Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 10

message: Okay, I've avoided the trivia debate for the last two years because no reasonable compromise is going to develop that all sides will be satisfied with.
However, I'm going to take exception to edits like this one made by User:Pinkadelica, who is justifying removing entire sections from the encyclopedia based on the essay at WP:HTRIV, which doesn't appear to be in a position to advocate razing entire sections of the article just because it has an objectionable header.  It had been tagged with a trivia tag by an anonymous user just a couple hours before the whole section was removed.  The issue here is that roughly half of the article's contents were removed without any effort being made to integrate that information as prose into the rest of the article, and a casual read without any knowledge of the subject will show that some of the removed details are actually interesting and relevant (like how many people watched the show).  
I'm not seeing how removing this improves the quality or informative value of the encyclopedia.  Can someone explain this to me?  -/- Warren 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just an example of someone who basically made a bad decision, perhaps because he didn't actually read the essay or this guideline. It doesn't make any sense and you were right in reverting it. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:31, 1 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it was the case here, but frequently you will see a guideline referenced and it may in fact not support the action taken.  That essay is clear, 'Practical steps' says integrate.  Do we know if actions like this are really common? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how common it is now but if anyone remembers back a few months there were major edit wars leading to a number of people being banned and blocked, and one admin de-sysopped over the issue.  I have reviewed this editors trivia deletions going back to December 1 and restored about 80% of them, the ones that seemed to contain any amount of useful encyclopedic content.  Some of the deleted content was quite important and just happened to be in a section titled "trivia" or the like.  By restoring, I don't mean to say all that material belongs here, just that it has to be evaluated item by item to decide if it should be kept and integrated, or discarded as unsourceable or irrelevant.  It was a bit of a chore because there were also loads of helpful edits mixed in there with the trivia deletions.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This isn't a policy.. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's useful to point that this isn't a policy when the user probably meant (correctly) that it is a policy.--Father Goose (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah it might be best not to nitpick people's language. That's the weakest form of argument. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:08, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really useful to just drive by and bitch about something, without giving it any context. Who wants to bet that Jason is just mad that someone blanked a trivia section, which we specifically discourage on this page? I could be dead wrong, but again, it's hard to tell when someone just comes by to bitch without any context. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to ignore it then.  This page gets plenty of pro- and anti- one-liners.--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals getting out of control 

message: Seriously, who eliminated trivia sections? Articles will never be the same. An example is the B-52 article. It had an excellent trivia section which contained a lot of amusing and interesting facts. Now all that article's got is an endless rant about what is a B-52 and stuff that everybody knows. please bring trivias back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.27.187 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Trivia sections for movies and music articles are always interesting. They're almost what defines wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.231.96 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is when trivia sections go the other way.  A lot of times they're integrated with "lists of popular culture references" (which are almost the same thing).  You end up with lists of every TV episode or movie or (especially) anime or video game in which the subject has ever appeared.  I can see keeping trivia sections, under the following conditions:  The "integrate the info into the body of the article, if possible" rule still applies.  And any trivia item which appears in an article must be more significant to the subject of that article than it is to whatever else is mentioned in that trivia item.  For instance, the Datsun Z in the movie "Bruce Almighty" is more a trivia item for "Bruce Almighty" than it is for the Datsun Z, and yet shit like that is showing up in car articles all the time.  So items that appear in movies, if they're going to be trivia items, should be listed in the article for that movie, not the item.  The only exception would be if the movie really was significant to the CAR and not just the other way around.  (Like "Transformers" being the first introduction most of the public had to the new Camaro)  Anyhow, this would save the hell out of a lot of mythology and automotive articles.Andy Christ (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This guideline doesn't support removing relevant information, only organizing that information in a better way. We prioritize placing things in their correct spots over having a "fast fun facts" section, but we are currently discussing the possibility of having both. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it is unfortunately true that in the past the information has indeed been totally removed, or moved to separate articles which were  then deleted. Once we are sure we agree how to deal with them, we should start restoring some of this material.DGG (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Give me an example of trivia that you believe is relevant and that couldn't be integrated in the body of an article, and I'll show you where it can be. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruins articles 

message: It is amazing you do not see that for all of us who are not of american, english speaking cultures, the fact about having the trivia is absolutly enlightining about many cultural issues. The best part about wikipedia is it doesn't make distinctions between the pokemon's moster list and Kant, precisely many times this is the function of trivia facts, to go further into the detail. To bann this, the trivia 'genocide' talks about even here, even know there are people thinking in the 'book' oldtimes way instead of the wiki ways. Many times like in the page about Fads and trends, older comprehensive version full of 'trivia' where much more better for people like me dedicated to study culture from a complete different cultural ambiance. Hopefully some of you should be aware of this, and of a much more important issue: we are not only talking to our time... in the future this list will be vital to UNDERSTAND!!!! that should be the guide of wikipedia: human knowledge !not discriminative! for all huimanity, accesible free and forever...we do not have the perspective to know now what is really significant -please reconsider this fundamentalist view about trivia lists!!! All information is important and trascendent. In history theory we must remember [Annales_Schooll], Michel de Certeau etc. they focus in the trivia and change forever what history is.....not about the so called great man.. about the little issues, the common places forgotten because narrow minded people thought it was not neccesary to explain the little... wait 500 years... just trivia would make sense!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geape (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline isn't above removing that information, but avoiding a dump-all "misc" section on the article. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following on from Ned's comment that this guideline doesn't advise on what content is suitable or not (ie, what to remove). The removal of content is at the editor's discretion. If you have a problem with information that an editor has removed and you believe that the item is worth keeping in the article, then you could revert it or start a discussion on whether or not the information is appropriate for the article. This guideline does not attempt to identify information to be removed. Bill (talk|contribs) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will be glad to know that people aren't using this guideline as justification to remove trivia anymore they are just removing it .Garda40 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a step forward, because now people can't remove items and hide behind some vague, all-encompasing policy; they actually need to justify their actions with reasons. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If by "cultural issues" you mean lists of every TV show and movie that a Norse god has appeared in, then yeah, I guess you're right.  People are using trivia sections as an excuse to overwhelm articles with piles of information that isn't about the subject of the article, but their favorite anime.  I think it's a good idea to come up with a permanent solution to that.  In the mean time, I'll be trimming down, integrating, or removing trivia sections wherever I can.Andy Christ (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural blindness 

