Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Proposed merges

We have Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and Wikipedia:Handling trivia in addition to this guideline. There is no point to having all three of these, and editors will be (actually are; I've seen it happen before) confused as to what is and is not a part of this guideline. To the extent that any of the advice in these other two documents has consensus as being good advice or best practices, it should be merged into here. To the extent that it does not, it is just noise and sh should be removed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Put in the least confusing way, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and Wikipedia:Handling trivia are not part of this guideline.

I understand the desire to streamline Wikipedia's trivia guidance, but as Equazcion points out below, there's little agreement on how to handle trivia from a content point of view. There's more agreement over how to handle it stylistically -- which is why this guideline has historically been limited to style, not content matters. Could you share with us where you've witnessed this confusion over these pages? It would help make your case.--Father Goose 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not right off hand; I've just seen several trivia sections (with material in them of encyclopedic interest that should be merged into the main article prose) deleted wholesale with edit summaries of "Rm. trivia section per WP:TRIV" and the like. But WP:TRIV does not actually advocate such deletion. The considerably more prescriptive stance taken by Wikipedia:Handling trivia and the IPC page were probably what the deleter was thinking of, yet they are not guidelines, being rather one-sided essays, a form of advocacy, basically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: The lack of consensus on some aspects of the content (vs. style) issue simply means that the two essays of are highly questionable utility with regard to that question and are thus good deletion candidates in the first place; merge what does have/gain consensus and ditch the rest. If some particular editor wants to express a highly activistic opinion on the matter, that doesn't reflect consensus, let them userspace a copy of the essay(s). WP does not need a Wikipedia-namespace essay on every conceivable opinion, and they get MfD'd all the time, especially when they are of a divisive or campaigning nature (per various sections in WP:NOT). Wikipedia essays are useful when they present a group-edited opinion piece that is not particularly controversial, such as WP:TEA; when they get argumentative and spawn counter-essays, a strong argument can be made for their removal (or userspacing if there's only one predominant editor). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge/rename re-proposal to address MOS issue raised

I understand the distinction being raised above and below, based especially in this being considered part of the MOS, but I think it's missing my point: We do not need three or even two separate sets of guidance on trivia. Since making it all part of MOS is undesirable, do it the other way around. Move the page to Wikipedia:Trivia, retain a {{guideline}} tag (generic one, not MOS one), integrate the aspects of the other two documents that actually do have consensus, i.e. have a discussion to build consensus on what to import from them, then redirect both and their shortcuts to this one. Simple. The fact that the new guideline would be more expansive, and would centralize discussion of this issue would be a Good Thing. The fact that it would address both sections and articles would be of no consequence; there is no particular reason that discussion of sections must be part of the MOS. And the dichotomy is false anyway, since much of WP:TRIV does in fact address content and the rationales for adding it, right from the introductory sentence. It all descends from WP:NOT anyway, and could, like WP:NFT, actually do just fine with an alternative to the {{guideline}} tag (though I don't have any problem with the end result being designated a guideline). In this case, I think the decision to have half of the material in the MOS and half as essays is quite pointless and confusing to editors, most of whom, even if they are aware of WP:TRIV, have no idea the other pages exist (and while they are too partisan right now, they actually do contain advice in them that clearly has WP-wide consensus already, and so should be formulated into a consolidated guideline with the section-related materia). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC) PS: The fact that two of them are essays is of no concern; they are Wikipedia namespace essays, not userspace ones, so they are fair game for merging and pruning. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The guideline tag is not the problem, and changing it from MOS to generic would not make this any less a style guideline, having absolutely nothing to do with actual trivia. This guideline makes formatting recommendations. Secondly, consensus is difficult enough to maintain even for this little style guideline -- and you want to merge another two essays into it? This is only asking for trouble; it would result in more rule creep, not less, because the essays in question are really meant to be just essays, and not rules. This guideline avoids making such specific recommendations as are currently included in the essays for this very reason, and that's why they've been kept as separate suggestions in essay form. I see no benefit to attempting to change this, as it would not go smoothly and only cause more infighting.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:24, 10/15/2007

I agree, I think the different essays serve functionally different roles at this point, and I don't see how merging them would make things simpler or better. --Nick Penguin 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move/rename

Stuck

 – The merge/rename issues can't really be discussed separately; see the above subsection for continued discussion.

The designation of this as part of the WP:MOS has not been controversial. Therefore, and in keeping with the above merge proposal, I propose renaming this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia) (note absence of "sections"). This move should be performed after the merge is performed (or rejected) obviously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with merging "Handling trivia." I am not sure the consensus at either part is to use the designation trivia, so perhaps in should be "MOS (Material of subsidiary importance)" I do not consider popular culture to be in general trivia,or of subsidiary importance, and I think that is the consensus at that page. I would accept a merge that said so, and listed popular culture in another section. Alternatively, the popular culture part is a question of notability, not of MOS. DGG (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "sections" is very important and can't leave the title (barring removal of the word "trivia" as well). This is a style guideline and not one of content. We aren't dealing with trivia. We're dealing with trivia sections. This guideline makes no mention of trivia itself, except where it says that this guideline is not here to define it or make recommendations regarding it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:22, 10/14/2007

See re-proposal subtopic in the thread above; if the MOS connection is a problem, sever it. And two of the three documents have "trivia" in their names and the IPC one discusses IPC articles as a form of trivia, and notes how often they are subject to AfD on that basis, so I doubt that "trivia" appearing in the combined version's name would actually be controversial. If it were, use "indiscriminate information" per WP:NOT, but really, why go to such a long name (that one or the "...subsidiary importance" one)? KISS principle. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well damn it

How the hell else would you present little tidbits about episodes of a TV show? God forbid you explain the origin of the episode's title in a single sentence, Wikipedia requires you have an entire paragraph with at least four sources (two internet, one magazine, one encyclopedia) to back it up before you DARE mention that the "Stanley's Cup" episode is a reference to the Stanley Cup award in ice hockey. Ahanix1989 06:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what? Look, just because you don't instantly know how and where to format this information doesn't mean we're asking you to do something stupid, like bloat one line trivia into paragraphs. And unless I've gone crazy, the tidbit you speak of has a nice home in the lead of Stanley's Cup. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're going to need sources no matter what. Anyone advocating for Trivia sections so they'll be able to tack on unsourced tidbits is on the wrong wiki. / edg ☺ ★ 07:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

However, it must also be recognized that TV shows, movies, DVDs, albums, etc. are their own sources in certain ways, so long as they can be verified to exist. Assertions about an "In popular culture" item, for example, need to be secondarily sourced (e.g. that the appearance/mention was influential, or is evidential of the article subject's influence), while simply noting that such an "In popular culture" appearance/mention happened at all is self-sourcing when it comes to such media. Cf. any book or movie article in Wikipedia; they almost universally use their own article subjects as sources for basics such as plot that do not need secondary-source verficiation. NB: I am not expressing here any opinion at all on the value any particular kind of alleged trivia, only clarifying the sourcing requirements. Many trivia/in popular culture lists are dreadfully deficient in sourcing, especially because so many of them are copyvio ripoffs of the trivia lists at IMDb, which are not researched by professionals the way so much IMDb information is, but added by random users just like on a Wiki, and we know from WP:V and WP:RS that other Wikis and similar sites (e-forums, blogs) are not considered reliable sources in most cases. The most common fault of this sort is unsourced assertions about actors, like "Joe Bloggs was paid only $5000 to play his part in this film" or "Jane Smith broke her ankle on the second day of shooting", and so forth. All of that kind of crap does need secondary sourcing per WP:V, if it is to be retained at all, which strikes me as a case-by-case determination.

It may be instructive to look at Albinism in popular culture (which is not fully sourced yet; sourcing has been happening from the top down) and the debates on its talk page about whether to include an entry or not. The article, in the parts were it is fully sourced, is often probably over-sourced (and there's no harm in that), by citing IMDb for facts such as who played what character and what the character's name was, despite the fact that this information is self-sourcing from the films' own credits. But more to the point note how assertions about the entries (e.g. that such-and-such a character was definitely intended to represent an albinistic person) are being steadily sourced, while the talk page largely consists of rejection after rejection of entries on the basis that they are blatant original research. I hope that page (incompletely researched as it is, and tagged as such for further cleanup) can help clarify things for some folks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I applaud this guide

Really. I am fairly critical of wikipedia, because it´s "anyone can edit" policy often leads to misinformation(either intentional by semi-vandalism, semi-intentional by proselytism, or unintentional by editor's misinformation-which is outrageous when you find linked pages stating different things), edit wars about polemical subjects, and whatnot.

Another point where I am terribly critical of wikipedia is the SHEER AMMOUNT OF USELESS INFO. Webpages of what constitutes practically fanfiction of videogames are good example. So is trivia. In fact, it´s even worse, because it can fill otherwise useful pages with unsourced garble of doubtful practicality.

Honestly: whereas trivia is entertaining to read when you are REALLY bored (very hard to do. Anything is better than reading useless footpage notes. Watching porn is better than reading useless footpage notes) wikipedia can only improve removing this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.127.191.232 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Objections to citing sources should probably be made on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Good luck. You're fighting the good fight. Can't wait to have all those foul, pointless rules overturned. And so forth. / edg ☺ ★ 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying watching porn is boring?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:52, 10/17/2007

It does get pretty boring after the sixth hour or so.--Father Goose 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To 217, while I don't necessarily disagree with you, this is not the page for the inclusion or exclusion of "trivia". Rather how to format the information normally found in "trivia" sections. -- Ned Scott 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the trivia debate

I recommend everyone read this summary before discussing trivia in wikipedia. Ozmaweezer 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with trivia?

It is quite entertaining, and on many pages it is the best part of the page. Now don't give me lots of your "it's not proper for a standard Wikipedia entry, per WP:TALK. Trivia clutters up the page and should be deleted" crap. Don't give me that! I truly don't see why you need to delete the best part of a page, which thoroughly amuses me and many other readers. Someone please explain to me (in English, NOT Wikipedian) a convincing reason why the trivia sections of pages are oh so illegal and need to be removed.

Long live trivia!--Gingerbreadmann 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia, in the fullest sense, would mean any information related to the article's topic. Clearly, trivia is not a precisely defined term, so if we're trying to include or exclude trivia, opinions vary as to what "trivia" means exactly. However, in a broad sense, we cannot include everything related to a particular article's subject. If we were to do so, this would become a project in collecting the sum of all human knowledge, no matter how meaningless or unimportant it is to the article(s) in question. --Cheeser1 01:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, long live trivia. I personally have no problem with trivia. Just not on Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a random collection of information. Why do people always find it so hard to realise what the project's goals are? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

because this is NOT an encyclopedia, regardless of what you think. Sonic the Hedgehog's fictional character history is not content an encyclopedia would have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what we are finding is that Wikipedia's goals are not the same as its successes. --Dystopos 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In relation to this guideline, trivia sections are simply unorganized sections. Avoiding trivia sections not only better organizes the article, but saves good information from being mistakenly thrown out with the real trash. We can present the same information in a better way, allowing people to find that information easier, and making the subject at hand more understandable. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are a good catchall. Its also less laborious than trying to catagorize all the minutia that may or may not relate to specific catagories. From a usability perspective, humans know what "trivia" is, and they can easily discern it. I doubt one could cite many if any examples of where a significant portion of the community is being "confused" by the existence of a trivia section. This entire discussion stems from a petty and wasteful guideline where "organization" has run amok. - mrrealtime

I think in certain cases integration can actually make the subject less understandable. As mrrealtime points out, people do know what trivia is. Integration can sometimes cause facts to get lost and their significance downplayed, whereas when they were grouped together in the trivia section they stood out as interesting facts. But of course these are things we've all heard before, and the opposition just says they feel differently, and this again won't get anywhere. Gotta love the peace that comes with a nice, undisputed guideline :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:02, 10/3/2007

Look, the problem is with trivia sections is that they often contain legitimate information about the subject that hasn't been integrated in the text yet but has instead been dumped into a loosely-organised list that lacks context. Take a look at this, for example; the article contained a huge trivia section with many miscellaneous facts about the subject, and I integrated them in the body of the text using prose. And yes, trivia sections also contain "fun" facts (John Doe had a pet chicken named Adrian and he wasn't allowed to take it with him on a flight), but those do simply not belong in an encyclopaedia. Melsaran (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think most of the serious arguers here for trivia mention the "fun facts" aspect as a defense. That's just a strawman argument the opposition likes to bring. Obviously you can't defend a section for an encyclopedia based on it being "fun". The rest of this isn't an argument against anything that's been said here, it's just a repeat of the reasons the guideline is said to exist to begin with.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:17, 10/3/2007

Tell me more about this chicken.--Father Goose 17:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See? People find those things interesting =D

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:25, 10/3/2007

----

Find me one example of a trivia section you think is better to keep as-is than to eventually integrate. I've heard you make the case before but it all sounds completely theoretical to me. Mangojuice^talk 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The key word is "eventually". By now I've come across a few trivia sections (such as Amazing Stories#Trivia) which contain good information that is hard to integrate in an improved way. Some items I've come seen (such as those in Eyes Wide Shut#Trivia) would need a whole section built before they'd have a "proper place" in an article. This can be a tremendous amount of work sometimes, just to integrate one item, and I'm not certain a single keepable item should spawn the creation of an entire section just to house it. A lot of people at that point would choose to delete it; an alternative is just to leave it as a trivia bullet.--Father Goose 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree with that: it can be very hard to integrate some things properly. But I think in both of those sections there are pieces of information that aren't relevant to the article or are too unimportant. An interesting thing to note about the Amazing Stories one: I would actually remove the first item from the trivia section and make it an image with caption (if I could find an image of the cover, of course). That would be perfect with an illustration, and wouldn't disrupt the flow. What's really funny is that someone has already done this with another item: this version contains a cover from 1938 apparently chosen because someone thought the uniform depicted there is similar to later Star Trek uniforms, typical OR trivia. Nonetheless, it's an interesting integration technique I hadn't thought of before. Mangojuice^talk 11:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hard to integrate" should never be equated to "impossible to integrate" or "too much work to bother." This is an encyclopedia, which requires a lot of hard work. Hell, take a look at any of the longer discussions at WP:FAC. Even with the Amazing Stories article: take the first bullet, make it an image with a caption. Take the second bullet and merge it into the second section. Take the third bullet, find its historical context, and put it into the first or second section- tada! The material is in the article, it's organized, and the trivia section is gone.

If you need an example of how "hard to integrate" material has been made into a legitimate article, check out traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup. This started off as an enormous, impossible-to-fix list, and now it's a good article. Even better, it's still just as entertaining as it was before, only now, I can go in and find the information I need more easily.-Wafulz 14:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No one asked for an example, as there are many, and everyone knows that. No one's saying there's no example of trivia lists that have been integrated and are better off for it. No one said trivia lists are always better than integration, and no one even said trivia lists are better most of the time. And I, for one, never said that trivia lists should be kept as lists because they would be difficult to integrate, as I think that's a rather poor argument, and one that I hope no one thinks represents the general argument against this guideline.

One more time: My concern is that there are times when trivia lists better suit the article.

That is not to say this is always true for all items in all trivia lists, so please don't bring examples of good integrations and then tell me it's an argument that the guideline is sound. And don't tell me that the argument against the guideline is the result of laziness on the part of editors, because the difficulty of integration has never been anyone's argument (at least, none of the serious arguments, which are what you should be addressing, rather than just refuting the easy targets).

