Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup/Archive 1

message: *1- Remember: trivia isn't banned from Wikipedia, just discouraged. So don't just mark everything with too much trivia if the section is small.
*2- Problem areas seem to be television show episode articles: Simpsons, South Park, SpongeBob and Family Guy to name a few.
:These shows in particular are all about in-jokes, subtle cultural references, and the like. RobJ1981 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another note: if a trivia section is small (1-5 items, in my opinion at least), go through the trivia quick and don't just add the tag. As I've went through the category for large trivia, I've seen several articles marked for too much trivia... when they are small sections! As I stated above: trivia isn't banned from Wikipedia, so tagging every article with any type of trivia that is small isn't helping matters alot. RobJ1981 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: Something the editors here might want to check out: I raised the trivia section from Joan of Arc to a featured list as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and proposed this solution as a model for other core biographies. 
One argument for keeping, organizing, and sourcing popular culture references (at least in certain articles) is instructional value.  Educators who introduce a class to an otherwise unfamiliar subject could find that the students recognize Edgar Allan Poe from a Halloween episode of The Simpsons or that they recognize Alexander the Great from a computer game.  These sorts of references transform blank faces into an interested classroom. Durova 01:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know this, but it still is not needed in many articles. In particular, large trivia sections for TV episodes is not really needed, and our project is trying to move those trivia bits into the appropriate place within the article. Nishkid64 18:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen so far the biggest problem with the television articles is the confusion between trivia about show Y or episode X and things that can be seen by anyone watching same.  The television articles are chock full of trivia like "In this episode they make such and such joke."  I feel that if anyone can see something in an episode then it is not unique or notable enough to have a place in the encyclopedia. Cheers.  L0b0t 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize there are divergent points of view.  This is one possible solution that I hope the editors here will bear in mind when they see a large list section. Durova 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to re-evaluate the guidelines for the T.V. shows referenced above in particular.  Trivia sections seem to be disappearing wholesale69.37.78.35 17:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Cultural depictions of core biography figures]] 

message: I was shocked when I found the trivia section to Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children completely removed. I was even more shocked to find a WikiProject behind it. Under goals, this project states the following:
:Add useful trivia from sections into the article, then removing the trivia section altogether (when needed).
Trivia is not useful; it's not supposed to be. That would be an oxymoron. It is trivial, hence the name. If you were to remove all trivia deemed not useful, then we wouldn't have any trivia. I don't know how you feel, but isn't a good portion of Wikipedia and the concept behind it supposed to be adding what one person knows and others do not? "I know something that's not on the page, so I'll add it to the general knowledge of Wikipedia." It is still valid information that deserves a place. Not only is Wikipedia a wonderful source of information, it is interesting and often entertaining. If you remove all of these non-useful, but often interesting, tidbits of trivia, Wikipedia will be seriously hurt, in my opinion. If you feel that the main articles are feeling too cluttered, busy, or long, I would support moving the trivia from a main page to a separate trivia page. This way, the main pages are a more reasonable length, but the information would still be there for those who want it. If there are large trivia sections, the same that would be deleted under this project, they would most likely warrant their own page. If not, they could be consolidated into a more central area with trivia from similar pages. If it's smaller than that, it would probably be fine just staying on its main page. So, I disagree with this project and would like for it to cease operations, or at least change what it's doing. Thank you.  -Platypus Man | Talk 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one doing that edit, I realized someone could disagree with it, that's why I posted the deleted section on the talk-page. Information that isn't useful in any way should not be in an encyclopedia. If the Trivia adds useful information to the article it should be kept, otherwise removed. Since this isn't a fansite, cluttering articles with things that aren't useful makes the articles worse. Perhaps the best thing would be to create a Wikitrivia or Trivipedia? The reason I didn't integrate anything was that i didn't find anything worth keeping. --Pax:Vobiscum 10:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally wrote the following on User talk:RobJ1981: "It's not so much that I'm completely against what was done to the article (I only noticed because a picture I uploaded was part of the trivia), I just don't like the whole Trivia Cleanup thing. True, there is a lot of the trivia out there that is not only useless, but boring and uninteresting. If someone says that a vehicle in a game looks a little bit like a real vehicle, only different, then who cares? I think that rather than trying to integrate trivia with an article and delete the rest, the quality of the trivia should be looked at. If something is complete speculation, coincidental, or irrelevant to the article at hand, then I see no problem with deleting it. Just because it cannot fit into the rest of the article is not a good reason to delete it; that's half the point with trivia, it doesn't fit in with the main subject, but it's still worth a mention. We need to either come up with strict guidelines as to what trivia should and should not be removed, come up with a new-page trivia policy (or something like that) to keep the trivia in a different location, or stop telling people to remove trivia." Also -- I feel we shouldn't create a Triviapedia; no one will ever go to it because no one ever goes out specifically for the sole purpose of trivia. They are reading the regular information and then see the trivia. I feel that they would navigate to a separate page, but not to a new Wiki. -Platypus Man | Talk 12:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am in no way opposed to having interesting (trivial) facts in the articles.  I am however, adamantly opposed to "Trivia" sections, for many of the same reasons we should not have "Criticisms" sections, the info should be written in prose form, not a list. Sections like those just serve as troll and cruft magnets, they make an article clunky and weighted with nice prose at the top and unwieldy sections at the bottom. By far the biggest problem I've seen with these trivia sections is that they become a repository for every young person (sorry if that sounds a little ageist) who comes along to add some little tid-bit that they saw on show X last night.  The Simpsons and South Park episode articles are a great example of this.  their trivia sections are full of things that anyone can see by just watching the damn show. "In this episode Homer eats pie." or "In this episode Cartman says Cheesy-Poofs." This is not trivia it's observation.  If anyone can just watch a show and see thing X, then thing X, is not a good candidate for inclusion as notable trivia. L0b0t 13:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree 