message: The trivia sections are one of the top 5 things I like reading on Wikipedia.  Get rid of those sections and you are damaging a lot of what makes Wikipedia what it is, a mostly complete resource of information about subjects.  Trivia helps provide links with other subjects where it wouldn't necessarily make sense in the body of the article. -- Suso (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's doubtful that most of that information wouldn't make more sense in another section, but you should note we are looking at the idea of having an acceptable "trivia" section/box at #An acceptable "trivia list" concept. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy is misguided 

message: This debate has reached a fruitful point. However the traditional next move forward is to focus on any minor edits which might b done to the projectpage, which is where it began in the first place.
No more than minor changes will normally be accepted by the talk-page participants on such a short guideline as this so, any suggestions?
Which of the (four) paragraphs needs work? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section - header 

message: Nick: I haven't looked at WP:HTRIV to see what changes were made, so the following is intended as suggestions for improving on this draft, and not as criticism of your writing:
*Trivia sections: "... and refering the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found." I don't know if this conflicts with WP:EL, but it suggests an ideal that WP articles should be smaller and less comprehensive when external links can be found to carry the load. I don't think this should implied as a style or content goal. (And if it were, WP:TRIV would be the wrong place anyway.)
**"a better way to organize an article ... whether in text, list, or table" should emphasize seamless, well-organized prose a bit more. Changing a trivia section to well-ordered lists of different types of trivia is not desirable. Neither is turning such into a table.
*Trivia articles is a good start, but needs to be more concise and easily readable. Maybe pull one or two really good points to explain why these articles should be avoided. And snip the "title" piece entirely; in the event such a judgment need be made on an article title, this can already be inferred logically from this section (and also because freestanding articles specifically about trivia are not notable).
*Guidance is also grown overlong, four paragraphs to say "don't delete good stuff over style issues" and "not all bullet lists are Trivia sections" (which may be 2 useful subsection headings). Also, the sentence "Trivia sections should not simply be categorically removed" will be misinterpreted by people who ignore the word categorically; some trivia sections can be removed in their entirety. (Incidentally, the word categorically may speak to intent, and thus good faith.)
*Other policies apply is as redundant as ever. While WP:NOT#IINFO is worth a mention, the section basically attempts to encapsulate all Wikipedia policies that advise the removal of information from an article. It's too much to include here. This section could be renamed Exclusion standards (but that is not in the spirit of watering down this guideline), with a bullet list of perhaps 3 key policy overview pages. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've made some modifications to reflect your first 4 suggestions and corrected those spelling errors. I am not certain HTRIV should be eliminated entirely, but I do think this content in particular is more useful here than there. EDIT And I just removed the Other Policies apply section, as it's pretty much covered by the link in the opening to the content policies. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The integration of "Other policies applies" into the body works. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Overall I think that's a great effort.  I'll hold my detailed comments until I can take more of a look but I think it gets to the point of why trivia sections themselves are to be discouraged, but the content within them has to be judged as content anywhere and either used or not.Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews of first proposed update

message: *Other section apply - This section, with a more appropriate HEADER, as User:edg says, basically just encapsulates the exclusion policies, and so runs counter to the prevailing mood of (watering down). However, I don't think the links themselves, or even the section, is redundant. It just needs to be delicately integrated, maybe, into other sections. As it stands, it just slots into the slightly split-personality style of the current text. Still think the merge is a positive, (see section below), and that the Trivia/Draft page (see below) can be a step forward. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews of this material

message: That was a good move, in my h/opinion this works. More comments? Newbyguesses - Talk 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I think that's a great effort.  I'll hold my detailed comments until I can take more of a look but I think it gets to the point of why trivia sections themselves are to be discouraged, but the content within them has to be judged as content anywhere and either used or not.Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of both guidelines 

message: After taking another look at this draft and the guideline, I used the draft as inspiration for some structural/wording changes to the guideline. I have integrated a few sentences here and there, and merged one section into the rest of the guideline. And now that some editors have done some copyediting to this guideline, I am not so certain that my original proposal to integrate the content from WP:HTRIV is necerssary. If anything, it seems that many of the ideas are duplicated and said in a slightly different way. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reflections on the draft, some action

message: ...and since we haven't had one in a while, I thought it was time to shake things up again, as I'm so good at doing. I notice that most style guidelines are named "Manual of Style (something specific)", as is shown from a look at :Category:Wikipedia style guidelines. I don't think that would be such a bad idea for this guideline as well, since its status as a style guideline still seems to be something many editors tend to miss. Post your flames opinions on this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:39, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with that.  However, be aware of this conversation.--Father Goose (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gah! Two people! Seriously, that doesn't seem like cause for concern, but we'll of course discuss things with them should they object here. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:17, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like name changes! 

