Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 6

message: I have proposed a strategy for dealing with trivia sections on mature articles; see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A nontrivial matter of Trivia.  There's no reason for a mature article to have a Trivia section in the article body, and in most cases the  tags are completely ignored.
I suggest that in cases where no maintenance has been performed for some months, these sections ought to be moved to the article talk page, from which interested parties can carry out the merger of any useful information at their leisure.  Frankly, it doesn't seem likely that these trivia sections will ever be merged into the article prose or filtered to remove cruft otherwise.
Comments are welcomed and encouraged.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree wholeheartedly. See my comments above. If Trivia sections are supposed to be an intermediate step toward integration into the article and the trivia is not integrated for months (or even years), it doesn't deserve to remain in the article itself. Move it to the talk page. As I said above, it's easy for trivia proponents to add it with no intention of integrating into the article, but it's a lot harder for those of us trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines to clean up the mess. And I think it's not a valid argument that the issue has been discussed in the past with no consensus. Ward3001 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong support.  Occasionally I find one of these tumors and just lop it off, but moving them to the talk page so useful parts can be salvaged seems like a good idea too. Nandesuka 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Somewhat support. I just tear them out, or at least the parts that I know to be completely unsalvageable. Moving them to talk would be OK, but I think some of them are so obvious that they can be just lost. DreamGuy 21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with old trivia on mature articles 

