Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Dealing with old trivia on mature articles

I have proposed a strategy for dealing with trivia sections on mature articles; see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A nontrivial matter of Trivia. There's no reason for a mature article to have a Trivia section in the article body, and in most cases the {{Trivia}} tags are completely ignored.

I suggest that in cases where no maintenance has been performed for some months, these sections ought to be moved to the article talk page, from which interested parties can carry out the merger of any useful information at their leisure. Frankly, it doesn't seem likely that these trivia sections will ever be merged into the article prose or filtered to remove cruft otherwise.

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. See my comments above. If Trivia sections are supposed to be an intermediate step toward integration into the article and the trivia is not integrated for months (or even years), it doesn't deserve to remain in the article itself. Move it to the talk page. As I said above, it's easy for trivia proponents to add it with no intention of integrating into the article, but it's a lot harder for those of us trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines to clean up the mess. And I think it's not a valid argument that the issue has been discussed in the past with no consensus. Ward3001 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. Occasionally I find one of these tumors and just lop it off, but moving them to the talk page so useful parts can be salvaged seems like a good idea too. Nandesuka 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat support. I just tear them out, or at least the parts that I know to be completely unsalvageable. Moving them to talk would be OK, but I think some of them are so obvious that they can be just lost. DreamGuy 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

trivia rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah a random list of interesting and relivant trivia is indeed encyclopedia material. After all the trivia list is mearly abridged paragraphs of information relavant to the article at hand. Utilizations of the item in popular culture, how the item has influenced or been influntial in other items that itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.149 (talk)

Switch to Essay status

As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. ... Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments."

The controversy surrounding the Trivia guideline reflects an utter lack of consensus, and therefore this project should no longer be classified as a guideline. Guidelines are supposed to reflect a consensus. A consensus may once have been present, but that fact has certainly changed.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, I have seen very few objections from anyone who actually read the guideline. The typical objection is "OMG you want to delete all the trivia" or "stop putting those templates everywhere" or "why do you hate lists", which have nothing at all to do with it. If some people would raise some reasonable objections that would be a different matter. Dcoetzee 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Read through this talk page and its archives. I'm not basing the lack of consensus on objections in individual articles. 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This project is an essay. It is in *Category:Wikipedia essays*. And it says so, at the bottom of the page, since just about anything can be an essay, or a supplemental essay. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Point being what? 02:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been no explanation of a consensus for the changes User:Equazcion makes here on the projectpage. Rather, there is opposition to such changes at this time. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying we need a consensus on the fact that there's no consensus? And why would a change from "Essay" to "Supplemental essay", as you did, fix that? 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I am saying that there is no consensus for the changes you have made, a number of times now today. What about the #supplementary essay template#, as a compromise, or #WP:NOTAG# as a compromise, or do you have something else in mind? Or why not leave it alone for now, until other User(s) rightfully comment, and a consensus is discernible, other than the one that might be asserted with no evidence. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The changes I have made are due to a lack of consensus. So if you're saying we need a consensus to prove that, you're saying we need a consensus on the fact that there's no consensus, which is ridiculous and unattainable. The trivia guideline has been a never-ending argument for a good amount of time now. I'm fine with making it a "Supplemental essay", although I fail to see how that would be a compromise between "Guideline" and "Essay". But I'm not opposed to that at all, if it really can be considered a supplement to something else. You just need to specify what it is a supplement to. You had left that parameter blank when you made the edit. 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will be leaving the project page the way it is presently, until there is some useful input from other users. And I can get back to editting in mainspace. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmnn. As the creator of this "project", as you seem to put it, I first point out that most trivia is not easily verified/cited and are most likely wrong. I hope no one will argue that putting wrong information in an encyclopedia article is right. I really do not understand an objection to avoiding trivia sections. Ive been reading through these talk pages- the principal reason for keeping is that because they are fun. If you would like a nice diversion watch TV, dont read an encyclopedia article. Also, I would like to point out that most people only say things when they disagree not when they agree. --Osbus 02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When I want to switch to the main article, I click on the "project page" tab at the top of this page. That's where the word "project" comes from. I don't think anyone can say across the board that all trivia sections are simply wrong. And this isn't an argument for or against trivia sections -- it's simply the observation that there is no consensus on the subject. This matter is a controversy, and a guideline is supposed to reflect the opposite. 03:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying there is no consensus for this is absurd. I've seen discussions all across Wikipedia, in AfDs, on WikiProject talk pages, trying to get people to avoid using trivia sections and embed that information in a better place. This is a guideline. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussions and AfD's, with some people trying to get others to avoid trivia sections based on this guideline. That means a consensus? I think that would be defined as argument. Argument doesn't mean consensus, it means the opposite. And again, take a look through this page and its archives. I don't see how this is a consensus. 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You won't find a consensus from those talk pages alone. Often times the talk page of a guideline becomes the complaints department of anyone who even has the slightest disagreement with something, including the often misunderstanding that this guideline suggests deleting relevant information. You won't find people randomly coming across to the page of a guideline and going "oh, by the way, I totally think this rules!". It stands to reason to see more complaints than supporting messages. People who like something are not motivated to start a discussion saying they like it, and most of them won't even be watching this talk page. A trivia section has, in most situations, simply become a "misc" dumping ground for odd facts, that are better presented in the article in another form. If you don't believe me that this isn't a guideline, then find an FA with a trivia section. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Granted talk pages generally see complaints, more than neutral discussion or praise, but the topic of trivia has seen more of that than any other guideline. Look at this talk page -- this is more than a few individual complaints. All the arguments here are about the same thing, and it's a pretty distinct disagreement between a lot of editors. As for an FA with a Trivia section? There wouldn't be an FA with a trivia section, of course, because this guideline has become, despite its title, a "Trivia sections are banned" policy. So any article that has a trivia section is in violation of the guideline and can't be a FA. So you're using the effect of the guideline as proof of the guideline being rational, which makes no sense. Besides which, the rationale for the guideline isn't my point. My point is the lack of consensus, which we are demonstrating right now. 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Right now, we are demonstrating some sort of consensus, that the projectpage is useful, and is a part of the Manual of Style, and is a style guideline which some, at least, User(s) are content with. That is some sort of consensus, but disagreed with by one editor, presently. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(triple edit conflict) This page was created in May 2006 and promoted to a guideline in August of that year; hundreds of FAs were promoted before then. The issue of trivia sections was raised in FA candidacies previously, simply because a loose list doesn't qualify as "brilliant prose" required by the featured article criteria. When gauging the status quo without an explicit invitation to discussion, there is often a significant body of editors who implicitly agree with the way things are. In this case, {{trivia}} is used on thousands of articles (over 5,000), so people are certainly aware of this guideline, and trying to apply it. — TKD::Talk 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I won't pretend I'm willing to go looking through the FA articles rated prior to this guideline, but what you said makes sense. However your argument still doesn't say anything about a consensus. People follow guidelines because they're supposed to. The guideline template says so. If people don't agree with a guideline, do you expect them to simply not follow it? Especially people working towards getting articles rated GA or FA will follow the guidelines and not make a big deal if they disagree, simply to get the article rated well. Those who have enough of a problem with the guideline to care will argue on the guideline's talk page, which they have done and are doing. I've gotten rid of Trivia sections myself and integrated some items into the prose of other sections. That doesn't mean I agree with the guideline. It just means I respect the guidelines that are in place -- as long as they truly reflect a consensus, as they are supposed to. 05:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The advice from this guideline improves the majority of articles that apply it. People don't usually follow guidelines they disagree with. Sometimes people bitch about it here (and even then, they are often objecting to deletion of relevant information, which this guideline does not encourage). That pretty much sums it up. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
←I think that part of the problem is that there used to be a semi-common habit of splitting off bad trivia into a separate article in preparation for GA/FA, and then to quickly revert any new additions of miscellanea to the main article, since it was more or less comprehensive already. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add to this guideline a few diffs of successful re-orgranization to reinforce that ideally the useful facts in these lists can and should be sourced and organized logically. — TKD::Talk 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Ideally? You emphasize that is if there are other non-ideal situations to be allowed for. What is supposed to happen if the ideal solution you describe is not feasible? And what "problem" are you referring to? The problem of disagreement of the subject of Trivia sections? Because that would mean that you're conceding to there being a non-consensus on the subject. 05:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not lawyering. It's quite simple: TKD described a possible solution to a problem with the general acceptance of this guideline, when really you were trying to convince me that there was no problem. So which is it? Do enough people have a problem with this guideline that it needs to be edited (yet again)? Or were you just going to change it for me and the select few others who according to you have some irrational problem with it? 06:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
He suggested adding examples to help people better understand the guideline, and you tried turned that around to say that the guideline had no consensus. An improvement to expressing the advice is not the same as saying something is bad advice, or that we should not be giving this advice. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case then how does that address the concern of consensus? I'm saying there's no consensus, and TKD is suggesting the addition of examples. Are you saying that the problem is that people just don't understand the guideline, and that's why there's no consensus? Or were you abandoning this issue altogether and just offering a suggestion for improving the guideline? 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
TKD's suggestion did not comment on consensus. The misunderstanding doesn't come from the guideline, it comes from the old trivia page (Wikipedia:Trivia, since moved to Wikipedia:Handling trivia) and often the actions of other users who might be citing this guideline. I've already explained to you that there is a consensus for this guideline, and I've further tried to explain to you that someone's suggestion to improve the guideline does not mean there is a lack of consensus. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I know you've explained it. You've explained your opinion. As I've explained mine -- that there is no consensus. If the suggestion had nothing to do with consensus then it had nothing to do with this discussion. 06:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate that I don't think most of the people of the people who post complaints on this page leave dissatisfied. Most of the time, they're either complaining about someone treating something as a trivia section which isn't one, misunderstanding what the policy suggests to do, or that sort of thing. The guideline itself is not really controversial. Find one person who has an ongoing objection to this guideline, and I will reassure them. Dcoetzee 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate my disagreement. Maybe I shouldn't have made that last archive; then maybe my argument would be more convincing, since every time someone responded here they'd have to scroll down through an additional 90k of arguments about this issue. 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The "disagreements" arising here are no different from those arising on, e.g., Wikipedia talk:No original research. I've read every argument ever posted to this page and most people came away not with the continuing belief that the guideline is bad but a clearer understanding of it and what it hopes to accomplish. Sometimes the guideline was modified to clarify or repair issues raised by these people. They do not represent a consensus to modify its status, they are simply part of a regular review process. Dcoetzee 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Dcoetzee said- the "additional 90k of arguments about this issue" ,which Ive read despite my not contributing, is mostly complaining and such and is usually sorted out...at any rate, Im glad, Equazcion, that your making an attempt to uphold some sort of enforcement over what constitutes what in WP, more editors like you are needed...maybe your efforts are better suited elsewhere. --Osbus 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to concede, as it does look like similar lengthy arguments go on elsewhere. Personally I still think the Trivia disagreement is a far more focused argument with clearly-defined sides. But I'm not going to even try to prove that. I think that if this project were to be submitted for acceptance as a guideline today, for the first time, it would need to be rejected due to lack of consensus. Again I won't try to prove that -- it's just my feeling. I'm therefore also concerned in a broader sense that there should be a process for revisiting previously-accepted guidelines, at a set interval or via the support of enough editors, to make sure that the present set of guidelines really still do represent a consensus. A consensus is something that can change; A one-time acceptance shouldn't necessarily be permanent. 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: create new Mediawiki project for trivia/cultural references material