message: Can someone point me the part of the trivia guideline ( or whatever we are calling it this week ) that covers someone removing items bit by bit .Garda40 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be the Guidance section, though I assume you're concerned about a particular article. Items shouldn't be removed simply because they reside in a trivia section; they should only be removed if they don't belong in the article at all. If you tell us which article you're concerned about maybe we could offer more specific advise. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:25, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit by bit removal 

message: I saved NickPenguin's changes to Wikipedia:Trivia sections/draft2. I reverted those changes basically because they were major changes, not just copyedit-type stuff, and there didn't seem to be consensus for most of it yet. Specific changes were:
*Removal of "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed", which doesn't seem like a good idea.
*Moving content into a section titled "Trivia sections", when the entire guideline is about trivia sections to begin with
*Moving the "Not all list sections are trivia sections" section into the lead, and moving much of the lead down into the "Trivia sections" section. This seems like an arbitrary exchange, and rather than have a redundant "Trivia sections" section, it seems like the "not all lists" content would serve better as the separate section -- especially for emphasis. Remember that some people who read guidelines just glance at the "headlines". It helps to give important points their own headers. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:26, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like the not categorically removed point kept, but appended with "unless it is appropriate to remove all the content within the section" or something like that. It would get the point across that removing the sections just because they're called Trivia sections isn't a good method to use, but it would also not ban the removal of the section if all the content in it is truly inappropriate for the article. Bill (talk|contribs) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we made "Trivia sections should not be categorically removed" a section title? --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, per Wikipedia:Five pillars about Wikipedia containing elements of specialized encyclopedias, apparently there are specialized encyclopedias on trivia.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I agree that the focus should entirely be on the content and not the name of the section being the decider for validity. Bill (talk|contribs) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Taking the trivia section on a movie page removes one of the best and most unique parts of Wikipedia. Not sure where else to put this but it is an idea that needs to be considered. 67.183.201.165 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since IMDB and TV.com writeups both have "Trivia" sections, this feature is hardly unique. It should be considered that encyclopedias are written without "Trivia" sections. This guideline does not advise editors to remove this information, but to integrate such information into the article. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Trivia sections are fun! Don't get rid of them, otherwise trivia will be included into paragraphs and they'll become digressive - 211.30.227.30 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said. I don't have your eloquence, but you have done a superb job of explaining exactly my feelings as well.DavidPickett (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it as well. -- Ned Scott 23:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Guideline Validity 

message: Hello if you hate Trivia sections on Wikipages you should support Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Anti-Trivia --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject anti trivia 

message: Does anyone else see the "Did you know..." section on the main page as a little hypocritical in regards to this policy? TunaSushi (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because the main page is a portal that leads into other articles. It's not an article itself, and all that information is organized in other articles. We have discussed the possibility of making a "DYK/trivia/something" box that we could put on articles that would be the same idea and be acceptable. The idea would be that the information would be in both places, in the box and in the article in its proper spot. -- Ned Scott 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I absoultely agree.  I also for this reason find Wikipedia's anti-trivia stance not only hypocritical, but bureaucratic as well.76.177.160.69 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The DYK section is intended to be a showcase for newly-created articles on Wikipedia, and the formatting of the front page is, like Ned says, that of a portal, not that of an article, so different rules of presentation apply.--Father Goose (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Like I said above, we're looking at finding ways to have our cake and eat it too. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know... 

message: I've added "In popular culture" to the list of the names of trivia sections in the introduction of the article.  Given that 95% of the trivia sections in wikipedia articles are titled "In popular culture", it seems silly not to list this. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The advice given for trivia sections does not fully apply to IPC sections.  The popular culture influence of a subject is a specific, often valid subtopic.  However, such sections may need to be exported to spinout articles (per WP:SS), or rewritten as prose, or pared back to the most notable instances.  The advice to "integrate" them generally does not apply.--Father Goose (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, if you come across specific IPC sections that you feel are in need of cleanup, list them at WP:WPTPC and we'll do what we can.--Father Goose (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: They have differences. "In popular culture" is for references of the subject in novels, movies, etc. "Trivia" is quick facts that can be fun. Both should be saved (see my rant below). --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: :Who were the people who set the anti-trivia policy? When did Wikipedia became a source of self-censorship... I have seen much interesting information being deleted away because of this policy and it is becoming very sad when knowledge is lost. Referencing from Metal Gear Solid 2, do we really need people to censor for us to keep the best information, while filtering the useless away. I believe we can decide sensibily what is correct and wrong. I used to read Wiki becasue of the interesting titbits, references and triva. Now it´s sad when people are using the anti-trivia policy to delete entire sections of what could be useful and accurate information. 85.0.51.39 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good information should never be deleted, but sometimes it should be moved.  It's very hard to know where to draw the line, of course, but if a lot of readers start rolling their eyes, if the information seems to be only by and for the fans of the entertainment, then www.wikia.com and lots of other websites are much better places for it than Wikipedia.  The main idea behind the "no trivia" guideline was that trivia should eventually be sorted and sifted and worked into the text, rather than just presented as an embedded list of trivia, as long as a significant number of readers would actually find it interesting. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, the template requires revision and is too strong. Dcoetzee 02:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to revisit its wording then.  Unfortunately, template:trivia is currently protected due to its transclusion via WP:FAP.  I've made a request to clear that out, and in the next couple of days we should bring the matter up at template talk:trivia.--Father Goose (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I got the ball rolling, see Template_talk:Trivia#New_wording.--Father Goose (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who started the anti-trivia policy? 

message: I don't know if this is commonplace, but it seems that "Trivia" sections are being renamed "Notes" in order to get around Wikipedia policy on trivia. I love trivia sections myself, but isn't this just the same thing under a different name? Just trying to confirm this for the future.67.177.49.13 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline is pretty clear that "Trivia" is just the most common name for indiscriminate and unselective lists, and other open-ended lists like "Notes", "Facts", "Miscellanea or "Other information" are just variations on the theme. This guideline covers all those lists, and in all those cases, the first task should be to integrate those facts into the article proper, rather than keep a potentially endless section. See the essay Handling Trivia for advice on integration. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not a good idea to rename these lists as 'notes' anyway, since many articles reserve that section header title for footnotes and/or references. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia" or "Notes"? 

