![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
A lot of people have said here that they like trivia, and in response people have said, 'this is an encyclopedia not a mass collection of random facts' or something similar.
Lets analyse that.
An encyclopedia is a collection of entries about unlinked topics, a mass collection of fact, organised only through the fact that it is alphabetically ordered. In a written encyclopedia what connects several articles? Nothing. Wikipedia is different, there are links.
An encyclopedia is a collection of entries which in turn contain a series of information about said entry; if said entry is a person, what will follow is a short biography in essence. Trivia is information about the said entry, that simply does not easily fit in context in the rest of the entry. But is information that is still relevant because it is about said entry.
Plus the idea that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia is a flawed one: while it ultimately wishes to be a notable encyclopedia (+ free), it is simply not held in that light by the users (note differences between users of the site, and editors of the site, which essentially makes none of us/you users, because we/you edit it, and also have bias about the medium itself). Wikipedia is simply a useful collection of information that people casually use to look up facts due to its available nature, and 'instant' search advantages over traditional mediums. It is not considered to be trustworthy or a secondary source on any matter. Wikipedia holds no weight as an encyclopedia.
But this is an advantage, it allows Wikipedia to transcend a typical encyclopedia and be packed full of information, on many things. Trivia can be amusing, and is a section I am more likely to read in an article about a film say, rather than reading the plot section. This is not a place of educational esteem, and Wikipedian values shouldn't be so strict as to have to get rid of trivia, the idea of strong values over a website also strikes me as amusing.
Wikipedia is web 2.0, and web 2.0 is all about the user, and social media, and moving away from the idea of the computer. Wikipedia's social hierarchy, anti-elitism and power-hungry administrators give people a bad taste about the site, and stop them from making edits to articles. People bitch continuiously and people often feel slapped around the face when they try to make a contribution on something they are interested in, and then is deleted by people through AfD.
This 'Trivia' malarky is just another example, people spend time finding out these facts and 'write' them down for people, and then someone comes along with a condescending tag saying things like 'delete'.
While I do not want to stress the feelings of the user, a social networking site should make this a priority, and try to give me a reason why not.
One such editor above said that removing trivia is the same as fixing an article; I would like to know exactly why that is so.
But even though there has been complaining about this, once something like this is instituted, does it ever get changed? Has a piece of policy ever been deleted?
82.43.111.162 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Trivia is a key interest subheading that many users look forward to in an article. Remove it and you lose a part of peoples interest. Although i am just one person i still think that trivia should stay. The facts are sometimes rare and amazing.
I would like to support those Wikipedians who enjoy and desire trivia. Toleration of (accurate) humor in Wikipedia would be good too. Granted, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: surely Wikipedia should try to avoid pompousness and blandness. Just because Britannica is stiflingly Serious, should we be also? And are there no subjects that cry out for humor and a light touch? Compared to Dr. Johnson's definition of a lexicographer as a "harmless drudge," Wiki's trivia lists seem absolutely harmless. Wikipedia should be apt and accurate, but it should not fear to be entertaining. Wikipedians may recall Plutarch's remark that trivial events and actions in a biographical subject's life often superbly reveal character. Please, please, may we have trivia, o revered and august masters? (And in a little list at the end of the accurate article -- that seems the best way to present it.) Yours respectfully, your 'umble obedient servant. Grantsky 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Although the current policy advocates "integrating trivia", in practice, trivia is often completely purged. Since the policy states "irrelevance is a criteron for deletion" but doesn't place any limits on that criterion, all the language about "integrating trivia" is, sadly, posturing. More often than not, the bar for relevance is set to "all trivia is junk", and as a result, the guideline serves a smokescreen for the wholesale deletion of trivia.
Recent attempts to close this outsized loophole have been vigorously resisted. No rationales have been offered for this resistance, just dismissals: "obvious"; "unnecessary"; "self-explanatory"; "not needed". The motivation behind the resistance is plain: "it is unnecessary to deprive me of the ability to delete trivia as I see fit." I know I am being audacious in expressing it so plainly, but the behavior of others has made it clear that the existence of this loophole is deliberate.
