Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 3

message: It seems to me that this guideline has been voted mostly by people who wanted it and made it. Most people who would oppose it, people who's not "in the know", is learning about it only after it's passed, from the warning messages that are appearing within every "Trivia" section of every article.
Frankly, it sounds like one of such unpopular laws passed by stealth by some Parliament members.
I feel that a policy or guideline that can have a such great impact on the whole Wikipedia -- and I can imagine groups of fanatics removing whole sections from articles feeling legitimate by this guideline -- should be announced to the public of Wikipedia on the top of every page just like meetings or fund rising. --ElfQrin 07:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suppose you attacking every single member of the project is a constructive response? I'm sorry, but your reaction is disproportionate to the offense, not to mention rude under any civilized code of conduct. --Agamemnon2 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care about being constructive. I tried being constructive a year ago when this site started the decline and was consistently insulted because I didn't agree with the majority. Being constructive got me nowhere. Now I just point out how stupid this site is becoming.63.131.25.92 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yet users who are trying to follow this guideline are experiencing a bad time, because most users keep adding trivias and a minority of users avoid and "fix" them. It doesn't exactly look a consensus to me. --ElfQrin 13:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not anymore, at least. But go ahead and keep making the site more and more useless every day, and ignoring the opinions of the people who use it. I'll be laughing when it dies.63.131.25.92 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree with Mr. IP here. Voting may not be the most effective means of getting the correct method of whatever into an article, but without a well-publicized vote, all you get is the elite basement-dwelling regulars with a major leadership complex making stupid decisions like, as Mr. IP said, removing spoiler warnings (which is most asinine) or something like this - removing trivia. Thats why I view most articles, bounce to the "oh, interesting" section aptly called trivia. Where else are you going to say that Steven filed all of Al Pachino's scenes in three weeks?. Come on guys, quit making this a socialist dictatorship. —Shanesan  (contribs) (Talk) 17:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with entirely with what you say Shanesan and I am a socialist. It's the facist deltionist fundamentalists who are the problem. Albatross2147 05:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reopening the poll, with wide publicity

message: This is a suggested guideline, not a policy.
Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, often grouped into their own section labelled "Trivia", "Notes", "Facts", or "Other information". We often refer to these informally as trivia sections.
These lists can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. It is ideal to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation providing context and smooth transitions. Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section or adding a new section. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts.
This guideline does not suggest removal of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with.
:This is good, maybe a new draft should be named Avoid Lists of Facts? --Osbus 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good adjustment to the original proposal. Case in point: I recently added a Popular references section to the Yeats article.  This is quickly turning into the kind of long, unsatisfying list Deco describes.  I'm planning on "delistifying" it in the near future, but it wasn't a bad way to collect some fun facts.  —johndburger 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the final draft will look more like Deco's proposal than mine...good stuff. And when FAC nominators insist that the List of Random Facts they have is good, I can finally have a guideline of some sort to back me up.--Osbus 00:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this rewriting of the guideline. I'd like to see "This guideline does not suggest removal of trivia sections" removed, though (and change the next bit to "Trivia sections should be considered" or something). Tuf-Kat 05:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, Avoid Lists of Facts is a good basis for a draft.  Having lists of facts in an an article makes it look less encyclopedic.  (Admittely, I hadn't opened an encyclopedia in the 17 years prior to viewing Wikipedia.)  In an article about a political unit (country, state, etc...), a reference to a list of governors/presidents/grand-poo-bahs is useful, but the list itself does not belong in the article.  A list of famous residents of a place, alumni of a school, members of an association can easily get out of hand, yet many articles have such.  The draft should explain why those are not good content.  GRBerry 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion this should just be part of WP:NOT. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deco's suggested guideline 