message: Anyone? I find it hilarious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowsgt (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added quite recently as a joke, and is gone now. Dcoetzee 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I like it and the idea. --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it really isn't. A good way to protest would be to first read the guideline - so they actually know what they're protesting against - and then offer a cogent argument in favour of their position. Dcoetzee 17:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, how do you know that he didn't read the guideline? And what if they didn't want to go into all that trouble, besides, the trivia section was quite helpful. --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a trivia section in this article? 

message: I propose rewording this section. The notion of lists of "cameo" appearances or "references in popular culture" articles are the cause of much angst, and a great deal of that angst is because of the support offered to such articles by this guideline. Rather than "Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate." I suggest something like "Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. Otherwise, see if there are sources for the effect of the topic on popular culture and consider using the items as a basis for an article that discusses that effect." I feel that this would encourage editors, rather than simply dumping off unweildly lists of "In this movie this one guy said 'Foo'."-style stuff with little or no encyclopedic value and instead encourage them to develop sourced articles on notable topics. Otto4711 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the specific examples may not have consensus, I believe it's useful to provide the option of organizing previous trivia items into more focused lists, where this is appropriate. Dcoetzee 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Migrate trivia items...to focused lists" 

message: I though those who frequent this page might find this parody to be rather charming. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you beat me to it! :) --Jenny 14:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: You call that charming? --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes I do. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't. --Oh no! it's Alien joe! 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Popular Culture" parody 

message: Read my new essay, Keep trivia, here. --Oh no, it's Alien joe! 15:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read the guideline and consider updating your essay, since this guideline does not and never has advocated removal of trivia. I wrote the bulk of this guideline and I'm an inclusionist who has never identified as holding an anti-trivia position. I and others recently pushed for changes to the template to help clarify that it is not anti-trivia. Your efforts would be better spent in clarifying the guideline to people who believe falsely that it gives them license to kill trivia sections. Besides mischaracterizing policy, your "petition" was deleted for a reason; you're really going about this the wrong way. Dcoetzee 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I am, and I understand your motivation; the above was not said with any intended antagonism. I just disagree strongly with the argument of your essay and believe it mischaracterizes policy. I'm only suggesting ways in which you could more effectively help to preserve the trivia that is useful. Dcoetzee 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: We have lots of people putting kahuna trivia that is useful to have somewhere but not on the kahuna page, so created a kahuna (disambiguation) page. Is this okay? Thanks. Makana Chai (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good solution. Thanks for helping clean up this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kahuna 

message: The problem with trivia sections is that many people tend to add absolutely irrelevant cruft instead of marginally relevant interesting information. Obviously, the best and most elegant solution to this is to do away with the trivia sections and just integrate all the marginally relevant information all over into the article.
Never mind if it only fits in the leading paragraph and adds less relevant information to a succinct and well-written summary. Never mind if this way spoilers go into the lede; after all, we did away with the trivia sections!
And those who think that all marginally relevant information should be removed from everywhere should be congratulated on their effort to remove information from what's supposedly an encyclopedia with virtually no limit on its size. It's like issuing a policy of No External Links because some of what's added is spam.
In before "oh you just whine and have no better alternative":
1. Have trivia sections but remove everything that's just plain cruft, what's not even marginally relevant.
2. Make this clear to editors in guidelines, have a NoMoreTrivia template like :Template:NoMoreLinks.
3. Rejoice.
--Robert Robertson (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Integration doesn't just mean converting trivia to prose; it can also mean grouping it into more targeted lists, which may be more appropriate for some forms of "marginally relevant" information. Dcoetzee 13:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Trivia sections on some level represent an article that has not yet been written -- just a jumble of facts that could be used to write an article.  You toss the completely irrelevant ones and forge a coherent narrative out of the remainder.  If there's no easy way to forge such a narrative with some of the more relevant items, leave them in place until someone else comes along with a better idea of where to put them.--Father Goose (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just spew it all over the article! 

message: Regarding "In popular culture" sections of articles, there are clear cut cases where "In Popular Culture" is OK, because the pop culture phenomenon itself is notable:
:* The obvious case: Che Guevara in popular culture. Nothing needs to be said; it's a slam dunk for notability. [Note that User:Gavin.collins  disagrees, calling that article "...a classic example of content fork, as the subject of the article is of unproven notability, i.e. there are no reliable secondary sources which mention "Che Guevara in popular culture". The article's content is a classical example of synthesis."]
:* A somewhat-less-obvious but still valid case: Battle of red cliffs#Modern and cultural impact. We have a huge movie, a somewhat-less-huge but still very popular video game series, a statue... etc.
But look at Bodhisattvas#Bodhisattva in popular culture. Two or three things listed there are barely notable in themselves. More importantly, the fact that a notable work mentions Bodhisattva, or even has a character nicknamed Bodhisattva, is patently trivial (see WP:NOT). It has no intrinsic relationship  whatsoever to Bodhisattva; the relationship is tangential. No one who is interested in Bodhisattva will be interested in Ian Astbury etc. As per WP:SPADE, these sections are wikilink spam. They are either intended to drive up the wikilink count of borderline-notable articles, or are hagiographic fancruft (see the link to "Point Break")... Can we please start applying (or creating?) robust guidelines regarding these cases of parasitical cruft? Something along these lines:
:Information presented in "In popular culture" sections should distinguish between notable pop culture phenomena and connective trivia. Two questions arise: First, should an article about topic X include an "In popular culture" section? Second, if such a section is included, what individual facts should the section contain?
#Notability entails references in popular culture. In particular, extremely notable topics such as Bodhisattva or Jesus can generate a correspondingly large number of references that are scattered across a broad range of expressions of pop culture (a kind of "name dropping"). The fact that such pop references exist (and may exist in great number) does not imply that the impact of topic X upon pop culture itself is notable.
#The key to inclusion of a particular item in a list of "X in popular culture" should be "Is this item important in understanding the phenomenon of "X in popular culture", or is it merely a single instance of "X in popular culture"? A related question might be, what impact has this individual pop culture reference had upon the pop culture perceptions of topic X?  Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "In popular culture" sections of articles 

