Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections/Archive 8

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 7

Archive 8

Archive 9 →

Contents 1 Hodge-podge 2 Discussion of WP:NOT#TRIVIA 3 Strong objection to PixelFace's edit 4 Style guideline vs. content guideline 5 [Subject] in popular culture 6 My $0.02 7 The value of Trivia 8 Let's start with content 9 The best way to present information 10 just an idea 11 Merge with Embedded list 12 Linking "Relevance of content" 13 This Guideline needs to be deprecated 14 This Guideline needs to be deprecated - part2 15 Origin of this policy? 15.1 Arbitrary break for ease of editing 16 I HAVE SUGGESTION!!! 17 massive removal of content 17.1 User:Burntsauce 18 In fact 19 Query 20 Protected?? 21 Example 22 Trivia removal 22.1 section break 22.2 What to do? 23 Adding another tab? 24 There needs to be a clear understanding of where trivia sections CAN be included 25 Priorities

Hodge-podge

I suggest the terms "hodge-podge" or "hodge-podge sections" be used. As the above conversation demonstrates, "[Subject] in popular culture" is just as problematic as "Trivia", however using the word "trivia" in the title of the this guideline lends the impression that the problem is primarily with sections titled trivia.

"Hodge-podge", in my opinion, is also a better choice than "miscellaneous facts" or "miscellaneous lists", which can be misconstrued in several ways. The term "hodge-podge" is easily understandable, descriptive, unambiguous, and straight to the point. I suggest "Avoid hodge-podge sections" as the title of this guideline and having a generic hodge-podge clean-up template {{hodge-podge}} along with clean-up templates geared to specifically to the most common kinds of hodge-podge sections such as {{trivia}} and perhaps a {{pop-culture}}. Neitherday 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is definitely one of those terms that starts to sound really bizarre when you read it 8 times in two paragraphs.  :) On a serious note, though, I think "hodge-podge" is probably a good description, but so are many others, and it's better if we stick to "trivia" in the title, since that's where the problem arises. "Trivia sections," "lists of miscellaneous information," "lists of isolated facts", "lists of loosely associated information", "hodge-podge sections", and so on, all refer to the same concept. I like the idea of using multiple descriptions as it gets the idea across better. Mangojuice^talk 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As fun as "hodge-podge" is to say, I agree that Trivia sections is the most descriptive name for the kind of thing this guideline is about. What a "hodge-podge" section might be is less intuitive. / edg ☺ ★ 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hodge-podge" is a fairly obscure/imprecise word. The use of "trivia" (especially when characterized/refined by a few descriptive sentences) does the job fine. --Cheeser1 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of WP:NOT#TRIVIA

There is a discussion of whether WP:NOT#TRIVIA should be retained at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Removal of trivia criteria.--Father Goose 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection to PixelFace's edit

I strongly object to this edit. This guideline is clearly about trivia sections, not just about lists of isolated facts. I feel that the whole reason the edit was made was to get around consensus. It has been long-standing practice to avoid trivia sections, and community consensus has not changed. For instance, Pixelface tried to get rid of Template:Trivia on TFD - see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia. This generated over 160KB worth of debate, with the majority of editors rejecting the notion that the template should be deleted, that trivia was necessary for Wikipedia or that calling material in articles "trivia" was an objectionable or insulting notion. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made a small change, in the spirit of compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted further, to TDK's last version. Pixelface's change making this into a guideline about section titles is, even in compromise, contradictory and unnecessary; it also changes the intent of this guideline. The mere title of such a section is not the problem, as is stated in the next sentence. / edg ☺ ★ 13:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu: I'm very confused. The edit you say you object to seems to agree with your stance: Pixelface changed the opening sentence to avoid sections titled "trivia", which is what you've now added again. Furthermore it was an old edit from nearly 2 weeks ago which was reverted about 20 minutes after it was made, because it was deemed to be too narrow a definition of trivia. If you object to an edit from back then why have you now incorporated it again? If you want this guideline to be about sections titled trivia, why did that edit bother you to begin with? Does anyone understand what's going on here?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 14:15, 09/14/2007

Maybe he meant to link to the diff in which PixelFace's edit was reverted? Anyway, as was mentioned at the time, the title is part of the problem but it's not the only problem, and we should avoid wording that suggests that. I endorse edg's change. Mangojuice^talk 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't. My main objection is that it removed the summary that trivia sections should be avoided. Someone else reverted me, saying that "The *title* of the section is not the problem, as is stated in the next sentence. The change making this guideline about section titles, even in compromise, is contradictory and unnecessary". However, bit that they told me to look at was "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". That doesn't contradict what I wrote! Please note that I never said that it's a bad thing to avoid lists of unrelated facts! But, the original guideline, which still holds, is that adding trivia sections should be avoided where possible. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This guideline has nothing to do with the title of the section. The overview (first) paragraph, especially the first sentence, should be a summary of the specific guidance suggested in the remainder of the guideline. The rest of the guideline says specifically that it isn't referring to the section title at all, but to its contents. It never makes any mention of avoiding the title "trivia". If you think avoiding that title is important, then you should discuss that as a possible addition to the guideline; But don't just add something to the lead sentence that the rest of the guideline makes no mention of, and certainly don't continue to make that addition when there's clearly no consensus for it.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 07:36, 09/15/2007

What are you talking about? It is in the lead section! It doesn't have to be in the first paragraph. Sheesh. And there are many who oppose the changes being made here, and elsewhere. For instance, the majority of editors commenting on your page move request are opposing it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. What is in the lead section? What doesn't have to be in the first paragraph? Could you be a little more specific? And no one opposed the change to "miscellaneous lists" being subject of the lead sentence. People are opposing the page move, not the lead sentence.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 07:55, 09/15/2007

Well, before reverting me please take the time to read the guideline. It specifically states "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." - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know that, I wrote that sentence. What is your point?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 07:58, 09/15/2007

If you have a look at what you reverted, I compromised by saying that a list of unrelated facts should be avoided and trivia sections should be avoided also. As it states. That is my point! Your point is that my sentence does reflect the guideline, but it clearly does. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit referred to sections titled trivia. This is different from saying "trivia sections". "Trivia sections" was changed because it's too ambiguous and doesn't accurately describe the content we're trying to avoid. Furthermore this "compromise" is basically between you and everyone else. There is no need for that, as there aren't a significant number of people who object to the lead sentence as it stands currently. It's just you. If you feel the lead sentence needs to be changed somehow, then propose it and get a consensus. If it turns out that there's a significant dispute over it, then a compromise is a possible solution.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 08:06, 09/15/2007

Ta bu shi da yu, please see /Archive 6#The definition of trivia. We just went through exactly this issue with Pixelface. I agree, a section being called "trivia" is bad, but having the first sentence of the guideline say that we should avoid sections called trivia implies that it is the only issue and it's not. I think this can be clarified in a way you'll find acceptable, but changing that first sentence is not the way to do it. Mangojuice^talk 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, if "trivia section" does not only refer to headings titled ==Trivia== then "trivia section" obviously refers to the content of a section. WHY is the content being labeled trivia? That is why I asked for a definition of "trivia" for this guideline, which editors conveniently avoided. "Oh, this guideline is about trivia sections, not trivia" -- as if to deny the word "trivia" even exists in the phrase "trivia section". As long as this guideline exists, questions about the definition of "trivia" and which information constitutes "trivia" will come up again and again -- until the day it's designated an essay and this misguided "guideline" is forgotten. --Pixelface 19:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, look at the guideline, read it, and say what exactly you find confusing about the notion of a trivia section as described there. From the guideline, "In this guideline, when we refer to a trivia section, we are referring to its content, not its section name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list." Also, "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". So, what are you missing? Mangojuice^talk 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"In this guideline, when we refer to a trivia section, we are referring to its content, not its section name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list." Then why not call the guideline Sections with unorganized lists? WP:LIST already mentions unorganized lists. So this guideline is completely unnecessary. And shouldn't that sentence say "organization" instead of "content"? The word "content" contradicts your other quote from the guideline: "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" AKA "not with whether or not the content is trivia." So it's not about whether the information is trivial, it's about organization. Again, that is already covered by WP:LIST. --Pixelface 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please note: I have to make an apology here, because it appears that I have, embarassingly, made a mistake. I have an apology to Pixelface, because it appears that I actually largely agree with his change. This was pointed out to me by Mangojuice. Due thanks to Mangojuice. As it appears that, ironically, I cannot get anyone but Pixelface to agree with my change, I'll let this go. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Style guideline vs. content guideline

I just reverted this from {{Subcat guideline}} ("Content") to {{Style guide}}. This article has always been about how data should be organized within a document. It impacts on content because trivia sections by their organization may tend to invite data which some editors would want omitted for (among other reasons) being unimportant; however, this guideline does not speak directly to what actually is "important" or "trivial", so it is not a content guideline.

The issue of what "trivia" might be and whether it should be allowed probably belongs on WP:NOT (the central content policy) or perhaps a new content guideline. That subject has been kept out of this guideline, and I think it should stay out. / edg ☺ ★ 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a style guideline. Read the MOS; it is about punctuation, capitalisation, boldings/italics, spelling, layout, date formats, etc. Wikipedia:Trivia sections is about what to do with lists of miscellaneous facts. It does not say "you should format them like this" (that would be a style issue), but it says "you should integrate lists of loosely-organised facts into the text of the article and place them in a proper context" (that's a content issue). Compare with WP:RS. Melsaran (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that WP:RS, about what one writes, is a content guideline.

WP:AVTRIV is about How one writes, including where you place it, which is style. Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, for example, are part of the Manual of Style. "Layout", as you mention, is related to WP:AVTRIV. / edg ☺ ★ 18:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's often a thin and arbitrary line we draw between style and content guidelines on Wikipedia. The only reason for having specific tags is for organization of the guideline, and doesn't impact how the guideline is supposed to be used. -- Ned Scott 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's so. My concern as stated above is that calling this a "content" guideline implies inclusion and exclusion, which is a contentious issue this document isn't suited to (and was never meant to) address. / edg ☺ ★ 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

*nods* I agree, and personally would call it a style guideline. -- Ned Scott 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. For the inclusion/exclusion reason. Better to avoid that misunderstanding, as it seems pretty common to me.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:00, 09/17/2007

Wow, I didn't expect to start an edit war with my change... one revert, maybe, though it was my impression calling it a "style guideline" had never been controversial. It is a style guideline because it focuses on layout. It's easy to confuse it with a content guideline because it's specific to a type of content that is commonly laid out in a haphazard way -- but it still doesn't say "trivia is bad or good", it just says "don't arrange it in a miscellaneous list". Style guideline.--Father Goose 20:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a style guideline, or more specifically, an article organization guideline, like the ones on Wikipedia:Article length and Wikipedia:Content forking - perhaps not so trivial as guidelines of punctuation usage, but still not about inclusion. Dcoetzee 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much concur. Pigkeeper 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement on this so I've gone ahead and switched it back to style guideline.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:14, 09/18/2007

I concur too. I'm the one who switched it to a regular guideline, back when Pixelface complained that this wasn't linked from the WP:MOS pages (which I have now rectified), and replaced the tag with {{essay}}. I remember the guideline was marked as a Style guideline for exactly the reason that it isn't about what content is appropriate, but rather about how to write articles well. Mangojuice^talk 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[Subject] in popular culture

These are not by definition trivia. Trivia is defined as matters or things that are very unimportant[1]. Whether the occurrence of a subject in popular culture is "very unimportant" is inherently subjective. Melsaran (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"X in popular culture" sections can certainly be done well.

Here's a good example: Broccoli in popular culture.

Here's a terrible example: same article, 4 months earlier

Here's today's. Note the typical and seemingly-inevitable undertow toward cruft. This is the problem. Someone felt a need to restore (or from their perspective, perhaps add for the first time) the following:

In the film 24 Hour Party People, the Tony Wilson character tells a tale explaining how the invention of broccoli funded the James Bond films.

This factual, easily-sourced and verifiable information is not useful in an encyclopedic article about James Bond, Tony Wilson or broccoli. Yet trivialist arguments forbid its exclusion, and feverishly siding with them may be fans of this particular movie (at least if this movie has fans comparable to those of other "pop culture" topics). / edg ☺ ★ 15:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia that lets anyone edit articles will always, ALWAYS accumulate "cruft", or whatever word you're using this week to disparage edits. And a template should not be spammed on over 5,000 articles by a bot run by someone who will never even look at the article again. Let people interested in the topic of an article tag the article if it needs to be improved. I don't know what "trivialist arguments forbid its exclusion" means. There is no "pro" trivia guideline. THIS is the page that seeks to forbid and exclude information that anyone labels "trivia." It's divisive by design. It seeks to organize all information into "trivia" and "not trivia" and exclude the information that's "not trivia." If someone doesn't like an edit, they can just remove it. They don't need this guideline, which amounts to an opinion of "I don't like it", to back them up. Editors should be evaluating edits based on the sources provided, the subjective concept of "importance" should not factor anywhere into it. --Pixelface 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For new arrivals here I just want to mention I was never a big fan of the bot tagging.

When you say there is no "pro" trivia guideline, that's because this is the guideline. The Wikipedia style guide is (obviously) not required to contradict itself. Having such a standard is not divisive "by design", even though some editors happen to object to the standard.

I really believe that Wikipedia is not improved by the routine addition of lists of times editors have seen the subject on TV. Is this entirely unacceptable to you? Is the Broccoli article improved by adding anecdotes from everything that mentions broccoli?

Additionally, I believe that appending facts to bullet lists does not by itself create readable documents. Articles are better read as text that makes points; not rambling lists of and also and also prettied up with bullets. I understand that some readers would prefer to learn all factual information from Powerpoint presentations; I don't feel such a design ideal is compatible with Wikipedia.

Examples of a trivialist argument would include:

• All information improves Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia is not a trivia collection can be dismissed as simple a WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
• Rules should be implemented against the removal of trivia sections.
• Even if Trivia sections should not be kept, having rules against keeping Trivia sections in articles usually causes aggressive, premature deletion of valuable material without attempts at integration.
• "Deletionists" are disingenuous elitists who are out to destroy something.
• The authors of these guidelines clearly they don't understand their foolish anti-trivia rules are causing bullies to delete valuable material capriciously.
• The authors of these guidelines are biased against anything fun.
• The authors of these guidelines should relax their standards because Wikipedia will never be perfect, and no one takes Wikipedia seriously (or at least, no one should).
• Calling it "trivia" is not nice, and may hurt people's feelings.
• Trivia sections are the "best part" of many articles.
• et cetera, et cetera. This Talk page and its archive are filled with such arguments if you're curious to see more.

If this enthusiasm for bullet lists and In pop culture sections were reflected by policy that encourages their inclusion, Wikipedia would basically become free webspace for uninformative, unreadable garbage.

If someone doesn't like an edit, they can just remove it. They don't need this guideline, which amounts to an opinion of "I don't like it", to back them up.

Actually, a guide is needed to "back them up". Otherwise there would be unending disputes.