I've posted a proposal over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals), but I guess many people here don't watch that page. Copy pasted here for reference, since it'll soon be archived off that page:

Firstly, apologies if this idea has been discussed before, but I skimmed through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections and found nothing resembling it. I merely want to float the idea and let wiser heads debate and decide on its merit.

As a contributor/editor at the level of making the order of tens of edits a week, I often run across debates over the inclusion of trivia sections or "references in popular culture" sections in articles. The thought occurred to me:

We have Wiktionary for dictionary definitions, Wikinews for current events, Wikiquote for quotations, Wikibooks for "how-to" material, Wikitravel for travel guides, and so on - none of which fit into Wikipedia under existing policy guidelines. Yet they are integrated enough that a simple cross-reference link can refer the reader to additional material in these associated projects, if they choose to follow them.

My proposal: Create Wikiculture. Allow this to be a repository of cultural references to things. Move existing trivia and "in popular culture" sections into Wikiculture and cross-link to them in the same way that Wikitravel, Wikiquote, etc. are linked into Wikipedia articles. Any trivia deemed important enough to remain in the Wikipedia article (i.e. not really trivia) should be integrated into the article rather than migrated.

In practice:

Advantages:

  • Removes these sections from Wikipedia, in accordance with WP:TRIVIA.
  • Retains trivia and popular culture sections for the benefit of those who value them.
  • Provides a suitable location for adding such material.
  • May grow into a repository of cultural trivia that many readers may well find interesting and valuable, but that is currently being excluded from Wikipedia.

Disadvantages:

  • Requires new Wikimedia project to be set up. (I have no idea how difficult this is.)
  • Requires education of Wikipedia editors and transmigration of much data (though this will naturally occur incrementally as part of the inherent growth and modification of Wikimedia projects).
  • May be some confusion over what qualifies as Wikipedia material versus Wikiculture material. (May be no worse than current confusion over adding material to the article proper or to an existing trivia section within it.)

I'm sure there are many other points to raise, both in favour and against. I trust the Wiki community to discuss and make a suitable decision.

-dmmaus 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time or energy to devote to the process of jumping through the admin hoops to get this done, so if anyone wants to champion it, please take the reins. (And if it's really a bad idea, by all means ignore me. I just wanted to make the idea public to see if it could catalyse something worthwhile.) -dmmaus 03:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. It would be a great compromise for those who like to read Trivia sections and are upset at their removal from Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately I too am completely uncertain of how to proceed with the creation of an entirely new Wikimedia project (ps. the term you're looking for is Wikimedia, the name of the foundation to which Wikipedia and the other public wikis you mentioned belong -- Mediawiki is just the name of the wiki software they use). Perhaps you should ask Jimbo on his talk page -- this may interest him, and he may be able to help get things rolling. 05:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The place to get this started is http://incubator.wikimedia.org (oh good, you've found it already). Jimbo won't respond, he doesn't oversee the launching of new wikipedias.
Something like this could probably succeed, provided its proponents were prepared to do a tremendous amount of recruiting and work. (User:DGG might be willing to undelete these for transwiki'ing to help get things started. Maybe.) Then hunt down every other big "pop culture" list or article and transwiki that, and add an external link to it. And keep a credit on each transwikied page to note where the material came from to keep it compliant with the GFDL. A "test project" won't be enough; you've got to start doing it and never stop, and seduce dozens of people into doing it with you. And overcome the opposition that you're likely to get from at least some trivia-haters and even lovers who don't want all trivia removed from en.wikipedia itself. Then it would work. Got the next 18 months free?--Father Goose 01:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Left this at the Village Pump proposal already:
Thanks to Father Goose for getting me started.
Just thought I'd get it started. I hope others will follow and discuss/help move this along.
01:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure how much constant work this would take. Once the project was accepted, I think trivia sections would start getting hauled over there by the truckload. All the Trivia haters would see it as a quick and easy fix -- cause then they could just tell everyone "Moved this Trivia section to WikiTrivia, 'cause that's what it's there for." And with the vast popularity of Trivia among internet users in general, I think those articles would grown at a staggering pace. So I say, once it's up, it'll self-sustain. That's just my thought though, and I could be wrong.
PS. The project still needs to be officially posted as a proposal, by someone willing to take responsibility for (spearhead) it, at meta:Proposals for new projects. Feel free anyone.
To discuss/support the WikiTrivia project, go here: meta:Talk:WikiTrivia. Thanks. 02:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This whole idea sounds good to me. I'm a big supporter of this guideline, but I do think that trivia is often interesting and useful. It has crossed my mind a couple of times that this information could be put somewhere else that has a less formal tone. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 02:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiTainment for Trivia & Popular Culture?

  • Personally, I don’t know how well a trivia-oriented wiki would go over. During a debate over how to handle trivia some time back I did raise the idea of a broader approach to entertainment-related subject material. I called it “Wikitainment”. The idea was to capture things like film, theatre, music, sports, games, trivia, etc. – the sort of topics that tend to gather fancruft – into an area less focused on what’s encyclopedic than Wikipedia. Such a wiki would by nature be more inclusive. Any thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A WikiTainment wouldn't be a bad idea either, but I'm not sure how well that would co-exist with the articles on the same topics in Wikipedia. I think only one version of each article would end up getting updated regularly. There would be too much redundancy. I think the WikiTrivia/WikiCulture project would be a better use of a separate project, as there would be a clearer distinction between what belongs there and what belongs in Wikipedia articles -- without the redundancy. 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The idea would be to migrate much of those sections over to WikiTainment. Articles in the latter would crosswikilink to WP "encyclopedic" articles and WP articles could likewise refer to trivia and "popular culture" articles there. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If trivia and pop culture is all that would be there anyway, then that's basically the same idea as the WikiTrivia project. 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to read

This is how babelfish translated the opening section of *Wikipedia:Svuota la sezione curiosità* from the italian:wikipedia —

Wikipedia:Svuota the section curiosity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Reindirizzamento from Wikipedia:Evita the section curiosity) You go to: Navigation, tries Abbreviations: Wikipedia:CURIOSITA Wikipedia:CURIOSITA' Wikipedia:CURIOSITÁ Some voices group of the isolated information (lacking in sources) in sections often called "Curiosity", but also "Miscellanea", "Other information", or other; siccome wikipedia it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, avoids to organize the voice as a series of facts isolates to you on the argument and empties this type of the following sections second "directives". The present guide does not mean to disquisire if these facts are effectively curious notes or if the curiosities go less inserted or in a voice than encyclopedia, but simply the way in which these facts it would have to be organizes you to the inside of the voice. Motivations and limits [ modification ] the lists of several information can be useful for the development of a voice, from the moment that induce the less expert customers to insert new information, simply adding them to the directory, without need to think next to the total organization of the voice and next to the way to introduce the information. Man hand but that the text makes more corposo these lists becomes unmanageable, disorganized and difficult to read.