message: Okay, Let me make myself clear, I love triva sections, but I have a few guidelines that we could possibly adopt and follow.
:1) The trivia sections should be neat and organized, meaning that it will be divided into sections ("Production", "Cultural Refrences", "Notes", ect.)
::*If you don't know what catagory it should go in, make an "Uncatgorized" setion.
:2) [And not a lot of people will like this] But these sections should use BULLET POINTS to make the sections easeir to read and follow.
:3) You should have a refrence. If it is from a DVD commentary of a show/movie, the refrence should have "Commentary", the title of the episode, TV show, and/or movie, and roughly the time the fact is stated. 
I am not done yet, but I have to go. See ya!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this would work. What if there already is Production and cultural reference sections? Why should the information be split into 2 sections with the same name? How do you decide if one Production note is for the main production section, and another is for the trivia production section? If there isn't these main sections, then why not create them? If the information is valid then it doesn't need to be in a subsection of a section called trivia. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: These seem pretty good. Maybeyou should say something to the guys here. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 19:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be good to revive discussion and activity there. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I still think you'd be arbitrarily choosing what goes into a trivia section and what goes in the main section. I don't like the definition "if it cannot be stretched out to a paragraph then it goes in the trivia section." It's possible for very important facts to be a single sentence, and it's also possible for trivial information to be a paragraph or more long. Bill (talk|contribs) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule Proposal 

message: The link User: Alien joe/Keep trivia appears in the See also section. Should a Wikipedia guideline be directing people to one user's subpage? I don't know why the user hasn't put his essay into the Wikipedia namespace so that it will be a Wikipedia essay, but right now it's nothing more than his own personal page. If it were a Wikipedia essay, it would "ideally represent a consensus amongst the broad community of Wikipedia editors" (WP:Essays) but as a user subpage it's one person's opinion.
The link used to go to Wikipedia:Keep trivia, which was in turn a redirect to the user subpage, but the redirection page was deleted, whereupon User:Alien joe revised the See also link to point directly to his own subpage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a good point, and I have removed the link. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 21:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

text: User:Alien joe has been at this for a while and has been persistently attempting one tactic after another - however, he's also demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't understand this guideline and has not tried to make a rational argument against it. We don't have any rules against trivia, so his effort is moot. Dcoetzee 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. --Oh no! it's Alien joe!(Talk) 21:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on my talk page, I respect your feelings and opinions, but I think your methods for criticizing the guideline are ineffective and ill-informed - you have in many places insinuated that this guideline advises a strict methodology of removing trivia, when it does not do so and is actually, in my opinion, an effective compromise between the trivia deletionists and inclusionists. I do not insult you to say you don't understand it - I just believe you don't, and I'd like it if you learnt more about it. Dcoetzee 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It still is, quite frankly, mean to write that about someone on a page they appear to comment on a lot. --209.158.237.162 (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth hurts. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: And, BTW, he's retired now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.235.152 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Pity. --151.205.224.181 (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''See also'' link to user subpage? 

message: It seems to me that the format of data presentation should be mostly irrelevant to wikipedia, and that effectivness and quality should be the relevant factors.  Why, in this case, does this disfavor lists?  It seems that the same data and presentation, sans list differences, are acceptable in tables, and yet the distinction appears to exist and be observed quite widely.
Can anyone cast some light on this?  I'd also lie to register my disapointment that this section even exists as it seems to be terribly abused and an excuse for people to tag and delete useful information- sometimes in violation of this authority and sometimes not.  It seems notable information should be included in this work and their should be no reason or motivation to increase the verbosity unnecessarily or relegate the information to table form to keep it in compliance with this section.
Do I misunderstand?  Am I correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.234.88 (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that lists are deprecated and abused by people who simply don't like lists, and will kill them in any way they can, as being somehow smarmy ways to insert trivia into WP. However, this is not really WP official policy, which includes guidelines for both stand-alone lists and embodied lists within articles: see WP:LIST. Lists are good, and there's nothing wrong with them. Like tables, they are often a most appropriate way to present information. Also, see the interested stuff at WP:CLN noting that lists and categories compliment each other, but in many ways the two types of proposed makings and deletions are handled quite differently. But shouldn't be. In short, it's a real problem. SBHarris 09:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with the original poster.  Trivia lists are usually just fine.  Tempshill (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The prejudice is not against lists, but disorganized and unselective lists. See Wikipedia:Trivia_sections#Not_all_list_sections_are_trivia_sections. Dcoetzee 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are lists treated differently? 