A policy which says one thing but enacts another is broken.-- Father Goose 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the better solution than blocking editors or changing this guideline (which IS helpful and useful and shows support of consensus) is best exemplefied by the SOFIXIT principle. If another editor deletes the entire trivia section, and you think the facts can be integrated, then go back, take out the facts that need to be integrated, and add them to the article in the appropriate places. Problem solved, no one gets blocked, no guidelines get broken, and the article is a better article for it. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I like trivia sections and enjoy reading them. Most of the prose on Wikipedia is too long-winded and formal. What I want is interesting information fast, and lots of it... which I do get from many lists that are marked "trivia."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.169.21 ( talk)
The Trivia section is one of the first things I look for from Wikipedia. While I agree that if the information can be incorporated into the main body of the article it should be but as long as they are properly sourced, I'd regret having the trivia information lost. SSJPabs 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
My 2cents is that this whole project ought to be shelved. I like trivia sections as they are, and I find the project tags distracting. If someone wants to take a bit of trivia out of a sectin and put it in the article, why not? But making a systematic project of this is too much. 70.83.122.184 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Someones gone and removed a the triva out of the Simpson episode pages. I think we need a lot of it because it helps connect the episodes together and avoids confusion.-- Steven X 05:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree, removing trivia in this sort of context only diminishes articles. What purpose is served by removing trivia in an article on the plot of a cartoon show? It could be argued that the Simpsons is largely about trivia, at least the episode to episode continuity. Moheroy 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people use Wikipedia for academic research, and some for fun. Some facts are fascinating, yet pointless. Forcing the "fun" facts into the body of the article risks that the most captivating things become deleted because some academic pedant deems them irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.160.203 ( talk • contribs)
Maybe this has been already said, but I think there are trivia sections mainly in movie and TV articles because of IMDB. Anyone who does not know too well how to edit an article (where to add relevant things, etc.) will just make a trivia section and basically add anything there. I don't see a mention of IMDB's trivia on this guideline, but it needs to be mentioned. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on feedback that the initial draft got, I've done a full rewrite of Wikipedia:Relevance. I hope to make it an "official" guideline in the near future, and have this guideline link to it when mentioning the subject of relevance. If you have objections to the proposed guideline -- or any other comments to offer -- please state them at Wikipedia talk:Relevance.-- Father Goose 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the guidance is ALL WRONG. Some information just can't fit together to the article and needs to be in a separate section. Some trivias are very interesting to the reader and needs to be included but just would be better in a separate section. Brave warrior 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this because it is yet another instruction to not fix trivia sections. Quote:
It therefore takes work to get rid of a trivia section; do not simply delete them without first finding some other home for the information contained.
This tells most editors to not even bother fixing trivia sections, since now the editor is required to review multiple articles for potential new homes before beginning cleanup a one article.
While it should be recommended to find appropriate homes for useful information found in an inappropriate article (regardless of whether it's found in a trivia section), this admonition goes further, requiring that (all?) trivia be preserved. This is both impractical and beyond the scope of this guideline (which, I remind everyone, is about how to eliminate trivia sections, not about the definition or value of trivia).
Much information should simply be removed. When another, more suitable article is not immediately known, the editor should not be tasked ("work") with researching other articles in the field. In this situation, deleting is probably better practice than letting a trivia section stand.
Since Wikipedia does not allow original research, information deleted from an article is not gone forever — someone else is reading the same source and knows to what article that item should be appended. There is no need for an endangered species act for Wikipedia trivia. / edgarde 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Second, may I point out what I hope is obvious, which is that trivia lists are merely one type of embedded list (see WP:EMBED) and they have the same reasons for existing as any other embedded list, despite the many (IMHO) false arguments against them at WP:TRIVIA? I see no particular reason to persecute them, and the "concensus" to do mystifies me. Yes, embedded lists are urged to be contextualized with addition of some prose to expain each fact, but I see no reason why trivia lists can't be contextualized in the same way. LISTS (and there are many lists in Wikipedia-- see WP:LIST), exist for a reason. There even exist stand-alone lists, such as (for example) Tornadoes of 2006. The REASONS for existence of lists are well detailed in WP:LIST and WP:EMBED, and I hope I don't have to go over them here. Go there and read. If it's a simple matter of finding something else to name a trivia fact list, that can always be done, but it's a little silly, because it still remains a collection of facts whose only relation to each other is that they are related to the article title subject (just like the only relationship between Tornadoes of 2006 is that they are tornadoes, and they occurred in 2006-- duh). Sometimes it's counterproductive to "prose-itize" something which is better presented as a list, but again that point is made in WP:EMBED and I won't belabor it. If at this point somebody steps in to claim that facts which can't be put into text shouldn't be in an article at all, I will only answer that if you read WP:EMBED, you'll see that argument has been tried, and the concensus is that it fails. As also in the real world.
So what are we left with? Notability arguments? Notability of facts is in the mind of the beholder. You're looking at an encyclopedia which has exhaustive biographies of Comic Book characters, so don't go there.