Editors should be evaluating edits based on the sources provided, the subjective concept of "importance" should not factor anywhere into it.

I am confident that some information, while perfectly sourced and readily verifiable, is not needed. If verifiability is the only standard for inclusion of any information, then WP:NOT can be deleted or ignored, and articles can be long and rambling without limit, with effectively no editorial standard. If Wikipedia accepts all verifiable input, it is no longer useful as an encyclopedia. / edg ☺ ★ 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx for doing the work in providing arguments, Edgarde! I support these points:

• Rules should be implemented against the arbitrary removal of ANY section (I guess they already are).
• Having rules against keeping Trivia sections in articles usually causes aggressive, premature deletion of valuable material without attempts at integration. That's not improving, that's bullying. Deleting is easy, working on an article is hard work.
• "Deletionists" are disingenuous elitists who get a thrill out of destroying something that others built.
• The authors of these guidelines clearly don't understand anti-trivia rules are causing bullies to delete valuable material capriciously.
• The authors of these guidelines are biased against anything fun.
• The authors are generally against the usage of lists, even though lists are used by other encyclopedias when it makes sense, too.
• The authors want to emphasize their importance and spread their message by letting bots automatically place banners (or even move sections, like it was discussed), without a second thought if this would up articles maintained by dedicated users.

Again, thx! This made phrasing my opinions much easier! :D 89.182.24.165 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How oddly flattering. You're welcome. / edg ☺ ★ 05:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your concern about unorganized lists is already covered by WP:LIST. "Trivia" is not mentioned anywhere in the Manual of Style. If you want to craft a guideline called Wikipedia:In popular culture, or revamp the WP:IPC essay, be my guest. This guideline is not needed. Wikipedia existed for 5 years without it. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and there is no longstanding policy against "trivia." I really don't care what you personally feel is "uninformative, unreadable garbage." Go add a "garbage" criteria to WP:NOT if it bothers you. Labeling "uninformative, unreadable garbage" as "trivia" isn't getting you anywhere. You just used a different label -- "trivia" -- a commonly used, semi-polite slur that labels information as unimportant to you personally in order to exclude it from an article. Wikipedia was launched in January 2001, and this essay was started May 26, 2006[2]. How did Wikipedia ever function for 5 years without it? The essay was turned into a guideline on August 25, 2006[3] after 27 people supported it and 16 people opposed it[4]. Wikipedia has over 5.3 million registered users. Shall we let 27 people decide how over 5 million editors should organize facts? Is there any proof that this guideline accomplishes anything? If "trivia" is the stuff one finds in Trivial Pursuit, then just about every article on Wikipedia has trivia. If someone goes to add a new fact to an article and it doesn't quite "belong" under an existing heading, it's likely they'll add it under a ==Trivia== heading. That's not a problem with Trivia sections, that's a problem with header names and the hierarchical organization of information and the idea that every fact has to "fit" in some "box." --Pixelface 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a spectrum of opinion on this issue, but the discussion gets polarized very quickly. Most of those that speak out in support of trivia, trivia sections, popular culture sections/articles, and the like, are not for the destruction of Wikipedia through the abandonment of its encyclopedic standards and goals -- we just feel those standards can be applied carefully to broaden Wikipedia's depth of coverage, without sacrificing its quality. The picture you paint of "trivialists" is entertaining, but distorted.--Father Goose 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the view of Pixelface. Wikipedia went along great without this guideline. Contrary what some here state, there doesn't seem to be a widespread demand for it. What's in the guidelines seems to be just an arbitrary collection of rules that are already in other guidelines. It's redundant and so it only complicates matters, effectively keeping users from working on Wiki because they are afraid of all those rules. 89.182.24.165 03:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) But on the other hand, popular culture sections can be problematic. People do seem to think that just about any fact can go in a section titled "popular culture," so it does have the same kind of problem as trivia sections. They tend to be disorganized and attract cruft, and often don't have any collective point. That said, they're fine if they're done right. I don't think the wording of the guideline necessarily needs to mention "[Subject] in popular culture" though - for one thing "Popular culture" would be more accurate, and for another, those sections are only sometimes problematic. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict...It's already been established that "trivia" doesn't mean "unimportant" for the purposes of this guideline (and as a side note we would not need to address this repeated concern if the name were changed). However "in pop culture" is something I've been thinking about addressing for a while, for a different reason. The guideline endorses focused lists, yet lumps IPC in with trivia sections. This doesn't really make much sense. True that trivia sections sometimes contain "in pop culture" items, but true IPC sections really aren't miscellaneous lists. They should be addressed in some way, but not by equating them with trivia sections.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:57, 09/14/2007

I'm not sure what defines "true IPC sections," but I'm confident whatever they are, they're exceedingly rare. The overwhelming majority of "in pop culture" sections are unselective, irredeemable garbage dumps of music, movie, TV and video game references. So I think it's fair to lump them in with trivia section because they are--very precisely--"miscellaneous lists" and nothing more.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A good IPC section has secondary sources discussing how the subject has effected popular culture or been used in different, significant ways. For example, discussing how piracy is a topic used in movies (the section in this example does need a bit of cleaning though). A bad IPC section is a list of references and even times that the topic's been mentioned at some point in a movie, TV show etc. In my experience the vast majority of IPC sections I've seen are the bad kind. Not everything has enough effect on popular culture to require a section on it. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That should go into a guideline. Too bad User:Eyrian/IPC was deleted. / edg ☺ ★ 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if an IPC section contains a mere list of references. The fact is that a list of pop culture references is not a miscellaneous list but a focused one. We're telling people that one possible way to fix trivia sections is to filter them into focused lists, yet IPC sections already are focused lists. I'm not addressing the question of whether or not such lists are appropriate, but it seems pointless to include them here. A separate guidelines for improving such sections would be more appropriate.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 20:02, 09/14/2007

The problem is that it's not focused. It could be focused but the only connection between the items is the subject and that it's been on TV/in a movie etc. It's just as disorganised as the lists that this guideline is trying to prevent, except it has a slight theme. IPC lists that are just a random collection of vaguely connected items are the kind of list which this guideline hopes to prevent. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) I think that if this guideline didn't cover IPC and other themed sections because of the loose connection between items, this is the kind of thing that would be exempt. It's a miscellaneous list by another name and there's no real reason why it shouldn't be covered by this guideline. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A good (if somewhat controversial) example is Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, which systematically subdivides the list into different types of references and provides citations and so on. I think the important thing to qualify is the degree of connection between items and its relationship to the length of the list; if the list becomes long and the connection between the items is weak, it needs further organization. Dcoetzee 21:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02

I know I'm entering this discussion a bit late, but I have a few points to make about trivia and about the future of this guideline.

• Firstly, I oppose trivia sections, not the inclusion of trivia itself. "Trivia" is inherently a completely subjective term; one could argue that all information which is non-essential to a subject's notability (including family history, schools attended, etc.) is a form of trivia, yet this info is standard in an encyclopedia article. We should include trivia-type information in articles, as long as it's sourced and verifiable.
• Nonetheless, we don't ever need sections headed "Trivia" at the bottom of the page. This creates an artificial and subjective division between "trivia" and "non-trivia", when, as I said, there's no objective definition of the term "trivia" itself. Trivia sections should be deprecated, and the information merged into the main body of the article, where appropriate. If it's significant or unusual enough to be included at all, it's significant enough to belong in the main article text, not in an arbitrary "trivia" section.
• I also oppose lengthy "X in popular culture" articles. These quickly develop into lists of when X appeared in novels, TV and films, without any reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that these appearances had any cultural significance. We don't need a long list of original observations along the lines of "Sheep in popular culture: In Episode 23 of Return of the Flatulent Gnomes, a sheep appeared on-camera during a number of scenes which were filmed on location in Wales." This stuff is textbook original research, and completely pointless. Popular culture references that are genuinely significant belong in the main articles on their subjects, along with adequate sourcing to demonstrate their significance.

I apologise if my comments aren't up-to-date with the current state of discussion on this issue; as I said, I haven't been heavily involved in this debate. Walton^One 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S: I support the proposed page move. It goes along with what I was saying above about the poor definition of the term "trivia". Walton^One 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An example could be what I did today here on Chief Justice Murray Gleeson's article. Of the three facts in the "trivia" section, two were sufficiently relevant to be moved into the main text of the article (which I did), and the other was sufficiently unimportant that I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walton One (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As a reader and casual contributor I want to add my two eurocent. While I congratulate Walton on his work on Gleeson, good job, I am against simply getting rid of all trivia sections. Moving all trivia into the main article will make the sections lengthier and water down the important information in them. Also, Trivia is a popular topic especially for casual readers. Don't understate the entertainment value! Even encyclopedias should be interesting! Imho a Trivia section is a good idea for certain articles, for instance movies or pop music. Even the guideline doesn't say ALL trivia sections should be abolished. Don't go so far as trying to impose your preferences on all articles when there's no consensus for doing so! And pls keep in mind that only a very small group of users will engage in discussions here. When I see that guidelines here are decided by about 20 users, but will set rules for all Wiki users, I get a very creepy feeling. 89.182.24.165 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I now understand it was 25 vs. 16 users. However, this still isn't widespread support. 89.182.135.194 12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for boldly deleting the {{trivia}} template from Leslie Feist. It would be even more helpful, however, if you integrated those trivia items into the article text. It took three simple edits,[5] [6] [7] and hardly any more effort than you spent deleting the {{trivia}} template and subsequently complaining on multiple Talk pages.

I don't understand why you object so viscerally to Wikipedia having style guidelines, but I don't think one can reasonably say these items were better arranged, easier to read, or more useful when they were two unrelated facts in a Trivia section.

It's not that hard. It's not that unreasonable. / edg ☺ ★ 02:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't say thanks unless you mean it. 89.182.24.165 might generally do what everyone else thinks is a good way to improve an article, but he just disagrees with it being a policy. He thinks the proper way to improve an article should be left to the editors and not dictated to them. He'd like to respect the intelligence of others rather than doubt it. At least that's the impression I get.

Equazcion • improves/contribs • 03:12, 09/20/2007

Thanks is a the polite, encouraging thing to say. I wanted to open with a positive, so I applauded this editor for their boldness. Your declaration that it was WP:SARCASM is both assuming bad faith and biting the newbie. I hope you'll give this some consideration, because I'm also concerned that this comment casts an inflammatory suspicion that could escalate my attempt to patiently communicate with this editor into an angry dispute. This can sabotage calm discussion over a difference of opinion.

However, I don't think respecting the intellegence of others necessarily requires one to say "oh that's okay then, go ahead and delete maintenance templates". I understand there are important political concerns expressed here, but others may imagine, when seeing a mature editor defending the deletion of maintenance templates, that it seems a bit disruptive. / edg ☺ ★ 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you should've respected the intelligence of others by applauding his removal of the tag. I said respecting the intelligence of others is this user's point with his comment here. I didn't comment at all on his removal of the tag.

Equazcion • improves/contribs • 03:45, 09/20/2007

You're misquoting or misunderstanding me. I was replying to you WP:SARCASM comment, which I thought was needlessly disruptive. If you really wish to scold me further, perhaps you can take it to my talk page, but I don't agree with you.

I disagree with this editor that respecting the intelligence of others leads to practically any of the suggestions this editor made. Most of all, I think Wikipedia should have style guidelines, and it is neither insulting to editors' intelligence, nor "creepy", or whatever other personal offence can be taken. / edg ☺ ★ 03:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I understood you just fine, and I was not responding to your sarcasm remarks at all. The user didn't say that having style guidelines was creepy. He said he gets a creepy feeling from knowing that this particular guideline is imposed based on a mere 20 users supporting it. Maybe you should stick to direct quotes. Your rehashing of others' comments tends to include extreme twists.

Equazcion • improves/contribs • 04:01, 09/20/2007

I was replying to your sarcasm remarks. And if I'm misunderstanding the anon editor, they are better suited to clarify what they were saying. Again, if you feel a need to attack me personally, please do it on my Talk page. Insisting on doing it here sabotages my attempt to communicate with this editor. No idea why you persist in this. / edg ☺ ★ 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a personal attack and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I believe the anon's comments were pretty straightforward. He wasn't saying there shouldn't be style guidelines. He didn't say anything like that. He just finds it disconcerting that 20 users are determining the rules for the entire Wikipedia. That's it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:37, 09/20/2007

I understood what this editor was saying. I in turn assumed that this editor would find my suggestion that the policy was not "creepy" would be worth considering. I didn't feel a need to reply with extreme specificity about exactly how many people may have agreed on this policy in what fora, and the mathematical complications of ratifying every guideline with all 5 million registered users. I wasn't able to meet your needs in this fashion. However, I was really commenting to the anon editor, whom I imagine could reply if they wanted to, and probably doesn't need a translator. / edg ☺ ★ 04:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if you answer a comment by restating that comment in an inaccurate way, then I will comment on that. Here a user said, "When I see that guidelines here are decided by about 20 users, but will set rules for all Wiki users, I get a very creepy feeling." And you responded that "I think Wikipedia should have style guidelines, and it is neither insulting nor creepy..." Those are very different statements. It sounded like you were responding to something else entirely. I'm sorry if you don't like my answering comments directed at someone else; however, we are in an open forum here. When you comment, you are speaking to everyone. If you wish to have private conversations, this is not the place.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:54, 09/20/2007

Hey, I wouldn't have deleted this tag if I would have guessed this would start a knifefight here! :D Stay cool, pls. And no misunderstanding: I'm not against the style guideline, I'm just against overregulation. I don't see anything important in this guideline that isn't said in a similar way in 'style' or 'content'. I would have thought twice about deleting the tag too, if I had reason to believe it was applied by a fellow user. But, yes, I have absolutely no scruples in BEING BOLD and deleting the mindless tag of a bot, when it makes no sense in an article. I'm very sceptical about the use of bots to tag articles. This "once size fits all" approach often annoys users who invested a lot of time in making their articles look good and be nice to read. This quality is more important imho than pointing out minor errors of the users by applying a big ugly tag. If you think something should be improved, better say so personally and in 'discussion', if it's a heavilycontested article, or otherwise simply do it. "edg" provided a good example about how it should be done. I didn't believe the trivia in that "Feist" article could be integrated easily, and I was too lazy to try it. He proved me wrong, and the result is great. Ok, I guess experience is playing a role here, too. Thx Edgarde! 89.182.135.194 11:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The value of Trivia

One aspect of Wikipedia which I appeciate is the unfiltered information about films. While relevance might be debated, as long as this information is verifable, it does have value to others.

Compared to the current standard for film information, IMDB, I feel that site does not have enough information, and, of course, no way for me to add revelant, important, and interesting details.