message: Hey, I'm new to the project but strongly support the goals.  I've an idea for approaching trivia removal.  It seems that the warning box about trivia doesn't have much of an effect.  I propose going to various articles with long trivia sections and removing the more trivial trivia (pardon the pun) and trivia that is unsourced then adding to the talk page a note along the lines of:
As part of the wikiproject to reduce the amount of trivia, I went through the trivia section and removed the more 'trivial trivia' and some trivia without references.  If some of what I removed is deemed by the editors of this article to be necessary information, please find a way to incorporate it into the article proper, rather than re-adding it to the trivia section.  Wikipedia does not outright ban trivia, but it strongly recommends that it not be included in articles.  The guidelines state that trivia sections are particularly okay in new articles because they can add information before the article is formatted.  However, once an article is as developed as this one is, the trivia needs to be removed from the trivia section and incorporated into the article proper. I strongly recommend that editors here try and do this if they want the trivia information to stay as there is a growing movement to remove trivia.  More trivia may be removed if not incorporated. 
I've done this to a few articles so far...  Everyone feel that this is a good approach? --The Way 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think posting on the talk page always needs to be done. Many talk pages are either non-existant or very small. Many editors on Wiki don't even use the talk pages. The too much trivia tag is good usually, but when vandals remove it with no reason...that's the problem. Or when people think trivia is cleaned up, when it's not. Or when people remove a few trivia things, and assume it's clean..so they remove the tag. I think Wikipedia should indeed outright ban trivia, but that's my opinion...and I somehow doubt it will ever happen. RobJ1981 04:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Posting the removed trivia to the talk page is the considerate thing to do.  What if somebody is looking for it and doesn't want to wade through the history?  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 06:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When people make other edits to articles, they don't post the removed information on the talk page to be considerate about the edit. If that was the case: talk pages would be flooded with everything the article used to have.... which would just make the talk page very cluttered. There is no reason at all to put the removed trivia on the talk page. It's removed for a reason, and doesn't need to be posted on the talk page period. RobJ1981 06:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A typical edit does not remove correct information from an article.  I would argue that anytime correct information is removed -- and it should be very rarely -- the information should be posted to the talk page, and this is doubly true when a whole chunk of information is removed at once.  In the case of trivia, there are often people who'd rather not see it removed -- this is very different from the case of removal of incorrect facts, for example, or of simple article reorganization.  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said before, there is absolutely no reason to add any of it to the talk page. Many editors don't even read the talk page for one thing. Another thing (which I mentioned before): things that get removed from articles don't need to be moved to talk pages. Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article: NOT listing information that was removed. RobJ1981 17:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remove something, I ususally copy it to the talk page.  If I were to remove a large chunk of text all at once, I'd absolutely copy it.  I'm not sure discussion and copy are mutually exclusive.  (And surely the best way to encourage people to use the talk page is to make it more useful.) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way of Approaching Trivia 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I'm not a member of this project, as I find trivia sections strangely interesting. It's true you wouldn't pass an exam by reading them, but you might still know something other people don't. However, I would heavily applaud it if you could start getting rid of all those 'in popular culture' sections that seem to crop up on a number of articles. I don't think it's necessary to mention how many times something was mentioned in South Park. Some articles even have entire spin off articles detailing their mentions in "popular culture". Am I the only one who doesn't care when leprechauns were mentioned in The Simpsons?
I wonder if there should be another Wiki for trivia? Like the Wiki version of Schott's Original Miscellany, or something. --Stevefarrell 09:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you. Good trivia is actually really interesting, even though it's kind of irrelevant. But I don't even think good trivia should be included in most articles because it almost always leads to the inclusion of bad trivia, like "References in popular culture". People see a trivia section and they just start adding things like that like crazy. AFAIK, the spin off articles you mention were just created to appease the people who add that sort of stuff and keep it out of the main articles. Recury 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly about the pop cult sections.  WP:EPISODE is very clear on this as well (see excerpt above), the article should discuss the episode's impact on popular culture, not pop culture appearances in the episode.  Delete those sections on sight is my vote.L0b0t 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Popular culture sections are a big problem on Wikipedia. Many articles have insanely long sections for them. These sections need to either go, or be trimmed quite alot. RobJ1981 16:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been cleaning up episode articles using WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:WAF as touchstones.  Most of the articles on television episodes fail outright, but I've started with trivia and references to popular culture sections.  This looks pretty cut and dried to me.  Unless the show's creators said it in the media or a 3rd party source that passes muster with WP:V and WP:RS publishes it somewhere, it is original research and needs to be removed.  No longer can we tolerate edits that restate jokes from the episode or say that a scene in the episode looks like a scene in another work or is a parody/homage of another work in its entireity  Here are some of the relevant sections; the emphasis is in the original, I've highlighted the meat of it in green.  Cheers. L0b0t 17:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: Recently I've found out that Doctor Who episode articles have too much trivia, as does many episode articles for Invader Zim. RobJ1981 19:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us involved in the Doctor Who WikiProject are aware of this issue, and are working it - the talk page archives contain mountains of discussion on the topic. Take a look at An Unearthly Child, the very first episode in the show, and then at the next few serials - this is the format we've been working towards. Those additional section ("In Print," "Production," etc.) were created out of the trivia section. --Brian Olsen 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's good the project is working on it. I've mentioned problems with trivia to other projects and they just ignore it or say comments like "clean it yourself if it bothers you". Another problem area I just found today: Star Trek. I've went through some of the movies, and shows... and all of it so far, has too much trivia. RobJ1981 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New problem areas 

message: Just deleted the following sentence from the Earth article's "Earth in modern culture" section:
"Pictures of the planet are seen in many films, comic books and novels, and the words "Earth" and "world" are mentioned often in many contexts."
Good one. :) --Pax:Vobiscum 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Favourite so far 

