Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 9

message: The designation of this as part of the WP:MOS has not been controversial. Therefore, and in keeping with the above merge proposal, I propose renaming this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia) (note absence of "sections"). This move should be performed after the merge is performed (or rejected) obviously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)›  —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree with merging "Handling trivia."  I am not sure the consensus at either part is to use the designation trivia, so perhaps in should be "MOS (Material of subsidiary importance)" I do not consider popular culture to be in general trivia,or of subsidiary importance,  and I think that is the consensus at that page. I would accept a merge that said so, and listed popular culture in another section. Alternatively, the popular culture part is a question of notability, not of MOS.  DGG (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The word "sections" is very important and can't leave the title (barring removal of the word "trivia" as well). This is a style guideline and not one of content. We aren't dealing with trivia. We're dealing with trivia sections. This guideline makes no mention of trivia itself, except where it says that this guideline is not here to define it or make recommendations regarding it. Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:22, 10/14/2007
See re-proposal subtopic in the thread above; if the MOS connection is a problem, sever it.  And two of the three documents have "trivia" in their names and the IPC one discusses IPC articles as a form of trivia, and notes how often they are subject to AfD on that basis, so I doubt that "trivia" appearing in the combined version's name would actually be controversial. If it were, use "indiscriminate information" per WP:NOT, but really, why go to such a long name (that one or the "...subsidiary importance" one)? KISS principle. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move/rename 

message: I recommend everyone read this summary before discussing trivia in wikipedia. Ozmaweezer 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the trivia debate 

message: Thanks for phasing out Trivia sections. I know they are fun to read, but they have to go.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.197.30 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typos are common too, doesn't mean people love them. The fact remains that when people apply this guideline to the article, that same information is presented in a better format. For the most part, people use trivia sections as a misc dumping ground because they don't know where else to put something, and it has little to nothing to do with a love or desire to have a "trivia" section. "that clamor for removal of good content" you are on the wrong talk page, this guideline is not about the removal of content, but how to present it. If you're going to comment about something, make sure you actually know what you're talking about before doing so, especially when you decide to insult the people who've helped develop it. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Trivia is one of the best features of wikipedia. I for one vote against the existance of this guide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.187.239.200 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it should be deleted. Trivia sections do provide useful information which at the time may be difficult to integrate into the article. Whilst it is possible that this may be integrated into the main body of the article as it expands, it is useful in some articles, particuarly stubs, where the information would not fit into the body of the article. I also feel that this is a case of WP:CREEP, and would very much like to see its existance discussed at MFD. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You really have to assume good faith when judging people's edits, especially adding tags which usually means they are interested in the clean up of Wikipedia. Saying people are acting pompously or calling them morons does not help the situation. The editors who are working on this guideline are constantly trying to perfect it, so if you have discovered trivia sections that cannot be integrated and the content included in it should be kept in the article in that format, it might be a good idea to bring it to somebody's attention on this talk page. Doing this will enable editors of this guideline to either have a go at integration themselves, or adjust the guideline to take into account Trivia sections like that. It's also useful to remember that because there isn't already a section the information can go into, it doesn't mean a section can't be created. As you mentioned Casino (film), I took a look at the trivia section there. I was able to integrate a lot of the information into 2 new sections, one of which I marked as a section stub for expansion. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guide needs deleting 

message: Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins.  Support the wikiproject proposal.  Add your name to the list here:  [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia]
Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested.  ThanksOzmaweezer 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Estil76.177.160.69 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for trivia in movie articles. They add colour and dimension. Alpheus 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see it there any more; I take it this failed?  Either way, I wanted to might remind: Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Anything that involves a campaign to add names to a list is missing a point. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture.  It's a legit wikiproject in its current form.  Unfortunately, it's easier to posture than to act, so what's been accomplished through it is very limited so far.  This is probably true of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup as well.--Father Goose (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show your support for trivia, add your name to the list 