Instead of loosely related, would "isolated information (lacking in sources)" work on thispage? Newbyguesses - Talk 05:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. If you're just concerned that it's difficult to read, I wouldn't base the readability of any article on a Babelfish translation. Most automated translations are extremely far from perfect. Try translating just about any other text and you'll get similar nonsense. I'm sure someone who speaks Italian will tell you that the article is much more readable than this translation would have you believe. 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all lists are Trivia sections

Centrx removed this section, and I reverted that edit. Just a quick explanation: This section originated because it seems to NOT be obvious to many editors. Many see a list section and automatically think that since it's not made up of prose, it needs to be removed. Therefore this is important to point out. Please don't remove it -- even if it may seem obvious to you.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This section, which has now been removed again by User:Matthew, should remain in the article, it is about focussed, as opposed to un=focussed lists. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Matthew seems to think that pop-culture references made BY a work are also considered trivia. A consensus was somewhat established on this a while back though. See the section of this talk page called "Relevance proposal". There were no objections at the time. 07:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think, I know. I checked that discussion... I don't see a consensus. Anyway, you should get a consensus for your addition :). Matthew 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you think. Just like I think. Don't be arrogant. Anyway, anyone who objects, please say so here and discuss it instead of editing the guideline again. We've already got about 4 editors that are for the section (myself, Dcoetzee, Father Goose, Newbyguesses) and 2 that are against it (Matthew and Centrx). Not that Wikipedia is a democracy, but, just saying. ;) 08:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to the Bad Example in the section; a list of unobvious pop-culture references made by a television episode is trivial. I'll remove the example; find a better one, please. --Jack Merridew 13:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion at "Relevance proposal"? I feel it provides a pretty good description of the non-trivial nature of that particular example. 14:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm for retaining the "not all lists are trivia" section, but the single example provided is insufficient. At the very least, it should include more examples of "focused lists" that are not in need of cleanup. Without a balanced set of examples, I'd suggest leaving off the examples altogether.--Father Goose 15:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The example was just the only one that came to my mind at the time and I'm not particularly attached to it. Please retain the section and edit the list of examples as needed. Dcoetzee 22:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it POV to not include trivial details

An editor in a discussion that I'm involved with (a biography to be specific) is stating that it would be POV to not include trivial details that a reliable source has deemed "important enough" to publish. This is essentially a case of sourced trivia. Reading this guideline there seems like there should be editorial discretion in biographies including whether to include trivia even if it's sourced. But is using that editorial discretion POV? AgneCheese/Wine 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is always editorial discretion. You have to work it out on the talkpage of the article. It is best if there are at least three, preferably more, editors who have knowledge of the situation, and are prepared to participate. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Trivia refers to a format of presenting facts (as far as this guideline is concerned). Trivial details can (not must) be presented if the source material deems them worthy; they just shouldn't be presented in a broad non-selective list format, even if the source material presents them that way. No, this isn't a matter of POV -- unless the omission of certain facts serves to promote one particular viewpoint over another. Disagreeing with the source on which items deserve inclusion is not in itself POV. Wikipedia articles are not required to include every fact presented in their sources. 09:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the issue is an article on an individual whose one notable act was being murdered and massively grieved online by complete strangers. I am having an editorial disagreement with two editors on whether or not trivial details such as the elementary school reprimand she got as a little girl or the fact that she cut off her hair for charity should be included in her biography. These trivial details were written about as part of a "character piece" by a newspaper and online magazine and neither that source or any of the other sources make the connection that these trivial details had a role in "triggering or facilitating" the mass grieving, they're just character notes. I would think that in writing an encyclopedia biography, some editorial discretion would be used and there is not a need to record every bit of information that was ever published by a secondary source. However two other editors are claiming that is POV to not include information that these other sources deemed "important enough" to publish. I consider it a comparison to the the USA today character piece last week on Karl Rove which noted that he and George W. Bush use the same deodorant after Rove let Bush borrow his once on the campaign trail. Trivia like that is "important enough" to warrant mention when a journalist is trying to fill up word space but it's not really something that should be in an encyclopedia biography. But is that discretion POV? AgneCheese/Wine 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP and WP:HARM give the clearest instructions on inclusion of personal details.--Father Goose 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not POV at all. POV has nothing to do with selecting what's important enough to include in the article. POV means the use of slanted language, or that the omission or inclusion of certain facts serves to slant the article towards a particular viewpoint, especially for a controversial subject. Choosing whether or not to include character details about a murder victim, when there is not even any argument over the character of the person, has absolutely nothing to do with NPOV guidelines. It's just a matter of notability. That having been said, notability is still something you'll need to discuss with the other editors and hopefully come to some kind of consensus. But going by your description of the situation, I see the argument of discretion being POV as being completely invalid. In that situation I would tell those editors that this is an argument of notability, and they should need to present some kind of reasoning for those details to be included in the article. And, THAT having been said, I would agree with your side of that argument, as least going by your description above. Those details are trivial and don't belong in the article, if you ask me.
Your opponents seem to think that it's not our job to decide which details we take from the source, and that if the source includes those details then we must as well. But that's not the case at all. As editors it is our job to decide what we take from the source and insert into the article, and what need not be there. 21:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See also

It seems to me the guidance provided on thisprojectpage could be enhanced by incorporating more of the See Also list into the body of the text at appropriate places. Not all of these items are suitable, here's the current lott - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a trivia collection Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup - a WikiProject designed to clean up long lists of trivia in articles. Wikipedia:Handling trivia - an essay on trivia in Wikipedia, what it is and how it should be handled. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles - an essay on "Popular culture" articles. Wikipedia:Relevance of content - a proposed guideline on when material is relevant to an article. Template:Trivia Category:Cleanup templates Category:Articles with trivia sections

Can these, or some of them, be written into the text, expanding it, in a useful way? Any suggestions? Newbyguesses - Talk 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd go in the opposite direction: I feel that the whole thing could be cut down to two-thirds its current length. Given how many chefs are crowded around the pot, though, I doubt that could actually be accomplished.--Father Goose 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Though WP:NOT has this about Trivia collections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility. And that is it. So, either the extreme minimilist position works, or else thispage needs more specific information. And if thispage is too long, but is missing useful information, then some of the current material may be inferior, and need to be replaced. I think some adjustment of the text is in order, and the See also section is too long, and the items there are too varied. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I vehemently oppose this guideline

WP:IDONTLIKEIT was around before this and had already nailed it:

...but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted.'

What constitutes trivia to be included and what doesn't can NOT be fundamentally ended with a overgeneralized guideline, but rather should be determined in every case. Just look at this talk page; there's far from concensus here.--Loodog 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(sigh). Please reread the guideline. It's not "avoid trivia," it's "avoid trivia sections." It's not about what content is appropriate, but rather, how to best organize information. Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps it should be renamed "Better ways to organize trivia" and inform editors what counts as trivia so they can better organize it. --Pixelface 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is prose better than bullet points?