message: Just found this project - I've been battling in a minor way on John Wayne and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century - WP:V does not seem to phase some people, I am delighted to see others taking an interest in removing the trivia. May I sugest incorporating some of the above (section In popular culture, starting with the line "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. " into WP:TRIVIA in an effort to clean up and clarify that guideline? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: I have noticed a recent decline in the quality of many articles. Much useful and entertaining information is being lost. The Trivia Cleanup WikiProject is against what wikipedia stands for. Wikipedia is meant to be a people's encyclopedia. If you don not like what is on it, then that is just too bad. Wikipedia was meant to grow, not be deleted. If this was not an organized group, these actions would be considered vandalism. Even though trivia has no intrinsic purpose, it is enjoyable, which gives it a purpose. People have removed so much valuable content and protected their actions with hate words such as "fancruft" and "useless". I strongly disagree with this project and hope that it is ended and that all the bad that has been done (example) will be reverted. Don't crush the wikipede. Ocicatmuseum 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, perhaps you pasted the wrong diff? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I did not. Ocicatmuseum 01:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If everything was allowed on Wikipedia, there simply would be too much clutter and no end to what is on articles. There is trivia cleanup for a reason: Wikipedia isn't a place for every little trivia note. Encyclopedia means important content, not every note such as "Bart Simpson wore a different shirt for the first time ever in this episode". Wikipedia is meant to grow, but edits need to happen, articles can't just grow with lots of cruft and never be changed. Encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to trivia, period. RobJ1981 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not so much an anarchist, free-for-all collection of indiscriminate information as it is a very focused project to build a reliable repository of useful knowledge. While your opinion is romantic and egalitarian, I do not think that it makes for an accurate appraisal of the goals behind the Trivia Cleanup project. While I can't speak for any other participants, I think that the practice of removing, or, better yet, transforming trivia sections helps fight the longstanding trend toward quantity over quality. Most trivia bits are vapid factoids added without reference or consideration of relevance. These are added by well-intentioned contributors who are unaware of the reasoning behind Wikipedia's no original research policy. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anetode, quality is much better than quantity. RobJ1981 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can all agree on that.  The question is whether the two are mutually exclusive.  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is for Information, not Oligarchy 

message: Okay, my last post #Wikipedia is for Information, not Oligarchy was extreme, but I do believe that there is such a thing as good trivia as mentioned in an above post, and that good trivia has a place in Wikipedia. There is also bad trivia, which should be eliminated. I do agree that in some cases there is too much trivia. Trivia should exist in moderation. Not too little, not too much. However, telling what is good and what is bad, and how much is too much can be difficult. If you are not sure, then you should probably leave it because it is much easier to delete it in the future than it is to revert it if a mistake has been made. No one is forcing anyone to read the trivia sections, so if you think that all trivia is bad trivia, then just don't read them. Don't let you your own dislike of trivia ruin everyone else's fun. Don't crush the Wikipede, but don't let it stray too far from its path either. --Ocicatmuseum 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Just don't read it" is not the solution here. If that was even close to being true (which it's not), Wikipedia would be a huge mess of ignored problems. Trivia Cleanup's purpose is to clean trivia, not just ignore it/not read it. It's not about hating trivia here, it's cleaning it. Not once is it mentioned on the project page that we hate trivia and want to remove it all. Also, if the trivia can be put into the article and make it look better: then it will be. Just because a trivia section doesn't exist for an article, doesn't mean the trivia notes are gone forever. RobJ1981 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about some moderation in adding every useless piece of information on popular culture ever? Recury 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the cruft needs to go.  There are discussions started over here and here.  Cheers. L0b0t 21:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderation 

message: Please take a look at the South Park episode article Make Love, Not Warcraft.  It seems User:Michaelas10 has been a very busy bee and deserves kudos for taking a very crufty article and getting it to good article nomination status.  This is the kind of editing we need more of.  Cheers. L0b0t 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just your opinion.  In my opinion, that is now the WORST of all South Park articles.  Cultural References is part of what makes South Park so popular and humorous.  Who are you people to say what is encyclopedic and what is not?  Why can't it include all the stuff that all the other 150+ articles about South Park episodes include?  How can an article about an episode titled "Make Love, Not Warcraft" not mention that the title is a reference to the phrase "make love, not war"?  I agree with the others like Ocicatmuseum and Ericpaulson that say this project is making Wikipedia worse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.34.228.213 (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a guide to every little note. I wish people would actually read Wikipedia trivia guidelines before saying things such as "this project sucks, I hate it and want it to go away, it's making Wikipedia worse".  Fact: we didn't create the "too much trivia" template, and another fact: we didn't create this guideline: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. This project was created well after those, as a group to help clean the trivia problems in articles. (Look at just about any featured article or good article for that matter: there isn't a mass amount of trivia or pop culture references, which is another form of trivia.) Why in the hell does there need to mass lists for every little reference in a Family Guy episode (for example). Yes, the cartoon refers to many popular things: but that doesn't mean every single episode article has to have a list of them all. Same applies to South Park and other popular cartoon series. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: not a guide to every little note that fans think are notable. RobJ1981 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A great example 

message: Yes, it is me again. I have noticed that some of the comments that have been posted on my comments have been very biased. For example, "How about some moderation in adding every useless piece of information on popular culture ever? Recury 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't post any more mean comments or else you will just prove my point.--Ocicatmuseum 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about some moderation in using this talk page? Recury 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What mean comments? We are speaking our opinions, and I haven't seen anything even close to being "mean". Mean comments are insults and personal attacks (which I've seen none of either). If you don't like the project: fine, no one is forcing you to agree with it. But you simply seem to want to upset users by insulting the project clearly several times. How is insulting a project helping things? If you don't like it, simply just move on. And is there any good reason why there needs to be a new section everytime you post?  One section does the job, flooding the talk page with other sections is clutter and not helping things either. RobJ1981 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderation Again 

