Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

message: Is this policy only about sections, or does it also cover content? At times I run into editors who reject properly sourced content because they consider it trivial. Does this policy cover that aspect as well, or are there other policies which apply? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia SECTIONS vs trivial CONTENT? 

message: See change here.
I made this change based on this 2015 RfC which was mentioned in the text, this long discussion at VPR, which has stalled with a fairly clear local consensus, and the guidance which already existed here.
There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject rather than about the thing referencing the subject, that prose is preferable to lists, and that it's often preferable to incorporate separate sections into the rest of the article. 
Since there really doesn't seem like a lot of disagreement about those basic principles (which isn't to say no disagreement), I figured I'd boldly rewrite the section to be clearer about them. My hope is that we can shift the conversation from everyone agreeing about those principles to the specifics of the wording. I'll post a note to that VPR thread shortly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very good. I support it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I support the section as you rewrote it. - Donald Albury 21:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Same, looks great to me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still opposed, but in the obvious minority. So, I guess it's c'est la vie for me... Huggums537 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I support the new wording, I am going to wait until more editors chime in here before I start trying to trim such sections. - Donald Albury 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  What trimming would you like to see? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referring to trimming items in "popular culture" sections that do not meet the criteria for inclusion, i.e., not supported by a reliable secondary source, etc. - Donald Albury 22:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah right, sorry I misunderstood. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

text: *It seems like throughout these discussions you're repeatedly claiming that WP:N shouldn't apply to content, even while nobody is applying it to content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

text: *:"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The great Oz has spoken!" -from The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) Huggums537 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

text: The section about this already existed. It's just been rewritten. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It existed as a style guideline. It's been rewritten as a content guideline. Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't even bother reading the old RfC because it didn't seem relevant since it was discussed so long ago, but I think the point about creating a new guideline with a a well advertised RfC is very well made... Huggums537 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To what end? A style guide is inherently a content guide, and other parts of the MOS touch on content. As is, the trivia guideline is already a content guidline. Seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay – whether or not this belongs in the MOS is a technical point; I don't want to get bogged down in that. My main point is that, prior to the rewrite, this guideline explicitly didn't make any suggestions about inclusion or exclusion criteria (that's what I meant by "content"). So to me, this rewrite doesn't represent the modification of an existing guideline, but the creation of an entirely new guideline. WP:PROPOSAL says: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community." I don't believe this requirement is met by an inconclusive Village Pump discussion which took place within a subsection of a completely different discussion. Dan from A.P. (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Counting numbers on this page and ignoring the explicitly linked Village Pump discussion of which this is a continuation is hardly a fair representation of the extent of consensus. But I've no objection to having the VP discussion closed by a non-involved admin. Where any agreed text should best be placed is a separate issue. There are good arguments for saying that the MOS is not the best place: it's only there now as that's where someone who initially implemented the result of the 2015 RFC happened to put it.  MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've posted a closure request at WP:CR. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how anything like a consensus can be seen to have formed for this change being based on the 2015 RfC when not one single person from that discussion was pinged into the discussion about this change. Neither were any of them invited to discuss the change at village pump either... Huggums537 (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  In other words, none of them have been given any opportunity to examine new and opposing viewpoints that have developed in the more than five years since this so called consensus has taken place. I would hardly call that a fair implementation of change in consensus to the guideline. Huggums537 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote the popular culture section 

message: Since several proposals have emerged, and to make the discussion move forward, I've opened this section to make them easier to scrutinize. Feel free to add your own. Discussion can of course continue in the section above or within the proposals. Pilaz (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  , , , , , ,  thank you for your continued participation. 
==== Proposed timeline by Pilaz ====
# Discuss and agree on which parts of this guideline may be moved;
# Identify one or more candidates where the parts of the guideline selected can be moved;
# Start a RfC at the target location or a Village pump discussion;
# After the RfC/Village pump discussion has closed and parts of this guideline have been moved, remove unnecessary duplication and work towards making WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections more like a style guideline than a content guideline.
* Support as proponent of the timeline.  Pilaz (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: # Discuss and agree on which parts of this guideline may be moved;
# Identify one or more candidates where the parts of the guideline selected can be moved;
# Start a RfC at the target location or a Village pump discussion;
# After the RfC/Village pump discussion has closed and parts of this guideline have been moved, remove unnecessary duplication and work towards making WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections more like a style guideline than a content guideline.
* Support as proponent of the timeline.  Pilaz (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed timeline by Pilaz 

message: So there's agreement that this style page is not the ideal place for a content guideline, but no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to. I can't think of a good place either. We also have the problem that this conversation is unlikely to get anywhere without wider input, but we can't solicit wider input until we've decided what the question is. I think the way out of this deadlock is to move the conversation to the Village Pump idea lab, so we can get more people involved without having to make a formal proposal.But we'd still need an "idea" to bring to the idea lab, so I suggest reviving 's 2015 proposal to "develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance" based on the essays WP:HTRIV and WP:IPC. This proposal didn't get a lot of attention at the time, possibly because of the amount of work it would involve; but if the community wants a pop culture content guideline, I think creating a new page is the only way to go about it, and this seems like a sensible approach. (I personally don't think we need a pop culture content guideline, so I wouldn't be prepared to take the lead on this. I just want to get this style guideline back the way it was.) Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible way forward

message: I just made a change to the lead section, which now says: "It was once common practice on Wikipedia for articles to include lists of isolated information, which were often grouped into their own section. These sections were typically given names such as "Trivia", "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information" and "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections that store reference citation footnotes). For an example of this practice, see the John Lennon trivia section from December 10 2005."
It has been my experience that a lot of people cite this policy to argue about what information should appear on Wikipedia, which this page clearly states it is not. I thought it would improve clarity, to rearrange and give the lead section a bit of a past tense feel. This policy was made back around 2007 iirc because Trivia sections were very common on Wikipedia (you could even say it was plagued by them). Now, these sections have largely been removed and are very rare. I hope this improves the policy but welcome comments.Mozzie (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to article lead

message: Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Valley View Center#The “In Popular Culture” section should stay.  Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute at [[Valley View Center]]