Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

The origins of this guideline

I'd like to propose a scenario. The following sequence of events may have taken place in the past:

  1. Article gets created.
  2. Article gets added to.
  3. Newbie editors find article.
  4. Newbie editors think, "Hey I know something interesting about this topic, so I'll add it." But being newbies, they add it in short form, and in the wrong place.
  5. A more experienced editor finds the article, notices these additions floating around in various places.
  6. The experienced editor decides to find all the statements that don't belong where are currently, and need to be expanded upon, and proceeds to collect them into a miscellaneous section, calling that section "trivia."
  7. Newbie editors see the new trivia section and think, "Ah, a perfect place for me to post those interesting things I know, without having to actually write anything long or significant about them. I'll just keep posting my one-sentence article additions here. After all, one-liners are all that's currently there anyway."
  8. An even more experienced editor, or group of editors, notices this occurrence as a trend among a significant number of articles.
  9. He (or they) decides something needs to be done, to tell people that such sections should not be considered a valid dumping ground for these misplaced and inadequately-written pieces.
  10. He (or they) suggests, writes, proposes, or otherwise begins this guideline. The guideline is recognized by many as a good solution to a common problem, so it's accepted.

Had I been around at the time as an experienced editor I would have wholeheartedly supported those final actions.

However, the trivia described above is not actually trivia -- it was just named that way for lack of a more suitable word.

There is another kind of trivia, and most of the situations where it arises are in artistic works. It's the kind of trivia that tells us about things that the people involved in the work didn't even spend much thought or effort on themselves, so there isn't much to say about them except one sentence.

  • It's the kind of trivia that tells us that a film's director named his lead character after one in an English play he always liked.
  • Or that the number that keeps showing up on the clocks in a film was chosen because it's the producer's daughter's birthday.
  • Or that the most famous and seemingly-ingenious aspect of the material was actually the result of an accident, but seemed so good that the creator used it.

They're trivial, and there isn't that much to say about them. This is what trivia really is. Should they be deleted? No, not if they're verifiable; they're significant information that happen to be available on the making of something.

Should we be cramming these one-liners, that are already to-the-point and contain all the actual information they ever can, into prose, by adding unnecessary fluff or by placing them next to unrelated statements? Of course not. A list is the best place for them.

Yes, "real trivia" sections, as I'm calling them, are also in danger of receiving obvious facts or questionable material. But isn't every other section in danger of the same thing? It's up to us to keep all sections of an article clean, including real trivia sections.

I'm not saying there's no need for this guideline; Those circumstances back in the beginning of this post still need to be tamed. But this real trivia should explicitly be allowed for, somehow, at least in moderation. Please tell me your thoughts.

16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think 5 and 6 are unlikely to have happened: newbies create their own "Trivia" headers. The three trivia examples you gave could probably be put in different sections of the article -- "lucky accident" in production details; "character name" as a parenthetical after the first mention of the character in the article; "clocks" possibly also in production details. I have yet to come across a worthwhile "trivia" entry that couldn't be integrated somewhere better -- or put in a more focused list. The guideline does recommend using refocused lists where appropriate.--Father Goose 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
But would that really be better? I mean, there's a reason other publications use trivia sections. Think about where exactly you might put the "clocks" and "lucky accident" items; you said production details, but didn't mention a specific location like you did for "character name" (which by the way was a good suggestion). How would you work those one-sentence-long things, that have nothing to do with any other aspect of production, into a paragraph? There isn't always a way to do that, and forcing it only makes things worse. 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Gee, thanks, I suggest a hypothetical placement in a hypothetical article and you say I'm not being specific enough. It really has to be determined on an article-by-article basis, and also an item-by-item basis. Let's look at a less hypothetical situation: Eyes Wide Shut#Trivia. The first four could be fit into a "Cast and characters" section, if one existed; to really do the integration at this instant, I'd have to do quite a bit of research and build a well-rounded section that was home to more than just four "tidbits". There's no "Production" section either (but there certainly ought to be, it's Kubrick's last film, ferchrissake), but the "final cut" and "Elveden Hall" items should go into it. The bit about the name Harford could go into either Production or Cast and characters (or maybe Cast and characters should be a "Casting" subsection of Production). I'd remove the two 2001 references unless it could be shown that they were deliberate; otherwise they seem like fairly marginal coincidences. All of this presumes that sources could be found for all these entries.
This particular set of examples does, however, demonstrate why Trivia sections shouldn't be shot on sight: most of the info in this one could be eventually be integrated into relevant sections of the article -- once such sections actually got created. It also justifies their creation in the first place: useful info was added to the article that couldn't have been "integrated" at this stage of its development. The guideline says something very close to this as well.--Father Goose 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't actually asking for a specific location, I was just trying to get you to think about it. I feel that kind of tidbit (the clocks) wouldn't belong anywhere in the prose of any article. I actually got that clock item from The X-Files though. It's widely know that the creator used his wife's birthday as the time on clock faces throughout the show's history. Assuming that could be verified, where would you suggest placing it in the X-Files article? And please don't think of this as a challenge; I'm not saying there's no place it could possibly fit. I'm only saying that it might best suit the article if it were placed in a list of tidbits of minor-yet-interesting information, rather than lost somewhere among the prose.
There are surely other examples too. I'll have to go looking for more examples to hopefully illustrate my point. 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Existing sentence in The X-Files#Idea and pilot: Carter started a new company called Ten Thirteen Productions, named after his October 13th birthday, to oversee The X-Files. Add text: Both his birthday (10/13/56) and his wife's (11/21/48) appear several times throughout the series.
A different possiblity would be to add an "In-jokes" section to specific episode articles that mention the appearance of those numbers (and possibly cultural references as well: "Cultural references and in-jokes"). Even just a narrower section/list title is generally better than "trivia".--Father Goose 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Didn't notice it was already there. Okay, then I have to ask, what is the major difference between a couple of focused sections and a trivia section ? Why does that matter so much (cultural references excluded, I'm all for those being separate)? And for the love of god, why not put things like this where people might expect them to be, from all their experience reading other material? And, might I add, it would be a place that can be uniform throughout articles in general. Using those more focused lists, the headers are going to change from article to article. People that see a header called "in-jokes" aren't going to know what the hell it is, until they read its contents; whereas a trivia header is immediately recognizable. I'll say this again, there's a reason that other publications use trivia sections.
For the sake of saying something new: I think the need to keep trivia sections out of articles is much more a product of writer's ego than it is in the interest of the reader. I understand the need to craft quality articles, but we need to balance that with keeping it easy for the average reader to find what they're looking for. Yes, we're writing for an encyclopedia, yes everyone will be impressed with our brilliant prose. But it's not a school paper, and we're not trying to sell anything. I believe it's okay to be a little technically unimpressive, in the interest of the reader. That's who these articles are for anyway, right? 15:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Better to find a real home for "the kind that's not really trivia", which, IMO, is most trivia items worth keeping. And even focused lists are an improvement: it's more conducive to an intro paragraph, there's less likelihood of duplicate entries, higher likelihood of somebody filling the list, it's more obvious where the information's going to be found, and they're unlikely to attract factoids of the "totally useless" variety (or WP:BLP violations, for that matter).
Defend trivia, but not trivia sections. Yes, they're "fun", but if you regard them as what they ought to be titled: "Disorganized, sometimes off-topic information"... they become less fun.--Father Goose 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said they were fun. That's not my point at all. My point is that according to us editors they may be "disorganized", but to readers, they're right where they should be. Who's more important, the writer or the reader? This is a question of technical accuracy versus usability. And I don't support anything off-topic in any section. A trivia section can be kept clean just like any other section can. They may tend to attract more inappropriate material than other sections, but that's like saying people tend to drown more in areas with lots of pools, so let's ban pools. Plus it's putting the editor's convenience above the reader's. 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary! Integrating trivia sections properly can be a lot of work, and is anything but convenient. Deleting them, on the other hand, is "convenient"... and wrong. And I refuse to presume that "the reader" who is silent wants anything different from the reader who speaks up. Readers have spoken up on this page in abundance, and while we don't have unanimity on the issue, the guideline does appear to have pretty strong support. The changes you've been making to it strengthen my own support for it.--Father Goose 21:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You just dodged the issue and changed your argument. I said you're putting the convenience of the editor ahead of the reader, because of the problem of cleaning up "factoids of the totally useless variety". But now you're saying that having trivia sections would actually be more convenient for editors.
Besides which, even if you truly did feel that way, you wouldn't be in the majority. Most people complaining about trivia sections tend to complain that they get filled with too much crap, and that it takes too much constant work to keep them clean.
See below for some evidence/someone who agrees that trivia sections are "popular among readers" (even though the last thing he wanted to do was support my argument, but he did anyway). You're right, readers have spoken on this page, see below and further below, and from the comment types we can determine who the purely-reader-type people are -- the people who comment anonymously and without signature (if they're not strawman sockpuppets, as seems to be the consensus). All of those types of comments have been from people supporting trivia. I haven't seen any of those against it. 21:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a fallacy to adopt an "editors v. readers" perspective. Editors are ALSO readers in many, if not most, cases. Pairadox 02:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would need to see some proof of that. Also, just because Wikipedia has tons of registered users doesn't mean they carry the opinions that an experienced editor would, ie. understanding the "inconvenience to editing" that trivia sections can cause. Many editors still carry the perspective of casual readers. 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
PS, However you think the section actually got started, the point is that there are two distinct type of trivia:
  • the kind that's not really trivia, that gets added by people who simply don't know how to make a good contribution
  • and the kind that won't ever be more than a sentence or two long, and was meant to be a short tidbit.
17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia rocks!