message: This guideline was a bit hard to follow for newcomers, as it talked about trivia sections without giving any examples of what a trivia section actually looks like. So I added an example, in a new section WP:Trivia #Example. Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, but I've reverted your edit.  I don't necessarily disagree with having an example in the guideline, but I'd suggest that it not be a "popular culture" example -- many such sections (and in fact, entire articles) are well-written and relevant.  (And even ones that are poor can usually be improved to the point where they're worth retaining.)--Father Goose (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I redid it so that it wasn't a pop-culture example. Eubulides (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like the new example - it's a shame I didn't think to include anything like this in the first place. It illustrates the point of the guideline brilliantly. Dcoetzee 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guideline needed an example 

message: Is there a wikipedia policy/guideline against actual trivial content? If so, can someone point it out to me, because I feel like there must exist a policy that says "On January 12, 2007, Obama had a sandwich for lunch", is far too trivial to be of any use to anyone and shouldn't exist in an article. I see lots of guidelines about unnotable articles, but none about content. TheHYPO (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (with other parts of WP:NOT called in as needed) should handle this, if they haven't yet been deleted by certain parties. Also, an ArbCom decision currently linked from Wikipedia:Notability sayeth:An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details.WP:NOTE itself has some say on this, but it has the force of policy only when applied to articles, not to article content line items. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence about Obama's sandwich would also be governed by WP:WEIGHT, surely. That is, if the sentence is in Barack Obama, it should be there only if reliable sources on Obama also treat the sandwich as being important. (Likewise for Sandwich....) Eubulides (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Consensus is the best way to handle cases like these.  If it's clearly unimportant, most people will agree that it should not be in the article.  If there's legitimate debate over its importance, having a policy that says "trivial content should be removed" (or for that matter, "kept") would interfere with a consensus-driven result, so it's just as well we don't have policies outlining the subjective concept of "importance".  (Although notability, to some degree, equates coverage in secondary sources with importance.  In many cases this produces a reasonable result, but in others, it's the wrong yardstick -- especially when applied to individual facts instead of to subjects as a whole.)--Father Goose (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is to say what is "trivial content"? One person's utter trivia is another's valuable detail and important illustrations. Still, there is nobody's life that we document day by day, unlike a scholarly biography. Wikipedia is after all a general encyclopedia, not specialized scholarship. But the degree of details necessary for the biography of a president will be very different from someone who is, say, a semember of a state legislature. It is more important & interesting  to know the details of Einstein's or Darwin's education than that of an ordinarily notable professor. DGG (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia itself? 

message: Or does anyone else find themselves looking at the previous editions of pages with trivia on them more than the actual current ones? Kinda funny. Oh well, at least we have cluttered paragraphs. Danno2530 05:12, 29 October 2008
Agreed...I find myself looking back to old versions to see if there are any trivia sections I missed. Bearon (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me? 

message: Has everyone read this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture/Discussion
Here are some interesting external web sites concering trivia.
 
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/22/wikipedias-identity-crisis-keep-or-delete-trivia/
 
http://billso.com/2008/03/18/should-wikipedia-include-trivia/
 
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
 
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
 
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
 
http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/03/10/inclusionists-versus-deletionists-on-wikipedia.html
 
http://www.includipedia.com/
 
http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Includipedia:About
 
http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Main_Page
 
http://blog.shankbone.org/2008/12/22/trivia-section-on-wikipedia--an-american-dad-christmas-illustration.aspx
 
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/03/24/wikipedia-identity-crisis-part-2-keep-or-delete-trivia/
 
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080111152140AA8xEth
 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia
Ozmaweezer (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where oh where has my trivia section gone? 

message: I could look through the archives and find examples if need be, but the issue of whether or not IPC should be included in this guideline has been brought up often. The consensus has always come out to be "no", in my experience. IPC is a separate issue that involves its own unique considerations. One of the main problems with including it here is that the guideline specifically allows for focused lists of items united by a common theme, which IPC lists are. So including them in the intro is a contradiction. Finally, IPC is a hotly debated issue, and there basically is no consensus on what should be done with them -- so they don't belong in an established guideline that's meant to state the current consensus. Equazcion (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since IPC sections are often organized as lists of miscellaneous information—they may even be the most common type of such information—In popular culture sections are worth mentioning for consideration in this guideline. The mention here is not an instruction to remove IPC sections (if such can be called encyclopedic), merely to avoid creating them as trivia sections. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IPC is currently listed as one of the many names applied to a certain type of section, when really IPC sections are inherently different. Whether they can be considered a problem or not, they are different. Again the consensus has been to leave them out, but if consensus has changed then a) that needs to be discussed and determined definitively, b) in what capacity they are to be included here must also be discussed, and c) there needs to be actual content included on how they are relevant and how they are to be dealt with, rather than just mentioning the word in the lede. Equazcion (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: i think a more guide-like format or added information can. like to say which list are signifact and important in Wikipedia or something.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "not all list are trivia" section 

message: I was just reading Dis Pater, a deity that has not been worshiped in 2,000 years. Barring a "Popular culture" section, how is an editor to work modern-day references into an article about a 2,000-year-old deity? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pop culture" sections don't have to be indiscriminate lists. What's wrong with writing a well sourced paragraph describing Dis Pater's reception in the modern world? -Pollinosisss (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all lists are trivial 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS naming style 

message: Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved.  NoeticaTea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style 

message: I read the WP article on not using this as a forum for debating whether this is a good idea or not, and have decided that this, also, is a back-handed attempt by WP's consegnai to limit the debate about what is, and is not, appropriate content for WP. Trivia sections are a perfectly appropriate place to make mention of the sundry impacts that any given topic has had, and are easily recognizable as links outward from the main topic. Aramis1250 (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote from the "No Forum" article: "You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages." Since this *is* the relevant talk page for this topic, it is 100% appropriate for this discussion to be here. Aramis1250 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, that box seemed out of place here. This actually is a forum for the discussion of trivia sections. :) Equazcion (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Come on, Aramis1250, can't you read?  It says, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined."  That's the law.  Whoever wrote this brilliancy deserves a barnstar.  After all, by the time you read something like "If they must exist," you know you're facing a dictum with no clear justification.  Why bother arguing?  And if you did bother, you could easily be hedged back with "most cases".  The guideline only applies in most cases, so don't worry!  In most cases, a spiffy warning box will be used to deface the article.  Actually, hang on, we can't be sure that's most of them, because an unknown number have already been deleted after an arbitrary period of time wearing the warning box.  See?  Foolproof.  Now it's high time I got back in my furry suit and commenced another busy night of "contributing".  An editor's work is never done! beefman (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with Aramis1250.  Should we start some sort of a discussion for rescinding this rule, or at least reducing its severity? Teemu Leisti (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty well the stupidest "Official" article on WP 