Why is prose better than bullet points? DAVID CAT

  • It's
  • organization
  • a question
  • of

--Father Goose 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean just because lists have the tendency to become out-of-order?
I think it's more because everyone wants the articles they're involved in to be beautiful works of written art. The FA standard perpetuates that way of thinking, as one of the FA requirements is "brilliant prose". Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to just convey information -- they're supposed to also be pleasing to the eye and consist of high-quality writing. Those aren't necessarily bad goals, in a general sense. 22:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not - often lists are the best way to organize something. See Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections#Not_all_lists_are_trivia_sections. Dcoetzee 22:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Dcoetzee: It would be fair of you to note the bit of guidance you are citing is a section you inserted.[1].
Lists by nature don't aid readability. Lists are only worth having when they convey a point better than prose would. The average "trivia section" is simply bad writing that does not make a point. Furthermore, the sort of information that works best in lists (for example, a table of programmable remote control codes, or a list of memorable quotes) tends to be WP:NOT#DIR, and tends to not be very readable. / edg ☺ ★ 23:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
See Also Wikipedia:Lists -- (which has) : Lists have three main purposes: Information Navigation and
Development -- (Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.)
So yes, some lists are very useful. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and these 3 examples are clearly not the kind of thing to which the term trivia section addresses. (Or at least used to address, since I have not read this guideline today.) / edg ☺ ★ 01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the section long before this question was raised, in response to a similar misunderstanding by another person. I was responding to the OP. Dcoetzee 00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the diff to indicate when your addition to this guideline was made, in hopes of heading off any type of implied accusation. What I wanted to say is the section you cited does not by its mere presence make a strong argument for your position.
Much of that paragraph currently explains how lists not labeled as "trivia" are still bad per this guideline. The part to which you were probably referring — [a] selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information — is IMO vague and debatable, since many so-defined lists (selectively populated and narrowly defined) can be better written as prose. FWIW, I wasn't crazy about the original wording either.
Sorry to personalize this; I'm really just trying to say I don't agree with everything implied by the statement often lists are the best way to organize something. As Newbyguesses points out above, some lists are useful, but my position is not as inclusive of actual content arranged as lists. / edg ☺ ★ 01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into what I say. I'm making only very obvious and noncontentious claims, such as "sometimes information is better presented in a list than prose". In any case that has nothing to do with this guideline, which is not "anti-list" as the OP seems to assume. Dcoetzee 11:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
All right, my reply was not very illuminating. For "facts", prose is best, because you can weave those facts into a story. Lists are good for a group of related items that don't lend themselves to a coherent story. Breaking up what could be a coherent story (or several, given the miscellany that appears in trivia lists) produces a poor list like the one I put above.--Father Goose 00:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would you want to obscure facts into a "story"? When I look something up, I want to be able to quickly find the fact I'm looking for, not to sit down in front of a fire with a glass of whisky and read a good story during the entire dark and stormy night. Mlewan 08:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Try to quickly find the fact you're looking for from this list. Most of those belong in the Cast and Production sections, or in other articles altogether.--Father Goose
The problem with that article is that it is not well written or structured. The problem is not that it does not contain enough "story". There are parts of the Trivia section I think should stay exactly where they are. In bullet points. Unless I am missing something, the solution for that article is to work on it, not to point to some guideline, which only half applies. Mlewan 06:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Still it was (+1, Funny). (Using the Slashdot moderation scale.) / edg ☺ ★ 01:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I am agreeing with Father Goose here, where facts and a story are available, a list is not an appropriate way to organize the information, it just muddies the presentation. Proper lists have other uses, some of which I just previously mentioned. The list of footnotes and references at the end of a reliably-sourced article is another example of such a useful list. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that this policy is a real shame. Sometimes the trivia lists are the most interesting part of articles.
They are lists of interesting nuggets of information which, if they were to be included into the body of the text, would require the inclusion of a level of detail that would detract from the interest of the piece as a whole.
There is no need for wikipedia to impersonate printed encyclopaedias. The democratic collective nature of its creation will give rise to a great breadth and depth of material. Where is the imperative to weave this wisdom into a single authorial narrative? Let interest, the joy of the reading be the acid test.
This policy is a big pretentious mistake, fuelled by fear of libel. --Timtak 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In some cases, the trivia can actually be moved into existing sections with little or no modifications. Vegaswikian 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not really the point though is it. I think Timtak makes many good points. But seeing as the mobs have seen fit to impose their pretensions on everyone else, no point is likely to make any difference. We make talk page comments and they make guidelines and templates. This is a primary complaint by Wikipedia's critics -- its mob rule mentality -- and it's really a shame. 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"The mobs" didn't write WP:5P, WP:NOT or WP:ENC. Timtak's "points", beyond stating his personal preference, don't really make much sense. If one dislikes the rules here, there are other sites where one can write without them. There are plenty of online experiments with democracy/anarchy, and Wikipedia is not one of them. There are plenty of spaces for free expression, and Wikipedia is not one of those either.
Why aren't you telling http://www.google.com they don't need to be a such a search engine all the time? / edg ☺ ★ 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of a reason to dignify that with an answer. 07:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. / edg ☺ ★ 07:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I could swear that's an answer up there, and an emotional one at that. And when responding please, no personal attacks. Asking me why I'm here is really uncalled for. Thanks. 07:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For the clear presentation of parallel items of information, lists are the preferred style--at least for those of us accustomed to a more technical or scientific manner of writing, or the social sciences. As a special format, some lists are actually presents as tables--an extremely clear form for parallel sets of information, and one well suited for web browsers (though much more difficult expensive in the old print days). Many "paragraph" style WP articles are written as a series of individual disconnected sentences, which is probably the least readable way generally betraying a total lack of organization.
there are really four questions One, whether the presentation of various types of X in popular culture, or influences of X, or trivia about X, material is encyclopedic at all. Two to what extent it can be sourced directly from the primary material the way plots are, three, whether it should be in separate sections, or separate articles, and Four, whether it should be in paragraphs, lists , or tables. these are really different issues. The fundamental issue in the first one. The second should be as appropriate to the medium, the third is generally just a question of how much material there is, and the fourth, of the nature of what is being said. I'd suggest the following approach:
  1. that Influences of X is recognized as always potentially encyclopedic,
  2. that content is considered worthy of inclusion if it is included in WP otherwise. e.g., if a film is significant enough for an article, then its use of a major theme is significant content to be included
  3. that it normally be divided into different sections for the different types of influences or media, generally separating literature, film, art, on the one hand from video, games and manga, (on the basis of the different expectations for sourcing)
  4. that sourcing be permitted by quotation form the primary sources at least for some of the types, such as video games
  5. located either in the main article, a single separate article, or multiple separate articles according to the quantity of material
  6. presented as paragraphs for a general discussions, followed by paragraphs for individual items to the extent there is sufficient discussion about such items to make a lit format difficult, but as tables or lists otherwise,
  7. that miscellaneous trivia be a separate matter, always to be integrated into articles, never called "trivia" and generally presented as a list.

DGG (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So, why is prose better than bullets?

Lets address the text of the guideline, and any *complaints* from the customers, eh? The staff can complain on their own time, please. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Staff? Customers? What are you talking about? 07:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Prose is not better than bullets. However, a jumble of miscellaneous facts is bad organization. That usually comes up as a bulleted list, but as WP:HTRIV says, prose consisting of disconnected facts is even worse. The guideline contains a section on this: lists are not necessarily trivia. And it never says that prose is better than a list. The closest the guidleine comes to saying something like that is where it mentions integrating items into text before it mentions creating narrowly-focused lists. However, I think that's appropriate. Although it is probably more useful to change trivia sections into selective lists, the items that can really be integrated into text are likely the most important ones. But rewording that part might be all right. However, I don't really see the point, since all the people who complain here seem to disregard what is actually written in the guideline. Mangojuicetalk 14:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
IT ISN'T BAD ORGANISATION, IT'S GOOD ORGANISATION. sometimes there are facts that are too short to warrant their own section, and couldn't be worked into other sections, but are still notable enough to be included DAVID CAT 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I don't buy that at all. If a fact is really worthy of inclusion, it should be able to be integrated somewhere eventually. If an article doesn't have the framework yet to integrate a worthy fact, the article probably needs to be improved in other ways. And yes, a trivia section is a reasonable place to "store" that fact until that improvement happens, but the point is, that improvement should happen. And if there's a case that is really an exception: hey, this is a guideline, not policy. Mangojuicetalk 12:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. You are assuming that it would be possible to add in the relevant framework without detracting from the article. Take the following for example, which is from the trivia section in Emley Moor transmitting station - a TV transmitter that collapsed in 1969:
  • In 1997, the top 8ft section of the mast was plated in gold leaf and exhibited at the London "British Calamities" exhibition. The mast section has now been split into 16 smaller sections which are awarded each year at the Arqiva Christmas party for calamities within the workplace.
Putting this into the section on the collapse would be going off topic (for the section), adding information on the exhibition itself would be adding largely irrelevant information, and removing the fact from the article would be removing relevant, notable information. Sometimes there are pieces of information relevant to a topic that are not part of a larger body of information on the topic. It's for this reason that I believe trivia sections are a useful addition to articles. James pic 09:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not, and that has nothing to do with this guideline. I'm happy to discuss objections to the guideline and don't support the viewpoints of the anti-list people. Please respond to the responses, don't just repeat yourself. Dcoetzee 22:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus"

