Wikipedia talk:Handling trivia/Archive 1

message: This discussion is pretty much replaced by the discussion page at Wikipedia:Importance, which was created 10 days before this was. In a previous incarnation, Wikipedia:Importance was structured like this discussion (for/against), but I've since realized that this actually creates a separation of viewpoints rather than consensus (see Wikipedia:How to create policy). How would you feel about merging this to Wikipedia:Importance? ··gracefool |☺ 23:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. The more centralization, the better. • Benc • 01:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the project page now redirects to Wikipedia:Importance. Feel free to propose merges, changes etc. at the talk page. ··gracefool |☺ 22:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: I'd like to see this discussion run as smoothly as possible, hence the 3 day waiting period. If I'm alone in this (i.e., everyone else wants to open the discussion as it is), then go ahead and remove the notice and start discussing.
Please note, though, that the real reason I decided to wait on updating this page is the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Proposal - suspension of VfD. I'd like to wait for some consensus to be reached there — or at least for the flurry of messages to quiet down a little. I'd rather not see this page catch fire. This is an issue that needs to be discussed, but let's do this right, please. • Benc • 03:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: About waiting to open the discussion

message: This proposal seems to go against the policy that Wikipedia should be as inclusive of information as possible.  With no definition of importance or how interesting something is no decision can be made, and if someone adds something that they think is interesting then chances are that others will find it interesting too. violet/riga (t) 15:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly.--Sean Black | Talk 20:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-inclusive encyclopedia 

message: *I have put the "Proposed" template back on.  And I'd like to make several points:
# The majority (almost all) of the discussion that I've been able to track down was limited to the issue of trivia sections in articles.  This proposal does not directly address those, but rather speaks in general terms without providing guidance for whether or not it's intended to be applicable to articles as a whole or simply to segments like bulleted trivia sections.  As such, the majority of the discussion does not appear to be reflected by this proposal.
#:*Sorry, changing to "proposed" is "major edit", no consensus for that - all suggestions are welcome. Changing to proposed without prior discussion is not one of them.
#::*According to the edit history, I'm the third person to do it, and only you have objected to any of us doing it.  If anyone besides you believed this has been agreed upon, surely you could produce at least one such person.  The Literate Engineer 18:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Narrow the scope of the article to things that might appear on Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit (eg. make it similar in scope to WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, things which people have less of a problem leaving as an accepted guideline).  Trying to come up with consensus on notability in general is probably not currently possible.  There are a large number of attempts previously or currently ongoing, none of which have succeeded yet.  --Interiot 00:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I consider myself relatively engaged in this debate and had never seen this page. I oppose more rulecruft, but had not seen this proposal. Trollderella 01:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A month later

message: I agree with much of the discussion above that this proposed guideline as it stands is too vague and redundant with other policies. However, I do think something deserves to be said about trivia sections. These are almost always a bad idea, in my opinion, and it's a constant battle to keep the trivia at bay, particularly on articles related to popular culture. For example, today someone  made this edit to Woody Woodpecker. Now, the fact that Woody Woodpecker is the favorite character of another fictional character (this one Argentinian) is not something that needs to go in the Woody Woodpecker article. It's akin to adding "Charlie Brown has a striped shirt" under its own section to our pattern article.
Likewise, ". . . in popular culture" sections, while not quite as bad, are also magnets for endless additions of cruft. See for example, the evolution of tengu. It began with this edit, a mere two months ago, which introduced the "Tengu in media" section. Then others discovered the article and decided to add references to their favorite video games and Japanese comics:           .
There already seems to be broad consensus that "trivia" sections are bad. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, trivia sections are a common obstacle to an article being promoted. These users seem to agree: Superm401, Monicasdude, Rossrs, Wackymacs, Anville, Bte288, Bunchofgrapes, Petaholmes (nixie), and again, Nichalp, Maclean25, Johnleemk, Harro5, Bishonen, and Flcelloguy.
FAC is where the best of our articles are identified. The regulars there have reached consensus on this. Now it's time for the community as a whole. Can we add something on this to this proposed guideline? Is a change in focus warranted? — Amcaja 16:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: Add something to the effect that only certain articles should have "popular culture" sections. I don't think it's surprising or interesting that a piece of music as popular as the Moonlight Sonata would be used in countless films, games, TV series etc. Therefore it shouldn't have a section. However, if a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster turned up on the Simpsons, I think that would be would be surprising and interesting. Stevage 04:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change focus to "Trivia" sections