message: * A recent removal of a "miscellaneous" section from Jay Jay the Jet Plane has led me to query policy on miscellaneous or trivia sections. See wiktionary:miscellaneous and wiktionary:trivia: the two words' meanings are very different. An item of information can be in a miscellaneous section but not trivial, or trivial but not in a miscellaneous section. Re trivialness, often one man's trivia / cruft is another man's important relevant matter. In any more discussion on this point, we should distinguish trivialness / cruftiness from the item being in a miscellaneous section. Often the items in a miscellaneous section add to the useful information on a subject. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous or  trivial? 

message: The example about President Monroe isn't really a good example of a trivia section. Every actual trivia section I've ever seen contains quick facts that are better presented in a list than in the main body of the article. The trivia section example shown on the project page sums up the entire article. The only facts in it that would be in a real article would be the one about Monrovia and the 5 states. --PhillieLWillie(Talk) 15:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing! 174.18.15.106 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a really bad example. Another reason is that the James Monroe article contains appropriate sections, such as Biography, so that there is little trouble in finding the proper places to put the trivia facts. It would be better with an example that shows how to deal with situations where there are no appropriate existing sections to put the facts in the trivia. Also, an example would be better if it showed a "before" and an "after" with clear marking of what differences have been made. The James Monroe example just links to the current version of the article, and it's pretty hard to find what has actually been done with the trivia pieces. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the example was bad, but for a different reason. Not being an American, I'm not familiar with who James Monroe was. A person could therefore miss the point on why such sections are discouraged. I think an example that is more well known globally would be appropriate so that readers can get a more immediate idea of what constitutes a trivia section and how to better organize information in an article. ihatefile007 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Monroe Example 

message: In Wikipedia, I have never seen a trivia section, yet in some Wikia based Wikis trivia sections are very common, why?
114.77.206.107 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See the guideline above.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia usage in Wikipedia vs Wikia 

message: Dear friends: I am a simple user who uses more than anything in Spanish and watching wikipedia edit wars and constant bickering reaching unfair blockades I call on you to deroguemos once and for all this standard. This is exactly like the Volstead Act in the United States when he tried to ban the liquor and the time to decide the cure was a thousand times worse than the disease, although in this case by prohibiting curiosities are generating thousands of edit wars although in this case by prohibiting curiosities are generating thousands of edit wars, riots and even more tilando cultural references, errors and eliminated films as curiosities that one way or another are important data for the items scenes. Wikipedia is recognized from the beginning by having trivia sections as I said before is extra data that make it more useful and interesting to the articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteQuiroga (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derogate this absurd rule of trivia 

message: "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases" means  "Trivia sections should be removed from articles in most cases" ...at least that is the action it suggests. If the meaning is not to "removed from articles in most cases" then it needs rewording. A section labeled "Guidance" should not bury the lead, in this case stated in the lead section - "Trivia sections should be avoided" Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the lead is stated in the lead section, then the lead is not buried, by definition.  I think the passage is worded the way it is, to encourage discussion and consensus building. The construction suggests more caution than "should be removed from articles in most cases", which will be taken to mean "in every case that people don't fight for a whole year to keep one". >;-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what you mean? 

message: I added a section to MOS:TRIVIA, at WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, on how to approach pop-culture content from a MoS perspective (avoid list format, etc.).  For content policy matters, I just cross-referenced to the relevant policies. Comments/improvements welcome, as always.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covering cultural references / popular culture material 

message: I propose that MOS should formally deprecate the "In popular culture" heading.  As detailed at the long-standing Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay, this heading is often inaccurate and misleading, and it directly inspires the addition of pointless, trivial cruft that often violates the WP:Core content policies, and various guidelines.
The most popular alternatives to "In popular culture" are heading "Cultural references", "Cultural impact", "Cultural influence", "In culture", and sometimes medium- or genre-specific approaches are used, e.g. "In fiction", etc.  I'd like us to discuss what the best approaches are, and agree on a default recommendation (or a few recommendations depending on article type/scope).  MOS:TRIVIA now recommends writing such sections as prose paragraphs, not lists, and integrating this material into the main flow the article instead of having such a section to begin with, but I think we all know they will never entirely go away. In some articles, they are actually the most practical approach to such material.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm writing these examples on the fly from real facts, not quoting actual article text.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecating the "In popular culture" heading 