It's clear that there is not a clear consensus DAVID CAT 15:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried barking up that tree, David. I think the only thing that will prove the lack of consensus is getting some kind of campaign started, advertising the issue and getting editors who are against the guideline to come forward and fill the talk page. All the present argument seems to not qualify as a "lack of consensus", according to the present ruling mob. 15:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What happened to assume good faith? Vegaswikian 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that there is not widespread support for this part of the Manual of Style, you – or anyone – are free to propose a change. However, since relatively few people watch this particular talk page and since suspending this guideline would represent a fairly major style change, you would need to encourage broad participation. I recommend brief, neutrally-worded summaries of your proposed changes at the Policy subpage of the Village Pump, the centralized discussion box, and the Style subpage of Requests for Comment.
Please refrain from offering arguments (pro or con) on these other pages; doing so only encourages fragmented discussion spread over multiple locations. You'll also likely be more successful – with this proposal and in any project you undertake – if you refrain from assumptions of bad faith and anything with even a whiff of incivility about it. (That means that allusions to a 'ruling mob' are right out.)
Note, of course, that I would tend to disagree with a repeal of this guideline and would almost certainly put together a thorough and detailed rebuttal of any proposal you make of that nature. Nevertheless, I'd be willing to respect the will of the community if it turns out that I've misjudged consensus, based on appropriate consultation as I've described. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily for or against the guideline. I'm just of the opinion that there's no consensus. And seeing someone else point out that fact as being obvious (or "clear"), when its proponents can't or won't see that, makes it difficult to remain in good faith, at times. Apologies to any who were offended. 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
My experience with guidelines and policies on Wikipedia, in general, is as follows.
  1. Editor Smith does something that doesn't comply with Guideline Foo.
  2. Experienced Editor Jones undoes Smith's changes, pointing to Foo. Either Smith accepts and understands Foo, or...
  3. Editor Smith edits Guideline Foo. Smith may also skip directly to Step 5.
  4. Experienced Editor Baker (possibly an admin) reverts changes to Foo, and points Smith to the talk page.
  5. Smith goes to the talk page, and says, "Foo isn't fair or sensible. It should be repealed." Smith notes that there are other, similar notes on the talk page.
  6. Smith declares a consensus to change/repeal Guideline Foo.
  7. Baker, Jones, or someone else reverts Smith, and makes the observation I made in my advice above—few people generally watchlist a subsidiary guideline page, and the only editors likely to comment are those who are upset/annoyed by the guideline. Either Smith accepts this – or decides that changing the guideline is too much effort – or...
  8. Smith goes through the process I describe above, seeking broad participation.
  9. Either consensus to change the guideline is reached (this is rare in the case of a long-established, mature guideline or policy) or consensus in favour of the existing rule is confirmed.
  10. The extensive consultations and discussions and arguments on the talk page get archived.
  11. Editor Smith II comes to the now-nearly-blank talk page because of some future dispute. The process repeats.
I guess what I'm saying is that you need to remember that there's a bias in the sampling that you do of views on a low-traffic policy talk page. The only editors that are likely to show up and go to the trouble of commenting are those who have a problem with the rule in question—assessing community consensus requires broader consultation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Advertising policies and guidelines can be difficult on Wikipedia and I think you're right about the process you've described. This page is likely to get people complaining about the guideline. I think a reasonable place to look for a consensus is the many Wikiprojects and other guidelines that cite this guideline as something that should be followed in order to create good quality articles. One that comes to mind is WP:EPISODE which holds the trivia guideline very highly when recommending actions to create a good quality article. This doesn't definitely say there's a consensus, but it does represent groups of people who accept the trivia guideline and agree with it. I'm all for any forms of finding out the consensus on the issue, but in my humble opinion, there's a good consensus for this guideline. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone's a little confused about exactly what I'm saying. I think there is a definite consensus on a trivia guideline in general -- just not this particular one. It changes too frequently and there are too many arguments about the same exact issue for it to be called a consensus. Sure, a trivia guideline is something almost any experienced editor will support, because they all know the kind of trouble such sections can cause in articles. But there's this gradient of a thousand colors in-between "trivia sections allowed" and "ban all trivia sections" that this guideline is constantly bouncing between. The trivia template further complicates matters. Everyone seems to have a different opinion about what exactly constitutes trivia and what this guideline should say. So yes, there's a consensus -- but not for this. This is just some kind of brainstorm; it seems more like the beginning of an idea than a guideline. 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
All policies change frequently, in little steps. The core idea here -- that trivia sections are a bad way to organize information -- is pretty widely accepted by experienced editors. But it drifts too far into a lot of less-consensual areas, singling out too many types of sections as "trivia" and using "irrelevance" as an open-ended deletion criterion. Those points do have to be taken into account, but the current guideline draws the line against them too sharply.
I guess I agree with your statement that it's the beginning of an idea: people are looking to this page to be our "trivia" policy even though it ultimately dodges that issue.--Father Goose 05:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the idea of integrating trivia sections, but if they can't be integrated, they should stay trivia, not be deleted.DAVID CAT 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In that case you seem to agree with what the guideline says. Dcoetzee 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In theory yes, but not in practice. In practice, editors use this guideline and the associated template to justify the stance that all items in trivia sections must be removed, one way or the other. 23:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
While that's a valid viewpoint for individual editors to have, it's incorrect to cite this guideline in support of that viewpoint when it doesn't support it. I've attempted to clarify this to some extent. Dcoetzee 00:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
See it's difficult to fix an issue like that with an edit to the guideline alone. The template's existence undermines such an effort. According to the template, all trivia sections should be tagged. A tagged section is basically a flawed section. This particular template says that the flaw it's describing is the mere existence of a trivia section; meaning that the only way to remove the tag is to remove the section (or change so it resembles something other than trivia). It makes no mention even of consensus being grounds to remove the tag -- trivia sections by definition must all be tagged, as is the current practice. But try to change the template to fix that, and its proponents refer back to this guideline. Try to complain about the template here, and you'll be told to take it to the template talk page. Something more substantial has to be done. These separate discussions about what is basically a singular issue don't accomplish anything. We need to somehow merge both discussions, so that when you argue about the guideline, you must also argue about the template. Until something like that happens, nothing can change -- barring nomination of the template for deletion, which, like an edit to the template, would garner more attention from people who haven't been in on these discussions than from those who have (since changes/nominations to the template are seen by... everyone), and would blindly vote to keep.
So you see the predicament. 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the issue is that I haven't participated in discussion about the template, which is too strongly worded and perhaps should be used on the talk page instead. I do agree that "a trivia section [in the sense of a disorganized and unselective list] is a flawed section". The difference is one of timeframe - I think unlimited time should be made available in which to clean up the trivia section, because disorganized information is better than no information, and because information may be added as quickly as it is removed. Dcoetzee 01:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but, while you may hold the opinion that trivia sections are flawed, you hold that opinion, as you said, as an individual editor, and can't cite this guideline to support it. Whether or not there's a timeframe, you're saying that you basically DO agree that trivia items need to be removed from trivia sections one way or the other -- yet, as you said previously, this guideline does not support that stance and should not be cited to support it. The template disagrees with the guideline but agrees with you as an individual editor. 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly - the guideline advises against unilateral removal of trivia sections, but supports the gradual process of emptying them by moving the info elsewhere. I think the guideline is very much in line with my personal views but not so much the template. Dcoetzee 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I said: "In practice, editors use this guideline and the associated template to justify the stance that all items in trivia sections must be removed, one way or the other."
  • You said: "... it's incorrect to cite this guideline in support of that viewpoint when it doesn't support it."
  • You're now saying that the guideline supports your stance that trivia items need to be removed one way or the other.
Just pointing out the apparent change.
Anyway, disregarding that: Should a maintenance template be something that stays in an article for an unlimited amount of time? Tags mean that there's something wrong that needs to be fixed. Either something is wrong with trivia sections and they all should tagged for removal, in a timely fashion, or they can be allowed to exist and don't all warrant a template. I don't think this "unlimited-time-template" idea is a viable compromise. 01:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If anyone has a concrete disagreement with the guideline I'd be happy to talk through the issue and modify it accordingly. I don't know when status changes and deletion nominations became a way of expressing disagreement with portions of a guideline, but I'd like to think discussion and revision would be a more effective way of pursuing consensus. Dcoetzee 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there is sufficient reason to call the guideline disputed. That doesnt mean the question is settled, but disputed it certainly is. The question is not just if the guideline should be modified, but whether the basic statement should be reversed or removed. Support for such content as even individual articles is currently running from 20 to 70% at AfD, even though the articles are often of rather poor quality, and the better quarter or so of them are being kept. that's enough to say "disputed". Guidelines usually require a supermajority for consensus, and I don't think this has it. I don't think there's consensus to say rejected however, even though that is my view. The first step is to make clear on the face that there is in fact serious disagreement. DGG (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
And how do we go about making that clear? I think what we need is a consensus on the fact that there's a lack of consensus (ha! too funny). So anyone who agrees that there's no consensus should come forward and say so. And for the future, what we really need is a process that could one day be known as "Guidelines for Demotion" -- which, using an AfD-like process, could determine the community stance for guidelines that may have worn out their consensus. 03:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Be aware of /Archive_3#2nd_poll, which does suggest the guideline has supermajority support, at least among those who pay attention to this page (though I believe notice of the poll was also posted to WP:VPP). Even I by now agree with the core idea, but I don't like the collateral damage it tends to inflict on trivia and pop culture in general.--Father Goose 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had been paying attention to this page back then. Although I'm not sure how I would have voted. About the only thing I'm sure I support about this guideline is its title: "Avoid trivia sections". I think that's all we really need... and if avoiding were all that was going on, everything would be fine, and again I do think there is a consensus for that alone. But we have a template and strict specifics that get too specific -- too specific even for a consensus. A guideline with such broad-reaching implications can't be that specific while still appealing to everyone and being correct for every possible situation. As for the poll, I don't think it properly represents the community's opinion. That's why I think we need the GfD as I suggested above. And barring that, maybe in the meantime a TfD for the {{trivia}} template might have a shot at success. 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont think there is anything that everyone can agree on. for instance, to me, the words "Avoid trivia sections" suggests that I simply avoid reading trivia sections; (but I do realize that it means something else, as a guideline, in Wikipedia, that is needed, and should be as helpful to editors as possible). Newbyguesses - Talk 05:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe... Wouldn't that be funny, if we had guidelines suggesting that people avoid reading certain sections? Sorry I just had to point that out, I found it pretty funny. No offense. 05:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"Spoiler"?--Father Goose 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a guideline dictating when to use spoiler tags, not telling people what not to read; but I guess that's as close as it gets. :) 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As for who was paying attention, this poll ran 30-31 May 2007, shortly after Android_Mouse_Bot had finished adding {{trivia}} tags to about 5000 trivia sections (ending 27 May 2007). One could expect this to be a period where this guideline was already under an unusually high amount of scrutiny from defenders of trivia.
If there ever were a time favorable to objections to this guideline, that would have been it.
Incidentally, at the time of this poll, this guideline looked like this. Although changes by editors hostile to WP:AVTRIV had already begun, I think in the guideline's current state it has drifted from the form it had in the then-consensus, and that this drift is the cumulative result of hostile edits, further from the consensus. / edg ☺ ★ 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one might hypothesize such a thing. But being one of those people who assuredly would have voted in the poll had he known about it, I can say that the mass-tagging did not succeed in grabbing my attention. So I have to still doubt the proper representation there of the community's opinion.
As for the current state of the guideline: Just because a consensus may have been perceived at the time does not mean that changes to the guideline have pushed it further from a consensus. The changes could have pushed the guideline closer to an ever more total consensus, or have had a mostly-neutral effect. There's no evidence of what effect the changes have had on the consensus since the last poll, if any. Except of course for your referring to the edits as hostile. 05:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous proposition.

