Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Ummm...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All reasons to avoid trivia are illogical

The seasons given so far are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removals getting out of control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An acceptable "trivia list" concept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruins articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Items to be moved to a culture section:

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

Items to be moved to the main plot summary section:

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

Items to be moved to the cast section:

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

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

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

Items to be moved to a historical context section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the items BillPP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural blindness

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

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

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

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

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

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

This policy is misguided

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

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

Minor edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did this policy originate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New section - header

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

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

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

Proposal to integrate some content from WP:HTRIV

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews of first proposed update

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews of this material

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

Merge of both guidelines

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

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

Two of the merged sections are off the mark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reflections on the draft, some action

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

I like name changes!

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

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

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

Bit by bit removal

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

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

Recent edits

I saved NickPenguin's changes to Wikipedia:Trivia sections/draft2. I reverted those changes basically because they were major changes, not just copyedit-type stuff, and there didn't seem to be consensus for most of it yet. Specific changes were:

Removal of "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed", which doesn't seem like a good idea.
Moving content into a section titled "Trivia sections", when the entire guideline is about trivia sections to begin with
Moving the "Not all list sections are trivia sections" section into the lead, and moving much of the lead down into the "Trivia sections" section. This seems like an arbitrary exchange, and rather than have a redundant "Trivia sections" section, it seems like the "not all lists" content would serve better as the separate section -- especially for emphasis. Remember that some people who read guidelines just glance at the "headlines". It helps to give important points their own headers. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:26, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the not categorically removed point kept, but appended with "unless it is appropriate to remove all the content within the section" or something like that. It would get the point across that removing the sections just because they're called Trivia sections isn't a good method to use, but it would also not ban the removal of the section if all the content in it is truly inappropriate for the article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What if we made "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed" a section title? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, per Wikipedia:Five pillars about Wikipedia containing elements of specialized encyclopedias, apparently there are specialized encyclopedias on trivia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

←To Bill: "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed" (emphasis added) means that they shouldn't be removed just because they are trivia sections. By definition is still leaves open other motivations for removing the sections. Also I don't think specifically telling people they can remove the entire section is a good idea; I think it's best to keep the focus on individual items. Then, if all the items have been removed, the section header can obviously be removed. People should be focusing on the items themselves anyway, rather than on the question of "should a trivia section be here". Nick: I don't think another separate section is really necessary... the stuff in the lead right now, I think, should probably stay there, rather than be moved down in favor of the "not all lists..." content. I don't see what the value is in that reorganization. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:32, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that the focus should entirely be on the content and not the name of the section being the decider for validity. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Last 2 contributions above are the most sensible things ever written here Albatross2147 (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Style Guideline Validity

Taking the trivia section on a movie page removes one of the best and most unique parts of Wikipedia. Not sure where else to put this but it is an idea that needs to be considered. 67.183.201.165 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since IMDB and TV.com writeups both have "Trivia" sections, this feature is hardly unique. It should be considered that encyclopedias are written without "Trivia" sections. This guideline does not advise editors to remove this information, but to integrate such information into the article. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stayed out of discussions for the last several weeks hoping that a useful guideline would emerge. While there has been considerable progress (easy for me to say, things are going in the general direction I like), the basic problem remains unresolved. Some of us are categorically opposed to trivia sections and will continue to remove them while others of us see trivia sections as of value in some circumstances. After several months of discussion and revision, it seems to me that the real problem is not the language of the the style guides, it is the unwillingness of some editors to accept that others do not agree with nor are willing to conform to their stylistic ideals. Personally, every time someone high handedly informs me that trivia is always avoidable, I want to run out and add a trivia section to the driest, most stylistically rigid articles in the whole project. I resist the urge, but every time I see an attack on one of my favorite articles, it angers me. I suggest an alternative solution. We continue to discourage trivia sections - the guidelines as they are now written are really pretty good - and we agree to leave those sections which are in existence alone until after thorough discussion and consensus is reached on each and every single trivia section. Those who simply can't bear to see anything fun or joyful in our wiki will then have to pursuade the rest of us before killing things off; those who have carelessly 'dumped' useless or random data into a trivia section will also be helped to eliminate or clean it up. Oh, and a bot could remove those annoying trivia cleanup notices.Panthera germanicus (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)panthera_germanicus 18:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Panthera germanicus (talk::that's ::There's a distinction between the section, and the content. Most of what accumulates of trivia sections is valid content, but is better moved elsewhere -- the production details go with the production, the use in subsequent media goes in a section on that, and so forth. The real problem is with the people who want to diminish the general extent of coverage of fictional and entertainment topics. they should simply work on what they do want to work on, and try to attain a general tolerance of each others' interests. DGG (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are fun! Don't get rid of them, otherwise trivia will be included into paragraphs and they'll become digressive - 211.30.227.30 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

B k: Wikipedia is not just a list of facts, and that is why a trivia section is often essential. We learn from a narrative thread, which strings a series of facts into something of a story---and a key feature to good narrative is that it excludes some details. The current format for many Wikipages is a narrative providing a baseline understanding and overview, followed by a set of facts that are relevant but would just interfere with the narrative if placed earlier. I believe this is ideal. Readers walk away with both the understanding provided by well-written text and by the additional facts. With a trivia section, casual contributors have a place to add relevant information without dumping a digression into the existing narrative, or doing extensive rewrite they may not have time/skill to do.

The current policy seems to imply that any fact on any subject can either fit into the narrative (possibly via a list placed mid-story) or is irrelevant. This is just not the case, because good narrative can be destroyed by including facts that some would consider very relevant, and although one can often design a narrative that covers all details, that's often beyond the time and skill of the average contributor throwing out a quick fact.

Perhaps better would be to say something like "items in trivia sections should be folded into the main narrative where possible." This acknowledges that we'd rather have facts in a narrative than an unruly bunch of facts, but also that any narrative must exclude certain salient facts to remain readable and educational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B k (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I don't have your eloquence, but you have done a superb job of explaining exactly my feelings as well.DavidPickett (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it as well. -- Ned Scott 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Classical music in popular culture

I have created this page in hopes of resolving the ongoing scrapping aout popular culter sections in articles on music compositions. You can read discussion on this matter at the new talk page of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force. I would suggest this as a solution to the overall dispute. Of course, this article needs a pruner - a caretaker who will take responsibility for deleting the really irrelevant junk, and for rewriting wherever necessary. I have volunteered to do this for the classical music page (as you can see, I have not yet started). This solution could be applicable to other areas of culture as well.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You might get more helpful feedback from WT:IPC than here. I think there are less than 10 good "In popular culture" articles on Wikipedia, and classical music deserves a good one. The pervasiveness of such music as background, soundtrack, and familiar signifier, would make a list of "spottings" (as it is currently formed) especially unwieldy and unencyclopedic. I would suggest instead of debating which are the most notable examples, the article would be better rewritten to illustrate the meanings and place of classical music in the larger culture, with examples kept where the are most illustrative. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles is a decent guideline, and User:Edgarde/IPC (note namespace) an opinionated, unaccepted one that I like. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical music in popular culture is certainly a subject worth having in Wikipedia. However, it's an enormous subject, because of its pervasiveness, as edgarde points out. I could write an entire article about Erik Satie's music in popular culture alone, for instance -- just recently I saw two films with his music, Badlands, which contained an interesting transcription of his Trois Morceaux en forme de Poire on marimba (I believe), and Being There, which contained ragtime-style riffs on his Gnossiennes. In fact, I first fell in love with his music almost 20 years ago when I heard the third Gnossienne in, of all things, a Lexus commercial. So a "Classical music in popular culture" article could only provide an overview of the subject, which could potentially, and informatively, fill hundreds of articles.

It's unfortunate that certain editors find the intersection between high culture and pop culture to be "unencyclopedic". I really would like to have an encyclopedia that contains articles on dead white Europeans that nobody cares about, with supplemental material that reminds the disinterested reader that the subject is in fact relevant to them -- "OMG, the melody of that great Sting song was written by some old dork? I'll have to learn more about him."--Father Goose (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject anti trivia

Hello if you hate Trivia sections on Wikipages you should support Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Anti-Trivia --Iwilleditu ^Talk :)^{Contributions} 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know...