message: As a part of the effort to reduce trivia categories and convert them into paragraph prose, we should identify and categorize articles whose trivia sections are just too large. For that reason, I am proposing a template (and category) we could use to mark articles with long trivia sections. Tell me what you think, and feel free to improve the template. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great template! I'd love to use it.Agne27 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I use it now? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 05:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. --Osbus 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoa. Didn't notice all this popularity. Well, here's your template: . Please enjoy and make good use of this template! —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that "Avoid trivia" is a guideline, I think this template may need to be reworded.  When we say "the trivia is too large" we are implying that a small trivia section is ok, whereas the guideline is saying that we should be avoiding trivia sections altogether.  I think changing it so that it is more consistent with the message contained in the guideline would be more appropriate.  Maybe something like "To meet Wikipedia's guidelines regarding trivia section, this section may require editing.  Please check this list to determine if any relevant points should be incorporated into the article, and remove any points that are not considered relevant.  For further information please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles."  Then rather than being categorised as "articles with long trivia secitons", they could be categorized as "articles with trivia sections".  I know the wording I've suggested is rough, and needs some work, but maybe something along these lines might be ok.  What do you all think? Rossrs 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I started a discussion on the :Category talk:Articles with large trivia sections discussions page. In my opinion, as the guidelines suggests that trivia sections should be avoided altoghether, so the category needs renaming. --tgheretford (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I strongly agree that this template needs to be reworded. I actually had a friend (who is not an active wikipedian)ask me about these templates, saying he always enjoys trivia sections. From this talk page it is very clear that there isn't much consensus on exactly how to deal with trivia section, and there certainly ins't any consensus that they should be removed. However, putting up these  templates, clearly implies that there is not only a consensus against trivia, but also a policy. I would go for something that states that a trivia section is excessively long, or contains facts that should be integrated into the article (in this specific case). risk 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of template and companion category 

message: After considering closely the issue of trivia sections, I cannot support any suggestion that they be removed or integrated into other sections.
The problem is simple:  there are frequently small facts and details that ARE trivial, that other often find useless or inapproprate for a "serious" article.  Thus, they come along, and instead of moving the item to a "trivia" section where it might be appropriate, they instead delete the item altogether.
As a proof of concept, on five discrete occasions, an otherwise trivial fact was added to a fact section of a serious article to see what the result would be.  On EVERY OCCASION, that trivial fact has been deleted by someone else who apparently feels it is not appropriate.
Trivia has its place.  It needs to be here in Wikipedia.  We ought to leave the trivia sections in place where they are, for trivial facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.71.235.25 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While most Wikipedia users (if you include one time adds but people who have never read an encyclopedia and have no business trying to add anything to one) might favor trivia sections, based upon edits they also favor random garbled strings of text, "hi mom" comments in the body of articles, and so forth and so on. Trivia by its nature is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia is for. DreamGuy 06:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DreamGuy makes two unrelated statements.  The first one is about incompetent editors and vandals and not about trivia sections. The second statement, "trivia is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia is for", is just wrong. Large parts of the content of any encyclopedia are trivia.  Woodrow Wilson's first name, the exact area of Lake Ontario, the exact year that Willy Brandt became a mayor, the model of rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald, and so on and on and on and on.  Perhaps trivia sections bother people because they make the same mistake.  But it is a mistake.  Trivia sections are entirely appropriate -- if they are of reasonable length and there isn't a better way to organize the content.  207.176.159.90 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's laughable none of what you stated is trivia, in that it has a context. Also, the rifle Oswald reportedly used is vital to the case since his culpability is disputed and one of the reasons is the rifle used. How is someone's first name is trivia? Quadzilla99 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is an entire article series on the most famous pokemon then not trivia? Face it, alot of the ARTICLES on wikipedia are trivia by nature. If trivia is to be removed from wikipedia, we will need to delete a whole lot of pages, and not just fight a war on tidbits of information. Trivial information isn't less trivial because someone wrote something long about it. 213.89.185.105 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 207.176.159.90: all the examples you give are encyclopedic and should be included in the relevant articles. Just not in bullet lists of isolated facts. / edgarde 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to removal of trivia sections 

message: * There seems to be a mistaken idea going around that "trivia" is some separate category of knowledge that has its own uses and is of interest to a certain breed of researcher. In fact, "trivia" is not a category of knowledge, but a context for it. The number of dimples on a golf ball, to use one example, is critical knowledge when designing a vacuum mold for golf ball production, but it is trivia in the context of "sports". Therefore there may be a reason to include that bit of information into a history of golf ball design, but NOT in the article about sports. So, the task of the encyclopedist is to find the context into which the piece of information is NOT trivia, and to insert it there. By doing so, we may well avoid any demand for "trivia" sections. That is the purpose, as I understand it, of this guideline. --Dystopos 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on Trivia

