Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Request for comment

There is a related discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Video games and historical figures. Please take a moment to comment. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Expand WP:TRIVIA "in popular culture" guideline

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

---

There is established consensus that examples from popular culture are "not self-sourcing", that is, "The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." MOS:POPCULT "in popular culture" section currently suggests the cleanup of "unencyclopedically trivial" entries, but does not elaborate what they are. The article "In popular culture" does elaborate on this, and makes it clear: "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference" and "[examples] should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance". Should the quoted text from the consensus of the RfC discussion and the "in popular culture" article be added to MOS:POPCULT for clarification of what is "unencyclopedically trivial"? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the clarification is required. However the suggested language is completely inadequate. IMO there are three items to discuss:
  • Banish the term "in popular culture" in favor of "Cultural impact". (if you disagee, I may elaborate.
  • There are two types of cultural impact: immediate and by reference (not the best terms, probably)
    • Examples of immediate impact are film made from book, a monument to article subject, a star named after a pornstar etc., you get the idea. Usually there is no problem to find references for these.
    • Examples of impact by reference: "the gameplay of Fall-off is set in Chernobyl"; "We can see archetypal Jewish mother in Big Bang theory"; "rapper Fuckin' Bro used the word 'fuck' in his latest song", etc. This is the category which causes problems. The correct phrasing must state that the article subject has a significant impact on the design/plot of the listed cultural object. In some cases it is self-evident, and WP:V may be invoked. However in many case independent secondary sources must be demanded. - I wrote 'independent', then decided against it, because references to descriptions by the author of the cultural work are quite OK.

This is what is right off my head, may be more suggestions later. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can "banish" terms from Wikipedia... Let's focus on explaining what "unencyclopedically trivial" means. Your wording requires original research, asking for inference instead of relying on citations. Original research is exactly what the guideline aims for editors to avoid. The wording of the conclusion of the previous discussion nearly completely eliminate original research, and with the added advice from the "In popular culture" article, everything relies on the references themselves to provide the information, and no inference or "self-verifiability" is required. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes you can "banish". It is called "uniform style" . Quite a few synonyms have been "banished" in favor of section titles "See also", "References" and "External links". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My wording does not require original research. I am not asking for inference. My version sets a specific criterion, which must be established following normal wikipedia rules associated with WP:V. If you insist, here is a more nitpicking version: It must be established following the WP:V rules, that the article subject has a significant impact on the design/plot of the listed cultural object. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"The article subject has a significant impact on the listed item" is inference, and it's exactly the type of inference that the RfC seeks to eliminate. Instead, "The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance" puts all of the requirements on the source, with no additional inference. The additional requirements of "major, in-depth treatment" raises the bar on the quality of the source. While not specifically defining "major, in-depth treatment", it does allow removing sources that merely remark about the reference off-handedly. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that the source which writes "City of Apopka erected a monument to BrightRoundCircle" is inadmissible in the article BrightRoundCircle? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, IMO your are confusing wikipedian's inferences made in article text and inferences made while making decision about article content. The first one is called "original research" , the second is "consensus-building arguments". We do plenty of the latter ones e.g. during AfD. Or whether some minor bio factoid is worth including. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what the consensus of the previous discussion says, there are no "self-evident references" or "self-supporting sources". Whether an example is "worth including" or not is to be decided after there is a reference that shows the example's significance, prominence, importance, influence, and so forth. To give an example from the previous discussion, there are countless statues of Abraham Lincoln, but not each one of them is encyclopedic. How do we determine which one is encyclopedic? It's encyclopedic if there are sources that discuss its significance, rather than merely sources that show it exists. In other words: the bold text in the RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

re: "there are countless statues of Lincoln": In such cases we listify them (if there are enthusiasts); see List of communist monuments in Ukraine, List of statues of Vladimir Lenin, List of places named after C. Rajagopalachari, and many more. Whether a particular statue of Abe is encyclopedic is a policy of AfD, not list inclusion. If there are sources which discuss numerocity of Communist statues, then it is a justification of the corresponding list.

Normally a person does not have countless statues, and if one has, this itself is a matter of note, per WP:COMMONSENSE. E.g. a statue at the birthplace of, say, a war hero, is notable, even if the text about it does not explicitly babbles "this is a very important statue bla-bla". And BTW this is the case when wikipedians make judgement of notability; they infer it from secondary sources which describe the object.

