Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 5

message: A lot of people have said here that they like trivia, and in response people have said, 'this is an encyclopedia not a mass collection of random facts' or something similar.
Lets analyse that.
An encyclopedia is a collection of entries about unlinked topics, a mass collection of fact, organised only through the fact that it is alphabetically ordered. In a written encyclopedia what connects several articles? Nothing. Wikipedia is different, there are links.
An encyclopedia is a collection of entries which in turn contain a series of information about said entry;  if said entry is a person, what will follow is a short biography in essence. Trivia is information about the said entry, that simply does not easily fit in context in the rest of the entry. But is information that is still relevant because it is about said entry.
Plus the idea that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia is a flawed one:  while it ultimately wishes to be a notable encyclopedia (+ free), it is simply not held in that light by the users (note differences between users of the site, and editors of the site, which essentially makes none of us/you users, because we/you edit it, and also have bias about the medium itself). Wikipedia is simply a useful collection of information that people casually use to look up facts due to its available nature, and 'instant' search advantages over traditional mediums. It is not considered to be trustworthy or a secondary source on any matter. Wikipedia holds no weight as an encyclopedia.
But this is an advantage, it allows Wikipedia to transcend a typical encyclopedia and be packed full of information, on many things. Trivia can be amusing, and is a section I am more likely to read in an article about a film say, rather than reading the plot section. This is not a place of educational esteem, and Wikipedian values shouldn't be so strict as to have to get rid of trivia, the idea of strong values over a website also strikes me as amusing.
Wikipedia is web 2.0, and web 2.0 is all about the user, and social media, and moving away from the idea of the computer. Wikipedia's social hierarchy, anti-elitism and power-hungry administrators give people a bad taste about the site, and stop them from making edits to articles. People bitch continuiously and people often feel slapped around the face when they try to make a contribution on something they are interested in, and then is deleted by people through AfD.
This 'Trivia' malarky is just another example, people spend time finding out these facts and 'write' them down for people, and then someone comes along with a condescending tag saying things like 'delete'.
While I do not want to stress the feelings of the user, a social networking site should make this a priority, and try to give me a reason why not.
One such editor above said that removing trivia is the same as fixing an article; I would like to know exactly why that is so.
But even though there has been complaining about this, once something like this is instituted, does it ever get changed? Has a piece of policy ever been deleted?
82.43.111.162 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Policies generally aren't deleted but they are sometimes ultimately rejected.  Although, it's pretty rare: all the examples that come to mind are cases where the page was never really a guideline, but someone claimed it was, and this was corrected.  As for the rest of your rant, I agree that if we don't think Wikipedia should aim to be trustworthy or hold weight as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't bother removing or cleaning up trivia.  But as for your "Wikipedia is web 2.0", you might want to actually join the community and see what building Wikipedia is really about before you make that kind of incorrect conclusion.  Mangojuicetalk 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP, as an encyclopedia,  is organised into articles. That is, if Lee Leeps is a notable person, there will be an article containing all notable facts about Lee Leeps. The Leeps article does not contain information about A Smith, B Jones, or bottle-tops or what was on TV last night. Any notable facts about an incident where Leeps and Smith interacted would appear or be summarised in either or both articles. But Smith's life story does not appear on Leeps articlepage, nor should information about what Leep may have watched on TV last night, or what color his granpa's underpants were, or who stood next to Leeps in an elevator once. And, especially, not every mention of every time someone mentioned or referred to Leep on TV needs to be included. This is trivia. —Newbyguesses 06:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As a member of Wikipedia I look forward to trivia sections in articles, I enjoy them and it really separates them from other websites Wikimindless 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia and not a 'website' so a bit more formal prose is to be expected.  There are no members, it is open to all.  Vegaswikian 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Just for the record, I like trivia sections and enjoy reading them.  Most of the prose on Wikipedia is too long-winded and formal.  What I want is interesting information fast, and lots of it... which I do get from many lists that are marked "trivia."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.169.21 (talk) 
:Perhaps you should find a trivia Wiki then. Lolipops. Matthew 07:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you.  As you can see from my wiki user bio page, I think wikipedia takes itself WAY TOO seriously at times and the movement to remove trivia is but one example. Chanceinator 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "Lolipops" mean in this context? / edgarde 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lolipops is a whimsical expansion of "lol", analogous to "roflcopter". Dcoetzee 09:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Too long-winded and formal? Go read some webcomics or something, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. DreamGuy 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, anon.  Plenty of articles will always have trivia sections.  This guideline does not ban them at all.  It does state that the information would be better presented in the article, which is true, but this doesn't amount to a ban on them, despite what several very vocal, anti-trivia-sections-in-all-situations editors keep insisting on. Tempshill 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only your opinion... and an opinion that happens to be wrong. DreamGuy 21:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, opinions can be wrong.  Way to be open minded there.  Just another wikipedian who takes himself way too seriously :D Chanceinator 21:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Paragraph form is better for some readers and worse for other readers. --Coppertwig 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *WP:FIVE says WP is not a trivia collection. Corpx 06:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is suggesting removing most of the trivia.  Just that most trivia really fits well into other sections of the articles and that moving it improves the quality of the encyclopedia both in terms of content and readability.  Vegaswikian 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion on trivia 

