Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles/poll

message: This was a poll to discuss adopting Wikipedia::Avoid trivia sections in articles. I found a consensus to exist for the adoption of the proposal.  The voting saw 43 votes cast, 27 in favour, offering a 62% majority.  Although at the weak end of establishing consensus, I note Rje appears to have amended his vote, which would alter the result.  It also appears a number of objections are grounded on the idea that people will continue to add trivia sections.  I think those opinions can be somewhat discounted, since they don't address the proposal itself, which offers advice on how to deal with such circumstances.  We don't abolish WP:AFD because people continuously add articles which require deletion. Hiding Talk 12:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something similar could be said for every non-notable band and vanity page. —Centrx→talk • 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived poll

message: # I very much agree with eliminating trivia sections.  This does not mean eliminating the information within them.  The problem is, a section entitled Trivia looks extremely amateurish, and strongly implies that the information within it is irrelevant.  Sometimes it is irrelevant; then it should be removed.  Often, though, it's perfectly relevant information, and then it should be incorporated into the text rather than placed in a section which marks it as irrelevant.  Worldtraveller 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Weak oppose.  Often part of what makes an article engaging and more tasty than dry toast is the inclusion of "did you know" type facts, especially in biographical pages.  The observation that such facts can (and should) be incorporated into the main text undercuts the proposal on its face.  Not sure such a guideline is required.--BradPatrick 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: *Undecided for the simple reason that while I see good reasons for this, I also see good reasons against it.  Sorry I can't break the current tie. Here is how I see it, after reading an article that is so loaded with information and impecable grammar and words that require me to open a dictionary, a trivia section is a nice place for my mind to unwind. The grammar may be a bit looser with the wording a little less formal. Sure, there may be few who care that a politician owns a dozen cats, that a city's underground has a reputation for some small little local thing that may only be known in that city's county, or that a game was redesigned in the home of one of the programmer's grandmother. Those tidbits are not really significant, but they are a way to unwind after reading the details of that politician's political career, the city's rich history, and the game's myriad of features. Who knows, one day that politician may vote on a pet bill that is important and the vote cast was for the cats, the city's underground may produce a notable band, and the programmer's grandmother (well who knows about that lady's past). These tidbits might then come to the fore and be very important. Leave them in for now, but make sure to keep the trivia section clean.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 02:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something similar could be said for every non-notable band and vanity page. —Centrx→talk • 16:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral or undecided