message: As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. ... Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments." 
The controversy surrounding the Trivia guideline reflects an utter lack of consensus, and therefore this project should no longer be classified as a guideline. Guidelines are supposed to reflect a consensus. A consensus may once have been present, but that fact has certainly changed. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 01:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, I have seen very few objections from anyone who actually read the guideline. The typical objection is "OMG you want to delete all the trivia" or "stop putting those templates everywhere" or "why do you hate lists", which have nothing at all to do with it. If some people would raise some reasonable objections that would be a different matter. Dcoetzee 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read through this talk page and its archives. I'm not basing the lack of consensus on objections in individual articles. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This project is an essay. It is in *Category:Wikipedia essays*. And it says so, at the bottom of the page, since just about anything can be an essay, or a supplemental essay. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point being what? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no explanation of a consensus for the changes User:Equazcion makes here on the projectpage. Rather, there is opposition to such changes at this time. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying we need a consensus on the fact that there's no consensus? And why would a change from "Essay" to "Supplemental essay", as you did, fix that? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 03:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am saying that there is no consensus for the changes you have made, a number of times now today. What about the #supplementary essay template#, as a compromise, or #WP:NOTAG# as a compromise, or do you have something else in mind? Or why not leave it alone for now, until other User(s) rightfully comment, and a consensus is discernible, other than the one that might be asserted with no evidence. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes I have made are due to a lack of consensus. So if you're saying we need a consensus to prove that, you're saying we need a consensus on the fact that there's no consensus, which is ridiculous and unattainable. The trivia guideline has been a never-ending argument for a good amount of time now. I'm fine with making it a "Supplemental essay", although I fail to see how that would be a compromise between "Guideline" and "Essay". But I'm not opposed to that at all, if it really can be considered a supplement to something else. You just need to specify what it is a supplement to. You had left that parameter blank when you made the edit.Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will be leaving the project page the way it is presently, until there is some useful input from other users. And I can get back to editting in mainspace. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When I want to switch to the main article, I click on the "project page" tab at the top of this page. That's where the word "project" comes from. I don't think anyone can say across the board that all trivia sections are simply wrong. And this isn't an argument for or against trivia sections -- it's simply the observation that there is no consensus on the subject. This matter is a controversy, and a guideline is supposed to reflect the opposite. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussions and AfD's, with some people trying to get others to avoid trivia sections based on this guideline. That means a consensus? I think that would be defined as argument. Argument doesn't mean consensus, it means the opposite. And again, take a look through this page and its archives. I don't see how this is a consensus. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't find a consensus from those talk pages alone. Often times the talk page of a guideline becomes the complaints department of anyone who even has the slightest disagreement with something, including the often misunderstanding that this guideline suggests deleting relevant information. You won't find people randomly coming across to the page of a guideline and going "oh, by the way, I totally think this rules!". It stands to reason to see more complaints than supporting messages. People who like something are not motivated to start a discussion saying they like it, and most of them won't even be watching this talk page. A trivia section has, in most situations, simply become a "misc" dumping ground for odd facts, that are better presented in the article in another form. If you don't believe me that this isn't a guideline, then find an FA with a trivia section. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted talk pages generally see complaints, more than neutral discussion or praise, but the topic of trivia has seen more of that than any other guideline. Look at this talk page -- this is more than a few individual complaints. All the arguments here are about the same thing, and it's a pretty distinct disagreement between a lot of editors. As for an FA with a Trivia section? There wouldn't be an FA with a trivia section, of course, because this guideline has become, despite its title, a "Trivia sections are banned" policy. So any article that has a trivia section is in violation of the guideline and can't be a FA. So you're using the effect of the guideline as proof of the guideline being rational, which makes no sense. Besides which, the rationale for the guideline isn't my point. My point is the lack of consensus, which we are demonstrating right now. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, we are demonstrating some sort of consensus, that the projectpage is useful, and is a part of the Manual of Style, and is a style guideline which some, at least, User(s) are content with. That is some sort of consensus, but disagreed with by one editor, presently. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (triple edit conflict) This page was created in May 2006 and promoted to a guideline in August of that year; hundreds of FAs were promoted before then. The issue of trivia sections was raised in FA candidacies previously, simply because a loose list doesn't qualify as "brilliant prose" required by the featured article criteria. When gauging the status quo without an explicit invitation to discussion, there is often a significant body of editors who implicitly agree with the way things are. In this case,  is used on thousands of articles (over 5,000), so people are certainly aware of this guideline, and trying to apply it. — TKD::Talk 04:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I won't pretend I'm willing to go looking through the FA articles rated prior to this guideline, but what you said makes sense. However your argument still doesn't say anything about a consensus. People follow guidelines because they're supposed to. The guideline template says so. If people don't agree with a guideline, do you expect them to simply not follow it? Especially people working towards getting articles rated GA or FA will follow the guidelines and not make a big deal if they disagree, simply to get the article rated well. Those who have enough of a problem with the guideline to care will argue on the guideline's talk page, which they have done and are doing. I've gotten rid of Trivia sections myself and integrated some items into the prose of other sections. That doesn't mean I agree with the guideline. It just means I respect the guidelines that are in place -- as long as they truly reflect a consensus, as they are supposed to. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 05:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The advice from this guideline improves the majority of articles that apply it. People don't usually follow guidelines they disagree with. Sometimes people bitch about it here (and even then, they are often objecting to deletion of relevant information, which this guideline does not encourage). That pretty much sums it up. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ←I think that part of the problem is that there used to be a semi-common habit of splitting off bad trivia into a separate article in preparation for GA/FA, and then to quickly revert any new additions of miscellanea to the main article, since it was more or less comprehensive already. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add to this guideline a few diffs of successful re-orgranization to reinforce that ideally the useful facts in these lists can and should be sourced and organized logically. — TKD::Talk 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ideally? You emphasize that is if there are other non-ideal situations to be allowed for. What is supposed to happen if the ideal solution you describe is not feasible? And what "problem" are you referring to? The problem of disagreement of the subject of Trivia sections? Because that would mean that you're conceding to there being a non-consensus on the subject. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 05:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiLawyering. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not lawyering. It's quite simple: TKD described a possible solution to a problem with the general acceptance of this guideline, when really you were trying to convince me that there was no problem. So which is it? Do enough people have a problem with this guideline that it needs to be edited (yet again)? Or were you just going to change it for me and the select few others who according to you have some irrational problem with it? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 06:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He suggested adding examples to help people better understand the guideline, and you tried turned that around to say that the guideline had no consensus. An improvement to expressing the advice is not the same as saying something is bad advice, or that we should not be giving this advice. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's the case then how does that address the concern of consensus? I'm saying there's no consensus, and TKD is suggesting the addition of examples. Are you saying that the problem is that people just don't understand the guideline, and that's why there's no consensus? Or were you abandoning this issue altogether and just offering a suggestion for improving the guideline? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TKD's suggestion did not comment on consensus. The misunderstanding doesn't come from the guideline, it comes from the old trivia page (Wikipedia:Trivia, since moved to Wikipedia:Handling trivia) and often the actions of other users who might be citing this guideline. I've already explained to you that there is a consensus for this guideline, and I've further tried to explain to you that someone's suggestion to improve the guideline does not mean there is a lack of consensus. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you've explained it. You've explained your opinion. As I've explained mine -- that there is no consensus. If the suggestion had nothing to do with consensus then it had nothing to do with this discussion. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 06:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I reiterate that I don't think most of the people of the people who post complaints on this page leave dissatisfied. Most of the time, they're either complaining about someone treating something as a trivia section which isn't one, misunderstanding what the policy suggests to do, or that sort of thing. The guideline itself is not really controversial. Find one person who has an ongoing objection to this guideline, and I will reassure them. Dcoetzee 07:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reiterate my disagreement. Maybe I shouldn't have made that last archive; then maybe my argument would be more convincing, since every time someone responded here they'd have to scroll down through an additional 90k of arguments about this issue. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "disagreements" arising here are no different from those arising on, e.g., Wikipedia talk:No original research. I've read every argument ever posted to this page and most people came away not with the continuing belief that the guideline is bad but a clearer understanding of it and what it hopes to accomplish. Sometimes the guideline was modified to clarify or repair issues raised by these people. They do not represent a consensus to modify its status, they are simply part of a regular review process. Dcoetzee 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll have to concede, as it does look like similar lengthy arguments go on elsewhere. Personally I still think the Trivia disagreement is a far more focused argument with clearly-defined sides. But I'm not going to even try to prove that. I think that if this project were to be submitted for acceptance as a guideline today, for the first time, it would need to be rejected due to lack of consensus. Again I won't try to prove that -- it's just my feeling. I'm therefore also concerned in a broader sense that there should be a process for revisiting previously-accepted guidelines, at a set interval or via the support of enough editors, to make sure that the present set of guidelines really still do represent a consensus. A consensus is something that can change; A one-time acceptance shouldn't necessarily be permanent. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Switch to Essay status