Finally, the word trivia implies triviality. While minor details about movies might seem so, to interested film watchers and students, any bit of information might reveal insight or inspire thought. And the word "trivia" is the accepted term for film details, so I suggest continuing using it. Swfong 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This guideline will make finding these same facts easier, and does not call for their removal. Please actually read the guideline before commenting. -- Ned Scott 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the guidelines for trivia are actively discouraging adding trivia, which has resulted in fewer details and other information. I recommend not having any warnings about trivia. Please read into the context of these guidelines, not just the letter.Swfong 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia, actual trivia, by definition doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. Then there's the "fun facts" or "miscellaneous" trivia. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Scott, you're not answering to Swfong. He did talk about "details and other information", not about what you call actual trivia ("hobby:tennis", ok, that's one). And I support his motion that Trivia sections are valuable in certain articles. Some here seem to be mainly against the headline "trivia". Imho it's a total waste of time to discuss here whether sections should be named "Trivia" or "Details" or "Something else". This can't be decided generally, but should be discussed among the people really working at the articles. If it fits, it fits. I'm very much against the level of centralization that seems to be at work here.89.182.24.165 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. 89.182.24.165 presents a very good point that I've brought up before and that I think everyone should try to understand.

Equazcion • argue/improvements • 02:42, 09/20/2007

Hey, friends simply call me 89.182, Mr. Equazcion! :-) 89.182.135.194 12:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This can't be decided generally, but should be discussed among the people really working at the articles.

The editors who integrate unorganized content from a trivia section are also people working on those hypothetical articles. Wikipedia can be edited by everyone. An article is not owned by those who came before.

If it fits, it fits.

Of course. It says on the top of this guideline that it should normally be followed, but it has exceptions. However, there should be a good reason for making such an exception. And this is decided by the editors of the article. No idea why this seems so fascistic to some editors. If the article needs a trivia section, make a case for it on the article Talk page. If one doesn't want to do the work of integrating trivia, do something else, and others will do the integration. / edg ☺ ★ 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that whether or not something fits doesn't need to be determined by a guideline; and if it doesn't fit, editors shouldn't have to defend that position against a guideline.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:31, 09/20/2007

I understand what this editor is saying. I am saying the guideline helps, and it does not impose such a terrible burden. / edg ☺ ★ 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just making sure, because it didn't seem like you understood, and I didn't want to get all "Did you even READ this???" on you, the way some people react. You know?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:44, 09/20/2007

Thx for the carification, Edgarde, we don't seem to be that far apart. And you sure have much more experience than me. However, imho the guideline makes a much stronger point than what you said. I guess this authoritarian approach is what rubs many users the wrong way.89.182.135.194 12:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with content

Removing this guideline or marking it rejected will not solve any actual problems. Working on it until we reach some agreement on what it should say might help. Even if we can agree on only broad principles, we should say just what they are. I think at this point we need to discuss both the content and the arrangement in order to avoid confusion.

Let's start with content. Personally, with respect to content, I would like a clear statement that the use of themes or significant plot elements, characters, or major background elements in notable works & works by notable authors/artists can be encyclopedic content. I'd also like a clear statement that biographic details important to peoples works and character can be encyclopedic, as can important production details about a work, and about its subsequent manifestations. (please note the qualifiers--and I said can, not are always). I think these three situations cover most of the really important material. DGG (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for this guideline to start talking about what's notable and what's not. That would be more appropriate in another guideline on content. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Would your statement differ from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? How are these issues relevant to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections? I'm not saying you are absolutely wrong; I just don't understand why you consider them an issue here.

I really think content discussion belongs on a content-oriented guideline, such as WP:NOT#TRIVIA. Here it would just confuse (if not inflame) the issue. / edg ☺ ★ 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how any of those things would fit here DGG. You might be better off discussing those at WP:ROC.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:54, 09/20/2007

Yes, I was just about to suggest that. Edit WP:ROC to have it reflect your thoughts. The kind of guidance you're suggesting here is outside the scope of this guideline.--Father Goose 00:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think DGG means that just because Peter Griffin mentions Benjamin Disraeli in an episode of Family Guy, doesn't mean that it needs to be mentioned in the article on Benjamin Disraeli. This is the type of content that tends to fill "Trivia/In Popular Culture/Whatever" sections, so I can see why DGG would suggest putting it in this guideline.-Wafulz 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in the example you just gave, I think the Family Guy mention of Disraeli is not worth including in the articles Benjamin Disraeli or Family Guy. However, I don't think Wikipedia:Trivia sections should directly address issues of content, so I don't think it's appropriate here.

Recent discussion on this page is being pushed into the Archives pretty quickly. Adding off-topic discussion adds to the problem. / edg ☺ ★ 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That Family Guy-type problem is exactly what WP:ROC addresses.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:32, 09/20/2007

fine--what I am trying to do is to get the two separate issues sorted out--I agree that they are separate, but most of the prior discussions have gotten them confused. If it is accepted that the material can be notable, then there should really be no need for much conflict here: what can be integrated should be integrated, and if there is too much material of a particular type, then the article may need to be divided.

DGG (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, no conflict I'm involved in will be about inclusion. I agree that they're two separate issues, and I only argue about the pertinent one, that has to do with this guideline.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:33, 09/21/2007

I have to ask, what is your objection to the guideline? It seems the only thing you've said is that it might not represent a consensus. But for a moment, lets say that wasn't a factor, and we didn't know who supported what, but what would you personally feel about this guideline? -- Ned Scott 06:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said I have any other objection to the guideline? I may have some objection to it, but I will not allow this conversation to head there. I won't be just another complainer. This is about the state of consensus, not about my specific opinion.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:51, 09/22/2007

The best way to present information

Is it always true that there's a better way to present information than a trivia section? A lot of the discussion on this page, as well as the project page itself, seems to be based on the assumption that it is. I'd like to give a possible example where it isn't. Take for example the page Emley Moor transmitting station. The following item from the trivia section is about the original tower, which collapsed in the 1960s:

• 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.

Removing this piece of information from the article would not be appropriate, as it's relevant and (I think) notable (even it it isn't notable, we could, for the sake of argument, consider a hypothetical collapsed TV tower which was exhibited in a notable way).

Moving it to one of the other sections, such as the section about the original tower or its collapse wouldn't be appropriate, as it doesn't fit comfortably into either of these sections.

Finally, adding enough context to give it a section of its own wouldn't be appropriate either, because whilst the fact itself is relevant to the article, the context (information about the exhibition, etc.) is not.

What are people's thoughts? James pic 10:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not always easy to integrate trivia.. but that's clearly something that doesn't belong in a section called "trivia." There's a history section, though, and this seems like a part of the tower's history. Maybe that would need a new subsection like "later history" or "aftermath." In general, the structure of that article is a bit choppy, and could stand to be reconsidered from scratch, and then this might be easier to integrate. If these things are too hard to do right away, then leave it in the trivia section: there is no deadline after all. If someone comes in and cleans up the trivia section in a different way and removes the item, you could always add the trivia section back if you still can't integrate it, or just integrate it in an imperfect way. Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not such a great example. At least two of those items should be removed: the one that states the elevation of the top and the one that tells you which roads the tower can be seen from, those are both unnecessary (the elevation might be able to go somewhere else, perhaps the infobox). The second item is a little strange and could also go, as it doesn't seem to contain anything notable. The poem item can be added to the lead section, as a kind of proof of notability/cultural influence/landmark status. The other items have to do with history and can be integrated, although unfortunately not into any paragraphs that currently exist. The History section would need to be expanded to include more than just the collapse.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:00, 09/20/2007

just an idea

I've tried to keep up with the circular discussions here and on the template's talk page. And I take it this has been going on quite a while. I see a lot of talk about what I'll refer to as "good" trivia and "bad" trivia — the bad being, well, trivia in the full pejorative sense, and "good" being anything else that at least some view as being worthy of a stab at clean-up and integration.

I think we've got too many peas in the pod. This guideline should really be be about sections of articles that contain true trivia that should almost (but not quite) be nuked on sight, and some other guideline (Wikipedia:Unordered lists of miscellaneous information?) should be built from much of the current content of this guideline. Ya, I know, one person's information is another's trivia.

Fact is, trivia is unencyclopaedic and there's a ton of it in articles out there. Quite frankly, I'd be all for something like the spamlist that prevents adding sections named 'trivia' and bots that mass-nuked extant sections. If people want to integrate something from one of these nuked sections, they can get it from history. --Jack Merridew 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Embedded list

I have proposed that this article be merged with Wikipedia:Embedded list - talk on Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking "Relevance of content"

Please remove this.

For issues of inclusion, see the proposal Wikipedia:Relevance of content

Wikipedia:Relevance of content, currently linked from the article body, is an unreviewed proposal that has already been rejected under another name, and contains no actionable recommendations regarding inclusion/exclusion. I strongly object to using Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections to elevate the Relevance of content proposal, or any suggestion that Relevance of content may be a recommended procedure on Wikipedia.

If there is a need to link a policy explaining "trivia" as unimportant material that may be excluded, the policy to link is Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, provided that hasn't been deleted again. If WP:NOT#TRIVIA has been deleted, then there is no policy whatsoever, and say that instead. Referring editors to Wikipedia:Relevance of content is not helpful, and wastes their time. / edg ☺ ★ 06:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If we have links to essays, surely we can have links to proposed guidelines. Unless you want remove links to anything that's not a guideline, you don't have much grounds to remove this particular one. And I really doubt wasting peoples' time should be a concern. If people don't want to read it, they don't have to, and even if they do, it's a pretty short page.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:20, 09/23/2007

That's a false choice. Relevance of content has not gained the acceptance that other essays in Wikipedia space have. In fact, it is largely based on a rejected proposal for Wikipedia:Relevance. Here we have a policy hole being plugged with a new, unapproved essay. And while I haven't checked the histories here, I would bet by an essay written largely by the editor who created the hole. That's dealing off the bottom of the deck. / edg ☺ ★ 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your opinion of acceptance of either page has to do with anything. They're both essays. They're both not guidelines. That's the only thing we know for certain. If we can link to one, we can link to the other. It doesn't do anyone any harm. Both only offer advice that people can choose to use or not use.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:30, 09/23/2007

Well, let's accept that logic for argument's sake. There remains another issue. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection was changed boldly, and then it remains were deleted from WP:NOT with the justification there was supposedly insuffient consensus for that to be a Policy. However, there certainly seems to be substantial support for having that as policy, and which cannot be said about Relevance of content.

In the principal that any essay can be plugged into guidelines without consensus, I would propose a compromise where the contents of Wikipedia:Relevance of content, which has no support, are replaced with Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, which even tho consensus is disputed, clearly has wide support. Editors may choose to use or not use it. We'll also add Any edit by Equazcion may be reverted without argument or explanation. It doesn't do anyone any harm — after all we can all agree on what the good edits are. If the user doesn't find it helpful, they don't have to use this suggestion, or even read it in the first place.

Surely you can have no objection to that, per your own interesting rules.

I mean, I could make a proposal called Guidelines for inclusion where I copy in various content-relevant bits from other Wikipedia policies, carefully avoiding any actionable information on inclusion, and plug it into a policy hole that I would create by deleting WP:NOT#TRIVIA. But hey, that work's already been done. / edg ☺ ★ 07:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If ROC had anything to do with trivia I might consider this compromise you suggest, however they are two completely different things. Just because certain content is "more accepted" (maybe) than other content does not mean they're interchangeable. If you feel so strongly about trivia and feel that it pertains so much to the relevance argument, then I suggest you head over to Wikipedia:Relevance of content and discuss additions that might more directly address the trivia issue. Furthermore, links or information added for "use or not use" still need to be helpful and relevant. Relevance of content is something that many editors are really looking for when they head over to this guideline, due to the slightly misleading title of "trivia sections", which denotes a guideline dealing in unimportant or irrelevant content. It helps to offer those people some advice rather than giving them a dead-end.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:35, 09/23/2007

My objection to ROC is that it is being represented as being about omitting unimportant material, which directly impacts on the content side of the trivia concern. In fact, "unimportant material" is the very definition of trivial.

So you'll support this compromise? I like my proposal more. / edg ☺ ★ 07:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, I don't support either of them. ROC is not about trivia, but it is helpful to those who come in search of the dictionary version of trivia. The "content side of the trivia concern" has nothing directly to do with trivia sections. It has to do with trivia, in its most technical sense, and not the Wikipedia vernacular, which is the only use in this guideline.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:47, 09/23/2007

Of course it's not about "trivia sections". Neither of us said it was, nor is this stated currently in WP:TRIVIA, nor was my objection to its relevance to trivia sections. What you are saying now is entirely beside the point.

So my proposal is really quite okay with you. You just misunderstand it. Please re-read. We're on the same page, you and me. / edg ☺ ★ 07:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood you at all. I don't support your proposal.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:57, 09/23/2007

And why not? I've gone to some length to accommodate you here. This is your rules I'm playing by. I mean, really, your suggestion that any essay is the same as any other, and all can be plugged into any guideline, was pretty nihilistic. But I didn't even question that. My sole argument is to use the more supported principal, and not even make it a policy. Sounds pretty fair to me. More than fair, considering what I've been given. / edg ☺ ★ 08:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The so-called more supported principal was deleted, so I don't think re-creating it somewhere else solves anything, and would be seen as circumventing the process. And I never said essays are all the same. I think you misunderstood me. Please re-read.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:10, 09/23/2007

You're handwaving my concerns saying they don't matter. And you consistently gainsay Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, disputing all reasonable claims in its favor, and interpreting all resistance to the principle as plainly invalidating the principle. I get it. No further discussion is needed.

Wikipedia:Relevance of content should come out of this article, for the reasons I stated at the top of this section. The rest of this thread is a mere distraction. / edg ☺ ★ 10:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I could say all the same things about your argument. I could say all the same things about all your arguments, or anyone else's arguments. All that's required is for someone to not back down, and then you can declare that this person is unreasonable and arguments with this person won't get you anywhere so don't try. You've lost the argument and you have nothing else left to say, so you've resorted to saying that this entire thread, most of which consist of your words, was pointless. There is no reason to remove WP:ROC from this page, as I've already demonstrated.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:23, 09/23/2007

I completely agree. WP:ROC is already being used in these discussions to support removing/modifying guidelines and policies elsewhere. This is absurd, bizarre, and underhanded. I'm removing it myself. --Cheeser1 14:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance is being used, not the relevance guideline proposal per se. It's not absurd or underhanded. It's logic. If something isn't relevant it shouldn't be in an article; WP:ROC is an attempt at spelling out what relevance means. And it's not a guideline, so it's not binding.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:23, 09/23/2007

ROC is being used to support removing stuff elsewhere? Can you back this up with a diff or something? I'm not aware of anyone actually doing this.--Father Goose 04:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ROC is being used in places, e.g. here, posing as a guideline/policy regarding trivia as content. There is an ongoing debate about removing WP:NOT#TRIVIA which serves the same function. You both support ROC and both oppose NOT#TRIVIA. I find this interesting. Father Goose: I may have phrased what I said incorrectly - the removal of particular policies is leaving open a gap that ROC conveniently fills. The best (only?) real reason I've seen for removing WP:NOT#TRIVIA is "consensus doesn't support it," and yet we've got people linking to WP:ROC as a way to deal with trivia (as content) already? And it just happens to be the two of you? I'm not going to speculate as to what's going on here, and it may be nothing, but you've both been gungho about your bold removal of WP:NOT#TRIVIA, and I've dropped the discussion there because I'm not getting straight answers out of anybody. I'm going to step aside in this one too - There's clearly alot going on here, the same dispute is essentially spanning several policies/guidelines/etc and has become fairly contentious. I can't seem to get straight answers, beyond a run-around about consensus that may have existed in the past justifying bold changes to an article. This dispute is insane, and I'm not interested in getting browbeaten and run around by anyone who doesn't seem to understand that the first step in building consensus is explaining your position clearly. --Cheeser1 05:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to read motives into people's actions (as opposed to their words). I've been guilty of it myself in the past, and ended up looking like a fool. WP:AGF is always good advice.