message: Please check out the discussion on the need for cultural references sections here at:
Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes#Cultural references sections.  Cheers. L0b0t 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References discussion 

message: As of now, there is 664 articles with too much trivia. Newest problem area: James Bond movies. "Miscellanea" sections that are trivia in disguise, are in some of the articles. I try to do my best at cleanup, but if I don't know the subject well I don't clean the trivia alot. So my suggestion is: if you know a subject well enough, clean the trivia the best you can. As of now here is the problem areas: James Bond movies, Friday the 13th movies, Power Rangers, Mortal Kombat video game series, Silent Hill video games, Star Trek movies and so on. RobJ1981 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes and advice on cleaning trivia 

message: I think these should probably go: The Beatles trivia and Pink Floyd trivia. Well it's interesting, but it's still a huge page of trivia. RobJ1981 17:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe those should stay. The only reason why they got separate articles for that was because it was elongating the main article. These trivia sections are quite huge, and would have probably doubled the length of The Beatles or Pink Floyd. Nishkid64 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, what about Survivor trivia here: List of Survivor statistics and trivia. Survivor is indeed a popular show, but overall this page is just a list of fancruft in my opinion. What's that Wikipedia policy? I know it involves... Wikipedia isn't a collection of information. That page seems to violate it (in my opinion at least). RobJ1981 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't see the value of those articles, I think removing them would piss off too many people to make it productive. Better focus on removing smaller trivia sections and then go after the big ones. Since they aren't disrupting the main articles I don't think we should care too much. Pax:Vobiscum 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with trivia in their name 

message: I was absolutely stunned to find this project.  I find it counter-intuitive and destructive to remove trivia from articles and clutter other articles with "toomuchtrivia" tags.  The trivia section often contains the most interesting and enlightening information, and info that you would not find elsewhere.  Trimming this down is destructive and downright vandalism. Ericpaulson 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even take the time to read Wikipedia's policy on trivia sections?  Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. This project isn't going against any polices and is certainly not vandalism. Also: one too much trivia tag isn't clutter. There is many maintenance tags on Wikipedia, and the too much trivia tag was around way before this project even started. Also: please put new talk sections at the bottom of talk pages next time, that's where the proper place for them. RobJ1981 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I highly disagree with this concept 

message: Hi, I've been editing Wikipedia on and off, and think trivia/lists in articles are a big problem when they dominate the article.  I've edited the Damocles article diff.  What do you think about spinning of trivia to their own lists? It keeps the trivia around (for those who like this stuff), but keeps it out of the main article. I also done something similar with a list of "fictional rebellions" on Rebellion. I know this will create many "List of references to...", "List of fictional...", etc., but I think it's better than the alternative of letting it accumulate. Any comments?-Kristod (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure about it, because it falls under this tag in my opinion: . A list page is fine, if it's done properly...but basically a copy and paste of the sections into a list page = bad. Moving one clutter to another place to be cluttered isn't much of a solution to me at least. RobJ1981 19:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't like the List-solution myself thats why I asked this project about comments/suggestions. I tried clean up the Damocles page, but about one day after I removed trivia references, they started popping up again.  List of references to Damocles is a bit dubious, about one or two items on that list are noteworthy. The main idea is to remove clutter, and keep the information somewhere, for the trivia fans. I think "Clutter somewhere else" = slightly better than clutter in the article. -Kristod (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still clutter, and doesn't belong. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be clutter that was moved from another article. Trivia fans need to realize Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. RobJ1981 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment [[Damocles]] 

message: I'm making this post, to see how many members are active (or not active) with trivia cleanup. :Category:Articles with large trivia sections doesn't seem like it's going down much. Also, this talk page isn't very active . If people aren't interested in the project anymore, remove your name from the list. I'm hoping this encourages people to help cleanup again, articles are in need of trivia cleaning still. I will probably post on user talk pages if this doesn't get alot of responses. RobJ1981 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still active. Although, it doesn't seem like much, I've completely cleaned trivia from 3 articles. Doing it right sure takes a lot of time. I don't talk much on this page, because much of it is people complaining and us telling them its Wikipedia policy. I'd like to see a gameplan for how to go about cleaning trivia and such. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still here fighting the good fight and pissing of legions of spotty fanboys and lonely canadian college kids.  Cheers. L0b0t 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not, but I might be at some time in the future. Trivia cleanup almost always involves arguing and I just haven't been in the mood lately. Recury 18:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note,  I will probably need to just go to talk pages of editors if no one replies in a few weeks (just in case they haven't been on due to holidays, and didn't see this yet). RobJ1981 21:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never been involved with this project (or any project for that matter), but I think I'd really like to be. Before I do, I just want to make sure that I have a good understanding of what the project is about. There are pages like The Godfather that seem to be filled with trivia that is almost entirely fancruft. Do people really care to see every time that The Godfather was referenced in a movie (e.g. Natural Born Killers, You've Got Mail)? Would everyone agree that these violate W:NOT? Have you guys been deleting all The Simpsons fancruft on virtually every page in existance? :) When you do it, do you leave a discussion on the talk page? Are these causing revert wars? On a page like The Godfather, it's stopping them from even getting a Good Article status on an article with top-importance status. Mikeliveshere 13:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, there hasn't been any major revert wars over trivia. Comments are left on talk pages sometimes, but not always. Many times talk pages are inactive in the first place, so posting there doesn't help many editors anyway. Culture references are useful to a point sometimes... I suppose, but it's not notable to list each and every one of them. Some are fine, but alot is just cruft and needs to go. RobJ1981 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just posted on some talk pages, asking if they were active or not. Hopefully some inactives became active again. The trivia needs to go down, and not be such a mess. I do what I can, but I'm not an expert on each subject. RobJ1981 06:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well one response from numerous talk page posts: not a good sign. Trivia is a big issue on Wikipedia still, and only a few can't fix the problem. RobJ1981 08:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is still active with the project? 