message: * Personally, I don’t know how well a trivia-oriented wiki would go over.  During a debate over how to handle trivia some time back I did raise the idea of a broader approach to entertainment-related subject material.  I called it “Wikitainment”.  The idea was to capture things like film, theatre, music, sports, games, trivia, etc. – the sort of topics that tend to gather fancruft – into an area less focused on what’s encyclopedic than Wikipedia.  Such a wiki would by nature be more inclusive.  Any thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A WikiTainment wouldn't be a bad idea either, but I'm not sure how well that would co-exist with the articles on the same topics in Wikipedia. I think only one version of each article would end up getting updated regularly. There would be too much redundancy. I think the WikiTrivia/WikiCulture project would be a better use of a separate project, as there would be a clearer distinction between what belongs there and what belongs in Wikipedia articles -- without the redundancy.Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea would be to migrate much of those sections over to WikiTainment. Articles in the latter would crosswikilink to WP "encyclopedic" articles and WP articles could likewise refer to trivia and "popular culture" articles there. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If trivia and pop culture is all that would be there anyway, then that's basically the same idea as the WikiTrivia project. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiTainment for Trivia & Popular Culture? 

message: This is how babelfish translated the opening section of *Wikipedia:Svuota la sezione curiosità* from the italian:wikipedia —
Wikipedia:Svuota the section curiosity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Reindirizzamento from Wikipedia:Evita the section curiosity) You go to: Navigation, tries Abbreviations: Wikipedia:CURIOSITA Wikipedia:CURIOSITA' Wikipedia:CURIOSITÁ Some voices group of the isolated information (lacking in sources) in sections often called "Curiosity", but also "Miscellanea", "Other information", or other; siccome wikipedia it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, avoids to organize the voice as a series of facts isolates to you on the argument and empties this type of the following sections second "directives". The present guide does not mean to disquisire if these facts are effectively curious notes or if the curiosities go less inserted or in a voice than encyclopedia, but simply the way in which these facts it would have to be organizes you to the inside of the voice. Motivations and limits [ modification ] the lists of several information can be useful for the development of a voice, from the moment that induce the less expert customers to insert new information, simply adding them to the directory, without need to think next to the total organization of the voice and next to the way to introduce the information. Man hand but that the text makes more corposo these lists becomes unmanageable, disorganized and difficult to read. 
Instead of loosely related, would "isolated information (lacking in sources)" work on thispage? Newbyguesses - Talk 05:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. If you're just concerned that it's difficult to read, I wouldn't base the readability of any article on a Babelfish translation. Most automated translations are extremely far from perfect. Try translating just about any other text and you'll get similar nonsense. I'm sure someone who speaks Italian will tell you that the article is much more readable than this translation would have you believe. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficult to read