Does anyone else see the "Did you know..." section on the main page as a little hypocritical in regards to this policy? TunaSushi (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because the main page is a portal that leads into other articles. It's not an article itself, and all that information is organized in other articles. We have discussed the possibility of making a "DYK/trivia/something" box that we could put on articles that would be the same idea and be acceptable. The idea would be that the information would be in both places, in the box and in the article in its proper spot. -- Ned Scott 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I absoultely agree. I also for this reason find Wikipedia's anti-trivia stance not only hypocritical, but bureaucratic as well.76.177.160.69 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The DYK section is intended to be a showcase for newly-created articles on Wikipedia, and the formatting of the front page is, like Ned says, that of a portal, not that of an article, so different rules of presentation apply.--Father Goose (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They're fun. I like them in wikipedia articles too. Is there a prohibition against fun in wikipedia? Seems excessively snooty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.240.243.170 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above, we're looking at finding ways to have our cake and eat it too. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

I've added "In popular culture" to the list of the names of trivia sections in the introduction of the article. Given that 95% of the trivia sections in wikipedia articles are titled "In popular culture", it seems silly not to list this. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The advice given for trivia sections does not fully apply to IPC sections. The popular culture influence of a subject is a specific, often valid subtopic. However, such sections may need to be exported to spinout articles (per WP:SS), or rewritten as prose, or pared back to the most notable instances. The advice to "integrate" them generally does not apply.--Father Goose (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you come across specific IPC sections that you feel are in need of cleanup, list them at WP:WPTPC and we'll do what we can.--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They have differences. "In popular culture" is for references of the subject in novels, movies, etc. "Trivia" is quick facts that can be fun. Both should be saved (see my rant below). --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Who started the anti-trivia policy?

Who were the people who set the anti-trivia policy? When did Wikipedia became a source of self-censorship... I have seen much interesting information being deleted away because of this policy and it is becoming very sad when knowledge is lost. Referencing from Metal Gear Solid 2, do we really need people to censor for us to keep the best information, while filtering the useless away. I believe we can decide sensibily what is correct and wrong. I used to read Wiki becasue of the interesting titbits, references and triva. Now it´s sad when people are using the anti-trivia policy to delete entire sections of what could be useful and accurate information. 85.0.51.39 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good information should never be deleted, but sometimes it should be moved. It's very hard to know where to draw the line, of course, but if a lot of readers start rolling their eyes, if the information seems to be only by and for the fans of the entertainment, then www.wikia.com and lots of other websites are much better places for it than Wikipedia. The main idea behind the "no trivia" guideline was that trivia should eventually be sorted and sifted and worked into the text, rather than just presented as an embedded list of trivia, as long as a significant number of readers would actually find it interesting. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is the only good thing about Wikpedia,keep it.86.87.28.191 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that if these list or article as trivia can not be shifted or be sorted, the trivia section should be remained. Some of trivia section are lost anything but it be moved/improved. i.e. some good information are lost....

Even though some people say that there are other good websites for trivia, please do not forget that Wikipedia are not in English. I use Wikipedia as world-wide dictionary. My mother language is Japanese, not English. But I can easily access to other language including English in Wikipedia. So, I read other language Wikipedia. For me, it is more hard/taugh work to find out/use other webpage for trivia. Trivia is trivia. Almost people will not get the information by hard work. But if the trivia be in there, people see it.

I think that trivia section's problem can be resolved by following way.

1) Too many information as a dictionary.
Wikipedia have Dynamic Navigation Boxes Wikipedia:NavFrame. This can be covered from people which do not want to see the section.

2) No references articles.
Template:Unreferenced and Template:Fact exist. --HATA A. K. (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the whole 'trivia section are discouraged' template as a bit misleading, as it gives the impression that all information, in a trivia page should not be on Wikipedia (at least thats the impression I got), when the page talks about the information as being unsorted information, and that the trivia page should exist as a temporary section before it is decided where it fits in, when the template gives the impression that the section should be outright deleted because of it is discouraged.

I would suggest changng the template, so that it says 'Information in Trivia sections are unsorted information and are requested to be placed in the valid section' or something along those lines, intead of being misleading until one reads the trivia article. Unless I have got the wrong impression or the article in which case, please explain .The First Darklord (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the template requires revision and is too strong. Dcoetzee 02:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to revisit its wording then. Unfortunately, template:trivia is currently protected due to its transclusion via WP:FAP. I've made a request to clear that out, and in the next couple of days we should bring the matter up at template talk:trivia.--Father Goose (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I got the ball rolling, see Template_talk:Trivia#New_wording.--Father Goose (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my opinion. Trivia is helpful because they give fun and quick facts that knowing could help you win a game show. And also, why do people hate trivia. They are fun and without them, Wikipedia would be boring. I see no reason to remove trivia. as I see it, some band of users one day decided to get rid of part of an article, and wouldn't you know it, they randomly picked trivia. How about we delete see also sections while we are at it. Save the Trivia! --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Trivia" or "Notes"?

I don't know if this is commonplace, but it seems that "Trivia" sections are being renamed "Notes" in order to get around Wikipedia policy on trivia. I love trivia sections myself, but isn't this just the same thing under a different name? Just trying to confirm this for the future.67.177.49.13 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This guideline is pretty clear that "Trivia" is just the most common name for indiscriminate and unselective lists, and other open-ended lists like "Notes", "Facts", "Miscellanea or "Other information" are just variations on the theme. This guideline covers all those lists, and in all those cases, the first task should be to integrate those facts into the article proper, rather than keep a potentially endless section. See the essay Handling Trivia for advice on integration. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to rename these lists as 'notes' anyway, since many articles reserve that section header title for footnotes and/or references. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a trivia section in this article?

Anyone? I find it hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowsgt (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was added quite recently as a joke, and is gone now. Dcoetzee 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it and the idea. --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a good way of protest, and I told the creator so. --Alien joe (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. A good way to protest would be to first read the guideline - so they actually know what they're protesting against - and then offer a cogent argument in favour of their position. Dcoetzee 17:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, how do you know that he didn't read the guideline? And what if they didn't want to go into all that trouble, besides, the trivia section was quite helpful. --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Migrate trivia items...to focused lists"

I propose rewording this section. The notion of lists of "cameo" appearances or "references in popular culture" articles are the cause of much angst, and a great deal of that angst is because of the support offered to such articles by this guideline. Rather than "Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate." I suggest something like "Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. Otherwise, see if there are sources for the effect of the topic on popular culture and consider using the items as a basis for an article that discusses that effect." I feel that this would encourage editors, rather than simply dumping off unweildly lists of "In this movie this one guy said 'Foo'."-style stuff with little or no encyclopedic value and instead encourage them to develop sourced articles on notable topics. Otto4711 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the specific examples may not have consensus, I believe it's useful to provide the option of organizing previous trivia items into more focused lists, where this is appropriate. Dcoetzee 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" parody

I though those who frequent this page might find this parody to be rather charming. Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you beat me to it! :) --Jenny 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You call that charming? --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't. --

Oh no! it's Alien joe! 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Essay

Read my new essay, Keep trivia, here. --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 15:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read the guideline and consider updating your essay, since this guideline does not and never has advocated removal of trivia. I wrote the bulk of this guideline and I'm an inclusionist who has never identified as holding an anti-trivia position. I and others recently pushed for changes to the template to help clarify that it is not anti-trivia. Your efforts would be better spent in clarifying the guideline to people who believe falsely that it gives them license to kill trivia sections. Besides mischaracterizing policy, your "petition" was deleted for a reason; you're really going about this the wrong way. Dcoetzee 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy heck, ease up and assume good faith. --Oh no! it's Alien joe! 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am, and I understand your motivation; the above was not said with any intended antagonism. I just disagree strongly with the argument of your essay and believe it mischaracterizes policy. I'm only suggesting ways in which you could more effectively help to preserve the trivia that is useful. Dcoetzee 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Kahuna

We have lots of people putting kahuna trivia that is useful to have somewhere but not on the kahuna page, so created a kahuna (disambiguation) page. Is this okay? Thanks. Makana Chai (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good solution. Thanks for helping clean up this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just spew it all over the article!

The problem with trivia sections is that many people tend to add absolutely irrelevant cruft instead of marginally relevant interesting information. Obviously, the best and most elegant solution to this is to do away with the trivia sections and just integrate all the marginally relevant information all over into the article.
Never mind if it only fits in the leading paragraph and adds less relevant information to a succinct and well-written summary. Never mind if this way spoilers go into the lede; after all, we did away with the trivia sections!
And those who think that all marginally relevant information should be removed from everywhere should be congratulated on their effort to remove information from what's supposedly an encyclopedia with virtually no limit on its size. It's like issuing a policy of No External Links because some of what's added is spam.
In before "oh you just whine and have no better alternative":
1. Have trivia sections but remove everything that's just plain cruft, what's not even marginally relevant.
2. Make this clear to editors in guidelines, have a NoMoreTrivia template like Template:NoMoreLinks.
3. Rejoice.