message: Someones gone and removed a the triva out of the Simpson episode pages. I think we need a lot of it because it helps connect the episodes together and avoids confusion.--Steven X 05:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of. Trivia that does serve to connect episodes and/or is important to the episode ought to be included. Episode articles may admit much more trivial information than would be included in the series article because of their narrow focus. Dcoetzee 08:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons 

message: Maybe this has been already said, but I think there are trivia sections mainly in movie and TV articles because of IMDB. Anyone who does not know too well how to edit an article (where to add relevant things, etc.) will just make a trivia section and basically add anything there. I don't see a mention of IMDB's trivia on this guideline, but it needs to be mentioned.    THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a footnote that specifically reminds users that IMDB pages are copyrighted and shouldn't be copied to Wikipedia.  Mangojuicetalk 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents 

message: Based on feedback that the initial draft got, I've done a full rewrite of Wikipedia:Relevance.  I hope to make it an "official" guideline in the near future, and have this guideline link to it when mentioning the subject of relevance.  If you have objections to the proposed guideline -- or any other comments to offer -- please state them at Wikipedia talk:Relevance.--Father Goose 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Relevance guideline 

message: In my opinion, the guidance is ALL WRONG. Some information just can't fit together to the article and needs to be in a separate section. Some trivias are very interesting to the reader and needs to be included but just would be better in a separate section. Brave warrior 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Again, this is an encyclopedia and we should present the facts relevant to an article, not content that readers might find entertaining.  Corpx 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a huge difference between "interesting" and "entertaining". If the problem is that you fear that people may be entertained by the section, just rename it to "very boring isolated facts that are linked to the main topic of the article, but which do not naturally fit into the narrative of the main text". Personally, I think "Trivia" is as good a title, even though it may be slightly misleading. Mlewan 08:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Bad word choice by me :) Corpx 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Even if some information is useless, a Trivia section is not a bad idea. Without one, I wouldn't know that Esmerelda/Phoebus and Pocahontas/John Smith are the only two interracial couples in Disney animated movies. I usually learn a lot more in the Trivia then I do in the whole article. No substitute for you 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is wrong with trivia sections