Similarly, I have also never, and would never, advocate articles purely consisting of lists. Articles do need to be mainly made up of prose. My suggestion is that an article of prose can still be good if it contains a small section of trivia.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:48, 10/5/2007

Calm down. I guess what I'm asking for are examples where trivia would definitely be better- where it would be useful information without going into absolutely minute details ("Bob plays tennis every Friday") and where it is impossible to present it within the rest of the article.-Wafulz 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples would similarly be useless for my side of the argument. If I brought examples of "good" trivia sections, my opponents would consider the integration of them to be a way to refute me. They may succeed in the integration, but that would only sidestep the general issue. There will always be more than one way to present an article, and in some cases, some ways are just as good as others -- the difference only being a matter of preference. Obviously my opponents here would always say they prefer the integrated version, so this is not something I need illustrated to me. If this guideline didn't exist then the decision would be left up to the editors for each individual article, which is what I think should be done. If you must have examples then I would say, as I've said before, that it is mainly media articles that present the best cases for keeping trivia sections -- articles on things like TV episodes, movies, and perhaps video games. But I won't present a specific article just so that people can integrate their trivia sections and then say, "Look what I did," expecting me to clap.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:09, 10/5/2007

I don't see how trivia sections are ever superior to organized information. Even in the media articles, the majority of trivia falls into "production", "cultural references", or some similar category. Of course, you can rebuke this with me "sidestepping the general issue", but honestly, I've never been aware of relevant trivia that could not be merged.-Wafulz 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware you don't. We have what's called a difference of opinion. Many people on Wikipedia agree with you, and many agree with me. That's where things currently stand.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:41, 10/5/2007

Trivia

Thanks for phasing out Trivia sections. I know they are fun to read, but they have to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.197.30 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, Stop whining like a bunch of arrogant internet snobs. Trivia sections are not only useful and informative, but they are highly entertaining as well. Ferthermore, there are many instances in which facts would fit more appropriately in a trivia section then elsewhere in an article. I find the ongoing hostility to trivia sections to be quite pointless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 October 2007

Yes, trivia sections are an important part of Wikipedia. While this discussion is going on, substantial and arguably quite useful portions of content on Wikipedia are being overzealously removed. This is absurd and has to stop. This guideline needs to go. 74.132.200.129 00:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY my point! Thank you!--Gingerbreadmann 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. --Captain Impulse 11:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Trivia sections are entertaining, informative, and it is easier to scan it for a certain piece of information, than search through the whole article, especially when it's long and/or boring. ~~M3n747 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who came up with this guideline, anyway? Trivia sections are common because the vast majority of Wikipedians love them, and they should stay. All that the crusade against trivia sections has accomplished is cluttering up good articles with annoying little boxes that clamor for removal of good content - which are still there, months later, because none of the editors who actually work on the article or have any interest in the topic are willing to obey the directives from the ivory-tower types. This guideline needs to be taken out and shot. Long live trivia! MattHucke^(t) 15:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Typos are common too, doesn't mean people love them. The fact remains that when people apply this guideline to the article, that same information is presented in a better format. For the most part, people use trivia sections as a misc dumping ground because they don't know where else to put something, and it has little to nothing to do with a love or desire to have a "trivia" section. "that clamor for removal of good content" you are on the wrong talk page, this guideline is not about the removal of content, but how to present it. If you're going to comment about something, make sure you actually know what you're talking about before doing so, especially when you decide to insult the people who've helped develop it. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I love Trivia sections, keep them! Make more of them! Florihupf 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop Bickering

I agree fully with the statement above. Trivia sections are a vital part of the the Wikipedia experience and are what makes us unique. What Encyclopedia has that? Mpftmead 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stop Bickering"? Umm.. Mangojuice^talk 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have trivia sections because other encyclopedias don't have them? Not sure I really agree with that logic. Chaz ^Beckett 12:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The argument against them is largely that other encyclopedias don't have them, so this one shouldn't either, lest we not fit the definition of an encyclopedia. This user is simply taking it in the other direction -- others don't have it, so here's an opportunity to do something that's never been done before. It's not airtight but it's a legitimate point.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:29, 10/4/2007

It's really more of an argument that Wikipedia should be something other than an encylopedia. I also disagree with the assumption that "Trivia sections are a vital part of the the Wikipedia experience...". I understand what's being argued, I just don't think it's very strong argument. Chaz ^Beckett 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias also doesn't have flashing banners that give kids seizures. That doesn't mean we need some. It's totally illogical. Wikipedia could do a million different things that other encyclopedias don't. I think we need a better reason than that. --Cheeser1 14:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Wait a second. Is'nt Wikipedia just a giant encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcore Hak (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not airtight, but a legitimate point -- the same as the argument that we shouldn't be doing things just because other encyclopedias don't.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:39, 10/4/2007

Perhaps a legitimate argument can be made that Wikipedia shouldn't be a encyclopedia, but the fact is that it is an encyclopedia. This isn't the place to argue that the fundamental nature of Wikipedia (being an encyclopedia) should be changed. Chaz ^Beckett 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making that argument. I would never say that wikipedia shouldn't be an encyclopedia. You're making the assumption that just because including trivia isn't something encyclopedias generally do, then if we include it, we are therefore no longer an encyclopedia. That is an unfounded assumption.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:10, 10/4/2007

There has never before been a serious attempt at an modern comprehensive online encyclopedia not derived from a paper model. We are the pioneers, and have a consequent responsibilities. One is to emulate as well as our method of permits the merits of good traditional encyclopedias. But another is to go beyond this, and show what can be done with the medium--not just an online hypertext medium--which is not all that new--but one with user contributed and edited content and wide participation from users with a range of knowledge and interests. Yes we're free and need to stay free, but that's not the only difference there ought to be. We can includes a much wide range of content, and a variety of devices but how to display it. If we just wanted to do a free Brittanica, there's this other project down the road--but that's unfair to Citizendium--their content and method of composition, while different, is in some ways just as innovative than ours.02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)

And there's another responsibility of pioneers--to keep going forward and not quarrel about the route to the extent of shooting each other in the back.02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)

Instead of calling them trivia call them 'Miscellaneous'...it can still be the same thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.162.106 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why good?

Has anyone addressed why they think trivia is good and necessary? There are plenty of people asking us to prove that it's bad, and I'd like to hear some rationale from the other side.-Wafulz 02:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the pro-trivia sections people aren't arguing that trivia is good, per se. They're just arguing that some pieces of unusual but relevant information are more appropriately presented in a short list of loosely related facts, rather than being integrated into the prose of the article, where it might not be appropriate.

There are a few people arguing that trivia is fun, but that's more a question of the information itself than its presentation - this guideline addresses presentation; whether fun information belongs in wikipedia is a matter for other guidelines.

I don't think anyone's seriously arguing that infomation should be presented in lists where possible - i.e, that trivia is good. It's really just a question of whether there's some sense in keeping essentially tangential information in a separate section. For what it's worth, I think there is. James pic 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea that some trivia lists are appropriate is correct, but if we are deliberately leaving an article with the trivia section intact, then we need to come to a clear understanding about when it is appropriate to remove the trivia tag. --Nick Penguin 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there ever a situation where meaningful information can't be categorized into the rest of the article, or put into its own section (with a more relevant title and format)? A lot of what I'm seeing is that people think it's difficult, and therefore impossible to properly arrange (and keep) the information.-Wafulz 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above. It is NOT because it's difficult. There is NEVER a situation where information CAN'T be integrated somehow. You keep going back to this, and I don't know who you're hoping to address with it, but it's definitely not us.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:59, 10/5/2007

Right, ok, so I get that, but perhaps I need some clarification on a related issue. Is there consensus about the end purpose of this template? Is it to completely eradicate trivia sections on every page? If so, then I think the relevant guidelines need to be worded a lot stronger. And if the consensus decides that sometimes a trivia section is an acceptable way (but not necessarily the best way) to present information, then there needs te be some specific criteria hammered out that determines when a tag is appropriate and when it is not. --Nick Penguin 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to believe that all of those who are supporting integration also understand that in some limited cases a trivia heading might be acceptable. However it is probably impossible to define those cases in a general way. So there is really nothing to hammer out. Vegaswikian 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the purpose of the template, Nick, at least not as far as the question you've asked. The only consensus (I use the term loosely) is what is said in this guideline. This guideline does not guide the use of the template. Currently, use of the template is governed by the whims of the people. People who think trivia sections should be eradicated make sure that every trivia section they see is tagged. Likewise, people who think trivia sections are fine tend to remove the tag. And there are still others who judge each case on its own merits and decide whether or not the particular trivia section needs to be removed from a particular article (these are the people I like and wish to have over for dinner sometime).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:14, 10/5/2007

There are two questions which have gotten inextricably mixed up: what sort of content is appropriate, and where to put it. The question of where to put it is frankly, relatively secondary. But my view on it is that if there is a good place to integrate material, it should be integrated; in exceptional cases, there might be appropriately a list of miscellaneous facts, but usually the presence of items in a special "trivia" section is laziness, and distributing them properly should be a minor and uncontroversial editing process similar to all other style improvements.

the important thing is the acceptability of the sort of information that is frequently found there. This is the important part--as shown by the propensity of those opposing these sections to delete them, instead of move the material elsewhere. I think, Walfuz, that this is your question--not just the arrangement?

There is need to have information in WP that illuminates the subject of an article in ways that are relevant to the topic, significant enough to be worth mentioning, appropriate to a general encyclopedia--but one that that has no fixed size constraints, that fit in a readable are usable way within an article,and that will be of some interest or use to some readers. How can I say it plainer in a general way--each type of item has its own justification.

Biographical detail illuminates character and career, and the main questions is not overburdening articles with material that is truly peripheral to that, and not expanding articles on relatively minor people beyond their appropriate proportional length. Details about the production of a work of art are always relevant , subject to similar limitations and justifications. If the work is important enough, anything that can be documented and presented concisely may be of value. if a work is of borderline importance, the details don't matter.

Reappearances of a theme in one work of art--or appearances of one cultural or historical topic in other works of art are in my opinion essential to an understanding of the role of the topic or the work. I would include them for all items important enough to be discussed here in the first place. The critical current problem is those who think otherwise. This is a separate topic that needs to be argued in detail, for those who wish to eliminate them are destroying one of the principal values are virtues of this encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is bringing us back to a content argument. This guideline has nothing to do with content; it says so explicitly. Everyone here agrees on which content is appropriate, and if they don't, they aren't arguing about that here. They're rightly arguing about how to best present certain information. DGG, I realize IPC is an important topic to you, but I don't know if this particular argument has anything to do with it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:19, 10/7/2007

There is nothing wrong with it, it's just people taking a voluntary thing and trying to turn it into a job and holding it to some godly standard because they have nothing better to do.

It's the internet people. Not life or death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.135.16 (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This guide needs deleting

Trivia is one of the best features of wikipedia. I for one vote against the existance of this guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.187.239.200 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Trivia should be discouraged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.195.253 (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia doesn't help the goal of an encyclopedia. Arthurrh 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminder, this is not the page for the inclusion or exclusion of "trivia", but rather how to format the information normally found in "trivia" sections -- Ned Scott 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be deleted. Trivia sections do provide useful information which at the time may be difficult to integrate into the article. Whilst it is possible that this may be integrated into the main body of the article as it expands, it is useful in some articles, particuarly stubs, where the information would not fit into the body of the article. I also feel that this is a case of WP:CREEP, and would very much like to see its existance discussed at MFD. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here, with people arguing about different things. As this guide says, "trivia" for this purpose is poorly ordered material that should be incorporated within a more proper context. Now, there are places where people tend to accept and expect trivia, such as entertainment (particularly movie) related articles. In most cases, this information does NOT fall within the definition of this guide. The fact that Robert DeNiro stubbed his toe on a turtle called Kevin during the making of Casino does NOT neatly fit within any of the normal sections, because this sort of information is not part of the common sense description of that movie. The problem, and the disconnect, is that people see a section called TRIVIA, and assume that this guideline applies and pompously tag it as not meeting wiki guidelines. Then, people who like the section, and see the tag, intuitively realize something is amiss but fall for the assumption that the section falls afoul of this guideline, and then write most of the copious material arguing that this section should be removed. The solution is that it should be harder for officious morons to slap on this tag purely because a section is labeled "trivia". It seems to me that the best solution would be for the tag to say "this section has been deemed to contain unsorted material that would be better incorporated into the main body of the article, but if this section consists of material that is largely irrelevant to the essential thrust of the article, and so only makes sense as an isolated list of extra but useless information, then this tag should be removed". I'm sure this officious tagging wouldn't happen if those sections were relabeled "obscure facts for saddoes who like showing off or doing quiz nights", but trivia is the traditional label and it is a perfectly reasonable section in many contexts. Unless I see someone doing a better job of addressing this point, I'm going to end up ripping a lot of these tags off when I see them on entertainment related entries. 131.172.99.15 14:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

You really have to assume good faith when judging people's edits, especially adding tags which usually means they are interested in the clean up of Wikipedia. Saying people are acting pompously or calling them morons does not help the situation. The editors who are working on this guideline are constantly trying to perfect it, so if you have discovered trivia sections that cannot be integrated and the content included in it should be kept in the article in that format, it might be a good idea to bring it to somebody's attention on this talk page. Doing this will enable editors of this guideline to either have a go at integration themselves, or adjust the guideline to take into account Trivia sections like that. It's also useful to remember that because there isn't already a section the information can go into, it doesn't mean a section can't be created. As you mentioned Casino (film), I took a look at the trivia section there. I was able to integrate a lot of the information into 2 new sections, one of which I marked as a section stub for expansion. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-trivia template makes pages look worse

As an occasional user of Wikipedia, I find myself increasingly annoyed by these "Trivia sections should be discouraged" tag. The trivia sections often provide useful information which wouldn't fit into a main body of text, and makes links across the encyclopedia that would otherwise be missed (today I have been looking at Oswald Mosley).

Having a bumper sticker drawing attention to the fact that "trivia sections should be discouraged" only serves to make this section look ugly and detracts from the wikipedia experience. If the trivia section is inappropriate, then I agree it should be removed - but what positive purpose is the tag serving if the trivia section isn't going to be removed? i.e. when the trivia is absolutely appropriate to the article.

User:mysteronald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.183.199 (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In such cases (which are normally rare) the tag should be removed, and the section retitled (since trivia, as a word, tends to mean more than one thing on Wikipedia). If you have an example I can give some better advice. -- Ned Scott 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very uncertain about the template. Frankly I'd prefer to see it on the talk page. I see trivia integration as a very-long-term activity rather than the relatively urgent sort that are normally dealt with using tags. Dcoetzee 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded.--Father Goose 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a "very long term activity" compared to other sorts of cleanup, such as those requiring re-writing, or finding citations. / edg ☺ ★ 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also consider that there are maybe 10,000 articles that are tagged out of 2,000,000 or about 0.5% of the articles. Not very large. Second, most of these tags are at the section level and not at the top of the article (remember some of us did not want them at the top) so they are not that blatant. Rather then keep discussing the tags and their location, how about fixing the problems? I do about one every week or two when I run into an article that has them. If we all spent more time on the issue it would quickly become a nit and the discussion here would be of no consequence. Vegaswikian 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE KEEP THE TRIVIA, IT CONTAINS INTERESTING FACTS AND IS SOMETIMES THE BEST PART OF AN ARTICLE!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.139.62 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The direction is not to remove trivia, just to present it in a manner more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Vegaswikian 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

and it is a long term activity both because of the large number of sections and the size of them. Especially if it is on the article page, the template needs to be very friendly to avoid arousing hostility to it, and also indicate the need for improvement. DGG (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But is the trivia template that different from {{cleanup}} or {{unreferenced}} that are very plainly visible, obtrusive templates on the article page that are about long-term issues? Because it's standard practice there to have those templates on the article page. Mangojuice^talk 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If the size of these sections creates a problem, the current advocacy to preserve these sections is surely not helping. Template talk:Trivia has been argued over at quite some length, and it seems unlikely the template will ever please those who take offense to all hint of cleanup imperative, or the very word "trivia", or the suggestion that it might be, y'know, less than optimal and could be done better another way. As for the large number of sections, compare Vegaswikian's 10,000 stat with the number of articles needing other cleanup tasks, such as sourcing (usually a much harder cleanup task). / edg ☺ ★ 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The template isn't ugly; in fact it's kind of pleasant looking. Part of the problem is the message, which is a bit forceful and not strictly true. Trivia sections are not discouraged, and many things labeled with the template are not trivia. I don't think it does any good to mock people who observe this or to polarize Wikipedia into trivia hounds and disruptive deletionists. The template, when used on a section that's arguable either way, is obtrusive and judgmental. It's stamping the article as deficient. Where you see a cleanup tag the trouble with the article is more obvious usually. A message more along the lines of "It has been suggested that the trivia in this section be merged....(etc)" would be more appropriate. There's also a reasonable question whether the template belongs on the article page (where such templates always hurt readability), on the talk page, or whether to simply tell people that if they don't like it fix it. In my opinion templates should only be on the front page if they warn readers that they should be careful; if the message is for editors it should always go on the talk page. Wikidemo 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a break from these discussions for awhile because my primary interest is in learning and enjoying Wikipedia, not whinging.

At the same time, the proliferation of tags seems geometric; the nasty comments (ok, these are mainly from a few folks, but they are very very active) suggesting that any disagreement is based on stupidity or not having read the text properly, i.e. not seeing things in the one and only "right" way have also increased tremendously.

At this point, I have a few suggestions. Most have been made in more or less this form before:

- Change the language of that very annoying trivia notice. I think Wikidemo has a much better text passage than the current one.

All this talk about "assuming good faith" NPOV, etc. is not expressed in the current statement. I am quite certain that if the originators of that message had had the power, they would have struck all trivia from our Wiki. Because they couldn't, they did the next best thing. No wonder they are encountering so much resistance - many of us are sweet and reasonable if you stroke us the right way, but rub our fur the wrong way and you get to see our claws.

- Yes, please, put the dratted notice onto the discussion page.

Those of us who are sufficiently annoyed by a poorly organized passage, regardless of whether it is labeled "Trivia" or not, will try to correct it. If the flagged passage has not been corrected within a reasonable time, than I imagine it is because, at this moment in time, the organization is suitable.

- I don't see anyone arguing that a trivia section should be mandatory.

We have almost universal agreement that texts should be as well organized as possible and that means minimizing trivia, misc., and other such sections. I do, however, see some people quite loudly calling for the removal of trivia. Again, what do they expect? That the rest of us are just going to roll over? We have enough situations already in which certain people remove text, it is put right back in, taken out a second time, restored, ad nauseum. I hope this is not going on with the trivia sections, but am quite certain if anyone started attacking some of my favorites, I would use all the arbitration resources available in our Wiki to make them cease and desist. There is no way to get rid of those of us who place more emphasis on article creation than on compulsively following every last edict from those who have appointed themselves, honoria causes, judge, prosecutor and executioner. Help us to improve our (in my case admittedly very weak) skills, stop treating us like naughty children.

- We are becoming way too rigid and far too bureaucratic. Most institutions need decades to become this ossified.

- Be bold is a good idea, but, frankly, my inner hurdle to correct or change text from someone else is rather high. Unless there is a factual error, I prefer to raise my objections on the discussion page. Has always worked just fine - and on the occasions when I was mistaken, thank goodness I had not changed the text without consideration. Panthera germanicus 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)panthera_germanicus

As I interpret the above discussion, there is consensus here that the template should go on the talk page. DGG (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Carrying out such a change would generate some friction. I suggest a more focused proposal here so that if there is a consensus it is unambiguous and nobody can say otherwise.Wikidemo 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to remove these templates after integrating the trivia sections. I realise this is a controversial proposal, and we may now be lectured about instruction creep, and how this place used to be cool. But I still feel this should be the preferred method for dealing with {{Trivia}} tags. / edg ☺ ★ 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what is happening. However it is not happening fast enough, probably because we are spending too much time here discussing. In any case, one fallout I am seeing from fixing these is that the vast majority of these points need {{tl:fact}} added. So while we cleanup the section, we still leave the problem of text without citations which is a more time consuming task. Vegaswikian 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that some people think they're doing everyone a big favor by adding the template or deleting the section, and they don't realize the real work is to fix the article. Fixing one article is a lot more helpful than adding a hundred tags. Anyway, the issue is raised that the template is inapt or too obtrusive, not that trivia shouldn't be cleaned up.Wikidemo 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding a template probably does help in getting the article fixed. Adding this notice to the Talk page probably helps less than adding it to the article page.