In case of statues of Lenin, recent events in Ukraine show why this list is encyclopedic, each and every statue of Lenin is a matter of controversy (I will not dwell upon this here), and such list demonstrates something encyclopedic, even if each particular statue is a standard piece of Communist kitch. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. IMO this exchange shows that the guideline must distinguish several categories of cultural impact:

• Tribute (monuments, asteroids, books (fictional, biographical) about the person or his specific feat, etc.
• Influence (film based on a book, opera influenced by a legend, etc.)
• Usage (a novel exploits a peculiarity of the article subject for a significant twist of the plot; a notable memoir of a notable person dwells at lengths upon how another notable person changed his life, etc.)
• etc.

each with their own criteria of inclusion and way of handling. For example the "memoir" case is easily incorporable into article prose. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SAL and WP:EMBED are not in the scope of this discussion. If someone wants to make a "list of all <x> of <y>", that's covered under WP:SAL, which adequately covers list criteria (one of which is "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Reliable sources, not editor inference... but anyway WP:SAL is not part of this discussion).

Also not in the scope of this discussion is one example ("statue of a war hero"), which is neither WP:SAL nor a collection of "self-sourcing examples".

The scope of this discussion is MOS:POPCULT, in particular incorporating previous consensus into the guideline to make it clear that "self-sourcing" examples are not acceptable. Splitting hairs whether a reference is a tribute or an influence or a usage would result in more original research, not less, especially when these terms may sometimes be used interchangeably. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that "self-sourcing examples are not acceptable". I disagree with the suggested phrasing in bold as too restrictive. Also I disagree that "splitting hairs" is bad. Quite often it makes you think more systematically. Many words may be used interchangleably. MOreover, the same item may be both a tribute and influence. This does not change the fact than I see these as different categories, with the last one being most troublesome. However if you are insisting on extremely narrow scope of this RFC, here is my extremely narrow answer:

Strongly disagree: the phrasing of the proposal as given in boldface is too restrictive (and going away, per WP:SHED). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Despite WP:SHED, I still think this discussion is productive despite that, or because, we disagree. First, we noted that we're not talking about WP:SAL. Second, we saw that even WP:SAL requires reliable sources, not the inference of the editors, which is what this RfC is attempting to apply to MOS:POPCULT, in addition to a more specific requirement of significance. Third, instead of making categories upon categories each with its own rules, we can apply the same exclusion standards to all types of tributes, influences, usages, references, etc. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(from behind the shed :-) We agree on most points, with the single exception: treatment of the term "significance". You missed my point that "significance" is almost always "inference of the editors" . It is not that often reliable source say something like "The opera Can-Can-Me (opera) was significant for the ballet Can-Can-Me (ballet) because Can-Can-Me (ballet) was based on Can-Can-Me (opera)". The source will simply say "Can-Can-Me (ballet) was based Can-Can-Me (opera)" My common sense suggests that the latter simple statement of fact is sufficient for inclusion into "POPCULT", while it seems that you will be against because it was an inference of significance on my side. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. For a working definition, let's assume any discussion of the example within the article's context makes it significant. For example, there are many sources that discuss the work How a Mosquito Operates. However, in order to include it as an example in the article arthropods in film, there should be a source (and it should be referenced) that discusses How a Mosquito Operates within the context of "arthropods in film". Such a source exists - Encyclopedia of Insects, chapter Insects in movies.

So maybe instead of "significant" the guideline should say "discussed in the context of the topic of the article": Sources cited should not only establish the verifiability of the example, but also discuss it in the context of the topic of the Wikipedia article that includes the example. Brief mentions, such as mentions in lists and listicles, are not discussions." This way editors do not have to make a judgement call about what's "significant", and sources that make a mention in passing are excluded, and sources that discuss the example outside of the context of the article are excluded too. Since this new interpretation of "significant" is not part of an existing consensus, I guess this RfC needs a lot more participation now to determine a new consensus. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trivia SECTIONS vs trivial CONTENT?

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

Rewrote the popular culture section

See change here.

I made this change based on this 2015 RfC which was mentioned in the text, this long discussion at VPR, which has stalled with a fairly clear local consensus, and the guidance which already existed here.

There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject rather than about the thing referencing the subject, that prose is preferable to lists, and that it's often preferable to incorporate separate sections into the rest of the article.