message: The title of this guidline is "Avoid trivia sections". "Avoid" means to try not to have them wherever possible, but it also means that they are sometimes warranted. The trivia template, however, would seem to imply that a Trivia section necessarily constitutes a flawed article; that a Trivia section is always something that needs to be remedied. The template makes no mention of what to do if a Trivia section is unavoidable - such as under what circumstances the Trivia template can be removed. And there must be a circumstance where it can be removed, even when a Trivia section exists — after all, Trivia sections are to be avoided, not banned...  Right? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 00:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's best taken up at Template talk:Trivia, where some editors have expressed similar views, and others, the contrary.--Father Goose 01:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I would disagree.  "Avoid" means that they should always be avoided; the ultimate implication of this guideline is plainly that there should, in the long run, be no trivia sections anywhere in Wikipedia.  They are never warrented; otherwise, there would not be a general consensus to avoid them.  The ultimate goal of  is certainly, and should always clearly remain, to facilitate the deconstruction, integration, and eventual elimination any trivia section it has been added to (which, eventually, will be all trivia sections)...  in short, it should be a tool to help avoid trivia sections everywhere. --Aquillion 06:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look through this page and the archives of this page. I don't think this qualifies as a consensus. Yes, avoid means always avoid them, but that doesn't change what the word "avoid" means. If the guideline was meant to disallow trivia sections across the board, even only in firmly established articles, then it would say so — but it does not say so. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 07:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with  as it's worded at this moment: it says that the article could be improved by integrating appropriate items and removing inappropriate ones.  There may be some article somewhere where editors agree that a Trivia section is, in fact, the best way to organize the appropriate information, but I have never come across such an example.  But I suppose if it happened, there would be a general agreement that removing the trivia section would not be an improvement, so the trivia tag could simply be removed. Mangojuicetalk 14:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine in theory, but if there isn't a consensus, the side arguing for removal of the template has no leg to stand on — because the template states above all else that "This article contains a trivia section." It doesn't say, "This article contains a trivia section of poor quality" or "...a trivia section that could possibly be integrated with another section, but if any facts remain that can't be integrated without degrading the article's quality then this template may be removed." Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also think it's reasonable to remove the tag if the trivia section, although present and a potential area for cleanup, is not a big problem.  IE, if it had only one or two items in it.  There should really be a policy about edit-requesting templates somewhere.  It's one thing to tag an article with  but there are so many cleanup tags in existence, I feel like we are violating WP:ASR all the time.  Mangojuicetalk 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think the trivia template serves an important purpose in ensuring that articles don't become dumping grounds for useless facts, as occurs frequently on the web in general. But I think people have become so afraid of this happening that they've resorted to an essential ban of any trivia section, without reviewing them on a case-by-case basis. The trivia template as it is presently worded facilitates this practice. I wouldn't edit the template or the guideline myself right now since it's such a hotly debated subject, but that fact in and of itself shows that something needs to be done. The top of every guideline page tells us that the guidelines reflect a consensus, and this talk page, I think, suggests something else entirely. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 19:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With only 1 or 2 items, the information should be integrated into the article.  Then there is no need for the tag or the section. Vegaswikian 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I disagree. I don't think anyone can say this with certainty across the board. There are many instances where some notable facts simply have no place in any other section and belong in a list. I've seen such items blatantly removed or forcefully integrated into other sections in an attempt to improve the articles' adherence to the guidline, but that only end up hurting it — either by making them sound forced or by removing useful information. I think it's a shame that people feel the need to do this. Besides which, that isn't my point in this case. My point is that the template language and the guidline are at odds with each other. One says "avoid," while the other implies "disallow." Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with Template:Trivia. Let's consider the case closed. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a very convincing argument. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 22:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the more diplomatic portions of your statement (mostly the beginning). But as far as the other stuff, the guideline is actually now worded so that it's independent of the section title (even if the template has not yet been similarly reworded). For example, "Cultural references" is also looked down on. The fault is in the list format of the section, not the section title. I think most editors could care less about the mere word "trivia" being used. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I didn't ref WP:EMBED as a part of WP:LIST just to talk to my self. I put it up because few people arguing about "trivia" seem to have read it.SBHarris 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been mentioned, the proper place to discuss changes to Template:Trivia is really at Template talk:Trivia.  Mangojuicetalk 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in general, but I don't think WP:EMBED is a valid proof of precedent for listing anything other than links, if that's what you're getting at. Links and other info are very different from one-another, in my opinion. But again I'm still agreeing with your stance on the issue. Mangojuice, you also offered your opinion on the template somewhere above. It can't be wrong when we do it and right when you do it. Plus this is more about the guideline that the template is meant to enforce than it is about the template itself. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since this is about trivia in general, not just the template, I can certainly say that plenty of people disagree with you about lists in Wikipedia. If you will READ WP:LIST you will see very many reasons for lists, and WP:LISTV even makes the point that lists in which all items are linked is not much differernt from a disambiguation page, and THAT just screws up the WP software. So do NOT do that (link it all). That is not only not what lists are for, it is explicitly NOT what they are for.  And by the way, you are helping to to see that some of the problem here isn't just that there are people who don't like the word "trivia." It's also that there are some people who don't like lists in any fashion or form. Even when they are the best and most appropriate form in which to place the particular information at hand. So some of this trivia thing seems to be part of a larger prejudice. Thus, if you re-label all "trivia" lists something else, the list-haters will go after these lists, even under another name. They will not stop until the very form has been expunged, and replaced by prose and paragraphs. SBHarris 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LISTV doesn't say that at all; it says don't link items on the list unless you make sure they link to the right pages (not disambiguation pages).  It doesn't say that it screws up the software either.--Father Goose 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was posting that in response to Sbharris, who was proposing to make changes to Template:Trivia.  We weren't discussing that anywhere above that I can find.  Mangojuicetalk 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, I misunderstood. Sorry about that. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia template is in contradiction with this guidline

message: I was just passing by and noticed this relevance debate. If you would like an example to discuss, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this addition  It's probably 100% true. It's not sourced but probably could be. But in my opinion it is so banal a fact that I can't imagine it ever being of any use to anyone.  - X201 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a borderline case to me. I personally find it sort of interesting and it may affect the demographics of their fan base. Dcoetzee 08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in that example, that info could be integrated into another section. You should be able to find a ref that suggests the effect of this fact on the fan base, which you could then mention in the article. I think that would make a nice addition to a paragraph section. That's just this particular example though. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 13:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia/Relevance example