message: I think a trivia fact on this page Honda Insight is wrong. Check the discussion to see the exact quote. XYZ CrVo 15:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Trivia 

message: I would say that adopting the following two standards would make W:Trivia a lot more clear.
1. The subject of a trivia tidbit should be the subject of the article.
2. Passive voice is bad.
This means that if a trivia piece on article X is "X is referenced in Y." that trivia should immediately be moved to the page on Y and should read "Y references X." At that point, it should become the responsibility of the editors that are working on page Y to cite that trivia and hopefully integrate it into the article when appropriate. My plan of attack will likely be to move trivia to the subject's talk pages and suggest they cite and integrate. If it a subject I know about or have interest in, I will probably stick around to help them do so. Would everyone agree that we're trying to find appropriate homes for trivia, rather than just completely remove it? Mikeliveshere 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My intitial reaction to this is - it depends. I'm thinking if, for example, a major motion picture references a local indie rock band. That bit of information would probably belong on the band's page, as important to their notability, but maybe not on the film's page. So "X is referenced in Y" may sometimes be more relevent to X than it is to Y. --Brian Olsen 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I completley agree. My formula's too generic, but I still think I'm on the right track. For example, in the example that you created, the sentence would still probably need to be "The band gained significant notoriety when it was referenced in such and such movie.", so the band would still be the subject of the sentence. Mikeliveshere 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Passive voice, without a supporting "A says X is referenced in Y" reference, is usually a sign of original research. Moving it from one page to another won't help. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think most people would agree that trivia sections are usually nothing but OR anyway. That being said, I don't think the project's goal should be to cite every piece of trivia. Like I said, I think it makes sense to move it to the talk page for the subject and put the burden on them to cite and integrate the trivia into the article. Mikeliveshere 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Standard 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: This page has a lengthy trivia section, and when the trivia tag is added, the same 2 editors that control the page keep removing it.  Keep an eye on it and try to fix when possible.  Booshakla 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to keep an eye on it. Remember to put the warning tag for removing maintenance tags on the user's talk page (if it hasn't been done yet). RobJ1981 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Playmania]] 

message: This cartoon has many cultural references (also called: pop culture references), and it's simply a form of trivia. Listing all (or even many) of them is just cruft in my opinion. Any epxerts on the show out there, want to help clean the articles? :Category:Family Guy episodes is where you can find them all. I thought South Park and a few others had trivia problems, but Family Guy certainly is the worst when it comes to huge trivia sections (when it comes to cartoon series at least). This is another good example of why TV episode articles are a bad idea on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to say, "I wish someone would just start a Family Guy Wiki, transfer all this cruft, and then we could just delete all this trivia of off Wikipedia." But it already exists (link). I propose transferring this cruft to that wiki and deleting it from here. It's a fairly big project. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is another good example of why TV episode articles are a bad idea on Wikipedia. - Amen to that. It's not just Family Guy. The Simpsons and South Park are two others which, of the top of my head, are littered with useless trivia. -- Qarnos 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree with you all.  Another problem is articles on various celebrities and TV shows having their "spoofs" on family guy listed, like saying "Press Your Luck was mentioned on episode 23 of Family Guy".  It's borderline spam IMO. Booshakla 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Guy trivia issues 

message: Check out some of these when you can.  Pretty much every pricing game has a trivia section of at least 10 items, much of which isn't close to notable or even NPOV.  And there is a stubborn editor that almost always reverts the edits, reguardless of reason.  Thought I'd give a heads up, there aren't really any tags on the articles. Booshakla 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price is Right pricing games 

message: In my opinion, articles that are just big trivia sections are even more damaging than trivia sections in articles.  All the reasons against trivia sections in articles apply to full articles about trivia.  The one main reason against removing trivia, that it could be incorporated into the article, is significantly weakened, because the information is no longer in the same article and is therefore not readily available to editors who want to incorporate it.  Furthermore, these articles aren't watchlisted by established users, so they tend to be completely out of control.  I've recently nominated a few of these for deletion (not listing the debates, I'm not trying to canvas for that) and they do seem headed towards deletion.  I've also written an essay at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles that talks about this issue, and I invite you all to contribute if you have anything to add.  In response to a post above, I think it's important to go after the biggest, most bloated trivia sections rather than keeping our focus small: those are the most damaging ones.  Mangojuicetalk 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" articles and trivia articles 

message: I'd like some input on Fictional portrayals of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The list started as an ever growing section to the main Japan Self-Defense Forces article that I eventually moved off into its own article partially due to its growing length, and partially because I thought the presence of a list of every tangential mention of the JSDF in any game, anime, or manga detracted from the purpose of the entire article. Honestly though, I'm starting to get tired of all these lists of trivia and pop culture mentions consisting mainly of "xxxxx was featured in xxxxxxx", which seem to me to be almost a form of internal spamming for the pop culture articles in question. Anyhow, I'm thinking of putting the list up for deletion, just wanted some input on whether other editors think it's appropriate before I get jumped by a bunch of angry fanboys/fangirls. Thanks. -Loren 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it should be deleted. A good example of listcruft/fancruft/useless trivia. RobJ1981 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've put the article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. -Loren 04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice please: [[Fictional portrayals of the Japan Self-Defense Forces]] 

message: There's been some effort at updating the wording of the template to more accurately reflect what the guideline actually is. CovenantD 23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <toomuchtrivia> tag 

message: I'm pretty new to this project (and Wikipedia for that matter), and I wondered if there is any guideline to edit summaries provided? If not, it might be a good idea to use summaries like Cleanup as part of WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. This might attract more people to the project. --Anna512 (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although that's a good idea for attracting new people to the project, I think the edit summary would be better used explaining - in detail - why each entry was removed (see, for instance, diff). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries 