Since there really doesn't seem like a lot of disagreement about those basic principles (which isn't to say no disagreement), I figured I'd boldly rewrite the section to be clearer about them. My hope is that we can shift the conversation from everyone agreeing about those principles to the specifics of the wording. I'll post a note to that VPR thread shortly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This is very good. I support it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I support the section as you rewrote it. - Donald Albury 21:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Same, looks great to me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm still opposed, but in the obvious minority. So, I guess it's c'est la vie for me... Huggums537 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Although I support the new wording, I am going to wait until more editors chime in here before I start trying to trim such sections. - Donald Albury 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

What trimming would you like to see? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to trimming items in "popular culture" sections that do not meet the criteria for inclusion, i.e., not supported by a reliable secondary source, etc. - Donald Albury 22:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, sorry I misunderstood. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just so you are fully aware what you have accomplished here, I would like to point out that these changes were made based on: There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject.... This consensus may have a clear majority, but it also has a clear basis in the notability guideline in spite of the supporters claims otherwise, particularly WP:NRV, where you can see that the "basic principles" being applied to IPC article content are nearly verbatim for that of the same guidelines in WP:NRV that we use for the creation of articles. Furthermore, WP:NNC tells us the "basic principles" of notability were never intended to be used for article content, but for article creation. These changes are an abuse that thumb their nose at existing guidelines in order to justify what they think they think is a solution to a problem, but they have not solved it in correct or proper manner. Huggums537 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Regardless of whether this is useful guidance, this is the wrong place for it. This is a style guideline, not a content guideline. See #What this guideline is not: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Before the rewrite, the IPC section only mentioned the 2015 RfC as a kind of postscript, after noting that "Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines addressing the content of pop-culture sections specifically". If we want to create such a guideline, I think it would need its own page, and consensus for it would need to be established with a well-advertised RfC. Dan from A.P. (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The section about this already existed. It's just been rewritten. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It existed as a style guideline. It's been rewritten as a content guideline. Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't even bother reading the old RfC because it didn't seem relevant since it was discussed so long ago, but I think the point about creating a new guideline with a a well advertised RfC is very well made... Huggums537 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To what end? A style guide is inherently a content guide, and other parts of the MOS touch on content. As is, the trivia guideline is already a content guidline. Seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay – whether or not this belongs in the MOS is a technical point; I don't want to get bogged down in that. My main point is that, prior to the rewrite, this guideline explicitly didn't make any suggestions about inclusion or exclusion criteria (that's what I meant by "content"). So to me, this rewrite doesn't represent the modification of an existing guideline, but the creation of an entirely new guideline. WP:PROPOSAL says: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community." I don't believe this requirement is met by an inconclusive Village Pump discussion which took place within a subsection of a completely different discussion. Dan from A.P. (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Since this discussion seemed to have stalled, I reverted back to the status quo until a consensus could be arrived at. I was reverted by User:MichaelMaggs, who said that the change already has consensus. As I've noted above, I don't think that's the case. On this page, we have a numerical consensus of 4 against 2, which isn't much, and no qualitative consensus at all. The Village Pump discussion, as I've said, doesn't meet the requirement of "a high level of consensus from the entire community", because (a) the result was inconclusive, and (b) it took place in the middle of a very confused RfC on a completely different question ("Should Wikipedia continue to have sections titled In popular culture?"). I'd also add that the Village Pump proposal said nothing about making any changes to this particular page; it was simply a proposal for new text to be added... somewhere.

But since we're obviously not in agreement on this, I'd suggest the next step would be to request a formal close of the Village Pump discussion; that way, we can settle the issue of whether that discussion established a consensus to make these changes to the guideline. Would everyone be okay with that? Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Counting numbers on this page and ignoring the explicitly linked Village Pump discussion of which this is a continuation is hardly a fair representation of the extent of consensus. But I've no objection to having the VP discussion closed by a non-involved admin. Where any agreed text should best be placed is a separate issue. There are good arguments for saying that the MOS is not the best place: it's only there now as that's where someone who initially implemented the result of the 2015 RFC happened to put it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've posted a closure request at WP:CR. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how anything like a consensus can be seen to have formed for this change being based on the 2015 RfC when not one single person from that discussion was pinged into the discussion about this change. Neither were any of them invited to discuss the change at village pump either... Huggums537 (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Change to article lead

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