message: When more and more institutions of higher education are banning citations of wikipedia in collegiate papers, it just shows that wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia.  The removal of trivia sections is just one more instance in which wikipedia has decided to take itself way too seriously!  Chanceinator 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at that level, many instructors won't let students use any general-purpose encyclopedias as cited references — the idea being that encyclopedias (and other tertiary sources) should be starting points, not ending points, for research. I don't see that as really an argument against trying to produce a collaboratively edited, serious encyclopedia. Whether or not Wikipedia can be explicitly cited, many people in higher education do use it to obtain a generally useful overview of a subject; including swaths of trivia only hurts our reputation in that respect. — TKD::Talk 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This guideline concerns article organization, not inclusion standards. Even Uncyclopedia prefers well-written articles. Dcoetzee 02:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You bash Wikipedia for not being trusted as a reference and then you bash it for taking itself too seriously. One is the remedy for the other. You can't berate both at the same time. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can cite specific, unchangeable versions of an article (look at the "history" tab).  However, you still have no guarantee that any article, or part of it, might not be utter fabrication.--Father Goose 02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a true encyclopedia 

message: After seeing someone delete a  because the section was not called Trivia (it is called Appearances in other media), I've created  for these types of sections, so as to avoid confusion and deletion. Please take a look and comment on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, strictly speaking, not a trivia section - the primary concern is relevance. Unless you're claiming that the section needs to be more focused. Dcoetzee 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia2 

message: Generally, I try to refrain from beating dead horses (and yes, this talk page is littered with equine corpses). However, I'm increasingly noticing that as I go around Wikipedia, "trivia sections" are deleted wholesale or flagged, and the reference is to a "consensus" which it seems obvious (judging by this talk page alone) does not exist. There are a number of valid arguments for and against trivia sections, but for me the overriding concern was that they add value to articles. They are one of the things that, apart from merely imparting information, makes Wikipedia more enjoyable to read than a traditional encyclopedia.
I feel, as others also seem to, that Wikipedia is destroying something of value in an effort to pretend to be something it is not. Instead of asking how to live without trivia sections, or with integrating the so-called trivia into the main article -- why not ask ourselves why having these sections is bad? "Because traditional encyclopediae don't have them" seems a poor excuse -- should we also get rid of hyperlinks, talk pages and community participation? -Stian 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're hard to "keep short" -- people come along and add one, then more, and eventually they end up being half the article.  I'm pro-trivia, but trivia sections on Wikipedia are all too often disorganized jumbles.  Most content that has at least a little bit of significance can usually be organized a bit better, even if it's just in a more-targeted list.--Father Goose 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is more misunderstanding of what constitutes trivia. Trivia, in the sense of unorganized and unselective lists, is bad because it's just poor article organization. It's bad for the same reason that writing the whole article as one paragraph is bad - we want to present things in a way that lets people find the information they need. Dcoetzee 04:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia adds value 

message: I don't really mind if people put trivia sections in or not. What worries me though is the idea of integrating it into main articles.
The whole point of trivia is it is trivial and unimportant. However if we find anything trivial or unimportant in a main article, we delete it. 
Wouldn't it be better to keep short trivia sections?90.11.62.116 11:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're hard to "keep short" -- people come along and add one, then more, and eventually they end up being half the article.  I'm pro-trivia, but trivia sections on Wikipedia are all too often disorganized jumbles.  Most content that has at least a little bit of significance can usually be organized a bit better, even if it's just in a more-targeted list.--Father Goose 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is more misunderstanding of what constitutes trivia. Trivia, in the sense of unorganized and unselective lists, is bad because it's just poor article organization. It's bad for the same reason that writing the whole article as one paragraph is bad - we want to present things in a way that lets people find the information they need. Dcoetzee 04:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: role of trivia

message: Just out of curiosity: Who is the first Wikipedian ever to come up with an idea of having trivia sections in Wikipedia's articles and which article is the first one alleged to have contain trivia? Nobody seems to be inquiring about this. 13:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, that's a trivia question.  We avoid them. ;-p I believe the very first edits on Wikipedia are lost forever, although it ought to be possible to download a database dump and do a query to find the first remaining "Trivia" section.  That is no trivial task.--Father Goose 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The very <big>'''first'''</big> ever trivia in Wikipedia.