Adding a hundred templates isn't as helpful as the equivalent amount of effort made in actual cleanup, but if you're a robot, how else can you contribute? / edg ☺ ★ 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

True, everyone contributes as he, or she, or it can.:) Wikidemo 22:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - I guess my suspicions were well founded....if you look at the proposal I made (now on the template talk page) there seems to be a consensus against putting the template on the talk page, and no consensus to change the wording. I think the template has problems, but they're not terrible. If someone puts a template on and it simply doesn't apply, I would just take it off. Otherwise, if it's an article I cared about I would fix the article then take it off. Wikidemo 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I support putting the trivia template on the talk page. I would also support changing the wording of the template to suggest sourcing the trivia points as well as integrating. Ozmaweezer 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth tagging trivia sections with less than 3 items?

Because I'm not sure it is. Since it's the beginning of November, I was looking at the new additions to CAT:TRIVIA, and I discovered a whole slew of article with only one or two trivia facts. In these particular cases the rest of the article was really small, and integrating was not really an option. With such short articles it seemed unjustified to create several new sections, each containing a single sentence, just to get rid of the trivia section. In some cases the rest of the article was so bare that the trivia section was actually a better solution compared to whatever ideas came to mind. Perhaps it would be a good idea to create a lower threshold before a trivia section gets tagged. I think this would also help curb the number of new articles tagged with trivia templates. --Nick Penguin 08:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think such an article wouldn't benefit from the integration/removal of trivia items. So, I wouldn't say the tag is inappropriate. Maybe not as necessary. Mangojuice^talk 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Short trivia sections are often easier to integrate. Tagging such sections may encourage editors who wouldn't normally make the effort. Obviously it's better to actually do the job, but short of that, I think such sections are well-tagged.

I wouldn't outright encourage such tagging when the cleanup is so easy, but it's not objectionable. / edg ☺ ★ 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but in small articles, sometimes I find that short trivia sections are actually less easy to integrate. For example, the other day I worked on Apollo 11 in popular culture, which had a very long trivia section. Contrary to what you might think, this was actually very easy for me to integrate, because after I started reading all the trivia facts, I noticed that there were many with overlapping areas of interest, and I put them together in some relevantly titled new sections. However, what about an article like this one: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (Only Fools and Horses). I can justify creating a section titled "Later work of the cast", or something similarly vague, but is this section really going to attract good and useful content and improve the future of the article? In general, I find that short trivia sections are found in short articles, and it seems that some extremely short trivia sections are better left to accumulate more facts, because with more trivia to work with (or even just more content in other sections in the article) it makes integrating much much easier. --Nick Penguin 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Some might find that short text a little incongruent-looking following the table, but it's not hard to read, it's in the logical section, and the prose part of that section might even grow.

Considering the previous edit, this might be an example of a small article that [ benefited] from the {{Trivia}} tag (tho I'm not sure that editor wouldn't have performed the integration without the tag). / edg ☺ ★ 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good solution. I guess I need to be a little more creative when I'm looking at adding to existing sections. Cheers, --Nick Penguin 03:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Show your support for trivia, add your name to the list

Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia] Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. ThanksOzmaweezer 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Estil76.177.160.69 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I absoultely support at minimum, a wikitrivia, but I would prefer that trivia sections not be treated like a four letter word around here. I for one enjoy for example, the lists of little known facts in movies, TV shows, and so on. Not every article on Wikipedia should have to read like a term paper or thesis. :P

I'm all for trivia in movie articles. They add colour and dimension. Alpheus 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it there any more; I take it this failed? Either way, I wanted to might remind: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Anything that involves a campaign to add names to a list is missing a point. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. It's a legit wikiproject in its current form. Unfortunately, it's easier to posture than to act, so what's been accomplished through it is very limited so far. This is probably true of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup as well.--Father Goose (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New discussion of trivia guidelines

There is now renewed discussion regarding the guidelines for trivia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Trivia and In popular culture. I believe that it makes sense to renew discussion of the subject, so that it can be determined if there is or is not a broadly based consensus on the existing guideline, and that any proposals to alter such guidelines be made here, whether they are made elsewhere or not. 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC) }}

There is now renewed discussion regarding the guidelines for trivia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Trivia and In popular culture. I believe that it makes sense to renew discussion of the subject, so that it can be determined if there is or is not a broadly based consensus on the existing guideline, and that any proposals to alter such guidelines be made here, whether they are made elsewhere or not. John Carter 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. I'm not sure Ozmaweezer's intent is limited to discussing this guideline, as opposed to discussing trivia and popular culture on Wikipedia as a whole -- and now there is a place for that.--Father Goose 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So noted. As per his/her comments to date, however, "trivia", specifically including presence of "trivia" sections, does seem to that editor to be a primary concern, if perhaps not the only one. And, considering s/he has repeatedly stated that this guideline should be changed, it made sense to me that discussion regarding changes take place. John Carter 00:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I find trivia sections convenient, I LOVE THEM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.18.85 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the trivia debate

I recommend everyone read this summary before discussing trivia. Ozmaweezer 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at least some of those options contain suggestions which would require a complete redesign of the encyclopedia (like creating a separate tab for trivia), which if they were to have any chance to exist would have to be made at the Wikipedia:Village pump or elsewhere. John Carter 15:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the point of this cross-reference is to forestall repeat propositions that have failed to gain consensus already and/or are not feasible, and to direct people who are pro or con trivia (or trivia sections, etc.) to the list of already-well-understood pro and con arguments so that they don't waste time repeating them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Value of trivia" debate

Final thoughts

Much of the value of Wikipedia is the degree to which it exceeds and supplements the content of a traditional encyclopedia. Despite this Wikipedia has recently, and unfortunately, begun to create increasingly detailed "policies" as a result of pressure from those who attack its credibility. These new policies invariably take the form of characterizing much existing content as inappropriate, thereby justifying removal. At the same time new contributors are discouraged from attempting "inappropriate" contributions. This and other new "policies" are examples of overzealous and persnickety grooming that will lead to the decline, fragmentation and ultimate obsolescence of Wikipedia. by 16.17.222.1

to counteract this, new people continue to join, whose contributions to policy discussions as well as articles can re-vitalize WP, as they have in the past. Policy is what we make it, jointly, by consensus. The best way to learn and contribute to how it works is to comment appropriately at AfD. DGG (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes trivia detrimental? It adds more information

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned previously: Wikipedia has nearly unlimited resources with respect to an encyclopedia; there is no page or size limit and it would be very difficult to completely overload the servers with questionably relevant information. Seeing the "19699 donations so far" banner tells me that there would be no difficulty maintaining this additional information anyhow. The line has to be drawn at what is relevant information, yet to me, it is clear that the information is already in a generalized hierarchy; in most articles there is a brief introduction, followed by more detailed information, followed by internal and external links (even more focused/detailed information), and a trivia section generally towards the very end. No one seems to have a problem with the increasing specificity of the information, and a well written trivia section is the ultimate form of specificity. As a justification, I have to ask: Why would you read all the way to the bottom of an article if you felt that you had already seen the relevant information, when there is always a table of contents and articles are divided into sections. From what I understand, you would only continue reading if you found the additional amount of information interesting to some point. For instance, is it really necessary to include a proof for the law of cosines in the article about it; some could argue that that information is irrelevant to its use, yet I find it fascinating. In fact, sections like that are what keep me coming back to this site; seemingly superfluous information that adds additional value to an article, that I would not find in another encyclopedia or reference. Thus, the trivia sections both have the capacity to be relevant and a potential value to add to the article, otherwise, no one would have added that information to the article in the first place. With the resources available to this project, it seems self-defeating to remove information that is factually accurate, interesting, or significant to an article in question. Therefore, I argue that we should utilize these resources and expand the scope of wikipedia, not detract from it, because it is very difficult to have too much information on a topic (I am a Senior IB Student and am very relieved when I see a 10-15 page article on a topic, as opposed to a 4 page one). Although I am not particularly active as a contributer, it bothers me to see very interesting information tagged as irrelevant and potentially removed, when the overall goal of this project is to create the most exhaustive and detailed resource in the history of the world; why else would a process of perpetual evolution be encouraged, even built into the function of this site, except to forever increase the amount of knowledge available.

Diabloblue 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out at this point that this guideline is about style and not content. In general, 'trivia' sections are used to quickly collect information during the formative stages of an article's creation. As the article matures, it is expected that the content from trivia sections will be evaluated with respect to relevance, importance, and appropriateness to the article, and then incorporated into the article body as functional prose rather than as disjointed bullet points.

This guideline – correctly – highlights the stylistic problem associated with trivia sections—they're dumping grounds for material that an editor can't be bothered to incorporate into the article body. Like any other style problem, trivia sections get tagged with a template encouraging editors to clean them up. As articles mature, our editing focus necessarily shifts from an emphasis on accumulating facts to an emphasis on organizing and presenting those facts effectively. Wikipedia's goal is explicitly not to be an indiscriminate collection of information; we aim to deliver the knowledge of the world in an ordered, logical, encyclopedic way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but the problem with this arguement is that often, content is lost in the process of formatting. I prefer a middle ground myself, but I would rather much more information than a slightly less uniform article. Again, I have to mention that the trivia section reminds me of the internal/external links section, which are very helpful and are both useful features of a good article. When you think about it, most of the internal links are also incorperated into the article, but they are far more useful when placed in one location. With that, I believe that the sections are better present than not, and they do not disrupt the continuity of the article, as they are usually appended at the very end Diabloblue 01:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When I improve articles, I try hard to make the content in trivia sections more accessible, and I also try to make only minor stylistic changes to the content to make it easier to read. And certainly, as you put it, the [trivia] sections are better present than not; the spirit of this guideline is in agreement with that. But the guideline also suggests that the content is more valuable presented in a more contextually accessible way, and thus in the long run the article is better served by integrating existing and discouraging further trivia sections. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding on to the previous, lets not forget that most of the so called trivia is not verifiable and easily can be wrong. While the information is "interesting", it is mostly wrong. --Osbus (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with the claim that most of it is not verifiable. It's true that trivia items are rarely sourced, but a large number describe some aspect of a primary source, and are easily verified, and quite a few others are based on a sources that can be found. In my experience, a minority of trivia entries are pure speculation, and they're easy to spot and remove.--Father Goose (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur, there seems to be widespread belief in the "unverifiable trivia boogeyman", and I really just do not see many instances of facts that could never get sources. That said, there's a difference between "difficult to source" and "outright lies pretending to be trivia", and this is often a tough distinction to make. But in general, I find that most items that make their way into trivia sections are really just regular facts that could be pulled out of any section, but because they lack sufficient context and are not immersed in the rest of the article content, they seem trivial and unimportant. But this speaks to a lack of proper contextualization, not the quality of the individual trivia facts themselves. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Context if everything. If people would actually take the time to add information about why something is important or notable rather than just assuming that everyone will see the importance of "actor x has eaten an apple on screen in every movie he appeared in" that would be half the battle. The other half would be when other editors remove or tag that text, that they actually take the time to visit the article talk page and express that the removed/tagged text lacked any context and invite others to provide that with reinstated text...--Isotope23 ^talk 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One more perspective

I like the info often found in trivia sections. I understand that the info could be better presented as prose, and the article would look more encyclopedic as such, if people took the time to integrate it... however the trivia broom template thingy is a real eyesore and it's on every freaking page I visit. I would say, keep this guideline as a suggestion, but please have a bot take down the brooms. Integrating trivia is something we'll do when any article is on the road to becoming featured. But for articles where the interest level isn't that high... leave the trivia section as is. It's the ugly brooms, not the guideline, that I think most people are objecting to. Kind regards, David Bergan (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in modifying the current version of the trivia template, please join the discussion on the trivia template talk page, where these kinds of suggestions are better placed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the format of the template, it's the use of it. I just think that this is a guideline that doesn't need to be posted on every trivia section across wikipedia. Keep it as a rule for the good articles that people are trying to make better... but let's just ignore the rule otherwise. Seeing that template everywhere just reinforces an image that wikipedia is a half-baked clumsy mock-up. It looks like we're seeing things on an editor's desk rather than reading them from an encyclopedia. Yes wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress, but we don't need to shove impression in people's faces. David Bergan (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that it is on every page you visit. I don't see it all that often even though I view thousands of pages each year. I guess it makes the point that these issues are mainly affecting certain classes of articles more then others. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I look up a lot of pop songs/albums/movies, which are prone to trivia like "U.S. rock band The Ataris also recorded a song on their 1999 album Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits called "San Dimas High School Football Rules" after a line taken from the movie." And here I see someone else didn't like the broom banner, so they just relabeled "Trivia" as "Legacy" and removed the bullets. Which, in my mind, looks way worse. David Bergan (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's use your example. Are the band and the movie notable? If so , is not the information relevant and significant to those interested in either, and since it is obviously sourcable, why is it not encyclopedic?DGG (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's encyclopedic... I'm with you on that. I like learning little fast facts like that when I read an article. I don't mind seeing them in a bulleted list in a section called trivia. But I also do see how it would look more professional if facts like that were worked into paragraph format (hence the guideline). I just think that there are so many freaking articles, many of which we are all apathetic towards, that it is ok to leave them in the basic trivia format and no need to smack the reader in the face with the trivia guideline (broom icon) template banner. Maybe we can just move the banner to the talk page... how about that for a compromise? David Bergan (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to just call you on this, but you clearly didn't look at the link I previously provided, (Template_talk:Trivia#Proposal_to_modify_or_move_template), as we just closed a discussion on November 10th about this exact issue. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concern here, but this is pretty much the same complaint about any given clean up tag that is shown on the article itself. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion

I was surprised by a sign "Trivia sections" in an article. Considering movies, trivia are very interesting. Simplicius 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Join the club pal.

• One flew over the cuckoos nest trivia
• The Big Lebowski trivia
• The Big Lebowski IPC

Ozmaweezer (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked Big Lebowski with Jeff Bridges.

The trivia section has been moved completely.

Well done... like a bullet through the brain.

Are there too many persons who miss a job as a concierge in their real lifes?

There is a reference to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines without more details. Did the users vote for that? Simplicius (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I like trivia sections. They make the articles more interesting. Ah, well... Maybe wikipedia will soon disappear under the weight of its own beaurocracy. I've heard other disappointing things about the way wikipedia is managed recently. Shame. It was nice while it lasted. --82.69.159.142 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are what make people flock to Wikipedia

...among other things. I'm aware others have expressed these same concerns/ideals- but I was quite surprised when I found a template urging users not to make trivia sections! Miscellaneous but equally interesting facts are verymuch sought after by people who are looking up casual research, and Wikipedia is a haven for these types of facts. I strongly oppose this template and would love for it to be removed. --Alegoo92 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're in luck, because removing these templates is extremely easy. All you need to do is find an acceptable way to integrate those items into the article proper, and you're set. This way people can read these fascinating facts in the proper context. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That, and I find the premise to be absurd to begin with. I think Alegoo92 is thinking of IMDb, not Wikipedia. With the exception of material usually blatantly ripped off from IMDb to begin with, most WP articles have no such trivia at all (though it has certainly been growing, granted). Alegoo92 may have come here looking for trivia, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that others have in large numbers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And at the same time, anyone could take the opposite stance and have just as much to back it up. I think it is clear that some people come here looking for trivia, just as some people think it is a plague that should be wiped off the face of Wikipedia. This is why the trivia sections should be eliminated, while the content in the trivia section should be integrated; then the information is judged on it's own merit as an individual fact, rather than having the merit of the fact compromised by the unfortunate "trivia" label. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 05:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agreed; I am not an "off the face of Wikipedia" type myself. I was simply responding to the outlandish claim that WP's popularity is due to trivia. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia's popularity is due to the fact that it's an extremely broad information source. Trivia sections may attract editors, though... but not necessarily the kinds of editors we need a ton more of. Mangojuice^talk 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to trivia template

Resolved

 – Moved elsewhere.

Moved to Template talk:Trivia#Proposal to modify or move template

Talking about "Guidance"

How about providing some? I know many are (rightfully, "of course") unnerved by Wikipedia's elitist "encyclopedic" standards, like "sourcing" material, "providing context" etcpp. But how about giving at least some actual advice in what is ostensibly a MOS guideline on how to handle trivia sections?

My suggestions would be to

1. strongly and unambiguously advise against the disjointed ADHD-induced bullet style, encourage users to actually "write" a cohesive "text body".
2. strongly and unambiguously advise against any addition of unsourced material, with a strong emphasis on secondary sources to provide context and demonstrate relevance.