Is the argument to be that the items in the list have no comminality except as related to the main subject? Okay-- so? What if they do? One of my favorite grins is the WP:NOT list, where the text claims that WP is NOT a list of "indiscriminate facts." Well, trivia lists aren't indiscriminate. They are related. At the same time, if you read WP:NOT, that article itself is basically a list of things whose ONLY relationship is that you're NOT supposed to put them in Wikipedia! Irony. In some cases, the headings in this NOT list article are manufactured to make it look less like the fairly indiscriminate list that it in fact is. For example, this silly heading: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site". Notice that there's not much relationship between those things. But the header was created so the writers could fool themselves into thinking that they were NOT making a loosely related list of stuff-- which of course they were. STOP FOOLING YOURSELVES. You'll never get anything done unless you take a step back, think a bit, and begin to be ruthlessly honest about any subject. This one (so called "trivia") is the object of a fair amount of what I can only call bigotry. And no small amount of failure to see that renaming something doesn't change its essential nature. S B H arris 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I made some cleanups to the page. Generally, I was aiming at two things in my change. First, per edgarde, trying to keep the guideline as focused as possible on the point that trivia sections are a bad way to organize information, as opposed to statements that seem to be regarding trivia as automatically problematic. Second, I tried to de-emphasize the integration of trivia into "prose" or "text." The truth is, trivia that can be reorganized is as likely as not to be a candidate for organization in a non-miscellaneous list, as it is to be a candidate for incorporating into prose text, and I don't think there's any reason to regard prose as inherently more desirable (at least, not for the kinds of items that are really in these sections, contrary to the discussion in WP:EMBED.) Mango juice talk 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one more thing about NEEDS which might be considered here, though I haven't read it anyplace (even the fairly well-thought-out but ultimately cowardly essay WP:HTRIV). That is the fact that Wiki articles are works-in-progress. As such, they must have both the reader AND the (future) writer in mind. So, some pieces of them are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which is being assembled by more than one person, working alone. If you've ever done a large jigsaw puzzle of (say) a nature scene over a long period of time (and especially if done by more than one person) you know that it tends to collect little piles like "sky pieces" which show nothing but (say) blue. Eventually, a large puzzle collects even sub-piles of things like "Tabbed Sky Pieces" and "Indented Sky Pieces", etc. These will eventually go into the whole, but their time is not yet. However, their place is not in the garbage, but in a pile off to one side. It can be labeled or not (Don't label it "Trivial Pieces"). Quite often, though not always, that's what "trivia" in Wiki articles is.
It seems to me that the TRIV article could be simply re-written to suggest that interesting and sourced facts may be kept someplace as a list, while totally unrelated facts with no possiblity of use (part of another puzzle, say, or just wrong) should be deleted. In the meantime, how the jigsaw facts which will be used later are to be stored, is up to the puzzler. Do it however you can which causes maximal help to future readers and writers. Since there's such a bigoted and prejudiced view of the very WORD "trivia", perhaps these collections should be labeled ANYTHING else. Which is silly, but once a witchhunt has started, what can you do? Nothing to do but hide refugees in your attic and pretend they aren't what they are.
Finally, let me note again that notability is in the mind of the beholder, and that the very word "trivia" comes from the 3 areas of classical education which were viewed as being relatively less important (logic, rhetoric, grammar). But that hardly means they are "absolutely" less important-- think of the importance of logic in all knowledge, and rhetoric in politics and law. So it's relative importances that concern us. Wikipedia's job is to make sure that emphasis and headings keep things which have the same relative importance to a subject, in roughly the same place. That may be mean under headings lower down, or as appended lists, or in spin-off subtopic articles and lists, etc, etc. But none of this means the items labeled "trivia" should be killed, unless there's no conceivable place for them in the puzzle of knowledge for a given subject, at all. S B H arris 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic
It's policies like this one that are ruining Wikipedia. Self-appointed overblown experts taking away the very essence of what makes WP great. Fuck the MOS - keep the trivia! Hell yeah.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.56.106.135 (
talk •
contribs)
The title of this guidline is "Avoid trivia sections". "Avoid" means to try not to have them wherever possible, but it also means that they are sometimes warranted. The trivia template, however, would seem to imply that a Trivia section necessarily constitutes a flawed article; that a Trivia section is always something that needs to be remedied. The template makes no mention of what to do if a Trivia section is unavoidable - such as under what circumstances the Trivia template can be removed. And there must be a circumstance where it can be removed, even when a Trivia section exists — after all, Trivia sections are to be avoided, not banned... Right?
00:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] Especially as it's flatly wrong. The template asserts (sight unseen) that "The article [whatever it is] could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items." That is equivalent to the assertion that there EXISTS NO CLASS of information WHATSOEVER which has a more helpful and proper place in an embedded list than it does in text, so long as some unfortunate has been unwise enough to name the list "TRIVIA". But such an idea is false, for it asserts something about the nature of printed information which is indefensible, and which in WP:EMBED nobody attempts to defend, since to do so would make the written paragraph king--- the be-all and end-all of all knowledge transmission. Anybody want to argue for that?
Why not simply change the template so that it says: "The editors have decided that they are offended by the very term TRIVIA, which is the name of this section. Therefore, please try to find something else to name the list of facts collected in this section." S B H arris 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, you are helping to to see that some of the problem here isn't just that there are people who don't like the word "trivia." It's also that there are some people who don't like lists in any fashion or form. Even when they are the best and most appropriate form in which to place the particular information at hand. So some of this trivia thing seems to be part of a larger prejudice. Thus, if you re-label all "trivia" lists something else, the list-haters will go after these lists, even under another name. They will not stop until the very form has been expunged, and replaced by prose and paragraphs. S B H arris 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This guideline, WP:TRIVIA, speaks of "irrelevance" as a criterion for removal of trivia, but fails to define the term in any manner. Wikipedia:Relevance of content (formerly located at Wikipedia:Relevance) is an attempt to lay out some common ground on the subject of relevance. It has undergone several rounds of feedback and revision, but it needs your input if it is to truly reflect a common stance on the subject. Please make your thoughts known! Thanks.-- Father Goose 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just passing by and noticed this relevance debate. If you would like an example to discuss, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this addition [2] It's probably 100% true. It's not sourced but probably could be. But in my opinion it is so banal a fact that I can't imagine it ever being of any use to anyone. - X201 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
When more and more institutions of higher education are banning citations of wikipedia in collegiate papers, it just shows that wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia. The removal of trivia sections is just one more instance in which wikipedia has decided to take itself way too seriously!
WIKI! | This user believes Wikipedia takes itself too seriously at times |
Chanceinator 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I work in a university and I recommend wikipedia for background reading, while banning it as a citation reference for the very simple reason that the article cited may change tomorrow, which is not the case for any other reference accepted 90.11.62.116 11:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
After seeing someone delete a {{
trivia}}
because the section was not called Trivia (it is called
Appearances in other media), I've created {{
Trivia2}}
for these types of sections, so as to avoid confusion and deletion. Please take a look and comment on the
talk page. ~
JohnnyMrNinja
05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Generally, I try to refrain from beating dead horses (and yes, this talk page is littered with equine corpses). However, I'm increasingly noticing that as I go around Wikipedia, "trivia sections" are deleted wholesale or flagged, and the reference is to a "consensus" which it seems obvious (judging by this talk page alone) does not exist. There are a number of valid arguments for and against trivia sections, but for me the overriding concern was that they add value to articles. They are one of the things that, apart from merely imparting information, makes Wikipedia more enjoyable to read than a traditional encyclopedia.
I feel, as others also seem to, that Wikipedia is destroying something of value in an effort to pretend to be something it is not. Instead of asking how to live without trivia sections, or with integrating the so-called trivia into the main article -- why not ask ourselves why having these sections is bad? "Because traditional encyclopediae don't have them" seems a poor excuse -- should we also get rid of hyperlinks, talk pages and community participation? -Stian 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-Stian 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really mind if people put trivia sections in or not. What worries me though is the idea of integrating it into main articles. The whole point of trivia is it is trivial and unimportant. However if we find anything trivial or unimportant in a main article, we delete it. Wouldn't it be better to keep short trivia sections? 90.11.62.116 11:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's the problem. Many editors love to add trivia without regard to the value it adds to the article as an encyclopedia article. These editors are trying to create another IMDb or a "Triviapedia." The next thing you know the Trivia section is huge and mostly junk. They create the mess, and then it's left up to the rest of us to clean up their mess, sorting out the cruft from the substance, trying to integrate where possible, getting rid of copyright violations, etc. For what it's worth, here's my suggestion based on what I've seen work in the past. When serious editors see trivia that they feel has some potential to be integrated (i.e., not obvious cruft) but don't have the time to do it themselves, move it to the article's Talk page. If other editors are serious about keeping the information in the article, then feel free to integrate it. If no one has enough motivation to integrate it after a few months, then delete it from the Talk page. Ward3001 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: Who is the first Wikipedian ever to come up with an idea of having trivia sections in Wikipedia's articles and which article is the first one alleged to have contain trivia? Nobody seems to be inquiring about this. 13:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by On Wheezier Plot ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
A lot of people have said here that they like trivia, and in response people have said, 'this is an encyclopedia not a mass collection of random facts' or something similar.