--Robert Robertson (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Integration doesn't just mean converting trivia to prose; it can also mean grouping it into more targeted lists, which may be more appropriate for some forms of "marginally relevant" information. Dcoetzee 13:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections on some level represent an article that has not yet been written -- just a jumble of facts that could be used to write an article. You toss the completely irrelevant ones and forge a coherent narrative out of the remainder. If there's no easy way to forge such a narrative with some of the more relevant items, leave them in place until someone else comes along with a better idea of where to put them.--Father Goose (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

=Take out the trivia? The trivia was one of the reasons I would come here. Why take away one of the unique aspects of the Wiki?98.204.161.15 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)KariB57

Regarding "In popular culture" sections of articles

Regarding "In popular culture" sections of articles, there are clear cut cases where "In Popular Culture" is OK, because the pop culture phenomenon itself is notable:

The obvious case: Che Guevara in popular culture. Nothing needs to be said; it's a slam dunk for notability. [Note that User:Gavin.collins disagrees, calling that article "...a classic example of content fork, as the subject of the article is of unproven notability, i.e. there are no reliable secondary sources which mention "Che Guevara in popular culture". The article's content is a classical example of synthesis."]
A somewhat-less-obvious but still valid case: Battle of red cliffs#Modern and cultural impact. We have a huge movie, a somewhat-less-huge but still very popular video game series, a statue... etc.

But look at Bodhisattvas#Bodhisattva in popular culture. Two or three things listed there are barely notable in themselves. More importantly, the fact that a notable work mentions Bodhisattva, or even has a character nicknamed Bodhisattva, is patently trivial (see WP:NOT). It has no intrinsic relationship whatsoever to Bodhisattva; the relationship is tangential. No one who is interested in Bodhisattva will be interested in Ian Astbury etc. As per WP:SPADE, these sections are wikilink spam. They are either intended to drive up the wikilink count of borderline-notable articles, or are hagiographic fancruft (see the link to "Point Break")... Can we please start applying (or creating?) robust guidelines regarding these cases of parasitical cruft? Something along these lines:

Information presented in "In popular culture" sections should distinguish between notable pop culture phenomena and connective trivia. Two questions arise: First, should an article about topic X include an "In popular culture" section? Second, if such a section is included, what individual facts should the section contain?

Notability entails references in popular culture. In particular, extremely notable topics such as Bodhisattva or Jesus can generate a correspondingly large number of references that are scattered across a broad range of expressions of pop culture (a kind of "name dropping"). The fact that such pop references exist (and may exist in great number) does not imply that the impact of topic X upon pop culture itself is notable.

The key to inclusion of a particular item in a list of "X in popular culture" should be "Is this item important in understanding the phenomenon of "X in popular culture", or is it merely a single instance of "X in popular culture"? A related question might be, what impact has this individual pop culture reference had upon the pop culture perceptions of topic X?

Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Rule Proposal

Okay, Let me make myself clear, I love triva sections, but I have a few guidelines that we could possibly adopt and follow.

1) The trivia sections should be neat and organized, meaning that it will be divided into sections ("Production", "Cultural Refrences", "Notes", ect.)

If you don't know what catagory it should go in, make an "Uncatgorized" setion.

2) [And not a lot of people will like this] But these sections should use BULLET POINTS to make the sections easeir to read and follow.

3) You should have a refrence. If it is from a DVD commentary of a show/movie, the refrence should have "Commentary", the title of the episode, TV show, and/or movie, and roughly the time the fact is stated.

I am not done yet, but I have to go. See ya!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would work. What if there already is Production and cultural reference sections? Why should the information be split into 2 sections with the same name? How do you decide if one Production note is for the main production section, and another is for the trivia production section? If there isn't these main sections, then why not create them? If the information is valid then it doesn't need to be in a subsection of a section called trivia. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

These seem pretty good. Maybeyou should say something to the guys here. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to revive discussion and activity there. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wanna say that the Production section could be about when it started, what happened to make it, ect. To me, "Trivia" wouldn't fit in the main section, and it wouldn't be able to strech into a paragraph on it's own. The same with other sections. And I'm seeing that on the Family Guy articles, the "Cultural Refrence" sections are being catagorized as "Trivia" sections and are started to be treated as such.
Now that that's out of the way, let's go over the rules:

1. The trivia sections should be neat and organized, meaning that it will be divided into sections ("Production", "Cultural Refrences", "Notes", ect.)

If you don't know what catagory it should go in, make an "Uncatgorized" setion.

2. [And not a lot of people will not like this] But these sections should use BULLET POINTS to make the sections easy to read and follow.

3. You should have a refrence. If it is from a DVD commentary of a show/movie, the refrence should have "Commentary", the title of the episode, TV show, and/or movie, and roughly the time the fact is stated. Same for a normal TV episode, movie, book, website, ect.

4. The "piece of trivia" should NOT be able to fit into any of the other sections. If it does, it should be intigrated into said section.

5. And finally, if the fact is from ORIGINAL RESEARCH, (Yeah, I said it) then the research (in a graph/table/chart form) should be posted on the article's talk page, so othe people can go back and check the facts.

If you have anything else to add, please feel free to add it. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think you'd be arbitrarily choosing what goes into a trivia section and what goes in the main section. I don't like the definition "if it cannot be stretched out to a paragraph then it goes in the trivia section." It's possible for very important facts to be a single sentence, and it's also possible for trivial information to be a paragraph or more long. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I guess I should have worded that better. What I mean is, if it won't be able to go in the main section without it semming out of place, than it should go in the Trivia section. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't understand this guideline

Does this guideline mean we should keep trivia sections or remove them?
While it recommends "integrating relevant information into the main article," that is usually either very hard to do or nearly impossible.
The result is that, rather than actually doing something about the real problem, Hypocritical templates are added to Trivia sections, keeping the section with a useless and annoying template.

Is there any reason for keeping the policy mentioned in subparagraph 3 of my unreasonable argument?

-- Nahum (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The guideline suggests we remove the section, but aim keep the contents in some way elsewhere in the article where it would be more logically placed.
People often say that some information is impossible to integrate, but usually somebody is able to figure out a good way of writing the content. It may require bulking up in some way. (eg. From "<actor> was originally cast as the main character" to "<actor> was originally cast for the role of <character>. This was because <reason>. He didn't take the part because <reason> and it meant that <reaction>." and so on). Basically the pieces of info in the trivia section may require a little research or rewriting to make them a bit more encyclopedic.
Some people are either unable or unwilling to reorganise the trivia section at the point when they see one so they tag it. The template helps with categorisation of the issue and it also helps inform people that there is a guideline about this kind of content. I'm not sure what you mean by hypocritical in this context. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have strongly favored not placing those templates in articles, but on the talk page instead, since a trivia section can exist in perpetuity under this guideline. This position did not gain consensus support on Template talk:Trivia. Dcoetzee 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What the creators of this policy failed to understand is the meaning of the word "trivia". According to Dictionary.com it is:

trivia

–plural noun

"matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities."

So by that very definition, it is very difficult, and rather foolish, to try to integrate such facts into the main body of text since they are so inconsequential. So this policy is a complete failure to comprehend a simple meaning of a word. It is completely worthless and cannot possibly do any good. Any author or English professor would know this. And yes I am an aspiring author. So I know. Nonessential information is preferably left out the main body of any professional work. Just watch the bonus features of any DVD and you'll see that instantly. One little miscellaneous fact makes little difference, but many is another story. That information must be recorded somehow. Otherwise it is lost. We are an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to include a lot of information. Many book authors who author a large series of books often choose to create an encyclopedia of information after they finish the series. Many of these are basically trivia. We need to shake off old hates. Trivia sections used be looked down upon. But nowadays people really like them. Personally I like the trivia sections most of all in most articles that have them. So you know my opinion now. This policy is pointless and this article should be deleted.Mjr162006 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The title has been discussed a few times. I believe it was once suggested that it be moved to "Miscellaneous facts" or something like that. That might have just been the wording on the template (which doesn't say "Trivia" at the moment). The title refers to how the vast majority of these miscellaneous facts are under the section name of Trivia. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's jargon. This policy does not concern trivia, per se. That's just what people call it. Dcoetzee 01:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A rose under a different name would smell just as sweet. The fundamental problem is that trivia is not integrated into the article in a meaningful and consistent way.I do not see how changing the name of this guideline will help improve that situation.