Currently, this self-proclaimed "Manual of Style subguideline" only protects trivia sections. Enough is enough. I dorftrottel I talk I 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an unambiguous sourcing requirement in WP:V that covers all material. It's a bedrock policy so we can refer to it, but no need to duplicate it anywhere else. Articles can be weak for all kinds of reasons - bad organization and format are one of many failings. Many attacks on trivia and popular culture use sourcing and format as a pretext, which isn't useful. Trivia is not prohibited. In some contexts it's encyclopedic. If you don't like trivia you don't have to read it. Bullet pointed lists are good ideas sometimes, bad ideas other times. If you see an article where a list would be better presented as text or integrated into the article, or an article that's weak for any other reason. Why not improve the article? That's already accepted practice, nothing to say you shouldn't. That's what style guidelines are all about. Wikidemo (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't read trivia, except maybe so as to evaluate how much of it should be removed. But the poor state of many trivia sections impairs articles and by extension the professional appearance of the entire encyclopedia. Let me ask you in turn: If you're so fond of Trivia, why not found a separate Trivia wiki, or contribute to an existing one? I'm not here to talk about specific articles, but about clarifying this guideline so that it can serve its purpose of giving information and advice about best practice. Best practice in an encyclopedia is that bulleted lists of indiscriminate factoids are out of the question, particularly when they are unreferenced. Since all of those are frequently-occuring problems with Trivia sections, they need to be very prominently addressed in this guideline. In its current state, I don't see much use in this guideline at all. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:04, November 23, 2007

That's quite the discussion-chilling straw man argument. Who says I like trivia or that it's my job to clean it all up? I'm simply arguing the existing policy and guideline are fine and should not be changed to favor contentious deletion. Cleaning up articles is a shovel and pick-axe operation of actually jumping in the trench and editing. It won't be solved by massive blind deletion of content. Wikidemo (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. However, this guideline has been subject to much objection from fans of the disjointed ADHD-induced bullet style, many of whom insist that writing cohesive text is often impossible or exceedingly difficult. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what gave you the idea that only protects trivia sections, because the message of this guideline is that the content in trivia sections is better integrated into the rest of the article text, thereby eliminating the trivia section. Perhaps you have a problem with specific types of facts that are often found in trivia sections? But this would be confusing trivia facts with trivia sections. This guideline strictly deals with the formatting of content in trivia sections; it does not make a value judgment about the subject matter expressed by trivia type facts. There is also Wikipedia:Handling trivia, which provides some practical advice on how to deal with trivia; perhaps this is the sort of guideline type advice you have in mind? But since that is an essay, the only ideas that have reached consensus thus far are in this MOS guideline, and that is strict integration. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 09:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorftrottel, who is "alarmed" by the supposedly "elitist" stance that an encyclopedia should be verified with reliable sources (i.e. actually be an encyclopedia)? If you don't like these requirements, feel free to add unsourced trivia to IMDb or your blog. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... <irony>"I know many are (rightfully, "of course") unnerved by Wikipedia's elitist "encyclopedic" standards, like "sourcing" material, "providing context" etcpp."</irony> I dorftrottel I talk 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Irony noted; sorry, I misread you the first time. Glad I said that though, since there are people who think this way without irony. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dispute debate

Resolved

 – No consensus that the guideline status of this document is disputed by the community.

If anyone wants to demote this policy let me know

This page becoming a policy is based on:

• Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles/poll

Where 62% of the users, a mere 27 wikipedians, decided this page was to be a guideline for all of wikipedia.

I am not going to argue with the guardians of this page on the pros and cons of this guideline. Messages on my talk page defending this page will be cut and pasted here. Thank you.

If anyone wants to devote the time to demote this guideline let me know. Travb (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's a guideline, and there is no "demotion" process. Either it is a guideline or it isn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

I dispute this guideline is helping with the issue of how best to organise/handle Trivia sections. My proposal is to deprecate it entirely, or to extend it considerably with ideas collected e.g. in Wikipedia:Handling trivia. In its current state however, I don't see what purpose this guideline actually serves. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:45, November 23, 2007 10:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Some examples:

• "Trivia sections should be avoided, but if they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined."

• How is that to be determined? Is it supposed to be completely left at the individual user's discretion? Sounds like a 1A recipe for edit wars.

• "Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list."

• No comment.

• "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, as appropriate in text, list or table."

• I couldn't think of an alternative wording that would water this down.

• "Such sections should not be categorically removed: it may be possible to integrate some items into the article text."

• Why not advise to move unreferenced parts of the section to the talk page until they can be referenced?

• "It may be necessary to perform research to give each fact some context, or to add references when needed."

• May? When needed? - It is absolutely imperative! Everything needs to be referenced (with a reliable secondary source). And nobody needs to be told more urgent than the "novice contributors" mentioned earlier, who are welcomed by this guideline "to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation". Incredible.

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

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

• This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format.{{fact}}

• This guideline does not suggest omitting unimportant material. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not — only how it is organized.

• What can I say. This is the part I'm talking about when I say that this guideline appears to actually encourage already-far-too-widespread bad habits. This has obviously been written by representatives of the trivia crowd, and it does not in the least bit represent actual consensus about Wikipedia. The most idiotic part is "only how it is organized": It doesn't. This guideline does not address the issue of how trivia sections should be handled. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:37, November 23, 2007

I agree with you in that this guideline is too weak in saying what it needs to say. I've long believed that the most encyclopedic way to present the content is certainly not in a list of loosely related facts (which this guideline specifically covers). The language seems to have been softened over time and contains wordings that don't help people to know exactly what format the content should be in. However, I do believe that even in its weakened form, that this guideline should not be depreciated as it is still an important tool in informing and persuading people to use better formatting when working on the encyclopedia. The steps that should be taken are improvements to the guideline to give it clearer and more precise wording, without attempting to legislate for every possibility. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. To that end, I have now proposed merging WP:HTRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA, because the former provides far more and better actual advice. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:08, November 23, 2007 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Popular Culture section

The "Popular Culture" section should not be discouraged as it adds constructive information to its articles. Whether this section may be considered trivia or not, the information it conveys may be considered factual and notable. There is no reason to exclude this applicable content. --Alex rosenberg35 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In popular Culture (IPC) sections generally aren't covered by this guideline but often get tagged because they can look just like Trivia sections. My own personal advice to improve the section is to rewrite the section as prose, trying to avoid a list style. I don't believe it necessary to include every reference in popular culture, just the really notable ones. And of course, citations are very important. You can untag an IPC section as it's not discouraged, but if it resembles a Trivia section in format then it probably needs some clean up. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that list style ought to be able to do very well in many cases, but in practice in WP as it now exists i would strongly advise against it, for it will be much more likely to be challenged. Alas, the small body of zealots who think his material irrelevant will challenge paragraph-style content too, in the firm belief that only the bare facts about creative works are important, not what they say or what they mean. DGG (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel I should clarify some things.

Firstly, this guideline is about style, not content. There's nothing in here that implies notable content should not be included just because it's trivia, it just says how it would ideally be presented. Various people have tried to expand the scope of the guideline to include content, but they've usually run up against lack of support. See WP:ROC for an example of a related effort.

Secondly, this guideline does apply to IPC sections, as it is a guideline about lists of miscellaneous facts, irrespective of the section title. The guideline says that where possible they should be integrated into the prose of the article. My personal feeling is that some types of collections of facts are most appropriately presented in lists, but I gave up arguing that point a long time ago; the trivia that can't be integrated is usually left alone anyway, so this guideline doesn't affect it in any meaningful way. James pic (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

IPC or Cultural impact sections are not discouraged by this guideline. The content within it is focused on a single topic and with work they can be made into a decent section. What it shouldn't be is a list of every time the topic is mentioned in a song or on TV, etc. That is where the sections overlap with trivia sections in style. The problem is similar but the method of fixing it is quite different. With Trivia/Miscellanea/Etc. the content is integrated. with IPC/Cultural impact the content should be tidied. There is a difference between a list of miscellaneous facts and a list of references (though sometimes not much). As you said, people have tried to legislate relevance, but I prefer to leave it up to the editors. If an editor decides that it's not worth noting the cultural impact of the topic, or some references in a TV show are too trivial to mention then he can remove it. As usual, reliable secondary sources are the key. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Why Trivia Sections Are Discouraged

People I will keep this short, sweet and to the point. Can someone please enlighten me why trivia sections are discouraged, I have read many things about this on Wikipedia and I have seen no information yet why they have actually been discouraged. Can someone please explain. [[Seanor3 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Certainly. There are many reasons why trivia is discouraged on Wikipedia. Some of the major reasons are:

• Trivia can overwhelm an article with a large, unsorted list of facts that is often unreferenced and is usually not notable.
• Trivia sections can encourage casual editors to add yet more facts, leading to huge amounts (even 50+ pieces in some cases) of trivia.
• Generally, they are a bad way to present info.
• Trivia can be non-neutral because the editors generally are only interested in adding that one fact and don't really care about neutrality.

The debate over whether or not to allow trivia has been going on for a long time. Here is a page with more information about this ongoing debate: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture/Discussion

Hope this helps :) Johnred32 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And why they shouldn't be

And FYI, some possible answering arguments are:

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

• The answer to unsorted lists is to sort them (as well as possible). The answer to un-referenced trivia is to reference it. The answer to the idea that an article can be "overwhelmed" is made a little silly by the fact that there are 2 million articles in this encylopedia and it shows no sign of being "overwhelmed" yet. That's because Wikipedia is not paper.

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

• For the dangers of which, see above. Any such collection, if identified as "trivia," can be skipped in a few taps of a page-down key (see the lower right hand side of your keyboard) for those who have a congenital distaste for this kind of thing. On the contrary, it's where there is an attempt to follow the "guidelines" and integrate this less notable material with the rest of the article, which actually does harm by making it into something spread out, so that the hurried or uninterested reader is forced to skip over it bit-by-bit, in the course of reading the entire article (it's a little like demanding we spread out and integrate all info in the LEAD sections, so that people are forced to read the entire Wiki. Say what?). Note that absolute notability is in the mind of the beholder (which is why tossing this stuff entirely out usually fails), although there's more agreement on which things are more notable than others. So editors often agree on what-goes-where, more often than on whether it should be dispensed with entirely. Trivia sections are ways of warning people away from those things that are interesting to some, but (everybody agrees) are less-often mentioned, and less widely-known.

• Generally, they are a bad way to present info.

• Says who? It's actually the best way to present many types of things such as those just mentioned, as it allows almost everybody to be happy, including those who want to easily skip the trivia sections and all that's in them. The only people left unhappy are those who want to expunge certain less notable info entirely from Wikipedia (you know these people-- they are always tagging whole articles {AfD} because the subject, whatever it is, doesn't personally interest them). The Works-of-Aristotle-classicists battle the X-box-documenters and Trekkie-cruft-pushers regularly, here on Wikipedia, and their arguments are always lame. Due to the fact that there's actually room for all here, and non-paper pop-cultural stuff is one of the few things Wikipedia does especially well (for the rest, you can look at the Britannica).

  Properly labled trivia sections are rather like adult magazine racks: if you don't want to look, then don't look. But banning or censorship to stop it, is dumb. Put the trivia sections in the correct "trivia brown paper wrappers." It's like complaining that your neighbors are walking around nude inside their house, which you can see, officer, if you stand on this here chair, and use these here binoculars…

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

• A nonstarter, although it does appeal to a great Wikipedian religious scripture. The idea that the 2 million articles in just the English Wikipedia were created in some fit of non-neutrality, by tens or hundreds of thousands of unpaid editors who don't CARE about any of the subjects, and therefore can maintain neutrality about them, is one of the enduring myths. Our fearless Leaders said it, so it must be true. We have these lame edit wars because nobody cares? We have this entire project because people only care about project itself, and not about what's in it? I don't think so. Yet everyone is forced to pay lip service to this instance of the emperor having no clothes. However, it remains a fact that Wikipedia content continues to reflect the Wikiipedia editors' interests. So neutrality is nonsense. (And apologies for using the same nudist metaphor again, but it seems to fit so well to so much of this-- Bertrand Russell used to say that whoever first coined the phrase "the naked truth" had perceived an important connection, as nakedness is shocking to all right-minded people, and so is truth). SBHarris 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would reply to your "answering arguments" most generally by saying that there seems to be a gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia's core policies. To more specifically address your concerns, trivia sections are discouraged because it provides information in a confused, disorganized, contextless way. The kind of information that winds up in trivia sections is almost always better "sorted", as you suggested, but once it has been sorted, there is no longer any reason to keep the information in a section titled "Trivia", and this information is better presented in a section with a more narrowly defined scope. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that proper trivia is either dysorganized or contextless. First of all, it's related to the article topic (or else it doesn't belong and should be deleted), so that's the context. Second, it's organized into a "trivia" section, by definition! which puts people on notice that it's a collection of less notable connections (if they want to skip it) but interesting nevertheless. As for super-organizating within a trivia section so that you can off load all bits of it into section with a more narrowly defined scope, that's sometimes possible, and other-times a waste of headers and in still other cases it's a matter of merely finding another name for what is better named "Trivia related to topic X". Let me give you an analogy. Your "string drawer" may be labled "string," and inside it boxes labeled "orange," "blue", "red" etc. And you may have one box labeled by a different criterion even more important than color: "bits of string too short to use for most things" which contains strings of all colors, but grouped according to some characteristic which is more important. Now, inside that drawer, you may have short stings grouped together by color (notice that by putting related trivia bits next to each other you're grouping them also but without a header.) And if you have two short pieice of red string, it's even possible to create yet another narrowly-defined envelope for "short red strings" just because you now have two of them. That's getting a little anal-retentive for me. In theory, of course, you can create have headers and subheaders to define any set or class or group of two objects or more. But in practice, it's silly to do so. Most people are going to ignore or skip the short string box anyway, unless they like or need a short string. Then it's probably not large enough to need subsections. Yes, even if it contains a list of 50 bits of trivia. And if it does, then keep the Trivia header, and make subheaders inside. We all know what trivia IS. The fact that we can't call a thing by its more proper common name, or even organize it by that name, is very annoying. SBHarris 00:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that arguing by analogy necessarily means you are no longer making an argument about the thing itself, but a representation of what you think the thing is. I have integrated a significant number of trivia sections into the article proper (mostly before mid-November, when exam season struck), and more often than not, integration was achieved by integrating these items into existing sections rather than creating new sections. I challenge you to find an example in my contribution history where the article has not been significantly improved by the integration, and where the article would be better with those integrated items still contained in an indiscriminate trivia section. To make my point even further, I would challenge you to look at the current version of any article where I have integrated the trivia section, and try to guess which items were in the trivia section; I think you will find this incredibly difficult. The only reason an item appears to only fit in a trivia section is because the fact appears to be unrelated or incidental to the rest of the article. But by finding the proper context in which to present the fact, it ceases to be trivial, and instead becomes like any other fact in the article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Seanor, the reason trivia sections are discouraged can be summed up in one simple word: fear. It's the same reason marijuana is illegal in most countries, as it's deemed a "gateway drug", and we have commercials telling kids that if they use it they'll die -- or worse. Trivia sections are a gateway to poor articles. We fear that if they are present, they will grow, and we won't be able to control them. You see, when there's a medium under the control of basically no one but the entire public, there are those who care about it to the point that they would seek to control it, for they see no other way to regulate its quality. They distrust the public to make the best choices themselves and feel that a tight grip must be kept on the operation, lest the unprofessional public has their anarchistic way. To these kinds of people, identifiable potential sources of disarray are key, and must be quashed at all costs. This is why marijuana is illegal and this is why trivia sections are discouraged. They are both gateway drugs. Thank you.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:14, 12/20/2007

I friggin' love it Equazcion! Welcome back! Ozmaweezer (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Oz :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:02, 12/20/2007

Thank you all for your information, this has made this whole subject much clearer. Once again thanks Seanor3 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

SBHarris is right and that Penguin character is wrong. End of story. Game. set and match. Thank you linesmen. Thank you ballboys. Albatross2147 (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's helpful.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:38, 12/23/2007

I was thinking "hilarious" more than "helpful", but to each their own I suppose. But I think I've made my stance on trivia clear (formatting issue first, content issue second), and I see no point in belabouring these arguments, which in general, do little to help write good articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:34, 12/23/2007

Merge debate

Unresolved

 – Active proposal/discussion.

Proposal to merge with Wikipedia:Handling trivia

Wikipedia:Handling trivia presents the far more promising outline of a guideline. Almost nothing in this very short "guideline" actually addresses the issue at hand. I see this as the only viable way of maintaining this potentially very useful MOS subguideline. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:02, November 23, 2007 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I really don't see why you are disputing the status of this as a guideline. Yes, it doesn't say much, but it never has, that's part of the point, and part of why what it does say has generally been accepted. The point of this page has always been that having stuff organized in trivia sections is a bad idea, not to make specific judgements about what kind of trivia coverage Wikipedia should have. That said, as the one who rewrote WP:HTRIVIA to what it is now, I certainly believe all the advice there is good and would not oppose the merge; my only hesitation is the elevation of the essay content there to guideline status. (And note, this has been proposed several times before, at least a couple times by User:Radiant, but not much discussion was generated so it wasn't done). Mangojuice^talk 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Um. You're saying that this guideline is intentionally weak and short? I, for one, do not accept "advice" like e.g. "Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list." The aim of this guideline, the point in guidelines in general, is not to be popular, but to advise against popular bad stylistic judgement - such as using bullet-point style lists instead of cohesive text. Any advise implicitly contains judgments on various levels, that's not a good thing or bad thing, it's an inevitable fact. Besides, I don't see much here that would justify inclusion as a Manual of Style subguideline. But I'm open to arguments. What, in your opinion, are the best, say, three points of advice on the stylistic issue of trivia sections currently provided in this guideline?

