Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 2

message: I noticed that in the "What is trivia" section, it said that "trivia is something that is interesting without being important", and linked to an importance guideline that is no longer active.  The importance guideline was replaced with WP:Notability, so I updated that section to read "interesting without being notable" and used the notability link.
Hope that helps, but if there's a problem feel free to discuss or revert or ammend as desired. :)  Dugwiki 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced outdated link to "importance" with [[WP:Notability]] 

message: I noticed that this guideline has a flag asking that it be merged with Wikipedia:Trivia.  I do not recommend this, as Wikipedia:Trivia is an essay, not a guideline, and thus it is not clear that it has the consensus necessary to be merged into this guideline or vice versa.  There are probably sections of the Trivia essay that could receive broad consensus, but there would need to be some discussion first to verify that interested editors generally agree with the section(s) you wish to merge.
So while I think it's worth discussing what parts of the essay might be worthy of guideline status, I do not recommend doing a full-out merger until such time as the Trivia essay can be considered elevated to guideline status. Dugwiki 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there was a discussion about these a month or so ago and consensus was that the appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Trivia should be merged here. That is not to say that everything in Wikipedia:Trivia should be merged, but the pages should be combined. See , which was linked from both pages. All that has been lacking is someone to take the time to do it. —Centrx→talk • 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok, I didn't realize how old the merge tag is.  I don't have a problem with appropriate parts being merged here, assuming those parts have consensus.  Dugwiki 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding suggested merger with [[Wikipedia:Trivia]] 

message: There seems to be a proliferation of "insert topic name here in popular culture" sections, which to me is just another form of trivia.  I'm not sure whether this page is an appropriate forum for discussing this, but I'd like to put forward the view that these sections completely lower the academic standard of Wikipedia and should be banned.  Frequently, they are filled with geeky "trainspotter" or "uberfan" type observations.  Let's take Styx for example .  This is a topic on Ancient Greek mythology, and an idea that has permeated society and culture for yonks.  Yet it's filled with a list of references in song by minor bands that most people will not have heard of.  (Well, it was until I deleted this section in disgust).  If it's not a band, it's a computer game or a TV programme.  The same goes for "insert topic name here in fiction".  The mere fact that something is worthy enough of an article in an encyclopaedia means that it's part of language, and people are going to refer to it.  Does WP have to list every instance of these references?  Does anyone agree with me or am I just ranting to myself?  Gsd2000 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly goes overboard in some cases, but often those sections can be justification of notability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that while these sections have a tendency to become bloated, they are in principle useful to demonstrate the popular media notability of the subject.  It provides a way to in a paragraph or two list some (hopefully) important cultural references to the subject as a means of verifying for the reader its importance and popularity. Thus while I agree as a style point that you probably should limit the scope and size of these sections to a handful of key references, I don't think the sections should be banned entirely. Dugwiki 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that WP:NOT#IINFO doesn't cover trivia.  It specifically handles certain types of information that Wikipedia considers inappropriate and can therefore discriminate against, but it never mentions "trivia" or "random information", etc.  So if you're looking for a section of policy to handle questions on trivia, WP:NOT#IINFO isn't it.  See the talk page on WP:NOT for more discussion on that. Dugwiki 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think an excellent example of how this section should be done is Palpatine#Palpatine in popular culture (an FA article). Yes, it is a bit lengthy, but very well sourced and does an excellent job of conveying the subject's notability in the real world. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or make it into a list. A great example is Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Garion96 (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about this: anything older than 2 1/2 centuries should not get trivia sections on stuff that's newer than 2 1/2 centuries? Curuinor 08:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the gist of that idea, but the cutoffs are a bit arbitrary.  How about this rough guideline (not meant to be followed to mathematical precision!) - the percentage of the article devoted to "references in popular culture" should roughly reflect the percentage of the amount of time "popular culture" represents of the total age of the referenced object or concept.   So: "Superman in popular culture" is fair game for a bigger section, but "Julius Caesar in popular culture" would not be, and "The Moon in popular culture" would absolutely not be.  Gsd2000 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Blah'' in Popular Culture, ''Blah'' in Fiction 