My reasons for removing NOT#TRIVIA were exactly as I stated on its talk page. Either it is meant to exclude trivia from Wikipedia, a position that is without consensus -- or it is limited to reiterating this guideline's advice, which is a matter of style that doesn't belong in WP:NOT. The purpose of WP:NOT is to exclude entire classes of information, and I agree with most of what's in it. But there is definitely not a consensus to exclude trivia, per se, from Wikipedia.

There is a consensus against including facts in large and disorganized lists; that is expressed by this guideline here, and given the number of {{trivia}} tags side-wide, it's not like people are going to overlook this page. I think Wikipedia additionally would benefit from a guideline that lays out "what material is irrelevant" (to a given article), and WP:ROC is an attempt to forge a consensus regarding that issue. But I certainly didn't remove NOT#TRIVIA to bolster ROC, and more importantly, I don't see why you're opposed to ROC anyway. It isn't a magic bullet against trivia -- it doesn't say "delete all this shit on sight" -- but it does lay down a baseline for when stuff is relevant and when it isn't. I'm surprised that's something you don't want to throw your weight behind.--Father Goose 06:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This Guideline needs to be deprecated

How does one go about getting a Guideline deprecated? Perhaps a vote on this or another Talk page? Perhaps getting a Bureaucrat to make some sort of motion? Something else?... Especially for pop culture articles, this Guideline is just atrocious. It smacks of the influence of that common character type that loves to sit around tweaking and "improving" the Wikipedia model instead of putting their heads down and writing. JDG 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you found time to read this guideline yet? As it encourages writing, as opposed to simply appending without any process, you might find something to like in this guideline. / edg ☺ ★ 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Have you found the time to read this guideline". It would be nice if you didn't always assume that people are idiots. Some people simply disagree with you. Anyway. I think JDG thinks that the focus should be more on generally improving articles than on creating specific guidelines for telling people how they need to do that. That's my interpretation at least. And I'd agree with that.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:35, 09/19/2007

From his comment it does not sound like he has read the guideline at all. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer JDG's question, you don't. Currently this guideline has widespread support by community and by related guidelines. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can claim widespread community support for this guideline. Various people have expressed disagreement with some aspect of this guideline, including JDG, Equazcion and myself, and I'm not aware of any determined effort to reach a consensus. Also, related guidelines are not this guideline, so either they're redundant or don't speak directly to these issues. James pic 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, widespread support? Where is it? Looking into the archives, I found that maybe 20 users held a poll on that guideline. Hmm, what percentage of all users is that??? Idon't really know if this guideline is necessary at all, as some others have said, most points are already made elsewhere, and I see the grave danger that this small group of users may impose rules on the people without having popular support. Be careful, pls. Less rules are better rules.89.182.24.165 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict... To Ned: It's entirely possible that he didn't. But I'll assume he did, just for the sake of optimism and good faith. Anyone who doubts this though could simply ask him in a polite and civil manner.

To JDG: You can't really vote on whether or not to deprecate a guideline, cause there just isn't a process for it. There isn't even a process for accepting a guideline to begin with. Someone just tags a page one way or the other, according to how he perceives the current consensus. It turns out to pretty much be a majority rule. For instance, I could say this guideline is disputed; but if more people don't like me saying that than do, then there's nothing I can do about that. So get a majority together somehow, and get them to keep paying attention to this page, and then you can change things. Until then you just have to chip away at it little by little, and be happy winning your tiny battles.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:53, 09/19/2007

can you rename the trivia sections to "Other Info" or "Other Misc. Facts?" then there's no more trivia, but the content remains. i dunno just trying to make everyone happy (impossible!)  :) --Scottymoze 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To Ned Scott: "Widespread support"? To the question "are a lot of people in favour of this guideline?" the answer is of course yes. However, the opposite question "are a lot of people furious about what they perceive as the stupidity of this guideline?", the answer is equally certainly yes. Therefore claiming "widespread support" is slightly misleading. Mlewan 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The section titles themselves aren't what has everyone all bothered, Scotty. It's their contents. So changing the title won't really do much... sorry.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:20, 09/19/2007

I disagree. This guideline effectively prohibits the longterm use of a "Trivia" section (only shortterm allowed), without caring if this title may make sense in a certain article. But Wiki doesn't forbid the use of lists, and so it seems that a list with the title, say, "Details" seems to be ok, under this guideline (as long as it is organized). But NOT "Trivia". This is ridiculous and smacks of censorship. This shouldn't be decided here at all in this general manner. The appropriate title of a section should be chosen by people working at a certain article, on a case by case basis, and not here. And if they think, "Trivia" makes sense and improves the article, and if they manage to organize it, why not?89.182.24.165 02:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose this motion. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this motion. I enjoy "trivia" sections, and while they upset some of the more academic snob types, they make wikipedia more engaging for regular folks, and a few upset academics just need to find something else more important to get upset about, like the tragedy in Darfur or the failing economy. The world is a depressing place, and these trivia sections (which I invariably skip to) provide some brevity and lightness to otherwise boring articles. In fact, I would persue a motion to keep trivia sections but relegate all the non-academic or anecdotal information to them so that the academics can still lord over the vast majority of the rest of wikipedia while normal people can skip all that intellectual stuff and just read the "funnies". That might keep wikipedia interesting, and who knows, sometimes people might stray from the sugar and go for the fibre in the rest of the article once there.

This is a short sighted, anal retentive guideline IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.54 (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This Guideline needs to be deprecated - part2

[In reply to comment in part 1 by user "JDG"] "It smacks of the influence of that common character type that loves to sit around tweaking and "improving" the Wikipedia model instead of putting their heads down and writing". I'm not sure what you're trying to get across here- the majority of people who improve articles (note the lack of sarcastic quotes) spend a lot of time integrating trivia to make it readable and accessible. It takes an enormous amount of time and patience to integrate large bulleted lists throughout an article. This guideline is intended to save everyone some work and to present articles in a more easily readable fashion. It may seem like a wonderful idea to set a ridiculously low bar for contributions, but in all honesty, getting rid of this guideline would be like getting rid of guidelines telling people to wikify, use proper grammar, or provide sources.-Wafulz 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. People would still do whatever they think they need to do to improve articles -- and for experienced editors, that can mean integrating trivia, getting rid of trivia, or discouraging trivia. This guideline is just over one year old. Wikipedia got along fine without it all those prior years. It's definitely not quite as important as grammar.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:28, 09/19/2007

Wikipedia got along fine with some pretty bad versions of things like WP:RS, but now we have better, stronger policies and guidelines to help us along. Trivia sections are completely unencyclopedic in presentation, and provide a format in which unencylopedic content can amass in an article. By encouraging editors to contribute content in a proper presentation (integrated into the article), we avoid having to do twice the work (one editor tacking info onto some list of data, another having to integrate it properly). It ensures that we spend less time tidying up stuff that should never have been left untidy, and avoids an open door for irrelevant or unremarkable chunks of data to be tacked onto articles haphazardly (people can and do leave such things on the talk page, frequently, saying "can somebody integrate this into the article?").

Let me make an extended analogy - I have a silverware drawer. I do not throw all of my silverware in it, I have a little thing that separates forks, knives, and spoons. Now if we all share such a drawer, we should expect people to put their silverware in the correct spot. It (1) keeps things tidy and (2) prevents people from throwing forks and knives and cups and pencils in the big mess of a drawer, waiting for somebody to come sort it out and get rid of the stuff that doesn't belong there in the first place. --Cheeser1 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all very familiar with the argument against trivia, thanks, but there's really no need to get into that yet again.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:12, 09/19/2007

Great explantion. This could be added to the guideline. Thanks Cheeser! / edg ☺ ★ 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Be bold.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 19:50, 09/19/2007

Equazcion, if you're familiar with the reasons we have this guideline, why are you arguing to depreciate it? --Cheeser1 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Who said I was arguing to deprecate it? Besides, familiarity with its reasoning does not imply agreement with it. You're under the mistaken impression that the people arguing against the guideline have all got some kind of misunderstanding about it. This is sometimes true, but not always. Explaining its reasoning over and over again will only get you so far.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:22, 09/19/2007

I don't consider this a battle or an argument, Equazcion, I consider this a discussion. I'm sorry if you think I'm "explaining its reasoning over and over," but all I did was state it once and prove a helpful analogy (one that apparently garnered some praise). Why? Because I'm trying to work with you to understand the purpose of this guideline and see if we still need it. I believe it's intent is to keep articles from becoming a cluttered silverware drawer. Instead of talking to me about that, you simply tell me to (essentially) shut up because you've heard it all before. If you want to participate in a good faith discussion, so much the better. If you want to belittle me and make no comments that actually address my points, because you think you've heard it all before, then you feel free, but I'll only be responding to comments (from you or anyone else) that are productive and on topic from now on. --Cheeser1 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No one's arguing (here) about the meaning of the guideline, or about the reasons it was imposed. People are disagreeing that it is needed. Explaining what the guideline is there for is irrelevant, because we all already know. Nevertheless you are free to do so, and I haven't told you to "shut up" about it. Just try to remember that the people arguing against it could very well fully understand the guideline and its purpose, yet still disagree that it's necessary.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:23, 09/20/2007

An encyclopedia has guidelines for style/layout/content. Keeping information organized, written in meaningful paragraphs, within a reasonable structure, that should (and is) clearly a part of how we organize Wikipedia. Lists of data are not how we write encyclopedias, is how we write lists of data. The explanation is why it's necessary. That's why I stated it. We have a drawer we want people to be able to access, and find the silverware they need. Making a mess of it is totally contrary to our purpose. This isn't me berating people with this stuff, this is me explaining it and why it's there. I'm glad people could understand it and disagree, but I'd like to know why. If you're playing devil's advocate, let the devil speak for himself. If you're not, then fess up and explain why it is not as necessary as I've stated instead of dodging the issue by making such a side-step. --Cheeser1 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You've again explained the reasoning behind it. No one asked why it's necessary. People disagree that it's necessary.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:29, 09/20/2007

Given that people are not automatically doing the things that this guideline recommends, that generally justifies the existence of a guideline. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where to start telling you what's wrong with that statement (but I will).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:00, 09/20/2007

Ok here goes:

• People not doing what the guideline recommends does not justify the guideline being there. On the other hand, people not doing something that everyone agrees is good does justify there being a guideline for it -- but that's not necessarily the case here. In other words, you can't justify the existence of a rule by saying that if it wasn't there people wouldn't follow it. You're making the assumption that the instructions within the rule are unquestionably good. Meanwhile the argument is against the rule being of sound logic, or universally applicable.
• If people are not automatically doing it, that's evidence that there's no consensus for it.
• Your statement assumes that everyone does or should agree with your point of view on the contents of this guideline, when they clearly don't.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:12, 09/20/2007

Obviously I mean that this is true assuming the guideline is good advice, and normally should be followed. (Hell, people are not sending me money, but I'm not going to propose WP:SEND NED SOME MONEY) But this guideline is good advice, and people should normally follow this advice. I quote WP:TRIVIA: "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, as appropriate in text, list or table." Is this not true? -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to depend on who you ask :) I won't get into the specifics of what's good and what's bad. I'm not looking start yet another trivia argument. But the point that people have brought up in this section is that your claim of widespread support in inaccurate, and I agree with them. That is, and has been for a very long time, my point.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:37, 09/20/2007

It is a fundamental no-brainer that providing a logical grouping and ordering of facts is a good thing. Why else would we have the Manual of style? Can you point to me a single situation where this guideline did not improve an article? Even just one single article? -- Ned Scott 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to, because that's not what I'm arguing about. You can reason and call it obvious all you want. The fact remains that too many people disagree with you for you to claim widespread support. You make it seem like this guideline describes a sacred unchallenged truth of universal physics. Or something. It does not. Many have and continue to disagree with it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:49, 09/20/2007

Fine, but Wikipedia is specifically not a democracy for this very reason. If a large number of people object, even if the majority objects, but without good reason, Wikipedia doesn't care. We don't count hands, we count sound arguments. That being said, I still think that the majority of those who object are confusing this to be a content guideline that defines inclusion, even though no definition is given. These are editors lashing out at the actions of others who are removing trivia sections and want someone to blame. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

←I think that's an assumption you're not necessarily licensed to make. You're taking the same stance as Cheeser; that if they don't support it they must not understand it. As I said before, this is sometimes the case, but not always. Our most recent anonymous visitor here seemed to have good reasons, that could fit along the lines of Wikipedia:Instruction creep. Furthermore, widespread support and consensus are two different things, at least within Wikipedia. Consensus may be based on discussion and non-democracy, but widespread support simply means almost everyone agrees, and that's just not true. I don't know what a consensus is anymore exactly, and I don't quite understand who gets to decide what the current consensus is (seems to me the majority side gets to decide...), but even if you can claim it for this, you can't also claim widespread support. It's just not there.

(General comment about acceptance.) Acceptance or non-acceptance should be measured from how it is used in the encyclopedia and not just the comments on this page as it will likely only contain those who are working on the guideline and those that have problems with it. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So what happens if we can't agree on how it is used in the encyclopedia? And what happens if most of the use that occurs is due to the guideline in the first place? How many arguments have there been over trivia on article talk pages, that end with someone saying "The trivia guideline says to do this"? Does that count as "use", arguments being decided because one side can defend their position with a guideline? Can we make another guideline that says "Trivia sections are fine" just to balance things out and temporarily see which one people then "use"?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:09, 09/20/2007

What I meant was not to look too closely at the numbers that post here (as it's a very small amount of editors), and look at places where edits are more organised, like WikiProjects and Guidlines. For example, the guideline WP:EPISODE and its procedures has used this guideline a lot lately in it's push for better articles. For a better idea about "use", you can look at various large Wikiprojects, for example WP:TV, WP:NOVEL which both promote usage of this guideline. WP:FILMS has a list of pages in its scope that require trivia cleanup. Looking at other guidelines and Wikiprojects in particular is useful because it represents a large amount of editors who edit often. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, one could claim that this guideline isn't accepted, given the thousands of editors who have created or added to trivia sections. Consensus can be awfully hard to pin down.--Father Goose 21:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's hard to ascertain without a large scale discussion. But, people creating Trivia sections does not really give a clear number of users against the guideline as it doesn't indicate that the guideline is an issue. In the examples I gave to Equazcion above, It shows quantities of users that actively promote the guideline. Some sort of highly advertised central discussion would give everyone a chance to say something. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that would even help. This seems to be a unique issue in that the controversy isn't just over the question at hand, but over whether or not there is even a controversy. Despite everything that happens here and all the comments and fights that pass through, we aren't even allowed to so much as tag this guideline as disputed. Why? Because its proponents say that there is no dispute, and there are more of them paying attention here than there are others. Well of course there will be. What's more likely, people sticking around to police the guidelines or people sticking around to fight them, even when they can't seem to get anywhere? That's more like a poor example of democracy than it is a consensus. Just because people leave after they complain doesn't mean they're satisfied. Then others come complaining. But is this a disputed guideline? No, because its supporters say it's not; which by coincidence happens to suit them just fine.