Wrt the suggested merge: Obviously there would be a lot of fuzz and probably this thing would get watered down rather quickly again, but even so, I would give it a shot. However, this may entail forcing the notion that consensus is not a majority vote, and that not all arguments are the same, and that some arguments or points of view must be neglected as harmful for Wikipedia (the "advice" cited above is one example of what I mean). Some just don't understand and accept the importance of encyclopedic standards, and of mutual education towards those standards. But the input of such people should be given due weight when determining consensus. May be problematic, may be impossible. But I'm through beating around the bush on this. I'm willing to compromise, but I want to give it a serious shot. Otherwise, it would be like the haggling scene from Life of Brian. There's useful trivia. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:24, November 23, 2007 17:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Best three? There is only one point: avoid having trivia sections/lists, because material should be organized and presented in context. But I don't think there are questions of whether or not the guideline has acceptance because of your points, but they may need addressing through some edits. There is a difference between disputing the page's text and disputing its status, which is what you've done. Mangojuice^talk 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I argue a complete rewrite, not just some cautios edits. I do that because experience tells me that anything that might be construed as critical of trivia collections will be contested. Also, short of a major rewrite with the aim to turn this into an actual manual of style guideline, I do indeed dispute its status. I dorftrottel I talk I 20:35, November 23, 2007

Let me put it another way: you said the guideline should be deprecated if it can't be strengthened. Why? I see no reason to conclude that -- surely, better to have one principle that we can all mostly agree on than to have several principles we can't agree on, or to not distinguish them. Perhaps you should tag WP:HTRIV as a proposal and see if there is consensus to elevate it to a guideline instead. Mangojuice^talk 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The probability of WP:HTRIV becoming a guideline is even smaller than that of successfully working on this one, taking into consideration the amount of clumsy wikilawyering and lack of real arguments I've encountered so far. Let me ask in return: What are your arguments against merging the pages? What are you arguments against doing considerable work on this guideline? I dorftrottel I talk I 02:27, November 24, 2007

I have no argument against either one. I have a strong objection to marking this page "disputed" as if its acceptance is in question, however. Since you have still not made any argument that there might be the remotest reason to deprecate this guideline, I am removing the "disputed" tag. (Actually, I note Wikidemo has already removed it.) Mangojuice^talk 05:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the way of actual stylistic advice in the guideline, that's why and how I think it cannot in its current state serve its intended purpose. The basic message I derive is that someone who is adding unsourced info into a bullet-point list is doing nothing wrong. Why tell people that in a guideline? They do it anyway. We certainly don't need a style guideline for that. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:48, November 24, 2007

Support merge, with conditions: I must admit that in the past few days, I myself have also been considering a similar merge, and I was trying to construct some arguments to support a merge. When I look at the content on WP:HTRIV (especially since I have been modifying it's message slightly in the past week or so), much of the content on HTRIV is really related to the practical solution of integrating trivia, and integrating trivia is the main message from this article, so why not make a serious attempt to consolidate the information and retain the same stylistic message of WP:TRIV? That said, I would only support a merge if the conjoined article clearly presented the following facts straight up, with no modifications:

• There should be a clear distinction between trivia sections (which are lists of disassociated facts) and trivia facts themselves (which are the content of said lists). Trivia facts, while sometimes problematic, are only considered "trivia" in the absence of context (context which can be provided by integrating the facts) and trivia sections are bad because they provide an arena for facts to be added which is virtually contextless (aside from being read in the context of a particular article)
• The guideline should make no value judgments about the quality of individual trivia facts; some facts may be more encylopedic than others, but this is up to the digressions of individual editors, not some far reaching guideline.
• This guideline does not attempt to be explicit about "the right way" to integrate trivia sections. Every article is a beautiful and unique snowflake, and every case must be considered individually on it's own. Giving too much advice can be dangerous, especially when it is taken out of context, and I think this is part of the current minimalist presentation on this page.
• The guideline reflects the idea that information is better poorly presented than not presented at all: no one should go around wildly deleting trivia sections, and if no one wants to integrate the section, fine, but it must just be left alone. No exceptions. I will not let this guideline turn into some tool used to justify the deletion of content that could otherwise be acceptable if it was just presented in a different way.
• Trivia sections are not explicitly banned. It is good to have a simple way to get content into an article, even if it presents it in an extremely poor way. But there should be a distinction between the functional purpose of a trivia section in a stub and in a FA; there are more opportunities to integrate trivia in an FA, and thus the longer/higher quality the article, the more important/easier/likely it is to integrate the trivia section.
• The problems of verifiability are directly irrelevant to the trivia guideline: much of the content on Wikipedia lacks a source (although one can often be found), but in these cases the information is often not moved to the talk page. Trivia facts are like any other fact, and they should not be moved to the talk page because they are "trivia" and "unsourced", it should be because they are "questionable" and "unsourced". Other guidelines are concerned with issues of verification, and I don't see how turning this into some sort of super guideline would be helpful; lets make sure we're keeping our issues and our criteria for removal seperate.

Anyways, that's what I can think of off the top of my head. I am certainly open to discussion, but I think that these points are absolutely imperative and must be kept if a merge would take place. Feel free to change my opinion on any of them, but again, right now I see these points as essential and tantamount. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me reply by point.

• Re: distinction between sections and factoids. This may not be so easy to integrate in the guideline, but it's certainly worth a shot. However, I think this distinction is that betweem form of presentation and content. In the case of trivia sections, the main problem as you correctly say, is that bad form (:=trivia section) invites bad content.
• The guideline obviously can't make or even imply any judgment about individual trivia. Whether or those are indeed "facts" as you say is indeed far too much of a judgment and depends on the citing of reliable secondary sources — which should indeed be mentioned in the guideline, so as to give users interested in improving trivia sections (or whatever they are called in different articles) the best advice. Imo, one word we could use to avoid such a judgment is factoids, rather than "fact".
• Re: "the right way" to integrate trivia. Disagree on the basis that there are indeed some basic truths, like cohesive text is generally preferred over a bulleted list. That's almost always true, and in light of the fact that bulleted lists are a far too widespread plague, this guideline can and should e.g. unambiguously advise towards proper article writing.
• Re: information is better poorly presented than not presented at all. Absolutely wrong, sorry. The reason this guideline must take a stance against indiscriminate factoid collections is that there already is far too much in the way of unreferenced, unsorted trivia mess. Look: I have no hope at all that this problem can be handled even with the toughest stance. But this guideline simply must not be abused in order to protect already-widespread bad editing habits. The fact that it's almost always a similar crowd that argues for this kind of weak guidelines (ok, granted, as well as against) clearly demonstrates the value of consensus currently presented in the guideline: None.
• Re: Trivia sections are not explicitly banned. No one argues they should be. However, how simple can it get to contribute? We're a wiki. Beyond that, we happen to also be an encyclopedia, and that means while adding material is very easy, just like it's supposed to be, there most certainly are criteria that need to be fulfilled. One of those is relevance with regard to the article's subject. Most trivia gets stuck in trivia sections precisely because it has very low relevance for the article's subject. People just throw it in. That's not a good thing. It's good that they can, may and are invited to just edit, but simply throwing a factoid in without caring about relevance, and context, and professional appearance of the article, is not.
• Re: The problems of verifiability are directly irrelevant to the trivia guideline. Um, I assume you're just kidding here, right? Your line of reasoning, in case you didn't notice is that "because much of our content lacks a source (actually, I'd like to see a source for that...), trivia factoids need no sources". Trivia factoids are exactly not like any other part of the article text. Seriously, how can you even use the word "fact" in the same sentence as "it needs no source"? Wrong project, sorry. Mentioning and linking to all applicable content policies is a simple matter of convenience and of providing the best possible advice to users interested in working on trivia material. Trivia factoids are most certainly not exempt from proper referencing! Quite the contrary: The fact that they are isolated tidbits rather than embedded in the context of cohesive prose means that every single of those factoids needs a reliable secondary source to establish relevance for the article's subject.

I dorftrottel I talk I 20:28, November 23, 2007

• With regards to the first point, I think the current HTRIV article makes this distinction clear enough in the first two sections (Should trivia be allowed? and Different types of trivia), and so long as this content is kept relatively in tact, I should have no issue with that.
• A fact is either true, or it isn't. However, a "factoid" actually means something different than what you believe, since (according to wikipedia) "A factoid is a spurious (unverified, incorrect, or invented) "fact" intended to create or prolong public exposure or to manipulate public opinion." I think using that word would be a big step backwards. However, my general worry is that by consolidating the two articles, editors would get the mistaken impression that WP:TRIV is a guideline about what kinds of facts are relevant to wikipedia; if I'm not mistaken, there has been an attempt to do this in Wikipedia:Relevance of content, and even though it is still "in the works" I would like to keep this a seperate issue for the time being.
• I agree, there are some overarching suggestions, but I would be hesitant to call them "truths". Every article has a different scope/topic/method of presenting information, and again, general advice is good. But if advice gets too specific on certain issues, it is more easily taken out of context. I will only support a merge that focus on the spirit of the issue, not on the letters that make up the guideline. Again, this is a surmountable problem.
• Issue about poorly presented versus not presented: I think this is perhaps the real issue that needs to be discussed. Rather than specifically address it right now, I think my view will become more clear as I address your last points.
• This is a wiki and as such it is "easy" to contribute, I agree, but how can you successfully add new content to an article with little or no existing content, and add it in a way that makes it contextually relevant? Certainly there are ways, but in general I think trivia sections are valuable because they present information in a consistent way, such that particular rules can be applied to "fix" the problem at a later time, but in the mean time the information can still be presented to an audience. This is why I think trivia sections are "valuable", because it provides people who know only a little about SubjectX to improve the coverage by adding information, and then another editor can come later an integrate these trivia facts, thereby further improving the article. It would be nice if it could all "get done right the first time", but in reality that just doesn't happen, and poor contributions are easier to improve than nonexistent contributions. I can't add content to an article unless I know facts about the subject, but I can help improve the article by moving content around, and by creating new sections with narrower focus, I can lay a foundation on which other editors can improve and build. Thus, I see trivia sections as a temporary and transitory means to a definite end, which would be FA status or something like that.
• Again, you focus on the word factoid, which does not mean what you think it means. I also think you misunderstood my point, as you seem to be attacking the position you believe I hold, (When did I use the word "fact" in the same sentence as "it needs no source"? I suspect you just made that up to discredit me), so I will try to make my position clearer. When I say that "much of the content on Wikipedia lacks a source" I mean to say that there are many individual sentences on Wikipedia that do not have a source after the period, and past practice seems to have shown me that that alone is not grounds for removing content. And by no means do I think that trivia type content is exempt from needing a source, as nothing could be further from my view, but I do want to say that sourcing is a general problem with wikipedia, not something exclusive to trivia, and I don't see a good justification (as of yet) to warrant being especially harsh with the sourcing issue on whatever people believe to be a "trivia type fact". Of course we should link to the relevant policies about verifiability, it would be foolishness not to, but again, if you want to merge these pages then I do not want to see "verifiability" creep in as a justification for the categorical removal of trivia type content. This is my over arching concern, that by taking this path, we are encouraging editors to start deleting wildly. This may be an unfounded worry, and I may be looking into my own crystal ball, but I am only expressing my concerns about the merger.

Cheers, --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge: I proposed this myself some time ago. We do not need multiple different guidelines and such giving advice on the same topic, especially where that vice either is inconsistent or is easy to misinterpret as inconsistent. Agree with Dorftrottel strongly that there is no magical WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NPOV exception for trivia. Mangojuice provides us with perhaps the perfect {{Nutshell}} for the merged piece: "Avoid having trivia sections/lists, because material should be organized and presented in context." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no real dispute. The guideline has consensus, and is often discussed. If you believe the guideline should be changed or merged you're willing to try to try to find a change in consensus, but marking guidelines as disputed or insisting that established guidelines have no consensus isn't the way to go. The positions advanced here do have some occasional supporters but they're unrealistic, and I don't think you'll find wide support. It's unlikely that people will go for a blanket ban on lists or bulleted lists, deleting information from articles simply because the format or presentation is poor, or treating content seen as trivia to a higher standard vis-a-vis verifiability. Unreferenced information is not deleted on sight on Wikipedia. That's a strange argument that is simply not in line with reasonable editing practices or the way things work here. All of that makes a nice essay or rhetorical hyperbole, but the few times anyone actually tries to make a WP:POINT of deleting content to prove it we get massive disruption, tempers flare, users get blocked or leave in anger, the pages of the administrative noticeboard and arbitration fill up, and admins get de-sysopped. On an article-by-article basis, the people editing the article can and should clean things up and make it the best article possible. That often means integrating trivia and other sections presented out of context, and it may or may not mean insisting on secondary sources before someone adds anything new. But dive bombing articles from afar to delete content or changing rules to encourage that others do that just doesn't work. Wikidemo (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I oppose merging Wikipedia:Handling trivia into this article or vice-versa. That essay does not have consensus, and a merge proposal looks like a trojan horse to change the standards. Trivia is not a wonderful thing on Wikipedia, but deletionism and content wars over WP:IDONTLIKEIT campaigns are a far worse problem. We have a lot of cruft here, and an elitist backlash against popular culture and lowbrow, and when the two sides do battle in article space they both lay waste to consensus, incremental article improvements, civility, and everything else that makes Wikipedia work. Wikidemo (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for weighing the fact that you're on the opposite side of the table here. I view your comments primarily in that light. No one argues "forbidding" bulleted lists, this is after all a guideline, not policy. No one argues blanket deletion, that's just your perception. No one argues trating trivia to a higher standard, the same standard does however apply to all content. Moreoever, there may be no other issue where content and style are less seperable. "Unreferenced information is not deleted on sight on Wikipedia." - No one argues it, your perception. "All of that makes a nice essay or rhetorical hyperbole, but the few times anyone actually tries to make a WP:POINT of deleting content to prove it we get massive disruption, tempers flare, users get blocked or leave in anger, the pages of the administrative noticeboard and arbitration fill up, and admins get de-sysopped." - take a deep breath, I'm not a threat, I'm merely intentioned to help improve this guideline. "On an article-by-article basis, the people editing the article can and should clean things up and make it the best article possible." - Untrue, in most cases the opposite happens: People keep adding irrelevant stuff. "That often means integrating trivia and other sections presented out of context, and it may or may not mean insisting on secondary sources before someone adds anything new." - You're arguing against policy here, policy requires secondary sources. Also: "dive bombing"? Please drop the rhetoric, that's not gonna fly. The only thing around that's trying to subvert standards is this guideline in its current state. And maybe some users who don't appreciate encyclopedic standards. I dorftrottel I talk I 22:24, November 23, 2007

Please don't lay out conditions for how I may argue policy. I'm not on the other side of the table. I don't like trivia and I have rarely added new content to Wikipedia that anyone could consider trivia. I simply don't like deletionism or other unnecessary disruption. The job in front of us is to build a good encyclopedia, not to tear down everything that doesn't suit our fancy. Perhaps you were not around for the User:Burntsauce episode. I believe ArbCom, and most people who witnessed that fiasco shared the same "perception" that summary deletion of article sections on claim that they are trivia is disruptive to the point of a behavioral violation. The guideline is legitimate. If you can't see how it is a fair interpretation of policy you're free to argue otherwise. As I said, I don't think you'll find consensus for that but that's certainly a legitimate claim to make as part of a consensus discussion. You seem to misunderstand verifiability policy, which is pretty fundamental. It is not necessary to add citations when adding material. Reread WP:V if you don't get that. Also, using verifiability as a pretext to challenge content when the issue is that one simply does not like is considered wikigaming, and is disruptive. Wikidemo (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo: I agree that WP:HTRIV, as it is marked as an essay, does not enjoy the kind of consensus that this guideline does. But can you look over the WP:HTRIV text and answer the following: (1) would you have reservations adopting WP:HTRIV as a guideline, if it was up to just you? And (2) are there any specific parts of WP:HTRIV that you think are not generally supported? I appreciate your argument about the elitist backlash, but I don't think we're standing against the backlash by not merging, and having some sensible, moderate advice might be more helpful. Mangojuice^talk 01:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, would you personally propose making WP:HTRIV a guideline then? I know I wouldn't even bother to, so I certainly hope you are not trying to turn this into something like "merging is difficult, this guideline currently has consensus, so why don't you try proposing to make WP:HTRIV a guideline? Good luck, and don't let the door hit you on your way out"-kind of thing. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:34, November 24, 2007 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in exploring to see if there might be consensus behind WP:HTRIV: I like WP:HTRIV. As for the rest of your comment, tone it down, you aren't being productive. IMO, this merge has been proposed many times but discussion have never gotten to the point where consensus was even really explored on the issue. Mangojuice^talk 05:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe I'm a bit disillusioned when it comes to dealing with people who appear to defend a suboptimal status quo. Or I'm just a bit quick to get the impression that's what people do. Not sure, but WP's intertia surely sucks at times. However, I'm not the only one who could tone down their comments and thereby state their points more effectively, I'm sure of that much. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:48, November 24, 2007

I think there are only two sentences that could be thought to have general acceptance as a guideline:

Accumulation of material in sections of miscellaneous or trivia is discouraged; it is preferred to integrate as much of their contents as possible into the main article. Entire articles of such content are usually inappropriate, and the material should be rearranged or relabeled in a more useful manner." and possibly a third: "there is no single type of material, such as biographic details or cultural references, that necessarily falls into this category." (not emphasising the exact wording, which I do not claim is optimal, but the three concepts.)

I think there is in general an advantage in keeping the material in the essay separate and out of a guideline--though I agree with almost everything there, I am not sure it has the general acceptance for a guideline. I think this holds whatever ones attitude on the general quality of the existing material, or the possibilities for its improvement. DGG (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I Support the merge, though I share some of the concerns of nickpenguin above with how it should be done. I think this guideline needs to attack exactly what the problem is: Trivia sections that contain largely un-sourced facts in a loosely related list (usually the only relation is that they're the same topic as the article). As the guideline is specific to Trivia sections and other sections that share their properties, I think it's these properties that need to be listed in the guideline with clear reasoning why they're poor and why they're need to change. The other policies that exist which backup this guideline need to be mentioned within the instructions on dealing with trivia sections.

Personally I have a 5 step process for dealing with trivia. Each step relates to a single bullet point of information in a trivia section.

1. If the information doesn't have a source, and one one can't be found if searched for*, remove it.
2. If the information is related to the content of another section, move it to that section.
3. If no relevant section exists, but is a section that should exist (e.g. casting for a movie page), create it and move the text there.
4. If the information belongs on another page. Move it there (then use step 2 and 3).
5. If the information is not beneficial to the article, then remove it whether it's sourced or not.

*searching is not always important. It's up to the person who added the info to include a source.

Nick's first point above is important. I think attempts in the past to disassociate this guideline from making decisions on content have ended up as don't delete the content if you can't integrate it. It needs to be clearly said that some content in trivia sections will need to be removed from the article if it is not right for an encyclopedia. This is a truth about Wikipedia, independent of what type of section is being edited. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably needless to say, I agree with all of your points and I think your 5 step process —although too specific to put into any guideline like that— follow exactly those basic notions of proper editorial conduct I would like to see outlined and recommended in this guideline. For the sake of consensus, I'd be willing to go even one step further on what forms your first point: Although it's true that the "burden of evidence" is with the user who wants to include material, I always believed doing a 5 minute round of googling for a suitable reference never hurts, and I'd be all for mentioning something to that effect. Not making it mandatory either, but recommending it, as a matter of (promoting) common sense and fair play. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:00, November 24, 2007

I like those 5 steps just fine; I was under the impression they were all encapsulated within the Guidance section of this guideline already, though it could be thrown into sharper relief, has you have done above.