Lets analyse that.
An encyclopedia is a collection of entries about unlinked topics, a mass collection of fact, organised only through the fact that it is alphabetically ordered. In a written encyclopedia what connects several articles? Nothing. Wikipedia is different, there are links.
An encyclopedia is a collection of entries which in turn contain a series of information about said entry; if said entry is a person, what will follow is a short biography in essence. Trivia is information about the said entry, that simply does not easily fit in context in the rest of the entry. But is information that is still relevant because it is about said entry.
Plus the idea that Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia is a flawed one: while it ultimately wishes to be a notable encyclopedia (+ free), it is simply not held in that light by the users (note differences between users of the site, and editors of the site, which essentially makes none of us/you users, because we/you edit it, and also have bias about the medium itself). Wikipedia is simply a useful collection of information that people casually use to look up facts due to its available nature, and 'instant' search advantages over traditional mediums. It is not considered to be trustworthy or a secondary source on any matter. Wikipedia holds no weight as an encyclopedia.
But this is an advantage, it allows Wikipedia to transcend a typical encyclopedia and be packed full of information, on many things. Trivia can be amusing, and is a section I am more likely to read in an article about a film say, rather than reading the plot section. This is not a place of educational esteem, and Wikipedian values shouldn't be so strict as to have to get rid of trivia, the idea of strong values over a website also strikes me as amusing.
Wikipedia is web 2.0, and web 2.0 is all about the user, and social media, and moving away from the idea of the computer. Wikipedia's social hierarchy, anti-elitism and power-hungry administrators give people a bad taste about the site, and stop them from making edits to articles. People bitch continuiously and people often feel slapped around the face when they try to make a contribution on something they are interested in, and then is deleted by people through AfD.
This 'Trivia' malarky is just another example, people spend time finding out these facts and 'write' them down for people, and then someone comes along with a condescending tag saying things like 'delete'.
While I do not want to stress the feelings of the user, a social networking site should make this a priority, and try to give me a reason why not.
One such editor above said that removing trivia is the same as fixing an article; I would like to know exactly why that is so.
But even though there has been complaining about this, once something like this is instituted, does it ever get changed? Has a piece of policy ever been deleted?
82.43.111.162 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Trivia is a key interest subheading that many users look forward to in an article. Remove it and you lose a part of peoples interest. Although i am just one person i still think that trivia should stay. The facts are sometimes rare and amazing.
I would like to support those Wikipedians who enjoy and desire trivia. Toleration of (accurate) humor in Wikipedia would be good too. Granted, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: surely Wikipedia should try to avoid pompousness and blandness. Just because Britannica is stiflingly Serious, should we be also? And are there no subjects that cry out for humor and a light touch? Compared to Dr. Johnson's definition of a lexicographer as a "harmless drudge," Wiki's trivia lists seem absolutely harmless. Wikipedia should be apt and accurate, but it should not fear to be entertaining. Wikipedians may recall Plutarch's remark that trivial events and actions in a biographical subject's life often superbly reveal character. Please, please, may we have trivia, o revered and august masters? (And in a little list at the end of the accurate article -- that seems the best way to present it.) Yours respectfully, your 'umble obedient servant. Grantsky 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Although the current policy advocates "integrating trivia", in practice, trivia is often completely purged. Since the policy states "irrelevance is a criteron for deletion" but doesn't place any limits on that criterion, all the language about "integrating trivia" is, sadly, posturing. More often than not, the bar for relevance is set to "all trivia is junk", and as a result, the guideline serves a smokescreen for the wholesale deletion of trivia.
Recent attempts to close this outsized loophole have been vigorously resisted. No rationales have been offered for this resistance, just dismissals: "obvious"; "unnecessary"; "self-explanatory"; "not needed". The motivation behind the resistance is plain: "it is unnecessary to deprive me of the ability to delete trivia as I see fit." I know I am being audacious in expressing it so plainly, but the behavior of others has made it clear that the existence of this loophole is deliberate.