I think no one here really knows how to handle a situation like this. Not that I do. But Wikipedia just doesn't have a system for handling this. We can't leave "acceptance", "rejection" or "disputed" up to individual editors to war on. It always causes problems, always. There needs to be a process to weigh just how well accepted a guideline is, so that it can be tagged accordingly. We have processes for deletion; well this is more important and more prone to start battles.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:25, 09/20/2007

We don't mark things as rejected or as disputed just because there are some editors who don't like the page. We mark the page based on it's consensus, which is based on the arguments, the rationales, and the actual uses of the guideline. Bill brings up a very good point, in that there are tons of users who feel this guideline is a fundamental step to improving an article. On the other hand, we don't have a single example of when this guideline, when followed, would hurt an article. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hurt an article" and "consensus" seem to be subjective. We have users who believe that trivia sections are fine for articles, we have users who believe trivia sections should be in articles, we have users who believe there is no consensus, we have users who believe the guideline is disputed. There's you, who happens to believe both in the guideline and in the guideline's acceptance and lack of a dispute. There's me, who at the very least believes that there is a dispute. There tons of users on each side. Who has more? You've solved nothing. You haven't said anything new. I could answer this comment by repeating the same two paragraphs you're responding to. Consensus is subjective. I believe there is none. Let me repeat that. There is no consensus. You want to tell me there is? Get all your friends together and say the same thing? Means diddly-squat. We need a process. GfD, Guidelines for Demotion. We need to establish a consensus, not declare it to each other. No one here knows what they're talking about.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:03, 09/22/2007

I hope you are not implying that we have a vote on it. This issue attracts too many people for consensus to be possible. Decisions on Wikipedia are made based on policy, consensus, and rational arguments/interpretations. It has been plainly established that cleaning up trivia sections is helpful in many cases. I have not seen a particular argument against trivia clean up - no examples of where it would be counterproductive. Consensus is not majority rule - if hundreds of people are involved in disputes or consensus building or whatever, it will not be a vote or a stalemate until unanimity is established. It will be a discussion in which (hopefully) a reasonable compromise will emerge, or in which one interpretation leads to an objectively more reasonable outcome. If a hundred users support a reasonable and logical argument for keeping this guideline, and a hundred support removing it with an illogical or poorly supported reason, there may not be a majority, but I think there's room to make a decision. That's how we do AfDs, RfAs, and what, everything else? --Cheeser1 08:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser, how can we make a decision based on consensus if consensus is impossible? Who decides what's rational? What's reasonable? What's logical? Illogical? Poorly-supported? Is it you? Have you decided that the argument counter to yours is poor? Should that surprise me?

I'm not suggesting a vote, I'm suggesting a process. Like AfDs.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:33, 09/22/2007

Then I'll repeat myself, we have not even a single example that supports "the other side". We have lots of examples that show how the guideline is a benefit. You have to realize that people can be wrong about something when they object to it (not saying everyone is like that, but a good number of them). When people can't back up their arguments, and are often complaining about a misunderstanding, those voices are not given the same weight in the consensus building process. We have no officials on WIkipedia, no sanction judges, we only have our own common sense. What is your common sense telling you? I have the feeling you are going out of your way to ignore it simply because you want someone to make an official decree. The proof is in the very improvement that this guideline causes, where again I repeat myself, we have not even a single example to show that this is a bad guideline, but we have tons of examples that show that it is. What else do you want? -- Ned Scott 06:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people think that there are a lot of trivia sections that qualify as good examples of... of what? What are we talking about here? You want an example of the other side, meaning the side that says articles are better with their trivia sections intact? So that you can tell them that they're wrong? Who are you? There've been a few examples brought, but you or those that hold your opinion say they're wrong. I don't understand who is deciding what a good article is. I don't understand who gets to say that a person's argument is irrational. Sure, it can be obvious, if a million people feel one way and one person feels the other way. But when a thousand people feel one way and a thousand people feel the other way, well, then I'm sorry, but your decision that the opposing side doesn't know what they're talking about really needs more grounds than your side's say-so.

Let me put it a little simpler: You're asking for an example of an instance where a trivia section is actually good for an article. You feel this is a reasonable request that shows your objectivity, but it is not. What you're really saying is, "Show me an article where I agree that the trivia section is good for the article;" This is not helpful, because you and your opponents have differing opinions of what is good for an article, and therefore neither of you can decide on this with any degree of objectivity. Until we have a process for sorting this out, it's just two opponents telling each other to go to hell.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:48, 09/23/2007

I'm sorry, but my comments to you are assuming you are going to be using common sense. If someone does not have logic to backup their argument, then they really don't have an argument. If you give me an example of what the "other side" thinks is a good trivia section, I will show you a version of that list that is an improvement, and will show you a consensus discussion on the talk page of said article to prove it. I am willing to preform this example many times. If in any of those situations, even just one, someone gets a consensus that favors a trivia section, then we might be on to something. I have never told anyone to go to hell, and I have not assumed that all those who have a problem with this guideline simply don't understand it. To be blunt, I'm getting tired of your bullshit conclusions about my position in this debate. Who the hell are you to assume what I mean, when I bluntly tell you otherwise? Who the hell are you to say that I am not listening to others, giving them a fair chance in my mind, or that I am incapable of being objective in this discussion? You are not helping this situation, you are promoting a dispute because you believe there should be a dispute. My comments are directed at those who have an actual objection with this guideline, so if you don't have one, don't respond to me. You are interrupting the discussion to say "HEY GUYS, THERE IS A DISPUTE", totally taking away from the actual discussion itself. For the love of god, shut up and let me talk to those who have an objection. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You aren't equipped to judge common sense either, again unless you have some overwhelming majority backing you up. Same goes for "logic" -- much logic has been presented in the argument, it just isn't logic that you consider valid. The consensus that would occur on that example article's talk page would generally be representative of the consensus here since those are the people who would be in on that discussion.

In response to your emotional tirade, I never said you told someone to go to hell, I don't believe I made assumptions about how you feel (except to say that you're on one side of the argument, which hardly requires reading your mind to deduce), I never said you weren't listening to others or giving them a fair chance in your mind. But that's just the problem, the "in your mind" part, which is exactly where the closing decision of this debate does not belong. You are free to talk to whomever you like and disregard my comments completely. I never called you out directly to argue with me. My comments are general, and directed at whomever is interested in responding.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:18, 09/23/2007

Origin of this policy?

Could someone please amend the project page to include sources citing how it came to be that trivia sections are discouraged? --Carterhawk 07:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They're called talk page archives. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Right here, buddy. / edg ☺ ★ 07:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't the correct history of this page. The editor who gives us that summary is wrong, in that when WP:5P linked to Wikipedia:Trivia, it did not redirect to this page. That history is about the discouragement of trivial information, and is not totally related to why we discourage trivia sections for style reasons. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better history somewhere? I'd be happy to link one if I knew it. If this knowledge is arcane and undocumented, then Carterhawk can't be blamed for getting the wrong idea. No one on WT:NOT felt a need to correct DHowell, or disputed DHowell's history beyond "there were other reasons". (And Eryian's link doesn't really seem on topic, tho it may have been moreso at the time.) / edg ☺ ★ 07:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I think my point is that somewhere on the main project page, it should be shown why this was decided and who decided it. everything else on wikipedia is cited, and I just feel like policies like this one should be no exception. Somewhere, someone(s) in some kind of authority decided to make this official policy. As such, there should be an official explanation, some kind of minutes, anything. I'm not trying to argue against the policy anything like that, I'm just curious about it's origins.--Carterhawk 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but that's not really how it's done. Guidelines become accepted as guidelines after a period of use; if they help matters and don't cause problems, they are made official. Interestingly, someone cited something I wrote a few weeks ago. I was quite surprised, and actually told that editor it wasn't anything like a guideline. However, after a few hundred more usages (won't happen, just hypothetical), it would become a guideline, at least in effect.

No central authority makes the decision — it's all in what gets used. A sensible-sounding proposal that no one ever wants to cite won't become a guideline. / edg ☺ ★ 15:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds so great in theory, doesn't it? In actuality, this page was tagged as a proposed guideline as soon as it was created, and then made a guideline three months later as the result of a poll that closed 27 to 16 in favor. The "closing" editor, who was not working on behalf of any known Wikipedia process, noted a 62% majority as reason to make this a guideline. This was considered to be non-democratic and a consensus.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:31, 09/25/2007

And it was. Look at the rationales behind the "votes" and the percentage goes up. Also, "The "closing" editor, who was not working on behalf of any known Wikipedia process", is simply not true. At the time of the poll WP:CON said "This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. " [8]. Wikipedia requires that we have faith in the judgement of others to a reasonable extent. We have faith that when they write guidelines they not only represent their own view, but the views of others they have interacted with, as well as using context and logical judgement. Equazcion, I know you disagree with this, but that's how Wikipedia works, and there is no clear judge to declare a consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about the supermajority thing that was in effect back then. But it's not now. And I'm not quite sure I understand your statement, "Wikipedia requires that we have faith in the judgement of others to a reasonable extent. We have faith that when they write guidelines they not only represent their own view..." You can't possibly expect me to buy that. What does this mean, that if a guideline appears saying something I disagree with, or even something that many disagree with, that I should just accept it anyway out of faith? At the risk of setting you off again, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I sincerely hope no one takes it to heart. Wikipedia requires me to have faith in peoples' intentions when they say things, but when it comes to the result, meaning how effective, rational, or appropriate something is, especially a rule, neither I nor anyone else should keep quiet or back down out of faith in the person who wrote it. That's just ridiculous. The degree to which a guideline represents the interests of the editors has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with what the words say. If I read a guideline and think that guideline doesn't accurately represent my view and "the views of other", that's not a problem that faith can fix, and I damn well better speak up.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:14, 09/25/2007

"What does this mean, that if a guideline appears saying something I disagree with, or even something that many disagree with, that I should just accept it anyway out of faith?" No, not at all. Also, it is a flawed process, and doesn't always work out, which is why we can change things after the fact. I said that because you yourself didn't seem to have an objection with the page, but rather you simply questioned the consensus. If you have a problem with it, or if you believe that someone else's concern is valid, then it is totally acceptable to re-evaluate the situation. I just mean to say that when people do write guidelines, they often are including more views than just their own. -- Ned Scott 11:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm well aware of that. I never suggested that a guideline is the result of one person trying to force his view on everyone else. So now that we've got that cleared up, there's no consensus for this guideline. And PS, there's no rule that says that any objections voiced must be to the guideline's words and must not be based purely on the view that consensus is lacking. Lots of people complain about the guideline, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything; so sometimes it behooves someone to observe this and step back and call everyones' attention to the big picture, saying hey, look at all this argument and complaining, there is no consensus. And Ned, I realize you disagree with that, but that's how Wikipedia works, and its all our jobs to try and figure out if there is a consensus or lack thereof; and the only way to do that is by discussing that very subject.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:32, 09/25/2007

I'm sorry, but you are in no place to judge if this has consensus or not, not anymore than I. No really, stop wasting our time, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. If something has good advice, and improves articles, faced with the lack of even a single example to show otherwise, it's a damn guideline. -- Ned Scott 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is to say, if you would actually like to point something out, that would be a better use of our time, rather than just ominous statements of non-consensus. -- Ned Scott 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone believes it's good advice and that it improves articles, and bringing an example of an instance where you agree that it doesn't may be impossible, since people disagree on what makes an article good. So uh... stop wasting my time with your silly baseless arguments that basically boil down to "my opinion is better than yours". I actually don't believe in the whole "stop wasting my time" argument, and I would never say that to someone, but since you said it I figured I'd throw it right back at you. I agree though, actually. I think this is a waste of your time, you're not getting anywhere, and you should just give up and let someone else take over and argue with me. Maybe they'll have more luck getting me to shut my yapper.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:21, 09/25/2007

I'm sorry, I was out of line, but without something to work with, we can't improve anything or do anything except speak about hypotheticals. It doesn't excuse how rude I was, but it's just so frustrating when all you have is maybes. I've tried to address individual concerns on the talk page when people bring them up, and I think many of them go away with a better understanding of what is supposed to be done with this guideline. Many others never responded back, or we simply still mad about someone else's actions in removing trivia sections. What are the issues that need to be addressed? What are people disagreeing with, and why? -- Ned Scott 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

←That's okay, controversial subjects bring out the worst in everyone, myself included. Generally the best counterpoint I've seen to the trivia guideline is that it wouldn't be a terrible thing if articles could be allowed to have a bit of limited trivia in a trivia section, because there are certain bits of information that are small enough to literally get lost in the prose of the article. They don't belong anywhere, they don't necessarily play any big part in the subject of any other section; and integrating them would either mean shoving them into a place where they don't belong and will probably end up being deleted, or expanding them with useless fluff that likewise ends up degrading the article. I won't pretend to be objective here -- I've offered these as arguments myself before, but I'm also not alone.

I'll also admit that even the items that might in the beginning seem to warrant a trivia section might eventually be better if integrated, but that can be left up to whoever is editing the article. We don't need a rule that tells us "This section is all wrong and needs to be dealt with". Let editors decide on the basis of the article. If they decide, via talk page discussion, to keep a trivia section, of reasonable length, and where all other guidelines apply, including verifiability and notability, then that should not be considered a bad thing. If people want to then try integrating the items, maybe once more information is available, when people are willing to do the research to turn an item into a contribution to another section, then they may do so, and it will be up to the editors to decide if the edit should stand.

I hope that now that we have a lull on the battlefield, even a truce if you will, that all the people with something to say about this will come forward while still keeping this civil and relatively bloodless. I'm especially looking at you, Kevin, so I hope you'll come forward and share a little bit of what you've gathered from recent experience. Thanks to all.

I don't know what kind of a standing I have to offer my opinion here, but acting primarily as a consumer of wikipedia content (as opposed to contributor), I believe doing away with a section that many people find useful and entertaining (myself included) is misguided. If the issue is truly that trivia sections can look unsightly -- not that the info is incorrect -- a project should be put together to clean and rework these sections without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The rationale for having a separate trivia section has been stated here many times and I will not repeat it, but it strikes me as a poor solution to do away with the sections of an article which 1) Are a very quick, entertaining, and easy read 2) Are a very quick and easy place to contribute (for better or worse) 3) Are one of the primary items which makes Wikipedia unique in the reference material space. That's my 3 cents (inflation). Coreydaj 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE SUGGESTION!!!

