Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 7

message: I love the Trivia sections. Often the most interesting info is in there, tends to be things you never knew before.
Sometimes I think the Wikipedia guidelines are getting a bit strict...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.188.63 (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strawman sockpuppet? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF. Probably just a casual reader of Wikipedia who wanted to leave a comment. Trivia sections, while unpopular among Wikipedia editors (for good reason, as they're unwieldy and arbitrary), tend to be popular among readers. People like to say to their friends "Just listen to what I learnt when I pressed the Random Article button on Wikipedia today!" or something along those lines. WaltonOne 18:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above, I'd appreciate your comments; I think it's frankly ridiculous just how predisposed we've become to dismissing "popularity among readers" as being no reason to do anything. Encyclopedias are made for readers. Not editors. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Encyclopedias are made for readers." Yes, but we must first and foremost remain an encyclopedia. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying the inclusion of trivia sections would mean this is no longer an encyclopedia? Says who? Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the temporary inclusion of trivia sections to be fine, where temporary can be anything from a few hours to a few years (WP:TIND). The long-term/permanent inclusion of trivia sections (defined as sections of unorganised miscellanea) is more damaging in that it compromises the quality of articles. However, the type of pro-trivia attitude adopted by some readers, whereby article text would be overwhelmed by oodles of unorganised trivia, does undermine the encyclopedic essence of Wikipedia. We can and should cater to the needs and desires of readers, but not to the point where we abandon the definition of an encyclopedia. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer my question. If you're afraid of articles being "overwhelmed" by "oodles" of inappropriate material, then you're not against trivia sections, you're just against them getting out-of-control. If you think the best solution to keep them from getting out-of-control is to disallow them altogether, then that's simply not an intelligent solution; see my "pools" example in the discussion above. As I keep saying, trivia sections, like all others, can be kept clean, and limited only to relevant, unobvious, interesting, and verifiable facts. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in my comment above, the "permanent inclusion of trivia sections ... compromises the quality of articles". A good article (not necessarily a WP:GA) will be coherent and concise; thus, it will not contain random miscellaneous information, especially not in a separate section. If a fact is truly relevant, unobvious, interesting, and verifiable, it can be incorporated into the article. To use your "pools" example: I'm not stating that trivia sections are bad because they "attract more inappropriate material", but rather that they're bad because their existence means that the article's content is not adequately or appropriately organised. Of course, since articles are works in progress, that doesn't mean I support the summary and unconsidered removal of trivia sections. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then all you're saying is that you don't like trivia sections, which I already gathered. You're haven't offered any reasoning beyond that. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm ... yes I have. Trivia sections present loosely-related information with little or no organisation and undermine attempts to write and present article as a coherent whole. Ergo, trivia sections undermine good writing. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...in your opinion. We could argue back and forth about whether or not trivia sections are a good way to present information. I happen to believe that there is a distinct type of information that belongs in trivia sections (see discussion above), and therefore they don't constitute disorganization. I also don't necessarily think that articles with trivia sections are incoherent. These are just opinions though, so there's really nothing to argue about, as far as you're concerned. Other people have presented practical and provable points, such as "magnet for crap", or "other guidelines support/don't support them", etc. I can't argue with your opinions though, except to say that I feel differently. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 02:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really consider it a matter of opinion but rather a conclusion from the definition of trivia as "loosely-associated information", with no value judgment about the 'worth' of the information. If trivia is loosely-associated information, then a trivia section is a collection of loosely-associated information. The presence of a section of loosely-associated content undermines overall coherence. If you use even a slightly different definition, that of course changes everything ... Black Falcon (Talk) 02:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have a different definition of trivia sections, which is closer to the practical use of those sections in other publications, and further from the dictionary definition. I can't articulate it exactly, but if you look at the way such sections are used in other publications, you may get an idea of the type of material I'm referring to. I think my comments in the discussion above, "The origins of this guideline," somewhat illustrate what I'm talking about. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia rocks! 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. All are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Trivia}}]]