I love the Trivia sections. Often the most interesting info is in there, tends to be things you never knew before.

Sometimes I think the Wikipedia guidelines are getting a bit strict... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.188.63 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Strawman sockpuppet? 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Probably just a casual reader of Wikipedia who wanted to leave a comment. Trivia sections, while unpopular among Wikipedia editors (for good reason, as they're unwieldy and arbitrary), tend to be popular among readers. People like to say to their friends "Just listen to what I learnt when I pressed the Random Article button on Wikipedia today!" or something along those lines. WaltonOne 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
See the discussion above, I'd appreciate your comments; I think it's frankly ridiculous just how predisposed we've become to dismissing "popularity among readers" as being no reason to do anything. Encyclopedias are made for readers. Not editors. 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Encyclopedias are made for readers." Yes, but we must first and foremost remain an encyclopedia. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying the inclusion of trivia sections would mean this is no longer an encyclopedia? Says who? 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I consider the temporary inclusion of trivia sections to be fine, where temporary can be anything from a few hours to a few years (WP:TIND). The long-term/permanent inclusion of trivia sections (defined as sections of unorganised miscellanea) is more damaging in that it compromises the quality of articles. However, the type of pro-trivia attitude adopted by some readers, whereby article text would be overwhelmed by oodles of unorganised trivia, does undermine the encyclopedic essence of Wikipedia. We can and should cater to the needs and desires of readers, but not to the point where we abandon the definition of an encyclopedia. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. If you're afraid of articles being "overwhelmed" by "oodles" of inappropriate material, then you're not against trivia sections, you're just against them getting out-of-control. If you think the best solution to keep them from getting out-of-control is to disallow them altogether, then that's simply not an intelligent solution; see my "pools" example in the discussion above. As I keep saying, trivia sections, like all others, can be kept clean, and limited only to relevant, unobvious, interesting, and verifiable facts. 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote in my comment above, the "permanent inclusion of trivia sections ... compromises the quality of articles". A good article (not necessarily a WP:GA) will be coherent and concise; thus, it will not contain random miscellaneous information, especially not in a separate section. If a fact is truly relevant, unobvious, interesting, and verifiable, it can be incorporated into the article. To use your "pools" example: I'm not stating that trivia sections are bad because they "attract more inappropriate material", but rather that they're bad because their existence means that the article's content is not adequately or appropriately organised. Of course, since articles are works in progress, that doesn't mean I support the summary and unconsidered removal of trivia sections. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Then all you're saying is that you don't like trivia sections, which I already gathered. You're haven't offered any reasoning beyond that. 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Umm ... yes I have. Trivia sections present loosely-related information with little or no organisation and undermine attempts to write and present article as a coherent whole. Ergo, trivia sections undermine good writing. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
...in your opinion. We could argue back and forth about whether or not trivia sections are a good way to present information. I happen to believe that there is a distinct type of information that belongs in trivia sections (see discussion above), and therefore they don't constitute disorganization. I also don't necessarily think that articles with trivia sections are incoherent. These are just opinions though, so there's really nothing to argue about, as far as you're concerned. Other people have presented practical and provable points, such as "magnet for crap", or "other guidelines support/don't support them", etc. I can't argue with your opinions though, except to say that I feel differently. 02:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really consider it a matter of opinion but rather a conclusion from the definition of trivia as "loosely-associated information", with no value judgment about the 'worth' of the information. If trivia is loosely-associated information, then a trivia section is a collection of loosely-associated information. The presence of a section of loosely-associated content undermines overall coherence. If you use even a slightly different definition, that of course changes everything ... Black Falcon (Talk) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I do have a different definition of trivia sections, which is closer to the practical use of those sections in other publications, and further from the dictionary definition. I can't articulate it exactly, but if you look at the way such sections are used in other publications, you may get an idea of the type of material I'm referring to. I think my comments in the discussion above, "The origins of this guideline," somewhat illustrate what I'm talking about. 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

I'm gonna keep this short and clean:

Change the rules! Trivia is sometimes the only way to give all the information about a subject and is as entertaining to me as anyone else on this #@&*$@ page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.207.145 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Trivia is great and thats why wikipedia is great. Plus trivia helps stupid americans (i know youre not all stupid just those who voted for bush or cant find Greece or South Korea on a map of the world) understand things that other people understand without using lists. Why does wikipedia have to have so many stupid policies? just let people decide for themselves and allow each article to go the way that its authors wish. 213.230.130.54 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What if one author decides the article should not have a trivia section, and the other thinks it should? / edg ☺ ★ 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Then that's a disagreement. There are many disagreements in Wikipedia, and there aren't always guidelines to settle them. 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thought Honestly on the WHY remove trivia part of this.. the third reason given to remove trivia is to "Don't include unimportant material. This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not, only how it is organized." Well what could be more Unimportant to a fan of a tv show or film then a bunch of wonderful prose Wiki-media is tool of the masses if that aim is lost at wikipedia this specific site become irrelevant and will be yahoo to google in internet encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.149.100 (talk)

Wow, you totally misread that. It was supposed to be clarification on what this guideline is not about. I will really have to clarify that section even further. Dcoetzee 00:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he misread it, although with the bad grammar it's hard to tell exactly what he means. It sounds like when he says "...what could be more unimportant ... than a bunch of wonderful prose..." he's saying he thinks prose are unimportant. He thinks lists are all that's needed in a site that's built for the masses. At least that's what it sounds like to me. 01:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Job Equazcion! I wrote something indiscernible.. And what did we find out matters to the readers? Well JUST the facts of course. They could have been presented in a list clearly and concisely leaving no room for error, but then they would be just friggen trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.149.100 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right, prose are unimportant, if our only concern is conveying information to the masses. But that just isn't the goal here. We're trying to convey information via a certain style: that of an encyclopedia. There are many sites already that give "just the facts" without any of the style, and I'm sure a good portion of the masses prefer them. But that doesn't mean we need to be like all the rest. Our goal here isn't to be as universally-appealing as possible no matter what the cost. Our goal is to do something quite specific: make an encyclopedia, with everything that entails. 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep trivia, or else it'll end up on other Wikis. 67.188.172.165 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Here are some other wikis you can look into.
All these projects can seriously use your support. / edg ☺ ★ 03:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trivia

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. All are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page.

22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is fine, but there is a problem