How about articles related to Television shows, films, and video games be excluded from this trivia debate. Trivia sections in the media are often quite helpful. I do not believe that trivia should be used in any other articles but film, tv, and game articles tho, then trivia is just useless information. (Tigerghost 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Good tree; I bark up it regularly. But, Tigerghost, the guideline isn't even disputed, what with all the widespread peaceful consensus we have here. Is the addition of exceptions really warranted for such a well-accepted guideline?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:40, 10/9/2007

Even for TV shows, films, and video games, such information is still better presented when organized into the article itself. This guideline is actually aimed largely at our articles on entertainment. Take for example Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water#Trivia. Once some of the speculation is cut or at least sourced, many of these points will give a fine starting point for a production section of the article. Whenever I do come across something that doesn't seem to have another home on the article, it's still better presented with giving the trivia section a more specific focus (one of the suggestions this guideline gives) such as "In other media".

Rozen Maiden#Trivia as an interesting tid-bit, "The Rozen Maiden license was announced through a unique "Guess The Geneon License" contest through Anime News Network. This contest was conducted through a scavenger hunt held in the form of a podcast. Listeners had to discover various clues that were littered throughout the podcast.". But this info should be one section up, in Rozen Maiden#International distribution, where a reader would expect to find it.

It's nice to see some random fact every so often, but if you want to make a good article then things need to be logically organized. What happens to the user who skips the trivia section completely, because he's looking specifically for information on how a show like Rozen Madien was licensed. There we have an editor looking for this information, but doesn't find it where he thought it would be. That should be given more weight to the reader who wants to find some random facts because they want to pass the time. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Both those trivia sections you mention suck. They aren't examples of the argument against you, which of course shouldn't come as a surprise. The Narnia trivia section is simply too long at first glance -- there's probably enough information there for a production section as you say, rather than being a list of unrelated curios. The Rozen Maiden trivia section similarly doesn't qualify as trivia -- all its items belong in the distribution section, as you say, except perhaps the first item which may qualify as actual trivia and should stay in that section.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:17, 10/9/2007

massive removal of content

Last night, User:Burntsauce made a massive removal of trivia sections from from almost 100 pages, [9] leaving in each case only the edit summary "- popculturectomy", and in each case without discussion of the talk page of the article concerned. I suppose this can be technically justified under WP:BOLD, but I think doing it at this scale is a little unfortunate. Per the second step of WP:BOLD, I am selectively reverting all or parts of the deletions where I think the content notable, but obviously I am not going to be able to personally hold all the necessary detailed discussions. I discovered this by accident when it happened that one of the articles was on my watchlist. Some of this material needs sourcing, and I urge those concerned with this project to examine some of the articles and follow up as they think appropriate. The right way to follow up, of course, is to source the material and then be prepared to defend it. DGG (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help, I am starting at the older changes and working towards the most recent, and going slowly and selectively., and watching to not remove edits made after the deletion. They were deleted at the rate of 2 per minute,; I could blindly restore at the same rate, but I am planning to go carefully even if it takes all day or longer. DGG (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted all, as vandalism, at an average rate of 7 per minute. Call me Luke Wikiwalker.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:40, 10/9/2007

While I fully endorse being bold, I think that doing this type of thing on such a grand scale borders on WP:POINT, as there are inevitably going to be disputes over mass removal of trivia sections, regardless of if trivia should, or should not be included in articles. I personally think you made the right call, and that reverting it was appropriate. Ariel♥Gold 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that was my thinking as well. Plus, this kind of categorical removal of content really does constitute vandalism. It's the kind of thing this guideline specifically discourages. Thanks for the support, Ariel; I'll need it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:52, 10/9/2007

I agree with the reverts, this feels like vandalism, or at the very least, vigilantism. I thought the guideline was clear; Step 1: Integrate into existing sections. Step 2: Create new sections when necessary. Step 3: Integrate into a different article (if this one is inappropriate). And a distant, distant Step 4: Remove inappropriate items. There is no need to immediately jump to step 4 just because steps 1, 2 and 3 might take a long time. --Nick Penguin 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A number of editors actually seem to be doing that; for example, see [10], [11], [12]. Anyway, I agree that it is disruptive. If a segment of our community finds this kind of information relevant and is willing to edit it, we should be exclusive. As long as the stuff is factual, not copy vios, and accurates, we should keep it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's cultural references, not "in pop culture". Cultural references are references made by the article's subject (a tv show?) to other pop-culture subjects. "In pop culture" lists the appearances of the article's subject in other media. The former is not actually considered trivia anymore and is no longer covered by this guideline.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:39, 10/9/2007

There is an epidemic of people adding junk to articles that adds noting to the articles and basically tries to mimic the "what links here" list. I will continue to remove references that are completely non-notable as trivia lists grow. To have trivia sections longer than the articles themselves is ridiculous. I like trivia sections as much as the next guy, but it's becoming WP:POINT to readd clearly irrelevant material to articles. Sure there will be some disagreement, but when stuff is so clearly not relevant, I will remove it. --DanielCD 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I think it's very important that, no matter how much people might disagree with the mass removal of trivia, it not be referred to as vandalism. Vandalism is defined as "...a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.", which this action most certainly was not. Chaz ^Beckett 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in checking out WP:ROC, if you feel relevance is a concern.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:55, 10/9/2007

Exactly, WP:ROC is what everyone who wants to make lists should read. --DanielCD 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually have anything to do with lists per se, but irrelevant items in lists yes.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:00, 10/9/2007

That's my point. As I said, I like to read the trivia stuff, but not when it's a bunch of stuff that's obscure, like "'so-and-so's' band has a song that mentions the word 'such-and-such' two times." My point is not to cut trivia, but the extensive lists of "mentions" and other things of this type that don't meet the relevance criteria. --DanielCD 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a good argument that this is vandalism. Certainly a picturebook case of disruptive editing and WP:POINT. Entire sections were deleted indiscriminately without regard to whether the content was useful or not. Wikidemo 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what removal from what article you are referring to. Could you be a little less general? The User:Burntsauce removals? I have seen some trivia removals, but none I would say that totally indiscriminate and disregarded content. I'm not saying there aren't any out there, but what are you referring to specifically? --DanielCD 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I answered my own question. I can see you are referring to the above. --DanielCD 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say that. You should be asking the editor who performed the mass-removal User:Burntsauce to be less general. There wouldn't have been a problem if he performed removals based on content and with specific rationale for each case. But this was a blind categorical removal of any section with a specific title, massively and quickly (2 per minute I think was the average rate).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:24, 10/9/2007

Folks, read WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not, "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them - most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism." Whatever Burntsauce's removal's were, they are not vandalism. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, calling an action "vandalism" implies that the user was acting in bad faith. Just because an action is considered hasty or overly bold does not mean it was made in bad faith. In general, if there's a dispute over whether actions were vandalism or not, it wasn't. Chaz ^Beckett 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have made a new section for my comments as I see I have conflated my issue with that of the User:Burntsauce removals. That was likely inappropriate, though I don't think I'd go so far as to call it vandalism without at least talking to him first. --DanielCD 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Entire sections were categorically removed based only on their title from hundreds of articles at a rate of 2 per minute, with no rationale provided other than "popcultureectomy". This is not the situation described in WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:32, 10/9/2007

The relevant part of WP:VAND is "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." Disruptive? Probably. Vandalism? No. Chaz ^Beckett 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll buy that. If vandalism is by definition bad-faith-only, then these probably don't constitute vandalism, as I do think they were an attempt to improve the articles.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:51, 10/9/2007

Sounds like exactly what the vandalism policy is describing as not vandalism. However, it also says the just because something is not vandalism, does not mean it is not disruptive. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy describes vandalism as "...a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and what is not vandalism as "...make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them." I didn't say I am convinced that it is vandalism, just that there's a good argument it is. If there's a good argument that people are right in calling it vandalism, it's hasty to scold them for using the term. Would you like me to make the argument? Wikidemo 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are good arguments both ways. What to call the edits specifically isn't really that important though; it's just semantics. I called them vandalism mainly because that was easiest way to revert them on such a massive scale; TW gives other types of reverts multiple steps, while vandalism reverts can be performed with a single click. They were disruptive nevertheless.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:55, 10/9/2007

What it is, is a content dispute. To call it vandalism requires an assumption of bad faith, when it is perfectly reasonable to believe he though he was improving things. Not saying it was a good move, but it was not vandalsim. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point the user has clearly acted improperly, if not in his/her ends, certainly in methods. Unrepentant, even defiant, contentious editing. Whatever the dispute may be about content, it's overshadowed by the mess the user is creating. Wikidemo 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Burntsauce

He is continuing to remove the sections again, ignoring all discussion here and on his talk page. Could he be temporarily blocked until he notices the discussions and participates?

No block. Neil ム 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What strikes me is this article itself: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." To that end, the articles on my watchlist that Burntsauce hit actually contained relevant material that shows how the subjects of the various articles have worked their way into common colloquialisms, etc. No TV episodes to speak of! It was a wholesale blanking that was over the top, and furthermore, he has violated consensus in a couple of cases by repeated reverts. I favor that some sort of understanding occur to the effect that wholesale blanking of sections with the "wrong" subheading is not being bold, it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is was that material suitable? Or was it WP:OR? Bear in mind if it's original research (and unless you can source it, it is), it doesn't matter what this guideline says, it should not be there. Neil ム 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unsourced material is subject to removal and it is the burden of someone who replaces such material to justify why it should be there. I don't think references to the quanitity or speed of removal matter if the material is unreferenced. --DanielCD 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is one user's large-scale, improper, contentious, non-consensus deletions. We just don't do that on Wikipedia. Most of the deleted material was clearly not OR. Unsourced material is not OR, it is unsourced material. 80% of the material on Wikipedia is not properly sourced. We do not delete it all. We deal with it in a calm, case by case, way. And yes, it does matter what the guideline says. We do not delete trivia and lists on sight. Wikidemo 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We do if they are unsourceable, because they are original research.

And if someone removes material because it is unsourced, and you want to restore it, you had better be prepared to put it back with a source. If you are unwilling or unable to, then it should not be restored. WP:V (policy) trumps WP:TRIVIA (guideline). Neil ム 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So would you endorse the wholesale removal of the 80% of Wikipedia content that's unsourced? Besides which, what you're saying goes against this guideline. Entire trivia sections are not supposed to be removed as a remedy. They're supposed to be kept for possible improvement and integration.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:24, 10/9/2007

Yes, although I recognise this is not a widely held viewpoint. But removing unsourced content is fine - if you can't restore it without providing a source, it should not have been there in the first place. And if what I am saying goes against this guideline, then the guideline needs to be revised as it's countermanding WP:V. Neil ム 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines don't trump policy. One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia right now is this seeming obsession with growing the number of articles and size of content without first focusing on the quality and verifiability of the content that already exists here.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy is that information should be verifiable - not verified per se. For example, I'm a mathematician, and if I'm adding material on mathematics, I'll give a reference if I have one to hand. However, if I don't, and it's well known information, I'll add the material anyway, knowing that if anyone challenges it, I can hunt down a reference without too much difficulty. Obviously, pop culture is a different kind of beast - for one thing, because well known does not equal notable, also references for pop culture aren't usually too hard to find - so requiring a source isn't particularly unreasonable. However, asking that all articles in all fields be fully sourced is a little heavy handed. James pic 10:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact

On the above point, I've added "and can be referenced" to the "If information is otherwise suitable, do not just remove it" section. It needs to be explicit that this guideline doesn't trump our policies on original research / verifiability. If an trivia list (just like any other content) is removed for being unsourced, simply restoring it does not solve anything - restore it with references, or not at all. If any content is challenged for being unsourced, and you are unable to produce a source, there's no justification for including it. Trivia lists fall into that, as does everything else. Discuss? Neil ム 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Content can be restored even if it's unsourced -- especially if the restore is being performed as the result of disruptive editing (called disruptive by consensus). If you have a guideline to refer to that says content can never be added without a source, I'd like to see that. We have maintenance tags that point out unsourced statements for a reason. You might not agree that anything unsourced should ever remain in an article for any length of time, but that viewpoint is not shared by most people.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:34, 10/9/2007

Actually read WP:V. In particular, read WP:V#Burden of evidence. Applicable quote: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It explicitly states "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" (my emphasis). Then it goes on about you can also tag with {{fact}} (or similar) but not indefinitely, and it says you can move unsourced material to the talk page - which is something the WP:TRIVIA guideline currently says you should not do. That also needs to be addressed, as it is contravening one of the five pillars. Neil ム 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no need to add references when restoring a trivia section that's been summarily deleted. If someone deletes a trivia section merely because it's trivia, they're not challenging the accuracy of the material or deleting for lack of sources, they're engaged in a POV deletion. For example, they're not questioning whether or not the Ally McBeal show did or did not feature dancing babies, they're saying that dancing babies has no place in an article about Ally McBeal. Mis-applying that principle would mean that most any deletion for any purpose would be incontestable until sourced, it just gives a deletionists a tool for wikigaming to get the upper hand. Sourcing should never be used as a pretext for objections made on some other basis. Wikidemo 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The onus is always on the editor(s) wishing to add or retain information to show that it's properly sourced. In general, trivia sections are very poorly sourced. While mass deletion ofg trivia sections isn't especially productive, mass reversions without regard to each section's sourcing also isn't very helpful. Chaz ^Beckett 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what Neil wrote (edit conflicted) and I'd add that Equazcion's argument seems to take for granted that removal of unsourced content is somehow "disruptive" and I don't think that is nearly as widely held a belief as you may thing. Content can be added unsourced, but it is subject to removal at any time per WP:V or WP:OR. I don't at all support the idea that we should leave content out there with a tag just waiting for someone to come along and source it.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This particular spate of deleting 300 entire sections - twice - was certainly disruptive. If you don't think it's disruptive, look at all the fighting, edit warring, effort, incivility, blocks, and discussions that resulted from it. That's what a disruption is. Content should be sourced is an utterly different rule than unsourced content should be deleted. The latter, if carried out to an extreme, would indeed create quite a disruption. Removing 80% of Wikipedia content for a start. Wikidemo 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Neil. A trivia section with sourced info is a good candidate for integration, but (IMO) it shouldn't be deleted outright. However, any unsourced trivia should be removed and not re-added until properly sourced. The revision(s) with the unsourced trivia will always exist in the history and the entries can be moved to the talk page for discussion, if necessary. Chaz ^Beckett 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, there was only fighting, edit warring, effort, incivility, blocks, and discussions resulting from it because a number of editors don't actually understand Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability. Burntsauce's actions were entirely correct, even if his reasoning was specious. Not one of those edits should have been reverted unless the reverter, personally, is prepared to source every pointless trivial fact they restored. If they are not, then they should not have been restored. Unsourced content should be sourced, or at the least, tagged with {{fact}}. If it cannot be sourced, it will be removed (either altogether, to the talk page, or commented out). If someone removes content because it is not sourced, then you do not restore it unless you can source it. WP:V is not optional. Neil ム 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that if a controversial edit causes a huge flap, any disruption the fault of the people who disagree. I don't buy it. There's absolutely no excuse for deleting 300 sections indiscriminately, and we shouldn't encourage that behavior. Disruptive POV deltions should be reverted, period. To let it stand puts the onus on the affected editors, and endorses the disruptive editing. These sections were not removed for being unsourced. They were removed for being pop culture sections. As you saw yourself in at least one case, even sourced information was deleted along with the unsourced information.Wikidemo 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

←Again this is not a question of policy. It's a question of how this particular instance was handled. The user performed hundreds of categorical removals of entire sections at a rate of 2 per minute based only on section title, with no explanation other than "popculturectomy". If you're arguing for a change to this guideline, even that wouldn't justify what he did. He was disruptive.