message: There is now renewed discussion regarding the guidelines for trivia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Trivia and In popular culture. I believe that it makes sense to renew discussion of the subject, so that it can be determined if there is or is not a broadly based consensus on the existing guideline, and that any proposals to alter such guidelines be made here, whether they are made elsewhere or not. 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture.  I'm not sure Ozmaweezer's intent is limited to discussing this guideline, as opposed to discussing trivia and popular culture on Wikipedia as a whole -- and now there is a place for that.--Father Goose 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So noted. As per his/her comments to date, however, "trivia", specifically including presence of "trivia" sections, does seem to that editor to be a primary concern, if perhaps not the only one. And, considering s/he has repeatedly stated that this guideline should be changed, it made sense to me that discussion regarding changes take place. John Carter 00:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New discussion of trivia guidelines 

message: I recommend everyone read this summary before discussing trivia. Ozmaweezer 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that at least some of those options contain suggestions which would require a complete redesign of the encyclopedia (like creating a separate tab for trivia), which if they were to have any chance to exist would have to be made at the Wikipedia:Village pump or elsewhere. John Carter 15:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but the point of this cross-reference is to forestall repeat propositions that have failed to gain consensus already and/or are not feasible, and to direct people who are pro or con trivia (or trivia sections, etc.) to the list of already-well-understood pro and con arguments so that they don't waste time repeating them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the trivia debate 

message: Much of the value of Wikipedia is the degree to which it exceeds and supplements the content of a traditional encyclopedia.  Despite this Wikipedia has recently, and unfortunately, begun to create increasingly detailed "policies" as a result of pressure from those who attack its credibility.  These new policies invariably take the form of characterizing much existing content as inappropriate, thereby justifying removal.  At the same time new contributors are discouraged from attempting "inappropriate" contributions.  This and other new "policies" are examples of overzealous and persnickety grooming that will lead to the decline, fragmentation and ultimate obsolescence of Wikipedia. by 16.17.222.1 
::to counteract this, new people continue to join, whose contributions to policy discussions as well as articles can re-vitalize WP, as they have in the past. Policy is what we make it, jointly, by consensus. The best way to learn and contribute to how it works is to comment appropriately at AfD. DGG (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final thoughts 

message: I like the info often found in trivia sections.  I understand that the info could be better presented as prose, and the article would look more encyclopedic as such, if people took the time to integrate it... however the trivia broom template thingy is a real eyesore and it's on every freaking page I visit.  I would say, keep this guideline as a suggestion, but please have a bot take down the brooms.  Integrating trivia is something we'll do when any article is on the road to becoming featured.  But for articles where the interest level isn't that high... leave the trivia section as is.  It's the ugly brooms, not the guideline, that I think most people are objecting to.  Kind regards, David Bergan (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested in modifying the current version of the trivia template, please join the discussion on the trivia template talk page, where these kinds of suggestions are better placed. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the format of the template, it's the use of it.  I just think that this is a guideline that doesn't need to be posted on every trivia section across wikipedia.  Keep it as a rule for the good articles that people are trying to make better... but let's just ignore the rule otherwise.  Seeing that template everywhere just reinforces an image that wikipedia is a half-baked clumsy mock-up.  It looks like we're seeing things on an editor's desk rather than reading them from an encyclopedia.  Yes wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress, but we don't need to shove impression in people's faces.  David Bergan (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I find it interesting that it is on every page you visit.  I don't see it all that often even though I view thousands of pages each year.  I guess it makes the point that these issues are mainly affecting certain classes of articles more then others.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I look up a lot of pop songs/albums/movies, which are prone to trivia like "U.S. rock band The Ataris also recorded a song on their 1999 album Blue Skies, Broken Hearts...Next 12 Exits called "San Dimas High School Football Rules" after a line taken from the movie."  And here I see someone else didn't like the broom banner, so they just relabeled "Trivia" as "Legacy" and removed the bullets.  Which, in my mind, looks way worse.  David Bergan (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's use your example. Are the band and the movie notable? If so , is not the information relevant and significant to those interested in either, and since it is obviously sourcable, why is it not encyclopedic?DGG (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it's encyclopedic... I'm with you on that.  I like learning little fast facts like that when I read an article.  I don't mind seeing them in a bulleted list in a section called trivia.  But I also do see how it would look more professional if facts like that were worked into paragraph format (hence the guideline).  I just think that there are so many freaking articles, many of which we are all apathetic towards, that it is ok to leave them in the basic trivia format and no need to smack the reader in the face with the trivia guideline (broom icon) template banner.  Maybe we can just move the banner to the talk page... how about that for a compromise?  David Bergan (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to just call you on this, but you clearly didn't look at the link I previously provided, (Template_talk:Trivia#Proposal_to_modify_or_move_template), as we just closed a discussion on November 10th about this exact issue. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand the concern here, but this is pretty much the same complaint about any given clean up tag that is shown on the article itself. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more perspective 

