies me. Yes, embedded lists are urged to be contextualized with addition of some prose to expain each fact, but I see no reason why trivia lists can't be contextualized in the same way. LISTS (and there are many lists in Wikipedia-- see WP:LIST), exist for a reason. There even exist stand-alone lists, such as (for example) Tornadoes of 2006. The REASONS for existence of lists are well detailed in WP:LIST and WP:EMBED, and I hope I don't have to go over them here. Go there and read. If it's a simple matter of finding something else to name a trivia fact list, that can always be done, but it's a little silly, because it still remains a collection of facts whose only relation to each other is that they are related to the article title subject (just like the only relationship between Tornadoes of 2006 is that they are tornadoes, and they occurred in 2006-- duh). Sometimes it's counterproductive to "prose-itize" something which is better presented as a list, but again that point is made in WP:EMBED and I won't belabor it. If at this point somebody steps in to claim that facts which can't be put into text shouldn't be in an article at all, I will only answer that if you read WP:EMBED, you'll see that argument has been tried, and the concensus is that it fails. As also in the real world.

So what are we left with? Notability arguments? Notability of facts is in the mind of the beholder. You're looking at an encyclopedia which has exhaustive biographies of Comic Book characters, so don't go there.

Is the argument to be that the items in the list have no comminality except as related to the main subject? Okay-- so? What if they do? One of my favorite grins is the WP:NOT list, where the text claims that WP is NOT a list of "indiscriminate facts." Well, trivia lists aren't indiscriminate. They are related. At the same time, if you read WP:NOT, that article itself is basically a list of things whose ONLY relationship is that you're NOT supposed to put them in Wikipedia! Irony. In some cases, the headings in this NOT list article are manufactured to make it look less like the fairly indiscriminate list that it in fact is. For example, this silly heading: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site". Notice that there's not much relationship between those things. But the header was created so the writers could fool themselves into thinking that they were NOT making a loosely related list of stuff-- which of course they were. STOP FOOLING YOURSELVES. You'll never get anything done unless you take a step back, think a bit, and begin to be ruthlessly honest about any subject. This one (so called "trivia") is the object of a fair amount of what I can only call bigotry. And no small amount of failure to see that renaming something doesn't change its essential nature. SBHarris 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:HTRIV. Maybe we should merge that essay to here? It gets into things more carefully. Mangojuicetalk 05:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I strongly favor keeping that information (WP:HTRIV and off-scope specifics on trivia) separate, so that
  • the fight isn't spread over multiple Talk pages,
  • that standard doesn't have to be maintained (or potentially forked) between the two articles, and
  • (perhaps most of all) we don't dilute the message of this article, which is more firmly established (and probably more important) than the very driving distractions of What is trivia? and Is trivia bad?.
We should link and refer to WP:HTRIV (and WP:RELEVANCE if it gets good) as much as is helpful, but to get the message of this guideline out, I think it's best to keep to a narrow scope. / edgarde 10:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If an editor deletes a Trivia section without attempting to integrate, the fix would be to restore and integrate correctly. Stuff gets deleted all the time for all sorts of bad reasons — patience with the other editor's mistake, plus some User Talk page discussion about interpreting policy, might be more in the spirit of cooperation than fighting sound guidelines simply because they might be misinterpreted. My $0.02, YMMV, and so forth.
Thanks for the link to WP:EMBED. I hadn't read that one yet. / edgarde 10:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of recent changes

I made some cleanups to the page. Generally, I was aiming at two things in my change. First, per edgarde, trying to keep the guideline as focused as possible on the point that trivia sections are a bad way to organize information, as opposed to statements that seem to be regarding trivia as automatically problematic. Second, I tried to de-emphasize the integration of trivia into "prose" or "text." The truth is, trivia that can be reorganized is as likely as not to be a candidate for organization in a non-miscellaneous list, as it is to be a candidate for incorporating into prose text, and I don't think there's any reason to regard prose as inherently more desirable (at least, not for the kinds of items that are really in these sections, contrary to the discussion in WP:EMBED.) Mangojuicetalk 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The amount of prose which accompanies a line in an embedded list is very often enough. We must remember the primary purpose in all this: what does the most likely reader NEED? Sometimes it's a little prose, sometimes more. Sometimes the job can be done by incorporation, sometimes not.

There is one more thing about NEEDS which might be considered here, though I haven't read it anyplace (even the fairly well-thought-out but ultimately cowardly essay WP:HTRIV). That is the fact that Wiki articles are works-in-progress. As such, they must have both the reader AND the (future) writer in mind. So, some pieces of them are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which is being assembled by more than one person, working alone. If you've ever done a large jigsaw puzzle of (say) a nature scene over a long period of time (and especially if done by more than one person) you know that it tends to collect little piles like "sky pieces" which show nothing but (say) blue. Eventually, a large puzzle collects even sub-piles of things like "Tabbed Sky Pieces" and "Indented Sky Pieces", etc. These will eventually go into the whole, but their time is not yet. However, their place is not in the garbage, but in a pile off to one side. It can be labeled or not (Don't label it "Trivial Pieces"). Quite often, though not always, that's what "trivia" in Wiki articles is.

It seems to me that the TRIV article could be simply re-written to suggest that interesting and sourced facts may be kept someplace as a list, while totally unrelated facts with no possiblity of use (part of another puzzle, say, or just wrong) should be deleted. In the meantime, how the jigsaw facts which will be used later are to be stored, is up to the puzzler. Do it however you can which causes maximal help to future readers and writers. Since there's such a bigoted and prejudiced view of the very WORD "trivia", perhaps these collections should be labeled ANYTHING else. Which is silly, but once a witchhunt has started, what can you do? Nothing to do but hide refugees in your attic and pretend they aren't what they are.

Finally, let me note again that notability is in the mind of the beholder, and that the very word "trivia" comes from the 3 areas of classical education which were viewed as being relatively less important (logic, rhetoric, grammar). But that hardly means they are "absolutely" less important-- think of the importance of logic in all knowledge, and rhetoric in politics and law. So it's relative importances that concern us. Wikipedia's job is to make sure that emphasis and headings keep things which have the same relative importance to a subject, in roughly the same place. That may be mean under headings lower down, or as appended lists, or in spin-off subtopic articles and lists, etc, etc. But none of this means the items labeled "trivia" should be killed, unless there's no conceivable place for them in the puzzle of knowledge for a given subject, at all. SBHarris 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell creep

I haven't reviewed the recent changes,[1] but the former nutshell

Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic

is gradually turning into an essay. If this must be done, remove the nutshell template and make this part of the lead section. Alternatively, could swap the current bold first sentence into the nutshell. / edg ☺ ★ 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That wording is nice and to the point, and may be better, but the nutshell should probably say something about how to go about getting rid of trivia sections as is advocated in this guideline. Mangojuicetalk 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
A good nutshell is a Maoist slogan from which the wise editor immediately understands how to act, and will always remember.
From the above nutshell, one is instructed to re-organize the article as well-arranged, flowing prose facts. Beyond that, all else in this guideline is suggestions.
The current nutshell is bureacratic and nearsighted. / edg ☺ ★ 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I made it very brief but I think that captures the essence. --Justanother 03:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Except I see now that another editor likes long nutshells (like a peanut??) --Justanother 11:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


It's policies like this one that are ruining Wikipedia. Self-appointed overblown experts taking away the very essence of what makes WP great. Fuck the MOS - keep the trivia! Hell yeah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.106.135 (talk • contribs)

I think that sums it up right there... There are people who want an encyclopedia, and then there are people who want to make this a free for all of nonsense. The things this anon thinks are "great" are the things he should go find on some other website. DreamGuy 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that there are stupid and immature people on both sides of any argument, and you should never judge a viewpoint by its dumbest member. I'm also fairly certain that this was a strawman sockpuppet — someone who relies on people like you in order to push the opposing viewpoint. 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia template is in contradiction with this guidline

The title of this guidline is "Avoid trivia sections". "Avoid" means to try not to have them wherever possible, but it also means that they are sometimes warranted. The trivia template, however, would seem to imply that a Trivia section necessarily constitutes a flawed article; that a Trivia section is always something that needs to be remedied. The template makes no mention of what to do if a Trivia section is unavoidable - such as under what circumstances the Trivia template can be removed. And there must be a circumstance where it can be removed, even when a Trivia section exists — after all, Trivia sections are to be avoided, not banned... Right?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's best taken up at Template talk:Trivia, where some editors have expressed similar views, and others, the contrary.--Father Goose 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would disagree. "Avoid" means that they should always be avoided; the ultimate implication of this guideline is plainly that there should, in the long run, be no trivia sections anywhere in Wikipedia. They are never warrented; otherwise, there would not be a general consensus to avoid them. The ultimate goal of {{trivia}} is certainly, and should always clearly remain, to facilitate the deconstruction, integration, and eventual elimination any trivia section it has been added to (which, eventually, will be all trivia sections)... in short, it should be a tool to help avoid trivia sections everywhere. --Aquillion 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look through this page and the archives of this page. I don't think this qualifies as a consensus. Yes, avoid means always avoid them, but that doesn't change what the word "avoid" means. If the guideline was meant to disallow trivia sections across the board, even only in firmly established articles, then it would say so — but it does not say so. 07:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with {{trivia}} as it's worded at this moment: it says that the article could be improved by integrating appropriate items and removing inappropriate ones. There may be some article somewhere where editors agree that a Trivia section is, in fact, the best way to organize the appropriate information, but I have never come across such an example. But I suppose if it happened, there would be a general agreement that removing the trivia section would not be an improvement, so the trivia tag could simply be removed. Mangojuicetalk 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine in theory, but if there isn't a consensus, the side arguing for removal of the template has no leg to stand on — because the template states above all else that "This article contains a trivia section." It doesn't say, "This article contains a trivia section of poor quality" or "...a trivia section that could possibly be integrated with another section, but if any facts remain that can't be integrated without degrading the article's quality then this template may be removed." 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also think it's reasonable to remove the tag if the trivia section, although present and a potential area for cleanup, is not a big problem. IE, if it had only one or two items in it. There should really be a policy about edit-requesting templates somewhere. It's one thing to tag an article with {{cleanup}} but there are so many cleanup tags in existence, I feel like we are violating WP:ASR all the time. Mangojuicetalk 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I think the trivia template serves an important purpose in ensuring that articles don't become dumping grounds for useless facts, as occurs frequently on the web in general. But I think people have become so afraid of this happening that they've resorted to an essential ban of any trivia section, without reviewing them on a case-by-case basis. The trivia template as it is presently worded facilitates this practice. I wouldn't edit the template or the guideline myself right now since it's such a hotly debated subject, but that fact in and of itself shows that something needs to be done. The top of every guideline page tells us that the guidelines reflect a consensus, and this talk page, I think, suggests something else entirely. 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
With only 1 or 2 items, the information should be integrated into the article. Then there is no need for the tag or the section. Vegaswikian 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I disagree. I don't think anyone can say this with certainty across the board. There are many instances where some notable facts simply have no place in any other section and belong in a list. I've seen such items blatantly removed or forcefully integrated into other sections in an attempt to improve the articles' adherence to the guidline, but that only end up hurting it — either by making them sound forced or by removing useful information. I think it's a shame that people feel the need to do this. Besides which, that isn't my point in this case. My point is that the template language and the guidline are at odds with each other. One says "avoid," while the other implies "disallow." 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with Template:Trivia. Let's consider the case closed. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not a very convincing argument. 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] Especially as it's flatly wrong. The template asserts (sight unseen) that "The article [whatever it is] could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items." That is equivalent to the assertion that there EXISTS NO CLASS of information WHATSOEVER which has a more helpful and proper place in an embedded list than it does in text, so long as some unfortunate has been unwise enough to name the list "TRIVIA". But such an idea is false, for it asserts something about the nature of printed information which is indefensible, and which in WP:EMBED nobody attempts to defend, since to do so would make the written paragraph king--- the be-all and end-all of all knowledge transmission. Anybody want to argue for that?

Why not simply change the template so that it says: "The editors have decided that they are offended by the very term TRIVIA, which is the name of this section. Therefore, please try to find something else to name the list of facts collected in this section." SBHarris 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the more diplomatic portions of your statement (mostly the beginning). But as far as the other stuff, the guideline is actually now worded so that it's independent of the section title (even if the template has not yet been similarly reworded). For example, "Cultural references" is also looked down on. The fault is in the list format of the section, not the section title. I think most editors could care less about the mere word "trivia" being used. 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, I didn't ref WP:EMBED as a part of WP:LIST just to talk to my self. I put it up because few people arguing about "trivia" seem to have read it.SBHarris 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As has been mentioned, the proper place to discuss changes to Template:Trivia is really at Template talk:Trivia. Mangojuicetalk 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in general, but I don't think WP:EMBED is a valid proof of precedent for listing anything other than links, if that's what you're getting at. Links and other info are very different from one-another, in my opinion. But again I'm still agreeing with your stance on the issue. Mangojuice, you also offered your opinion on the template somewhere above. It can't be wrong when we do it and right when you do it. Plus this is more about the guideline that the template is meant to enforce than it is about the template itself. 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, since this is about trivia in general, not just the template, I can certainly say that plenty of people disagree with you about lists in Wikipedia. If you will READ WP:LIST you will see very many reasons for lists, and WP:LISTV even makes the point that lists in which all items are linked is not much differernt from a disambiguation page, and THAT just screws up the WP software. So do NOT do that (link it all). That is not only not what lists are for, it is explicitly NOT what they are for.

And by the way, you are helping to to see that some of the problem here isn't just that there are people who don't like the word "trivia." It's also that there are some people who don't like lists in any fashion or form. Even when they are the best and most appropriate form in which to place the particular information at hand. So some of this trivia thing seems to be part of a larger prejudice. Thus, if you re-label all "trivia" lists something else, the list-haters will go after these lists, even under another name. They will not stop until the very form has been expunged, and replaced by prose and paragraphs. SBHarris 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LISTV doesn't say that at all; it says don't link items on the list unless you make sure they link to the right pages (not disambiguation pages). It doesn't say that it screws up the software either.--Father Goose 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I was posting that in response to Sbharris, who was proposing to make changes to Template:Trivia. We weren't discussing that anywhere above that I can find. Mangojuicetalk 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah ok, I misunderstood. Sorry about that. 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance proposal

This guideline, WP:TRIVIA, speaks of "irrelevance" as a criterion for removal of trivia, but fails to define the term in any manner. Wikipedia:Relevance of content (formerly located at Wikipedia:Relevance) is an attempt to lay out some common ground on the subject of relevance. It has undergone several rounds of feedback and revision, but it needs your input if it is to truly reflect a common stance on the subject. Please make your thoughts known! Thanks.--Father Goose 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. I think one of the things that's causing all this trivia conflict is the fact that the word "trivia" has very broad-reaching implications. I think if trivia sections were actually limited to items that truly belonged there, we wouldn't have this problem. Maybe we should start a new guideline article, describing some specific criteria for what constitutes valid trivia items. For example, for a film/TV episode article, if a fact can be learned simply by watching the source material, then it shouldn't be included (like saying what color pants a character wore, or the text on a sign). There should be others but that's just one example. This way, editors could begin discussing the merit of individual items, rather than continuing this endless argument for or against trivia sections in general. 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly neutral on this issue, but it's still my opinion that trivia sections, in the sense of completely unfiltered and unorganized lists, should not be a permanent feature of any article - the content should be integrated or classified. Which is to say I disagree with the concept that there are items that "truly belong" in a trivia section. However, I'm sure Father Goose would be interested in your feedback on specific guidelines and examples for relevance in fiction. Dcoetzee 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I more or less agree with Dcoetzee here; nearly everything in trivia sections is a question of bad organization. The trivia itself, I like, up to a point.
It's a really tall order to legislate "what belongs", since at best you can only cover certain classes of material specific to certain subjects. Trivia items are, in practice, "everything else", and it's hard -- and probably misguided -- to write out "hard rules" for what belongs, and where. Some of the Wikiprojects (such as video games) have rules for what kind of content is standard, and they tend to exclude the kind of stuff that makes its way into Trivia lists.
Relevance of content is simultaneously an attempt to improve that organization and advise editors how to present their information as non-trivial (if it actually isn't). Inside a trivia list, even really solid information hangs on by a thread.
If you haven't scrutinzed the proposal yet, I ask that you do -- it respresents a two-month effort to answer many of the same questions you are asking here.--Father Goose 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes the stuff that "makes its way" into trivia lists might at times be inappropriate, just like all the inappropriate stuff that ends up in the rest of an aritcle. That's no reason to ban trivia lists -- although granted it is the EASIEST way out. You should try writing an article on a Simpsons or Family Guy episode sometime. It's material like that which makes not having a trivia section difficult. In comedy there are many random jokes that make obscure references that aren't immediately apparent to viewers. Even Bugs Bunny and the Three Stooges used that type of humor. They have absolutely no relevance to the plot, so forcing them into the synopsis just ends up looking terrible and they end up getting deleted. But they really are interesting things that belong in the article, not only because they're interesting but because viewers generally don't catch all of them, or if they do they don't understand all of them. They are not "apparent facts", things that can be gathered just from watching -- rather, they are obscurities that require explanation. 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that these should be organized as lists; however, they should be organized as targeted lists, such as "cultural references", "cameos", "cutaways", whatever. A "trivia section" is, as I define it, an unfiltered and unorganized list of random facts about the topic, which these are not. Dcoetzee 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
From the guideline: "Avoid creating lists of loosely related information...often "Trivia", "Notes", "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Cultural references", "Cultural depictions", "Subject in popular culture", "Other information", etc." -- The guideline seems to be in disagreement with you. It groups all those into a type of section known as "Trivia", even if the section label doesn't explicitly say Trivia. 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, at this point, it's important to make a distinction between "Cultural references" by the subject and "Cultural references" to the subject. The former can be quite legit -- see this recent featured article: Homer's Phobia. I support "Cultural references" sections, especially for shows like The Simpsons that base so much of their content on them.
On the other hand, "Cultural references" to the subject (aka "In popular culture") are usually "list of things that have mentioned this thing". Very few of the entries in those sections amount to much more than word association. Once in a while they're pruned and groomed to the point where they're useful: Chicago Bears#The Bears in popular culture.
The overall problem is that trivia (and similar) sections are usually poor -- disorganized, random, off-topic. In response to this, there's a de facto ban on them. That's an overreaction, but leaving them in place often causes problems too. Somewhere in the middle is a solution that requires constant application of careful thought and lots of work -- but who the heck wants to do that?--Father Goose 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
In keeping with the above thoughts, I've removed "Cultural references" from the list of "trivia"-type sections.--Father Goose 00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it from the list a number of times. People keep putting it back. :-/ I think this recurring point deserves clarification in the guideline itself. Dcoetzee 00:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a good edit. I think it will allow of a lot of the legitimate list items. Hopefully things won't get out of hand... I foresee a lot of "Trivia" sections being renamed to "Cultural References", but at least then there'll be more grounds for removing irrelevant items. I agree this should perhaps be clarified in the guideline, something that defines just what is being allowed. 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Good job, Dcoetzee, I think that explains things nicely. 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia/Relevance example

I was just passing by and noticed this relevance debate. If you would like an example to discuss, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this addition [2] It's probably 100% true. It's not sourced but probably could be. But in my opinion it is so banal a fact that I can't imagine it ever being of any use to anyone. - X201 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a borderline case to me. I personally find it sort of interesting and it may affect the demographics of their fan base. Dcoetzee 08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I think in that example, that info could be integrated into another section. You should be able to find a ref that suggests the effect of this fact on the fan base, which you could then mention in the article. I think that would make a nice addition to a paragraph section. That's just this particular example though. 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a true encyclopedia

When more and more institutions of higher education are banning citations of wikipedia in collegiate papers, it just shows that wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia. The removal of trivia sections is just one more instance in which wikipedia has decided to take itself way too seriously!

WIKI! This user believes Wikipedia takes itself too seriously at times

Chanceinator 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Well, at that level, many instructors won't let students use any general-purpose encyclopedias as cited references — the idea being that encyclopedias (and other tertiary sources) should be starting points, not ending points, for research. I don't see that as really an argument against trying to produce a collaboratively edited, serious encyclopedia. Whether or not Wikipedia can be explicitly cited, many people in higher education do use it to obtain a generally useful overview of a subject; including swaths of trivia only hurts our reputation in that respect. — TKD::Talk 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This guideline concerns article organization, not inclusion standards. Even Uncyclopedia prefers well-written articles. Dcoetzee 02:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You bash Wikipedia for not being trusted as a reference and then you bash it for taking itself too seriously. One is the remedy for the other. You can't berate both at the same time. 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I work in a university and I recommend wikipedia for background reading, while banning it as a citation reference for the very simple reason that the article cited may change tomorrow, which is not the case for any other reference accepted90.11.62.116 11:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You can cite specific, unchangeable versions of an article (look at the "history" tab). However, you still have no guarantee that any article, or part of it, might not be utter fabrication.--Father Goose 02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia2

After seeing someone delete a {{trivia}} because the section was not called Trivia (it is called Appearances in other media), I've created {{Trivia2}} for these types of sections, so as to avoid confusion and deletion. Please take a look and comment on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is, strictly speaking, not a trivia section - the primary concern is relevance. Unless you're claiming that the section needs to be more focused. Dcoetzee 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia adds value

Generally, I try to refrain from beating dead horses (and yes, this talk page is littered with equine corpses). However, I'm increasingly noticing that as I go around Wikipedia, "trivia sections" are deleted wholesale or flagged, and the reference is to a "consensus" which it seems obvious (judging by this talk page alone) does not exist. There are a number of valid arguments for and against trivia sections, but for me the overriding concern was that they add value to articles. They are one of the things that, apart from merely imparting information, makes Wikipedia more enjoyable to read than a traditional encyclopedia.

I feel, as others also seem to, that Wikipedia is destroying something of value in an effort to pretend to be something it is not. Instead of asking how to live without trivia sections, or with integrating the so-called trivia into the main article -- why not ask ourselves why having these sections is bad? "Because traditional encyclopediae don't have them" seems a poor excuse -- should we also get rid of hyperlinks, talk pages and community participation? -Stian 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I largely agree with that. However, trivia sections should be kept under control so they don't become bloated. This trivia policy basically says to avoid and minimize trivia sections and I'm fine with that. -Fnlayson 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Preventing bloat (as in a flood of irrelevant information) should certainly be a goal. How that equates to "avoiding trivia sections", however, escapes me. Trivia sections containing relevant information are not"bloat", although certainly opinions will differ on what is "relevant" to any given article.
  • The practice of tagging, or worse, deleting, trivia sections en masse rather than attempting to remove irrelevant information, integrate the section into the main article or simply leave it alone is also troublesome. This degrades the quality of the article, rather than improve it. Too many anti-trivia "wikicops" seem to ignore the nuances of the policy, and simply act on the assumption that all trivia is bad.

-Stian 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

role of trivia

I don't really mind if people put trivia sections in or not. What worries me though is the idea of integrating it into main articles. The whole point of trivia is it is trivial and unimportant. However if we find anything trivial or unimportant in a main article, we delete it. Wouldn't it be better to keep short trivia sections?90.11.62.116 11:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They're hard to "keep short" -- people come along and add one, then more, and eventually they end up being half the article. I'm pro-trivia, but trivia sections on Wikipedia are all too often disorganized jumbles. Most content that has at least a little bit of significance can usually be organized a bit better, even if it's just in a more-targeted list.--Father Goose 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This is more misunderstanding of what constitutes trivia. Trivia, in the sense of unorganized and unselective lists, is bad because it's just poor article organization. It's bad for the same reason that writing the whole article as one paragraph is bad - we want to present things in a way that lets people find the information they need. Dcoetzee 04:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for responsible editors

Here's the problem. Many editors love to add trivia without regard to the value it adds to the article as an encyclopedia article. These editors are trying to create another IMDb or a "Triviapedia." The next thing you know the Trivia section is huge and mostly junk. They create the mess, and then it's left up to the rest of us to clean up their mess, sorting out the cruft from the substance, trying to integrate where possible, getting rid of copyright violations, etc. For what it's worth, here's my suggestion based on what I've seen work in the past. When serious editors see trivia that they feel has some potential to be integrated (i.e., not obvious cruft) but don't have the time to do it themselves, move it to the article's Talk page. If other editors are serious about keeping the information in the article, then feel free to integrate it. If no one has enough motivation to integrate it after a few months, then delete it from the Talk page. Ward3001 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I regret that Wikipedia will probably never replace IMDB -- too much of what IMDB offers is deemed unencylopedic by too many Wikipedia editors, so we'll always be behind them in many regards. Could you imagine IMDB stripped of "cruft"? It'd be empty.
Okay, on your actual question: there was a time when this guideline did recommend moving trivia to the talk page, but during this discussion, it was more or less agreed that that approach sweeps it under the rug, and is not a real solution.--Father Goose 02:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the argument against moving to the talk page has more to do with the idea that if you have relevant information, it's better to present it in an unorganised format than not at all. On the other hand, it's certainly reasonable to move material of questionable relevance to the talk page. Dcoetzee 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am vehemently against the trivia section, mostly because children/teenagers abuse it. They add useless information like how many times the lead male character kisses the lead female character. I found such an entry in the Ned's Declassified Survival Guide. Another thing they do is add trivia about a particular episode when it references something in pop culture. It is pointless. It never ends with them. I say if you can't incorporate it into the main article then it's not important. Fighting for Justice 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The very first ever trivia in Wikipedia.

Just out of curiosity: Who is the first Wikipedian ever to come up with an idea of having trivia sections in Wikipedia's articles and which article is the first one alleged to have contain trivia? Nobody seems to be inquiring about this. 13:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by On Wheezier Plot (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, that's a trivia question. We avoid them. ;-p I believe the very first edits on Wikipedia are lost forever, although it ought to be possible to download a database dump and do a query to find the first remaining "Trivia" section. That is no trivial task.--Father Goose 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)