Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 4

message: Regarding popular cultural references of "high culture" topics (literary, religious, philosophical, etc.), do the guideline and template even make sense? Both prongs of the choice presently offered seem inappropriate. On the one hand, it would be completely inappropriate to integrate reference to (say) a Biblical figure in a videogame into the main body of article on the Biblical figure. It would also be essentially impossible to have a meaningful "popular culture" section, because all that can really be sourced is a collection of isolated references - any effort to make a comprehensive statement or commentary would generally be original research. And do we really want to simply delete all popular culture references, which seems to be the only practical alternative in these cases? If we want don't want popular culture references in articles on high culture topics in cases where there are no commentaries or other things we can say about those references, we should say so plainly.  --Shirahadasha 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pop culture topics are probably over-covered on Wikipedia, but in my opinion, there are two ways of covering them well.  First, they can be covered in a real article.  Here, we have to be pretty conservative, because good articles on popular culture are rare, and for good reason: for most topics as they "appear in popular culture" there will not be any sources discussing the matter holistically.  So, "War in popular culture" or "Religion in popular culture" would probably be doable, but "Cheese Whiz in popular culture", not so much.  For this kind of article, we have to watch out for OR, and it shouldn't be prose that just lists examples, but actually writes about culture.  Alternatively, they can be covered via lists... as long as the lists are selective and organized, I don't think this guideline argues against them.  So I think lists of "pop culture references to X" are bad, because there is no minimum threshold (and "notable" references doesn't really work either, it's too subjective).  But many other topics are doable, like "Fictional works about X" or "Continuity errors in X", et cetera.  Mangojuicetalk 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does one size fit all? 

message: Trivia sections are often the most susinct way to include a diversity of views and give a better all round view of a subject. The obsession with bland Britanica Encyclopedic style limits Wikipedia to be the lesser of the two and aspires to an undesirable goal - copying something that is already there. There are indeed stylistic problems with disorganised lists and trivia lists are more likely than many to fall apart structurally. However, advocates of this policy must realise that it is not being applied in a nuanced way, but in broad strokes of what is essentially - censorship. If you think lists are hard to organise efficiently and keep structured, try paragraphs! Seriously, lists are faster and easier which is sometimes a good thing.
I came across this discussion after having seen the tag a few times and found it an annoying preface to the most interesting section of an article I was reading. I decided to comment when, after reading a Jimmy Buffett article, I found almost no useful information except in the trivia section, that had this authoritarian brand above it about removing trivia. In fact, most of the rest of the article was trivial, much more so than the 'trivia' section! A list of dates in rambling and unreadable paragraph form. A bunch of random facts strung together in sentances without any context. I was trying to find out what 'Jimmy Buffett' means. Not when and where every tour was. Or worse, a 'neutral' version of his resume!. Why does David Cross reference him? What is the cultural phenomenon associated with him? Well, the parrotheads article gives some indication. But it is only slightly mentioned so was hard to pick out. Now obviously I could improve this article by editing the article myself - putting the parrotheads link more prominent and getting a bit more emphasis on the meaning instead of the paragraph sections of trivia. But, I know very little on this man and frankly don't care. The format of wikipedia is the problem. Or rather the format that some people are trying to make it become. I see that this 'remove trivia' brand is there to not help the article but to go backwards in the wrong direction.
There is something very arrogant about the rationale that lists are a preliminary stage in writing an article only. There is no evidence for that conjecture. It may also be a good way to plan out writing but it is not only that. Since when was wikipedia a final product? Since when was some bad prose listing with commas better than wrapped lines? Since when did bullets lack meaning and all sorts of "and" "also" "then" have signifigance. Not every writing is meant to be a British Poem. Poems also come in lists. Quality writing is not about having indented paragraphs. It is about using your letters - including the newfashioned letters of the computer bullet, italics, bold, wikilinks - effectively. To not use the tools at your disposal is bad writing, limited and weak.
To take out the geeky internet flavour of diversity that includes trivia, To change it to even more trivial 'facts' of dates in paragraph form... In short, this policy is not trivial. It represents an attack on what has made wikipedia great. Lists are susinct and trivia is diverse - one mans trivia is another's mandatory background. Open labelling of articles and sections is what allows wikipedia to encompass broad landscapes of information. We don't have to make every fact agree because we can put different sections which argue their own merit and allow disagreement. By limiting this honest labelling of trivia we remove the honesty from the debates. We censor those who want to contribute but don't want to impose their facts in the linear paragraph form that is so oppressive at times. I'd like to ask who instiuted this policy and how do I try to change it if I want to. What is this about a vote? Votes can change? 51% Agree that voting is great.--Rusl 18:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be the first to agree that our article on Jimmy Buffett leaves a lot to be desired.  I'm actually quite amazed, considering that it's a pop culture topic, that it is in such bad shape.  That's an excellent example of an article where simple removal of trivia would be bad... but on the other hand, integrating the trivia would be well worth it.  For instance, there's an item there about the "Save the Manatees Club", that Buffett started.  I seem to recall hearing Buffett's name in connection with lots of charity causes, but the article doesn't talk about them at all.  So you see, the guideline encourages me to integrate that, and in doing so, I will have to improve the article in order to set up the framework for integration.  Mangojuicetalk 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Susinct and Diverse