I should add, that since I've started watching the trivia issue (September 10, 2007), the total number of Articles with trivia sections has decreased by about 5,500 (now down from 14,000 to 8,500), or roughly 40%. Thats a 40% redution in just over a year. That's a monumental improvement, even if only half that content was integrated into the article in a more meaningful way. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The fundamental problem is not precisely that trivia is not integrated into the text... a great deal of trivia is trivial because it is irrelevant and immaterial, and as such should be deleted from the article. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

KEEP THEM

I'm talking mostly through my frustrations with the Family Guy pages, but I still think they should be kept! What I'm starting to see with Familt Guy pages, and possibly other pages, is that the trivia sections (called "Notes," Trivia", and "Cultural Refrences") are starting to be made into paragraph form, when they have nothing to do with each other! And another thing, the facts are starting to become inacurate in thoes sections! I;m sure this has been detected and corrected, butr a few months ago, the arical for Whistle While Your Wife Works, in the "Production" section, which is replacing the trivia sections, I beleive it stated that the DVD commentary said that Seth MacFarlane's dad sang "It's a hole in the bottom of the sea" as Stewie, which is false. Also, the new "meets the guidelines" sections are dificult to follow. That is all. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't really blame a style guideline if other editors have inserted false information, since it would be false in paragraph form or list form. It is a problem if people are simply throwing unrelated tidbits in the same section, since that's no better than a list (as far as the concerns this guideline tries to address), so maybe we can say something to help discourage that. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I like unrelated tidbits, and I like the list form. When I first started coming here, I thought that the articals with the lists where well organized; there was a intro, a plot, some trivia, and some refrences to other stuff. Now what I'm seeing is the lists are being made into paragraphs that are hard to follow, and that's making the articals disorganized. You see my point?--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all tidbits are "unrelated", and certainly not all tidbits are reallocated in paragraph form. Often short selective lists are the best way to present this information, which is preferred over an unselective and openended list. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone turns a reasonably well-organized list into poor prose, that's the wrong thing to do. If people assume that's what this guideline is recommending, that's wrong. Additionally, if someone turns a not-very-well organized list into even poorer prose, that's even more wrong.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to offer better guidance on when organized lists are preferable to "integration into prose".--Father Goose (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in this guideline recommends turning lists into "poor prose". Editors who feel their points are best made by typing in ALLCAPS would do well to add information in bullet list form and let others fix it. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, with the people who want to keep the trivia sections, I have learned many things from those sections! KEEP THEM! --Ian.hawdon (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am not against the existence of trivia sections, they are most often not sourced and as such should be removed. Well sourced trivia that is not original research is okay in moderation, but limited. Hey, notice I said all that without typing all capital words? _(1 == 2)^Until 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The disadvantages of "Trivia" sections include that they are often unsourced, can often give WP:Undue weight to their material, and are often written in a manner which would be completely unacceptable anywehre else. As such, they can be, and often are, the most problematic part(s) of any article. I cannot see how it would be acceptable to demand that we keep sections which are among the most problematic parts of any article. Having said that, I myself have often contributed to sections containing what others consider trivia, but those sections are more specifically named and have greater content guidelines than a simple "trivia" section does. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In summary: lists titled "trivia" = bad; lists of miscellaneous information = not necessarily bad, use digression/common sense. And I think that's about as clear cut as it'll get. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That way of phrasing it may have the effect of oversimplifying. Re-titling Trivia sections to get around this guidelines is usually missing the point. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I like so-called trivia sections. * They encapsulate intriguing facts that it might take a whole paragraph to explicate ... ballooning articles with fluff is bad. * It was the style in old works to put such tidbits in footnotes (actually at the bottom of every printed page) for decades. * Trivia are easy for beginners to add; they or someone else can work them into paragraphs later * There's a clear popular interest in such things (distressing to the elitists, I'm sure).

The question of what is "trivial" is clearly philosophical. The declaration that something is trivial presumes that the declarer has an omniscient POV; if we learn anything from history it's that the little things aren't dispensable, and may even be critical. While it probably won't, today's trivium may assume great magnitude at some future date.

Finally, good books are not only humorous but human. Stiff rigid books more interested in abstract standards than humanity are largely passed into history. Which would most of us rather read? QED Twang (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. Given the HIGH number of article pages which have Trivia sections in one form or another, maybe it's time that they were given credit on Wikipedia. I'm all for integrating content into the article when and where it makes sense, and even this policy notes that a trivia section presentation is better than nothing at all. Quite frankly, I find the "Discouraged" banners far more distracting and unencyclopedic than the material usually contained therein. I'm not saying the policy should go away, but maybe it's time Wikipedia recognized that "discouraged" is inappropriate given the high volume of articles containing them. And maybe it's time for that banner to go away as well, or be located elsewhere in the article (maybe at the bottom of it?) 98.215.48.213 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The trivia sections provide interesting notes about the article As long as the information is accurate, I believe that they should be kept. It doesn't make a difference whether they are in list or paragraph form, but we are more used to the list form. Trivia is not only interesting to read, but in times, they are also informational. I propose to bring them back.

O—— The Unknown Hitc hh ik er 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about list vs paragraph, it's more about what section the information is found in. The "trivia" we're talking about isn't any more or less interesting to read than any other fact in the article. There's no difference between them, except one group of facts is unorganized. We really need to make an FAQ for this guideline.. -- Ned Scott 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't even have a username, and has never edited wiki other then the talk pages (honestly I don't think I'd be very good at it). I don't have a huge understanding of all the rules and guidelines and their rational. However they aways seem to have positive impacts and I'm very impressed with the editors and the general quality and evolution of Wikipedia articles. The one rule/guidline I will never appreciate is the "no trivia" rule. I agree in may cases intergrating this trivia makes the article more unorganized and makes information harder to locate. I believe it should be allowed for certian articles. While it would seem out of place in an article about a person, I think a trivia list would be useful and beneficial in an article about an television episode, a movie, a book, and maybe even the more general television series articles. I wonder if it possible to change this rule to only cover certian articles? Or at least open up discussion on the issue. Is "no trivia" really set in stone? Seems like everything else in the Wiki community is open to debate, evolution, and discussion.

This guideline isn't a "no trivia" rule. Basically it's about the organisation of information on the page. Imagine in a movie article, an item in a trivia section that says "Originally Chuck Norris was cast as the protagonist". It makes much more sense to have that piece of information in the casting section instead of separated into a section with facts that aren't related to casting. That's just one kind of example I've seen before. The actual content of an article is governed by other policies and the consensus around that article. The guideline also states that information should not be removed just because it is in a trivia section. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. While there seems to be a movement to make Wikipedia more like Britannica, Wikipedia doesn't have the space constraints that a physical(book) encyclopedia has. If you're against trivia sections for this reason, you might as well remove all but the most culturally significant pop culture articles as they would never make it onto Britannica. Aside from legal issues, or excessively long bandwidth/processor munching articles, there isn't a valid reason to attack a section that can easily be ignored by those who hate them, or found by those who like them. It's not like there will ever be a trivia section in a scientific article like Australopithecus; such articles are in a different world when compared to pop culture articles. People interested in pop culture are also interested in how an article's topic is tied into other aspects of pop culture. When I crawl scientific articles, I usually end up crawling through See Also. When I crawl pop culture articles, I usually crawl through Trivia. Trivia bashing is an absurd waste of time, and needless to say, I roll my eyes whenever I see the trivia template. Sarysa (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the trivia sections, they are my favorite part and are very enjoyable -kev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.191.53 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I too agree, Trivia sections are very interesting to read, and make reading about certain topics a much more enjoyable experience. I suggest, that if the issue is un-cited trivia - then institute a policy that all trivia must be cited, and moderate it! Don't remove all the sections just because a few facts are wrong - you may as well disband wikipedia in that case! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.124.61 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is about organisation of information not the banning of trivia. It specifically states that it does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. If the information is fine then it can be kept. Secondly, In popular culture sections are not covered by this guideline, if such a section is tagged as a trivia section then it can be untagged. It's likely however, that the section will need the {{prose}} tag instead. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, that triva is useful and insigful and that it should, most defenitly, be kept and NOT integrated into a paragraph. 12.214.32.101 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Many comments above are very insightful. "Trivia" comments are often odd bits of information that don't belong elsewhere, don't merit a whole section to themselves, and can't be easily added to other sections. Wikipedia doesn't have the space constraints of other media. I would like to see the REMOVAL of all Trivia Templates. DavidPickett (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia should be kept. I mean, what's so wrong with them. Hey, lets randomly pick another part of an article to delete. And seriously, will the encyclopedia fall if we have trivia? --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the note: KEEP THEM. My opinion is that trivia facts/ notes are very nice extra's to a medium as big as wikipedia is. True, sometimes trivia facts are a little odd, but on the long shot its a +. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia but also a place where trivia's belong. KEEP THEM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.143.109 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep I like them too. A good place for hard-to-catagorise but nevertheless facinating little facts. GraL (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree so much with this part. KEEP THEM. They make Wikipedia really, really interesting. Also, suddenly all these articles that looked like good, well thought out articles have those horrible things saying that trivia sections are bad. I mean, those things more than anything just remind me that Wikipedia isn't really accurate. They're horrible! Seriously, they make for interesting reading, quite often those lists are the first thing I scroll downt to, to get interesting information, or other points of future reference. They're brilliant...seriously, one of the best parts of Wikipedia in my opinion. Bearon (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