message: My two cents on the wording of the  template and what people are saying on that talk page (and this may be a bit controversial), if indeed, trivia should be avoided in Wikipedia, as worded in the aforementioned template at the moment, it does to me swing to imply that any trivia should not be added to Wikipedia. If this is the case, shouldn't we implement the fact that trivia should not be included in Wikipedia (as unencyclopedic) and more than likely fail attribution guidelines through either being unverifiable, original research, likely hoaxes or urban legends. I feel this sort of thing wouldn't be encyclopedic and therefore have no place in an encyclopedia.
My suggestion therefore is we should be more aggressive and insist on reliable sources (as per WP:ATT) for trivia to be included in the body of an article or insist on its removal from an article, or go further and make it part of WP:NOT, maybe as avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic (to quote from Osbus on an unrelated topic)? --tgheretford (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. 1: We avoid trivia SECTIONS, not trivia per se. 2: Much of what usually is marked as trivia in many cases can still be usefull information. 3: For many average editors it can be very hard however to distinguish trivia from important data. As such the sections are usually handy "dump" places for them. And interested editors who cleanup the articles usually know what to do with it. Delete, or rewrite somewhere in prose. You could say that trivia sections have a purpose in developing an article, but don't belong in FA quality articles I guess. We have many types of stylistic issues in wikipedia that are not allowed in articles, yet there is not a downright ban on them. It's one of the problems of a developing encyclopedia with unexperienced editors contributing.  --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles should not have "dump" sections.  If people want to dump random crap somewhere to figure out if it belongs in an article, they should do it in the talk page, not in the body of an article.  And as to your statement that editors who clean these up usually know what to do with this crap... unfortuately, that's not true.  Look at Richard Nixon, for God's sake.  On my screen, I see 7 pages worth of trivia, including such valuable bits of info as "Nixon's favorite dinner was a chicken casserole dish" and "Neil Young's song Campaigner contains the line "Even Richard Nixon has got soul". --Xyzzyplugh 19:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do believe that we need to be more "aggressive", all to often people use the argument that if trivia can't be integrated (because for example it's non-encyclopaedic) then it should be left there, "forever". We need tot ake the approach like ATT: The burden of integration lies with those wishing to include the information, not with those seeking to remove the trivia. Matthew 12:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't such a case covered by ATT already? I don't see why we need to make that part of this style guideline --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is, that's for sourcing though, some trivia while sourced may be wholly irrelevant and un-integrable, I've seen people argue that if it's non-integrable it should be let there for an eternity, a clause like this would mean the people who want this type of trivia either have t a) fine a way to integrate and b) Make removal of irrelevancies easier. Matthew 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we go further - trivia and policy? 

message: What is the policy on factual errors and continuality errors in film pages. Personally i think that these are unencyclopedic and belong on nitpick sites and IMDB rather than wikipedia. the page for Blades of Glory (film) has a factual errors section which many people consider unnecessary for the wikipedia article. Also some other articles list continuity errors like an IMDB page. Whats the wikipedia policy on this? --Paradox CT 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No official policy, IMO: you have to work it out with the other editors and come to a consensus.  A good approach might be to insist on reliable sources attributing some importance to those errors.  Or, fork off the section, but don't abandon the fork.  Mangojuicetalk 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity and factual errors 

message: As a relative latecomer to this discussion, I'd nevertheless like to add my two cents' worth. First of all, I personally feel that Wikipedia sometimes tries too hard to be a "quality encyclopedia" on par with the likes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. While I understand the motivation, not only is that unrealistic with inexperienced authors (yours truly included) contributing; it is not necessarily the only, or even the best, way to maintain a body of information.
As a reader, part of what I find so addictive about Wikipedia is that the articles are more than just a dry collection of facts. While I fully agree that neutral POV should be maintained, "trivia" that is generally classified as "unencyclopedic" or "unimportant" can still add value to an article. The bottom line, IMHO, should be that if a tidbit of information enriches the user's experience, then that tidbit deserves to be included.
Obviously, that is an impossible criterion to evaluate objectively. To pick an example out of a random trivia section, the Spock article states: "The Vulcan peace sign (the Vulcan salute), employed by Spock, is a modification of the sign used by Kohens, the Jewish priestly class. Actor Leonard Nimoy devised this gesture and the accompanying greeting ("Live long and prosper," "Peace and long life") based on his own Jewish heritage.
This certainly meets my definition of trivia. It is not material information about the character of Spock, yet the first time I came across it, I went "how about that" and ended up delving into several articles about Jewish religion and history. In the end, I learned something I would not otherwise have, I felt enriched, and I got more joy out of reading the article. I feel there would have been a real loss if that piece of trivia were to be removed from the Spock article due to a well-intended, but IMHO misguided Wikipedia guideline. Facts that are encyclopedic, such as Spock's birthdate, may "belong" better, but do not enrich my Wikipedia experience as much.
The above is just one example of a perhaps difficult to define, yet real, reason why I can spend hours jumping from link to link on Wikipedia. I've hardly felt compelled to do the same with any traditional encyclopediae I've come across. --Stian Oksavik
:I have to agree but what we should be discouraging is too much trivia and trivia that isnt really that relevant or even factual. For example, speculation of the origin of characters, names, song lyrics, ect, where there is no reliable source backing it up. I consider this fancruft and not worth mentioning in a wikipedia article. Anything that says "may be a reference to..." or "could have significance to..." is generally original research and not really backed up by anything, this should be removed from trivia sections. Paradox CT 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the source of the "Vulcan salute" is *not* a trivial fact in relation to Spock.  Sources of inspiration are an important part of any article about a work of art or fictional character.  Your example is covered by this guideline only in the sense that it's currently sitting in a big disorganized "trivia" section and should be better integrated with the article. —Celithemis 09:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this fact could actually be integrated into an article or section explaining what the salute means. much better than a trivia section. Paradox CT 06:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Paradox and Celithemis about this particular item.  I will however also point out that the Spock article is shockingly bad.  It's badly organized, it goes into digressions (about, for instance, the Mirror spock, which should really be covered at the Mirror, Mirror episode page), it has some integrated useless trivia and some unintegrated useful trivia.  In short, the article needs major improving.  (Actually, I was so disappointed with it, I've nominated it to be an article improvement drive collaboration at WP:ACID.  Wikipedia can do so much better than that, especially on that topic.)  Mangojuicetalk 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree.  IMO this is an absurd style guideline; one of the worst decisions I've ever seen from Wikipedia.  Often the trivia sections are the most interesting parts of the article if you already have a good idea of what the main thing is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.44.242 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are spot on. But let's face it, Wp, since Jumbo has become absorbed in revenue producing projects, is increasingly in the clutches of anally retentive deletionistas. They just want the Wp to be a wasteland of no fun and articles on bible verses. I mean some twerp above is saying that trivia sections detract from the academic standard of Wikipedia. I suppose it might pass for academic at some institutions in North America but let's try to keep some sort of perspective. Albatross2147 13:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Value of trivia