As it stands, the guideline already says "Some entries may be speculative, or factually incorrect, and should be removed; others, such as "how-to" material, may fall outside Wikipedia's content scope policies" and "Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all", so I don't think it's lacking the advice that "some content in trivia sections will need to be removed from the article if it is not right for an encyclopedia". "Don't delete the content if you can't integrate it" doesn't necessarily contradict any of the previous advice (or your five steps); there are times when there's perfectly appropriate information in a trivia section that's not so easy to integrate, and the answer in that case is leave it in the trivia section until the article matures to the point where there's a spot for it elsewhere.

The advice in the guideline could leap out at the reader better, but I don't see how it is wrong or even necessarily incomplete.--Father Goose (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Although BillPP's 5 steps to integration may already be implicit in other points, sometimes it is better to lay it out straight up, and just tell it like it is. Regardless of the status of the merge, I think it would be a good idea to revisit the messages in TRIV and HTRIV and make sure they're getting the ideas across clearly. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some content anywhere needs to be removed from WP, and while trivia sections are no exception to this, I dont actually think they're the biggest problem, nor do I think it needs to be stated here. This is especially true given the confusion about primary sources at WP:OR. Most so called unsourced trivia is obviously sourced by the content of the work in question. If we actually started removing unsourced material from the encyclopedia, there might be a very small amount of content remaining of a great many subjects. So I think step 1. can be used inappropriately. Step 5, "not helpful to the encyclopedia" is also not much of a guideline--it can mean anything--just see any of the relevant AfDs. The middle three steps--find a section if possible, make a section if appropriate, find another page if there's a better place--are not only correct but totally uncontroversial with respect to any content anywhere. So I dont think of this as actually dealing with any of he real issues.DGG (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What are the real issues then, iyo? I dorftrottel I talk I 04:16, November 25, 2007

That's a good point about #1 -- Wikipedia still has fairly muddled guidance for what should be uncontroversial uses of primary sources. There are plenty of cases where our information should come from primary sources instead of secondary sources, but a lot of people are treating "reliable source" and "secondary source" as synonymous. It's not the type of source but how it's used that is important.

Another good point about #5. Months ago, I had a problem with "some trivia is especially irrelevant and should be removed" because "relevance" is totally subjective, and this essentially says to the reader "delete according to your tastes". "Beneficial to the article" is, if anything, even more subjective, and even more problematic.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Only a secondary source can establish relevance for the article subject. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:04, November 25, 2007

According to Wikipedia:Relevance, it's not so subjective; it is "relevant" if it passes WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:TRIVIA. Not sure I 100% agree with that definition, but it's apparently been around for a while in one form or another (early versions actually enter the bubbling pot that eventually became WP:N). Anyway, much of what is done in WP on the editorial side is subjective to one level or another. We should not be afraid to use plain English just because someone might be able to WP:LAWYER about it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's all messed up. The proposed WP:RELEVANCE guideline does not have a single correct statement in it. Relevance is entirely a matter of editorial judgment and is not established by sourcing. It has little or nothing to do with NPOV or weight concerns. You don't write an article that looks like X is a Y (cite)| X did Z (cite) | The preceding statement that X did Z is relevant to the notability of X (cite) so it may be included in the article. Notability the threshold for having an article on a given subject, not the threshold for including content in an article. Wikidemo (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Importance-sect more helpfully links to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, which does go into relevance a bit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some good points. #1 could be used to remove things using primary sources, but it's up to the editors of the article to open a discussion if one person wants to remove something and another person doesn't. Primary sources are sources so there is a possibility of keeping that information in the right circumstances. If somebody removes an unsourced item, then another editor argues that it's a primary source, which is then argued that it's drawing an original conclusion. That's when other policies and guidelines come into play. This guideline should not attempt to address that, but a basic rule of editing Wikipedia is that if the information cannot be verified, then it can be removed from the encyclopedia. The discussions that precede or follow the removal are not within the scope of this guideline.

Also Yes, terms like beneficial, relevance, usefulness and necessary are all subjective. In the end it comes down to the editor and the policies he's influenced by. This guideline shouldn't attempt to define these words, merely use them in the context of editing Wikipedia. This guideline should not be cited by editors to make decisions on acceptable content, just format.

What this guideline should do is offer some clear advice on how to attack the section and improve the article. It needs to give advice on the basics of integration, how to look at each point, creating stub sections from the info etc. Some of this information is already in the guideline, but more help would be very useful. The Suggested headings section in HTRIVIA for example. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree, again. Imo such advice should be formulated in terms of a flexible common sense approach as based on the basic tenets of WP. Also, people are apparently interested in Wikipedia as a resource for trivia to one extent or another, so the desired general approach is definitely not to aggressively remove trivia, but to improve the article by integrating into existing or expanding into new sections. At the same time, I still believe that content and style are hardly seperable in the case of trivia sections, e.g. when dealing with questions like "trivia" vs "in popular culture" et.al. I dorftrottel I talk I 20:17, November 26, 2007

• (Outdent) For heaven's sake, merge them. MOS is far too disparate and needs greater centralised coordination—by the contributors here, for example, not in two places. Tony (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant to support a merge simply for the sake of preventing people from disputing/confusing the style advice when they disagree with the content advice. -- Ned Scott 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What content advice? Mostly, WP:HTRIV is about how to reorganize trivia lists. It treats the appropriateness of content issue the same way this guideline does. Mangojuice^talk 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tonight, on a lark, I decided to try and merge the two pages and see what I got. I didn't expect it to be so difficult, because I thought they just echoed the same message, but they do have different takes on the issue. WP:TRIV basically finishes when it starts: avoid miscellaneous lists and integrate existing sections, trivia sections are accepted but not welcomed. Then the rest of the guidelines is basically saying what it is not, distancing itself from the issue about notability and relevance criteria, and refers the reader to other policies. WP:HTRIV on the other hand makes distinctions about different types of trivia (connective and stand alone) and makes some implications about the relevance of connective trivia in certain articles. And then with just a little bit of twisting, you've got yourself a subjective criteria for deletion. I'm starting to think this would be less like a "merge" and more of a "complete rewrite". --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

did you mean subjective or non-subjective ? DGG (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

DGG, if you were asking to me, then I did mean subjective. By introducing this vague uncertain distinction between connective and standalone trivia and what constitutes "good" connective trivia, then all IPC articles, sections, and really any piece of connective trivia is ripe for the "Delete Content not relevant, per WP:TRIV" type arguments. I am not certain this is a good direction to take this guideline in, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that trying to find an objective standard here is impossible, and that we might as well say its subjective, which will at least discourage people from being too rigid about it one way or another. DGG (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If "legislated" at all, those issues should be handled by something like WP:REL (though not necessarily WP:REL itself). I am agnostic at this time about whether we should be trying to legislate "relevance", via WP:REL or any other page. Relevance is the kind of issue, like you point out, that is easy to abuse.--Father Goose (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance is a matter of NPOV, more specifically of due weight, where it says: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I dorftrottel I talk I 11:49, November 30, 2007

None of that is necesarily a matter of neutrality instead of just good organization and formatting, though all of it is good advice. And whether you call it "due weight" or "relevance", it's still a judgement call.--Father Goose 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Never said it isn't. But it's part of our most important policy, so I think it should be given due weight in this guideline. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:02, November 30, 2007

Nothing inherently wrong with a complete rewrite. Often very useful (compare WP:WSS/NG today with what it was like before I rewrote it from the ground up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Should "relevance of content" be an issue in this guideline?

Since everyone is thinking about it (and it is growing increasingly difficult to scroll down this exceptionally long thread) perhaps we can have a more narrow and focused discussion on this issue, for it seems to be the major point that this merge would depend on. So, should this guideline contain criteria for inclusion/removal/relevance of content, and if so, how should this information be presented? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

trivial as trivia can

However this is going to proceed, I felt I had to express my concerns over over-relaxed guidelines with regard to senseless addition of trivia. I thought a user essay page with diffs of the most ludicrous injections would be nice, so I created one. I dorftrottel I talk I 14:27, November 30, 2007

Your two examples there are not the "fault" of this guideline; the first was removed immediately as little more than vandalism or just general stupidity, and with the second, its advocate tried to wikilawyer this guideline as supporting it, but the third opinion you brought in correctly zapped it for being "tangential", per this guideline.

You seem to want a guideline that says "trivia is not permitted" straight up, but that's a minority position. Evaluation and integration may be painstaking, but it's the most constructive approach to the problem. I rebuff attempts to legislate impatience.--Father Goose 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"but the third opinion you brought in correctly zapped it for being "tangential" ? The second example isn't mine btw.[1] I dorftrottel I talk I 22:58, November 30, 2007

For clarity's sake, WP:3O zapped the 2nd example for being

a totally extraneous, un-called-for inclusion which adds nothing to understanding of the subject....and essentially a "trivia list" of one item.[2]

In other words, it was removed for being trivial in content. WP:TRIVIA was cited in that discussion as saying since this information was "integrated into the article" and not a bullet list, it could stay. I don't believe this editor thought he was misrepresenting this guideline; at any rate, his interpretation was consistent with the weakening of guidelines that editors who defend trivia are effecting. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

100% with you on this one. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:29, December 1, 2007

The sentence that immediately follows that is

The information is not "integrated into the article", nor could it be, since it has only tangential relevance to the article.

It seems unlikely to me that the person who offered the third opinion would choose those particular words if they did not intend them as a paraphrase of the sentence "Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all" from this guideline.

As for "weakening of guidelines", that's a rather lopsided characterization of the issue. Guidelines that do not represent a consensus position on an issue are subject to being fixed, not "weakened".--Father Goose 08:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a popularity contest either. Guidelines should be developed to move articles in the direction of encyclopedic quality. dorftrottel's concern as stated asks what is best for article quality, presumably with the goal of establishing a WP:CONSENSUS. Arguing about the presence and nature of an existing consensus is a distraction in this discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose said it well. Trivia is a divisive issue, with people on both sides complaining that the guidelines don't support their viewpoint - but to me that's a sign that it's an effective compromise. We can't establish consensus with a guideline that only satisfies one camp. Dcoetzee 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to establish consensus with a subpage of my userspace... I dorftrottel I talk I 22:58, November 30, 2007

We all seem to be spinning our wheels and filling up archive after archive of discussion about trivia. We need to compromise. I thought that's what this project would accomplish. Instead we keep rehashing the same arguments for and against over and over...and over. I'm assuming we all recognize this to be true. So what is the solution? What is the compromise? One definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. There is hope...isn't there? Ozmaweezer 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends. There is imo a potential difference between sane reasoning that leads to a viable mid- or long-term compromise (also known as "consensus") and a suboptimal status quo which some appear to be defending in a somewhat overzealous effort, fueled by the fear that "the other side" may be too overzealous to push in the opposite direction.

What made me post here in the first place is the fact that, while I'm perfectly willing to compromise, the current state of this guideline is simply too far off for my taste, and others have more or less echoed my concerns in their comments. So, it's the "current status quo defenders'" turn to come around and recognise that those concerns are not posted here with the aim of eradicating all trivia or anything like that.

One major point I have already stressed above and feel hasn't been sufficiently addressed up until now is that a strict seperation of content and form (or "style") is not really possible here (or anywhere, in my opinion), and that this must be taken into due consideration when making any major changes to the guideline. It's of course difficult to find a working compromise and especially a non-gameable wording, simply because common-sense oriented "middle-ground advice" can more easily be construed as a wild-card to do just about anything, leading to yet more heat and noise. But I believe we can do it together — and only together! Heaven forbid I were to rewrite this guideline on my own! I know that I have a strong bias against what I perceive as "conceding ground to mediocrity", but I freely admit that (and the fact that it's a shortcoming on my part), and that's a good way to enter fruitful discussion imo. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:11, December 1, 2007

I'd say this guideline in its current form is a surprisingly good and functional compromise on a rather divisive issue. It doesn't compromise enough in the direction of your views on the matter, perhaps. I've seen others argue against it in its present form as being too "anti-trivia".

I personally don't want to concede ground to mediocrity either -- I expect no one here does. I see the battle over trivia and this guideline as an immediatism-eventualism rift more than anything; a question of whether we're willing to tolerate some mediocrity in the short term so as to allow our coverage to be more comprehensive in the long term, vs. removing everything that "looks unprofessional" right away.--Father Goose 08:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside like reading genius civilized discussion about a hot wikipedia topic. You guys are brilliant. Onward! I'm not quite sure what the current status quo is for trivia. Is it the constant battle of adding and deleting it from articles? Is it a zero tolerance policy? Is it the fact that there really is no consensus? What do you mean by the current status quo? Ozmaweezer 12:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Barking up the wrong tree (or not)

WP:TRIVIA is currently a guideline, WP:HTRIVIA currently is an essay. Merging the two is thus currently out of the question, at least: that was why previous attempts in this sense failed.

Although WP:HTRIVIA is currently in a deplorable state (I mean, really, really deplorable - has anybody looked at the page recently?) I wouldn't hesitate a sec to move it up to guideline status. But that should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia, not here: that's why this is barking up the wrong tree.

Once WP:HTRIVIA is a guideline I think at least two options are possible:

• Keep WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA separate: the first as a style guideline (Category:Wikipedia style guidelines), the second as a content guideline (Category:Wikipedia content guidelines). The content guideline as a companion to content policies (e.g. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, etc.) and (other) notability-related guidance
• Merge them, resulting in a guideline (Category:Wikipedia guidelines) that speaks both about content and style.

(PS: I'm not talking here about some renaming or recasting of redirects that should take place in either option, because the discussion of such renaming/recasting of redirects would be premature) --Francis Schonken 11:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no real preference about these options (to be decided in a later stage anyhow, if we ever get to that point). --Francis Schonken 11:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See some of my comments above. I think one very important point is that content and form cannot possibly be kept seperate, and I also think keeping up that delusional demarcation at all costs is detrimental to the effort of producing a useful guideline. As to "wrong place": No, there's the merge tags on top of both pages, and both link to this talk page as matter of having a centralised discussion about it. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:17, December 1, 2007

Agree with "content and form cannot possibly be kept seperate". But that hasn't kept Wikipedia from developing a Manual of Style (with several subpages) on the one side, and several content policies and guidelines on the other. E.g. WP:CITE is more or less the style guide linked to WP:V. The first is primarily about style, the second primarily about content, and indeed they can't be really separated from one another, they are closely interlinked. But that is not the same as saying they couldn't be on separate pages. They are, it works fine, and I agree to that.

Disagree with your other point: the merge tags don't solve that you failed to advert the intention to upgrade WP:HTRIVIA to guideline on the WP:HTRIVIA page (and its talk page). That's exactly why the previous attempt failed. People argued that was a sneeky attempt to upgrade WP:HTRIVIA to guideline, when it appeared that at the time no consensus could be found to upgrade it to guideline on the talk page of that essay (or "guideline proposal"). (note: Wikipedia:Trivia hadn't been moved to WP:HTRIVIA yet at the time - it was moved on 2 May 2007). --Francis Schonken 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"...it works fine..." — this is the point where our opinions diverge. I do not intend to upgrade HTRIVIA to guideline. Why don't I? Easy: Because it'd be far easier to refute and defend the status quo than it already is here with the merge proposal. Anyone who takes a look at HTRIVIA will see the template box at the top with a link to this page. And since my proposal is to merge the two pages, everything is in it's right place. What you are trying to argue is what Mangojuice said above: That I should rather try to propose "promoting" HTRIVIA to guideline. But I won't, because such a proposal would be a clearcut WP:SNOW case. And: The reason I would propose promoting HTRIVIA in the first place would be directly related to the current state of this guideline and its failure to address all relevant aspects (regarding either form or function), and the consequence that there is no centralised place (and, effectively, no actual consensus at all, so far) to give proper advice what to do with trivia. The pages are effectively POV forks of each other. One needs to be dropped as a guideline, and it's rather TRIVIA than HTRIVIA, imho. Or, that's my compromise offer and proposal, we could try to salvage the useful aspects of both and merge them. Also, I'd argue that, like WP:WAF (also a MOS subpage), this guideline should be a comprehensive how-to - a function which neither TRIVIA nor HTRIVIA currently fulfill. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:36, December 1, 2007

It's not clear to me what you want to achieve. E.g. "since my proposal is to merge the two pages, everything is in it's right place" - that is self-contradictory. if you propose a "merge" that means you're proposing to move some content to some other page. Otherwise your proposal would be to convert one of the pages to a redirect to the other page, without moving any content (that's not a merge, that's only changing the content of one page to something starting with #redirect... - there's no need to discuss that elsewhere than on the talk page you want to convert thus to a redirect page). At least you should have used {{mergefrom}}/{{mergeto}} templates if you had a clear idea which page you wanted to merge into which other page. (FYI, I'd oppose a merge from the current WP:HTRIVIA to the current WP:TRIVIA page, the former has a richer history, and effectively also covers "content", albeit very defectively currently - I sense we agree on that point if I read your comment correctly).

Yes, WP:TRIVIA forked from WP:HTRIVIA (then still at Wikipedia:Trivia). WP:TRIVIA made it to guideline, WP:HTRIVIA didn't. But I'm not sure what problem you're trying to solve, and how you try to solve it? Please provide clarity, otherwise I fear the merge tags have outdone their time. --Francis Schonken 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, you wrote: "the merge tags don't solve that you failed to advert the intention to upgrade WP:HTRIVIA to guideline on the WP:HTRIVIA page (and its talk page)". To which I replied that I do not have any intention to upgrade HTRIVIA to guideline status. With "everything in its right place" I did (very obviously, I believe) not mean the current content of HTRIVIA and TRIVIA, but the locus of the discussion (here).