This guideline, as currently worded, I believe is fine. The problem is people using this guideline, and the WP:NOT#TRIVIA policy which points to it, as a justification for the wholesale deletion of "trivia" (contrary to this guideline's own recommendations). To see the extreme divisiveness on this, compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiders in culture to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet pack in popular culture. The first was snowball kept, and the latter is on its way to deletion. Yet if this guideline were truly followed, the "Jet Pack" article could certainly be transformed into an article as good as the "Spiders" article. But it probably never will be if it is prematurely deleted. If there is no deadline, why are we arbitrarily imposing 5-day deadlines on these so-called "trivia" articles? DHowell 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a substantial difference between those two articles, as one is an article and one is a list. However the main problem there is not really the trivia guideline. The problem is that AfD's are supposed to discuss topic notability and not content quality. I've commented on this at Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis. 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually totally wrong about this. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Unencyclopedic content is currently criteria for deletion. But I still doubt this guideline's influence, because the article on jet pack in pop culture is really not even an article. It's a list. This guideline isn't the only one that people could refer to in making a case against it. If the article gets deleted, it could still be recreated with better content. 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you were right the first time: one is an article and one is a list. WP:NOTABILITY clobbers list articles, because lists, not being a subject unto themselves, have no inherent notability. "Popular culture" lists are doubly-cursed, as all the "pop culture references" generally have to be drawn from primary sources, and any use of primary sources is treated as original research.
People often use "not a directory" or "not an indiscriminate collection of information" in AfD votes, and some used "not a trivia collection" from WP:FIVE and more recently WP:NOT#TRIVIA. I reduced that to "not a trivia section", as all that NOT#TRIVIA does (and should do) is invoke this guideline, which applies to trivia sections only. Anyone who invokes NOT#TRIVIA or WP:TRIVIA to delete articles should be contradicted firmly as misrepresenting those policies.--Father Goose 04:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the core of the problem is not necessarily the policies and guidelines themselves, but people using links and shortcuts to promote their own POV as if it were policy. WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA will be cited as a reason to delete no matter what the actual policy or guideline says itself. Just like WP:OR is used to argue that primary sources are not allowed (which of course it says nothing of the sort), or that WP:N is used to say that lists themselves have to be notable (which it does not, or a majority of the lists in Wikipedia would have to deleted), or that WP:NOT#DIR means that anything that resembles a directory (again meaning a majority of the lists in Wikipedia) is not allowed, or that WP:NOT#IINFO means that anything which anyone considers "indiscriminate" is not allowed. Of course, I'm not the first to notice this, see WP:BASH.
At the risk of not not assuming good faith, it appears to me that the only purpose for the existance of WP:NOT#TRIVIA was to provide a convenient shortcut and link to effectively shout "Trivia is not allowed!". After all, looking at the history of that on WT:NOT, there wasn't really any consensus for promoting this guideline to policy status, which is what putting a link to this guideline in WP:NOT effectively, if not explicitly, does. And there wasn't really any consensus for the phrase "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" in WP:FIVE, either. But because eventually, Jimbo spoke (without ever really expanding on what he meant by the phrase), it now appears to be firmly entrenched policy no matter what lack of consensus there is. DHowell 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that you removed the trivia section from WP:NOT. There's hardly any discussion about doing so, and many, many people disagree (please refer to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia for just how many there are). I don't support this change, and I'm happy to bring more people to the discussion who aren't aware of the change you are proposing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we oppose the "trivia" line in WP:NOT, we should remove it. It's redundant with this guideline and a back-door promotion of it to policy, and as it is, this page's acceptance as a guideline is contentious anyway. Having nothing more than a pointer to this guideline in WP:NOT is unnecessary and if it's what remains of a failed attempt to create a "no trivia" policy for which there is no consensus, it should be removed.--Father Goose 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There's no need for a mere pointer to another guideline. Trivia as this guideline defines it doesn't even have anything to do with WP:NOT. This is just a style guideline about formatting. It has nothing to do with content. 05:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

An Anti-Trivia Article? Now, Aren't We Overreacting, Here?

Trivia hasn't hurt a soul and why trivia should be avoided is, well, confusing. Wikipedia is a site that gives interesting and educational facts, and trivia that makes people think and say, "Hey, I didn't know that!" in movies, video games, and books are no exception at all. I'm not saying that trivia sections shouldn't have a guideline, sources should be cited and all, but I must add that trivia certainly isn't trivial and shouldn't be treated as such, MUCH less avoided. One more thing. They're fun facts, and fun shouldn't be considered trivial either. Chronus Valtiel 04:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Even i can't really support this--such a diffuse collection as you'd imply is really for fan pages--fortunately we're notthe only available source of information on the internet. this is intended to be an encyclopedia, and the content needs to have some coherence. DGG (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How does film/book/game trivia singlehandedly destroy an encyclopedia? Fan sites are all about the author's opinion of the site's subject (how wonderful/terrible the movie is). Trivia doesn't fit that criteria. They're facts. No, they're not life changing, but they're still hard, educational/interesting facts. Also, those who don't like trivia can observe the right to not read it. Just because it displeases someone doesn't mean they shouldn't let others read it. Chronus Valtiel 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And good facts should be organized into the article. If some need to stay in a bulleted list, ok, but the vast majority of these lists are nothing more than raw dumbing zones for facts. We're finding homes for those facts, and making it easier to find them. That is what this guideline is about. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But there are those facts that just can't have homes. Forcing them into the article can cause confusion in some readers. That's why there are trivia sections. To prevent such confusion.Chronus Valtiel 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Repeating something, " If some need to stay in a bulleted list, ok". Generally speaking, that's not what we're dealing with, and it's rare that we can't find another home for this information, or that we can't convert it into something more than a list. But sometimes it does happen, and that's ok, this guideline does not stop such sections. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I must have missed that part. But then, why have a guideline completely discouraging trivia sections if you said yourself that sometimes they're necessary? Doesn't that kind of contradict what the guideline is saying? Chronus Valtiel 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
At that point, when we've evaluated the list, found no better home for the information, and all that information is reasonably relevant and sourced, it's generally no longer a "trivia list". From the guideline page: "In this guideline, when we refer to a trivia section, we are referring to its content, not its section name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. These disorganized items are in need of cleanup, either by incorporating them into the prose of another section, or by filtering the list to be more selective. A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. " -- Ned Scott 05:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
So, what is the point of this guideline, when you can just as easily put in the "this section is in need of cleanup" guideline header instead? Some people won't read the "Avoid Trivia Sections" guideline all the way through, and the way the title sounds at first glance is that any trivia, even a selectively populated list, should be avoided. I'm not against trivia being cleaned up a bit, but the guideline title can very easily be misunderstood, and judging the size of this page, this misunderstanding is evident. Chronus Valtiel 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Believe it or not, the guideline is still very much needed. Maybe retitling the page, or something to that extent is needed to help stop the misunderstandings, but the page still very much applies to Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The trivia guideline does say some things that differ from the cleanup guideline, but the title should change to something more contextual with what it's actually saying. ~ Chronus Valtiel 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that: The title should change to something that the casual reader can better understand. ~ Chronus Valtiel 07:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
See one or two sections below. The guideline is being retitled to simply "Trivia sections".
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
07:09, September 10, 2007
Wonderful! Thank you, Equazcion. ~ Chronus Valtiel 07:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Move's done. My pleasure :)
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
07:42, September 10, 2007

The Problem with this Guideline and Editors

Another example of the guideline being invoked to delete everything here in The New Yorker article. I am not saying every reference should be kept , I thought the list was a bit long myself , but an editor invoking the word trivia just to delete everything isn't right either .Garda40 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I just took care of that. I'll be watching that article. Yes, this guideline is probably the most misunderstood. We constantly try to reword it to make it less so, but people don't actually read it often; they just look at the title, which might be in need of a change as well. Something more innocuous, like just plain old "Trivia". Or something. 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Trivia sections". That wipes the whole "avoid trivia" confusion off the table. I'd be bold and make the change right now, but I'd have to fix several redirects in the process and I don't want to risk an edit war across a dozen pages. Would changing the guideline's name to "Trivia sections" start up an edit war? Anyone? Anyone?--Father Goose 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess we'll see. I just made the move. Also changed redirects WP:ATS and WP:TRIVIA. 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just moved the archive pages also. 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And made a new archive. 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I just reverted all the moves. It would be nice if there were more than 10 minutes for people to comment on renaming an important guideline like this. I for one do think a rename might be a good idea, but I would like to include the word "avoid" (it is, after all, the idea), however, I'd like to avoid having "Avoid" and "trivia" next to each other, because it makes people think this is about removing trivia. What about "Avoid sections for trivia"? Mangojuicetalk 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess be bold doesn't really apply to guidelines. My mistake. I'd rather avoid the word avoid though because that's exactly what causes trouble. "Avoid sections for trivia" carries the same problem we're trying to fix. 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No, boldness still applies here; David Levy weeks ago changed it to "Avoid trivia sections" from "Avoid trivia sections in articles", though this was unlikely to provoke controversy. Taking out "avoid" is more radical, and worth discussing in place of warring, which is a distinct possibility.--Father Goose 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I undid the redirects of WP:ATS and Wp:trivia for now, to get rid of the remaining double redirects. I also recommend Wikipedia:Trivia sections be deleted per Wp:csd#General_criteria #6 because if we do decide to perform the move following this discussion, we won't be able to do it due to its having a page history now.--Father Goose 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged WP:Trivia sections for speedy deletion using db-author. 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in recent discussions, even "avoid trivia sections" has been shown to be too strong -- they're not banned, it's just that integration is preferable, and not always immediately possible. The advice this guideline gives is ultimately more complex than "avoid trivia sections", so I'm all for changing the title to something correct yet neutral, and letting the guideline itself articulate the full position.--Father Goose 19:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. The title doesn't need to give an instruction, it just needs to encompass the topic; the topic being the proper handling of trivia sections. If you look up the word "avoid": "Steer clear from," "refrain from doing," and "debar." It's too strong a word and and too easily abused/misinterpreted. We also want to encourage people to actually read the contents of the guideline rather than just reading the title, and if we give no specific instruction in the title then they are forced to read it. That way they're much more likely to get the right message. 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd also favour a move. I'm not sure what to call it - something based on the nutshell probably. Dcoetzee 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I also would like to lose the word "avoid" - on the other hand, its use in wikipedia guidelines is well-established. There is Avoid weasel words and Words to avoid, for instance. Guidelines are guidelines - they recommend, not compel, and "avoid" is probably a reasonable compromise, unless a better alternative is suggested.For instance, Wikipedia:You should try to integrate items, or else organise them some way doesnt work, its a bitt loong.—Newbyguesses - Talk 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
They don't have to have an "action word" in the title, though -- there are plenty that don't, even though they could, such as Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The title of a guideline doesn't need to be an imperative, it just needs to reflect what the guideline is about (Trivia sections).--Father Goose 00:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think "Trivia sections" is fine, I'm not sure how much that can be improved upon. It communicates the topic of the guideline without suggesting any action. 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's alright, as long as it doesn't get mixed up with the older essay page Wikipedia:Handling trivia. Dcoetzee 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make the move soon then, since there don't seem to be any significant objections. 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I made the move to "Trivia sections", also retargeted WP:ATS, WP:TRIV, and WP:TRIVIA (let me know if I missed any), and moved the archives.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
07:23, September 10, 2007

Trivia Sections Are Legitimate

I very much like trivia sections, and if they aren't overly long and overly lame, I think they can belong in an encyclopedia. I think the warning flag should be changed request users "clean and trim" trivia sections, but wikipedia shouldn't have a policy of discouraging them altogether.