Putting aside the matter that trivia is a subjective thing, let me just say this:

Wikipedia has a LOT of pop-culture related and entertainment-media related articles. When dealing with such topics, there are certain things that can't really be classified as anything except trivia. That does not make them irrelevant or unsightly or unnecessary, it just makes them trivia. Trivia is not trivial. Trivia is of interest, and essential to any well-constructed entertainment-related article.

I do not necessarily object so much to the idea of advising people to "avoid trivia sections" as I do to the "Trivia is discouraged" placards which are popping up like dandelions ALL OVER Wikipedia. Frankly, these are very annoying and are coming across as more than a little bit militant. Get rid of the template tag to create these obnoxious things and address the issue of trivia sections in the discussion pages without creating a nuisance in the middle of the article itself.

In the meantime, do try to understand that Wikipedia, by virtue of what it is and what it represents, is going to attract trivia. Trying to tell people not to create trivia sections...it's the first step in imposing a lot of unnecessary "restrictions" that will make Wikipedia unappealing and combative.

70.242.254.198 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)A concerned Wiki reader, 9/2/07

If you've been reading this discussion then you already know I agree with you on much of this, at least. The only thing you're doing wrong is you're basically complaining about the trivia template, which you should really do on the template's talk page. You could basically just transplant this comment there. Although they'll probably just tell you to shut up because this guideline supports the template, and lord knows that argument never gets anywhere. But hey, if you try it (again), I'll help you out there. I feel like I'm in Braveheart all of a sudden. 18:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to read through the huge paragraph defending this latest change to essay status now. But until then, here's something interesting to consider:
If you don't like the trivia template, just remove it.
There is no guideline that says trivia sections need to have a trivia template. The trivia template is just something some dude created. It's not one of those sacred templates that must be kept in an article for any length of time or until some process is completed. So it can be removed at any time by anyone from any article.
Beware of starting an edit war over it, and don't blame me for violent outbreaks. Use this tidbit at your own risk. Otherwise, enjoy.
"A little revolution now and then is a good thing." -- Thomas Jefferson
Sincerely, 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The quote continues, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" -- about Shays' Rebellion. Not a good way to proceed for settling issues, really. And not that fortunate a precedent--the populist revolutionaries lost very decisively. Personally, I prefer compromise.
DGG (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but that said, I see no problem with someone removing the trivia template when they don't think it's necessary, so long as they don't do it en masse or edit war over it. Mangojuicetalk 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)...not to be taken literally. It's just my personal take on how the action I described will be perceived. The action itself is relatively harmless, not at all combative, and could be viewed as a compromise -- I'm not suggesting the removal of the essay/style guideline/guideline/whatever it is this week; I'm only suggesting that people remove the trivia template, if they see it as being inappropriate or unnecessary. 19:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the "en masse" thing either though, Mangojuice, 'cause the trivia templates were added via automated bot to 5,000+ articles to begin with. It wouldn't seem entirely inappropriate to me if they were removed in a similar campaign. 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is pointless

So, what is wrong with trivia. Are you people saying that we should take info out of its category, and screw all of wikipedia up by putting miscellania out of place. Trivia sections save wikipedia from being sloppy! --Alien joe 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Essay

I've changed the page to an essay because the word "trivia" is nowhere on WP:MOS. An editor who refers to any information on Wikipedia as "trivia" is pushing their particular point of view, which is against the neutral point of view policy. "Trivia" is a purely subjective term. Whether or not something should be described as "trivia" is a matter of opinion, and the personal opinions of editors do not belong in articles. When describing the qualities of something, any information could be regarded by any person as "trivia." An editor could label ANY information as "trivia" and then remove it "because it was trivia." The word should not be a license to delete anything an editor doesn't personally like. It may be beneficial to encourage editors to not create sections with the name "Trivia", since other editors seem to be so opposed to that concept, but the person who named the section "Trivia" is the source for the claim that everything below is trivia. Unless there is a reliable source that can be cited that explicitly calls each sentence in the section "trivia", then there is no proof that each sentence is, in fact, trivia. If that's what why this essay was created, fine. But it appears that people are reading this "guideline" and using it as an excuse to delete anything that irks them. A Wikipedia editor may *call* something "trivia", but that is just another name. I could delete something because I think it's "stupid" and write an essay about how people should avoid putting "stupid" things into the encyclopedia, but again, it's a subjective term used to slur or disparage anything I don't like. "Trivia" is a pejorative term and there should be no guideline that is based on a pejorative term. If you consider topics in Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy to be "trivia", then most of Wikipedia would not exist if an editor followed this guideline. The "Did you know..." section on the frontpage would also not exist. "Trivia" is a word that people use to refer to things they don't care about or are not interested in. That doesn't affect other people's interests though. I fail so see how this can be a guideline when there is no commonly accepted definition of the word "trivia." The first sentence in this essay is "Avoid creating lists of loosely related information" but there is no definition for the word "loosely." It could be said that all things in a category are loosely related or that the encyclopedia itself is full of "loosely" related information. This essay also says "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts.." but there is no definition provided for "logical grouping." There is a group of Wikipedia editors that have taken it upon themselves to remove all "trivia" from Wikipedia (WP:WPTCU) and this essay perpetuates the removal of any and all information from Wikipedia, simply by labeling it "trivia" before deleting it. I don't see how this is helping Wikipedia. --Pixelface 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read the guideline essay, you'll see that a "trivia section" really refers to the format of the section, as much as its content. From the main page: "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list." The random content coupled with the list format is what we're calling "trivia". Trivial facts alone are up to the individual editors to decide on, and according to this guideline essay, can be placed in paragraph section of an article.
It also has nothing to do with the section name: "In this guideline, when we refer to a trivia section, we are referring to its content, not its section name."
That's not to say you don't have a point that the word "trivia" is nowhere on WP:MOS, though. But still, this guideline essay is just naming a type and format of content that is described as being unsuitable for Wikipedia articles in other guidelines. The fact that this type of section is being named in this guideline essay doesn't make the described content necessarily any less unsuitable (not that I necessarily agree that said content is in fact unsuitable). 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not there is an official link to the manual of style, this is still a well-accepted guideline, so I've replaced {{style guide}}/{{essay}} with {{guideline}}. However, I think it's better to consider this a style guideline, because it helps make the point that this is a guideline on how to write articles well, as opposed to a rule for or against specific types of content. Mangojuicetalk 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
whatever one thinks about the issue, AfDs over the past few weeks have made it clear that "well accepted" is not quite the term. Bitterly contested would seem to be rather closer. It may or may not have a reasonable supermajority now; the poll a few months ago was not necessarily still the case, as there has certainly been a lot of discussion since. In light of Mangojuice's own stated preference, I've reverted the above change. Essay leaves the matter where it ought to be in need of further discussion, without saying it's rejected, which is not the case either. I would equally be open to disputed. DGG (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm disappointed in you: you should know that this guideline should have nothing to do with AfD, so that's not an appropriate lens to be using in viewing the acceptance of the guideline. This guideline contains no discussion of the appropriateness of article inclusion, it never suggests article deletion or removal as a suggestion to any problem. So yeah, its use (or should I say, mischaracterization) at AfD may well be controversial but that means nothing. Rather, I'd point you to Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections/Archive 3#2nd poll, which took place in late May and showed strong support for the guideline. So, I'm restoring the guideline to official status; if you want to add the disputed tag, go ahead, but if so, please advertise the debate in some public places like WP:VPP so we can get neutral feedback. Mangojuicetalk 21:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Since someone else already replaced {{essay}} with "disputed", I posted at WP:VPP for general feedback, and restored the guideline tag to go with the disputed tag. Mangojuicetalk 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please visit Wikipedia:Trivia discussion for a unified discussion on the trivia issue. I just noticed the VPP post for basically the same thing, so whichever is chosen for this purpose is fine. 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is the appropriate place to discuss policy on trivia sections. A change of venue will only serve to further scatter discussion and is inappropriate. Discussions should continue on this talkpage, although neutral notices may be crossposted to different pages (like WP:VPP). Please consider tagging the page with {{db-author}}, especially considering that it contains only the quote of another user. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There needs to be a place outside of AfD, MfD, Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections, Template talk:Trivia (etc.) where a unified discussion can be held. 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
AfD, MfD, and Template talk:Trivia are not appropriate places to make policy/guideline on the fate of trivia. The guideline talk page (or a subpage of it) is, as always, the most appropriate palce. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
We've tried that. You haven't been here. The discussion is currently too fragmented. And we're not only discussing the guideline, we're discussing the template too. It's all the same discussion, yet it's going on in a few different places. 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone will designate a place for this discussion to happen, just not right now. Possibly tonight or tomorrow. Stay tuned. 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The template should reflect this guideline, as should AfD discussions. Discussion on template talk page should be primarily about the template, not the general treatment of trivia sections. A venue for centralised discussion (this page) exists; the fact that's it's unused does't mean we should create another venue. That will only fragment the discussion more. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh it's far from unused :) But take a look at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections#"Consensus", about halfway down: I made a long comment there that might explain the need for a centralized discussion outside these pages. It's a comment that starts with "See it's difficult..." Newbyguesses, DGG, and Father Goose have also suggested the need for it. I can link you to their comments as well if you want. 22:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I can understand the difficulty of back-and-forth discussion between two pages, but I think part of the problem is an attempt to tackle both issues (wording of the template and status of this guideline) simultaneously. The fact is that the template would not exist or be used without this guideline. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
They're both the same discussion. There are some who feel that the template isn't even necessary (myself included). If you try to discuss that or even a major wording change, at the template talk page, you're told that the guideline supports the current wording (which it does, somewhat), and to come here. So then you come here and say that the wording of the guideline needs to be changed to prevent misuse/miswording of the template -- and then you're told that your complaint is about the template, and to take it to the template talk page. And I don't even disagree with those recommendations -- I'd tell other people with similar complaints the exact same thing. Furthermore, different people pay attention to the template talk page and this talk page, so there's a lot of redundant discussion to go through before you can adequately get both sets of page participants to understand the issue. It's a deeper problem. The template and guideline are hopelessly interdependent and need to be addressed within the same discussion, and that discussion needs the ability to affect both the template and the guideline. 22:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Spelling mistakes? OMG!!! Newbyguesses - Talk 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to your edit summary: The discussion was about a change in status, from guideline to essay. When a guideline ceases to be a guideline, it becomes an essay. Now the guideline has become a guidelines again, although it's now a {{disputed}} one. And sorry, I did some digging through the history and saw that you were the one who added the paragraph I just removed. Sorry to have had to remove it, but it wasn't relevant enough to the topic at hand. The misspellings were just a side note. 02:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The disputed tag is separate from a deletion process. The previous Keep decision has nothing to do with this new disputed tag. It was applied because this guideline is currently hotly contested (and was not applied by me). 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. We have to look at the archives again, maybe, to see what is what. Next month, I aint got time now, thanks.—Newbyguesses - Talk 02:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Observation