At risk of repeating what I said at ANI, the core act of deleting this information was not "disruptive" any more that the core act of restoring it was. The disruptive factor was misleading edit summaries and general silliness from multiple editors towards others. That however is a user issue, not a content issue.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was very disruptive. There, now we've both stated our opinions.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:16, 10/9/2007

Just because it was done in a rude manner does not mean it was the wrong thing to do. The subsequent reverting was equally rude and it was the wrong thing to do. The disruption only take place when a small number of editors who are overprotective of trivia lists got upset and reverted everything post haste (the discussion should have taken place then). Neil ム 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong thing to do, according to you. No guideline prohibits adding unsourced material. Let me repeat that. No guideline or policy anywhere prohibits the addition of unsourced material to an article. What I did may have been against what you think is right, and I respect your opinion. It is nevertheless just an opinion, and not policy.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:25, 10/9/2007

The policy is "ANY UNSOURCED CONTENT CAN BE REMOVED AT ANY TIME". Apologies for shouting, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. It's not my opinion. At no point has anyone mentioned "do not add unsourced material" - what everyone seems to agree on is what WP:V says, which is that unsourced material can be removed. This is wholly the wrong place to be discussing such a basic application of one of our most basic policies. 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good policy. I have not argued against it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:34, 10/9/2007

Support Neil's change and agree with his initial statement at top of this section. If it can't be sourced, it's cruft, and damages the 'pedia rather than enhancing it. These sections are usually OR and cluttered with incredibly trivial mentions. While I'm not 100% opposed to bulleted lists, if they are short and that is truly the best way to integrate the sourced, relevant information, I vastly prefer them being turned into prose that demonstrates notability. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example, here's what Van helsing, Dina and I did to transfom this to this. And yes, we even dealth with Buffyverse cruft ;-) I plan on doing the same thing to other articles with cruft. But if none of it can be sourced and integrated this way, I say cut it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. Your position that everything unsourced is cruft may match Neil's minority opinion on the subject, but the fact is that 80% of Wikipedia is unsourced. Individual statements or sections are challenged if they are questionable and lack sources, but we absolutely do not go around simply removing everything without a source. Actually, it's more like 95%, if you include things that are so obvious or commonly known that nobody would conceive of challenging it. But the opposition to trivia sections is not the lack of sourcing. That's a minor but real point. The opposition (when it's not entirely without principle) is that the information is unimportant, unencyclopedic, not relevant to the subject of the article and/or in an unusable format. Claiming lack of source as a pretext for getting rid of material you don't approve of, or for opposing its restoral, is weak. Wikidemo 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if "cruft" is the most useful term, but everything unsourced is subject to removal at any time per policy. Trivia should first be sourced and integrated into the article if at all possible. If it can't be sourced, it should be tagged. If it isn't sourced in a reasonable amount of time, it should be removed. If someone wants to add it back with sourcing, wonderful, but I don't agree with leaving large tracts of unsourced text in articles waiting for someone to come along and source them.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and that's what our policy/guidelines say to do (though if the problem is trivia I would address the trivia aspect rather than the sourcing question). However, if someone summarily deletes an entire section that contains useful and relevant information, saying simply "rm trivia" or the like, it's better to revert in total. If there's time, revert only what looks useful. There's no obligation to add references everywhere you go. We only have so much time to edit, and it's not worth wasting the time picking up debris left by careless editors.Wikidemo —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Not every unsourced statement on WP is cruft, especially when it is non-controversial and uncontested knowledge. But in lists, yeah, in my experience it usually is WP:Crufty. I haven't looked at every one of Burntsauce's edits, but as for ones on my watchlist, he cut sections that have been flagged as unsourced trivia for months, and where no one was doing anything to source them. The example I gave above, of transforming a contested section, took place gradually, with a number of editors challenging and removing unsourced bits. This is not controversial. What Burntsauce did is controversial, granted, as it was in some (many?) cases abrupt. But for sections flagged for months it was not abrupt at all, it was welcome cleanup, and I thank him for that. I see nothing controversial about adding Neil's clause of, "If information is otherwise suitable, and can be referenced," - without that sort of qualifier, this guideline violates WP:V and WP:NOR. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that there is no consensus on "sourced" --the verifiability guidelines are pretty decent, but there is plenty of room to manuver, though some folks take certain statements far too literally. I placed a footnote at the end of a paragraph and got the "fact" tag slapped on sentences within the paragraph--all material in the paragraph was from the same source, did they want me to tag every sentence? I think not. OTOH, some articles simply have a list of sources at the end with relatively few footnotes. And in some cases, that is in part because the knowledge is pretty universal (must we source the fact that dogs bark, for example?? Why they bark and how to stop them from doing it at the wrong time, sure, source that, but there is a limit!) My humble opinion is that {{tags}} are not a bad thing, and should be used in lieu of blanking with rude remarks in the edit summary. It is better to give those who care an opportunity to fix an article before diving in wholesale and trashing things to which you have made no contribution nor care to. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"...it's not worth wasting the time picking up debris left by careless editors."

I disagree, in some ways this is exactly what Burntsauce was doing (albeit I don't think his edit summaries correctly reflect this); picking up debris left by careless editors in the form of unsourced, and in many cases trivial, content. I'd say that it is worth it.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce wasn't picking up debris, he was creating a mess. By deleting material indiscriminately he leaves it for others to decide what is sourced and unsourced, relevant, notable, etc. It took him 90 minutes the first time. It's probably caused Wikipedia a hundred hours or more of collective consternation already, and that's without even addressing the question of what material should exist on these pages. There's a reason the policy and guidelines are the way they are. Trivia sections should be integrated or reorganized, unsourced statements may be challenged, etc. Disregarding that in favor of mass deletion of sections he does not like is utterly unproductive. Wikidemo 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think your assessment is wrong; the deletions were no more indiscriminate than the initial addition or the reverts for that matter. I'd say at this point though this particular line of conversation concerning editor behavior isn't particularly relevant to an actual discussion of this guideline, but I'd be more than willing to continue the conversation at a user talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The more I read that and some of the other apologies for yesterday's misbehavior, the more ludicrous they all seem. Yesterday's shenanigans on the part of Burntsauce and a couple administrators were outrageous, and more than disruptive. They simply deleted 300 sections and launched a wide-scale edit war because the title of the sections mentioned popular culture, as a blatant in-your-face challenge to people who do not agree with them that trivia sections should be deleted on sight. The reversions are 100% targeted to reversing the bad behavior. This casts a serious cloud on the viability and appropriateness of the whole page and those behind it. At this point, I'm inclined to simply close the subject and say no, I don't want to here any more about trivia. Stop deleting it, stop obsessing on it, stop disrupting the project, and go away.Wikidemo 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Query

"There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

• This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."

I believe that trivia sections should be integrated into the articles, where they pass WP:V, WP:NPOV and our other guidelines, or removed where they do not. The current state of this guideline seems to contradict several other of our core policies. While I am not in favour of blindly removing them in a semi-automated way as it seems was recently done, I think we should definitely aim long-term to ridding the project of these. They seem to epitomise several of the things that Wikipedia is not. What do others think? --John 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove whatever you want whenever you want. Just take responsibility that you're doing it because you think it's better that way; don't say that what you're doing is mandated by this guideline. In other words, don't hide behind the guideline. We put that there so that people will have to justify themselves if they start removing information and it is challenged. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this - there's a fine line to walk. The first part I don't think is contestable (this guidelines does not suggest removing trivia sections - well, it doesn't) but the "it is better" part is more debatable. The intent was that it's better for information to be poorly presented until someone finds the time to fix it, than removed outright - but even this is an eventualist position that may be contested. Maybe the justification should simply be removed. Dcoetzee 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I support it as written.--Father Goose 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected??

I don't really see the need for that as the edit warring is over, but okay...

Agreed - this seems to be a strange decision. Neil ム 11:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a 48-hour expiration time. I think the conflict has passed myself, but in any case indefinite protection is not necessary. Mangojuice^talk 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Example

I came upon this article and I immediately thought of this guideline. For those who hate trivia, hide your eyes. Admittedly, I'm at a lost of where to begin the clean up. :P Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness you only mentioned "begin" and not "finish" - I took a stab at beginning, by organizing the pop culture references by genre and finding a source. Between the article and the news story, there is something encyclopedic about the portrayal of a cheap "wino" brand in popular culture. It's a piece of Americana, and some serious writing is devoted to such things if one only knew where to find it. The source probably covers a good portion of the article, and more than that it establishes the notability of the subject of Ripple in popular culture, but it's a subscription site and I'm not so interested I want to pay $2.95 by credit card right now. Perhaps someone with a Nexis subscription.Wikidemo 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removal

Can I suggest that in general, if people are going to remove trivia, they cut it to the talkpage, rather than deleting it outright?

What to one person is trivia, to another can be raw material to work into the article. And others again value being informed as to how an idea has been taken up, adapted and/or represented in other works.

Trivia sections tend to be an archetype of the wiki process - a gestalt contributed to by many hands, none of whom knew it all. Pop culture is of interest, and it is something that WP's self-organising contributory methods make WP particularly effective at gathering, in a way that is simply not matched by traditional "cathedral" content creation processes.

I appreciate that for many people this isn't what they want to see in Wikipedia articles. But can I suggest that even when such information is removed, it is not simply destroyed (or rather, abandoned so deep in the permafrost of the edit history as to be lost forever); but that instead it should be cut across to the talk page, where it can remain visible - or, for busy talkpages, to a specific talk archive subpage?

Because this information does have a value, and shouldn't be lost beyond reclamation. Jheald 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If the trivia is properly sourced, I mostly agree with your comments. If the trivia (or any other information) is unsourced, it should removed. The burden is always on the party adding content to ensure that the information adheres to Wikipedia policy. Chaz ^Beckett 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. From experience removing trivia sections, around 90% can be tossed as it is unreferenced and could not improve the article even if it was. The other 10% can be integrated into the article body. There is no harm in sending the trivia to talk, as it shows courtesy to the people who added it in good faith, however dubious its actual value may be. --John 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all unsourced information should be outright removed. Else an article consisting of 400 sentences would need 400 citations. Information which you doubt may be challenged with {{fact}} or even removed, but you shouldn't remove legitimate (unsourced) noncontroversial information just because it is unsourced. Give it some time to be sourced. The same goes for trivia, deleting an entire section which can easily be verified because "no sources have been cited in the article" is wrong. Melsaran (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The key is to use common sense. Nobody needs to delete, or fact tag for that matter, that the sun rises in the east. If it is questionable, investigate it. If you can't verify, tag it and leave a note on the talkpage. If no one sources it in a reasonable amount of time, delete it. If it is particularly dubious and not verfiable delete it outright and leave a note on the talkpage. I realize that the onus is on the person adding the content to provide verification, but it never hurts to do a bit of good faith due diligence.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to John and Chaz, the stuff you're tossing may not be valuable to you, but it might be valuable to somebody. If you don't think it belongs in the article, so be it. But at least put it on to the talk page. I think that goes for unsourced material too. If you delete it outright, it will never get sourced. But if you cut it to the talk page, then people can at least still find it, and try to source it if they want to. Jheald 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what annoys many so-called "anti-trivia" editors is the consistently poor quality of trivia that's added to articles. It's usually unsourced, poorly written (spelling, tone, and grammatical errors) and better classified as minutiae or sub-trivia. In general, I agree with the approach Isotope described above. It's really a matter of common sense. If the information looks good, but is unsourced, it doesn't hurt to spend a few minutes attempting to source it. If that's unsuccessful, move it to the talk page. If the information is crap and it's unsourced, there's nothing wrong with deletion. Chaz ^Beckett 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

but remember the relative speed of deleting and improving--it's not a" few minutes" to source a long trivia section, I would allow myself 8 or 10 hours, in a good library with internet access to almost all published paid sources and an excellent modern print collection. The WP criteria is unsourcable.DGG (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That criterion is for articles, not talk pages. Jheald 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A good deal of trivia can be sourced with a few minutes of Google searches. It's an unreasonable expectation that someone will spend hours attempting to source a single trivia section. Very few have the time or resources to clean up hastily added, unsourced trivia. All information should be verifiable without forcing the reader to spend hours in a library. Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This certainly isn't limited to trivia; information is not kept in an article simply because there might be a source. Once the verifiability of information is challenged, whether by removal, moving it to the talk page or tagging, a source must be provided. Chaz ^Beckett 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fair if someone is truly concerned about sourcing. But making a collateral attack on content you don't like by attaching fact tags to it is wikigaming. Also, removing an entire section at once on claim that it's unsourced is a bold act that can reasonably be reverted if someone disputes it. In a dispute it may be the person proposing the content who has the burden of establishing verifiability, but the person proposing the deletion has the burden of establishing consensus. Wikidemo 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If content isn't sourced, it's fair to tag it as such. I'm sure there are situations in which fact tagging can and is abused, but that's more of a user conduct issue. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "person proposing the deletion has the burden of establishing consensus". Simply put, if information (not just trivia) is unsourced, it's subject to deletion. However, as has been mentioned several times, common sense should be used. If the information appears to be of good quality, but lacks sources, there's several options other than outright removal, including attempting to find source, tagging or moving the information to the talk page. Eventually, if information has been challenged, no source has been provided and a reasonable amount of time has been allowed, it's appropriate and fully within Wikipedia policy to remove it from the article. Chaz ^Beckett 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone deleted a trivia section summarily claiming lack of source and it contained useful information, sourced information, or information that does not need a source, it's fair to revert. The person proposing deletion then has to talk about it. Re-deleting is contentious editing at that point. The key words are "eventually" and "common sense." Wikidemo 15:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a slight disconnect here. You're referring to situations where the information is sourced, I'm referring to when it isn't (more common, at least in the case of trivia). Chaz ^Beckett 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am too. Most of Wikipedia is unsourced, and we don't go around summarily removing entire article sections over that.Wikidemo 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, well then I have to disagree that there has to be discussion about removing unsourced information. It's polite and good form to do so, and other options (as I mentioned above) should usually be attempted first, but it boils down to the fact that unsourced info is subject to deletion at any time. I'm not advocating nuking huge portions of articles, but it can't be stressed enough how important it is to source information. Sourcing of information is a necessary, though not always sufficient condition. It's unforunate that trivia sections too often don't meet this minimum requirement. Chaz ^Beckett 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's entirely appropriate to add the information back. Again, deleting entire sections on a claim that they're unsourced, when the issue is not sourcing, is wikigaming. Wikidemo 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

section break

(unindent) It's appropriate to add it back with a source, or perhaps temporarily while a source is being researched. Adding or re-adding unsourced information into an article when its sourcing has been challenged is not appropriate. I think you're referring to a specific, recent incident of mass removals and that wasn't so much about the sourcing as the fact it was trivia. In that particular case, I think the best option would have been to restore sourced trivia, while moving unsourced trivia to the article's talk page. Chaz ^Beckett 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The action that began this was wrong. It needed correcting. You can't go one night and remove sections from 300 articles based on their title alone. People tend to ignore the original action and focus on the remedy as being the "first action", saying "Hey why are you adding unsourced info to the articles?" This is not the case. A massive action like that needs to be simply undone. Trivia sections are controversial, and respect needs to be paid to the people on the other side of the argument. Not only that, but a) this guideline specifically discourages the original removal, b) while the removal was happening, there was consensus on this talk page that it should be stopped, and c) the remover(s) refused to participate in the discussion, choosing instead to continue the removal in the heat of the debate.