message: Is it just me, or are trivia/pop culture sections getting bigger? Example: Cars_%28film%29#Script_references. I will post more when I come along them. This is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed somehow. Otherwise people are just going to continue making these massive sections. RobJ1981 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kids. What can you say? I'll usually make a first pass to weed out the totally irrelevant and uncited, then come back in a week or so and try to deal with the rest, either by moving them to relevant areas or removing them. In articles where I've managed to eliminate such sections, they often stay gone. CovenantD 06:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'm surprised I got a reply quick. Usually it takes a bit, since this talk page is slow at times. RobJ1981 06:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's failing because it was probably a bad idea from the beginning, and most people prefer to keep a separate trivia section rather than forcing them into other paragraphs. The minority who wanted this guideline is struggling to make it work. I can hardly call this a consensus. --ElfQrin 13:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be discouraged. There are articles in which lists of trivia and cultural references make the article less of an article and more like a laundry list. The effort includes subtle nuances like putting the trivia cleanup tag on the page, moving the trivia to the talk page, eliminating (or just tagging) un-cited items, etc. It all helps. And since WP is a living, changing, growing entity, some amount of anti-statis is to be expected. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I've noticed 

message: I was thinking of setting up a volunteer section on the project page (similar to what other projects have done). It could either be setup by letter, page number or your personal preference (such as.. if you are an expert at a subject, then you can volunteer to clean those articles). What does everyone think?  Let's breathe some life into this talk page again. RobJ1981 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea to reduce the problem 

message: If anyone cares to comment: . It's a discussion about cultural references section (which are basically trivia). RobJ1981 05:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trivia discussion at the TV project 

message: Personally I don't care much for long lists of trivia in articles. Like most of you I agree that it clutters up articles. However, I'm not quite sure that I agree as to the methods proposed by this wikiproject, viz. by being a deletionist of 'crap' articles. I happen to like 'crap' articles as it gives me justification to remove trivial content from the main article onto it, and then explain why it was removed (clearly showing to the fellow contributor that the information was already taken note of in the specially designated article). Hypothetically 'crap' articles also provide sources that I could mine for more information, which is not to insinuate that this is my chief use of them but I have used them on occasion for that.
More or less, I am yet to be convinced that the methodology of this wikiproject will be beneficial. I certainly believe that you are helping in removing distracting content. But does it need to be purged entirely? 
I'm am largely concerned about all the editors that barely spend time contributing because they are too busy reverting edits in order to remove content which is continually re-entered in by fellow wikipedians only because it was removed (or because they are new and don't see it there).Why can't we modify the system so that just as there are discussion pages there are also "trivia" pages? Or at least create some way of distinguishing trivia pages, i.e. Silver Surfer in popular media, acknowledging that they aren't proper wikipedia articles just as User pages aren't articles although they are run off the same engine? b_cubed 03:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not so sure I agree 

message: Given the current size of :Category:Articles with large trivia sections, might it be a good idea to subdivide that category by the month in which the tag was added? It would require modifying Template:Trivia, creating the monthly categories, and enlisting the help of SmackBot to fix any tags that are missing a date parameter.
My question is this: is it worth it? Android Mouse Bot 3 has begun an automated process of tagging articles with  at the rate of 4 edits per minute. Since it started on May 20, it has tagged over 5000 articles. That's probably the biggest monthly maintenance backlog aside from speedy deletions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could help. RobJ1981 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a request at the  talk page to add the date as part of the box code like the template  is.  But, to my knowledge, no changes have been made.  If those changes were made, a bot could go through to time stamp the boxes like bots have done with the unsourced template.  --myselfalso 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Update. The  template has been modified and the category is currently subdivided by month. It is also being considered for renaming at CfD. Lastly, Rich Farmborough, the operator of SmackBot, has agreed to add the  template to the list of maintenance tags that the bot currently dates (though it may take a few days). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly categorisation of [[:Category:Articles with large trivia sections]] 

message: We should keep an eye on the McDonald%27s_restaurants article. The trivia section is getting substantially larger by the minute. I have tried to group a few bullets and make them into a separate paragraph. - A Raider Like Indiana 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section needs to be removed. I can understand some of it being kept in a notes section of some sort, but it's just a cluttered mess as it is now. RobJ1981 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDonald's Article 

message: The article Toupee has a seriously bad list of "toupee wearers" that used vioilate BLP (until they removed all the living people) and now is just a list of useless trivia. VanTucky 22:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus I noticed this: Toupee#Toupees_in_Popular_Media. The article is in need of massive cleaning in my opinion. RobJ1981 22:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toupee 

message: For some reason, while most articles with "trivia" in the title have been deleted, this one just keeps making the cut for some reason.  There is no reason for this page to be on here, look at the intro, it actually says "this is info not important enough to be on the main article".  The cultists have flooded the afd, and it got a "keep" consensus the last time (despite a lot of requests for a merge or deletion).  In addition, there is also an "in popular culture" page for London Underground.  This is absurd and needs to change.  We should try to get rid of these articles sometime.  Dannycali 03:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, check this AFD when you can Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/B-52_Stratofortress_trivia, it is not looking good for now, as the cultists and not realizing that trivia is not allowed here, especially a whole article of it. Please vote delete and get the cultists to realize that trivia is not acceptable here. Dannycali 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[London Underground Trivia]] 

message: :Category:In popular culture.This needs a good cleaning in my opinion. At current count: 126 articles, as well as 13 subcategories. I've been putting the ones I see as the worst in AFD. I'm sure there could be some decent articles in the category (or subcat), but overall: most of it seems to be a culture section that was moved to an article on it's own. Condensing is the key: condense sections to notable items (if they exist). Moving a list of trivial items to an article on it's own, isn't helping things. RobJ1981 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture category 