It should be possible to include two optional warnings:

1] This trivia section is overlong and/or it contains items which are of marginal relavence (truly "trivial" trivia).

2] Elements of this trivia section should be incorporated into the main article

The template as it stands now says that items in trivia sections should either be incorporated into the main text or deleted as inappropriate. I think there is a third category which is "legitimate trivia". As someone else says above, "there is a distinct type of information that belongs in trivia sections." Some things don't necessarily fit into the broader narrative of a story but are in some ways notable, relevant, or interesting facts. An item of information may be incidental to the article's main narrative, but insightful in some ways. It may connect the article's subject of an article to some other thing out in the world that is worthwhile, but only merits a sentence. Placing such things in a trivia section is a legitimate form of construction. I strongly contest the conclusion that trivia sections are necessarily symptomatic of bad writing and organization.

Let's look at two articles. One is on Gene Wilder. Generally, I think that much of the trivia section is good. However, it's really long, about half of the article. In my subjective take, were I to clean it up, I would do the following:

  • Wrongly accussed of commiting a crime in 4 movies: LEAVE IN TRIVIA OR DELETE
  • Richard Prior movies and relationship: INCORPORATE IN DISCUSSION OF RICHARD PRIOR RELATIONSHIP ABOVE
  • Declined title role of Royal Tenenbaums: A PERFECTLY GOOD BIT OF TRIVIA
  • The "fuck" story from his childhood: DELETE IF TRIVIA SECTION TOO LONG
  • Next three items on wife Radner, work in psychiatric hospital, and his politics: PROBABLY FOLD THEM IN ABOVE, HOWEVER, IF THE ITEMS REALLY ARE BULLET-POINTS THAT DON'T FIT INTO THE FLOW, POSSIBLY KEEP IN TRIVIA SECTION.
  • Played congas with the Talking Heads: LEAVE IN TRIVIA OR DELETE
  • Will and Grace comment: LEAVE IN TRIVIA OR DELETE
  • Story about accepting Willy Wonka role only if he could come in with a pratfall: KEEP IN TRIVIA!
  • etc etc

Second: the movie The Wicker Man has a fairly long trivia and cultural references section.

  • Cultural References: First of all, I don't know what general wiki feelings are about cultural references sections, but it seems to me that the cultural references could be pulled out and and seperated from other trivia. It seems like there are an awful lot of those here (too many, I think), so THESE SHOULD BE CULLED, BUT NOT CUT OUT ENTIRELY. The Wickerman music Festival should be kept.
  • Location of shooting: MOVE TO MAIN ARTICLE Charred stumps of Wickerman remain, visited by fans: DELETE OR KEEP IN TRIVIA SECTION
  • Nude body doulble used for Eckland (without her knowledge): KEEP IN TRIVIA BUT MAKE MORE CONCISE
  • Places in script which draw from Walt Whitman and Sir Walter Raleigh: KEEP IN TRIVIA SECTION, DEFINITELY WORTHWHILE
  • etc etc

Pigkeeper 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pigkeeper, after a while hanging around here I started to think I was the crazy one. You're like a breath of fresh sanity. I can't thank you enough. Not that your comments will do much good since certain people have their minds made up and happen to have the support of the masses, but still, it's good for me to see posts like this every once in a while. Well said and bravo. 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to imply that the debate here is between those endowed with sanity and those afflicted with insanity? :) In any case, I find myself disagreeing with many of the points made by Pigkeeper. The main point that I agree with is that sections titled "Cultural references" should not automatically be treated as trivia sections. They may contain trivia and may even be used as trivia sections in particular articles, but "Cultural references" (or, better yet, "Cultural impact") sections are not inherently trivia sections.
Let's look at some of the disagreements. For instance, the story about Gene Wilder accepting the Willy Wonka role only if he could come in with a pratfall is absolutely, utterly, and completely insignificant in the context of Gene Wilder's life. It's an event that took up a few seconds/minutes of his 74-year life and had no lasting impact on him. It may deserve mention in the article about the film, but not in the article about the person. That he declined the title role of Royal Tenenbaums probably belongs in the article (given the prominence of the film), but not as a random note in a trivia section; rather, as a sentence in the history of his film career. The tidbit about the body double in The Wicker Man likewise merits inclusion, but as a sentence in the "production" section of the article. There are other points on which I disagree, but I think these examples illustrate my point well enough.
Trivia sections frequently contain worthwhile information, which is why I oppose their wholesale removal. However, trivia sections present marginally related facts in an unorganised manner, with little or no context. Integrating trivia entries into sections of the article (when possible) provides that much-needed context. If this integration is not possible, it is due to one of two things: (1) the article does not contain significant content or does not cover the subject adequately; or (2) the information is only marginally related to the subject and does not merit inclusion. An attempt to preserve every single detail and an over-reluctance to trim and edit as necessary can be quite damaging to the quality of an article. – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You "find yourself disagreeing"? Surprised by that, are you? That you'd disagree with someone who's for something you've been arguing against? :D Sorry I just read that line and had to say that. Um I'll read the whole thing now and give a more serious, balanced, objective, and appropriate answer. See the craziness, this place makes me crazy. 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I, an editor of Wikipedia, might have a penchant for occasionally, but not always, stating (or typing) the obvious. I've also been told that I am at times redundantly repetitive. :P Black Falcon (Talk) 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok so the pratfall thing: He wouldn't have taken the role without the pratfall, so that few seconds, yes, may have significantly influenced his career, as Willy Wonka is one of his more major roles. It's bleepin' iconic. Having someone else in that role would've changed the course of history itself! ....Okay, maybe not that; but it's a pretty major result of such a minor detail that could just as easily have gone the other way if the producers hadn't accepted his terms. It's important and interesting, let's put it that way. 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, the Willy Wonka thing was a lot more important than the Tannenbaums thing, and it speaks both to how Wilder almost wasn't in the movie, and about his dramatic sensibilities. Anyway, that too could be put into the body of the Wilder article or moved to the movie article. But it also is legitimate in a trivia section. I think well-constructed trivia sections should be one option for article construction. There are sometimes things which don't fit into the flow of an article or which don't merit a lot of attention, but are very much worth saying. Trying to cram stuff in, especially in articles about films and such, makes for a non-sequitor filled article.
Equazcion, Thanks for your work. I appreciate it. And take it easy. Remember to take a break from the damned computer and stretch your legs if you're feeling that crazy. :-) Pigkeeper 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Falco, I was gonna say that when the stupid edit conflict came up. You're just telling us possible places where those facts could be placed within the article, but you're avoiding the point: Those might not be the best places for them. They're tiny bits of interesting... "stuff", and like Pigman says, stuffing stuff into other stuff can just plain suck. See what I'm saying? 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think they're certainly better there than lumped together in a trivia section. If a tidbit of information simply doesn't fit anywhere in the article, and the article is rather comprehensive, there's nothing wrong with excluding it. Comprehensiveness is important in an article, but so is staying focused on the topic. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It comes down to a matter of opinion then, because I basically disagree with you. This argument can never go anywhere, it's just one side feels one way and one side feels another way, and there's no way of proving one over the other. 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict, adding to my statement: In other words, it's like I've been saying all along: there's a certain type of material that's meant for Trivia sections. It's not trivial and it's too short to place in other paragraphs, where it won't belong or it may get lost. If facts are short enough and have little relation to other subjects within the article, why not collect them so that people actually notice them? 22:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And PS. Thanks for the tips on staying sane, Pigkeeper :) 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that the pratfall information be moved to the article on the movie as it's simply a production/casting detail. The Richard Prior information could be expanded into its own section as it's significant to his career, and (probably) has significant secondary sources. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, I disagree with your assertion that all non-integrable trivia falls into two categories, i.e, (1) the article does not contain significant content or does not cover the subject adequately; or (2) the information is only marginally related to the subject and does not merit inclusion. I don't see any reason to assume all non-integrable trivia falls into one of these categories. For example, a fact which is relevant to the article (so is not in category 2), but not part of a wider body of information on the subject (so is not in category 1, as there is no relevant context to add). The pratfall anecdote from the Gene Wilder article mentioned above seems like an example of such a fact, but even if it isn't, this doesn't prove that no such facts exist.
It seems to me that it's possible for there to be "essential trivia" out there - information that has a place in an article, but doesn't belong in any section within it, for the reasons I explained above. Unless someone can give a good reason why no such information can exist, I can't see a justification for outright opposing the inclusion of trivia section - it would be better to say that material should be integrated where possible. James pic 10:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Boy, this sure does seem like a disputed guideline.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
10:09, September 10, 2007
I recently looked at the trivia template and I find it upsetting in how strong it is. I do not support it. I suppose I better comment on the deletion debate. Dcoetzee 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose trivia, because it is easy to abuse it. Children being the culprit for the most part. They do not know when to put an end to them. I've seen trivia that is several pages long, because people kept adding, and adding and adding information. Fighting for Justice 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that's a common argument, but we shouldn't be judging anything on its potential for misuse. 23:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you know it's children?--Father Goose 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
He probably doesn't know, but I've made similar assumptions before. If they're not children they might as well be, with some of the completely obvious and un-notable things I've seen. Still doesn't justify the judgment on trivia sections though. 23:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I know they're children because no adult would consider it trivia to post the 5 moments where Ned Bigby kisses Moze in Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide. Such entries, must be made by a child. Fighting for Justice 08:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Okay, I can see how one might assume that only children would be inclined to edit that article.--Father Goose 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes needed