KEEP THEM for havens sake, I lerned a lot with them, and although in some artcles they do seam like a bad idea, in others it is great, for exemple in a music or album article. THis guide is not EVIL, the poroblem is that people are using it as a justification to say Wikipidia is not a place for Trivia, and people like that just delete the trivia section.... I've seen some articles that used to have a trivia with usefull information, that now don't have that information at all!201.80.121.30 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You said it exactly. This guide doesn't say anything evil about this fact or that fact being bad, it says that random, disorganized lists are bad. The information in trivia sections should really just be integrated into the rest of the article. Then, we keep all that interesting information and we get rid of a disjointed mess. I hope when a trivia sections "disappears", the editors that integrate the information do it more good than harm. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is we don't want the trivia section to "look better". Wiki is known for trivia sections in the bottom, in fact most people scroll down to it instead of reading the long paragraphs. People need to fix trivia sections to make them neater, but removing all of them is not the answer as many are informational and interesting. I think Wikipedia is losing something that made it special, and that is its' ability to entertain. There's plenty of boring encyclopedias and information sites all over the place, but Wiki had this ability to be both useful AND entertaining. Oh you want to read something about an actress, look the trivia says there's a star named after her, and look she once owned a dog named Skippy. Do we need to write a paragraph about her early life and add her dog to it? NO. Please don't let Wiki become the stuckup sort of site and let it stay the free reign, group effort that it has been. This article is like those kind of people that smile while they're talking crap about you. Trying to say something is bad but without making it sound like it is. Which means trivia and random facts is slowly bagged up and thrown in the river all around the site, quietly at night, and then all of a sudden they're all gone and if anyone asks they point to this article. The title might as well be, "Remove all trivia!!!"... I wonder how many people have to say KEEP THEM until someone listens... 75.69.233.90 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are lists treated differently?

It seems to me that the format of data presentation should be mostly irrelevant to wikipedia, and that effectivness and quality should be the relevant factors. Why, in this case, does this disfavor lists? It seems that the same data and presentation, sans list differences, are acceptable in tables, and yet the distinction appears to exist and be observed quite widely.

Can anyone cast some light on this? I'd also lie to register my disapointment that this section even exists as it seems to be terribly abused and an excuse for people to tag and delete useful information- sometimes in violation of this authority and sometimes not. It seems notable information should be included in this work and their should be no reason or motivation to increase the verbosity unnecessarily or relegate the information to table form to keep it in compliance with this section.

Do I misunderstand? Am I correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.234.88 (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that lists are deprecated and abused by people who simply don't like lists, and will kill them in any way they can, as being somehow smarmy ways to insert trivia into WP. However, this is not really WP official policy, which includes guidelines for both stand-alone lists and embodied lists within articles: see WP:LIST. Lists are good, and there's nothing wrong with them. Like tables, they are often a most appropriate way to present information. Also, see the interested stuff at WP:CLN noting that lists and categories compliment each other, but in many ways the two types of proposed makings and deletions are handled quite differently. But shouldn't be. In short, it's a real problem. S B H arris 09:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. Trivia lists are usually just fine. Tempshill (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The prejudice is not against lists, but disorganized and unselective lists. See Wikipedia:Trivia_sections#Not_all_list_sections_are_trivia_sections. Dcoetzee 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This guideline needed an example

This guideline was a bit hard to follow for newcomers, as it talked about trivia sections without giving any examples of what a trivia section actually looks like. So I added an example, in a new section WP:Trivia #Example. Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, but I've reverted your edit. I don't necessarily disagree with having an example in the guideline, but I'd suggest that it not be a "popular culture" example -- many such sections (and in fact, entire articles) are well-written and relevant. (And even ones that are poor can usually be improved to the point where they're worth retaining.)--Father Goose (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I redid it so that it wasn't a pop-culture example. Eubulides (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like the new example - it's a shame I didn't think to include anything like this in the first place. It illustrates the point of the guideline brilliantly. Dcoetzee 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia itself?

Is there a wikipedia policy/guideline against actual trivial content? If so, can someone point it out to me, because I feel like there must exist a policy that says "On January 12, 2007, Obama had a sandwich for lunch", is far too trivial to be of any use to anyone and shouldn't exist in an article. I see lots of guidelines about unnotable articles, but none about content. TheHYPO (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (with other parts of WP:NOT called in as needed) should handle this, if they haven't yet been deleted by certain parties. Also, an ArbCom decision currently linked from Wikipedia:Notability sayeth:

An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details.

WP:NOTE itself has some say on this, but it has the force of policy only when applied to articles, not to article content line items. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence about Obama's sandwich would also be governed by WP:WEIGHT, surely. That is, if the sentence is in Barack Obama, it should be there only if reliable sources on Obama also treat the sandwich as being important. (Likewise for Sandwich....) Eubulides (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is the best way to handle cases like these. If it's clearly unimportant, most people will agree that it should not be in the article. If there's legitimate debate over its importance, having a policy that says "trivial content should be removed" (or for that matter, "kept") would interfere with a consensus-driven result, so it's just as well we don't have policies outlining the subjective concept of "importance". (Although notability, to some degree, equates coverage in secondary sources with importance. In many cases this produces a reasonable result, but in others, it's the wrong yardstick -- especially when applied to individual facts instead of to subjects as a whole.)--Father Goose (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Who is to say what is "trivial content"? One person's utter trivia is another's valuable detail and important illustrations. Still, there is nobody's life that we document day by day, unlike a scholarly biography. Wikipedia is after all a general encyclopedia, not specialized scholarship. But the degree of details necessary for the biography of a president will be very different from someone who is, say, a semember of a state legislature. It is more important & interesting to know the details of Einstein's or Darwin's education than that of an ordinarily notable professor. DGG (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Or does anyone else find themselves looking at the previous editions of pages with trivia on them more than the actual current ones? Kinda funny. Oh well, at least we have cluttered paragraphs. Danno2530 05:12, 29 October 2008

Agreed...I find myself looking back to old versions to see if there are any trivia sections I missed. Bearon (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I do that a lot. It's too bad people just don't like trivia. --Alien joe (has returned!)(Talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Where oh where has my trivia section gone?

Has everyone read this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture/Discussion

Here are some interesting external web sites concering trivia.

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/22/wikipedias-identity-crisis-keep-or-delete-trivia/

http://billso.com/2008/03/18/should-wikipedia-include-trivia/

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354

http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom

http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/03/10/inclusionists-versus-deletionists-on-wikipedia.html

http://www.includipedia.com/

http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Includipedia:About

http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Main_Page

http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/12/22/trivia-section-on-wikipedia--an-american-dad-christmas-illustration.aspx

http://www.impactlab.com/2008/03/24/wikipedia-identity-crisis-part-2-keep-or-delete-trivia/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080111152140AA8xEth

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia Ozmaweezer (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know this issue was this popular outside of Wikipedia. --Alien joe (has returned!)(Talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OR?