message: As has been noted by several members of this project, Wikipedia does not have much of a policy on trivia.  There's WP:TRIVIA, but it limits itself to discouraging trivia sections, and does little to distinguish trivia from substantive content.  The proposal at Wikipedia:Relevance of content is an attempt to close this gap.
The proposal has undergone several rounds of feedback and revision, and was recently relocated from Wikipedia:Relevance due to a dispute over its placement on that page.  I invite all contributors to the Trivia Cleanup project to help establish a common standard for relevance on Wikipedia.  Thanks.--Father Goose 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Relevance of content" proposal 

message: I think it would be easier to get rid of trivia if people could find trivia articles that they have knowledge about. I know a lot about comic books, so I can fix comic articles that have trivia in it. I couldn't fix a trivia section in an article about Russian theology or something like that. If there was some way to look up articles with a trivia section by a category or something that would make it easier to find articles that each person knows they can help fix. Anyone know how to do that? -Freak104 04:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivide 

message: This is an article which has two trivial sections, one about a list of toupee wearers that is self-referential, and the other as a huge "in popular culture list". Good luck removing it, I tried  and failed. VanTucky (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toupee 

message: I have proposed a strategy for dealing with trivia sections on mature articles; see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A nontrivial matter of Trivia.  There's no reason for a mature article to have a Trivia section in the article body, and in most cases the  tags are completely ignored.  I suggest that in cases where no maintenance has been performed for some months, these sections ought to be moved to the article talk page, from which interested parties can carry out the merger of any useful information at their leisure.  Frankly, it doesn't seem likely that these trivia sections will ever be merged into the article prose or filtered to remove cruft otherwise.
Comments are welcomed and encouraged.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal at Village Pump 

message: Has anyone else noticed that what the trivia tag looks like has changed? It now says that the article lacks content. I think this will hurt the effort to clean up the trivia sections, because it is using derogatory wording. I believe that it should go back to saying that the section contains trivia and that trivia needs to be incorporated. I know that the link points to trivia needing to be cleaned up, but a lot of people might not click the link and just delete the tag. -Freak104 05:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says the information in this section lacks context.  However, would you be more open to "The information in this section is poorly organized"?  See the discussions at Template talk:Trivia.--Father Goose 14:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops! My bad. I guess I should really not make such statements when I'm practically falling asleep. Sorry, everyone. -Freak104 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lacks content"? 

message: It appears cultural references sections are being restored to these articles by Grande13, with somewhat confusing Edit summaries like "cleaned up trivial joke retelling".
      Some of these do have additional cleanup, but most are simply restoring Cultural references sections. / edg ☺ ★ 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: I point out that there is no agreement within the WP community on goal 3 as presently worded. Many such articles are in fact deleted at AfD, some are kept. the wording is therefore divisive and propagandistic--and not supported by present policy,. On the other hand, the removal of unimprovably weak articles of the nature is very much supported by policy. I suggest rewording as "the deletion of unimprovable..."  This should satisfy even those urging deletion of such articles, as they generally think that almost all such articles are not improvable. Its better to have a goal on which everyone can agree.  DGG (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed goal 3 altogether. Some trivia based articles are indeed useful, so it was wrong to add that there. I hadn't looked at the project page for a bit, otherwise I would've removed it earlier. RobJ1981 22:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewording 

message: I just nominated London Underground trivia for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (4th nomination). Calliopejen1 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: Well, In light of the recent AfD discussion about the trivia template and the current trivia policy, it seems that something needs to be done with the massive backlog of trivia sections (a semi-current guesstimate is around 8000 articles). Although there are some general rules for fixing trivia, there is no "quick fix" that you can apply to every article. Each section needs the attention of a careful editor. And so I propose a challenge.
If you consider the Trivia Cleanup a worthwhile project, then in the month of October please fix any 10 articles, such that the trivia template can safely be removed -- although this may mean that a new cleanup template is required.
If every member of this group were able to do that, then a significant portion of the currently tagged articles could be eliminated. Please help make October the first step towards eliminating inappropriate trivia sections. --Nick Penguin 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea!  Let's try to make it a regular event.  Looking at the month of September (just for the sake of example), we could take care of the month completely if everyone signed on to the project were to clean 25-30 articles over the course of the month.  That may seem like a lot, but it's less than one article a day when you think about it.  Again, great idea NickPenguin!  Sbacle 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The October 2007 Challenge 

message: Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion related to WikiProject Trivia Cleanup 

message: Some of us may not yet know that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection has been removed from WP:NOT.
Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is a newly proposed guideline intended to return WP:NOT#TRIVIA to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.
While some editors will regard this guideline as obvious, even common sense, there is currently a tremendous amount of opposition to Wikipedia having limitations on trivia. As this proposal is specificly a content guideline, it may receive even greater opposition than Wikipedia:Avoid trivia has been subject to in recent months.
I could use specific suggestions and general feedback. A guideline (which this is proposed to be) does not need to contradict itself, so contradictory philosophies need not be introduced, but I would also be interested in feedback from people have problems with excluding trivia, especially if they have specific suggestions on how this guideline can be made better.
(This message is cross-posted in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.) / edg ☺ ★ 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is closed, not useful, distracts from other discussion. Redirecting to WP:TRIVIA, where I found it. / edg ☺ ★ 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal: Wikipedia is not a trivia collection 

message: When you get a chance, check out the episode pages for the show Drawn Together, giant trivia list are amuck on each episode page. Dannycali 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Drawn Together]] episodes