Also, the very reason I decided not to use the merge-from/to tags is that one is a guideline, but the other has the richer history. They should be treated as equals. Whether the merged guideline page is later called HTRIVIA or TRIVIA is, I hope you see that, completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. I doubt you read my comments correctly. I think HTRIVIA is the far more suitable guideline page. TRIVIA is currently a ridiculous joke, even for an essay it'd be. — dorftrottel I talk I 20:23, December 1, 2007

No, self-contradictory. Or at least: profoundly unclear. I'll remove the merge tags, until someone (you or someone else) comes up with a clearer proposal. I might recommend a (re)reading of Help:Merging and moving pages in the mean while (if that is where the unclarity stems from), for a clear understanding of the involved terminology. --Francis Schonken 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unclear? I suppose you know the story of that guy who mistook the spot where he ran out of gas for the end of the road? I wish you hadn't done that, especially in the face of several who tend to agree with the merge. I dorftrottel I talk I 22:05, December 1, 2007

Would Wikipedia:Trivia sections (or its content) be changed from guideline to essay (or any other) status as a result of the proposed merge? --Francis Schonken 23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be changed from wannabe guideline to guideline. I dorftrottel I talk I 01:20, December 2, 2007

A merge is not needed to improve it as a guideline. Just improve it, with as much consensus as you can get. Once it covers as well the content aspect of trivia as the stylistic aspects, we can still see what we do, that is (for example): address the naming issue: for a general guideline on trivia I think the name would better be Wikipedia:Trivia or Wikipedia:Handling trivia, than Wikipedia:Trivia sections, which isn't very suitable as a name for a general guideline on trivia ("sections" indicates an approach limited to "sections"). --Francis Schonken 08:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Yep, I agree that "Trivia sections" unnecessarily and confusingly appears to limit the scope. Incidentally, there is also an argument for those who appreciate the usefulness of trivia, since "Trivia sections" suggests an a priori problem. I'd be all for moving it to Wikipedia:Trivia and styling it into a how-to. The merge I proposed really means that I think several aspects of HTRIVIA should really be in a unified how-to guideline which gives advice as to best encyclopedic practice with regard to trivia. I dorftrottel I talk I 17:27, December 2, 2007

While the title "Trivia sections" may limit the scope, it is chosen deliberately because there is a phenomenon where a heading "Trivia" is added to an article, and low-quality data is appended in bullet list format. Some editors seem to think such sections are proper features since "every article has them". An earlier title was Avoid trivia sections, but the word avoid receives consistent strong objections from some parties in discussions about trivia.

In the event this guideline was merged with WP:HTRIVIA, it would help to have a section called Trivia sections to address this specific concern. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that would indeed be a lot more useful. I know the former name was Avoid trivia sections, but Trivia sections doesn't really get the message across, at least not in combination with what the guideline currently says ("no need to remove" etcpp.). So, why not rename it to Trivia and write a section called "Trivia sections" (maybe even "Avoid trivia sections where possible" or some such) that addresses that specific issue. I dorftrottel I talk I 19:46, December 2, 2007

This entire section is based on a false premise, that there is something special and magical about guidelines and that essays are someone's meaningless opinion. It doesn't actually work that way. Any essay that reflects actual best practices as determined with Wikipedian consensus is in fact a guideline, whether designed as such with {{Guideline}} or not (as heavy use of certain "essays" with precedential value, like WP:AADD, in XfDs shows); meanwhile any alleged guideline that does not reflect such a consensus is not a guideline, no matter what template it has at the top of it (fortunately there do not seem to be any right now, in its earliest stage with {{Guideline}} on it WP:N was such a page, and it took 3 months of wrangling to actually get consensus and have it not be {{Disputedtag}}ed). Reference: WP:POLICY makes it abundantly clear that the purpose and nature of WP guidelines is that they codify consensus-determined best practices, and that is it.

There is no difficulty at all in merging these two documents on a policy or procedural level. All that is required is that the changes to the guideline - including even a rename and scope expansion to not only address sections but trivia more generally - be agreed upon by consensus. I work on the WP:MOS and its subpages a lot, where we deal with this sort of thing all the time (e.g. importing topical style guidelines from WikiProjects), and it turns out not to be problematic, as long as the changes are sane and there is plenty of time for debate and adjustment. Anyway, the point is that the there's no real reason that a "but, this is a guideline, and that isn't" argument should actually affect in any way whether to merge these two pages. I'm not picking on Francis Schonken, either; this is not the first time this issue has been raised here; I proposed this merge the first time quite a while back and this was the main objection raised then as well. It is not a solid one. PS: I have to also point out that if there is cognitive dissonance between the WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA "camps" this is a strong reason for, not against a merge, since the more entrenched the opposing views become, the more we are failing to build WP:CONSENSUS and instead forming private little fortified entrenchments and gearing for battle. This does seem to be what is going on. Cf. for example the beginning of the next major thread below: "The real problem is that there is no basic agreement on what is desired...", and cf. also the infighting between and mutual merge avoidance of WP:WPTCU and WP:WPTPC.

Lastly, attacking (or really, really strenuously arguing against, if one prefers) another editor for bringing up merge related issues at the merge target's talk page is rather, well, pointless, to put it nicely. WP:MERGE specifically states that merge discussions should take place on the talk page of the target article/projectpage, not both places, to keep the discussion centralized. Declaring that WP:HTRIVIA must first be "upgraded" to a Guideline is a complete red herring: Normal Wikipedia consensus-building can add to, subtract from, or otherwise change this or any other guideline, regardless of the designation of the some of the source material (if any - some guideline material is simply added on the spot and no one objects); otherwise guidelines would never form in the first place. Furthermore, insisting that WP:HTRIVIA be designated a guideline first before considering any of it for merger into WP:TRIVIA is disingenuous, because we all know that the community will not accept the creation of a redundant or conflicting guideline. The only rational solution to the problem is a merge, with the final result being a unified trivia guideline.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The real problem

The real problem is that there is no basic agreement on what is desired, and we are therefore left trying to find a compromise that permits everyone to think they have it worded so they can keep or delete what they individually think should be kept or deleted. there is no solution. We will either have something so general as to be meaningless, or keep arguing as the details reflect the changing consensus. As an empiric way of avoiding stalemate, I continue to suggest one of each: a guideline page that gives the broadest generalities, and an essay for examples and details we can continue to argue about, but where whatever the current state of things there is at least wont be mistaken for policy.DGG (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But... that sounds a bit like the current situation, doesn't it? I dorftrottel I talk I 04:48, December 2, 2007

This is where I think one of the proposals like "limit trivia sections to 40 bullet points" comes into play. Of course, I don't think that would fly, but maybe 10 or 5 bullet points could be agreed upon. That might appease both sides. Ozmaweezer 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A numeric approach is abritrary, and no subsitute for a solution based on principles, whatever those may be.--Father Goose 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to extend those general guidelines to content, though. So much of this guideline is written to deflect those who think it is about content, we might as well address content specifically. Policy does say some things about the issue: WP:UNDUE WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:BRD, et cetera. Mangojuice^talk 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. My desired goal is that we write about topics in an encyclopedic way. That's why I oppose long lists of trivia, but not the information contained. Hiding T 10:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Fathergoose's reply to my qauntitative proposal: I know it's a bad idea, but it's the only idea I can come up with that appeases both sides. It would at least get us moving foward rather than stuck here in talk purgatory. Plus, by limiting the bullet points to some arbitrary number it would cull out the trivia that would be considered poor content. If you narrowed 40 bullet points down to five I would hope the article would present the top 5 trivia points thus being the best content. I propose we rename Wikipedia to "Wikipedia, purgatory for trivia" or "where trivia comes to die." Discuss amongst yourselves. Ozmaweezer (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would actually work out that way. I am in the "pro-trivia" camp (up to a point), and it wouldn't appease me. Is there anyone here from the "anti-trivia" camp who feels this approach would be satisfactory?--Father Goose (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you select any number that would be reasonable and not arbitrary? If you pick a number and someone adds one more, what happens? Do we removed all of them? Simply the solution creates too many problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are missing the point and getting bogged down in the never ending trivia debate. There really is no solution so we have to start accepting necessary evils. There are no winners or losers. It's kind of like politics...a world of compromises. The quantitative idea is my idea and I think it sucks for chrissakes but it's the only thing I can think of that might at least get us moving forward. I don't think my idea is a "good idea," but I see it as a baby step in the right direction. And Vegaswikian, I love ya man but I know it's arbitrary, it's just a number I'm throwing out there. Sometimes arbitrary things work out in the long run. In my infinite wisdom (???) I would propose we change all the "trivia" and "in popular culture" headings to "Did you know?" and limit them to some quantitative limit. I think that would get us moving forward. Peace Ozmaweezer (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think picking a number of bullets for a trivia section would be a bad thing and is literally the opposite of what this guideline is trying to achieve. Changing the name of the sections does not change that they're poorly formatted and the content could be better presented within other sections as prose. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So, BillPP, what do you consider poorly formatted? Trivia presented in bullet points? And, what is this guideline trying to achieve? Ozmaweezer (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Information is better presented as prose in the main sections of the article. A list of facts like this is poor presentation and an unencyclopedic method of including the information in the article. For example, I integrated some information in the Casino (film) article a few weeks ago, there were several points that were about the cast. I was able to integrate these into a new Casting notes section. Now the information is in a much more logical place than at random points in a list. I enjoy trivia and I believe that the information should be kept if it's appropriate, but having these sections decreases the quality of the article when there's a more logical, neater and encyclopedic method of including the information in the article. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Well, I can't help but agree with all that. I need to get the following off my chest...again. I think changing the name to DYK? might have some benefits. The name "Trivia" has become stigmatized and demonized in wikipedia. If we ever come to a sort of conclusion with this guideline the name change would show that a new day has dawned and that a new paradigm is in place. Plus, maybe DYK? would become a hallmark of wikipedia and become institutionalized and famous (or infamous). Furthermore, I know trivia can be incorporated as prose, as it should. But, some could be left in list format if it just doesn't seem to fit in the prose. And finally, is there a tipping point where all these archived discussions becomes absurd? How long will we toil with the trivia topic? How many archived discussions must we fill? How many years must pass us by while we endlessly discuss? I'm beginning to think we have crossed into the realm of absurdity, insanity, and inanity (inane?). Let's get together! Ah, now I feel much better. Ozmaweezer (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Information

Hi. I agree that in an a quality encyclopedia trivia sections shouldn't be there. My issue is that under the current guidelines - or at least they way they are being implemented - even though it states 'If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all'- on many pages people have simply removed anything labelled 'trivia' without consideration of how it could be included in a better way in the article or into another page or section. In addition, parts of articles have been removed under this guidance without discussion and without being clearly trivia. This has the effect of improving the layout of the article, but at the expense of (sometime) valuable facts and content which is never a good idea!

I propose the guidelines be changed to discouraging, not removing, trivia sections and emphasising incorporation and that if a trivia section has to remain, it should be limited in length (this may have been proposed already). At least some way to halt over-zealous removal of information. Jw2034 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2007 (GMT)

I think that you (and perhaps others) have misread what this guideline actually says, because it tries to be clear that it is a guideline about formatting/article structure only, and it does not deal with issues like relevance of content. This guideline contains no criteria for deletion, and if you see anyone trying to use this guideline to justify deleting an article or content in an article, be sure to point out that they are wrong. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, your problem is with the implementation rather than the wording. People do tend to ignore the whole "this guideline does not suggest removal of trivia sections" etc. We could reword it to give a more active discouragement of removing trivia sections but I don't know if there's consensus to do that right now.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 12/23/2007

a trivia section?

Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) tagged the "Production" section of 33 (Battlestar Galactica) with {{trivia}}, with an edit summary of: "Tagged as {{Trivia|date=December 2007}}" Reading this guideline, I don't find it applicable in this instance, but would appreciate others' input and interpretation. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that isn't a trivia section. I removed the trivia tag and provided a link to this guideline in my edit summary, so hopefully people will read it before blindly slapping the tag back on.

Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 12/25/2007

My edit has been continuously undid and every potential reason has been offered to justify editors' decisions. The last one is triva. I really can't understand why my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&diff=180590168&oldid=180584016 is trivia while the remaining part in the green box is not. --82.185.106.178 (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Too Much?

What the hell with all the guideline warnings?! I get that this is an "encyclopedia", but there a little bit too much guidelines! It's the same with WikiQuote! I went on the Colbert Report quote page and it looked nice. It was well organized, easy to read, only two pics, bt at the top it says "Does Not Meet Guidelines". So what!

I believe that if it's well-organized, can easiyly be read, and is neat, there's nothing wrong with it! I do believe that the ones that give usefull information (like if it's planed for the future) are helpful, and if it is a mess. But getting rid of the trivia sections just because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia is just bull$@&#! It's the biggest $@*&#?* peice of %@#* I %##@%&%^@%$@ [PORTION OF THIS COMMENT WAS DELEATED BY GOD. THANK YOU]@! But I digress.

What I say is, for serious articals like the holocost and Scrubs (Hee hee), have the guidlines. But for articals about TV series, especally comedy like Fam Guy and Robot Chicken, don't have all the guidelines. And if you don't like a section, like the trivia section, don't read it! Like my good friend Stewie would say, "Well that's my argument. Where's your's?" --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way things work on Wikipedia is that if you don't like the way other editors are doing things, you can write a rule (or change an existing one) to force them to do things your way. Then you have to write another rule that prohibits them from changing your first rule. And hope that they never discover WP:IAR.--Father Goose (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You sound bitter. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was being glib, but not bitter. Most rules are in the form of "this is how things should be done", and it seems fair to say most have their origins in one or more individuals wanting other individuals to do things a certain way. In some cases, that "certain way" is substantially agreed-upon; in others, the rule in question is an attempt at a legislative coup. It can be surprisingly hard to tell one from the other sometimes.--Father Goose (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reality can be bitter. It's not necessarily his slant. He's right in that on Wikipedia, policies and guidelines are supposed to be the result of looking at what practices people are already using, and then writing them down -- not the other way around, as in writing down what you think people ought to be doing and then expecting everyone to adhere to it. BrianGriffin, if you see something like this happen, don't just give up. We have WP:IAR for precisely this reason: our mess of technical "rules" should never stop people from doing what's best for the article in an individual scenario. Jimbo had the intelligence to know that blanket policies just don't work because each case is different. Make your argument for why you think something should be -- and if people throw policies in your face 'cause they don't have any other argument for you, just tell 'em "IAR, bitch. Now use your brain and answer me again."

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:10, 12/21/2007

Policy and guideline pages typically include reasons. Generally one should be able to present a good reason for ignoring policies and guidelines. And "Rules are made by stupid busybodies motivated by fear, lust for power and [insert bad faith assumption here]" may not be a good reason. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're quoting but it sure ain't me. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Don't paraphrase people (especially including quotation marks!) cause you're rather terrible at it. As for ignoring rules, no reason is needed other than the reason an article is better without the rule.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:23, 12/21/2007

I will ignore your rules. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you concede.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:45, 12/21/2007

(multiple EC's) BG-FG: Contribute what you can. You don't need to be fluent in the rules, or even agree with them all or even understand them. Wikipedia is a self-leveling system where good-faith contributions (including those from non-expert editors) will find their place in encyclopedic articles. The rules are part of that system. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A nice thought, but not necessarily true in practice. BrianGriffin, as I said above, edit these articles and argue your opinion with people. Tell them why the article is better a different way. If they just throw policy in your face, throw IAR back in theirs.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 12/21/2007

for once, I find myself more in agreement with edg than Equazcion. Using IAR for everything is the abandonment of rationality. It makes every individual decision ad hoc, independent, and dependent entirely on the strength and persistence of the people at the article at the time. It's BRD, without the D. One can throw out good stuff by ignoring the rules even easier than one can keep good stuff in by ignoring restrictive rules. The point of rules is to have a guide to navigate what will otherwise be anarchy. People expect an encyclopedia, not a collection of random things: some junk, some good, some prejudiced--if they want that, they already have it: the open web. Jimbo is not always right, but his basic idea, to make the web not suck, to filter the web for some degree of reliability and quality, is the fundamental reason for constructing WP. Those who want to write whatever the hell they feel like should write blogs--the ideal medium for ignoring rules altogether. Rules protect us all,by giving some assurance that our work will be constructive. I'd like to deal with things by broad, inclusive, rules, broad enough to get true general agreement. They obviously requires tolerance--they won't all run the way I'd like them. But its better than having anyone who comes along being able to destroy anything. IAR is usually used destructively.

Where I perhaps disagree with edg is in the nature of the rules: they should allow anything that there is a reasonable view to allow. We already have that as a basic principle: the default is to keep content, not remove it. When we remove it we need a reason we can all agree to live by. What we can't agree to remove, stays. We get the by mutual tolerance. I'll accept your long articles on games such as farscape and football that I have no interest in, if you'll accept my theologians and biologists. DGG (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I (obviously?) am not for the complete abandonment of rules. You're right in that broad rules on which basically everyone is in agreement should be generally followed -- but as far as many of our rules go, that just isn't the case, and trivia is one of them. Brian complained about an instance where he felt a trivia section served an article well, yet it was removed solely because it went "against" "policy". In cases like that, IAR is key.