We should add something to the guideline that mentions that "trivia sections" are less appropriate to some articles than to others. Complete integration (or narrower lists) is the ideal in any article, IMO, but trivia sections are more wrongful in articles about "everyday" or scholarly subjects, less wrongful in articles about popular culture subjects, and also more strongly discouraged in biographical articles because of the potential for WP:BLP violations.

Additionally, we should connect the length of a trivia section to the need for integration; one or two decent facts in a trivia section is not cause for deletion, but one that takes up half the page is urgently in need of cleanup.

I'd also like the page to draw more of a distinction between actual trivia lists and "in popular culture" lists. That's not to say that I want every article to have an "in popular culture" list -- they're out of place in most articles -- but "popular culture" lists can be both "organized and selective", unlike trivia lists.--Father Goose 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think there should be some limited tolerance of trivia, especially for TV episodes, because of all the self-references that can occur in long-running series. Also for movies and other articles on pop-culture topics. I think something like that would be a very effective compromise. 00:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Again though I'd like to call attention to the meta:WikiTrivia proposal, which could use support and aims to solve these issues on a more long-term basis. 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
If I had more spare time to work on it, I'd gladly help out a lot with a WikiTrivia project, but unfortunately I only ever have time for small edits at the moment. I'm a big fan of trivia and would very much like for anything that is removed from Wikipedia to be saved somewhere so that others may read it. I think WikiTrivia would be a good solution to the trivia section issue at the moment. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I fear that WikiTrivia would deepen the problem, by getting everyone in the habit of pushing all "trivia" off-site. I'd rather see Wikipedia adopt an inclusive stance toward all material that is organized, verifiable, and part of our coverage of notable topics. Complete crap should be removed, sure, and disorganization should not be enshrined, but everything else? Keep. This is the world's biggest and best encyclopedia, not the No Homers Club.--Father Goose 01:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a concern. I wouldn't want Wikitrivia to be the exclusive destination for any form of trivia, rather a more in depth collection of items relating to a subject, some of which may be too trivial for Wikipedia. The good trivia that's useful for an encyclopedia article would remain on Wikipedia, while Wikitrivia contains both good trivia, and information deemed by editors who know the subject to be too miscellaneous and not that important to the Wikipedia article. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but I envision guidelines for WikiTrivia that encourage people to take items from WikiTrivia and integrate them into their relevant Wikipedia articles. There could be additions to this guideline to specifically discourage the indiscriminate moving of trivia lists to WikiTrivia -- and that only those lists that fall under heavy criticism should be moved there. Although the details haven't been hammered out yet, with some work I think it's possible for the two to co-exist peacefully. Nevertheless, in the short-term, I think a compromise regarding pop culture articles (articles about popular culture topics, not IPC) should be a serious goal, and we should really be talking about that more. 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe a wikitrivia would be a good idea because everything just got pushed into that, and it becomes a landfill. However, I do believe for sports player biography, sports event, or generally, everything in sports, trivia is a legitimate section, and trivia itself has already integrated into the sports culture. Just like, we don't say there's a no-hitter before it is finished. And before I finish, many "trivia" can be integrated into other parts, or under a different title.74.103.163.15 01:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am strictly against allowing or encouraging trivia sections in any way. They are unprofessional and inappropriate on all articles. I'm not anti-newbie, but anti-lazy wannabe editors who won't bother to write well-referenced, coherent, contextually embedded prose. Tag the sections with the appropriate clean-up tag {{trivia}} and get to work, evaluating each "trivia" item, deleting the bad, unattributable ones and integrate the rest into the article. Father Goose, iff Homer equals "lazy" + "stupid", then yes, Wikipedia can be considered equivalent to the No Homers Club. We have enough of those already. —AldeBaer 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different classification. Biographical trivia goes in the biography if relevant, and out if not. Trivia about publication, distribution etc, if important, goes into a section labeled publication (or distribution or whatever fits the article). Cultural references--that is just plan not trivia, its in my opinion the heart of a good article on a cultural subject right along with the description of the authorship and the plot and the production and the reception. The only problem is sourcing--some parts are easy because of the available literature, some harder. The really hard part is video games, and I think that will have to go separately. i also think in many cases the uses of the various referents are in fact totally trivial in the real sense--hey just copy from each other, but aI am not an expert in this. I propose the following step to approach rationality: stop using the word trivia for section headings. The sooner this is divided up and integrated into the various parts the sooner we can get back to editing.
But as for cultural references, that sort of information is essential to the encyclopedia--any encyclopedia, conventional or WP-- and that's the part i will continue to really defend. If people will stop attacking it because they don't think it important, the peopel who do can work on it. DGG (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Am I right that we're on the same side here? We'd both favour the dismantling of trivia sections as such, and giving meaning and context to otherwise indiscriminate factoid collections.
I agree that cultural references form an important part on (pop) culture related articles. And I also agree that Trivia sections should be dismantled by integrating relevant info into other sections or by giving them proper section titles, like "Cultural references" where appropriate. Renaming a section must not be trivial however, as I've seen happen when e.g. "Trivia" is renamed to "Interesting facts" or such.
Sorting out the mess of relevant, referenced/referenceable info surrounded by OR / crystal ball tidbits would probably best happen by boldly giving an appropriate section title (like "Cultural references") and throwing out irrelevant / OR info.
To that effect, I think the guideline gives satisfactory instruction and provides good reasoning, regarding integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions. —AldeBaer 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the essay Wikipedia:Handling trivia provides a good starting point for a potential supplementary WP:MOS guideline. —AldeBaer 14:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the main problem with the wording is to try to prevent it being used to justify wholesale removal (or insertion, for that matter) on the basis of personal taste. It isnt the wording trivia itself. This guideline has been used to justify the remove of In popular culture, articles entirely, and references to such things wherever located. You have an interesting idea for how to remove this pseudo-guideline and give the correct and appropriate information in a safer way.DGG (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban the whole removal of "trivia" sections in one edit

Can we just ban the whole removal of "trivia" , or whatever it's called ,sections in one edit and that ,if they do so without first trying to edit the material into the article , editors can be sanctioned.

Despite being told Undid revision by Otto4711 (talk) - We don't delete trivia sections. See the trivia guideline an editor to the New Yorker article used this guideline ( reading through it to find a loophole ) to entirely remove the section again here.

Otherwise just be more honest and ban trivia and trivia sections entirely because the guideline as written is useless .It is so woolly that an editor doesn't even have to break the letter of the guideline to justify doing any edits they like.