A policy which says one thing but enacts another is broken.-- Father Goose 06:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the better solution than blocking editors or changing this guideline (which IS helpful and useful and shows support of consensus) is best exemplefied by the SOFIXIT principle. If another editor deletes the entire trivia section, and you think the facts can be integrated, then go back, take out the facts that need to be integrated, and add them to the article in the appropriate places. Problem solved, no one gets blocked, no guidelines get broken, and the article is a better article for it. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I like trivia sections and enjoy reading them. Most of the prose on Wikipedia is too long-winded and formal. What I want is interesting information fast, and lots of it... which I do get from many lists that are marked "trivia."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.169.21 ( talk)
The Trivia section is one of the first things I look for from Wikipedia. While I agree that if the information can be incorporated into the main body of the article it should be but as long as they are properly sourced, I'd regret having the trivia information lost. SSJPabs 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
My 2cents is that this whole project ought to be shelved. I like trivia sections as they are, and I find the project tags distracting. If someone wants to take a bit of trivia out of a sectin and put it in the article, why not? But making a systematic project of this is too much. 70.83.122.184 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Someones gone and removed a the triva out of the Simpson episode pages. I think we need a lot of it because it helps connect the episodes together and avoids confusion.-- Steven X 05:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree, removing trivia in this sort of context only diminishes articles. What purpose is served by removing trivia in an article on the plot of a cartoon show? It could be argued that the Simpsons is largely about trivia, at least the episode to episode continuity. Moheroy 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people use Wikipedia for academic research, and some for fun. Some facts are fascinating, yet pointless. Forcing the "fun" facts into the body of the article risks that the most captivating things become deleted because some academic pedant deems them irrelevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.160.203 ( talk • contribs)
Maybe this has been already said, but I think there are trivia sections mainly in movie and TV articles because of IMDB. Anyone who does not know too well how to edit an article (where to add relevant things, etc.) will just make a trivia section and basically add anything there. I don't see a mention of IMDB's trivia on this guideline, but it needs to be mentioned. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on feedback that the initial draft got, I've done a full rewrite of Wikipedia:Relevance. I hope to make it an "official" guideline in the near future, and have this guideline link to it when mentioning the subject of relevance. If you have objections to the proposed guideline -- or any other comments to offer -- please state them at Wikipedia talk:Relevance.-- Father Goose 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the guidance is ALL WRONG. Some information just can't fit together to the article and needs to be in a separate section. Some trivias are very interesting to the reader and needs to be included but just would be better in a separate section. Brave warrior 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this because it is yet another instruction to not fix trivia sections. Quote:
It therefore takes work to get rid of a trivia section; do not simply delete them without first finding some other home for the information contained.
This tells most editors to not even bother fixing trivia sections, since now the editor is required to review multiple articles for potential new homes before beginning cleanup a one article.
While it should be recommended to find appropriate homes for useful information found in an inappropriate article (regardless of whether it's found in a trivia section), this admonition goes further, requiring that (all?) trivia be preserved. This is both impractical and beyond the scope of this guideline (which, I remind everyone, is about how to eliminate trivia sections, not about the definition or value of trivia).
Much information should simply be removed. When another, more suitable article is not immediately known, the editor should not be tasked ("work") with researching other articles in the field. In this situation, deleting is probably better practice than letting a trivia section stand.
Since Wikipedia does not allow original research, information deleted from an article is not gone forever — someone else is reading the same source and knows to what article that item should be appended. There is no need for an endangered species act for Wikipedia trivia. / edgarde 05:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Second, may I point out what I hope is obvious, which is that trivia lists are merely one type of embedded list (see WP:EMBED) and they have the same reasons for existing as any other embedded list, despite the many (IMHO) false arguments against them at WP:TRIVIA? I see no particular reason to persecute them, and the "concensus" to do mystifies me. Yes, embedded lists are urged to be contextualized with addition of some prose to expain each fact, but I see no reason why trivia lists can't be contextualized in the same way. LISTS (and there are many lists in Wikipedia-- see WP:LIST), exist for a reason. There even exist stand-alone lists, such as (for example) Tornadoes of 2006. The REASONS for existence of lists are well detailed in WP:LIST and WP:EMBED, and I hope I don't have to go over them here. Go there and read. If it's a simple matter of finding something else to name a trivia fact list, that can always be done, but it's a little silly, because it still remains a collection of facts whose only relation to each other is that they are related to the article title subject (just like the only relationship between Tornadoes of 2006 is that they are tornadoes, and they occurred in 2006-- duh). Sometimes it's counterproductive to "prose-itize" something which is better presented as a list, but again that point is made in WP:EMBED and I won't belabor it. If at this point somebody steps in to claim that facts which can't be put into text shouldn't be in an article at all, I will only answer that if you read WP:EMBED, you'll see that argument has been tried, and the concensus is that it fails. As also in the real world.
So what are we left with? Notability arguments? Notability of facts is in the mind of the beholder. You're looking at an encyclopedia which has exhaustive biographies of Comic Book characters, so don't go there.
Is the argument to be that the items in the list have no comminality except as related to the main subject? Okay-- so? What if they do? One of my favorite grins is the WP:NOT list, where the text claims that WP is NOT a list of "indiscriminate facts." Well, trivia lists aren't indiscriminate. They are related. At the same time, if you read WP:NOT, that article itself is basically a list of things whose ONLY relationship is that you're NOT supposed to put them in Wikipedia! Irony. In some cases, the headings in this NOT list article are manufactured to make it look less like the fairly indiscriminate list that it in fact is. For example, this silly heading: "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site". Notice that there's not much relationship between those things. But the header was created so the writers could fool themselves into thinking that they were NOT making a loosely related list of stuff-- which of course they were. STOP FOOLING YOURSELVES. You'll never get anything done unless you take a step back, think a bit, and begin to be ruthlessly honest about any subject. This one (so called "trivia") is the object of a fair amount of what I can only call bigotry. And no small amount of failure to see that renaming something doesn't change its essential nature. S B H arris 05:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I made some cleanups to the page. Generally, I was aiming at two things in my change. First, per edgarde, trying to keep the guideline as focused as possible on the point that trivia sections are a bad way to organize information, as opposed to statements that seem to be regarding trivia as automatically problematic. Second, I tried to de-emphasize the integration of trivia into "prose" or "text." The truth is, trivia that can be reorganized is as likely as not to be a candidate for organization in a non-miscellaneous list, as it is to be a candidate for incorporating into prose text, and I don't think there's any reason to regard prose as inherently more desirable (at least, not for the kinds of items that are really in these sections, contrary to the discussion in WP:EMBED.) Mango juice talk 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one more thing about NEEDS which might be considered here, though I haven't read it anyplace (even the fairly well-thought-out but ultimately cowardly essay WP:HTRIV). That is the fact that Wiki articles are works-in-progress. As such, they must have both the reader AND the (future) writer in mind. So, some pieces of them are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which is being assembled by more than one person, working alone. If you've ever done a large jigsaw puzzle of (say) a nature scene over a long period of time (and especially if done by more than one person) you know that it tends to collect little piles like "sky pieces" which show nothing but (say) blue. Eventually, a large puzzle collects even sub-piles of things like "Tabbed Sky Pieces" and "Indented Sky Pieces", etc. These will eventually go into the whole, but their time is not yet. However, their place is not in the garbage, but in a pile off to one side. It can be labeled or not (Don't label it "Trivial Pieces"). Quite often, though not always, that's what "trivia" in Wiki articles is.
It seems to me that the TRIV article could be simply re-written to suggest that interesting and sourced facts may be kept someplace as a list, while totally unrelated facts with no possiblity of use (part of another puzzle, say, or just wrong) should be deleted. In the meantime, how the jigsaw facts which will be used later are to be stored, is up to the puzzler. Do it however you can which causes maximal help to future readers and writers. Since there's such a bigoted and prejudiced view of the very WORD "trivia", perhaps these collections should be labeled ANYTHING else. Which is silly, but once a witchhunt has started, what can you do? Nothing to do but hide refugees in your attic and pretend they aren't what they are.
Finally, let me note again that notability is in the mind of the beholder, and that the very word "trivia" comes from the 3 areas of classical education which were viewed as being relatively less important (logic, rhetoric, grammar). But that hardly means they are "absolutely" less important-- think of the importance of logic in all knowledge, and rhetoric in politics and law. So it's relative importances that concern us. Wikipedia's job is to make sure that emphasis and headings keep things which have the same relative importance to a subject, in roughly the same place. That may be mean under headings lower down, or as appended lists, or in spin-off subtopic articles and lists, etc, etc. But none of this means the items labeled "trivia" should be killed, unless there's no conceivable place for them in the puzzle of knowledge for a given subject, at all. S B H arris 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic
It's policies like this one that are ruining Wikipedia. Self-appointed overblown experts taking away the very essence of what makes WP great. Fuck the MOS - keep the trivia! Hell yeah.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.56.106.135 (
talk •
contribs)
The title of this guidline is "Avoid trivia sections". "Avoid" means to try not to have them wherever possible, but it also means that they are sometimes warranted. The trivia template, however, would seem to imply that a Trivia section necessarily constitutes a flawed article; that a Trivia section is always something that needs to be remedied. The template makes no mention of what to do if a Trivia section is unavoidable - such as under what circumstances the Trivia template can be removed. And there must be a circumstance where it can be removed, even when a Trivia section exists — after all, Trivia sections are to be avoided, not banned... Right?
00:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
[outdent] Especially as it's flatly wrong. The template asserts (sight unseen) that "The article [whatever it is] could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items." That is equivalent to the assertion that there EXISTS NO CLASS of information WHATSOEVER which has a more helpful and proper place in an embedded list than it does in text, so long as some unfortunate has been unwise enough to name the list "TRIVIA". But such an idea is false, for it asserts something about the nature of printed information which is indefensible, and which in WP:EMBED nobody attempts to defend, since to do so would make the written paragraph king--- the be-all and end-all of all knowledge transmission. Anybody want to argue for that?
Why not simply change the template so that it says: "The editors have decided that they are offended by the very term TRIVIA, which is the name of this section. Therefore, please try to find something else to name the list of facts collected in this section." S B H arris 00:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, you are helping to to see that some of the problem here isn't just that there are people who don't like the word "trivia." It's also that there are some people who don't like lists in any fashion or form. Even when they are the best and most appropriate form in which to place the particular information at hand. So some of this trivia thing seems to be part of a larger prejudice. Thus, if you re-label all "trivia" lists something else, the list-haters will go after these lists, even under another name. They will not stop until the very form has been expunged, and replaced by prose and paragraphs. S B H arris 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This guideline, WP:TRIVIA, speaks of "irrelevance" as a criterion for removal of trivia, but fails to define the term in any manner. Wikipedia:Relevance of content (formerly located at Wikipedia:Relevance) is an attempt to lay out some common ground on the subject of relevance. It has undergone several rounds of feedback and revision, but it needs your input if it is to truly reflect a common stance on the subject. Please make your thoughts known! Thanks.-- Father Goose 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just passing by and noticed this relevance debate. If you would like an example to discuss, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on this addition [2] It's probably 100% true. It's not sourced but probably could be. But in my opinion it is so banal a fact that I can't imagine it ever being of any use to anyone. - X201 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
When more and more institutions of higher education are banning citations of wikipedia in collegiate papers, it just shows that wikipedia is not a true encyclopedia. The removal of trivia sections is just one more instance in which wikipedia has decided to take itself way too seriously!
WIKI! | This user believes Wikipedia takes itself too seriously at times |
Chanceinator 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I work in a university and I recommend wikipedia for background reading, while banning it as a citation reference for the very simple reason that the article cited may change tomorrow, which is not the case for any other reference accepted 90.11.62.116 11:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
After seeing someone delete a {{
trivia}}
because the section was not called Trivia (it is called
Appearances in other media), I've created {{
Trivia2}}
for these types of sections, so as to avoid confusion and deletion. Please take a look and comment on the
talk page. ~
JohnnyMrNinja
05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Generally, I try to refrain from beating dead horses (and yes, this talk page is littered with equine corpses). However, I'm increasingly noticing that as I go around Wikipedia, "trivia sections" are deleted wholesale or flagged, and the reference is to a "consensus" which it seems obvious (judging by this talk page alone) does not exist. There are a number of valid arguments for and against trivia sections, but for me the overriding concern was that they add value to articles. They are one of the things that, apart from merely imparting information, makes Wikipedia more enjoyable to read than a traditional encyclopedia.
I feel, as others also seem to, that Wikipedia is destroying something of value in an effort to pretend to be something it is not. Instead of asking how to live without trivia sections, or with integrating the so-called trivia into the main article -- why not ask ourselves why having these sections is bad? "Because traditional encyclopediae don't have them" seems a poor excuse -- should we also get rid of hyperlinks, talk pages and community participation? -Stian 18:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-Stian 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really mind if people put trivia sections in or not. What worries me though is the idea of integrating it into main articles. The whole point of trivia is it is trivial and unimportant. However if we find anything trivial or unimportant in a main article, we delete it. Wouldn't it be better to keep short trivia sections? 90.11.62.116 11:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's the problem. Many editors love to add trivia without regard to the value it adds to the article as an encyclopedia article. These editors are trying to create another IMDb or a "Triviapedia." The next thing you know the Trivia section is huge and mostly junk. They create the mess, and then it's left up to the rest of us to clean up their mess, sorting out the cruft from the substance, trying to integrate where possible, getting rid of copyright violations, etc. For what it's worth, here's my suggestion based on what I've seen work in the past. When serious editors see trivia that they feel has some potential to be integrated (i.e., not obvious cruft) but don't have the time to do it themselves, move it to the article's Talk page. If other editors are serious about keeping the information in the article, then feel free to integrate it. If no one has enough motivation to integrate it after a few months, then delete it from the Talk page. Ward3001 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity: Who is the first Wikipedian ever to come up with an idea of having trivia sections in Wikipedia's articles and which article is the first one alleged to have contain trivia? Nobody seems to be inquiring about this. 13:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by On Wheezier Plot ( talk • contribs)