Talk:Trivia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trivia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Low-importance).

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vulgar

The phrase, "In Roman times, such a place was viewed as common and vulgar, in the sense that we express in the phrase the gutter, as in "His manners were formed in the gutter." seems like it might be incorrect. I am guessing that the original source of this information was using "vulgar" to mean "among the commoners" and not "indecent." It's a tough call without knowing where the information presented here came from. Peyna 04:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singular

The article suggests, but does not explicitly state, that 'trivium' is the singular of 'trivia'. Whether this is true or not should be made clearer (and also in the trivium article). DirkvdM 07:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Earth

Why is a local DJ listed in the introduction? From what was written, it does not sound like he has had a significant impact on the popularity of trivia contests in the same way that Jeopardy, Trivial Pursuit or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire have had. M Pinck 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic question. I removed the reference. – Clockwork Soul 14:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Resources Links

I find it very useful to have some reliable External Links to trivia sites. As long as the sites do not have an overabundance of pop-up adds and are easy to use (like 123facts.com), I think there should be some.

I don't maintain any sites. Just like recommend sources.

Hi. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites, nor is it a social bookmarking service. I've removed those links, but I've added a link to the dmoz trivia section. dmoz is an excellent link clearinghouse, should you want to add these links somewhere else. 68.183.117.191 09:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link to the main "Trivia" category on dmoz to complement the "useless facts" page currently linked. Snarficus (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia can be either unimportant information, or basic, elementary knowledge.

I think the latter, if valid at all, is obsolete. Rich Farmbrough 08:50 7 June 2006 (UTC).

How so? Surely if anything the latter is actually a better definition, since much trivia is, technically, important information such as "people breathe air" and "cows eat grass" in certain circumstances. --JamesTheNumberless 15:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quiz Shows

Why was the phrase 'No way' appended to this section?

I've removed it — thanks for pointing that out. Omphaloscope talk 12:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General knowledge should have its own page.

I think a page relating specifically to general knowledge should be created instead of the current situation of a redirect to 'Trivia'.

The two things are quite different, general knowledge being an understanding of a wide range of subjects, whereas trivia is simply unimportant facts.

Good luck qualifying what 'general knowledge' is. Sartan 22:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above comment, and go further by saying that redirecting 'General Knowledge' to 'Trivia' is plain wrong. The two concepts may partially overlap, but that doesn't make them the same thing. For a start, trivia refers principally to stand-alone 'fact-bites' which do not require a broad understanding of the subject. You may know that negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles were held in the Hall of Mirrors. This, on its own, is trivia. Being able to discuss why, when, by whom and with what consequences the Treaty was signed, is General Knowledge. Sabremesh 11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing general knowledge with trivia is precisely the reason why much of the world and especially the US lacks general knowledge (concepts, issues, etc) so much, and knows so much trivia (fun facts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.77.91.89 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy?

"In the late twentieth century the expression came to apply more exclusively to information of the kind useful almost exclusively for answering quiz questions."
Am I the only person that thinks having the word exclusively twice in the same sentence is redundant?
Daniel15 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it's not actually redundant, but it is lazy ugly repetition and thus appears redundant. It's a bit like saying "He exclusively ate at exclusive restaurants" it's still extremely poor use of the English language. --JamesTheNumberless 15:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia trivia

Is this the place for a section on interesting but semi-pointless facts about Wikipedia itself? It would probably be inappropriate to put such chaff on the Wikipedia page itself. For example, the smallest integer without its own page on Wikipedia is 202. Glory311 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to increase the historical accuracy

Reading the article tonight, I noticed that a later section documented that our current meaning of the term was a humorous appropriation of a grandiose educational term to the pop amusement we now call "trivia." This was done quite suddenly, the later section showed, in a Feb 5 1965 article in the Columbia College Spectator. But the first paragraph (written before the documented later sections?) still fuzzily implied that the term had gradually evolved in popular speech. That would be a bit like saying, "By 2011, these handheld Apple devices were being generally referred to in conversation as iPhones" as if Steve Jobs and his team hadn't deliberately named them that. Not a perfect parallel, but you get the idea. "Trivia" was a term stolen by two humorists for their humble subject, purely for comic effect. People didn't on their own just gradually start calling the topic and its contests "trivia." So I moved the Goodgold/Carlinsky information up to paragraph one, replacing the fuzzy-- and historically inaccurate-- wording, which implied the antique term's radical change in meaning just sort of evolved on its own. A minor change, perhaps, but it increases the article's accuracy about how such neologisms can occur quite suddenly; and that they don't always well up from "the folk," but that they sometimes well down, from artists.Profhum (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic and modern usage are radically different

This article attempts to mesh

the various classic meanings (basic study subjects, Roman roads), with
the modern usage (misc. facts and nonessential facts)

Since they are very different, it makes the article confusing. This is exacerbated by the structure, which switches back and forth between the usages for each section.

Can we split the article, and choose one meaning as primary? Or make the disambig page primary, and make Trivia (classic) and Trivia (modern) articles?

Dovid (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

examples?

I think this article needs examples. I'll try to add some soon. -- Martinkunev (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major problem : not classical v modern, but two separate classical derivations

This article has major problems and results in a false impression. It confuses

the more common meaning (sense 1-3 of trivial in 1913 Webster) to do with trivia as in commonplace information, derived from 'that may be found everywhere, common, fr. trivium a place where three roads meet', as OED puts it influenced in sense by trivial (6) eg 'we have but trivial argument' (Shakespeare) on the one hand;
with on the other hand the meaning (sense 4 of trivial in 1913 Webster) of trivia as plural of trivium (sense 4) as in trivium and quadrivium, a division of classical study.

As a result the article seems to propose the thesis that the etymology of 'trivia' and 'trivial' is because the trivium was 'lower' than the quadrivium. So far as I can see, this is completely incorrect and comes from speculation on a website called 'Take Our Word For It' (2005). See the OED or the correct derivation or for example http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=trivia

I'd like to find a source to support that local news was posted (on papyrus?) at the trivia, which is what I recall being taught. I can't find one online.

My suggestion is to move everything related to the trivium ('the lower division of the seven liberal arts') into that article, and concentrate this article on the common use of the word trivia to mean unimportant information. --Cedders^tk 07:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant move request

There's a proposal to move Triviality (mathematics) to Triviality (which currently redirects here). The discussion is at Talk:Triviality (mathematics)#Requested move 14 May 2017. – Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trivia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203134300/http://www.cualum.org/heritage/alumni_lng/traditions.html to http://www.cualum.org/heritage/alumni_lng/traditions.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trademark

Interesting to note that the first printing of "More Trivial Trivia," 1966, Dell paperback #5817, includes the legend "Trivia Trademark of Edwin Goodgold and Dan Carlinsky" on both the front cover and the title page. The original "Trivia," 1966, second printing, Dell paperback #9110, does not. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]