And in case anyone wonders I have nothing against the editor in the New Yorker case it is just as I go around Wikipedia I see this guideline being used to justify removal of entire sections and in some cases the editor hasn't visited the article before or since .Garda40 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If arguably relevant, referenced info is removed, particularly without providing a rationale on the article talk page, that's against policy already. —AldeBaer 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who undid his edit the first time, and I only undid it because his only reason was "trivia". I don't want people to think they can indiscriminately remove trivia sections. The second time he said that the info was not "otherwise suitable" so it could be removed -- and I agreed. This was one of those very long IPC lists that catalogs every single time the topic is brought up in any TV show or film or cartoon, and I doubt there was a single source cited. PS. This actually isn't a trivia issue, it's IPC, but somehow IPC made its way into this guideline; I guess since people tend to put IPC items into trivia sections. But still, it has nothing to do with trivia. Separate issue. 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The editor concerned doesn't think IPC lists and trivia are two separate issues as both times it was removed on the grounds of trivia .
And that goes for the other editors I mentioned as well ,they removed in nearly every case I spotted in IPC sections.
So you may consider them separate issues but the removers don't .Garda40 14:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It really depends on available or already included sources. Unsourced material may be tagged with {{fact}}, but if it or its merits for the article is doubtful, they may be removed. Under such circumstances, removing an entire section may be in line with policy & guidelines, but an accompanying reasoning should still be posted on the article talk, to give others a chance to evaluate that reasoning and to provide alternative suggestions etc. —AldeBaer 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Garda, the IPC issue I talked about was more of a personal take on the situation. Actually, according to the guideline, IPC is in fact the same issue as trivia. It shouldn't be, if you ask me, but it currently is. The second removal wasn't exactly on the grounds of trivia though. Although the editor did quote this guideline, he quoted something that really applies to any section: "If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." This obviously means that if information is not suitable then it should be removed -- and that's something that holds true universally. It gets complicated when you start thinking about whether or not all those items in that IPC list could've been converted to paragraphs that would've contributed nicely to the article... and that's really a matter of opinion. I for one am not for keeping in these huge lists that catalog every single little mention of the subject, because they just get too damn big, especially for a household name like "New Yorker".
And then of course there's another problem: The guideline recommends focused lists, and IPC is essentially a focused list, yet the guideline lumps them in with trivia sections. It's a big mess. Needless to say, this guideline is open to interpretation, and as far as IPC lists go, there is no steadfast rule -- or guideline, even. I allowed the removal at the "new yorker" article because I happened to agree with the reasoning -- I didn't think that section could ever be integrated into something worthwhile and I don't like those huge IPC lists in articles, as I've explained above. (Separate IPC articles are a different story, but I'm not getting into that now.) 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverting a sound edit because the language in the Edit summary is deemed politically incorrect is rather WP:POINTy. / edg ☺ ★ 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason was wrong, not politically incorrect. 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason was correct. Otto4711 even quoted this guideline to justify it. And even though you agree with the deletion itself, you reverted the edit because the word trivia was used to justify a deletion. This is entirely political, and it is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
I suppose this means WP:POINT is now another guideline that will need to be changed. / edg ☺ ★ 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
He didn't quote the guideline when I reverted, and when he did I left it alone. The reason was not correct. I actually reverted the edit the moment I saw the edit summary, with the single word, "trivia". I didn't take as good a look at the section content as I should have, true, but had I actually agreed with the edit at the time and not the reason I would have left it. I would campaign to change WP:POINT as well, if I disagreed with it (I don't disagree with it at all though). If I feel something is in need of a change, I try and change it. I know most people would rather take the path of least resistance and defend the status-quo -- I'm just not one of them, and "they" don't seem to understand that.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
05:37, September 10, 2007
Are other sections less important to protect than Trivia sections? Why don't we have a rule banning the removal of any section in one edit? Because such a ban would be overkill, and very short-sighted . If one disagrees with the removal of a trivia section, one should restore the deleted information by integrating it appropriately. / edg ☺ ★ 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a ban would be a good idea.It seems like it would be "over legislating" when really all edits should be done on a case by case basis with content analysed. In some cases removing a whole section at once could be appropriate and any times it's not but it has been done can easily be reverted and done properly. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 14:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
He was making a point, that we shouldn't ban the removal of trivia sections if we're not willing to ban the removal of other sections. I agree that a ban is a little extreme. However entire trivia sections still shouldn't be removed just because they're trivia sections. If some items can be integrated, it's not necessarily up to the reverter of the removal to perform that integration. A major point of this guideline is to discourage that kind of thinking. Poorly-presented information is better than no information. As many people as possible should be in on the integration effort. Deleting it makes that impossible. 15:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't move my comment as it makes it seem like I'm commenting in a way I did not intend. I was replying to the original comment hence only outdenting once. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I thought you were replying to edgarde. 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's moved out in one piece, it's easier to revert. (smile) Insidious removal of items one at a time at intervals has also been tried, and is much harder to catch. I don't think we need to specify this--it's instruction creep. Bad edits are bad edits, big or small--but there are times when a whole section of an article does deserve to be removed. DGG (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Deserves a Place in Wikipedia

There's no real need or logic behind removing trivia. From the sound of it, it seems like people wish to get rid of it for merely tidiness reasons. Now supposing a bit trivia can be verified as true, it has every right to be included in the proper Wikipedia article. There's no reason why Wikipedia should be limiting the information it can hold. I'd say to truly keep this as one of the most comprehensive and informative encyclopedias on the globe we should allow all information that merits itself as fact an equal place. The point of the trivia section is to provide facts pertaining to their article, without having to make the main article or one of its sections too long-winded and confusing. And despite what certain editors may feel, trivia can be interesting and useful to some people. Now if for some reason the editors decided that somehow Wikipedia has recently risen above the level of trivia, might I suggest renaming it into something that sounds more appropriate like "Intriguing Information" or something to that nature. Wikipedia was made so all users can equally share information; to shut out any information is to shut out users which goes against every purpose this website serves.

Cpesacreta 04:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that trivia sections do have a place in wikipedia, but that is primarily in the realm of early articles, such as articles at the Stub, Start, and B classes. At this stage of the game, it's a good way of obtaining information from a wide number of sources, and encourages participation by some of the more anonymous users, as they don't have to worry about where to place their information. Just add it to the trivia section's list, and it will be later cleaned up and merged into a better section by another editor with more experience. As a general rule, though not explicitly forbidden by WP:WIAFA or WP:WIAGA, trivia sections should be removed from articles prior to achieving featured article or good article status. Dr. Cash 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Alien joe: Anyone can remove speedy deletion notices if they feel the page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. You'll need to use MfD for this, but I beseech you to not. After what we just went through with the template TfD, this would really suck.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
20:07, September 10, 2007

Ok i changed it. --Alien joe 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin closed your MfD, and suggests you talk about the issue here. So why don't we start doing that.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
20:25, September 10, 2007

mfd

Lets just solve this issue. Trivia sections are good, and this page is pointless. That is why I nominated it for deletion. This and the project page should be deleted, and trivia is good. --Alien joe 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Trivia sections are sloppy, disorganized, informal, and often full of useless ("trivial") information. By definition, trivia is insignificant and holds little importance. Trivial material is a detriment to the project.-Wafulz 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This guideline has almost nothing to do with trivial information.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
22:05, September 10, 2007
The first half of what I've said still stands. I think this user is calling for us to allow trivia sections, but I honestly don't see how that helps anything.-Wafulz 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
True. But what it helps with is people who like to read trivia sections, and there are a lot of those people. Unfortunately those people don't know about all the specific issues involved, such as the "trouble" that trivia sections can cause for articles. I think the suggestion below is a pretty good one though.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
22:29, September 10, 2007
Personally, I feel that the consensus lies somewhere in the middle of the first two positions. I think there is a useful role for a section that can hold relevant information that doesn't have a proper place in the article as of yet. On the other hand, there are many (many many) examples of how "Trivia" sections have acted as lightning rods for speculation, meaningless comparisons, complaints, and pet theories. This is complicated by the approaches editors take to cleaning up the sections: some ignore them, which just perpetuates the mess, while others delete them completely, without making any effort to integrate relevant material. Perhaps a good start would be to clean up the verifiability issues first, rather than endlessly debating the merits of the section itself. That is to say, enforce the same strict requirements for citations that we expect of body copy. If there's no reference, tag it. If no-one provides a reference within an appropriate period, remove it. That way, we would have lists of verified information, and editors might feel more comfortable incorporating it into the body of the article. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 22:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I don't know why we don't see tons of {{fact}} tags all over trivia sections, or whatever the section-wide equivalent of that is.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
22:19, September 10, 2007
Are you suggesting keeping trivia sections around permanently? Most people don't have issues with keeping them temporarily until the information finds a better home.-Wafulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafulz (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Permanently? No, I'm just hoping to avoid the "all or nothing" attitude that seems to plague the trivia sections. Recently, I've seen a fair number of trivia sections, most with only one or two items, that had the "trivia" template plastered on. To me, that seems like overkill, and it makes the article look bad. (By way of comparison, we wouldn't accept tagging an entire article as "unreferenced" if there were only one or two missing citations.) --Ckatzchatspy 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wafulz, I believe his point was that this can be a way to assuage the concerns of unsourced nonsense in trivia sections. Once editors see a trivia section they tend to label it as such, ignoring all other problems -- then they complain about things like unsourced facts or non-notable material; when really, if they would just tag those items as needed, with {{fact}} etc., ie. treating the facts in that section the same way as any other section, most of this nonsense could be removed after a time -- and without needing to resort to endless interpretation wars over the trivia guideline.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
01:06, September 11, 2007
Well that concern is completely different from the deletion suggested above- that's what I thought this was about.-Wafulz 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... the deletion is something very ambitious that I don't think can really happen. It's not even proper to suggest a deletion for a current guideline. The guideline would first need to be tagged as disputed, and then rejected, before we could even think about deleting it. Proving that there's even a dispute is pretty difficult in and of itself :) So anyway, if you're concerned that Alien joe is getting this guideline deleted sometime soon, I can almost guarantee to you that will not happen. Not this year, anyway.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
01:39, September 11, 2007
Further, there's no point in just deleting this--it will merely shift the argument elsewhere. There is a problem, we need some way of handling it. At present the difficult is not to justify the removal of unencyclopedic content, but to avoid providing an excuse for the elimination or what can be improved and integrated. I think part of the problem can be helped by finding a way to avoid the word trivia, which is inherently prejudicial. Calling something trivial does not make it so--the name should never have been used.. DGG (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. Often, it is the people who add the "trivia" to articles who create a new or preexisting section called "trivia". That doesn't automatically mean that the "trivia" is devoid of facts that can or should be integrated into the article. It would be helpful if we could catch those people "in the act" and persuade them to integrate their facts. I have no idea how that could be done though. -- But|seriously|folks  04:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have a point. Some of the arguments on this talk page seem to stem from a misunderstanding, between people who assume trivia refers to unimportant information, and people who believe it refers to miscellaneous information (which is what this guideline refers to). Of course, unimportant information is not notable, so should not be in Wikipedia, whereas miscellaneous, but otherwise appropriate information, should be included, the issue being in what form. It might be better to refer to "Miscellaneous" sections, as this makes it clearer what is at stake. James pic 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea. We reworded the first sentence to say that already, and I'm not sure why we didn't think of rewording the title the same way. I should've caught that. I hate to suggest another page move so soon but I think it would be a really good idea.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
12:07, September 11, 2007
I'd stick with "trivia sections" since "Trivia" is the name most commonly given to the type of section this guideline is trying to address. Anybody who picks up on the word "trivia" to mean "no trivia allowed" hasn't even bothered to read the first sentence of the guideline.--Father Goose 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not really the concern. Read James' comment above. "Trivia" denotes trivial information, and that really doesn't have anything to do with this guideline. As even you have pointed out before, this is not a trivia guideline; so why name it that way? It only perpetuates a common misunderstanding.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
22:51, September 11, 2007