message: I notice that there was some discussion above about "XYZ in popular fiction" sections, and I'm wondering if it's possible to get a consensus on how to treat de facto trivia sections that go by names other than "Trivia". 
I see the aforementioned "XYZ in popular culture" in location articles, and "Person life" section in biographies, and more often than not, they're trivia sections with fancy names. Examples are:
*Alphabet City, Manhattan#Cultural references
*Djibril Cissé#Personal life
*Cristiano Ronaldo#Personal life
My initial urge is to just remove those sections outright, as I sometimes do with poorly sourced and crufty trivia sections, but cultural references can be an evidence of a place's notoriety, while "Personal life" sections are often properly sourced. And for some people, like Anna Nicole Smith, the personal lives are exactly what make notable.
Here's what I propose:
#Treat cultural references sections as trivia unless the prevalence of cultural references in itself is notable enough to be a subject of non-trivial coverage in notable publications. The article should be about the references, not a listing of them.
#Likewise, treat personal life sections as trivia unless the persona life, or an aspect thereof, is in itself is notable enough to be a subject of non-trivia coverage in notable publications. In such a case, the section shouldn't be titled "Personal life". Stuff from fluff pieces or tidbits from weekly newspaper columns is probably trivial. A.C. Green's celibacy probably isn't trivial. Wayne Rooney's visits to prostitutes may not be trivial, but they probably aren't worth an entire subsection either. 
Thoughts? Ytny (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care for the trivia policy one bit, and interpreting it to also cover personal life, popular culture, and anything that can be colorably called trivia is exceeding the mandate of the 62% consensus.  I question whether the original consensus is authority enough to begin with to justify editors chopping up such a longstanding and integrated wikipedia tradition as trivia sections.  When done right trivia is not a collection of random facts, it is a set of poignant or illustrative items of note that set a thing in context.  To integrate it into the body of the article, or to bulk it up with all the connectors and explanations is to miss the point.  "Encyclopedic" doesn't mean Wikipedia has to look like the Britannica -- if it did we could read that.  If it's good enough for newspaper articles, books, and other authoritative sources, why isn't trivia good enough for Wikipedia?  If a section of the article, any section, is poorly organized or uncited or irrelevant, it should be improved.  But if you cut out all the color Wikipedia becomes very dry, and of less value and interest to everyone. Wikidemo 09:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get it. There is nothing wrong with Trivia, unless it simply doesn't have relevance. A list of all the restaurants that ever appeared in The Simpsons is pointless on it's own right. However if an episode specifically revolves around all the restaurants in Springfield, then it again has value. The line is very fine. The biggest problem is that Trivia sections (by whatever name) tend to become dumpsites for every little teeny tiny ( often fictional ) fact that ever occured. Just like not all people are notable, not every small little fact is notable. To judged wether or not it IS notable, a good guide is to see if you can work it into a good set of prose within the article. If you can, the fact is usually important enough to be in Wikipedia, if it's not, then most of the time it just doesn't have any place in Wikipedia. And AGAIN, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book, guide, newspaper, etc. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Before we stray too far off-point, let me say in response to Ytny: yes, that's basically the essence of this policy, and that covers some of the points made at the Wikipedia:Trivia essay.  As for "popular culture" sections, I take a dim view of them, because they basically still serve as miscellaneous information sections, and therefore should be avoided per this guideline.  Put another way, a popular culture section sets almost no bar at all for inclusion of information, just like a 'trivia' section does.  Mangojuicetalk 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I realize my proposal is hardly groundbreaking, but it seems that a personal life section is practically an invitation for bullet points about a celebrity's cars and houses and significant others. At the same time, some people's private lives are notable (and not just interesting), so it would be nice to see where we can draw the line. Ytny (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm my eyes drawing a line in the sand is a bad idea. It hinders creativity just as much as it gets rid of the "pointless" information. In any article it is always about finding the correct balance. It's process of time, and it will never be 100% finished i guess. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia by any other name would be just as unencyclopedic