message: ...among other things. I'm aware others have expressed these same concerns/ideals- but I was quite surprised when I found a template urging users not to make trivia sections! Miscellaneous but equally interesting facts are verymuch sought after by people who are looking up casual research, and Wikipedia is a haven for these types of facts. I strongly oppose this template and would love for it to be removed.
--Alegoo92 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're in luck, because removing these templates is extremely easy. All you need to do is find an acceptable way to integrate those items into the article proper, and you're set. This way people can read these fascinating facts in the proper context. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and I find the premise to be absurd to begin with. I think Alegoo92 is thinking of IMDb, not Wikipedia. With the exception of material usually blatantly ripped off from IMDb to begin with, most WP articles have no such trivia at all (though it has certainly been growing, granted). Alegoo92 may have come here looking for trivia, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that others have in large numbers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And at the same time, anyone could take the opposite stance and have just as much to back it up. I think it is clear that some people come here looking for trivia, just as some people think it is a plague that should be wiped off the face of Wikipedia. This is why the trivia sections should be eliminated, while the content in the trivia section should be integrated; then the information is judged on it's own merit as an individual fact, rather than having the merit of the fact compromised by the unfortunate "trivia" label.  --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly agreed; I am not an "off the face of Wikipedia" type myself.  I was simply responding to the outlandish claim that WP's popularity is due to trivia. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Wikipedia's popularity is due to the fact that it's an extremely broad information source.  Trivia sections may attract editors, though... but not necessarily the kinds of editors we need a ton more of.  Mangojuicetalk 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia sections are what make people flock to Wikipedia 

message: This page becoming a policy is based on:
*Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles/poll
Where 62% of the users, a mere 27 wikipedians, decided this page was to be a guideline for all of wikipedia. 
I am not going to argue with the guardians of this page on the pros and cons of this guideline. Messages on my talk page defending this page will be cut and pasted here. Thank you.
If anyone wants to devote the time to demote this guideline let me know. Travb (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a policy, it's a guideline, and there is no "demotion" process.  Either it is a guideline or it isn't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone wants to demote this policy let me know 

message: Since everyone is thinking about it (and it is growing increasingly difficult to scroll down this exceptionally long thread) perhaps we can have a more narrow and focused discussion on this issue, for it seems to be the major point that this merge would depend on. So, should this guideline contain criteria for inclusion/removal/relevance of content, and if so, how should this information be presented? --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should "relevance of content" be an issue in this guideline?

message: tagged the "Production" section of 33 (Battlestar Galactica) with , with an edit summary of: "Tagged as "  Reading this guideline, I don't find it applicable in this instance, but would appreciate others' input and interpretation.  Thank you.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that isn't a trivia section. I removed the trivia tag and provided a link to this guideline in my edit summary, so hopefully people will read it before blindly slapping the tag back on. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 12/25/2007
My edit has been continuously undid and every potential reason has been offered to justify editors' decisions. The last one is triva. I really can't understand why my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&diff=180590168&oldid=180584016 is trivia while the remaining part in the green box is not. --82.185.106.178 (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a trivia section?