message: I believe this guideline needs to be made clearer. Some see it saying that Trivia sections need to be integrated and removed completely with unworthy information removed. Others see the guideline justifying lists of facts and trivia that can't be integrated into the rest of the article. Which is it? The guideline needs to be much clearer what the end aim is. E.g. No trivia section or a section containing what's left after the integration. The rationale for the guideline suggests the aim is to have no trivia section as that's what's causing the problem, setting a "low bar". If this is the reason then it should say "integrate information and remove section" more clearly. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote most of it. My intention was that trivia sections are useful for ongoing article development but should be continually integrated and shouldn't be a feature of "polished" articles such as featured articles or Wikipedia 1.0 articles. Dcoetzee 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see, so the aim is to not have a trivia section at all, but it's just a temporary place to put information until it's merged with the rest of the article? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well Dcoetzee you should have made it so bleeding obvious that even the anally retentive deletionistas could comprehend your intentions. You would have better left it all unsaid in my opinion. Most people are smart enough to know that just about all articles need to improved and that lists of facts have a place whilst that process is under way. Albatross2147 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't consider myself a deletionist. I just wanted clarification on whether the aim of the guideline involves a trivia section existing once integration is complete, which is exactly what my question states. I didn't even even suggest the idea that trivia sections shouldn't exist ever. Don't let your opinion on this matter blind you from genuine questions asking for clarification of the guideline. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I believe I did make that clear, and that's why this guideline has received support, because it does not assume an extremist deletionist position. I don't think it was "better left unsaid", considering that the original guideline was much more deletionist and poorly thought out. Dcoetzee 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stronger language

message: I'm really having trouble agreeing with this guideline (and I'm finding it hard to believe there is consensus on this subject at all, but that's another argument).  The guideline does say "avoid" creation of trivia sections, but that can say to me trivia sections should be avoided, but that they are, in very limited cases, inevitable.  The "cultural references" trivia, for example.  For most articles, one or two cultural references are, yes, too trivial.  However, for cultural subjects that have a major influence on other culture, there is a meaningful context for the information in that given section.  It would be silly to say that the information contained is "isolated" if there is a great deal of it that is meaningful.  In such a case, it would be difficult and senseless to integrate an entire "trivia" section into other parts of its article. --Roehl Sybing 03:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this guideline has undergone some scope creep recently.  Cultural references sections aren't really the kind of trivia section it was written to handle.  It's about random lists of miscellaneous facts, which by their nature are disorganized and should be integrated elsewhere.  Cultural references sections do at least have a specific focus, and I agree they can remain as separate sections sometimes, though often they can be integrated into a larger Legacy or Influence section. —Celithemis 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the thing is that just about anything can be "popular culture"-related, so having a section called "Pop culture" is really no better than having a trivia section.  I think in almost all cases, toss-off mentions of anything should be ignored, but more selective (even if barely) categories are worthy of mention somewhere.  Wikipedia:Handling trivia actually goes into this in a much better way - the important thing is (1) to maintain some level of selectivity at a minimum, (2) to avoid OR, and (3) to organize the information.  The way I think about it is, this guideline is trying to encourage organization, it's not really saying much about content one way or the other. Mangojuicetalk 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * I just read Wikipedia:Handling trivia and find it to be very well reasoned and appropriate for Wikipedia. How should it be merged into (or made to replace) this guideline? --Dystopos 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "avoid" but do not delete 