I noticed that many trivia sections contain trivia facts not cited to secondary sources. For example, "In the American Dad! episode, "Stan of Arabia", there is an establishment in Saudi Arabia named Shawarma King, a likely parody of Burger King." I guess in this case, American Dad is the primary source. I was wondering if this is acceptable. Comments are appreciated. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncited facts are not acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. A huge amount of information is uncited and it is a huge problem. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires citations for all quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. I think the policy has been watered down and everything should be cited because it currently requires us to ask ourselves, "what is 'likely to be challenged'"? For me that means any information that is not immediately obvious like "the sky is blue", and oftentimes material that is seemingly uncontroversial, turns out to be not so obviously correct after all. An aspect of the policy that's important to understand is the subsection cited as WP:BURDEN, which holds that if you challenge any material, you can remove it and the burden is not on you to find a source, but for the person who adds it or seeks to keep it. For the particular fact you raise, "a likely parody of Burger King" sounds like pure original research. Even if American Dad is the primary source of the appearance of Shawarma King, the conclusion drawn is not. The fact that trivia sections are so often bereft of citations is another reason for their removal.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tricky subject. Examples like the "Stan of Arabia" one are obvious original research, because their conclusions are dubious. However, to say that Fry and the Slurm Factory is intended to be a parody of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is both obvious and useful - it would be better to cite it to a reliable source, but it can go without one. The question to ask is essentially whether there would be significant doubt about the fact in a reasonable person's mind. Dcoetzee 00:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your input. I think the problem is that some editors think the RS/V/NOR rules with regards to trivia/references in popular culture are more lax. How can one cite something seen/heard in a TV show, film, song, etc. but not mentioned in a news article or other form of a secondary source? I guess the appropriate action as Fuhghettaboutit suggests is to delete unsourced material including trivia. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some sourced material - such as plot summaries - is implicitly sourced to the media itself. These are okay. It's more conclusions that are not evident upon observing the media that are more difficult. Dcoetzee 06:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I haven't even thought about plot summaries, deleting those would be considered vandalism; I will avoid that :}. I am going to just stick to checking the sections titled Trivia.

So I will delete the one about Stan Of Arabia, for it being OR and that it spins off into a growing list of Shawarma King locations. The whole trivia factoid is "In the American Dad! episode, "Stan of Arabia", there is an establishment in Saudi Arabia named Shawarma King, a likely parody of Burger King. There is, in fact, a restaurant called "Shawarma King"[8] in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The Eaton Centre food court in Toronto is also home to a Shawarma King takeout. There is another Shawarma King establishment in the metro Boston area.[9] And there are two located in Ottawa, Ontario. Kalamazoo, MI is home to a chain called Shawarma King, consisting of sit down restaurants and a buffet. There is a 'Shawarma King' in a strip mall in Savannah, Georgia, and a restaurant in Houston, TX bears this name as well. The Houston restaurant is frequented by locals, many being of middle eastern descent.[10]" -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the entire Trivia section is observations made from primary sources. Please check Shawarma#Trivia and let me know what is the right course of action. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That there is an establishment named Shawarma King" in the episode is not OR, & should not be removed. It is implicitly sourced to the original episode. It wouldn't hurt to have it said in a footnote and give the exact timing where it first appears, but the source is fairly obvious. That it is an obvious parody of Burger King if obvious need not be said. DGG (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure. I lean to the opinion that everything should be sourced, even with commonly known facts like Mount Rushmore is located in South Dakota. With the instance of Shawarma King, it does seem to be an observation made on a detail in a primary source, not exactly a clear cut fact. BTW it's weird that we are debating an event involving American Dad and Shawarama. If the writer of the episode pointed out the parody in an interview, then it would be fact and we would use that source. I am not sure what to do with that trivia now, because I am confused by the different interpretations. I will just delete the list of different Shawarma Kings for now -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed your reply and proposed action. I agree that the list was excessive, and what you left in was fine. DGG (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess Falastine fee Qalby (above) is right. I might a well start cutting every line of every article that doesn't have a source cited. WikiPedia will soon be half it's size. More than 50% of EVERY article doesn't have a source cited. After all we need to save SPACE.DavidPickett (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article's weirdest suggestion: separate pop culture impact articles

Quote from this guideline:

Otherwise, see if there are sources for the effect of the topic on popular culture and consider using the items as a basis for an article that discusses that effect.

Say WHAT? What am I missing? I you were to write a separate well-sourced article for the effect of something-or-other on popular culture (Dracula, say, or Bush's Mission Accomplished speech), you would surely find that it was soon tagged for deletion as non-notable, or being a trivia article. If you managed to argue your way out of that, somebody would then suggest that it be integrated/merged into the article on the subject itself, as a section. Hmmm. Now what WOULD we name such a section? I leave it to you to think of something that would avoid a tag, as a trivia section to be gotten rid of.

In short, what is the guideline above doing here? What good is it in practice? I am skeptical that it can be applied in the current atmosphere that exists on Wikipedia. I don't think I ever have seen it successfully done, but am willing to be shown, if you can find one. Anybody got an example where it worked? Then, another example for something which had an impact which was less than mega-massive? S B H arris 18:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an exaggerated reaction to a few scattered deletions. at present, it seems to be usually accepted that ipc sections are not necessarily trivia,--when they are removed or the article on ipc deleted (which happens about half the time at AfD lately, not 90% like 3 years ago)) they are removed for other reasons, such as the relatively minor nature of the content in a particular instance. This advice is not bad advice for some trivia sections, which should be expanded in this way if possible, so I have consequently altered the sentence to reflect the more general situation. DGG (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is rather a shame, however, that Trivia/pop culture lists have not routinely been spun off as stand-alone {main} list articles, per WP:SS, all this time. That's sort of a natural, and doing it could have avoided many a war. That might keep (almost) everybody happy. Example: in the scientific heavy water article you don't have half the article mucked up with every mention of heavy water in every fictional work from war films to Hogan's Heros. And yet, if you're into that kind of thing, there's a list article you can go to where somebody really has lovingly collected all that stuff. The Graves' Disease Article doesn't have a list of famous sufferers that overgrows the list, and yet you don't have to dig through its archives to find a complete one.

Can we not (somehow) formally encourage spinning off pop culture sections to their own {main} list-articles, like crazy relatives kept in the attic and nutty employees kept in the backroom? The idea being that these things have their interests, so long as they're mostly out of sight of the general public? S B H arris 05:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If they need to be kept out of sight, why create them? I don't think it's a good idea to encourage editors to work on unencyclopedic freestanding articles that would just be deleted anyway.

IPC article spinoffs would mostly be deleted for insufficient notability—while heavy water is notable, the phenomenon of it being mentioned "in pop culture" is probably not (regardless of the notability of the movies or TV shows making mention). An extended list article of Graves' Disease sufferers might be accepted since list articles are subject to different standards, but a list article of Graves' Disease trivia would almost certainly be deleted. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again we come to the idea of making pop culture reference sections (especially long ones) into stand-alone list articles. Fine by me. Fine by policy which is stated right in this very article at WP:TRIVIA. But in practice, nearly impossible to do, as they'll be PRODed before you can say "boo" and then that will lead to a time-consuming argument. See the wars on List of bow tie wearers, List of bowler hat wearers, List of people who were beheaded, and so on and so on. You may ask why the list of bow tie wearers survived but the list of bowler hat wearers did not. Answer: no good reason. After the usual pointless war, it simply happened that the people with the most Wiki-power and patience liked to see a stand-alone list of notable people who wore bow ties more than a list of notable people (like Winston Churchill and Odd job) who wore bowler hats. Stupid, yes. But that's why we're here discussing policy, so stupidities like this don't continue. Since WP is not paper, it could just as well have had a list of bowler hat wearers, and once did. But the list killers killed it. Because they wanted to. Said it was a list of trivia. S B H arris 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that if heavy water is notable enough to get a reference, then its treatment in pop culture is also important; if I am researching this topic for a paper, then my continued research into its presentation through media is relevant. TV shows, movies, books, songs, whatever, they all contribute to our collective understanding of a topic, and noting who, when, and how the information is given is relevant. Yes, WP is not primary, we all realize that. But an encyclopedia is often a good starting point to focus research, and properly constituted WP articles will contain a wealth of citations linking to primary sources. "Trivia" sections are a part of this process. Aramis1250 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