In my personal opinion, this is the worst polocy ever on Wikipedia. Will somebody get rid of it, please? I am renominating this page for deletion. Please help get this deleted by posting your vote. Cheers. --Alien joe 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A concern

I am a bit worried about the way that some editors wish to see trivia content immediately and without question destroyed without following guidelines, if the information has be verified by a third party source(s). Am I the only person who finds this a little bit un-nerving? I found that there were a few comments like this when {{trivia}} was nominated for deletion. --tgheretford (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We try to prevent that way of thinking. We can explicitly say that this guideline does not suggest that course of action (this guideline does say that), but we can't really ban people from doing it. The recent retitling from "Avoid trivia sections" to simply "Trivia sections" attempted to address this very issue.
Maybe a small addition is in order though, specifically telling people not to remove relevant and verifiable information from any section, including miscellaneous lists. Thoughts?
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
12:12, September 11, 2007
Pointless. We are already very strongly declaring that that kind of thing is unacceptable. There's really only so much we can do in rewriting the guideline: no one really reads this. Mangojuicetalk 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Where are we declaring that? I don't see that anywhere. I see a "this guideline does not suggest...", but we never explicitly declare being against it. At least not in this guideline. And I think that with the frequent complaints of that kind of behavior, with editors citing this guidelines or simple "trivia" as a reason for removal, it would help if opposers of a removal could quote a line in "the trivia guideline" that says specifically the opposite.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
13:11, September 11, 2007
Correction: we're going as far as we can already. We can't say not to remove relevant, sourced info because there are other legitimate reasons for doing that, and obviously it's improper to remove "relevant, sourced info" for being irrelevant. And, it's not a good idea to say not to remove trivia items because there is a lot of support for doing that, and saying otherwise would not reflect consensus. I only agree with what is written there now inasmuch as it helps deflect complaints, which doesn't really work anyway, but better something than nothing. Mangojuicetalk 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There are guidelines that reiterate info from other guidelines, to prevent a foreseen potential misunderstanding. We could modify "Other policies apply" to simply be more specific. Like, "Although miscellaneous lists are discouraged as a format, keep in mind that notable and sourced information should never be removed, even if it is in the wrong format." If you mean that there is a lot of support for removing notable/sourced items just because they're in the wrong format, then that's something we need to work on fixing, isn't it?
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
20:33, September 11, 2007
I'd prefer "should not usually be removed" instead of never as there could be situations that require the removal of information for some reason. The guideline doesn't need to be too specific otherwise we'd have to legislate for every possible editing issue. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's fine. How about this: "Although miscellaneous lists are discouraged as a format, keep in mind that notable, sourced information should generally not be removed, even if it is in the wrong format." I would also add something like, "If information is not currently sourced, consider tagging it with {{fact}} before removing it, to give editors a chance to add references." Again this is only a reiteration of other guidelines, just to guard against some of the potential misunderstanding/misuse that we're seeing.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
21:09, September 11, 2007
Imagine if literally every unsourced sentence in WP carried a {{fact}} tag--the same is true with adding it to every item of miscellany. It may be necessary in some cases, but hardly the best or recommended way to go DGG (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec, responding to Equazcion) Strongly disagree. No guideline or policy says that "notable, sourced information should generally not be removed." There is also no requirement to request sources before removing information: in fact, Jimbo specifcally spoke out against that practice. On the other hand, WP:BOLD specifically suggests that people go ahead with edits they think are appropriate, not worrying about the "rules," and WP:BRD suggests a process by which disagreements can be resolved.
The truth is, editors should not always build up information, they should also cut it down in order to make articles better. Some feel that all or nearly all information relating to a valid topic is approprite to include somewhere, but this is (1) not universal, and because of that, (2) this is not something an official guideline should be trying to force. What we should be saying, emphatically, is that this guideline does not require or suggest the kinds of removals that are causing these disputes, and the guideline already does say that. But going beyond that is implying that the removals are wrong, and they aren't: they are just (1) sometimes controversial, and (2) not mandated by this guideline. Mangojuicetalk 04:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing another move (rename) of this guideline from "Trivia sections" to "Miscellaneous lists" (or possibly "Miscellaneous sections", whichever is the consensus). As was discussed above (see the section titled "mfd"), this really isn't a "trivia guideline". As the first line already says, this is about miscellaneous lists. The word "trivia" has derogatory connotations for the contributor, possibly for good reason -- trivia means unimportant information. This guideline does not contain any advice for dealing with trivial information. It is only a style guideline pertaining to format. This guideline is frequently misunderstood, and when quoted in arguments, opposers use its title as evidence that it's irrelevant to anything but actual trivia, or sections labeled trivia.

I believe getting away from the word "trivia" will be an important step in alleviating a lot of the tensions that have arisen. It's an inaccurate description of the issue we're addressing. The word "trivia" is basically a positive word for readers -- it means "fun facts" in other publications, and who's gonna be for the removal of fun facts? Call it a miscellaneous list instead, and it becomes a negative element of disorganization, which more people will agree doesn't belong in articles.

It furthermore is infinitely more accurate, both in definition and in the kind of behavior we're trying to promote: "Miscellaneous" automatically means a collection of items that really don't belong together. "Trivia" has no such immediate implication, unless you're an experienced editor.