message: Another example of the guideline being invoked to delete everything  here in The New Yorker article. I am not saying every reference should be kept , I thought the list was a bit long myself , but an editor invoking the word trivia just to delete everything isn't right either .Garda40 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up, I just took care of that. I'll be watching that article. Yes, this guideline is probably the most misunderstood. We constantly try to reword it to make it less so, but people don't actually read it often; they just look at the title, which might be in need of a change as well. Something more innocuous, like just plain old "Trivia". Or something. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trivia sections".  That wipes the whole "avoid trivia" confusion off the table.  I'd be bold and make the change right now, but I'd have to fix several redirects in the process and I don't want to risk an edit war across a dozen pages.  Would changing the guideline's name to "Trivia sections" start up an edit war?  Anyone?  Anyone?--Father Goose 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we'll see. I just made the move. Also changed redirects WP:ATS and WP:TRIVIA. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just moved the archive pages also. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And made a new archive. Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Problem with this Guideline and Editors 

message: There's no real need or logic behind removing trivia. From the sound of it, it seems like people wish to get rid of it for merely tidiness reasons. Now supposing a bit trivia can be verified as true, it has every right to be included in the proper Wikipedia article.  There's no reason why Wikipedia should be limiting the information it can hold. I'd say to truly keep this as one of the most comprehensive and informative encyclopedias on the globe we should allow all information that merits itself as fact an equal place. The point of the trivia section is to provide facts pertaining to their article, without having to make the main article or one of its sections too long-winded and confusing. And despite what certain editors may feel, trivia can be interesting and useful to some people. Now if for some reason the editors decided that somehow Wikipedia has recently risen above the level of trivia, might I suggest renaming it into something that sounds more appropriate like "Intriguing Information" or something to that nature. Wikipedia was made so all users can equally share information; to shut out any information is to shut out users which goes against every purpose this website serves.
Cpesacreta 04:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that trivia sections do have a place in wikipedia, but that is primarily in the realm of early articles, such as articles at the Stub, Start, and B classes. At this stage of the game, it's a good way of obtaining information from a wide number of sources, and encourages participation by some of the more anonymous users, as they don't have to worry about where to place their information. Just add it to the trivia section's list, and it will be later cleaned up and merged into a better section by another editor with more experience. As a general rule, though not explicitly forbidden by WP:WIAFA or WP:WIAGA, trivia sections should be removed from articles prior to achieving featured article or good article status. Dr. Cash 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Deserves a Place in Wikipedia 

message: Look, trivia is very important to Wikipedia. This piece of crap polocy is random and ridiculus. What, are we deletiong parts of articles now? Ok then, we are gonna delete footnotes sections. That would mess up Wikipedia too ( Don't worry, we aren't doing this). I am currently spending most of my time editing Wikipedia trying to delete this polocy. The image is OK to use. --Alien joe 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the image is public domain, but it brings confrontational overtones to this already heated discussion page. — TKD::Talk 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the confirmation on the image, TKD. I had reviewed the declaration first prior to removing it, but wasn't certain because of the language that says not all images are PD. I agree that it is confrontational, but at least we know we're not violating copyright. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find this policy rather sad too. As a frequent reader of wikipedia trivia sections are often what I enjoy most. Okay, they are probably not very scientific, but as long as they don't subtract from the article. I don't get what you people are on about here with integrating the stuff. Isn't the whole point of trivia to add irrelevant but amusing facts. --86.154.131.180 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: that is not really the point of an  encyclopedia--rather it's to provide relevant information on subjects. To aid people to find it, we filter out the irrelevant. there's enough amusing and relevant information on important things to keep everyone fully occupied. (smile)DGG (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not always what you think it should be. And Wikipedia has no policy on relevance (which is a matter of personal opinion). --Pixelface 19:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face it!

message: I have had about enough. First was my one anti-trivia page. Then, 2 out of 3 of my messages are against me. Now, someone brings in this polocy. EVERY edit that I make seems to be reverted or gottn rid of. I am closer to my retirement every time. This polocy doesn't help. --Alien joe 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the nature of an open community: people are free to disagree with you and contest your actions.  The only way to prevail is to be patient and to reason with those who disagree with you.  If, ultimately, others do not agree with your views, concede the issue, and switch your sights to other areas where you can improve the encyclopedia without interference.--Father Goose 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and if you do lose a particular issue, perhaps come back to it another time after a few months. Consensus can change. As Father Goose says, what succeeds best here, and most other places too, is calm patient discussion. DGG (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  enough