I could look through the archives and find examples if need be, but the issue of whether or not IPC should be included in this guideline has been brought up often. The consensus has always come out to be "no", in my experience. IPC is a separate issue that involves its own unique considerations. One of the main problems with including it here is that the guideline specifically allows for focused lists of items united by a common theme, which IPC lists are. So including them in the intro is a contradiction. Finally, IPC is a hotly debated issue, and there basically is no consensus on what should be done with them -- so they don't belong in an established guideline that's meant to state the current consensus. Equazcion (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Since IPC sections are often organized as lists of miscellaneous information—they may even be the most common type of such information—In popular culture sections are worth mentioning for consideration in this guideline. The mention here is not an instruction to remove IPC sections (if such can be called encyclopedic), merely to avoid creating them as trivia sections. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IPC is currently listed as one of the many names applied to a certain type of section, when really IPC sections are inherently different. Whether they can be considered a problem or not, they are different. Again the consensus has been to leave them out, but if consensus has changed then a) that needs to be discussed and determined definitively, b) in what capacity they are to be included here must also be discussed, and c) there needs to be actual content included on how they are relevant and how they are to be dealt with, rather than just mentioning the word in the lede. Equazcion (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "not all list are trivia" section

i think a more guide-like format or added information can. like to say which list are signifact and important in Wikipedia or something.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all lists are trivial

I was just reading Dis Pater, a deity that has not been worshiped in 2,000 years. Barring a "Popular culture" section, how is an editor to work modern-day references into an article about a 2,000-year-old deity? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pop culture" sections don't have to be indiscriminate lists. What's wrong with writing a well sourced paragraph describing Dis Pater's reception in the modern world? -Pollinosisss (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty well the stupidest "Official" article on WP

I read the WP article on not using this as a forum for debating whether this is a good idea or not, and have decided that this, also, is a back-handed attempt by WP's consegnai to limit the debate about what is, and is not, appropriate content for WP. Trivia sections are a perfectly appropriate place to make mention of the sundry impacts that any given topic has had, and are easily recognizable as links outward from the main topic. Aramis1250 (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote from the "No Forum" article: "You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages." Since this *is* the relevant talk page for this topic, it is 100% appropriate for this discussion to be here. Aramis1250 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that box seemed out of place here. This actually is a forum for the discussion of trivia sections. :) Equazcion (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Aramis1250, can't you read? It says, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." That's the law. Whoever wrote this brilliancy deserves a barnstar. After all, by the time you read something like "If they must exist," you know you're facing a dictum with no clear justification. Why bother arguing? And if you did bother, you could easily be hedged back with "most cases". The guideline only applies in most cases, so don't worry! In most cases, a spiffy warning box will be used to deface the article. Actually, hang on, we can't be sure that's most of them, because an unknown number have already been deleted after an arbitrary period of time wearing the warning box. See? Foolproof. Now it's high time I got back in my furry suit and commenced another busy night of "contributing". An editor's work is never done! beefman (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Aramis1250. Should we start some sort of a discussion for rescinding this rule, or at least reducing its severity? Teemu Leisti (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that style should take precedence over the display of information..and I don't agree that there must always be a citation..in some cases the only citation may be wikipedia itself(the fact that someone decided to include the information..eg What if I AM the source of the information? Obviously this is unacceptable for any long term results in developing the wiki, but do we expect every contributor to be a professional wiki developer, With a system lik this we should expect some level of "journalism" to take place. I think "so far so good" can in some cases be as a good doctrine to use as any rule of thumb until professional "level" editing can be expected for the particular articles. This is why IMO its good the wikipedia is editable(and there are talk pages where POV and poor grammer are both acceptable, as it can be updated..also trivia in and of itself is a good neutral way to collect and forward information. Whoever decided its bad "style" doesn't have my vote on the matter, and that concept is definitely POV. I haven't read the syle rules and I probably won't any time soon as the very nature of "style" is demands total POV. It may be necessary to keep wikipedia functional but its still POV and subject to change and consensus, which will usually only exist through the exclusion of someone else's POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.142.237 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC) 67.175.142.237 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous or trivial?

A recent removal of a "miscellaneous" section from Jay Jay the Jet Plane has led me to query policy on miscellaneous or trivia sections. See wiktionary:miscellaneous and wiktionary:trivia: the two words' meanings are very different. An item of information can be in a miscellaneous section but not trivial, or trivial but not in a miscellaneous section. Re trivialness, often one man's trivia / cruft is another man's important relevant matter. In any more discussion on this point, we should distinguish trivialness / cruftiness from the item being in a miscellaneous section. Often the items in a miscellaneous section add to the useful information on a subject. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I see a lot of people misusing the shortcut WP:TRIVIA, thinking that it is some policy forbidding unimportant details. The shortcuts they ought to be using are ones such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:TRIVCOV. To help make the meaning of this page clearer, I have added a shortcut of WP:MISC with the longer forms WP:MISCELLANY and WP:MISCELLANEA. I suggest that we also retitle the page as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Miscellaneous sections to make it even clearer. Warden (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Monroe Example

The example about President Monroe isn't really a good example of a trivia section. Every actual trivia section I've ever seen contains quick facts that are better presented in a list than in the main body of the article. The trivia section example shown on the project page sums up the entire article. The only facts in it that would be in a real article would be the one about Monrovia and the 5 states. --PhillieLWillie(Talk) 15:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing! 174.18.15.106 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a really bad example. Another reason is that the James Monroe article contains appropriate sections, such as Biography, so that there is little trouble in finding the proper places to put the trivia facts. It would be better with an example that shows how to deal with situations where there are no appropriate existing sections to put the facts in the trivia. Also, an example would be better if it showed a "before" and an "after" with clear marking of what differences have been made. The James Monroe example just links to the current version of the article, and it's pretty hard to find what has actually been done with the trivia pieces. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the example was bad, but for a different reason. Not being an American, I'm not familiar with who James Monroe was. A person could therefore miss the point on why such sections are discouraged. I think an example that is more well known globally would be appropriate so that readers can get a more immediate idea of what constitutes a trivia section and how to better organize information in an article. ihatefile007 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Trivia usage in Wikipedia vs Wikia

In Wikipedia, I have never seen a trivia section, yet in some Wikia based Wikis trivia sections are very common, why? 114.77.206.107 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I posted it twice 114.77.206.107 (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

See the guideline above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Derogate this absurd rule of trivia

Dear friends: I am a simple user who uses more than anything in Spanish and watching wikipedia edit wars and constant bickering reaching unfair blockades I call on you to deroguemos once and for all this standard. This is exactly like the Volstead Act in the United States when he tried to ban the liquor and the time to decide the cure was a thousand times worse than the disease, although in this case by prohibiting curiosities are generating thousands of edit wars although in this case by prohibiting curiosities are generating thousands of edit wars, riots and even more tilando cultural references, errors and eliminated films as curiosities that one way or another are important data for the items scenes. Wikipedia is recognized from the beginning by having trivia sections as I said before is extra data that make it more useful and interesting to the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteQuiroga (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Say what you mean?

"Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases" means "Trivia sections should be removed from articles in most cases" ...at least that is the action it suggests. If the meaning is not to "removed from articles in most cases" then it needs rewording. A section labeled "Guidance" should not bury the lead, in this case stated in the lead section - "Trivia sections should be avoided" Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If the lead is stated in the lead section, then the lead is not buried, by definition. I think the passage is worded the way it is, to encourage discussion and consensus building. The construction suggests more caution than "should be removed from articles in most cases", which will be taken to mean "in every case that people don't fight for a whole year to keep one". >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Covering cultural references / popular culture material

I added a section to MOS:TRIVIA, at WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, on how to approach pop-culture content from a MoS perspective (avoid list format, etc.). For content policy matters, I just cross-referenced to the relevant policies. Comments/improvements welcome, as always. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Deprecating the "In popular culture" heading

NAC: There is consensus that the "In popular culture" section should be deprecated. There is no consensus at this time as to how it should be handled or what should take it place. What should take its place should be discussed on this talk page or the subject of another RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that MOS should formally deprecate the "In popular culture" heading. As detailed at the long-standing Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay, this heading is often inaccurate and misleading, and it directly inspires the addition of pointless, trivial cruft that often violates the WP:Core content policies, and various guidelines.