message: Article contains a huge "Vespas in popular culture" section that needs to be gotten rid of, but an editor reverts me when I do. The "Vespa Models" section is also a long, crufy list. Whould like backing on this issue.--SeizureDog 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think deleting the entire list is a good solution (it will just get reverted). For a pop culture section it actually contains some good stuff (IMO). The reverting editor seems nice and open to discussion, so that should be your first step. It could certainly use a clean up though. I'd suggest trying to come up with a stricter inclusion criteria, not deleting the entire section. Pax:Vobiscum 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed for [[Vespa]] 

message: Several suggestions regarding the handling of trivia and popular culture information on Wikipedia have been proposed in the past.  They include:
*Rename Trivia and In popular culture (IPC) sections as Article ommissions, Side notes, Fun facts, Interesting facts, Did you know? (DYK?), Top 40, or Influence.
*Allow trivia sections
*Add another tab at the top of the page for trivia/in pop culture
*Limit the trivia sections to 40 bullet point items (Top 40)
*Make the trivia sections have the hide/expandable option
*A dual level encyclopedia, where those who want to limit their access can do so
*Lock the trivia section and use a template that instructs editors to add suggestions in the discussion tab
*Change the current trivia template to have two options: "A) integrate trivia items into the text of the article and/or  B) provide citations for all information."  Other changes to the trivia template are also possible.
*Completely eliminate the use of the trivia template and use the "citations needed" template instead.
*Make an exception for triva in the policy and guidelines/manual of style.
*Allow trivia sections for certain subjects like television shows, films, and video games.
*Create a bot to salvage information by creating a link to the history page containing the removed trivia section and post it on the article's talk page.  More "bot" uses for trivia are possible.
*Change the trivia template to read "This trivia sections needs cleaning up."
Perennial pros and cons regarding trivia and popular culture information
Pros
*Trivia is true and factual.
*Opens up interesting links to several other articles and opens up branches into the vastness of wikipedia.
*Trivia can often be a fun, quick read and really provides a bit of a conclusion to an article
*Provides a temporary repository for the casual editor to jot down a quick note that later can be expanded upon. 
*Some facts are more presentable and in some cases, only relevant, in a trivia section and seem arbitrary in the text of the article.
*The trivia template simply states trivia sections are "discouraged," and an "attempt" should be made to integrate the items into the text of the article, not that the trivia section should be "completely removed" and "buried forever" in the history of the article.
Cons
*Inspires casual readers/editors to add a tidbit of information that eventually becomes a gargantuan list of facts.
*One man's indispensable trivia is another man's pet peeve.
*Are a constant source of aggravation for article editors because they're hard to maintain.
*Can be serious obstacles to an article ever reaching GA or FA recognition.
*Does not comply with the manual of style.
*Trivia is often unsourced.
*Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopedia, and no other encyclopedias in the world are known to have trivia sections.
Great quotes concerning the hot topic of the wikipedia trivia debate
*Trivia sections are a victim of the conflict of what wikipedia was created to be and what wikipedia is now famous for.
*If a liberal is a conservative who's never been mugged, then a pro-trivia "inclusionist" editor is a "deletionist" who's never seen a horrifying trivia section. Ozmaweezer 15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think about this? 

message: For those that are unaware, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture has been established to deal with trivia type content, in a complimentary fashion to this project. The Trivia and Popular Culture project sees the trivia problem mainly being an organizing problem, and it emphasizes the integration or re-presenting of trivia/in popular culture type content in a more valuable way, as described by WP:TRIVIA. The project supports Wikipedia's core content policies and seeks to present trivia type content in a verifiable, neutral and useful way. If you are interested in the aim of the project as outlined on the project page, please consider joining the discussion on the project talk page. Cheers, --Nick Penguin 08:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture 

message: I have added some tags to some trivial bulleted lists, but a users keeps reverting all my good-faith/improvement edits, mainly as a said user seems to think that just because a section isn't labeled trivia, means that it is automatically is not.  There are some real problem pages out there, check through my contribs to see some of the cluttered/trivial lists.  Hope you guys can be helped out. 75.5.225.151 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Though the cleanup crew might be interested in my efforts. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now clear and all trivia material is either merged, removed (if truly crudulent), or taken to the talk page if there are no sources. Now on to the next month, which is a monster at > 800 articles in the category. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia for May 2007 is down from 269 to 50 articles 

message: and I are in a dispute over whether the inclusion of an astronaut's hobbies in a Wikipedia article constitutes trivia and whether such information needs to be removed. I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to comment on this issue, over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space#Trivia. Aecis·(away) talk 08:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input needed 

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've been culling through a number of articles from different months and have come across several that are tagged as .  While the text of that template does mention trivia, all the articles I've encountered tagged with that template don't have a section that qualifies as 'trivia', or otherwise don't seem like they should be our responsibility.  Has there been any discussion about funneling that tag to a different workgroup? Squalk25 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansites 

message: Hi there, I recently stumbled upon this page, which appears to be in dire need of some organization. Thanks! momoricks (make my day) 05:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sherlock Holmes in other media]] 

message: Sorry to bother you all but I want your opinions on this articles talk page, Pubococcygeus muscle, regarding this. Freikorp (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore can someone tell if I am correct in assuming I have every right to remove unreferenced trivia such as: "Bart and Homer talk about "Articles name" in "random Simpson episode". I have found a lot of talk about this but no final conclusion. Freikorp (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this specific case, I would say that is a pretty insignificant connection to this article. If the whoile movie were about this muscle, yeah, it might warrant including a mention, but as it's worded, it seems like only a passing mention. In general tho, these should be dealt with on a case by case basis, asthere's only one rule that applies to every specific case. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your opinions? 

message: On this page, there is a table of the current wrestling champions, while at the same time, the same info is linked to in a page List of current champions in TNA Wrestling which is constantly updated with numbers, dates, photos, etc. I think it is way too trivial to be a part of the wrestling company page. let me know your thoughts.--Screwball23 talk 05:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Total Nonstop Action Wrestling]] 

message: Please comment on RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live!