message: I agree that trivia is a sensible and illuminating part of many wikipedia articles on popular culture, such as games, films, and actually even history.  The trivia section is an engaging way to let readers see how an otherwise apparently dry or obscure piece of history or science has actually affected their lives.  I agree that there may be a problem with "too much trivia" and lazy editing, but this is not the way to address it.  Trivia is a much-loved and informative feature of Wikipedia.--Jaibe 08:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misreading the guideline.  It doesn't say that trivia shouldn't be included.  It says that it shouldn't be organized into a trivia section.  Mangojuicetalk 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No he's not. The tag reads "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed." It's clear, to the point, and somewhat aggresive: blend it in or delete it. It's complete baloney. 15.219.233.72 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But this isn't (or doesn't have to be) a traditional encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia, an entity that has evolved beyond what is traditionally expected from an encyclopedia. It is now a straight shot compendium of knowledge, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I come to Wikipedia to discover. I see something, be it online or in real life, that looks interesting but about which I know nothing, and I look it up in Wikipedia. And I now, what am I getting at? I think that the current trivia format is fine. Sure, some topics have unwieldy sections that have grown out of control. But a little trimming can fix that. Most "traditional" encyclopedias don't have a trivia section, but this isn't a "traditional" encyclopedia.Bored and Agitated 05:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're fighting against the current here — WP:AVTRIVIA is a style guideline derived from the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Starting a Wikitrivia project would be easy enough. If you don't have server space for your own wiki, consider creating one at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia . / edgarde 06:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another voice in support of trivia 

message: I really wish this policy would be revoked...ErkDemon says it perfectly above.
Afabbro 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YAEOTRT (Yet Another Editor Opposed To Removing Trivia 

message: Personally I'd just like to state that i damn well hate this whole page, and yes that's sort of considered "not a neutral point of view". I hate it because I know there are a number of articles that have very relevant information in trivia sections that doesn't fit properly anywhere else. And i hate it because user's who have nothing relevant or better to contribute are running around throwing it into every possible article, when there are so many more important things to be doing - one which, I would have thought, would be fixing the information so that the banner didn't need to be there in the first place. But somewhere I know that the policy is going to stand, so I will go against it in the only way I know how. A page I was on recently had your "wonderful" triva banner on it - making the page look so much better I'm sure. But the thing I had an issue with was that at the bottom of the page, it had been added to the category of "Articles With Large Trivia Sections". Now there are a lot of users who are happy to say that they speak bullshit, but for you guys its just a case of denial. Considering the article in question, Vince Russo, had a grand total of 6 bullet points in it, I wouldn't class this as a large trivia section. 6 is not large. If you so whole-heartedly want to tag every single article that comes into this grouping with this unneccessary banner, then at least try and get the category right, becuase this is just one aspect of this debate which I consider in the wrong. Legitimately in the wrong I should say, I'm not going to get into everything else which is wrong with it. 
PS. Because you decided to place the userbox on this page as an example, "Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles" has been added to "Category:Articles with large trivia sections". Man, you guys are reeeel smart.
--SteelersFan UK06 05:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, your support and comments are appreciated, especially since  is protected from editing. --Android Mouse 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have proposed the category for renaming to :Category:Articles with trivia sections. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Articles with large trivia sections. –Pomte 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Articles with large trivia sections 

message: :The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page. 
No, you can't revoke a guideline by voting against it. This entire poll is basedo n a severe misunderstanding of what guidelines are and how they work. >Radiant< 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
=== Comments and discusion ===
#Comment. I have been fairly active in some discussions above, so I want to at least comment here. I do not care if it is a guideline or not. Whatever it is and whatever it is called, I want it to be applied by humans - not machines, and I want editors to have the right to break the rule, if the article content turns out to warrant it. Mlewan 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why the poll was closed. Your initial comment didn't make it sound like you were trying to revoke the guideline, more as if you were trying to see the opinions of others. --Android Mouse 17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but we got over 20 people commenting and there was no time period specified anyway.  Mangojuicetalk 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd poll 

message: #Oppose this page as a guideline.  (I would retain it as non-binding advice.)--Father Goose 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: #Comment. I have been fairly active in some discussions above, so I want to at least comment here. I do not care if it is a guideline or not. Whatever it is and whatever it is called, I want it to be applied by humans - not machines, and I want editors to have the right to break the rule, if the article content turns out to warrant it. Mlewan 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why the poll was closed. Your initial comment didn't make it sound like you were trying to revoke the guideline, more as if you were trying to see the opinions of others. --Android Mouse 17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but we got over 20 people commenting and there was no time period specified anyway.  Mangojuicetalk 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and discusion