message: Okay, the draft of Wikipedia:Relevance is ready.  Tear it to pieces.--Father Goose 04:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Relevance 

message: Was there ever an edit on WP:NOTE which put up "WP:NOTE= a multitude of secondary sources" Has the page-protection been lifted yet? No?  My glasses are playing up, I clicked on WP:TRIV and it seemed to me that the – Text at WP:TRIV read "Any material not supported by sources yet may be challenged and removed at any time", or not, or then someone must have removed it. Again, I clicked on WP:REL and, again, Then the text what was read at WP:REL read, "Any material not supported by sources may/yet may be challenged and removed at any time",   — whilsst, having a typo or two didnt look right, I would agree. Those edits to those pages, if they exist, are lost/not lost in pertinence/impertinence,(WP:Iar goes on for ever), but, then, notice, not once is the word T----- mentioned. – User:Newbyguesses - Talk 04:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I refactored your comment so it wouldn't take up so much space.  But I still don't understand what you're saying.  Mangojuicetalk 04:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: toomuchtrivia

message: The approach taken by WP:HPTRIV is fine, and this article-page points there. Seems to have it covered. So The relevance guideline fits in where it fits, when fully formulated. The current version of this article page has no only one references to "Trivia" in the text, but still gets the idea across that all material must be relevant, and researched if necessary. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HPTRIV

message: I think the term "trivia section" in the title is fine. It's easy to understand, and (within the limits of a title) summarizes the point in a memorable way.
*Avoid Lists of Facts is wrong because it applies to many appropriate lists, such as the "personnel – role" lists in movie and album articles.
*Avoid Irrelevant Lists creates a new fight over what is "irrelevant", and really seems like a more vague way to say "trivia section" to me.
You can have a more accurate title by including Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts only loosely regarding the topic in the title. But I think Avoid trivia sections gets it across pretty clearly. / edgarde 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to article title

message: Newbyguesses, am I to understand that what you'd like to see is a guideline something along the lines of "Use lists of information in articles, but avoid irrelevant information"?  If so, that essentially contradicts what the current guideline states.  There are definitely places where lists are okay, but they're best for defined sets of closely-related things, not for agglomerations of facts.--Father Goose
:Clarification: No, sorry, I did not mean to suggest anything like that."Useful lists are definitely a part of wikipedia" - I was meaning major lists, such as lists of topics, etc, there are many. These articles are almost entirely lists. So, I understand, as you state here, that 'There are definitely places where lists are okay'. Now, another type of list I mentioned -Cameos, etc, - since the guideline does suggest that as a reasonable way to go — "although in certain cases a narrowly-focused list may be appropriate, such as Cameos or Continuity errors." Though not ideal, it is suggested.
:I was certainly not suggesting "Use lists of information in articles", except in these cases (Major lists, and where a list of items has at least some justification, as the guideline has it).
:I was not here actually suggesting any change to the wording of the guideline at all, it currently has "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts only loosely regarding the topic." I think the guideline is pretty fine at present, and although I think that it could be made more general in application by being re-named, the drawbacks of that approach lead me to conclude at present that the name of the article, which I had been concerned about, is satisfactory. Hope that answers the point raised, Newbyguesses - Talk 23:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does indeed, thanks for the clarification.--Father Goose 02:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I added a statement about Dick Enberg erroneously blaming 49er backup offensive lineman Chuck Thomas for a bad snap resulting in a 19-yard field goal miss by Mike Cofer, and that it was corrected to retiring 
center Randy Cross mid-way through the 4th quarter. With the recent crackdown on trivia, last week I removed all but one line mentioning the NBC error, which was then placed as a parenthetical in the summary. The next day, I saw that it was reverted. I just deleted that trivia entry again a few minutes ago; but need to know what I need to do in order to avoid having to do this again.  WAVY 10 01:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at the very least, you could probably reduce the trivia entry to "Randy Cross retired after this game, and went on to work as a broadcaster for CBS Sports and NBC Sports. Enberg and Cross were paired at CBS during the 2006 season." since the rest is in the Game Summary section.  Long-term, the entire Trivia section will probably get culled by someone doing trivia cleanup.--Father Goose 04:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip.  WAVY 10 16:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Randy Cross retiring is not notable for the game.  This belongs in his article and not the game.  How did his retiring after the game, even if announced prior to the game, make this a notable event for the game?  Vegaswikian 18:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided against doing anything else for now on the page.  WAVY 10 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegaswikian: By first reducing the entry to just the Randy Cross retirement, you can more strongly make the argument that what remains isn't about the game, making its later removal easier to justify.  I'm going to assume the reverts have caused the other party to have a personal stake in the matter, so waiting for that to die down a little first can't hurt.  Especially considering this is just one entry out of several that need cleaning up.  It's a question of picking your battles.--Father Goose 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Super Bowl XXIII|SB XXIII]] Trivia Issue