Many of those opposed to this guideline are expressing more discontent with WP:NOT#TRIVIA, than with the (arguably serious) problems with this guideline. WP:NOT is a policy and explicitly dissuades trivia sections, pointing to this guideline for further guidance. If people are opposed to the negative treatment of trivia sections, they should raise the issue at WT:NOT. The only discussion that should be here is what detailed guidance should be provided to explain and elaborate the policy (which advocates avoiding trivia sections). Airing disagreement with the policy statement here is disruptive, or seriously misguided and distracting at best. If an editor wants to discuss what is the best way to identify and dissuade trivia sections, this is the appropriate place for discussion. If an editor wants to dispute that trivia sections should be discouraged, this is certainly the wrong place to air such grievances. Vassyana 03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive to what? All the other discussions going on here? (there are no other discussions). This has become the designated place for the disagreement about handling trivia. You do have a point, in a technical sense at least. And maybe WP:NOT#TRIVIA deserves some attention if we're to get to the root cause of this problem. But fragmenting the discussion even more will... well, just plain suck. The trivia template refers people here, and people who want to complain about the handling of trivia tend to go to wp:trivia by default, which redirects here. I dunno, maybe that should change? I'll wait for others to comment. 04:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was witness to most of the evolution of WP:NOT#TRIVIA; it started as an attempt to create a policy around the line "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" in WP:FIVE, since that line was being used in deletion discussions, but was contested since there was no such actual policy. I did what I could to keep WP:NOT#TRIVIA from saying anything more than affirming this guideline, but even just that serves as a de facto promotion of this guideline to policy.
I'm curious; do those here who support this guideline support having WP:NOT#TRIVIA as well? To me it seems redundant and, since it's now "policy", overreaching.--Father Goose 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Dumb question. Of course they do. With the fight over this guideline, they'll gladly keep the reinforcement. Are you saying that WP:NOT#TRIVIA came after this guideline, though? 06:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reducing the "mob" again, Eq. You really put us in our place.
Much of the argument for adding "trivia" to WP:NOT was because the "trivia" prohibition in WP:PILLARS was being dismissed in deletion discussions as "not policy" and therefore ignorable. Much of that discussion is still on WT:NOT. / edg ☺ ★ 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I've just been explained and shouldn't bother, but WP:NOT#TRIVIA is a policy, WP:AVTRIV is a style guideline that can be derived logically from WP:NOT, and both are needed. It's not a repetition, but it can be called redundant in the sense that this guideline is supported by that policy. / edg ☺ ★ 07:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#TRIVIA is only a few weeks old, and its authority is underpinned by WP:TRIVIA, not the other way around. If I understand edgarde's point correctly, I guess one could claim that WP:TRIVIA is derived from "Not an indiscriminate collection of information", although until the creation of NOT#TRIVIA, this guideline never even mentioned WP:NOT.
As for "dumb question", I say it isn't. I support this guideline (more or less) but not NOT#TRIVIA because "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" is a power phrase that can be used to delete trivia indiscriminately, despite the fact that all that is agreed upon is the much less sweeping position that trivia sections should be avoided.--Father Goose 08:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The style guideline existed before the policy. However, a guideline wouldn't "underpin" a policy because the policy is superior. Basically, there was sufficient consensus[TOTALLY DISPUTED NO CONSENSUS CAN EVER BE DEMONSTRATED FOR THIS GUIDELINE I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA] for the guideline that the principle was promoted into policy. And the need for this was agreed upon because of attacks on the style guideline.
When I say "can be derived logically", I'm not describing a chronology.
I'm now expecting some legal genius to assert that WP:NOT#TRIVIA, though policy, is now ignorable because it is "only a few weeks old". / edg ☺ ★ 09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I dispute that assertion completely. The principle wasn't promoted into policy because of "attacks on the guideline" (that should diminish the guideline's standing, not strengthen it). NOT#TRIVIA's origin was strictly to lend authority to the short "not a trivia collection" line in WP:FIVE. And what was sought at first, as far as I know, was a broad "no trivia" policy -- but there is no support for that, so it fell back to a restatement of WP:TRIVIA. However, by saying "no trivia collections" and doing it as policy, it's still too strong.--Father Goose 09:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, if NOT#TRIVIA was created because of attacks on this guideline, then that would completely validate my flippant comment above. Anyone afraid of a dwindling consensus for a guideline can just create another one supporting it. Which I have a feeling may have been the case. It must've been relatively easy to get a consensus together for that since the consensus didn't need to reach as far as this talk page. The people disputing this guideline weren't even necessarily aware that it was being considered (I sure wasn't). 13:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I'm going to change the words "Trivia collections" over at WP:NOT to "Trivia sections" since the former overstates the case, and is already being quoted in that overly broad manner in AfDs.--Father Goose 18:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

In case anyone is curious about my opinion (someone asked for input), I feel that this guideline is a good one. It has some good suggestions about what trivia sections are and aren't, and how to deal with them - and most importantly, why. -Freekee 05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of trivia