Equazcion •✗/C • 12:12, 12/22/2007

Sorry. I do not agree with this policy at all. Yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but it is also a source of information. Many users (nay, probably most) come here for information . . . pure and simple. I am tired of these bureaucrats "deciding" what they deem "important". This is a community effort. Do you understand that? There are only a handful of "you", there are millions of us! I have given thousands of hours over the last 5+ years. You do not get to decide what we, the people, find useful information! Unless I am mistaken, this is still a community effort. If it is not, then please accept my resignation! Trivia should stay. --11:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorwald (talk • contribs)

This guideline doesn't tell people to remove trivia, it tells them to put the information in a better spot in the article. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you define better? --Jason Palpatine (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Most times, converting it into prose. Instead of having a list of trivia items talking about each of the appearances of a fictional character in different series, you can have a "Impact in culture" or similar section describing how the fictional character became so famous that other series pick it up. Imagine if every Wikipedia article were just a list of bullet points instead of prose. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is true in a lot of cases. Also another method is looking for an existing section that the item would fit best in. In my experiences with articles on fiction especially, the trivia section may contain an item on a choice of cast, going over budget and won an award. These would be better presented in the Cast section, Production section and Reception section. These are just a few examples of things I've come across in my experience (the casting choices one crops up often) and are hardly trivial. It's illogical to have the information separated out into a section when usually there's already a section that is a better place for it. Moving the information to a "better" place may also involve creating a new section and expanding on the item. Or at least creating the section with the item and marking it as a stub section. There's plenty of advice in Handling Trivia to help find a better place for information in the article than a list of facts. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing old arguments

Time out. I just wanted to point out that at the top of this latest thread BrianGriffin proposes allowing an exception for trivia sections in articles about TV series and comedies. This is a repeat of a proposal already made on the trivia and pop culture project in "past proposals." Perhaps his discussion should take place on that project's discussion page. What I'm trying to say is, the trivia debate is quite large and complex and we should avoid constantly rehashing, re-proposing, re-discussing, and re-archiving the same points over and over and over again. Maybe every proposal should have it's own discussion tab so the discussions can stay on topic. They could eventually be summarized for a quick and easy digestion by editors new to this topic. I feel this might actually bring the trivia debate towards some type of reasoned, logical, and level headed conclusion upon which a majority of editors will inevitably have to compromise on (and nobody's gonna be happy...no winners and no losers). Also, let's all remember to stay friends and be calm in The Great Trivia Debates. Let the other guideline discussions be rude to each other, "they're animals anyway" (The Godfather...anyone?). Long live Cliff Claven! Carry on. Ozmaweezer (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rehashing old suggestions and arguments is a fundamental caveat of Wikipedia. It can't really change without a major rewrite of the MediaWiki software, at least as far as the tabs you're suggesting. Although maybe we could create sub-pages of this talk page, each with another ongoing argument that returns frequently... I have doubts that enough people agree with that though.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:42, 12/23/2007

In general I am in favour of letting the same bad idea be presented multiple times, because it allows us to specifically address the concerns of that person, rather than just whatever the particular solution/idea is supposed to be solving. Plus, when their bad idea gets shot down, they might just surprise us by coming back with a much better idea. And even more rarely, sometimes bad ideas become good ideas once enough time has passed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But Penguin, that is all still possible with sub-pages devoted to specific topics from the talk page. It's just that the sub-pages would keep editors on topic and make it easier to fully understand the topic as compared with our 9 (and growing) archived pages of rambling meandering discussions. I just feel we could more easily see progress being made with sub-pages keeping discussions more on specific topics. Ozmaweezer (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if there was a notice at the top of the talk page briefly explaining the long and complex history of the trivia issue with a handful of links/general advice, that might be more useful than subpages. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be infinitely more complicated and less likely to actually be used than subpages. You want to have links to archived discussions that people will have to jump around, rather than subpages neatly dividing the conversations by topic? I don't see how that could possibly be a better choice. I think the subpages are a good idea, if anything, although again this is rather unconventional so we're likely to see more than a little opposition. Wikipedians don't like change.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:33, 12/23/2007

Maybe I don't get around as much as other Wikipedians, but I have yet to see a talk page that's divided into subpages. Can anyone find me an example so I have an idea of what this might look like? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, this is my point -- Wikipedians don't like change. If it hasn't been done before then how can we possibly start doing it, right? Well I'd suggest looking at the idea and judging its merit, rather than looking for precedent. Change can be a good thing, and new trends have to start somewhere.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:40, 12/23/2007

As far as what it might look like: There would be a list of links at the top of this talk page to the various sub-pages, with instructions to visit the page that corresponds with your topic of interest. The sub pages would be named Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections/Exceptions for fictional media articles, for example.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:47, 12/23/2007

(Edit conflict and outdent) Sorry, I was having a little bit of a tough time following your line of reasoning/pattern of argument; I will try harder to understand what you mean. While I am in favour of trying new ideas, sometimes the reason no one has done something like this is because it's impractical. The reason I ask to look at a precedent is because I can't imagine how that would foster effective discussion, because as we have seen over and over (even in this thread right now) conversations that start talking about one thing often quickly change to talk about another thing, and since many of these issues are intimately related, I think it would be hard for multiple subpages to stay on topic and get enough attention. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they would get more attention, because people could watchlist only the topics that interest them. I know I've often wished I could do that for relatively active talk pages, often culminating in my giving up because it was too hard to track changes to my topic of interest. The Village Pump pages are a great example of this -- after replying once to a discussion, having that page in my watchlist is pretty much an excersize in futility, because it's constantly changing so often due to other discussions I have no interest in. Yet they're all on the same page, so all the activity in all those sections triggers my watchlist -- and when my topic of interest is replied to, I often don't even notice it because directly afterwards another topic is active, and that change replaces the change I needed to see in order to know I was supposed to check the page. I hope you can see where I'm going with this because I'm starting to ramble :) Your concerns about staying on-topic are legitimate, and who knows, maybe this idea wouldn't work out -- but it may be worth a try. We can always go back if it fails.

Equazcion •✗/C • 16:10, 12/23/2007

The Village Pump is a good example of a talk page gone wild; perhaps if they had some sort of implementation like AfD it would be easier to keep up with. (As an aside, would this be the sort of suggestion that should be suggested at the Pump? I'm not sure, myself.) But in the case of this talk page, if enough people are interested in trying a new format, then by all means, go for it, and I'll try and make useful and relevant suggestions. And like you said, we can always go back to the old format. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested, at Village Pump, a system of transcluded sub-pages for Village Pump discussions similar to the system at AfD, but didn't get much of a response. This is again an issue of opposition to change. People don't want to go through the work of implementing it or getting used to it, so they choose to avoid it. As for this particular talk page, I don't think a formal proposal is necessary. It would just be for this talk page and isn't a major change to a major area of Wikipedia. We could implement this ourselves via consensus established here, in my opinion.

Equazcion •✗/C • 16:32, 12/23/2007

I only suggest this idea about staying on topic because I think getting off topic seems to be contributing to the paralysis of the trivia debate. We could try having better or more specific thread titles and really trying to self enforce staying on the topic of that thread. Ozmaweezer (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Much?

What the hell with all the guideline warnings?! I get that this is an "encyclopedia", but there a little bit too much guidelines! It's the same with WikiQuote! I went on the Colbert Report quote page and it looked nice. It was well organized, easy to read, only two pics, bt at the top it says "Does Not Meet Guidelines". So what!

I believe that if it's well-organized, can easiyly be read, and is neat, there's nothing wrong with it! I do believe that the ones that give usefull information (like if it's planed for the future) are helpful, and if it is a mess. But getting rid of the trivia sections just because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia is just bull$@&#! It's the biggest $@*&#?* peice of %@#* I %##@%&%^@%$@ [PORTION OF THIS COMMENT WAS DELEATED BY GOD. THANK YOU]@! But I digress.

What I say is, for serious articals like the holocost and Scrubs (Hee hee), have the guidlines. But for articals about TV series, especally comedy like Fam Guy and Robot Chicken, don't have all the guidelines. And if you don't like a section, like the trivia section, don't read it! Like my good friend Stewie would say, "Well that's my argument. Where's your's?" --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the way things work on Wikipedia is that if you don't like the way other editors are doing things, you can write a rule (or change an existing one) to force them to do things your way. Then you have to write another rule that prohibits them from changing your first rule. And hope that they never discover WP:IAR.--Father Goose (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You sound bitter. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was being glib, but not bitter. Most rules are in the form of "this is how things should be done", and it seems fair to say most have their origins in one or more individuals wanting other individuals to do things a certain way. In some cases, that "certain way" is substantially agreed-upon; in others, the rule in question is an attempt at a legislative coup. It can be surprisingly hard to tell one from the other sometimes.--Father Goose (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reality can be bitter. It's not necessarily his slant. He's right in that on Wikipedia, policies and guidelines are supposed to be the result of looking at what practices people are already using, and then writing them down -- not the other way around, as in writing down what you think people ought to be doing and then expecting everyone to adhere to it. BrianGriffin, if you see something like this happen, don't just give up. We have WP:IAR for precisely this reason: our mess of technical "rules" should never stop people from doing what's best for the article in an individual scenario. Jimbo had the intelligence to know that blanket policies just don't work because each case is different. Make your argument for why you think something should be -- and if people throw policies in your face 'cause they don't have any other argument for you, just tell 'em "IAR, bitch. Now use your brain and answer me again."

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:10, 12/21/2007

Policy and guideline pages typically include reasons. Generally one should be able to present a good reason for ignoring policies and guidelines. And "Rules are made by stupid busybodies motivated by fear, lust for power and [insert bad faith assumption here]" may not be a good reason. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're quoting but it sure ain't me. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Don't paraphrase people (especially including quotation marks!) cause you're rather terrible at it. As for ignoring rules, no reason is needed other than the reason an article is better without the rule.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:23, 12/21/2007

I will ignore your rules. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you concede.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:45, 12/21/2007

(multiple EC's) BG-FG: Contribute what you can. You don't need to be fluent in the rules, or even agree with them all or even understand them. Wikipedia is a self-leveling system where good-faith contributions (including those from non-expert editors) will find their place in encyclopedic articles. The rules are part of that system. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A nice thought, but not necessarily true in practice. BrianGriffin, as I said above, edit these articles and argue your opinion with people. Tell them why the article is better a different way. If they just throw policy in your face, throw IAR back in theirs.

Equazcion •✗/C • 22:35, 12/21/2007

for once, I find myself more in agreement with edg than Equazcion. Using IAR for everything is the abandonment of rationality. It makes every individual decision ad hoc, independent, and dependent entirely on the strength and persistence of the people at the article at the time. It's BRD, without the D. One can throw out good stuff by ignoring the rules even easier than one can keep good stuff in by ignoring restrictive rules. The point of rules is to have a guide to navigate what will otherwise be anarchy. People expect an encyclopedia, not a collection of random things: some junk, some good, some prejudiced--if they want that, they already have it: the open web. Jimbo is not always right, but his basic idea, to make the web not suck, to filter the web for some degree of reliability and quality, is the fundamental reason for constructing WP. Those who want to write whatever the hell they feel like should write blogs--the ideal medium for ignoring rules altogether. Rules protect us all,by giving some assurance that our work will be constructive. I'd like to deal with things by broad, inclusive, rules, broad enough to get true general agreement. They obviously requires tolerance--they won't all run the way I'd like them. But its better than having anyone who comes along being able to destroy anything. IAR is usually used destructively.

Where I perhaps disagree with edg is in the nature of the rules: they should allow anything that there is a reasonable view to allow. We already have that as a basic principle: the default is to keep content, not remove it. When we remove it we need a reason we can all agree to live by. What we can't agree to remove, stays. We get the by mutual tolerance. I'll accept your long articles on games such as farscape and football that I have no interest in, if you'll accept my theologians and biologists. DGG (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I (obviously?) am not for the complete abandonment of rules. You're right in that broad rules on which basically everyone is in agreement should be generally followed -- but as far as many of our rules go, that just isn't the case, and trivia is one of them. Brian complained about an instance where he felt a trivia section served an article well, yet it was removed solely because it went "against" "policy". In cases like that, IAR is key.

Equazcion •✗/C • 12:12, 12/22/2007

Sorry. I do not agree with this policy at all. Yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but it is also a source of information. Many users (nay, probably most) come here for information . . . pure and simple. I am tired of these bureaucrats "deciding" what they deem "important". This is a community effort. Do you understand that? There are only a handful of "you", there are millions of us! I have given thousands of hours over the last 5+ years. You do not get to decide what we, the people, find useful information! Unless I am mistaken, this is still a community effort. If it is not, then please accept my resignation! Trivia should stay. --11:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorwald (talk • contribs)

This guideline doesn't tell people to remove trivia, it tells them to put the information in a better spot in the article. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you define better? --Jason Palpatine (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Most times, converting it into prose. Instead of having a list of trivia items talking about each of the appearances of a fictional character in different series, you can have a "Impact in culture" or similar section describing how the fictional character became so famous that other series pick it up. Imagine if every Wikipedia article were just a list of bullet points instead of prose. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is true in a lot of cases. Also another method is looking for an existing section that the item would fit best in. In my experiences with articles on fiction especially, the trivia section may contain an item on a choice of cast, going over budget and won an award. These would be better presented in the Cast section, Production section and Reception section. These are just a few examples of things I've come across in my experience (the casting choices one crops up often) and are hardly trivial. It's illogical to have the information separated out into a section when usually there's already a section that is a better place for it. Moving the information to a "better" place may also involve creating a new section and expanding on the item. Or at least creating the section with the item and marking it as a stub section. There's plenty of advice in Handling Trivia to help find a better place for information in the article than a list of facts. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rehashing old arguments

Time out. I just wanted to point out that at the top of this latest thread BrianGriffin proposes allowing an exception for trivia sections in articles about TV series and comedies. This is a repeat of a proposal already made on the trivia and pop culture project in "past proposals." Perhaps his discussion should take place on that project's discussion page. What I'm trying to say is, the trivia debate is quite large and complex and we should avoid constantly rehashing, re-proposing, re-discussing, and re-archiving the same points over and over and over again. Maybe every proposal should have it's own discussion tab so the discussions can stay on topic. They could eventually be summarized for a quick and easy digestion by editors new to this topic. I feel this might actually bring the trivia debate towards some type of reasoned, logical, and level headed conclusion upon which a majority of editors will inevitably have to compromise on (and nobody's gonna be happy...no winners and no losers). Also, let's all remember to stay friends and be calm in The Great Trivia Debates. Let the other guideline discussions be rude to each other, "they're animals anyway" (The Godfather...anyone?). Long live Cliff Claven! Carry on. Ozmaweezer (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Rehashing old suggestions and arguments is a fundamental caveat of Wikipedia. It can't really change without a major rewrite of the MediaWiki software, at least as far as the tabs you're suggesting. Although maybe we could create sub-pages of this talk page, each with another ongoing argument that returns frequently... I have doubts that enough people agree with that though.

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:42, 12/23/2007

In general I am in favour of letting the same bad idea be presented multiple times, because it allows us to specifically address the concerns of that person, rather than just whatever the particular solution/idea is supposed to be solving. Plus, when their bad idea gets shot down, they might just surprise us by coming back with a much better idea. And even more rarely, sometimes bad ideas become good ideas once enough time has passed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But Penguin, that is all still possible with sub-pages devoted to specific topics from the talk page. It's just that the sub-pages would keep editors on topic and make it easier to fully understand the topic as compared with our 9 (and growing) archived pages of rambling meandering discussions. I just feel we could more easily see progress being made with sub-pages keeping discussions more on specific topics. Ozmaweezer (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if there was a notice at the top of the talk page briefly explaining the long and complex history of the trivia issue with a handful of links/general advice, that might be more useful than subpages. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be infinitely more complicated and less likely to actually be used than subpages. You want to have links to archived discussions that people will have to jump around, rather than subpages neatly dividing the conversations by topic? I don't see how that could possibly be a better choice. I think the subpages are a good idea, if anything, although again this is rather unconventional so we're likely to see more than a little opposition. Wikipedians don't like change.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:33, 12/23/2007

Maybe I don't get around as much as other Wikipedians, but I have yet to see a talk page that's divided into subpages. Can anyone find me an example so I have an idea of what this might look like? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, this is my point -- Wikipedians don't like change. If it hasn't been done before then how can we possibly start doing it, right? Well I'd suggest looking at the idea and judging its merit, rather than looking for precedent. Change can be a good thing, and new trends have to start somewhere.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:40, 12/23/2007

As far as what it might look like: There would be a list of links at the top of this talk page to the various sub-pages, with instructions to visit the page that corresponds with your topic of interest. The sub pages would be named Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections/Exceptions for fictional media articles, for example.

Equazcion •✗/C • 15:47, 12/23/2007

(Edit conflict and outdent) Sorry, I was having a little bit of a tough time following your line of reasoning/pattern of argument; I will try harder to understand what you mean. While I am in favour of trying new ideas, sometimes the reason no one has done something like this is because it's impractical. The reason I ask to look at a precedent is because I can't imagine how that would foster effective discussion, because as we have seen over and over (even in this thread right now) conversations that start talking about one thing often quickly change to talk about another thing, and since many of these issues are intimately related, I think it would be hard for multiple subpages to stay on topic and get enough attention. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they would get more attention, because people could watchlist only the topics that interest them. I know I've often wished I could do that for relatively active talk pages, often culminating in my giving up because it was too hard to track changes to my topic of interest. The Village Pump pages are a great example of this -- after replying once to a discussion, having that page in my watchlist is pretty much an excersize in futility, because it's constantly changing so often due to other discussions I have no interest in. Yet they're all on the same page, so all the activity in all those sections triggers my watchlist -- and when my topic of interest is replied to, I often don't even notice it because directly afterwards another topic is active, and that change replaces the change I needed to see in order to know I was supposed to check the page. I hope you can see where I'm going with this because I'm starting to ramble :) Your concerns about staying on-topic are legitimate, and who knows, maybe this idea wouldn't work out -- but it may be worth a try. We can always go back if it fails.

Equazcion •✗/C • 16:10, 12/23/2007

The Village Pump is a good example of a talk page gone wild; perhaps if they had some sort of implementation like AfD it would be easier to keep up with. (As an aside, would this be the sort of suggestion that should be suggested at the Pump? I'm not sure, myself.) But in the case of this talk page, if enough people are interested in trying a new format, then by all means, go for it, and I'll try and make useful and relevant suggestions. And like you said, we can always go back to the old format. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested, at Village Pump, a system of transcluded sub-pages for Village Pump discussions similar to the system at AfD, but didn't get much of a response. This is again an issue of opposition to change. People don't want to go through the work of implementing it or getting used to it, so they choose to avoid it. As for this particular talk page, I don't think a formal proposal is necessary. It would just be for this talk page and isn't a major change to a major area of Wikipedia. We could implement this ourselves via consensus established here, in my opinion.

Equazcion •✗/C • 16:32, 12/23/2007

I only suggest this idea about staying on topic because I think getting off topic seems to be contributing to the paralysis of the trivia debate. We could try having better or more specific thread titles and really trying to self enforce staying on the topic of that thread. Ozmaweezer (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)