Please post your thoughts. Thanks.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
07:21, September 12, 2007
Strongly disagree. I've watched this tempest in a teapot, and you're going too fast for all but the most committed editors to keep up, a bit troubling when it comes to a guideline that effects the very structure of thousands of articles. One person has contributed about half the discussion on this page; I suggest you step away from this for a few days, let the new format sit for a while and see what happens. Pairadox 08:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. This guideline won't make sense to people if we don't talk about trivia sections. Yes, they are discouraged because they are miscellaneous lists, but every miscellaneous list I have ever seen is in a trivia section. Furthermore, there is not a real dispute over the guideline - rather, many editors want to clean up trivia more radically than the bare minimum described here, and others feel this is bad. That is the real dispute and renaming this page won't have any effect on it. Also, enough of the page moves for a while. Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles became Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections became Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Trivia became Wikipedia:Handling trivia along with a whole bunch of shortcut reshuffling all in the last few months. Mangojuicetalk 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. For all the reasons that Pairadox and Mangojuice outline. Blueboar 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Also disagree. Trivia sections are the vast bulk of the problem here and getting away from the word would be dancing around it to make some editors feel better. Also, one of the original reasons for the guideline being specific to Trivia sections is that it attracts cruft and poor quality, unimportant material. Having the title "Trivia" tends to attract content like that so getting away from the word would be not giving attention to a very big part of the problem. The guideline mentioning that it covers unorganised lists in general also is enough. Also, as Pairadox said, there was a move just a few days ago which should stand for a while to let all editors catch up. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree as well. Trivia really is the issue. I question the zealousness of a few editors on this subject already, and I have seen some cases where editors arbitrarily delete sections of relevant information simply because they are in list rather than prose form. I wouldn't encourage anything that would make them think they have wider license to do that. Also, we should try to use plain English rather than policy-speak when naming things. Wikidemo 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, although I also feel that trivia is a loaded word in some respects. I just don't like the name miscellaneous lists, and it was just moved. I also feel that it's important to have a lightning rod that anti-trivia people can gather around that strikes a reasonable compromise, rather than going off and creating their own more extreme policy, which they might do if it's not clear this policy is addressing the "trivia section" issue. Dcoetzee 20:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Mild endorsement. "Miscellaneous lists" somewhat better captures the aims of this guideline, although "Trivia sections" is more readily understood. It is also more readily misunderstood, however, so I support trying to sidestep that common misunderstanding.--Father Goose 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
endorse about changing the title, but wait--we perhaps should spend more time in considering just what to change it to. Wikidemo's argument about not giving additional ammunition to those wishing to delete all lists is very relevant--and I admit I had not thought of that. Further, the real argument against including truly unimportant details would apply even if in a paragraph. But even after changing the title we can and should keep the word trivia in the guideline itself, as an illustration of one sort of miscellaneous section that has often caused problems. I think that meets Mangojuice's objection. In the meantime I suggest removing the move from the proposed move page--I do not think it really has consensus yet, and I'd really not like to start yet another branch of this discussion---we have too many already. DGG (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
"Trivia sections" is really a pretty good name, the only problem I see with it (as with "Avoid trivia sections") is that people tend to gloss over the word "sections" and think this is merely about trivia. I had proposed the idea of "Avoid sections for trivia" or something along those lines -- that way the word "section" comes first, so it will presumably stick out more. But I don't love that proposal, it just sounds a bit clunky, and I haven't heard anything better than that. Mangojuicetalk 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
And, just to be clear, I would object to a name that leaves out the word "trivia". The name has half the impact of the guideline, and it shouldn't become PC just because of these misdirected complaints. Mangojuicetalk 13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It has relatively little to do with political correctness. I'm really, really not a proponent of PC for PC's sake; in fact I'm generally against it. Just wanted to clarify that.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
15:43, September 13, 2007
To DGG: I didn't mean to imply that the word trivia shouldn't be in the guideline at all. It should definitely remain in there as a common section in which miscellaneous lists occur.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
03:35, September 13, 2007
Disagree - this is nonsense, relating to some misguided understanding of the word "trivia" and how it may or may not be used. It is not a derogatory word. Trivia means unimportant sometimes. It can also mean unnecessary. Neither of those is insulting, inflammatory, derogatory, or pejorative. Regardless, the point is this: lists of unrelated facts could contain trivia (and do not meet formating guidelines). Trivia are by definition unnecessary for Wikipedia. Any information that is not trivia that happens to be in a trivia section is obviously not trivia, and can/should be integrated into the article. There's no way to avoid mislabeling good information as "trivia" when it's in a "trivia" or (similarly titled) section. Substituting a term like miscellanea is a complete do-nothing solution that won't address any problems - it probably makes things worse, since we already have a working defition of "trivia" and policies/guidelines that reflect this. Changing it to a term like "miscellaneous" will open a can of worms (since "miscellaneous" is open to broad misinterpretation - you might be doing away with lists altogether). --Cheeser1 09:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1, I think if you research the etymology of the word "trivia", you'll find that "trivialis" means "appropriate to the street corner, commonplace, vulgar." From this definition, the word trivia came to mean "unimportant information." Only in the 1950s and 1960s did "trivia" start to begin to refer to "fun facts" or "general knowledge" or "quiz show material." If one editor is using "trivia" to mean "unimportant information" and one editor is using "trivia" to mean "fun facts", there is an obvious disagreement on how to use the word. The word "trivia" has been used for centuries to denote something commonplace or vulgar or unimportant. In that sense, there is no such thing as "important trivia" -- it's an oxymoron. You can't have important unimportant information. Now, the information may hold some importance to one person and hold no importance to another, and that is where the subjective use of the word comes into play. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that defines "trivia" and I don't think we can. One man's trivia is another man's facts. I'm not going to comment on the suggested move, I just think some people need to research the word itself and realize the negative connotations it has. I feel this guideline can be summed up as "Avoid information you dislike" and I fail to see why we need a guideline telling people that. --Pixelface 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't need an etymology lesson, nor do I need a link to the word "etymology" - Wikipedia (like its policies) isn't Latin, this is English, modern English to be precise. And nowhere did I use the term "important trivia." One man's trivia may be another man's facts, but Wikipedia also isn't an indiscriminate collection of facts. If you want to presume that this guideline boils down to "Avoid information you dislike" feel free, but you might want to go out on a limb and assume that people aren't trying to ruin Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Current title seems better to me. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The following comments were placed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but that is not the place for discussion of a move proposal. Relocating them here; apologies for any duplication of the above discussion. Dekimasuよ! 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

**I totally object to this. The whole idea that the word trivia is objectionable has recently been discussed to death at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia. The vast majority of people didn't agree, and the decision to delete was overturned due to consensus going the other way. There seem to be a number of people campaigning to remove any mention of trivia, even on WP:NOT. So, I object. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

**Object. Renaming things doesn't help the problem, which is cultural and not semantic. Chubbles 09:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

**Trivia is the simplest and most straightforward term. If one or more items in a Trivia section turn out not to be in fact trivial, they can be incorporated into existing sections or expanded into new sections. So Trivia sections themselves, and accordingly the associated guideline, should not avoid that correct designation of information which is too trivial to be part of the context of any properly written prose section. I'm afraid I also have to note that this proposed move appears to be part of a prolonged campaign to slip in justifications for such sections and to defend editing habits generally considered as suboptimal, to put it charitably. "Whitewashing" by relabling to Miscellaneous list(s) would go against the widely established notion that, yes, Trivia sections are of lesser import and quality than prose, because writing prose requires far more skills and effort. If regular trivia contributors feel offended by that, they are left with three options: Keep adding trivia, stop contributing at all, or improving on their encyclopedic contributions. — [ aldebaer⁠] 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

**Oppose. The reasoning behind this move is not quite there, 1) the word trivia has become controversial, but really the majority on the TfD were not opposed, or had no opinion, about it. 2) The article is about trivia, the entire thing except for the first paragraph talks mostly about trivia. 3)There are better ways to deal with the fact that this is a style guidline, such as possibly merging WP:HTRIVIA into this guideline since it seems to be referred to as guidline/policy fairly often. Another possibility would be to rewrite the article so that it is more about miscellaneous lists than trivia. I would have to see what that looks like before I am positive though. If the rewritten article is better, than it would be possible to rename the article.--Kyle(talk) 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

**Not yet Much though I like it, this is too soon to propose this change. DGG (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Face it!

Look, trivia is very important to Wikipedia. This piece of crap polocy is random and ridiculus. What, are we deletiong parts of articles now? Ok then, we are gonna delete footnotes sections. That would mess up Wikipedia too ( Don't worry, we aren't doing this). I am currently spending most of my time editing Wikipedia trying to delete this polocy. The image is OK to use. --Alien joe 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What this page will look like once I am finished with it
For what it's worth, the image is public domain, but it brings confrontational overtones to this already heated discussion page. — TKD::Talk 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation on the image, TKD. I had reviewed the declaration first prior to removing it, but wasn't certain because of the language that says not all images are PD. I agree that it is confrontational, but at least we know we're not violating copyright. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I find this policy rather sad too. As a frequent reader of wikipedia trivia sections are often what I enjoy most. Okay, they are probably not very scientific, but as long as they don't subtract from the article. I don't get what you people are on about here with integrating the stuff. Isn't the whole point of trivia to add irrelevant but amusing facts. --86.154.131.180 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
that is not really the point of an encyclopedia--rather it's to provide relevant information on subjects. To aid people to find it, we filter out the irrelevant. there's enough amusing and relevant information on important things to keep everyone fully occupied. (smile)DGG (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not always what you think it should be. And Wikipedia has no policy on relevance (which is a matter of personal opinion). --Pixelface 19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

enough

I have had about enough. First was my one anti-trivia page. Then, 2 out of 3 of my messages are against me. Now, someone brings in this polocy. EVERY edit that I make seems to be reverted or gottn rid of. I am closer to my retirement every time. This polocy doesn't help. --Alien joe 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the nature of an open community: people are free to disagree with you and contest your actions. The only way to prevail is to be patient and to reason with those who disagree with you. If, ultimately, others do not agree with your views, concede the issue, and switch your sights to other areas where you can improve the encyclopedia without interference.--Father Goose 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
and if you do lose a particular issue, perhaps come back to it another time after a few months. Consensus can change. As Father Goose says, what succeeds best here, and most other places too, is calm patient discussion. DGG (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections/Archive_7&oldid=1137422634"