Basically, there needs to be a consensus on the definition of "trivia" or this "guideline" needs to be designated an essay. If there is no consensus on the definition of "trivia", there needs to be a consensus on the definition of "loosely" and then the title should be renamed "Avoid lists of loosely related information." The opening sentence also needs to be checked to see if it contradicts WP:LIST. I realize that WP:NOT#TRIVIA was crafted from a sentence from WP:PILLARS. So, what's the definition of trivia? --Pixelface 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, this guideline doesn't deal with the definition of trivia, nor what the threshold of inclusion should be for 'trivial' information. Rather, it is a style guideline – a widely accepted one – that governs whether or not mature articles ought to have long, bulleted lists of trivia. If you're looking to discuss the definition of trivia as it pertains to Wikipedia, you might be interested in the essay page, Wikipedia:Handling trivia.
I'm removing the 'disputed' tag, since your concerns don't seem to deal directly with this particular guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There's two things. A trivia section is a section full of unorganized, miscellaneous information. But also, a trivia section is any section that appears to be a designated place to hold miscellaneous, unorganized information, even if that section is nearly empty. It might be more accurate to say "avoid sections for unoragnized miscellaneous information," but since (1) sections titled "trivia" or one of the alternatives in the lead are virtually always unorganized lists of information, and (2) unorganized lists of information are virtually always titled "trivia" or one of the listed alternatives, I think it's not unreasonable to equate the two. Mangojuicetalk 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, The NAME OF THE PROJECT PAGE is "Avoid trivia sections" -- there needs to be a consensus on the definition of "trivia" or I don't see how this can be a guideline. If this project page is an objection to bulleted lists (aka asterisks) then this "guideline" needs to be renamed "Avoid bulleted lists" and any mention of bulleted lists needs to be removed from Wikipedia:Cheatsheet and Help:List and WP:MOSLIST (if there is also a consensus on their talk pages). --Pixelface 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of a "trivia section" in this guideline is as follows: "== Trivia ==" or sometimes "== In popular culture ==" or titles in that vein. However, "in popular culture" sections may have a specialized and accepted use (such as Chicago Bears#The Bears in popular culture), which this guideline presently does not acknowledge.--Father Goose 17:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence to "Avoid creating headings or sections titled Trivia." to clarify this. --Pixelface 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) That's a really bad wording, as it will seem that then all one has to do is change ==Trivia==<nowiki> to something like <nowiki>==Popular culture== and then there will be no issue. That is not correct. That sentence used to be phrased as "avoid organizing articles as" or "..with", which is better. Certainly, avoiding the creation of such sections is part of that, but not the whole point. It's hard to word this well, so we should work out something here before moving too fast. Here's an attempt: "Avoid the use of sections for unorganized, miscellaneous information, such as trivia sections." Mangojuicetalk 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with that attempt because you failed to define "unorganized" and "miscellaneous", which can be thrown around subjectively. Would you prefer the sentences in such sections be alphabetized? This guideline seems to be a justification for any editor to delete any sections that they personally deem "trivia", or "unorganized", or "miscellaneous". If this guideline is about sections that mention a subject's appearance in television shows, books, movies, videogames, music albums, etc, then that needs to be clarified. If this guideline is meant to encourage editors to avoid adding appearances in television shows, books, movies, videogames, music albums, etc, then that needs to be clarified. If this guideline is meant to discourage the naming of headings "Trivia" or "In popular culture", as far as I know there is no policy on the proper titles of headings. If this guideline is meant to encourage people to delete all information that does not fit under the hierarchical structure of other headings in an article, that needs to be clarified. There needs to be an agreement by several editors on the meaning of "trivia section." --Pixelface 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mangojuice's last edit comment: make a convincing case for your changes instead of argumentation and revert-warring, which doesn't get you anywhere.--Father Goose 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason for my edits is that there is no consensus on the meaning of "trivia", "trivia section", or "loosely related." And I have asked, what's the definition of trivia so we can reach a consensus and place the definition in the article. When speaking of "trivia section", <nowki>==Trivia==</nowiki> seems obvious. People have said this is not the place to discuss the meaning of "trivia", so I changed the first sentence to say editors should avoid Trivia headings. And there seems to be an objection to bulleted lists. As it is now, "Avoid creating lists of loosely related information" contradicts WP:LIST, unless there is a consensus on the definition of "loosely." So please, define "trivia", "trivia section", and "loosely" so we can reach a consensus on their definitions and then put those definitions into the article in order to clarify the topic. --Pixelface 18:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I did define "trivia section." We don't need "loosely" if we change the first sentence, and as TenofallTrades said, this is not a guideline about what trivia is, so we don't need to define "trivia", but if you want my opinion, see WP:HTRIV. Mangojuicetalk 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we DO need to define "trivia" in order to define "trivia section" and we also need to clarify the difference between a bulleted list and a trivia section. --Pixelface 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, trivia is information which is non-essential to communicating a full and complete explanation of the article's subject and its claims to notability. For instance, "Famous musician X's grandmother had an unusual name" is trivia, even if sourced, because it isn't part of what makes famous musician X notable. In contrast, if someone is famous for having an unusual name (see Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116) then their name wouldn't be classed as trivia. WaltonOne 18:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If "trivia" is defined as "non-essential information information that doesn't explain a subject's notability", then sections titled Early life or Personal life in biographical articles would be "trivia sections." WP:N applies to the topics of articles, not the content of articles. --Pixelface 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, nobody has suggested – let alone actually attempted – removing Early life or Personal life sections from articles, citing this guideline as their reason. Typically a 'trivia section' is, quite literally, a section with the header Trivia, under which sits a (usually bulleted) list of unconnected factoids. 'Trivia' sections are a lot like pornography—most of us know them when we see them. Is the problem of people removing 'early life' sections, 'personal life' sections, or bulleted lists citing this guideline a real problem, or a hypothetical one? If such problems aren't happening, then the guideline is probably fine. If such problems are occurring, the guideline is probably still fine, and it may be that some education of a few editors is required. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Although I disagree about what he says the guideline is currently doing, TenOfAllTrades has a point. He says that the guideline doesn't attempt to define trivia, but it really does, and I agree that it shouldn't. The definition of trivia is subjective; but more than that, it differs for every situation. As he says, most of us can't define it, but we know it when we see it. That's precisely the only way this can work.
The problem is that it basically dissolves the need for the guideline (not that I see this as a major problem, but I recognize that others will). "Avoid trivia sections" means that there can be some trivia in certain places, depending on the situation. I'm sure no editor would object to allowing trivia in certain places, as long as they could decide where it was necessary. The reason for the across-the-board ban is just that trivia sections tend to cause other superfluous additions. So if we just say "avoid trivia sections", with no definition, and say "it's up to the editors to decide in a case-by-case basis what constitutes superfluous, obvious, unnecessary, or low-quality trivia", then we're basically just reiterating every guideline on notability that already exists. But if need be, maybe that's exactly what we should be saying. 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The guideline used to include an explicit statement that it doesn't define trivia: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether or not the information contained within them is actually trivia, or if trivia belongs in Wikipedia." I always liked that, and maybe we should bring it back. Mangojuicetalk 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I like that quote. I believe it would solve at least some of the issue. 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface: it's plenty clear from the guideline what a trivia section is, and no one else actually seems confused in the least, so I'm done trying to define these terms to your satisfaction, it's not helpful. In response to what you wrote above, this guideline does not justify editors to blanket remove sections, because it specifically says not to. But removing any justification won't stop them because we still have WP:BOLD and WP:IAR anyway. Furthermore, this guideline is not about disallowing coverage of pop culture references or appearances on shows, it does not forbid section titles, or imply that editors should delete information that isn't incorporated, which is why none of that stuff is "clarified." The guidline is subjective, but so are all the guidelines that are any good -- after all Wikipedia is not an exercise in rule-building. If people are misconstruing the guideline, you need to take it up with them if it bothers you. If your problem is that people, for other reasons, feel that it is appropriate to remove some of those things and you don't, again, changing the guideline will not make those people change their minds. Mangojuicetalk 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, I appreciate your input and your definition of what a trivia section is. This guideline mentions sections labeled "[Subject] in popular culture". Hamlet chicken processing plant fire is currently the featured article on the frontpage and it contains a References in popular culture section. When it was nominated it had a pop culture section[2] and when it was promoted it had a pop culture section[3]. Is that a trivia section? When it hit the mainpage on September 3, 2007, I changed the bulleted list to prose. It's likely that members of WP:WPTCU would delete the section outright. I think the misunderstandings about this guideline are what make it so poor. If asterisks vs. prose is the main issue here, that needs to be stated directly in the guideline. If a guideline is being widely misinterpreted, it needs to be rewritten. --Pixelface 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a simple replacement of asterisks with prose should do it. But this is a good example of my point: We don't need a ban or even a definition of trivia. It can be decided on a case-by-case basis. In that particular case, the section seemed reasonable to those involved in the decision, and I would have agreed. The section is limited to a few notable works that used the event described in the article as the basis for their material. It's an asset to the article and serves best in that format. 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition of avoid

I'd rather have a definition of "avoid".

What do we mean exactly by the word avoid? Are we saying that there is never a situation where a trivia section may be the best way to present information?

If so then why not simply say, "Trivia sections are to be avoided, but if they must exist, they should always be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation is conceived." That's basically what the "doesn't mean" section is saying already, but in more difficult terms.

If on the other hand they're considered to be okay on a permanent basis in certain situations, then that needs to be clarified as well.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that wording. Perhaps with a reminder that there is no deadline. I believe that in exceedingly rare cases it may be appropriate for an article to contain a trivia section, but I would rather not muddy the waters with "exceptions that prove the rule," or things like that. And also, I have never been exactly sure what such an example would be. I had thought of one: in some cases, a section titled "trivia" may actually not be a list of items, but rather a discussion of trivia. E.G.: imagine trivia as a section in Trivial Pursuit, for instance, not containing trivia about trivial pursuit, but rather, discussing where the game's trivia questions come from... but that seems like an obvious exception that's already sufficiently clarified. Mangojuicetalk 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Above, you quoted this as being something to possibly bring back: "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether or not the information contained within them is actually trivia, or if trivia belongs in Wikipedia." But if we say we're not dealing with whether or not trivia belongs in Wikipedia, then how can we also say that trivia sections should always be temporary? 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Because these line-by-line trivia sections muddle with the manual of style guidelines. -- 68.156.149.62 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The use of trivia sections is matter of style; the inclusion of trivia is a matter of content. A 'trivia section' is a (usually bulleted) list of unsorted, unrelated factoids, some content from which may or may not be appropriately integrated into the rest of the article (or another article). The consensus on Wikipedia is that a mature, good article (or a Good Article) should rarely – if ever – have such unorganized, unsorted, non-prose sections. A trivia section may be a good way to quickly collect topics, ideas, or facts that ought to be mentioned in a new article; such material should be organized and integrated as the article matures. A 'trivia' section head screams out "Here's some random stuff that someone thought we might mention on this topic, but nobody's figured out how to integrate it into the text yet."
The question of whether or not an item of trivia belongs elsewhere in the article body – or whether that item is too...trivial – is an editorial judgement, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense now. Okay, I'm going to propose the following additions for the guideline. Notice the changes:
  • This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether or not the information contained within them is actually trivia, or if trivia belongs in Wikipedia.
  • -- Added to overview, first paragraph last sentence. 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Trivia sections should be avoided, but if they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.
  • -- Added to overview, second paragraph first sentence. 01:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I like it. BTW, what do you think about changing the first sentence, as I suggested above? "Loosely-related information" is a bit vague, and I think we can hit the point better. Mangojuicetalk 04:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "Avoid creating lists of random factoids", or "Avoid creating trivia lists, regardless of their section title." I think either of those would convey the message better, and basically be just as accurate. 05:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
agreed, the meaning of "loosely" is a matter of dispute, so it doesn't help. I would suggest: "avoid creating sections of unorganised miscellaneous material" I think everyone would agree with that. Articles need organization. And miscellaneous is a neutral word, but a clear one--it does not imply the material is necessarily unsuitable. DGG (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that guidelines are not meant as hard rules, so it is fine to have an exception or two. It is also fine to assume that some articles will be fixed at some indefinite point in the future. >Radiant< 09:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)