message: Centrx removed this section, and I reverted that edit. Just a quick explanation: This section originated because it seems to NOT be obvious to many editors. Many see a list section and automatically think that since it's not made up of prose, it needs to be removed. Therefore this is important to point out. Please don't remove it -- even if it may seem obvious to you. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section, which has now been removed again by User:Matthew, should remain in the article, it is about focussed, as opposed to un=focussed lists. Newbyguesses - Talk 07:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew seems to think that pop-culture references made BY a work are also considered trivia. A consensus was somewhat established on this a while back though. See the section of this talk page called "Relevance proposal". There were no objections at the time. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 07:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't think, I know. I checked that discussion... I don't see a consensus. Anyway, you should get a consensus for your addition :). Matthew 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you think. Just like I think. Don't be arrogant. Anyway, anyone who objects, please say so here and discuss it instead of editing the guideline again. We've already got about 4 editors that are for the section (myself, Dcoetzee, Father Goose, Newbyguesses) and 2 that are against it (Matthew and Centrx). Not that Wikipedia is a democracy, but, just saying. ;) Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 08:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you read the discussion at "Relevance proposal"? I feel it provides a pretty good description of the non-trivial nature of that particular example. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 14:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for retaining the "not all lists are trivia" section, but the single example provided is insufficient.  At the very least, it should include more examples of "focused lists" that are not in need of cleanup.  Without a balanced set of examples, I'd suggest leaving off the examples altogether.--Father Goose 15:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The example was just the only one that came to my mind at the time and I'm not particularly attached to it. Please retain the section and edit the list of examples as needed. Dcoetzee 22:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not all lists are Trivia sections

message: It seems to me the guidance provided on thisprojectpage could be enhanced by incorporating more of the See Also list into the body of the text at appropriate places. Not all of these items are suitable, here's the current lott - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a trivia collection 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup - a WikiProject designed to clean up long lists of trivia in articles. 
Wikipedia:Handling trivia - an essay on trivia in Wikipedia, what it is and how it should be handled. 
Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles - an essay on "Popular culture" articles. 
Wikipedia:Relevance of content - a proposed guideline on when material is relevant to an article. 
Template:Trivia 
Category:Cleanup templates 
Category:Articles with trivia sections 
Can these, or some of them, be written into the text, expanding it, in a useful way? Any suggestions? Newbyguesses - Talk 01:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go in the opposite direction: I feel that the whole thing could be cut down to two-thirds its current length.  Given how many chefs are crowded around the pot, though, I doubt that could actually be accomplished.--Father Goose 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough. Though WP:NOT has this about Trivia collections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility. And that is it. So, either the extreme minimilist position works, or else thispage needs more specific information. And if thispage is too long, but is missing useful information, then some of the current material may be inferior, and need to be replaced. I think some adjustment of the text is in order, and the See also section is too long, and the items there are too varied. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: WP:IDONTLIKEIT was around before this and had already nailed it: 
:...but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted.'
What constitutes trivia to be included and what doesn't can NOT be fundamentally ended with a overgeneralized guideline, but rather should be determined in every case.  Just look at this talk page; there's far from concensus here.--Loodog 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh).  Please reread the guideline.  It's not "avoid trivia," it's "avoid trivia sections."  It's not about what content is appropriate, but rather, how to best organize information.  Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps it should be renamed "Better ways to organize trivia" and inform editors what counts as trivia so they can better organize it. --Pixelface 19:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I vehemently oppose this guideline 

message: So, what is wrong with trivia. Are you people saying that we should take info out of its category, and screw all of wikipedia up by putting miscellania out of place. Trivia sections save wikipedia from being sloppy! --Alien joe 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is pointless 

message: In case anyone is curious about my opinion (someone asked for input), I feel that this guideline is a good one. It has some good suggestions about what trivia sections are and aren't, and how to deal with them - and most importantly, why. -Freekee 05:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion