Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Poll

I found a consensus to exist for the adoption of the proposal. The voting saw 43 votes cast, 27 in favour, offering a 62% majority. Although at the weak end of establishing consensus, I note Rje appears to have amended his vote, which would alter the result. It also appears a number of objections are grounded on the idea that people will continue to add trivia sections. I think those opinions can be somewhat discounted, since they don't address the proposal itself, which offers advice on how to deal with such circumstances. We don't abolish WP:AFD because people continuously add articles which require deletion.

The poll is archived at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles/poll. Hiding Talk 12:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Quite a few of the oppose votes were unaltered (ie. the editors probably didnt check back), after the proposal was clarified to the rest of our satisfaction. --Quiddity 17:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys should stop friggin removing useful material from articles. If one person voted against you in your highly unscientific and biased poll then that is grounds for NOT removing anything. This project is an incredible disservice to Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.232.159 (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the poll was unscientific and it seems pretty high-handed to go around and remove all the trivia sections. Trivia seems to be minor bits of fun info about the topic. Trivia is, by its nature, trivial & doesn't necessarily need to be incorporated into the main body of an article. Aelfgifu 11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you ask me, Wikipedia is trying to remove anything INTERESTING from their articles. For example, the page for the SNES game Earthbound is now stripped of all the interesting trivia bits and is just a plain, homogenized info page no different from any other info page for the game anywhere else. What's the point of even having editable pages if the only info allowed is boring, recycled, bland info you can get anywhere else? I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is going down the tubes- first pages get deleted for being "not noteworthy" now info is stripped away under bogus reasons, no doubt to cut down on text per page and save bandwidth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.204.6 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for keeping Trivia sections. They're often a source of valuable information you can't find anywhere else. --ElfQrin 12:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also completely in favor of keeping Trivia sections. They are both educational and interesting. I'm worried that Wikipedia is on a path of self-destruction by people trying to "police" content and by people making these stupid guideline's/policies. I'm for expanding and improving, not removing. Even if these "trivial" facts are embedded within the contents of the articles, it is still interesting to see them in their own section.Opertinicy

I missed the poll, but I hereby register my strong objection to any policy, guideline, etc. encouraging the removal of trivia sections from articles, or their avoidance, for reasons already elaborated at length by other editors on this page. Kwertii 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the trivia sections that are not even related to the subject of the article, like the trivia section on the article Banana about all the songs that use the word "Banana". —Centrx→talk • 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Some "Trivia" sections may contain good information. Some definitely contain bad information. It is ridiculous to argue for or against "trivia". You have to make a decision case by case.

And to take your example, it seems to be gone from the page now, but it may have been extremely interesting information. Where and in which contexts to bananas appear in songs in history? Did usage increase or decrease in Europe during the second world war, when no bananas were available. What kind of songs talk about bananas in economies that are heavily dependent on bananas? and so on. There are further possible implications here: If this is the pattern of bananas in song texts, what can we tell about the old Greek societies from their poems about olives? If someone starts a separate article called Bananas in song lyrics I will defend it against any deletion requests, in order to facilitate for any scholar who wants to research it. But I admit that it is information that should not go into the main banana article. Mlewan 19:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the parent supposedly objected to "any policy encouraging the removal trivia sections" —Centrx→talk • 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, with that interpretation your answer makes more sense. However, I have a feeling that Kwertii did not object to removing ridiculous and irrelevant trivia. What s/he was against was a general policy demanding the removal of everything called trivia.

Personally, I do not care if there is a policy or not, as this kind of policy anyhow is ridiculous, useless, impossible to enforce and doomed to die by itself sooner or later. If you were to remove any information that can be considered "trivial" from an encyclopaedia you would end up with just one single page containing either the words "cogito, ergo sum" or the last proposition of Tractatus. Mlewan 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reopening the poll, with wide publicity

It seems to me that this guideline has been voted mostly by people who wanted it and made it. Most people who would oppose it, people who's not "in the know", is learning about it only after it's passed, from the warning messages that are appearing within every "Trivia" section of every article. Frankly, it sounds like one of such unpopular laws passed by stealth by some Parliament members. I feel that a policy or guideline that can have a such great impact on the whole Wikipedia -- and I can imagine groups of fanatics removing whole sections from articles feeling legitimate by this guideline -- should be announced to the public of Wikipedia on the top of every page just like meetings or fund rising. --ElfQrin 07:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When I tried voting on the idiotic idea to remove spoiler warnings, I was told that since I wasn't a regular "wikipedian", my vote wouldn't be counted. It seems the people who spend 24/7 on wikipedia have taken it upon themselves to set things up that now people's votes don't count unless you're part of the "elite" who have no lives. So, as usual, wikipedia will again institute another retarded policy that the "wikipedians" all love, but will remove anything even remotely interesting or useful from wikipedia, further making it useless. Sigh, I remember when wikipedia was good. Now it's just ass. 63.131.25.92 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose you attacking every single member of the project is a constructive response? I'm sorry, but your reaction is disproportionate to the offense, not to mention rude under any civilized code of conduct. --Agamemnon2 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about being constructive. I tried being constructive a year ago when this site started the decline and was consistently insulted because I didn't agree with the majority. Being constructive got me nowhere. Now I just point out how stupid this site is becoming.63.131.25.92 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by voting. —Centrx→talk • 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet users who are trying to follow this guideline are experiencing a bad time, because most users keep adding trivias and a minority of users avoid and "fix" them. It doesn't exactly look a consensus to me. --ElfQrin 13:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore, at least. But go ahead and keep making the site more and more useless every day, and ignoring the opinions of the people who use it. I'll be laughing when it dies.63.131.25.92 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Mr. IP here. Voting may not be the most effective means of getting the correct method of whatever into an article, but without a well-publicized vote, all you get is the elite basement-dwelling regulars with a major leadership complex making stupid decisions like, as Mr. IP said, removing spoiler warnings (which is most asinine) or something like this - removing trivia. Thats why I view most articles, bounce to the "oh, interesting" section aptly called trivia. Where else are you going to say that Steven filed all of Al Pachino's scenes in three weeks?. Come on guys, quit making this a socialist dictatorship. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 17:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with entirely with what you say Shanesan and I am a socialist. It's the facist deltionist fundamentalists who are the problem. Albatross2147 05:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deco's suggested guideline

This is a suggested guideline, not a policy.

Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic. A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, often grouped into their own section labelled "Trivia", "Notes", "Facts", or "Other information". We often refer to these informally as trivia sections.

These lists can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. It is ideal to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation providing context and smooth transitions. Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section or adding a new section. Creating subsections to group items in the list may be helpful in the search for an ideal presentation. Integrating these facts may require additional research to establish further context, locate suitable references to cite, or identify relationships with other facts.

This guideline does not suggest removal of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with.

This is good, maybe a new draft should be named Avoid Lists of Facts? --Osbus 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good adjustment to the original proposal. Case in point: I recently added a Popular references section to the Yeats article. This is quickly turning into the kind of long, unsatisfying list Deco describes. I'm planning on "delistifying" it in the near future, but it wasn't a bad way to collect some fun facts. —johndburger 23:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why the final draft will look more like Deco's proposal than mine...good stuff. And when FAC nominators insist that the List of Random Facts they have is good, I can finally have a guideline of some sort to back me up.--Osbus 00:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this rewriting of the guideline. I'd like to see "This guideline does not suggest removal of trivia sections" removed, though (and change the next bit to "Trivia sections should be considered" or something). Tuf-Kat 05:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Avoid Lists of Facts is a good basis for a draft. Having lists of facts in an an article makes it look less encyclopedic. (Admittely, I hadn't opened an encyclopedia in the 17 years prior to viewing Wikipedia.) In an article about a political unit (country, state, etc...), a reference to a list of governors/presidents/grand-poo-bahs is useful, but the list itself does not belong in the article. A list of famous residents of a place, alumni of a school, members of an association can easily get out of hand, yet many articles have such. The draft should explain why those are not good content. GRBerry 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this should just be part of WP:NOT. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Trivia

See Wikipedia_talk:Trivia for similar previous discussion. Circeus 15:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That should be required reading for anyone participating in this debate. What's said there about Marduk could apply to just about any other article about a deity or other mythological figure:

• Osiris: "In the movie Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Hedwig's song "Origin of Love" mentions Osiris";
• Apollo: "The original classic 1978 Battlestar Galactia series. The main character of the show was called Apollo. Who was an ace Viper pilot (space fighter planes seen throughout the series) and the Captain and strike leader of Galactica's Blue Squadron."
• Quetzalcoatl: "In the computer game Rise of Legends, there is a playable race called Cuotl. There are also air units in this race's army called 'Quetzals'."

Etc, etc, etc, by way of Kokopelli, Ozymandias, Sigurd, King Arthur... (the list goes on). Adopting the Marduk solution (wiping it all off and depositing it on Marduk in popular culture) as general practice would enable such articles to give a much better impression (seriousness, rigor, perspective) than they do at the moment. Bolivian Unicyclist 12:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a tenable solution. But, then, this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think editors are perfectly within their rights to delete random trivia factoids on sight. And I'd caution against avoiding "popular culture" sections altogether; these can be nice additions to articles, provided they are well written, academically sound, and analytical rather than exhaustive. I'm currently reading a book on Jeki la Njambè (sadly, we have no article yet), an oral epic of the Duala people of Cameroon, and the author devotes quite a few pages to interpretations in Cameroonian popular culture. So I guess I'm trying to say: If you've got something intelligent to say about Fujin in popular culture, say it. If all you have is the fact that a character in Final Fantasy VIII is named Fujin, keep it to yourself or put it in the Fujin (Final Fantasy character) article. But ghettoizing these sections to X in popular culture is akin to sweeping the dust under the rug. — BrianSmithson 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pondered answer. Sigurd actually provides a very good example of what you say ("well written, academically sound, and analytical"). There's a "Adaptations and parallels" section that makes intelligent reference to Tolkien, Arthur, Greek & Irish legends, and reteliings by modern authors and tv shows; then comes "References in Popular Culture", which is a random list of four uses of the name Siegfried in various cartoons and video games (I'm assuming that's what they are -- there are no wikilinks to help you). One of these sections deserves to stay; the other warrants either ghettoization or eradication. And while ghettoization (sweeping under the rug, yeah!) might seem like a failure of resolve, it should stop the same cruft from re-appearing on the main article three weeks down the road. Bolivian Unicyclist 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a fairly fundamental difference between that essay and this proposal - it aims to establish standards for inclusion of relatively unimportant facts, while this proposal discusses the specific technique of organizing articles as unordered lists of facts, which may or may not actually contain trivial facts. I'd suggest renaming it, but "trivia sections" is what everybody calls them. Deco 13:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not quite the same issue (yes, ambiguous terminology with the 'trivia'), but a list of "references in pop culture" factoids is the sort of thing that's likely to emerge from the project page's suggestion to produce "more targeted list[s] of closely-related items". It's the next problem down the line. Bolivian Unicyclist 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Creation of template and companion category

As a part of the effort to reduce trivia categories and convert them into paragraph prose, we should identify and categorize articles whose trivia sections are just too large. For that reason, I am proposing a template (and category) we could use to mark articles with long trivia sections. Tell me what you think, and feel free to improve the template. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 10:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Great template! I'd love to use it.Agne27 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I use it now? - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 05:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do. --Osbus 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Messedrocker...please make this template or tell us this template's location, we really want to use it. :) - LA @ 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Yes. Please. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 00:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Didn't notice all this popularity. Well, here's your template: {{toomuchtrivia}}. Please enjoy and make good use of this template! —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that "Avoid trivia" is a guideline, I think this template may need to be reworded. When we say "the trivia is too large" we are implying that a small trivia section is ok, whereas the guideline is saying that we should be avoiding trivia sections altogether. I think changing it so that it is more consistent with the message contained in the guideline would be more appropriate. Maybe something like "To meet Wikipedia's guidelines regarding trivia section, this section may require editing. Please check this list to determine if any relevant points should be incorporated into the article, and remove any points that are not considered relevant. For further information please refer to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles." Then rather than being categorised as "articles with long trivia secitons", they could be categorized as "articles with trivia sections". I know the wording I've suggested is rough, and needs some work, but maybe something along these lines might be ok. What do you all think? Rossrs 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I started a discussion on the Category talk:Articles with large trivia sections discussions page. In my opinion, as the guidelines suggests that trivia sections should be avoided altoghether, so the category needs renaming. --tgheretford (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this template needs to be reworded. I actually had a friend (who is not an active wikipedian)ask me about these templates, saying he always enjoys trivia sections. From this talk page it is very clear that there isn't much consensus on exactly how to deal with trivia section, and there certainly ins't any consensus that they should be removed. However, putting up these templates, clearly implies that there is not only a consensus against trivia, but also a policy. I would go for something that states that a trivia section is excessively long, or contains facts that should be integrated into the article (in this specific case). risk 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

It only just now occurred to me to post this here.

ATS	This user avoids trivia sections

Hope you like it!--Drat (Talk) 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops looks like you guys have a bit of a typo in there. That T should be an S.

Grey, dull and boring - how appropriate Albatross2147 05:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Who needs colourful and flashy? Yuck! Here's a version with different text:

ATS	This user believes real articles don't need trivia sections

--Drat (Talk) 12:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

BOTH THE USERBOXEZ SUCK!!

- kozmic|sk8r 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia" should be considered as a legitimate subtopic for WikiPages on popular Film, Books, TV, Plays, Poetry, Graphic Novels and other invented works

I think that the instruction to avoid "trivia" sections shouldn't apply to pages that are about works of fiction, because these are often "involved" pieces with many subtexts and sly references where additional background knowledge can significantly improve someone's ability to "read" the piece. I think the appropriate precedent is literary criticism: If you visit the local bookshop and buy a copy of an old "classic" novel or collection of short stories intended for students ("Sherlock Holmes", Shakespeare, etc.), you'll probably find that the thing is fairly stuffed full of brief footnotes or endnotes explaining references that the modern reader might not be aware of but which help in the appreciation of the text, all of which have been considered interesting and significant enough to readers be worth devoting expensive paper to, and almost all of which could be be considered "trivia" by Wiki editors here. The researchers and historians who compiled it might be deeply offended to hear it called trivia, but that's the category it seems to fall under here, unless its reworked as a piece of prose. Where books have footnotes and endnote sections to handle this background material, the natural format for Wiki pages (which won't have the original material) seems to be a section near the end with bulletpoints. That's what people have been doing and it works. As with books, if someone just wants the overview and doesn't want the scattered background details, they can skip that section. I think that in some cases, the default Wiki advice of trying to work these disparate facts together into organised paragraphs can smack of pseudostyle: organising facts into smooth paragraphs so that they read better is fine, but clustering disparate facts together purely to demonstrate that we can produce something that writers would consider "professional" seems be pretentious, and putting style before content. People don't visit Wikipedia for the excellence of the writing, they visit it for the content. Sometimes there are interesting and suggestive facts that simply don't fit the body of the narrative, and where attempting to fabricate a new section of narrative around them would make the broader narrative less focused. Take the Wikipage on Shakespeare's Hamlet for example: this has is a nice trivia section with useful "Hamlet facts" (notable actors, dates, awards) that would be very difficult to incorporate in the main text, and probably shouldn't be ... it's reasonably neat, its small enough not to overpower the rest of the article, and yet its flagged as "unencyclopedic" and needing cleanup. I think that the ugliest thing on that page isn't the trivia list, its the way the "cleanup" tag splodges itself in the middle of the page.

The main complaint I've seen about trivia sections is that the complainants object to reading them: Well, the advantage of an explicitly marked trivia section is that people who want to read it can, and people who don't can skip over it knowing that they haven't missed any critical facts. People who already know a work well might only read the opening paragraph and the fact they were looking for, and then jump straight to the trivia section for juicy additional info, assuming that they'll already be familiar with all the "standard" facts. On the other hand, if the article is "improved" by sneaking these facts into paragraph form and disguising them as body text, they become stealth trivia, and make reading the article more difficult: you wouldn't know that the paragraph was trivia until you'd already gone to the trouble of reading it. Appropriate organisation is good, but sometimes we can organise inappropriately and try to force an artificial order on details that don't really deserve it. Sometimes appropriate organisation means setting aside a section for things that didn't fit the rest of the scheme.

I think that the use of the term "trivia" to refer to background information that doesn't appear in official publicity material or within the work itself, but which is interesting and arguably relevant to the work, probably originates with films. But film buffs often regards "film trivia" as something far from trivial -- the fact that Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton were having a tempestuous affair while filming Cleopatra is technically "film trivia", but its difficult to imagine a piece discussing the film in any depth without mentioning it. It's not in the shooting script but it provides interesting background context to what appears on the screen. It's not essential information, but it adds background feel for a work. Similarly, when you watch the Hamlet character agonising about life and death, its not essential to know that when Shakespeare wrote the play he'd recently lost his only son, Hamnet, to the plague, but stumbling across that sort of little snippet is part of what makes browsing Wikipedia so addictive: it's the wild-cards, and the idea that you are browsing something that isn't totally predictable and rigidly-organised according to standardised categories and rules: you don't just learn things that you didn't know ... you learn things that you didn't know that you didn't know. Encarta is a professional commercial encyclopedia, but when's the last time you heard someone admitting to being an Encarta addict? Wikipedia doesn't have to try to be more like existing online encyclopedias, the reason it's become so wildly popular is because its so different, and because of the sheer breadth of information that volunteers have put onto it, and because it's turned into a giant internet sponge, soaking up the most interesting information from the rest of the web. It's getting to the point where some people are starting to check Wikipedia for information before checking Google, and that's at least partly due to Wiki's inclusivity. ErkDemon 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Good" trivia is kept, but just not in a trivia heading. This page is about where to put trivia, rather than to include it or not. You might want to post your comment on the talk page of WP:TRIVIA. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But what is "good" trivia? Who would decide on that? I think trivia sections in the places ErkDom mentioned should be kept (as long as there is proof for the respective items). I'm really getting annoyed all those tags in, e. g., articles on movies that tell everyonet the info should be included into other sections and the trivia section should be removed. I think that's nonsense. Of course trivia items should be veryfied, and sometimes trivia sections really grow too large but most of the time they don't. I occasionally take the liberty to remove uneccessary tags as I think there is an inflation of tags in the Wikipedia... ok, that's another topic... but back to the trivia section: Almost all movies and TV series in the IMDB have trivia sections. There is nothing wrong with them. So please stop adding those annoying tags! --Maxl 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TRIVIA. It's got lots of good advice for dealing with trivia. I agree, sometimes, the sections don't grow without bound, but they very often do. But in any case, encyclopedias are organized, and lumping items together into a catch-all trivia section is a weak form of organization. Mangojuice^talk 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I support what ErkDemon said Albatross2147 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. I've not read all there is to know about the debate, the apparent consensus, or the guideline itself. To me however, a 'trivia' section can be quite useful. The notion of six degrees of separation can be quite useful when applied to research, and that is how I see trivia, and a special dedicated section for it, coming into play for researchers. It can be a springboard for further research as well as merely titalation for the casual reader.

I would certainly never advocate the removal, willy-nilly, of such sections. I believe they serve their purpose and should be adequately verifiable (as with all information in Wikipedia) and be made relevant to their article containers.

I will personally resist any concerted effort to remove the sections just because of a guideline. Information is information. Not only that but, just because other encyclopedias do X, Y or Z, and don't do A, B or C.. it doesn't necessarily follow that Wikipedia has to conform. This is the 21st century: needs, wants, trends and style are all developing and changing. As editors, we are constantly told not to worry about storage space and server lag etc. So let's not. That doesn't mean I don't believe in consistancy of style, or structure and quality. I don't think we should dictate to the user that this encyclopedia has to maintain some false highbrow air. Wikipedia is by the people, for the people. --Mal 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many instances where moving items from the Trivia section, to the elsewhere in the article, doesn't make sense. For example, Stewart Townsend. I've just created Career and Personal life sections, moving several trivia items into the new sections. But one item is a legitimate and interesting piece of trivia, which doesn't belong anywhere but Trivia -- the fact that there's a character named Stewart Townsend in Anne Rice's The Witching Hour. Interesting in that Townsend later played Lestat, a story which eventually intertwines with the Mayfair family. While I agree much Trivia could and should be merged with the main article, but do not feel Trivia sections should be removed entirely. -FeralDruid 19:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Following up on my prior edit, the trivia cleanup project doesn't call for the removal of trivia sections, but cleanup and removal where possible. In my prior Stewart Townsend example, cleanup leaving only the one remaining item is sufficient. -FeralDruid 19:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Objection to removal of trivia sections

After considering closely the issue of trivia sections, I cannot support any suggestion that they be removed or integrated into other sections.

The problem is simple: there are frequently small facts and details that ARE trivial, that other often find useless or inapproprate for a "serious" article. Thus, they come along, and instead of moving the item to a "trivia" section where it might be appropriate, they instead delete the item altogether.

As a proof of concept, on five discrete occasions, an otherwise trivial fact was added to a fact section of a serious article to see what the result would be. On EVERY OCCASION, that trivial fact has been deleted by someone else who apparently feels it is not appropriate.

Trivia has its place. It needs to be here in Wikipedia. We ought to leave the trivia sections in place where they are, for trivial facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.71.235.25 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

• I agree with the above poster, and personally enjoy the trivia section, as do most Wikipedia users in my experience. Removing it would be detrimental to the site. I strongly urge the editors of Wikipedia to reconsider this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

While most Wikipedia users (if you include one time adds but people who have never read an encyclopedia and have no business trying to add anything to one) might favor trivia sections, based upon edits they also favor random garbled strings of text, "hi mom" comments in the body of articles, and so forth and so on. Trivia by its nature is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia is for. DreamGuy 06:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy makes two unrelated statements. The first one is about incompetent editors and vandals and not about trivia sections. The second statement, "trivia is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia is for", is just wrong. Large parts of the content of any encyclopedia are trivia. Woodrow Wilson's first name, the exact area of Lake Ontario, the exact year that Willy Brandt became a mayor, the model of rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald, and so on and on and on and on. Perhaps trivia sections bother people because they make the same mistake. But it is a mistake. Trivia sections are entirely appropriate -- if they are of reasonable length and there isn't a better way to organize the content. 207.176.159.90 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's laughable none of what you stated is trivia, in that it has a context. Also, the rifle Oswald reportedly used is vital to the case since his culpability is disputed and one of the reasons is the rifle used. How is someone's first name is trivia? Quadzilla99 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How is an entire article series on the most famous pokemon then not trivia? Face it, alot of the ARTICLES on wikipedia are trivia by nature. If trivia is to be removed from wikipedia, we will need to delete a whole lot of pages, and not just fight a war on tidbits of information. Trivial information isn't less trivial because someone wrote something long about it. 213.89.185.105 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

207.176.159.90: all the examples you give are encyclopedic and should be included in the relevant articles. Just not in bullet lists of isolated facts. / edgarde 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who defends trivia to the point they think nothing needs to be done about it, I give you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gram_%28mythology%29&oldid=133775532 This is why trivia should be discouraged. Sure, sometimes it can help make a topic more understandable, and sometimes it's fun. But from what I've seen, it is usually just an excuse for someone to reminisce about movies they've seen or video games they've played. Historical trivia that leads people to related subjects is one thing, but a damn lot of users don't seem to be able to distinguish that from "oh, this item was mentioned offhand once in an anime that's relevant too!" (Or worse yet, in cases like this, it's a case of something being named after some mythological entity while having no other connection or similarity to it.) I think the mythology articles are some of the worst hit by trivia. Someone going to read about Norse gods, chances are they don't give a crap about what video games they've been referenced in. Now someone looking up those video games...they might be curious about the gods. But I'm pretty sure it's mostly one-way. Regardless, I agree with the approach that has been taken with some mythologies, and just having a single "reference in popular culture" article for an entire mythology...or in the case of heavily referenced characters, a separate article for the references, linked to from the main article for that character. I'd like to see that approach expanded to every article that has been overwhelmed by trivia.

You know, I'm not sure it's avoidable, given the nature of these lists (one or two items at a time added by passersby)...they end up getting choked with anime and game references. I'm not sure that's NPOV, really. But it isn't any one person's POV, it's just the tendency of these fans to hoard trivia has been piling crap onto articles piece by piece...

Sorry if that was a little long winded. I'm all for separating out trivia. It's easier to just delete it thoughAndy Christ 09:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My 2¢ is that the "rationale" section kind of came off pompous, essentially that if you don't have a full paragraph scuplted to pseudo-journalistic standards, your contributions don't count. I think thats silly. I'm with the top objection, however I think that if those same smaller contributions BELONG in a cohesive section, they should be put there, not simply a bullet for bullet's sake. Now I'll sit the hell down and shut the hell up. Xodiaq 18:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on Trivia

• There seems to be a mistaken idea going around that "trivia" is some separate category of knowledge that has its own uses and is of interest to a certain breed of researcher. In fact, "trivia" is not a category of knowledge, but a context for it. The number of dimples on a golf ball, to use one example, is critical knowledge when designing a vacuum mold for golf ball production, but it is trivia in the context of "sports". Therefore there may be a reason to include that bit of information into a history of golf ball design, but NOT in the article about sports. So, the task of the encyclopedist is to find the context into which the piece of information is NOT trivia, and to insert it there. By doing so, we may well avoid any demand for "trivia" sections. That is the purpose, as I understand it, of this guideline. --Dystopos 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yebbut until this nirvana of exact categorisation for every bit of information is reached can we have all those anally retentive deletionistas desist using this guideline as a crutch for their removal of anything diverting or quirky. Your example is good but no one would seriously argue that once the dimple fact is recorded in the golf ball article then it does not need to appear anywhere else but these nutters want to remove anything that is dissonant with their world view. Albatross2147 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NPA. You can disagree with someone without being uncivil about it. Mangojuice^talk 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. It is our task to put information where it is informational, not where it is "diverting". Where else besides golf ball, to continue using the example, should information on the number of dimples appear? --Dystopos 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The trivia and reference in popular culture sections of articles are often the most interesting part of the articles. Some people, including Dystops, need to get over themselves. Wikipedia is a great on-line reference it isn't, and nor should it try to be, a traditional encyclopaedia. They are plenty of them out there and if people want to be editors for them they can send their CVs to them. Let’s keep Wikipedia quirky, fun and at times trivial. (Martin)

Stronger language

I believe this guideline needs to be made clearer. Some see it saying that Trivia sections need to be integrated and removed completely with unworthy information removed. Others see the guideline justifying lists of facts and trivia that can't be integrated into the rest of the article. Which is it? The guideline needs to be much clearer what the end aim is. E.g. No trivia section or a section containing what's left after the integration. The rationale for the guideline suggests the aim is to have no trivia section as that's what's causing the problem, setting a "low bar". If this is the reason then it should say "integrate information and remove section" more clearly. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote most of it. My intention was that trivia sections are useful for ongoing article development but should be continually integrated and shouldn't be a feature of "polished" articles such as featured articles or Wikipedia 1.0 articles. Dcoetzee 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, so the aim is to not have a trivia section at all, but it's just a temporary place to put information until it's merged with the rest of the article? ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Dcoetzee you should have made it so bleeding obvious that even the anally retentive deletionistas could comprehend your intentions. You would have better left it all unsaid in my opinion. Most people are smart enough to know that just about all articles need to improved and that lists of facts have a place whilst that process is under way. Albatross2147 12:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider myself a deletionist. I just wanted clarification on whether the aim of the guideline involves a trivia section existing once integration is complete, which is exactly what my question states. I didn't even even suggest the idea that trivia sections shouldn't exist ever. Don't let your opinion on this matter blind you from genuine questions asking for clarification of the guideline. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I did make that clear, and that's why this guideline has received support, because it does not assume an extremist deletionist position. I don't think it was "better left unsaid", considering that the original guideline was much more deletionist and poorly thought out. Dcoetzee 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"avoid" but do not delete

I'm really having trouble agreeing with this guideline (and I'm finding it hard to believe there is consensus on this subject at all, but that's another argument). The guideline does say "avoid" creation of trivia sections, but that can say to me trivia sections should be avoided, but that they are, in very limited cases, inevitable. The "cultural references" trivia, for example. For most articles, one or two cultural references are, yes, too trivial. However, for cultural subjects that have a major influence on other culture, there is a meaningful context for the information in that given section. It would be silly to say that the information contained is "isolated" if there is a great deal of it that is meaningful. In such a case, it would be difficult and senseless to integrate an entire "trivia" section into other parts of its article. --Roehl Sybing 03:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this guideline has undergone some scope creep recently. Cultural references sections aren't really the kind of trivia section it was written to handle. It's about random lists of miscellaneous facts, which by their nature are disorganized and should be integrated elsewhere. Cultural references sections do at least have a specific focus, and I agree they can remain as separate sections sometimes, though often they can be integrated into a larger Legacy or Influence section. —Celithemis 04:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that just about anything can be "popular culture"-related, so having a section called "Pop culture" is really no better than having a trivia section. I think in almost all cases, toss-off mentions of anything should be ignored, but more selective (even if barely) categories are worthy of mention somewhere. Wikipedia:Handling trivia actually goes into this in a much better way - the important thing is (1) to maintain some level of selectivity at a minimum, (2) to avoid OR, and (3) to organize the information. The way I think about it is, this guideline is trying to encourage organization, it's not really saying much about content one way or the other. Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I just read Wikipedia:Handling trivia and find it to be very well reasoned and appropriate for Wikipedia. How should it be merged into (or made to replace) this guideline? --Dystopos 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

another voice in support of trivia

I agree that trivia is a sensible and illuminating part of many wikipedia articles on popular culture, such as games, films, and actually even history. The trivia section is an engaging way to let readers see how an otherwise apparently dry or obscure piece of history or science has actually affected their lives. I agree that there may be a problem with "too much trivia" and lazy editing, but this is not the way to address it. Trivia is a much-loved and informative feature of Wikipedia.--Jaibe 08:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading the guideline. It doesn't say that trivia shouldn't be included. It says that it shouldn't be organized into a trivia section. Mangojuice^talk 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No he's not. The tag reads "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed." It's clear, to the point, and somewhat aggresive: blend it in or delete it. It's complete baloney. 15.219.233.72 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To put in my two cents. I personally go straight to triva sections. I like them. They tell me those little bits of information that I can't really find anywhere else without a great deal of scouting. They are one of the reasons I like Wikipedia. If you try to pepper those references where they don't belong elsewhere in the article, it just makes me not want to bother and I never get these little bits of information. True, it doesn't belong everywhere and things like oxygen or the like should definately not have them, but when your dealing with episodes of a television show filled with minor references that some people missed, they can come here and find them out. I'm not about to read the entire article about a show I just watched, but I do go and see the triva section to find out some of the referances I didn't get. IrrTJMc 05:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias cover what it notable, important and educational. Trivia, by its very definition, isn't notable or important. I can certainly understand people liking trivia, but maybe what they ought to do is start up a Wikitrivia project instead of shoving it all into what are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. DreamGuy 09:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't (or doesn't have to be) a traditional encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia, an entity that has evolved beyond what is traditionally expected from an encyclopedia. It is now a straight shot compendium of knowledge, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I come to Wikipedia to discover. I see something, be it online or in real life, that looks interesting but about which I know nothing, and I look it up in Wikipedia. And I now, what am I getting at? I think that the current trivia format is fine. Sure, some topics have unwieldy sections that have grown out of control. But a little trimming can fix that. Most "traditional" encyclopedias don't have a trivia section, but this isn't a "traditional" encyclopedia.Bored and Agitated 05:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're fighting against the current here — WP:AVTRIVIA is a style guideline derived from the official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Starting a Wikitrivia project would be easy enough. If you don't have server space for your own wiki, consider creating one at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia . / edgarde 06:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone stop the robot?

Let me first say that I have no definite position on a general policy for trivia sections. (Yes, they are often bad. They are also often amusing and raise interest. And they are sometimes a good place to store facts before integrating them in the article. There may be articles that warrant persistent Trivia sections, but I do not know of any myself.)

However, the stupid (literally) robot that edits tons of articles to add the ugly, condescending and useless template {{trivia}} is something I definitely oppose. There are thousands and thousands of human editors of Wikipedia, who are perfectly able to take an intelligent decision, whether a specific article can take a trivia section in its current state.

A robot is a machine. A robot has no clue. A robot cannot and should not tell a thinking human how to change a particular article.

Can someone tell me if it is possible to revert the damage the robot already has done? Or is the only solution to change the {{trivia}} template to "blank", to remove the blot from all pages where it was added? Mlewan 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The tags were not added by robots, but by editors who thought they belonged there, so I would certainly not go wholesale reverting those changes. That said, any articles you feel do not have a trivia problem, take them on a case-by-case basis. Mangojuice^talk 23:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a bot did recently go through and add that table indiscriminately to several articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, I just noticed the thread at WP:AN. Apparently, the bot's been adding the tag to articles with certain titled sections if they're above a certain length. I believe this will mostly be appropriate, so again, let's not wholesale revert. If you want to find the tags the bot added, though, look at Special:Contributions/Android_Mouse_Bot_3. Mangojuice^talk 23:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The robot is running at this very moment, destroying more and more articles. There are hundreds of modifications from the 26th May alone. Who authorized this vandalism and how can it be stopped? Mlewan 04:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The robot is running at this very moment, fixing more and more articles. <-- there, fixed your typo for you. Trivia, in pop culture sections, all these are scourges upon the whole concept of an encyclopedia. Seriously folks, we want to be a respected reference work, not useless facts 101. -M^ask? 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that, even if the tags were universally bad and wrong, adding them is not "destroying" the article. It is making one easily-reversible edit. Gavia immer (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"One easily-reversible edit" would be fine. Thousands are not. I, personally, still consider this mass-vandalism. I may be alone in this, and I will accept the verdict of a majority. However, I still have not found the decision to let the robot run, and I have seen no discussion of allowing it before it was let loose. Is there no one who knows who authorised a robot to make this modification to thousands of articles? Mlewan 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, quit with the assuming of bad faith. This is not vandalism at all. The bot may make a few mistakes here and there, but the tags are needed in most of these cases, because the trivia sections are large, cumbersome, distracting, and likely full of cruft. The tags are there to request improvements. I looked over the bot's last 250 edits for all the ones that weren't the top revision: only in 1 case has the trivia tag been removed without being addressed (and it was appropriate to, there, as the section contained only one item, although it could probably have been merged). Even though those edits were quite recent, several of the articles have already been improved organizationally to avoid the trivia section and fold the relevant info into other parts. As for the authorization, look at WP:B - you can find a record in there somewhere, I'm sure. The bot was also being discussed on WP:AN. Mangojuice^talk 18:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"The tags are there to request improvements." ? But they don't "request improvements", do they? They instruct any casual editors passing by that the section's contents "should be integrated ... or removed". It doesn't say that we should consider integrating or removing the section (or removing the tag), it just gives us a stark choice - integration or deletion. An official-looking notice with no further alternatives or options provided. So a keen newbie editor is liable to think, "Oh, goody, I'm being asked to help, and I don't know how to integrate that information, so I'll just delete it. Because the tag says that this section is bad, and it's already been marked for possible deletion." Because we're supposed to assume good faith, readers are liable to assume that that a seriously-worded tag like that would only been added to an article after some serious consideration. I certainly thought that these tags in the film pages were being put there by a person. I thought that that person was an idiot, but I thought that they were acting under some sort of misguided version of good faith, and that's why I didn't take any of the tags out, becuase I didn't want to start an edit war, and because I assumed that the person wouldn't have added the tags lightly. It never occurred to me that someone here would have been irresponsible enough to write a program to automatically tag sections of articles for possible deletion, sight unseen. Now I know that it's the fault of a bot, I'm still not inclined to go through removing the tags from inappropriate pages, because if I devote time to clearing up some of the worst results of this automated mess, there's no guarantee that someone won't just run the bot again. Indiscriminate, ill-considered and inexplicit botting of this sort undermines trust in fellow editors. If a tag that suggests the deletion of content is ever added by a bot, it should make it quite clear that this is only a bot tag and doesn't reflect anybody's considered editorial opinion . ErkDemon 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If the tag isn't needed in a specific case, then it can simply be removed. The bot won't edit a page it has already edited. The number of articles that will need the tag removed I'm guessing will be relativly small, if any really. Also note that for small trivia sections (less than 512 bytes) it won't add the tag. More discussions on this same bot can be found: [1], [2], and [3]. --Android Mouse 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both Mango and Android Mouse. I am sorry if I gave the impression of assuming bad faith. I definitely think you are doing this because you think it benefits Wikipedia. At the same time, my personal opinion is that it does not benefit Wikipedia to let bots tell humans what to do.

It seems the approval was done by a committee. I posted my concerns at the talk page of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval. Mlewan 19:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I definatly understand what you are saying, and I see this more of an issue with the wording of the trivia template. Perhaps we could have it changed to say that this is only a suggestion not a strict rule and the tag can be removed by anyone if necessary. --Android Mouse 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Improving the wording would definitely be a help, but it would not solve the other problems:

• The box is distracting from the content of the article. It is information overload.
• In many cases, people will misinterpret the intention, and remove useful information or integrate it where it has no sense.
• In some cases it is more a matter of a bad header than bad content. I looked at some of the Simpson articles, that apparently sparked the request for the bot. Assuming that it is a good idea to have one article per episode (which could be questioned), I think the commonly used structure is good: A synopsis section with the story, and then further facts that do not regard the story chronology. If someone wants to call this section "other facts" or "background facts" or "further information" is another matter. "Trivia" is probably not good as a title, but the information I have seen in the trivia section of Simpson episodes should usually not be cluttering the Synopsis sections. It often needs to be improved, but it should not be integrated in the Synopsis. Some of the information is childish, but a lot of the readers of the Simpson articles are probably children, so we should probably be less strict in that area.
• It is a bad precedent to let a robot tell humans what to do. Asimov would not have liked it. I do not like it either, as robots are stupid (literally).

To me, anyone of the above points on its own is good enough a reason to revert the robot added tags. Mlewan 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Does mass-tagging help?

I don't think mass-tagging of trivia sections helps the problem.

I'm not a fan of Trivia sections per se (and I think my edit history shows this), but they serve a few well-acknowleged purposes:

• attractive practice space for novice editors, who hopefully will outgrow the practice
• staging areas for information to be evaluated by more experienced editors for proper integration (or deletion).

In other words, trivia sections are useful as long as they are deleted. However, 10,000 {{toomuchtrivia}} tags will not make editors eliminate trivia sections; it just introduces a new eyesore.

Here is an article that's rife with trivia; however, it doesn't have a any identifiable Trivia section. Widespread tagging will tend to drive trivia underground, creating more articles like this, which are harder to read, and harder to clean up.

A better solution — albeit, one harder to automate — would be message Talk pages of users who have contributed to a trivia section, with newbie-friendly (gentle, easy to understand) advice on how to edit better. / edgarde 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New editors can continue to use trivia sections for practice, the tags only help them realize that the material should eventually be moved out of that section. Without the tags, new editors won't realize trivia sections are generally looked down upon and within time, smaller, unnoticed articles will become composed of only large bullted lists of trivia (which has already happened on many).

I don't agree that this will 'drive trivia underground', at most it will significantly slow the increasing growth of these sections. Even if what you suggest happens, I say all for the better. Articles like the one you linked to are, in my opinion, of higher quality than articles that are essentially only composed of a large bulleted list of trivia. --Android Mouse 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent example, Edgarde, of an article that's in bad shape. They all need imprvement. Tagging is definitely benificial: when I looked through the bot's contribs earlier, I found that in several cases the problems the tag refer to had been addressed, well, in a handful of articles. Not many, but then, that's a lot of improvement considering how long the tag had been in place. Mangojuice^talk 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a message on the users' talk pages is a good idea. In that way they will learn of the policy. Only users that need to know of it will be informed, so it lessens the information overload, both for other users and for readers of the articles. The message text should avoid the word "should" (which I, personally, consider condescending when coming from a machine), but it should contain recommendations on how to handle Trivia.

I also think that the Brian Griffin article quoted above is a good example of an article where adding a trivia section could be a step in the cleaning up process. Mlewan 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

By "information overload", Mlewan mentions something I forgot. Many articles are more-or-less permanently tagged with one or more cleanup notices. This adds another often-persistent tag. When these become common enough, they will be ignored. More tags != more cleanup.

Experienced editors will check article categorization. Cleanup patrollers will start in the categories (or the backlogs, or wherever). Potential new cleanup patrollers will spot "You can help!" messages or references to WP:HTRIVIA in edit histories and discussion pages, or see the "Help out" section.

Widespread tagging may give us a bump in cleanup; then editors will become accustomed to seeing them, and cleanup will drop to around where it is now. But the visual real estate tax will persist long after the initial benefit. / edgarde 05:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if editors do begin to ignore these tags I still feel they are better there than not. When a new reader stumbles upon a relativly low quality article and sees no tags, it is likely they will assume all of wikipedia is of this quality (especially since it already has a somewhat bad rep in some academic circles). With the tags being there, it will let the reader know that this article isn't considered acceptable and needs significant improvment. Plus the tags are often what turns readers into editors. --Android Mouse 06:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Cleanup tags should be used to apologize to readers.

If such is genuinely needed, {{Article stinks}} should be used instead. / edgarde 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass tagging may lead to editors wanting to put more effort in to cleaning up some articles for a while. But the unattractive layout with tags makes reading articles less satisfactory. Each tag reduces the reader's trust, without supplying evidence why that trust is undermined. Can the tags go on the Talkpages where only editors trying to improve the article will see them? Can this happen with tone/quality tags, other tags as well, to keep the Article pages neater and stop putting too much doubt in front of reader's eyes.(0.02)--Newbyguesses 07:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving this notice to Talk pages is a highly acceptable alternative. / edgarde 07:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

>>Each tag reduces the reader's trust, without supplying evidence why that trust is undermined.

The trivia tag is specific and links to a page which has more details, same as with the cleanup tags. If the tags don't make the reader lose trust in the article then they aren't doing there job. There is no reason to have someone trust something that is of poor quality. --Android Mouse 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm no supporter of trivia in articles. However, I think this tagging disrupts the existing means of addressing trivia — when trivia is segregated, the task of cleanup is much easier — while not alleviating the problem any better. Which I think means it may make the problem worse, despite Mangojuice's evidence. / edgarde 07:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Android Mouse, the wording of the tag is definitely aimed at authors of the articles, not the readers. And if it had been written for the reader, it would have been even worse. There is no way a robot can tell the quality of information in a Trivia section. An article may contain unverified false statements in all sections except the trivia section, for all we know. To add a tag saying that only the trivia section should be distrusted would be highly misleading. Mlewan 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mlewan, if you dislike the wording of Template:Trivia, it can be edited, and the best place to discuss those changes is at Template talk:Trivia. If you think that trivia tagging is a bad idea regardless of the wording, the thing to do would be to make your case as calmly as possible in a WP:TFD nomination, but I suspect that won't be successful. I think there might be some benefit to having the tag on the talk page instead, but it's got its plusses and minuses, and having such tags on the article seems to be standard, so it's an uphill battle there. Obviously, if there are specific instances where the tag isn't appropriate, it can simply be removed, and I don't think anyone would object much. In most cases, the tag has been put on articles with a significant trivia section, though, so if tagging is a reasonable thing at all, those tags are reasonable. Mangojuice^talk 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mango, I have absolutely nothing against the wording of the template, provided it is added manually by a human to pages where that wording applies. I am against the robot adding it indiscriminately to thousands of pages where it does not necessarily apply. Mlewan 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving trivia to talk pages

I want to ask for the opinions of a few editors on the issue of moving trivia to talk pages. Specifically, should this page present it as an option or, alternatively, encourage it? As I see it, the pros and cons of moving trivia to talk pages are as follows:

Pros

1. It can potentially diffuse tension during disputes over the inclusion/exclusion of certain content.
2. The content can be discussed and incorporated into the main text of the article.
3. It achieves the goal of removing trivia without losing the content entirely.

Cons

1. It really doesn't diffuse a conflict ... it just transfers it to the talk page. That is an improvement, but there's no guarantee that the issue will stay there. Moving the trivial content to the talk page doesn't really fix anything unless it's used as a proxy for removing the section without deleting it (see point #3).
2. One can start a discussion about the content without first moving it to the talk page. That is standard practice except for highly controversial/possibly libelous content. Why should this page encourage deviation from standard practice?
3. Except on articles that receive a lot of attention, moving content to the talk page is actually no different from deleting it. It is unlikely that such content will ever be (re-)incorporated into the article. If a trivia section deserves to be deleted (i.e., all the entries are worthless/hold no promise of future incorporation into the article), then just delete it.

As should be rather clear from the above, I oppose the idea of moving trivia to talk pages. I think it is better to simply delete it when deletion is justified, integrate it when possible, and leave it for someone else to handle in the remainder of cases. So, what does everyone else think? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. What about instead of moving it to the talk page, create a subpage of the article? --myselfalso 07:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving (presumably) useless information to talk pages is unnecessary, since

• Such can be recovered from article history if desired
• A diff link to the deletion shows the removed information in context

The suggestion[4] can apply to any discussion-worthy deleted content, but I don't think it should be standard procedure with trivia in particular (and it may prove a nuisance in articles that routinely have trivia appended). I favor removing[5] this advice from WP:AVTRIVIA.

If a recommended procedure is needed, WP:HTRIVIA#Practical_steps might be helpful. / edgarde 07:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is a fine place to develop a trivia section being worked on, but then so is the article itself. Generally the only time I'll move content to the talk page is when it's patently misleading or ugly and really needs to get out of sight quickly. Subpages are discouraged in general and certainly should not act as a permanent home for anything. We also discourage breaking up articles into more notable and less notable parts, as the inevitable consequence of doing so is that the less notable parts tend to get AfDed (one might make an analogy with POV forking, where both parts end up being more POV than their original combination). Dcoetzee 08:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Worthless" is subjective, and the bar for inclusion is set differently for everyone. And mind you, the guideline doesn't say "delete worthless stuff"; it says integrate it, or remove it if it's in violation of other policies. Moving it to the talk page gives other editors (the seasoned ones that know to look at talk pages) the chance to individually evaluate it, and "fix it" where appropriate.

The summary removal of trivia, on the other hand (worthless or otherwise), resembles a unilateral "Material for Deletion" process. It's not appropriate to blank an article in this manner, or any section of an article which is not otherwise in violation of policy. But "trivia" is something of a bastard stepchild on Wikipedia. The suggestion to move it to the talk page helps to make the evaluation process more transparent and community-driven instead of uneven and unexamined.

The disputed passage also doesn't say you have to move trivia to the talk page instead of deleting it; it just offers it as an option. But perhaps there is something else underlying your objection: the guideline doesn't actually list "delete it" as an option. I don't think it should, because "what is worthless" is, as I stated above, subjective, and the guideline would probably fail retain its community approval if it did actually include that advice.

You might nonetheless be heartened by the fact that you can often delete trivia -- regardless of what the policy is, pro or anti -- without an eyelash being batted. Casual readers sometimes object to one or another thing they see in an article, but they are blissfully ignorant about removed material.

--Father Goose 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have, myself, deleted particularly obscure and incidental trivia, such as a detailed description of a single mention of the topic in a line of an episode of a little-known sitcom (you'd be surprised how many of these I come across). It's pretty much common sense - if you think you'll be reverted if you delete it, don't just delete it. Dcoetzee 09:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion: at times, I have seen enormous ill-conceived trivia sections and just removed the entire thing as irrelevant. Now maybe that's overly bold, but I don't like half-assing problems. If an article has a trivia problem and I'm trying to resolve it, I don't like to leave some items behind, unintegrated. I feel that putting the removed content on the talk pages is courteous in some cases, because it can be annoying for people to dig through page histories if they want to undo what I did (and less experienced editors may have trouble doing so: I remember that at one point, I didn't know I could edit old versions directly). So, I have occasionally done this. Also, I've done it when the problem was verification; see Talk:List of works which retell or strongly allude to the Faust tale, for instance. So it's one solution, and it makes sense in certain circumstances. Mangojuice^talk 11:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted trivia myself in those "particularly obscure" cases. The problem is when you come across editors who treat their assessment of its relevancy as the final word, and policy to boot -- both on the keep and delete side of the issue. A compromise position in those cases is badly needed, even if it's not the preferred choice for either side. It gives other editors a more of an opportunity to weigh in on it, and though it may seem half-assed, it's preferable to duelling absolutes.--Father Goose 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Father Goose, simply raising the issue on the talk page is enough to "give other editors ... opportunity to weigh in on it". My objection is not that the guideline doesn't recommend "delete it" as an option. On the contrary, I try to integrate useful trivia into articles when I can, but I delete any trivial entries which I do not believe could ever be integrated into the article. For instance, an entry stating "Just before the camera moves to Albert, the coffee cup is on Jen's right, but when the camera pans back to her, the cup is on her left" could never be a valuable addition to an encyclopedia article – unless the location of the cup is somehow an element of the plot ;). Information about insignificant inconsistencies (usually copied from IMDb) has no place in an article. On the other hand, an entry stating "The movie was entirely filmed in Budapest, Hungary." should not be deleted.

I don't want the guideline to recommend deletion for trivia sections, but deleting a lot of what appears in trivia sections is justified by other guidelines and policies, or simply editorial judgment (which can, of course, be challenged). In fact, I would strongly oppose any such change that would try to excuse the wholesale deletion of "Trivia" sections without detailed justification and/or attempts to integrate it into the text. The factors that underlie my objection to the idea of moving trivia sections to talk pages are threefold:

First, it is not standard practice to move content to the talk pages unless that content is somehow disputed (controversial or libelous). This is rarely the case with "Trivia" entries.

Second, it is in practice no different from simply deleting the content. Most talk pages receive so little attention from so few users that it is unlikely that such information would be re-incorporated. Realistically, it will just linger on the talk page. So, in a way, it is misleading when one moves content to the talk page "for discussion" when one knows full well that a particular talk page is rarely sees any discussion. The option of "move to the talk page" presents a loophole for deleting content, the deletion of which one would otherwise be hard-pressed to justify (that is, content with promise of integration into the article).

Third, it is a "half-assed" attempt at a solution, as you note. There is no reason that editors can't discuss on a talk page the fate of a "Trivia" section (or particular entries) without removing the content from the article. If the goal is indeed discussion, is it not better to start a discussion and leave the content until an agreement is reached as to how to handle it? Again, there is an exception for cases where the content is highly controversial or potentially libelous, but this does not apply to the majority of entries in "Trivia" sections.

In short, I object to the idea because I do not believe that is solves anything and, if anything, creates problems of its own. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think pretty much everyone agrees with this assessment. I see the "move to talk page" option as only being there for extreme cases that you noted. If you'd like to clarify the guideline to that effect feel free. Dcoetzee 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! I have left in the following sentence:

If you have doubts about whether your fact is suitable for inclusion, place it on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help consider its inclusion and locate suitable references.

as that is a different issue (regarding the addition of content, rather than its removal or relocation) and does conform to standard practice. If an editor is unsure whether to add certain content to an article, the talk page is where they should go. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to throw out a question ... should we add a sentence stating that trivia sections generally should not be moved to an article's talk page? I've seen multiple instances where someone moves the trivia section to the talk page and then never again edits that page. That doesn't really solve anything. Maybe something like ... Do not move trivia sections to article talk pages simply for the purpose of removing them from the article unless you intend to personally integrate it later on. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be overkill... if a trivia section does get moved to the talk page, it doesn't really do any damage and will eventually just get archived. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

YAEOTRT (Yet Another Editor Opposed To Removing Trivia

I really wish this policy would be revoked...ErkDemon says it perfectly above. Afabbro 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a different approach is called for

May I suggest that (at least) one of the problems lying behind the issue of what to do with “trivia” – and where to do it – is because the term “trivia” is being used in too broad-brushed a manner? It may be that there are three categories of trivia which I’ll call “significa”, “minutiae” and “cruft”, each of which perhaps should be handled differently.

• Significa: Information directly germane to the article, but which has not yet been integrated into the article. (An excellent example of “significa” is Black Falcon’s example above of "The movie was entirely filmed in Budapest, Hungary.")
• Minutiae: Interesting but minor bits of information which would be difficult to integrate into the main portion of the encyclopedic article, but have “saving grace” in that they could either a) survive a “Did You Know” test, b) be used to direct a reader to a “secondarily” related topic, or – where there is a lot of it – c) serve as the basis for development of a related list.
• Cruft: Minor tidbits of trivial information of little interest to anyone other than the most avid of aficionados and which would best be addressed by fansites than an encyclopedia.

There are a variety of ways these cases could be handled and I’m not going to prescribe one. However, one possibility would be that significa would be kept in a “To be worked in” posting on the talk page, minutiae directly enterable in a “Trivia” (“Related trivia”?) section, in the article, and cruft, well, perhaps nuked on sight (or perhaps gently guided toward a more relevant article, depending on how well dinner was sitting with us). This particular approach would, IMO, leave the article looking less like a construction site. On the other hand, it could be argued that it would be preferable to leave a significa entry in the article as a sort of “stub”, inviting any editorial hand to work it in, while minutiae should be moved to the talk page for discussion and development before going “prime time”. (Cruft, of course, would be mulched.)
Askari Mark (Talk) 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Why is WikiPed against trivia sections? People like me don't wanna read big long articles for interesting facts when you could put them all together  for quick reference. 67.176.14.100 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Dizzy Rick

Trivia is serviceably defined on WP:HTRIVIA#What_is_trivia.3F. I don't see a need to coin new terms.

• Everyone agrees that information that worth keeping (Significa as you name it) should be kept.
• No one uses the term Cruft to mean something they wish to keep.
• Minutiae seems like a value hedge term, but basicly the same as trivia.

The Did you know? test doesn't add much not already covered in WP:HTRIVIA.

• In the case of the Mir space station, a Did you know? section listing South Park references to Mir would still not be relevant or helpful (though trivia-defending editors would still want it kept).
• Anything worth keeping in a Did you know? section would be worth integrating in a comprehensive article that still avoided trivia. WP:HTRIVIA does not handle the "filmed in Hungary" datam differently that the Did you know? test would.

Reminder

This talk page (for WP:AVTRIVIA) is mostly about trivia sections — WP:AVTRIVIA is a style guideline derived from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The directive being discussed is Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic, and how to deal with such lists.

Concerns about trivia itself, what constitutes trivia, and Is it really trivia? are considered on Handling trivia (shortcut: WP:HTRIVIA).

/ edgarde 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fix it!

Every second bloody article I look at now seems to have this tag attached which merely serves to highlight the fact that there is a section in the article entitled "Trivia". The number of articles with the template attached seems to have increased at an exponential rate!

I suggest that instead of wasting time attaching the template to lots of articles that responsible editors instead solve what ever it is they perceive to be problematic! --Mal 08:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that goes both ways you know :-) --Android Mouse 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So .. what .. do you mean this:

Every second bloody article I look at now seems to not have this tag attached which merely serves to hide the fact that there is a section in the article entitled "Trivia". The number of articles without the template attached seems to have increased at an exponential rate!

I suggest that instead of wasting time editing articles and solving what ever it is they perceive to be problematic!, editors should instead spend time attaching the template to lots of articles.

...?

Or have I misunderstood..? --Mal 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

>>Every second bloody article I look at now seems to not have this tag attached which merely serves to hide the fact that there is a section in the article entitled "Trivia".

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't know how the tag would be hiding anything, I'd think it would do quite the contrary.

>>The number of articles without the template attached seems to have increased at an exponential rate!

I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that in a good way? If not, then I don't completely understand your objection.

>>I suggest that instead of wasting time editing articles and solving what ever it is they perceive to be problematic!, editors should instead spend time attaching the template to lots of articles.

That's exactly what my bot was created to address, but as you can see from the above discussion, it hasn't been accepted as much as I had envisioned. --Android Mouse 05:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I go about changing this policy?

I disagree with this policy and know many other people who do as well. The policy is pointless. The vast majority of users like trivia and find it pertinent to the articles. The editors of the individual articles should determine whether or not the specific trivia is correct or not and relevant or not, and not some irrelevant wikipedia-wide policy. How do we go about changing this? 219.169.90.2 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many are forgetting this is an encyclopedia, not a mass collection of unorganized facts. You rarely, if ever see a trivia section in any other major encyclopedia. --Android Mouse 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How about first understanding that this is not a "Policy" in the first place?Circeus 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You edit it. Keep in mind, of course, that this will not actually change what people do. Mangojuice^talk 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First off, as much as it's not a "Policy" it has become a de facto policy because most people believe that it is. Secondly, people are forgetting this is an encyclopedia. That having been said, someone stated above that this is not a normal encyclopedia, but in fact is a collection of facts. However, having a trivia section is not a mass collection of unorganized facts. I agree that these sections should be cut down; moreover, I believe the trivia should be given a sub-page of the article (i.e. Star Trek/trivia). I think the issue that should be discussed is not whether or not trivia should exist within Wikipedia, but why people are placing trivia sections in articles in the first place. I, for one, believe that the trivia is significant enough because we're having a debate about whether it should exist (in general) within articles. --myselfalso 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"The problem" (as if there had been only one in such a complex feature as Wikipedia), is that the stupid (literally) robot tries to apply a "policy", which was adopted by very narrow margin, to articles where it has no idea what is going on. In some articles the "Trivia" section is simply misnamed. In some it contains facts that are important but which do not fit in any of the major sections. The trivia-box stops making any sense when applied by computers. If you, as a human, had applied it to an article, I might have considered as useful information. Now, I know it is added by a computer and therefore safely can be ignored. There is nothing wrong with "trivia" per se. Look at an article like Meiotic. It mentions that the word comes from Greek meioun. That is trivial and superfluous information in an article about genetics, and yet it is the kind of information that has been in encyclopaedias since Blarf, the palaeolithic inventor, documented how he made fire for the first time in a speech to the rest of his tribe. Trivia is not wrong. Trivia is not bad. Trivia has always been with us, and it will always be there, regardless of how many ransacking robots are sent out there to stop it.

There is often, but not always, a problem with the quality of the Trivia sections, but you do not solve that by integrating the information where it does not belong. And to solve it by removing the section is like using a guillotine to cure headache. Please, stop that robot now, and revert the devastation it has created. Mlewan 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the trivia guidelines or not, I'd hardly call the work done by the bot "devastation". Your analogy is flawed because unlike a decapitation, it can be undone with just a couple of clicks and a few seconds of time. All it does is add more attention to a page by adding it to a category with the banner. If it's not needed in that article then it can be easily reverted. I just had a look through a few random articles that the bot had tagged and most of them had sections that needed cleanup. I don't see why this bot should be stopped. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the bot tags accurately — editors prone to fix trivia sections can certainly spot trivia sections without the tags — it's whether the net effect on Wikipedia is beneficial.

Just adding a category would have been fine. Adding the tag to thousands of articles causes more damage than improvement. / edgarde 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that the other cleanup tags are damaging to the encyclopedia? These tags are great for new editors to start out and 'get their feet wet'. It encourages people to contribute who would have otherwise left the problems as is, this alone I think offsets the 'damage' the bot has does. --Android Mouse 22:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags can attract editors' attention to articles that need copy-edit or such. But the tags should come down when the editing has had a chance to improve the article, and not stay up for any longer period of time because no-one comes back to check if the work has been attempted. How does the BOT know when the tag should come down? Tags which are unsupportable, (ie editor didnt read article before putting tag on), are unproductive (imho), they do not create legitimate doubt about an articles accuracy, just create doubt — Newbyguesses 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

quoth Android Mouse: Do you feel that the other cleanup tags are damaging to the encyclopedia?

I have never said cleanup tags are damaging. For the 4th time, mass tagging is damaging to Wikipedia. I've explained this. Perhaps I've been shouting into a void. / edgarde 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

>>For the 4th time, mass tagging is damaging to Wikipedia.

Have you not seen the majority of non-featured wikipedia articles? Most have been mass tagged with clean up tags. The means to it is largely irrelevant. --Android Mouse 23:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

>>Perhaps I've been shouting into a void.

That's bordering an attack, and is uncalled for. --Android Mouse 23:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting tags on en masse doesn't fix any problem. Reading the articles, one by one then improving them is what is needed. Tagging every article on WP with a cleanup tag would not achieve anything worthwhile. Is this what the BOT wants to do? - Newbyguesses 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If cleanup is needed en masse, what is the objection to tagging en masse? Yeah, tagging doesn't improve the article in itself but it is a great way of saying 'we need help, you can help us!' which attracts new editors who wouldn't know to look in a category or anyplace else to know what to do. --Android Mouse 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many articles need help, but how do you know until you have read the article? Individually, not a blanket approach. Some tags are helpful, but put too many on, and they wind up being left on articles that have been improved, to the detriment of readers. If an editor or BOT puts a tag on an article, will they return to the article later to assess the worth of that action? Newbyguesses 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot actually has been stopped for at least two days now. Mostly because it ran out of articles to tag. --Android Mouse 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now dozens of new editors are inspired to post comments defending trivia on these talk pages, maybe for months to come. This campaign drives away editors too new to have developed any perspective on the subject, and creates further resistance to trivia section removal. Please undo this. / edgarde 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your support. But, it makes me wonder where all the critics were when this bot was suggested, pending approval and being written. As for undoing this, I don't think that would even be feasable, especially since many of the articles have been edited after the bot, making a rollback impracticle. --Android Mouse 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where all the critics were? It's simple: working on other articles. I only found out about this whole thing because of what the bot was doing. This is important. I've been editing on Wikipedia since late 2005, and I was unaware of the goings on here. The decision on this guideline should have been spread across the wiki. If it had, I would have come out against this sooner. --myselfalso 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I am not capable of or willing to learn how to encode a bot that uses WP:UNDO and then get it through the bot approval process, you win!. And if that logic's wrong, I give up anyway. / edgarde 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The undo feature can't be completely automated. And would require human confirmation for every revert that the bot is not the last editor of. --Android Mouse 23:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be technically impossible, but not logically. 1) Search a page for the tag. 2) Search the history to see if the bot has touched the article. 3) If yes and yes => Remove tag. Mlewan 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Those who keep saying that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia are wrong. Wikipedia doesnt match the dictionary meaning of Encyclopedia. What kind of encyclopedia gets updated almost daily? Wikipedia has out-grown its encylopedia tag. The use of the word "unfortunately" or "fortunately" is against wikipedia policy. To show respect to the deceased is against wikipedia policy. I reckon we should have a hideable trivia section on each article to comply with the policy of not showing trivia on articles. Tri400 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Category: Articles with large trivia sections

Personally I'd just like to state that i damn well hate this whole page, and yes that's sort of considered "not a neutral point of view". I hate it because I know there are a number of articles that have very relevant information in trivia sections that doesn't fit properly anywhere else. And i hate it because user's who have nothing relevant or better to contribute are running around throwing it into every possible article, when there are so many more important things to be doing - one which, I would have thought, would be fixing the information so that the banner didn't need to be there in the first place. But somewhere I know that the policy is going to stand, so I will go against it in the only way I know how. A page I was on recently had your "wonderful" triva banner on it - making the page look so much better I'm sure. But the thing I had an issue with was that at the bottom of the page, it had been added to the category of "Articles With Large Trivia Sections". Now there are a lot of users who are happy to say that they speak bullshit, but for you guys its just a case of denial. Considering the article in question, Vince Russo, had a grand total of 6 bullet points in it, I wouldn't class this as a large trivia section. 6 is not large. If you so whole-heartedly want to tag every single article that comes into this grouping with this unneccessary banner, then at least try and get the category right, becuase this is just one aspect of this debate which I consider in the wrong. Legitimately in the wrong I should say, I'm not going to get into everything else which is wrong with it.

PS. Because you decided to place the userbox on this page as an example, "Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles" has been added to "Category:Articles with large trivia sections". Man, you guys are reeeel smart. --SteelersFan UK06 05:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your support and comments are appreciated, especially since {{trivia}} is protected from editing. --Android Mouse 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed the category for renaming to Category:Articles with trivia sections. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 30#Category:Articles with large trivia sections. –Pomte 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2nd poll

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

No, you can't revoke a guideline by voting against it. This entire poll is basedo n a severe misunderstanding of what guidelines are and how they work. >Radiant< 10:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The amount of opposition I've heard voiced lately leads me to believe this policy guideline is not embraced by the community. I personally agree with its overall sentiment -- that most article content is preferable outside of a "trivia" section. Unfortunately, I keep seeing it used to support a "don't put trivia in articles" viewpoint, and ultimately I think it's just too rigid.

Does this really need to be official policy? Its point is more or less "keep articles well-organized", and I don't think it makes sense to "legislate" that advice. I like the advice, but I think it suffers from being a guideline. I think it'd work better if it just tried to be sensible instead of officious.

I'm gonna reopen the polls on this.--Father Goose 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose this page as a guideline. (I would retain it as non-binding advice.)--Father Goose 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Are guidelines binding? MPS

   Not absolutely. But generally, one should have a good reason for acting directly against a guideline. Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose guideline status - rather make it an essay or at least turn it into an advice for leaving out too much trivia. Sometimes trivia sections are okay when the information there can hardly be integrated into the text. Salaskan 09:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Due to the number of people who assume 1) this is policy and 2) the guideline is meant to kill trivia within Wikipedia, I believe this should be demoted from guideline status. If not, it needs to be very specific that trivia can exist within articles. On the whole, I don't think this guideline is useful at all. --myselfalso 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The advice here is already covered extensively by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It does not need to be re-hashed, and articles suffer from yet another banner box being slapped in. If trivia sections are "magnets" for crap, then fix them. Simple. --Mal 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   The tagging performed by the bot had nothing to do with this guideline. Your point that "If trivia sections are "magnets" for crap, then fix them." is a good one, but ... how do we know which articles contain trivia sections if a tag does not categorise them all into a central location? Randomly browsing through articles in search of trivia sections to integrate is inefficient. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose As per comments left by me in comment above. --SteelersFan UK06 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. This page is already a guideline, not a policy, and so does not "legislate" anything. To the contrary I think it has clear consensus and that most of the people who have expressed dissent evidently miss the point and think it means "kill all trivia", which it doesn't. I've only seen one legitimate dissent claiming that trivia should be deleted and not integrated, which I don't think is a viewpoint that you support. Some people oppose the use of trivia tags, which I take no position on and should not impact the status of this guideline. If there's significant opposition to their use, I think we ought to stop using them, considering that there was never clear consensus established around their use in the first place. Dcoetzee 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   Hm, yeah, I should have avoided saying the word "policy". I meant it in the ordinary English usage sense ("This is an official thing"), not in the Wikipedia "guidelines are different from policies" sense.

   I've seen both pro- and anti-trivia people interpret this page to mean "kill all trivia". This misinterpretation needs to be more aggressively countered.--Father Goose 09:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   That is a problem, but I'm not sure what this poll can hope to achieve in relation to it. The wording of the guideline is really pretty neutral on the inclusion of trivia, it's talking about how best to organize articles. In other words, those users should read the guideline. Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. This article is a style guideline derived from the official policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Furthermore, it provides a well-reasoned, practical process for evaluating trivia sections and integrating their content into a well-written (organized, encyclopedic) articles. Trivia lists, especially long ones, are optimized for wandering, impractical reading which makes Wikipedia less useful (despite the somewhat recreational preferences of some editors); therefore, this guideline is needed. / edgarde 09:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support As a guideline it's fine. It's aim is to remove trivial items and manage useful information per the MoS. Perhaps emphasis is needed to tell editors not to always delete trivia sections outright and to work with the material in it. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Per all above. Trivia sections are not encyclopedic and should be dealt with as this guideline suggests. Quadzilla99 12:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support One of the first things I noticed when I started editing here was the trivia sections. They need to be dealt with as they're not encyclopedic, and this explains a common sense way to deal with them. Marcus Taylor 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support as a guideline. Good, common sense advice, and doesn't go too far. The fact that some editors are overzealous in removing trivia is not a problem that de-guidelining this would solve. Mangojuice^talk 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Most 'trivia' sections are magnets for uncited, unciteable, and/or unimportant information that often bears only the most tangential relationship to the article at hand. While there may be narrow circumstances where a 'trivia' section actually improves an article (and presents the information therein in the best possible way), this guideline aptly addresses the (unfortunately) much more common situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Per the comments from TenOfAllTrades and Marcus Taylor. Adrian M. H. 14:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support I think that having this article as a guideline is wholly appropriate. Large trivia sections are highly unencyclopedic and tend towards lazy editing - I can't be bothered to write anything really constructive about this, so I will dump it in the trivia section and let someone else deal with it. When an article gets dominated by an ungainly trivia section, i don't think we are doing anybody any favours. Having it as a guideline (rather than policy) means that exceptions can be talked about, but in general, it should be discouraged. If people start interpreting a guideline as a policy, then the issue is in their interpretaion of how WP works, not the guideline. I have no problem with the tag, either - I have used it before to find articles that could use a re-write and have had some success moving the trivia section into the main article. Without the tag I would never have found those articles. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
10. This should remain guidance. It offers practical advice on how to handle trivia, and it doesn't demand that articles have no trivia, simply that they are integrated into the article in an encyclopedic manner. Hiding Talk 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
11. Support keeping this as per Hiding above and others. This is an encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. This page is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and is intended to further the principle that content in articles should be relevant to the subject, organised efficiently, and integrated into the text. In terms of its stance toward trivia, it is relatively accepting: it calls for content from Trivia sections to be integrated and removed only when that option is not possible or has been exhausted. Myselfalso raises a good point by noting that a number of editors take the guideline to justify the summary (i.e., unconsidered and unexplained) removal of trivia sections in any article. However, the problem is not the guideline; it is the misapplication of the guideline. The solution in these cases is to discuss the matter and, if appropriate, educate users about the guideline's intent and content. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per TenOfAllTrades and many others. --Android Mouse 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. Trivia sections act as a lightning rod for vandalism and easily transform into unencyclopedic listcruft extremely quickly. If the material cannot be incorporated into the article, it shouldn't be included in the article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
15. Support. Too many editors assume that triva belongs in an encyclopedia. While in some articles this may be good, in most articles these types of sections are simply not needed. If the material is encyclopedic or needed it can easily be integrated into the body of the article. Too often the information in these sections are minor points that simply don't help in understanding the topic of the article. Vegaswikian 23:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. The best articles comprehensively explain a topic, and no more than that. Further interesting minor points (trivialss) may be of benefit to some articles (and only if well-organised); otherwise, (toomuchtrivia) is detrimental to comprehension, (understandibility, readibility).Newbyguesses 00:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Comments and discusion

1. Comment. I have been fairly active in some discussions above, so I want to at least comment here. I do not care if it is a guideline or not. Whatever it is and whatever it is called, I want it to be applied by humans - not machines, and I want editors to have the right to break the rule, if the article content turns out to warrant it. Mlewan 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Comment. I have made an addition to the guideline clarifying that it does advise the wholesale removal of trivia sections, or make any value judgement about them. Dcoetzee 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   I'd have to disagree on "There is no implicit value judgement that "trivia is bad."". The judgement is that it is bad and eventually should be removed or integrated. --Android Mouse 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

   To the contrary, I wrote it and I do not believe that. Dcoetzee 11:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

3. Comment. I think the effort is to try and get articles looking like encyclopedic articles. If you throw in a bunch of unreferenced 'facts' and just group then under trivia or some other heading, they just make the entire encyclopedia look less professional. I don't have a problem with these types of sections in the short run if they are used as a tool to gather data for a short article, but they should be limited in nature. At some point the editors need to either integrate the material into the article or simply remove it. Some editors have been arguing that since 'article 1' has a trivia section then every other article on similar topic MUST have a trivia section, not what this encyclopedia needs in my opinion. I don't much care what we call it, but the guidance needs to be there to limit the collection of unrelated facts. If it's worth keeping it should be included in the body of the article where it carries more weight. Vegaswikian 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Comment. The "This section may contain trivia" tag is also unencyclopedic... and ugly to boot. That tag is for editors, not readers... so why not put this tag on the discussion page??? That's where wikiproject tags go and I think trivia tags are the same intent-- for editor convenience in editing. MPS 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Post-close comment. A guideline shouldn't be passed by voting for it either, which was how this guideline got its status. But the poll served its purpose for me: it demonstrated broader support than I had initially believed, and brought a few important issues to the forefront.--Father Goose 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the poll was closed. Your initial comment didn't make it sound like you were trying to revoke the guideline, more as if you were trying to see the opinions of others. --Android Mouse 17:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but we got over 20 people commenting and there was no time period specified anyway. Mangojuice^talk 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of text

I've just removed the following text:

“ Note that this guideline does not necessarily advise the wholesale removal of trivia sections, which may be useful in the process of constructing an article but should be integrated into the article over time. ”

I'm not sure what is being attempted here, but I find it rather nonsensical. does not necessarily advise offers the most cause for concern. That reads to me as a hostage to fortune. I'm also disturbed at the phrase should be integrated into the article over time, which again offers a hostage to fortune. How long a period of time? Is each entry treated individually, with it's own clock ticking, or can the whole section be tackled at once? Further, I think that what is trying to be communicated here already is, in the nutshell, which reads: Lists of facts, as found in trivia sections, are better presented within the context of the text rather than in a section of unrelated items. Hiding Talk 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Quadzilla99 08:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write "does not necessarily advise". Someone changed my wording in an attempt to make it sound more deletionist. What I was originally attempting to emphasise is the frequent misunderstanding that the guideline is "anti-trivia" and wants to "kill all trivia". I've reverted it to my original wording which I think you'd find more agreeable. Dcoetzee 11:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it should have been removed. And so should trivia. DreamGuy 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole passage is unnecessary. Quadzilla99 13:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is important to have some statement (similar to above) that says this is a guideline and that there may be legitimate uses for trivia sections. We need to put some restraint on the trivia-police who cite WP:TRIVIA as they kick down doors. MPS 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla, you have not provided any motivation for deleting the original paragraph, as opposed to the one quoted here which is quite different in spirit. Could you please be more specific about why you did so? Dcoetzee 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the guideline doesn't say it there's no need to say that it doesn't say it. See Strunk & White — rule 13. Also, telling people what to note creates a debate forum quality to the guideline. Quadzilla99 16:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the removal. It is useful for perspective. So that editors who hate trivia sections don't forget that many Wikipedia articles will always have trivia sections, and this is perfectly fine. Tempshill 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's agreement that trivia sections are "perfectly fine", and that message shouldn't be enshrined in this guideline. A good reason should be required to justify keeping any article's trivia section. / edgarde 17:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The message was not originally included precisely because it is essentially redundant and merely says what the guideline doesn't say; however, its addition emerged from the preceding discussion in which several people appear to have, without properly reading the guideline, rapidly come to the conclusion that its intent is to remove all trivia. While this could be seen as "their fault", I generally assume if someone misinterprets something it's because it was poorly presented. It doesn't say trivia is "fine", just that trivia sections are not advised to be "killed on sight" nor interpreted as "evil". Dcoetzee 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I suspect that some of the editors here are those who would interpret this guideline as the reason their excuse trivia wholesale without attempting to integrate it. Personally I think the removed text was redundant, because it describes something about the guideline that can be easily verified by reading the rest of it. However, the guideline really doesn't suggest that trivia should be categorically removed. Keep in that we can't simply disallow trivia because judgements over what is important enough for inclusion are fundamentally subjective and should in the end be decided by consensus (see WP:HTRIV). That said, I myself am for the wholesale removal of trivia sections in cases where they are especially bad, with the idea of following WP:BRD if someone objects to it. Mangojuice^talk 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon scrutinizing that section of the guideline, I came to the conclusion that it needed some restructuring anyway. I hope the instructions have more clarity now.

There remains (for me) the issue of whether we can include language which addresses the point you just raised -- "judgements over what is important enough for inclusion are fundamentally subjective and should in the end be decided by consensus". I initially added the phrase "exactly what is 'excessively tangential' may not be agreed upon by the editors of an article", but it was removed. Maybe there's a better way to put it. But do I want some language there to remind people that "excessively tangential" is subjective, to keep that portion of the guideline from being used to justify deletion according to personal tastes.

--Father Goose 19:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried an alternative wording: "Other entries may be excessively tangential to the subject of the article, although this requires some subjective evaluation. Discussion may be needed in some cases to determine if material warrants inclusion."--Father Goose 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Which was reverted by the same editor. I can't come up with a more even-handed way to state it. The reason why including this point is important (and not "obvious") is because the other reasons given for deletion involve objective criteria drawn from established policies. "Excessively tangential" (and especially "irrelevant"), however, are subjective, and while subjectivity is a necessity sometimes, one is always entitled to dispute it. Not noting this is an invitation to dogmatism; I've seen things along the lines of "Delete. Irrelevant. Guideline says so." more than once.

Do you disagree with the lines as phrased? Can you better articulate your point of contention?

--Father Goose 02:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously they're subjective. Like I said before Strunk & White—rule 13, telling people that something is subjective when it clearly is is needless extra words. Just yesterday I removed what I though was trivial junk from the Oakland Raiders article another experienced editor re-inserted it and we discussed it on the talk page. That's how it works. Also, if a person if told that this guideline prohibits it they can read the guideline for themselves and see that it doesn't. Quadzilla99 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please don't revert war, try to work towards a better wording. I didn't like either one: Father Goose's version implies that all removals need to be discussed, which really isn't right. The older version can certainly stand to be clarified, because indeed it's an important point that there's subjectivity over what is relevant enough to include and what should be removed. Mangojuice^talk 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still searching for a mutually-agreeable wording. I've tried another one, inspired by the alternative you most recently offered. I'd be happy to consider alternatives from Quadzilla, if he'd be willing to offer them.--Father Goose 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for an alternate wording. This is straight-forward and self explanatory, people who want to weaken the wording should see the poll above. Marcus Taylor 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice how I strengthened the wording with my first edit by explicitly listing what should be deleted outright: speculation, falsehoods, and WP:NOT material. The last criteron, though -- "too trivial" -- has no existing guidance. It's a judgement call. People on both sides of the keep-or-delete issue have to be mindful of this. I'd like to avoid wording in the guideline which gives either side the opportunity to interpret it as a carte blanche for their position.

I've tried yet another wording: "Entries which are lacking in relevance may be removed, although this left up to editors' discretion". If that isn't satisfactory, I beg anyone who considers themselves on the "delete trivia" side of the spectrum to help me devise wording which presents the policies in question as what they are: doable but not incontestable.--Father Goose 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

<=== Reset indent -- It would be nice if changes were proposed and discussed here and not discussed by an edit war on the guideline page.

What I have seen is many factoids are actually summaries of other articles that are already linked to the article containing the trivia section. I don't understand why this is needed in most cases since the reader only needs to look at the what links here to get the information. Also many factoids are actually historical facts that belong in a history section. Easy to move around and cleanup. The few random comments that would remain after converting most points to inline prose are generally not sourced and can be removed without any damage to the encyclopedic content. Vegaswikian 20:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this wording by Mangojuice: "Other entries may be too tangential, minor, or irrelevant for mention at all, but keep in mind that opinions vary." I disagree with Quadzilla99 about these being just extra unnecessary words: " but keep in mind that opinions vary." I believe these words (or versions of them such as some of the versions by Father Goose) are important, and clearly some of the other editors on this page also consider them important. They are words that could be tacked on as a reminder to almost any Wikipedia policy, but are particularly important here (and having read them here, a reader may also remember to keep the same in mind when applying other guidelines too.) These words will lead to different behaviour in using the guideline, I believe. They warn people not to just go ahead and delete things because they believe they're too tangential etc., but to stop and wonder first whether other editors will also consider them too tangential. They might then go ahead and delete them, or they might decide instead to discuss it on the talk page first -- or not even do that, if they realize that there are some people who consider the information relevant.

I don't like this version: "although this left up to editors' discretion." because I don't think it adequately conveys the idea Father Goose has been trying to get across in various versions.

In general, about trivia, I think that individual items of trivia can be removed or moved to a different article if they don't fit Wikipedia's content policy or are irrelevant to the article, and that editors should strive (in most cases) to move items out of the trivia list into the body of the article to make the article flow more smoothly, but that information should not be simply deleted from the article merely because it's in a trivia list.

If it's really just a matter of considering Father Goose's edit to be extra unnecessary words, why not concede that some people consider them important and let those few words stand? --Coppertwig 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the change to "...but keep in mind that opinions vary" and Marcus Taylor reverted it. It's not clear to me that Marcus Taylor has read the above explanation by me as to why I made that revert. Please reply here and address the actual points I raised above. An alternative wording would be "Some entries may be generally considered too tangential, minor, or irrelevant for mention at all." --Coppertwig 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I read everything here. It's totally unnecessary and pretty funny actually. "Keep in mind opinions vary". Seriously? What's next " A human being is a...(description)....but, keep in mind a human being is not a dog or a cat." It's also informal, and redundant as has been said. Marcus Taylor 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an example of silliness, not a contradictory pair of instructions similar to the one we are discussing. A closer analogy would be "Human beings should be accommodated and respected. Human beings who are undesirable should be jailed." Without some elaboration on the second sentence, either treatment of any given human becomes acceptable, according to whomever is wielding the truncheon at the time.--Father Goose 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the above, Marcus Taylor; however, I object to the revert that you did because you have not actually addressed the points I raised, in particular: "These words will lead to different behaviour in using the guideline" and "If it's really just a matter of considering Father Goose's edit to be extra unnecessary words, why not concede that some people consider them important and let those few words stand?". Note now also the comment I made in another section, that if the guideline is being widely misinterpreted then otherwise unnecessary words should be added to clarify it. Please restore the deleted text. --Coppertwig 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried an alternative wording. If "unnecessary" words are so objectionable, then it makes sense to remove the sentence saying that trivia that's too irrelevant, etc. may not belong. Obviously, anything that's "too" irrelevant, tangential, etc., doesn't belong, whether it's trivia or not, and editors are always allowed to remove material they think is inappropriate, following the whole WP:BOLD thing. Basically, the word "too" makes that sentence pointless; obviously anyone who deems something "too" [insert adjective] would have a problem with it. But without the "too" it goes way too far. "Irrelevant," I suppose, is still a good reason for removal, but "tangential?" I don't think removing everything tangential is supported by the community. Mangojuice^talk 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I support these changes which include the one mentioned by Mangojuice above. That solves the problem: it is not necessary to state that if other policies support removing material then the material may be removed; and deleting the statement will help avoid the misinterpretations of the policy that had been happening. Re Father Goose's addition: if material is irrelevant to one topic, it may be relevant to another topic, so moving it is often a good idea. --Coppertwig 14:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a positively Solomonic approach by Mangojuice, and I endorse it wholeheartedly. As regards my addition, I'd like to provide an example of its use here: a Tom Corcoran trivia entry moved out of Jimmy Buffett. I removed the Amy Lee entry at the same time (but forgot to note it in the edit summary); that information is already suitably covered at both Amy Lee (saxophonist) and Coral Reefer Band.--Father Goose 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

<=== Reset indent -- Oops, I mistakenly read "this is necessary" as "this is unneccessary", so I apologize for my most recent edit comment about it being used "opposite from its normal meaning". Nonetheless I would ask to be provided with a little more detail here, if you can: "This is necessary because..."--Father Goose 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the latest compromise proposed by Mangojuice: "Other entries that are clearly too tangential, minor, or irrelevant for mention may be removed." Again, that returns us to a subjective standard ("clearly"), and while I would agree that it softens the tone, it doesn't close the loophole. I know, for instance, that I am clearly right about my stance on this issue overall... yet my certitude grants me no extra latitude. Mangojuice's earlier suggestion, which omitted all portions which required subjective treatment, was best.

I hold out the hope that we might yet solve this dispute by going further down the path of the whitelist approach which I've been adding bit by bit. May I ask my fellow editors to offer me some examples of other items which should be removed on non-controversial grounds? What material warrants removal which is not yet covered by this version of the guideline?

--Father Goose 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit by Mangojuice is an improvement in my opinion but perhaps as Father Goose says does not go far enough. The idea is that it's appropriate for things to be removed if they would be generally considered too irrelevant etc., not if they happen to be considered irrelevant by one editor. Since deletion is easier than insertion (info can be effectively lost, not easy to find in edit history) care should be exercised. --Coppertwig 21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I consider these edits by Quadzilla99 and Mangojuice to be improvements, although I would prefer to delete the sentence "Other entries may be too tangential, minor, or irrelevant for mention at all." Better to address this in a content scope policy, as Father Goose suggests. --Coppertwig 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla's edit was a revert of the sentence to a version from four days ago (diff) (other changes not involving that sentence were retained). So the improvement, such as it is, is Mangojuice's alone. Anyhow, I'm gonna switch to the "definition of relevance" issue now.--Father Goose 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)