The most popular alternatives to "In popular culture" are heading "Cultural references", "Cultural impact", "Cultural influence", "In culture", and sometimes medium- or genre-specific approaches are used, e.g. "In fiction", etc. I'd like us to discuss what the best approaches are, and agree on a default recommendation (or a few recommendations depending on article type/scope). MOS:TRIVIA now recommends writing such sections as prose paragraphs, not lists, and integrating this material into the main flow the article instead of having such a section to begin with, but I think we all know they will never entirely go away. In some articles, they are actually the most practical approach to such material.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Support, but only after we first establish clear alternative guidance. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Butwhatdoiknow: Any thoughts on my first attempt at that, below? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Depending on the definition of deprecate, maybe. My inclination is to say something like "popular culture can be trivial, but should be molded into something that looks nice" followed by a "'popular' culture is not the only subject which may fit into a more general understanding of a topic's 'cultural influences' but which could easily be mistaken as trivial [Izno note: something we tend to not get very right, in a most circumstances]. Accordingly, editors should consider renaming such sections." I don't think a ban is necessarily appropriate ("retired" is a phrase I've seen in contrast to "deprecated"); editors may not be able to find any other reference or may not have the desire to, and so renaming the section for renaming's sake is a touch on the bureaucratic side. --Izno (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Support If it is necessary to have a place to put such references let it be in a separate article that can be a see also. --Wehwalt (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I like "Cultural impact". That seems to come with a certain requirement to only list instances that have appreciable impact beyond being an optional pet in a video game. While this does often hit too close to home, there are plenty of cases where a mention is definitely of interest (e.g. Common_house_martin#In literature and culture).-- Elmidae (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Recommending alternatives

I think we need a multi-recommendation approach, as these sections can have a different character, rationale, and organizing principle. I can think of three main types, but there are probably others:
1. Cultural references (and that's the best heading title for it. Often subdivided chronologically, geographically, etc.) – e.g.: The Star Trek character Spock is the focus of a Big Bang Theory episode ... featuring Spock actor Leonard Nimoy in one of his last media appearances ...
2. Cultural impact/influence (what is the best heading title for it? Often subdivided chronologically, geographically, etc.) – e.g.: Pyramid schemes have had major impacts on entire nations, not just individuals. The failure of a national-level Ponzi scam set off the Albanian Rebellion of 1997. In Greece ...
3. Cultural usage/adoption (what is the best heading title(s) for this? Often subdivided by medium, genre, etc.) – e.g.: The song was used in the closing sequence of the film Fight Club, described as "one of the most iconic movie-musical moments of the 1990s" by ....^[1] It has been covered by more than 20 major recording artists ...

(I'm writing these examples on the fly from real facts, not quoting actual article text.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In a discussion with Beyond My Ken (BMK), I once argued against the "In popular culture" heading because, from what I'd seen, it had become a red flag for most experienced Wikipedia editors. I still feel that way. But if the section is well-written or written decently enough, the "In popular culture" or "Popular culture" heading shouldn't matter much. I'm not going to vote to essentially ban or heavily discourage the heading. I do support noting that it is often better to go with one of the alternative headings. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments on alt

I would vote for "Cultural impact". Of the three suggestions, this title strongly hints against trivia of kind "Ginnie Lu whistled the tune of Never on Yesterday in the 3rd episode of Homely Househusbands. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what you call it. Because what ever you call it, it will be used as an excuse to leave trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Test case

Just from a gut feel, what would one rename Parkour#Popular culture? That section is near and dear to my heart since I curated parkour in popular culture into that section. --Izno (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion would be:
1. Section title: "Depictions in arts and literature"
2. Allow only items which provide a significant depiction of the subject (which would be an encyclopedic value in itself as a ref to extra knowledge about the subject)
3. Remove the sentence about Stephen Amell as a shameless advert plug-in for Tempest Academy (WTH are they?) (the fact is more directly relevant to articles Arrow and actually already plugged into several of them).
Staszek Lem (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've actually only (myself) added/kept items that are both WP:N and have a WP:RS of some sort that mentions a(n extensive) correlation with parkour (with the exception of one or two items in the list). I think that hits your #2. Feel free to shoot anything on sight that doesn't keep to that. --Izno (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belated comment, re: Test case – It's in what I was calling the "Cultural references" category, whatever title would be settled on. What I was proposing was three (possibly more) categorizations, and some standardized names for them. I think that would still be a good idea, even if we ran with different standardized names, and even if consensus at any given page could do something different, of course. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources?

I have started an RfC on whether "in popular culture" entries are "self-sourcing" or, conversely, require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Since this has some relationship to trivia sections, I thought I would advertise the RfC here, in hopes of getting wide participation.

The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, so discussion is centralized there. Comments are welcome. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Coaching tree

Coaching trees (such as the one at Urban Meyer#Coaching tree) list other coaches that one has formerly served under and over. Do you feel they are encyclopedic or trivial? Please join the discussion at Talk:Ryan Day (American football)#Coaching tree. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

How to hoard knowledge?

How can one hoard knowledge and information when not sure where exactly it belongs on a long article, so it can be sorted in later by the editor or by other users who encounter it? (E.g. Talk:Twitter#Removal_of_trivia_section?) --Handroid7 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Make that the information is sourced with reliable, third party sourcing to show it is deemed relevant. --Masem (t) 12:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITE/WP:RS has nothing to do with WP:TRIVIA. Take an example of bios on notable people. there are VERY THICK books, and many of them. And all of them are surely reliable sources. Suppose several of them say "on June 12 he boarded train Berlin-Vienna, but his luggage was lost and he arrived to Vienna without spare underpants". Do we really need to put this into wikipedia? WP:TRIVIA is editorial judgement. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point @Staszek Lem:. But Twitter's block bypass glitch that got removed from the article sounds relevant to me. --Handroid7 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If the article is long it must be split into sections. Make sure that information foes into appropriate sections, so that later they can be made into separate articles per WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Handroid7: Wikipedia is not about "hoarding" indiscriminate information, and there are many policies and guidelines which discuss this, starting with WP:NOT. Please provide a specific example of your problem. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirect hatnote? WP:AVTRIV

I noticed that, on Talk:Snowball, @Mangojuice:User:Mangojuice actually used a shortcut to this page that is neither in the hatnote or the box. I included a link to it in the title to let you guys see if I'm right. Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 20:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Unhelpful example

The current example (prez Monroe) really isn't relevant and helpful to the reader looking to restructure real trivia sections in articles. The real challenge in rewriting trivia, and the reason so little trivia is integrated better in articles, is that there is no natural links between the bits and pieces of information. I can argue the natural structure of "real" trivia is the unorganized list.

The example's bullet points are - in stark contrast to real trivia - all related and are quite easy to "write together" in a coherent paragraph. (The example reads almost as if it was extracted from an existing text)

To be useful, the example needs to address the fact almost all "real" trivia lists contain completely unrelated information. Finding similarities and themes in heaps of trivia is not easy.

More to the point, the example does nothing to show how it's done or otherwise help in the actual editing process.

Let us pick a real article. Let's take Gonna Fly Now. How can the example be improved to instruct the reader how to integrate the following in any other way than... a list?

Due to its original use, the song (or soundalikes) is used frequently in various forms of popular media where a main character is forced to train hard in order to defeat an opponent, often during a montage sequence.
It was used in the Will Smith (who's from Philadelphia) NBC sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, for the Season 4 (episode 26, the season finale) episode The Philadelphia Story. When Will's training to fight a bully that used to beat him up in school, the music plays in the background of his training sessions, and as he's running up the Philadelphia Art Museum, as Rocky Balboa did in the Rocky movie.
The song has been used as the main theme for France's daily radio comedy program Les Grosses Têtes since 1977.
The song was used in Jackass 3D as part of a recurring gag called "The Rocky," which involved Bam Margera throwing a cup of water on an unsuspecting victim, then punching him with a boxing glove.

I would say #1 is a good start, and #2 can be used to exemplify (after copy editing, of course). However, speculating as to WHY Les Grosses Tetes uses this song would probably be wholly OR, so how do you integrate snippet #3. (Perhaps more pertinently; how do you justify throwing it away? What to discard and what to keep should be the example's first priority, I think!) Snippet #4 is a good example of something I would be flabbergasted to add to a coherent narrative, so I'm leaving it as a challenge :-)

Anyway: the Monroe example is all but useless. Actually, it IS useless, when I think about it. As in, I honestly believe the article would be MORE helpful without it: it misleads the reader into thinking reorganizing trivia is a simple and neat task.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so no comments and no objections? Removing example, since we apparently agree the article is better off without it. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Archives