If we're talking about the general outright removal of trivia sections because they are unsourced, then we're not talking about trivia sections anymore. We're having a debate about WP:V and WP:CITE. We're arguing over whether or not unsourced information should be removed on-sight, even in controversial circumstances, by the people who disagree with it being there. There are several maintenance tags having to do with source requests, and they do get used. I use them myself, as a courtesy to people who might think differently from me, to give them a chance to source their statements rather than kicking them in the face by removing content outright. Some people don't think like I do, and I try to respect that, because if the tables were turned I know I'd appreciate a similar gesture. But this again has nothing to do with trivia or pop culture or either of their placement in articles. This is a simple issue of how to deal with verifiability. If there are guidelines that make suggestions for that, I suggest you read them (you meaning everyone here, and I will do the same).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:23, 10/11/2007

I'm referring to the general removal of information due to lack of sources. I only referenced the specific incident from a few days ago because I had a feeling that Wikidemo was referring to it. Perhaps I was mistaken. The WP:V and WP:OR obviously apply to all information, but are especially relevant to trivia sections as a large percentage of trivia tends to be unsourced. Providing sources isn't optional, nor is a matter of agreeing with the information; it's mandatory, full stop. To focus on the specific case of trivia sections, if information in a section has been tagged as lacking sources and none have been provided after a reasonable period of time, the information should not exist in the article. I've mentioned above how I'd suggest handling such a situation, but trivia is not exempt from WP:V. Chaz ^Beckett 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When material is removed en masse from hundreds of articles, that doesn't count as "challenging its sourcing". Much trivia (and especially pop culture info) is from primary sources, and rarely has a citation, but it is verifiable and acceptable under WP:PSTS as long as it is limited to a description of the primary source.--Father Goose 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, the best thing to do is to clean any article up to its best possible state. But if someone who hasn't participated in an article swoops in and boldly deletes an entire section on flimsy grounds, it's certainly appropriate to restore it, sources or no. And saying the magic words "no sources" doesn't turn it into a legitimate challenge on sourcing. That would utterly circumvent this guideline regarding keeping trivia sections, which is consensus after all. We have to watch out for the "policy trumps guideline" people who are always finding some policy reason to do whatever they want to do, and use it as an excuse to engage in contentious editing. We get nonsense like that over other issues too - people claiming that something is a list, a random collection of information, spam, reads like an advertisement, is a replaceable non-free image, etc. Rather than taking the time to fix, or even understand, an article, they simply gut it. Although they're probably within the bounds of WP:BOLD (provided they do it one article at a time and not as part of some organized campaign, and don't edit war over their change if people refuse it), other editors are within their rights to disagree with that approach and say that the best way to make the article better is to gradually improve it. Anything else would only encourage the kind of contention and provocation we've been seeing around here that sometimes makes Wikipedia such an uncivil place to be, editing as aggression. Wikidemo 16:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A guideline on trivia sections absolutely does not override a policy requiring sources. Do people sometimes use policy to bash others over the head? Sure. But that's a problem with user conduct, not content. Look, if someone is abusing WP:V, that's a problem. But it's also a problem when users are adding or re-adding unsourced info into articles and trivia is offender #1. Can we at least agree on this? Chaz ^Beckett 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Again, the original action of removal is discouraged by this guideline, and undoing it in accordance with this guideline is fine. Even if you want to start from the re-adding as the first action, to say that people who undo a section removal are "Adding unsourced material", even that is not prohibited by any policy. Verifiability still allows people to add material that is not immediately cited already.

If fixing an original action that goes against the recommendation of a guideline is itself a violation of policy, then what we have is a serious consistency problem in our rules. I however don't think this is the case. Unsourced material is allowed to stay in articles all the time -- people are just using WP:V in this case to justify the removal of a type of section they disagree with.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:18, 10/11/2007

Can I humbly suggest that we all agree that semi-automatically removing trivia sections from many articles is a bad way to proceed, and then move on to a discussion of how this sort of improvement (for removing unsourced tosh like "He has a pet goldfish and is a supporter of Chelsea FC" from articles is an improvement) can best be done? --John 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do?

In response to User:John's question above, everyone has a different approach, but if an article in which you take an interest has problematic trivia it's entirely fine to refactor the trivia section or even the entire article, with a boldness level that depends on its state of development, how many other people you're working with, etc. I find it's best to do it in chunks and nibbles just to see who is out there, and also to keep things organized.

Here's one example. A few months ago I came across the mother of all trivia articles, the 1989 World Series. A 2-paragraph lead, then 6 tables of sports scores, 21 trivia bullet points, 8 quotes in inconsistent formats, 1 citation, 1 reference that appears to be some kind of book, then 14 random external links. Delete the whole thing as unsourced? Don't be silly. I did this. I separated out the bullet points on the earthquake and added some header info. Still needs sourcing in a big way, but it's an improvement and if people would actually help out it sets things in motion. Next step is to de-listify and source the discussion of the earthquake's effect on the game, which is what made it so famous. Someone who knows about baseball can do the same for the gameplay. What was called trivia is mostly not trivia at all. It's relevant and it's eminently sourceable. But notice how as of today someone mindlessly slapped a trivia tag on the "trivia" section without doing anything to the equally messy "earthquake" section.

The point is, kicking people in the shins over a bad article is easy. Just delete things and tell people to clean up the mess. Actually improving Wikipedia is much harder. Nobody can realistically work on more than a dozen or two articles at a time, and that's if they have a serious Wikipedia addiction. But if that's all you can do, that's what you can do. Even the slightest edit is a good thing if you leave the article better than you found it. Nobody should be putting themselves above this process. What counts in the end is what you've contributed to the encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects, not how many edit wars or policy page fights you've been in. Wikidemo 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the goal of essentially every policy/guideline supposed to be incremental improvement of articles? If we all accept this, then we are having a disagreement about what best improve an article. It seems like there are two considerations, the short term presentation of the article (this week), and the long term presentation (a year or two). Myself, I am viewing the trivia pandemic through the long term lens, because it is clear to me that trivia just will not disappear in a week, or even a month, regardless of how "enthusiastic" editors get in resolving the issue.

Although there are an abundance of facts that are in trivia sections which could be deemed inappropriate, I think just deleting content is not an effective way of improving the long term quality of an article. And if I had to give only one (speculative) reason, it's because most average Wikipedia users do not spend hours digging through history pages looking at what facts have or have not been deleted. They want to read the article, and get on doing whatever it was that led them to that article in the first place. With this in mind, I think that it is better to keep unsourced trivia sections, flag the section with the appropriate {{trivia}} template, thus making the reader aware of what this section likely contains, and let the thousand hands of other editors work the problem out over time. --Nick Penguin 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding another tab?

No matter how much some people claim that "trivia" is "unencyclopedic" and therefore should be removed, there will always be people who love it, and who keep adding it.

What about adding a third tab to each Wikipedia article? Right now there is "article" and "discussion". What about adding "other" as a third tab. It could contain trivia, commercial links and unsourced statements galore. Anyone who is looking for such things could go there. People who look for facts stay at the "article" page and discussions of course stay at the "discussion" page. Mlewan 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much value there would be in having a "dumping ground" tab. If people really want to know absolutely everything and anything that could possibly be related to a subject, that's what Google is for. Chaz ^Beckett 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Or Wikia for that matter, where it is possible to set up a targeted Wiki on a subject where those interested can delve into whatever level of minutiae they feel is necessary.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There IS a "trivia" template. I will attempt to insert it here as an example. I like these, they flag a problem, but put the responsibility on those who care to fix it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

There needs to be a clear understanding of where trivia sections CAN be included

For example, what about the trivia sections for articles on movies and TV shows that explain Easter Eggs, pop culture references, and the like? I know ideally the guideline is "please integrate into other sections" but that's simply not possible in those cases. For example, the Care Bears article had a very interesting pop culture references section but it keeps getting deleted because of this silly "no trivia section" rule. I'm just sick of seeing every trivia section having that distracting "Trivia sections are discouraged" flag on top in articles I know a trivia section does belong (like I said, in articles about movies or episodes of TV shows). 76.177.190.137 05:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why would you need to explain Easter Eggs? Vegaswikian 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe he's referring to Easter egg (virtual).
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:16, 10/12/2007
• I think explaining Easter Eggs are verging on original research or game guide material (for video games). A while back I cleaned up the page Myths and Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and eventually after removing all the original research and game guide material, there wasn't enough information to warrant its own page so it got merged back into the main article. The only article I've seen about Easter Eggs that was Ok was the one on them in Microsoft products because there was enough industry commentary on them to build an article. For a section I think the key to deciding whether or not it should be included is whether reliable sources discuss the topic or not. Otherwise pointing out Easter Eggs and references could be original research. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If the existence and nature of an easter egg can be confirmed by checking the primary source, then it isn't original research (see WP:PSTS). Stuff that can't be confirmed (i.e., speculation) is original research.--Father Goose 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know you can use the item itself as a source, but the problem with easter eggs and pop culture references is that sometimes they can be obscure references which can not always be verified by looking at the source itself as it requires some knowledge into another subject or event. Before you know it you've set up a whole story just to explain it. Also, back when I was reading up on the San Andreas easter eggs (I was very interested in it at the time), people were finding significance and references in everything, such as the colours used to decorate something was a reference to something else, etc. It can be an issue that something may be considered an easter egg or reference to some, but not to other people. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find the example from Care Bears that 76.177.190.137 speaks of, and I believe it is this. The section holds such treasures as "A Care Bear appears in the popular song and Flash animation The Ultimate Showdown by Neil Cicierega and Shawn Vulliez. He uses a Care Bear Stare to defeat Jackie Chan and zombie Abraham Lincoln."

Having a cultural impact section in itself certainly isn't a bad idea, but even as examples, they're pretty bad and we have far better ones that demonstrate cultural impact. Such a section should also be able to tell us more than just references from other shows. Once said and done, you'd have something that really isn't a trivia section anymore, because any "trivia" would be as an example, used in a well written section about how Care Bears impacted our culture. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And even if these were good examples of cultural impact, the fact that these could be turned into a good section on cultural impact (with more than just those examples) still remains. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we really shouldn't be suggesting that X has cultural impact by listing examples like this. It's WP:OR. With actual sources writing about the cultural impact of X we can sustain a real section, but that's not common. Mangojuice^talk 06:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Would A Bathing Ape#References_In_Popular_Culture be an example of a good "Cultural impact" section? The rationale given for retaining it is that it demonstrates notability. / edg ☺ ★ 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Right on queue, ed, I was waiting for that. There is an actual source for that one though. The source is just a lyrics site so I don't know if it qualifies. I think the contention that this practice qualifies as original research is questionable. Original research is an unsourced statement, but this doesn't involve a statement. There is an implication, but there is no actual unsourced statement saying "This subject has affected popular culture significantly and here is the proof." WP:OR doesn't cover implied statements, I don't think.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:20, 10/13/2007

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, one of the rare saves from the "in pop culture" AfDs. -- Ned Scott 10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Priorities

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but over the last several months I have gotten the impression that all the rules, styles guides, considerations, etc. et al. have become increasingly more important to several editors, contributors and important people,honoria causis; than the actual purpose of the encyclopaedia. The bar for a new contributor to write an appropriate article, in an appropriate style, just keeps going up and up...as does the nastiness. I, personally, feel that articles should have clear and useful structures. This feeling does not, however, conflict with my enjoyment of the occasional trivia section. There is such a thing as being too cautious, too organized and too regimented. I respectfully suggest that those who passionately feel anything but perfection is not good enough for 'our' Wikipedia need to take a deep breath and accept that not all contributors (and not all potential contributors, some of whom I suspect are being driven away by such discussions) are going to have the experience or even desire to conform to the most rigid interpretation of what and how our encyclopaedia is to be.Panthera germanicus 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)panthera_germanicus

I agree with your general sentiments, there seems to have been a shift into a new mode of development at Wikipedia (citation wars?), and it seems like the current focus on trivia is a product/symptom of this change/evolution as Wikipedia enters the next phase of it's existence. With that in mind, it seems clear that trivia is most out of place and unwanted in established and developed (long) articles, and they are least disruptive in short and budding articles. To me, this says that trivia sections are useful (in some articles) as part of the transition between stub and developed article. Thus, I think trivia sections are appropriate for articles below a certain length/certain depth of content, and they should be kept until the trivia section and the article in general grows to a point, then all the relevant information in the trivia section can be organized and re-presented in a different, more accessible way. --Nick Penguin 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled at this, because I think you have it backwards. The material in so called trivia sections is important in proportional as the subject is important. The details of production of a barely notable film are not worthwhile including to the extent the would be if the film were one of the world's best known works. The use of various stereotypical characters in a barely notable game is not as important as if the game were one of the most played. The use of a minor character in a novel in subsequent works is usually not as important as the use of major characters. The minor biographical details for Lincoln are of more importance than those for Buchanan. If there's an article with nothing important to say, we shouldn't fill it with otherwise unencyclopedic material. If there's a truly serious important article where we think the trivial stuff detracts from the high seriousness of our work, then there will normally be enough for a separate article on that aspect. DGG (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your general point, but I disagree with your second sentence. If trivia sections were really used for the purpose you think they should be, then yes, the material in so called trivia sections is important in proportional as the subject is important. But in reality, I have been finding that many useful facts have been just thrown into a trivia sections, and these would perhaps be better used as the nucleus of a new section. I think the in the long term the article is improved by presenting the information poorly in the trivia section, and then working it into the article at a later date. It's also much easier to trim an article down than it is to build it up, especially if I know only a little about the subject matter. And in the case of your example, an extremely notable film/person will likely have enough similarly related details that you could create a new section call "Production Details" or "Biographical Notes" or something to that effect and have all the relevant content find it's way into that section. But in a developing article that may one day have enough info for that section, but currently does not, it can be awkward to try and start a section if you have no information to put there. --Nick Penguin 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)