message: * Support, but only after we first establish clear alternative guidance. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: ====Recommending alternatives====
* I think we need a multi-recommendation approach, as these sections can have a different character, rationale, and organizing principle.  I can think of three main types, but there are probably others:
*# Cultural references (and that's the best heading title for it. Often subdivided chronologically, geographically, etc.) – e.g.: The Star Trek character Spock is the focus of a Big Bang Theory episode ... featuring Spock actor Leonard Nimoy in one of his last media appearances ...
*# Cultural impact/influence (what is the best heading title for it? Often subdivided chronologically, geographically, etc.) – e.g.: Pyramid schemes have had major impacts on entire nations, not just individuals. The failure of a national-level Ponzi scam set off the Albanian Rebellion of 1997. In Greece ...
*# Cultural usage/adoption (what is the best heading title(s) for this? Often subdivided by medium, genre, etc.) – e.g.: The song was used in the closing sequence of the film Fight Club, described as "one of the most iconic movie-musical moments of the 1990s" by ....[1] It has been covered by more than 20 major recording artists ...
:(I'm writing these examples on the fly from real facts, not quoting actual article text.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * I think we need a multi-recommendation approach, as these sections can have a different character, rationale, and organizing principle.  I can think of three main types, but there are probably others:
*# Cultural references (and that's the best heading title for it. Often subdivided chronologically, geographically, etc.) – e.g.: The Star Trek character Spock is the focus of a Big Bang Theory episode ... featuring Spock actor Leonard Nimoy in one of his last media appearances ...
*# Cultural impact/influence (what is the best heading title for it? Often subdivided chronologically, geographically, etc.) – e.g.: Pyramid schemes have had major impacts on entire nations, not just individuals. The failure of a national-level Ponzi scam set off the Albanian Rebellion of 1997. In Greece ...
*# Cultural usage/adoption (what is the best heading title(s) for this? Often subdivided by medium, genre, etc.) – e.g.: The song was used in the closing sequence of the film Fight Club, described as "one of the most iconic movie-musical moments of the 1990s" by ....[1] It has been covered by more than 20 major recording artists ...
:(I'm writing these examples on the fly from real facts, not quoting actual article text.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommending alternatives

message: I would vote for "Cultural impact". Of the three suggestions, this title strongly hints against trivia of kind "Ginnie Lu whistled the tune of Never on Yesterday in the 3rd episode of Homely Househusbands. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on alt

message: * Just from a gut feel, what would one rename Parkour#Popular culture? That section is near and dear to my heart since I curated parkour in popular culture into that section. --Izno (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test case 

message: I have started an RfC on whether "in popular culture" entries are "self-sourcing" or, conversely, require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.  Since this has some relationship to trivia sections, I thought I would advertise the RfC here, in hopes of getting wide participation.
The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, so discussion is centralized there. Comments are welcome. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Are [[Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content|"in popular culture" entries]] "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]]? 

message: Coaching trees (such as the one at Urban Meyer#Coaching tree) list other coaches that one has formerly served under and over.  Do you feel they are encyclopedic or trivial?  Please join the discussion at Talk:Ryan Day (American football)#Coaching tree. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaching tree 

message: How can one hoard knowledge and information when not sure where exactly it belongs on a long article, so it can be sorted in later by the editor or by other users who encounter it? (E.g. Talk:Twitter#Removal_of_trivia_section?) --Handroid7 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that the information is sourced with reliable, third party sourcing to show it is deemed relevant. --Masem (t) 12:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:CITE/WP:RS has nothing to do with WP:TRIVIA.  Take an example of bios on notable people. there are VERY THICK books, and many of them. And all of them are surely reliable sources. Suppose several of them say "on June 12 he boarded train Berlin-Vienna, but his luggage was lost and he arrived to Vienna without spare underpants". Do we really need to put this into wikipedia? WP:TRIVIA is editorial judgement. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point . But Twitter's block bypass glitch that got removed from the article sounds relevant to me. --Handroid7 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

text: If the article is long it must be split into sections. Make sure that information foes into appropriate sections, so that later they can be made into separate articles per WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to hoard knowledge? 

message: I noticed that, on Talk:Snowball, User:Mangojuice actually used a shortcut to this page that is neither in the hatnote or the box. I included a link to it in the title to let you guys see if I'm right. Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 20:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect hatnote? [[WP:AVTRIV]] 

message: The current example (prez Monroe) really isn't relevant and helpful to the reader looking to restructure real trivia sections in articles. The real challenge in rewriting trivia, and the reason so little trivia is integrated better in articles, is that there is no natural links between the bits and pieces of information. I can argue the natural structure of "real" trivia is the unorganized list.
The example's bullet points are - in stark contrast to real trivia - all related and are quite easy to "write together" in a coherent paragraph. (The example reads almost as if it was extracted from an existing text)
To be useful, the example needs to address the fact almost all "real" trivia lists contain completely unrelated information. Finding similarities and themes in heaps of trivia is not easy. 
More to the point, the example does nothing to show how it's done or otherwise help in the actual editing process.
Let us pick a real article. Let's take Gonna Fly Now. How can the example be improved to instruct the reader how to integrate the following in any other way than... a list?
# Due to its original use, the song (or soundalikes) is used frequently in various forms of popular media where a main character is forced to train hard in order to defeat an opponent, often during a montage sequence.
# It was used in the Will Smith (who's from Philadelphia) NBC sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, for the Season 4 (episode 26, the season finale) episode The Philadelphia Story. When Will's training to fight a bully that used to beat him up in school, the music plays in the background of his training sessions, and as he's running up the Philadelphia Art Museum, as Rocky Balboa did in the Rocky movie.
# The song has been used as the main theme for France's daily radio comedy program Les Grosses Têtes since 1977.
# The song was used in Jackass 3D as part of a recurring gag called "The Rocky," which involved Bam Margera throwing a cup of water on an unsuspecting victim, then punching him with a boxing glove.
I would say #1 is a good start, and #2 can be used to exemplify (after copy editing, of course). However, speculating as to WHY Les Grosses Tetes uses this song would probably be wholly OR, so how do you integrate snippet #3. (Perhaps more pertinently; how do you justify throwing it away? What to discard and what to keep should be the example's first priority, I think!) Snippet #4 is a good example of something I would be flabbergasted to add to a coherent narrative, so I'm leaving it as a challenge :-)
Anyway: the Monroe example is all but useless. Actually, it IS useless, when I think about it. As in, I honestly believe the article would be MORE helpful without it: it misleads the reader into thinking reorganizing trivia is a simple and neat task.
Regards,
CapnZapp (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so no comments and no objections? Removing example, since we apparently agree the article is better off without it. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhelpful example