Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 8

message: I suggest the terms "hodge-podge" or "hodge-podge sections" be used. As the above conversation demonstrates, "[Subject] in popular culture" is just as problematic as "Trivia", however using the word "trivia" in the title of the this guideline lends the impression that the problem is primarily with sections titled trivia.
"Hodge-podge", in my opinion, is also a better choice than "miscellaneous facts" or "miscellaneous lists", which can be misconstrued in several ways. The term "hodge-podge" is easily understandable, descriptive, unambiguous, and straight to the point. I suggest "Avoid hodge-podge sections" as the title of this guideline and having a generic hodge-podge clean-up template  along with clean-up templates geared to specifically to the most common kinds of hodge-podge sections such as  and perhaps a . Neitherday 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that is definitely one of those terms that starts to sound really bizarre when you read it 8 times in two paragraphs.  :)  On a serious note, though, I think "hodge-podge" is probably a good description, but so are many others, and it's better if we stick to "trivia" in the title, since that's where the problem arises.  "Trivia sections," "lists of miscellaneous information," "lists of isolated facts", "lists of loosely associated information", "hodge-podge sections", and so on, all refer to the same concept.  I like the idea of using multiple descriptions as it gets the idea across better.  Mangojuicetalk 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As fun as "hodge-podge" is to say, I agree that Trivia sections is the most descriptive name for the kind of thing this guideline is about. What a "hodge-podge" section might be is less intuitive. / edg ☺ ★ 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hodge-podge 

message: There is a discussion of whether WP:NOT#TRIVIA should be retained at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Removal of trivia criteria.--Father Goose 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of WP:NOT#TRIVIA 

message: I've tried to keep up with the circular discussions here and on the template's talk page. And I take it this has been going on quite a while. I see a lot of talk about what I'll refer to as "good" trivia and "bad" trivia — the bad being, well, trivia in the full pejorative sense, and "good" being anything else that at least some view as being worthy of a stab at clean-up and integration.
I think we've got too many peas in the pod. This guideline should really be be about sections of articles that contain true trivia that should almost (but not quite) be nuked on sight, and some other guideline (Wikipedia:Unordered lists of miscellaneous information?) should be built from much of the current content of this guideline. Ya, I know, one person's information is another's trivia.
Fact is, trivia is unencyclopaedic and there's a ton of it in articles out there. Quite frankly, I'd be all for something like the spamlist that prevents adding sections named 'trivia' and bots that mass-nuked extant sections. If people want to integrate something from one of these nuked sections, they can get it from history. --Jack Merridew 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  just an idea 

message: I have proposed that this article be merged with Wikipedia:Embedded list - talk on Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Embedded list 

message: ←That's okay, controversial subjects bring out the worst in everyone, myself included. Generally the best counterpoint I've seen to the trivia guideline is that it wouldn't be a terrible thing if articles could be allowed to have a bit of limited trivia in a trivia section, because there are certain bits of information that are small enough to literally get lost in the prose of the article. They don't belong anywhere, they don't necessarily play any big part in the subject of any other section; and integrating them would either mean shoving them into a place where they don't belong and will probably end up being deleted, or expanding them with useless fluff that likewise ends up degrading the article. I won't pretend to be objective here -- I've offered these as arguments myself before, but I'm also not alone. 
I'll also admit that even the items that might in the beginning seem to warrant a trivia section might eventually be better if integrated, but that can be left up to whoever is editing the article. We don't need a rule that tells us "This section is all wrong and needs to be dealt with". Let editors decide on the basis of the article. If they decide, via talk page discussion, to keep a trivia section, of reasonable length, and where all other guidelines apply, including verifiability and notability, then that should not be considered a bad thing. If people want to then try integrating the items, maybe once more information is available, when people are willing to do the research to turn an item into a contribution to another section, then they may do so, and it will be up to the editors to decide if the edit should stand. 
I hope that now that we have a lull on the battlefield, even a truce if you will, that all the people with something to say about this will come forward while still keeping this civil and relatively bloodless. I'm especially looking at you, Kevin, so I hope you'll come forward and share a little bit of what you've gathered from recent experience. Thanks to all. Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:21, 09/27/2007
:I don't know what kind of a standing I have to offer my opinion here, but acting primarily as a consumer of wikipedia content (as opposed to contributor), I believe doing away with a section that many people find useful and entertaining (myself included) is misguided.  If the issue is truly that trivia sections can look unsightly -- not that the info is incorrect -- a project should be put together to clean and rework these sections without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The rationale for having a separate trivia section has been stated here many times and I will not repeat it, but it strikes me as a poor solution to do away with the sections of an article which 1) Are a very quick, entertaining, and easy read 2) Are a very quick and easy place to contribute (for better or worse) 3) Are one of the primary items which makes Wikipedia unique in the reference material space.  That's my 3 cents (inflation).  Coreydaj 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break for ease of editing

message: "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."
I believe that trivia sections should be integrated into the articles, where they pass WP:V, WP:NPOV and our other guidelines, or removed where they do not. The current state of this guideline seems to contradict several other of our core policies. While I am not in favour of blindly removing them in a semi-automated way as it seems was recently done, I think we should definitely aim long-term to ridding the project of these. They seem to epitomise several of the things that Wikipedia is not. What do others think? --John 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove whatever you want whenever you want.  Just take responsibility that you're doing it because you think it's better that way; don't say that what you're doing is mandated by this guideline.  In other words, don't hide behind the guideline.  We put that there so that people will have to justify themselves if they start removing information and it is challenged.  Mangojuicetalk 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I wrote this - there's a fine line to walk. The first part I don't think is contestable (this guidelines does not suggest removing trivia sections - well, it doesn't) but the "it is better" part is more debatable. The intent was that it's better for information to be poorly presented until someone finds the time to fix it, than removed outright - but even this is an eventualist position that may be contested. Maybe the justification should simply be removed. Dcoetzee 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support it as written.--Father Goose 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: I don't really see the need for that as the edit warring is over, but okay... Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:46, 10/9/2007
:Agreed - this seems to be a strange decision. Neil ム 11:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a 48-hour expiration time.  I think the conflict has passed myself, but in any case indefinite protection is not necessary.  Mangojuicetalk 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected?? 

message: I came upon this article and I immediately thought of this guideline. For those who hate trivia, hide your eyes. Admittedly, I'm at a lost of where to begin the clean up. :P AgneCheese/Wine 11:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank goodness you only mentioned "begin" and not "finish" - I took a stab at beginning, by organizing the pop culture references by genre and finding a source.  Between the article and the news story, there is something encyclopedic about the portrayal of a cheap "wino" brand in popular culture.  It's a piece of Americana, and some serious writing is devoted to such things if one only knew where to find it.  The source probably covers a good portion of the article, and more than that it establishes the notability of the subject of Ripple in popular culture, but it's a subscription site and I'm not so interested I want to pay $2.95 by credit card right now.  Perhaps someone with a Nexis subscription.Wikidemo 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: No matter how much some people claim that "trivia" is "unencyclopedic" and therefore should be removed, there will always be people who love it, and who keep adding it.
What about adding a third tab to each Wikipedia article? Right now there is "article" and "discussion". What about adding "other" as a third tab. It could contain trivia, commercial links and unsourced statements galore. Anyone who is looking for such things could go there. People who look for facts stay at the "article" page and discussions of course stay at the "discussion" page. Mlewan 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how much value there would be in having a "dumping ground" tab. If people really want to know absolutely everything and anything that could possibly be related to a subject, that's what Google is for. Chaz Beckett 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Wikia for that matter, where it is possible to set up a targeted Wiki on a subject where those interested can delve into whatever level of minutiae they feel is necessary.--Isotope23 talk 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There IS a "trivia" template.  I will attempt to insert it here as an example.  I like these, they flag a problem, but put the responsibility on those who care to fix it. Montanabw(talk) 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding another tab? 

message: I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but over the last several months I have gotten the impression that all the rules, styles guides, considerations, etc. et al. have become increasingly more important to several editors, contributors and important people,honoria causis; than the actual purpose of the encyclopaedia. The bar for a new contributor to write an appropriate article, in an appropriate style, just keeps going up and up...as does the nastiness. I, personally, feel that articles should have clear and useful structures. This feeling does not, however, conflict with my enjoyment of the occasional trivia section. There is such a thing as being too cautious, too organized and too regimented. I respectfully suggest that those who passionately feel anything but perfection is not good enough for 'our' Wikipedia need to take a deep breath and accept that not all contributors (and not all potential contributors, some of whom I suspect are being driven away by such discussions) are going to have the experience or even desire to conform to the most rigid interpretation of what and how our encyclopaedia is to be.Panthera germanicus 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your general sentiments, there seems to have been a shift into a new mode of development at Wikipedia (citation wars?), and it seems like the current focus on trivia is a product/symptom of this change/evolution as Wikipedia enters the next phase of it's existence. With that in mind, it seems clear that trivia is most out of place and unwanted in established and developed (long) articles, and they are least disruptive in short and budding articles. To me, this says that trivia sections are useful (in some articles) as part of the transition between stub and developed article. Thus, I think trivia sections are appropriate for articles below a certain length/certain depth of content, and they should be kept until the trivia section and the article in general grows to a point, then all the relevant information in the trivia section can be organized and re-presented in a different, more accessible way. --Nick Penguin 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little puzzled at this, because I think you have it backwards. The material in so called trivia sections is important in proportional as the subject is important. The details of production of a barely notable film are not worthwhile including to the extent the would be if the film were one of the world's best known works. The use of various stereotypical characters in a barely notable game is not as important as if the game were one of the most played. The use of a minor character in a novel in subsequent works is usually not as important as the use of major characters. The minor biographical details for Lincoln are of more importance than those for Buchanan. If there's an article with nothing important to say, we shouldn't fill it with otherwise unencyclopedic material. If there's a truly serious important article where we think the trivial stuff detracts from the high seriousness of our work, then there will normally be enough for a separate article on that aspect.  DGG (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your general point, but I disagree with your second sentence. If trivia sections were really used for the purpose you think they should be, then yes, the material in so called trivia sections is important in proportional as the subject is important. But in reality, I have been finding that many useful facts have been just thrown into a trivia sections, and these would perhaps be better used as the nucleus of a new section. I think the in the long term the article is improved by presenting the information poorly in the trivia section, and then working it into the article at a later date. It's also much easier to trim an article down than it is to build it up, especially if I know only a little about the subject matter. And in the case of your example, an extremely notable film/person will likely have enough similarly related details that you could create a new section call "Production Details" or "Biographical Notes" or something to that effect and have all the relevant content find it's way into that section. But in a developing article that may one day have enough info for that section, but currently does not, it can be awkward to try and start a section if you have no information to put there. --Nick Penguin 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priorities