Revision as of 17:25, 9 October 2007 editMontanabw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,550 edits →User:Burntsauce← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:26, 9 October 2007 edit undoWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →massive removal of contentNext edit → | ||
Line 464: | Line 464: | ||
::What it is, is a content dispute. To call it vandalism requires an assumption of bad faith, when it is perfectly reasonable to believe he though he was improving things. Not saying it was a good move, but it was not vandalsim. (] ? (]) 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC) | ::What it is, is a content dispute. To call it vandalism requires an assumption of bad faith, when it is perfectly reasonable to believe he though he was improving things. Not saying it was a good move, but it was not vandalsim. (] ? (]) 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::At this point the user has clearly acted improperly, if not in his/her ends, certainly in methods. Unrepentant, even defiant, contentious editing. Whatever the dispute may be about content, it's overshadowed by the mess the user is creating. ] 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | ===]=== |
Revision as of 17:26, 9 October 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Trivia sections page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Trivia sections page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Archives | |||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
The value of Trivia
One aspect of Misplaced Pages which I appeciate is the unfiltered information about films. While relevance might be debated, as long as this information is verifable, it does have value to others.
Compared to the current standard for film information, IMDB, I feel that site does not have enough information, and, of course, no way for me to add revelant, important, and interesting details.
Finally, the word trivia implies triviality. While minor details about movies might seem so, to interested film watchers and students, any bit of information might reveal insight or inspire thought. And the word "trivia" is the accepted term for film details, so I suggest continuing using it. Swfong 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- This guideline will make finding these same facts easier, and does not call for their removal. Please actually read the guideline before commenting. -- Ned Scott 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the guidelines for trivia are actively discouraging adding trivia, which has resulted in fewer details and other information. I recommend not having any warnings about trivia. Please read into the context of these guidelines, not just the letter.Swfong 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Trivia, actual trivia, by definition doesn't have a place on Misplaced Pages. Then there's the "fun facts" or "miscellaneous" trivia. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Scott, you're not answering to Swfong. He did talk about "details and other information", not about what you call actual trivia ("hobby:tennis", ok, that's one). And I support his motion that Trivia sections are valuable in certain articles. Some here seem to be mainly against the headline "trivia". Imho it's a total waste of time to discuss here whether sections should be named "Trivia" or "Details" or "Something else". This can't be decided generally, but should be discussed among the people really working at the articles. If it fits, it fits. I'm very much against the level of centralization that seems to be at work here.89.182.24.165 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. 89.182.24.165 presents a very good point that I've brought up before and that I think everyone should try to understand. Equazcion • argue/improvements • 02:42, 09/20/2007
- Hey, friends simply call me 89.182, Mr. Equazcion! :-) 89.182.135.194 12:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This can't be decided generally, but should be discussed among the people really working at the articles.
- The editors who integrate unorganized content from a trivia section are also people working on those hypothetical articles. Misplaced Pages can be edited by everyone. An article is not owned by those who came before.
If it fits, it fits.
- Of course. It says on the top of this guideline that it should normally be followed, but it has exceptions. However, there should be a good reason for making such an exception. And this is decided by the editors of the article. No idea why this seems so fascistic to some editors. If the article needs a trivia section, make a case for it on the article Talk page. If one doesn't want to do the work of integrating trivia, do something else, and others will do the integration. / edg ☺ ★ 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- He's saying that whether or not something fits doesn't need to be determined by a guideline; and if it doesn't fit, editors shouldn't have to defend that position against a guideline. Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:31, 09/20/2007
- I understand what this editor is saying. I am saying the guideline helps, and it does not impose such a terrible burden. / edg ☺ ★ 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was just making sure, because it didn't seem like you understood, and I didn't want to get all "Did you even READ this???" on you, the way some people react. You know? Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:44, 09/20/2007
- Thx for the carification, Edgarde, we don't seem to be that far apart. And you sure have much more experience than me. However, imho the guideline makes a much stronger point than what you said. I guess this authoritarian approach is what rubs many users the wrong way.89.182.135.194 12:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was just making sure, because it didn't seem like you understood, and I didn't want to get all "Did you even READ this???" on you, the way some people react. You know? Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:44, 09/20/2007
- I understand what this editor is saying. I am saying the guideline helps, and it does not impose such a terrible burden. / edg ☺ ★ 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- He's saying that whether or not something fits doesn't need to be determined by a guideline; and if it doesn't fit, editors shouldn't have to defend that position against a guideline. Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:31, 09/20/2007
- Scott, you're not answering to Swfong. He did talk about "details and other information", not about what you call actual trivia ("hobby:tennis", ok, that's one). And I support his motion that Trivia sections are valuable in certain articles. Some here seem to be mainly against the headline "trivia". Imho it's a total waste of time to discuss here whether sections should be named "Trivia" or "Details" or "Something else". This can't be decided generally, but should be discussed among the people really working at the articles. If it fits, it fits. I'm very much against the level of centralization that seems to be at work here.89.182.24.165 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Trivia, actual trivia, by definition doesn't have a place on Misplaced Pages. Then there's the "fun facts" or "miscellaneous" trivia. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the guidelines for trivia are actively discouraging adding trivia, which has resulted in fewer details and other information. I recommend not having any warnings about trivia. Please read into the context of these guidelines, not just the letter.Swfong 22:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This Guideline needs to be deprecated
How does one go about getting a Guideline deprecated? Perhaps a vote on this or another Talk page? Perhaps getting a Bureaucrat to make some sort of motion? Something else?... Especially for pop culture articles, this Guideline is just atrocious. It smacks of the influence of that common character type that loves to sit around tweaking and "improving" the Misplaced Pages model instead of putting their heads down and writing. JDG 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you found time to read this guideline yet? As it encourages writing, as opposed to simply appending without any process, you might find something to like in this guideline. / edg ☺ ★ 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Have you found the time to read this guideline". It would be nice if you didn't always assume that people are idiots. Some people simply disagree with you. Anyway. I think JDG thinks that the focus should be more on generally improving articles than on creating specific guidelines for telling people how they need to do that. That's my interpretation at least. And I'd agree with that. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:35, 09/19/2007
- From his comment it does not sound like he has read the guideline at all. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- To answer JDG's question, you don't. Currently this guideline has widespread support by community and by related guidelines. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you can claim widespread community support for this guideline. Various people have expressed disagreement with some aspect of this guideline, including JDG, Equazcion and myself, and I'm not aware of any determined effort to reach a consensus. Also, related guidelines are not this guideline, so either they're redundant or don't speak directly to these issues. James pic 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, widespread support? Where is it? Looking into the archives, I found that maybe 20 users held a poll on that guideline. Hmm, what percentage of all users is that??? Idon't really know if this guideline is necessary at all, as some others have said, most points are already made elsewhere, and I see the grave danger that this small group of users may impose rules on the people without having popular support. Be careful, pls. Less rules are better rules.89.182.24.165 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you can claim widespread community support for this guideline. Various people have expressed disagreement with some aspect of this guideline, including JDG, Equazcion and myself, and I'm not aware of any determined effort to reach a consensus. Also, related guidelines are not this guideline, so either they're redundant or don't speak directly to these issues. James pic 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- edit conflict... To Ned: It's entirely possible that he didn't. But I'll assume he did, just for the sake of optimism and good faith. Anyone who doubts this though could simply ask him in a polite and civil manner.
- To JDG: You can't really vote on whether or not to deprecate a guideline, cause there just isn't a process for it. There isn't even a process for accepting a guideline to begin with. Someone just tags a page one way or the other, according to how he perceives the current consensus. It turns out to pretty much be a majority rule. For instance, I could say this guideline is disputed; but if more people don't like me saying that than do, then there's nothing I can do about that. So get a majority together somehow, and get them to keep paying attention to this page, and then you can change things. Until then you just have to chip away at it little by little, and be happy winning your tiny battles. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 02:53, 09/19/2007
can you rename the trivia sections to "Other Info" or "Other Misc. Facts?" then there's no more trivia, but the content remains. i dunno just trying to make everyone happy (impossible!) :) --Scottymoze 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- To Ned Scott: "Widespread support"? To the question "are a lot of people in favour of this guideline?" the answer is of course yes. However, the opposite question "are a lot of people furious about what they perceive as the stupidity of this guideline?", the answer is equally certainly yes. Therefore claiming "widespread support" is slightly misleading. Mlewan 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The section titles themselves aren't what has everyone all bothered, Scotty. It's their contents. So changing the title won't really do much... sorry. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:20, 09/19/2007
- I disagree. This guideline effectively prohibits the longterm use of a "Trivia" section (only shortterm allowed), without caring if this title may make sense in a certain article. But Wiki doesn't forbid the use of lists, and so it seems that a list with the title, say, "Details" seems to be ok, under this guideline (as long as it is organized). But NOT "Trivia". This is ridiculous and smacks of censorship. This shouldn't be decided here at all in this general manner. The appropriate title of a section should be chosen by people working at a certain article, on a case by case basis, and not here. And if they think, "Trivia" makes sense and improves the article, and if they manage to organize it, why not?89.182.24.165 02:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I totally oppose this motion. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this motion. I enjoy "trivia" sections, and while they upset some of the more academic snob types, they make[REDACTED] more engaging for regular folks, and a few upset academics just need to find something else more important to get upset about, like the tragedy in Darfur or the failing economy. The world is a depressing place, and these trivia sections (which I invariably skip to) provide some brevity and lightness to otherwise boring articles. In fact, I would persue a motion to keep trivia sections but relegate all the non-academic or anecdotal information to them so that the academics can still lord over the vast majority of the rest of[REDACTED] while normal people can skip all that intellectual stuff and just read the "funnies". That might keep[REDACTED] interesting, and who knows, sometimes people might stray from the sugar and go for the fibre in the rest of the article once there.
This is a short sighted, anal retentive guideline IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.54 (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This Guideline needs to be deprecated - part2
"It smacks of the influence of that common character type that loves to sit around tweaking and "improving" the Misplaced Pages model instead of putting their heads down and writing". I'm not sure what you're trying to get across here- the majority of people who improve articles (note the lack of sarcastic quotes) spend a lot of time integrating trivia to make it readable and accessible. It takes an enormous amount of time and patience to integrate large bulleted lists throughout an article. This guideline is intended to save everyone some work and to present articles in a more easily readable fashion. It may seem like a wonderful idea to set a ridiculously low bar for contributions, but in all honesty, getting rid of this guideline would be like getting rid of guidelines telling people to wikify, use proper grammar, or provide sources.-Wafulz 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- No it wouldn't. People would still do whatever they think they need to do to improve articles -- and for experienced editors, that can mean integrating trivia, getting rid of trivia, or discouraging trivia. This guideline is just over one year old. Misplaced Pages got along fine without it all those prior years. It's definitely not quite as important as grammar. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:28, 09/19/2007
- Misplaced Pages got along fine with some pretty bad versions of things like WP:RS, but now we have better, stronger policies and guidelines to help us along. Trivia sections are completely unencyclopedic in presentation, and provide a format in which unencylopedic content can amass in an article. By encouraging editors to contribute content in a proper presentation (integrated into the article), we avoid having to do twice the work (one editor tacking info onto some list of data, another having to integrate it properly). It ensures that we spend less time tidying up stuff that should never have been left untidy, and avoids an open door for irrelevant or unremarkable chunks of data to be tacked onto articles haphazardly (people can and do leave such things on the talk page, frequently, saying "can somebody integrate this into the article?").
- Let me make an extended analogy - I have a silverware drawer. I do not throw all of my silverware in it, I have a little thing that separates forks, knives, and spoons. Now if we all share such a drawer, we should expect people to put their silverware in the correct spot. It (1) keeps things tidy and (2) prevents people from throwing forks and knives and cups and pencils in the big mess of a drawer, waiting for somebody to come sort it out and get rid of the stuff that doesn't belong there in the first place. --Cheeser1 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Great explantion. This could be added to the guideline. Thanks Cheeser! / edg ☺ ★ 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Equazcion, if you're familiar with the reasons we have this guideline, why are you arguing to depreciate it? --Cheeser1 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Who said I was arguing to deprecate it? Besides, familiarity with its reasoning does not imply agreement with it. You're under the mistaken impression that the people arguing against the guideline have all got some kind of misunderstanding about it. This is sometimes true, but not always. Explaining its reasoning over and over again will only get you so far. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:22, 09/19/2007
- I don't consider this a battle or an argument, Equazcion, I consider this a discussion. I'm sorry if you think I'm "explaining its reasoning over and over," but all I did was state it once and prove a helpful analogy (one that apparently garnered some praise). Why? Because I'm trying to work with you to understand the purpose of this guideline and see if we still need it. I believe it's intent is to keep articles from becoming a cluttered silverware drawer. Instead of talking to me about that, you simply tell me to (essentially) shut up because you've heard it all before. If you want to participate in a good faith discussion, so much the better. If you want to belittle me and make no comments that actually address my points, because you think you've heard it all before, then you feel free, but I'll only be responding to comments (from you or anyone else) that are productive and on topic from now on. --Cheeser1 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- No one's arguing (here) about the meaning of the guideline, or about the reasons it was imposed. People are disagreeing that it is needed. Explaining what the guideline is there for is irrelevant, because we all already know. Nevertheless you are free to do so, and I haven't told you to "shut up" about it. Just try to remember that the people arguing against it could very well fully understand the guideline and its purpose, yet still disagree that it's necessary. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:23, 09/20/2007
- An encyclopedia has guidelines for style/layout/content. Keeping information organized, written in meaningful paragraphs, within a reasonable structure, that should (and is) clearly a part of how we organize Misplaced Pages. Lists of data are not how we write encyclopedias, is how we write lists of data. The explanation is why it's necessary. That's why I stated it. We have a drawer we want people to be able to access, and find the silverware they need. Making a mess of it is totally contrary to our purpose. This isn't me berating people with this stuff, this is me explaining it and why it's there. I'm glad people could understand it and disagree, but I'd like to know why. If you're playing devil's advocate, let the devil speak for himself. If you're not, then fess up and explain why it is not as necessary as I've stated instead of dodging the issue by making such a side-step. --Cheeser1 01:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You've again explained the reasoning behind it. No one asked why it's necessary. People disagree that it's necessary. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:29, 09/20/2007
- Given that people are not automatically doing the things that this guideline recommends, that generally justifies the existence of a guideline. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know where to start telling you what's wrong with that statement (but I will). Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:00, 09/20/2007
- Ok here goes:
- People not doing what the guideline recommends does not justify the guideline being there. On the other hand, people not doing something that everyone agrees is good does justify there being a guideline for it -- but that's not necessarily the case here. In other words, you can't justify the existence of a rule by saying that if it wasn't there people wouldn't follow it. You're making the assumption that the instructions within the rule are unquestionably good. Meanwhile the argument is against the rule being of sound logic, or universally applicable.
- If people are not automatically doing it, that's evidence that there's no consensus for it.
- Your statement assumes that everyone does or should agree with your point of view on the contents of this guideline, when they clearly don't.
- Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:12, 09/20/2007
- Obviously I mean that this is true assuming the guideline is good advice, and normally should be followed. (Hell, people are not sending me money, but I'm not going to propose WP:SEND NED SOME MONEY) But this guideline is good advice, and people should normally follow this advice. I quote WP:TRIVIA: "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, as appropriate in text, list or table." Is this not true? -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It appears to depend on who you ask :) I won't get into the specifics of what's good and what's bad. I'm not looking start yet another trivia argument. But the point that people have brought up in this section is that your claim of widespread support in inaccurate, and I agree with them. That is, and has been for a very long time, my point. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:37, 09/20/2007
- It is a fundamental no-brainer that providing a logical grouping and ordering of facts is a good thing. Why else would we have the Manual of style? Can you point to me a single situation where this guideline did not improve an article? Even just one single article? -- Ned Scott 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't need to, because that's not what I'm arguing about. You can reason and call it obvious all you want. The fact remains that too many people disagree with you for you to claim widespread support. You make it seem like this guideline describes a sacred unchallenged truth of universal physics. Or something. It does not. Many have and continue to disagree with it. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:49, 09/20/2007
- Fine, but Misplaced Pages is specifically not a democracy for this very reason. If a large number of people object, even if the majority objects, but without good reason, Misplaced Pages doesn't care. We don't count hands, we count sound arguments. That being said, I still think that the majority of those who object are confusing this to be a content guideline that defines inclusion, even though no definition is given. These are editors lashing out at the actions of others who are removing trivia sections and want someone to blame. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't need to, because that's not what I'm arguing about. You can reason and call it obvious all you want. The fact remains that too many people disagree with you for you to claim widespread support. You make it seem like this guideline describes a sacred unchallenged truth of universal physics. Or something. It does not. Many have and continue to disagree with it. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:49, 09/20/2007
- It is a fundamental no-brainer that providing a logical grouping and ordering of facts is a good thing. Why else would we have the Manual of style? Can you point to me a single situation where this guideline did not improve an article? Even just one single article? -- Ned Scott 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It appears to depend on who you ask :) I won't get into the specifics of what's good and what's bad. I'm not looking start yet another trivia argument. But the point that people have brought up in this section is that your claim of widespread support in inaccurate, and I agree with them. That is, and has been for a very long time, my point. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:37, 09/20/2007
- Obviously I mean that this is true assuming the guideline is good advice, and normally should be followed. (Hell, people are not sending me money, but I'm not going to propose WP:SEND NED SOME MONEY) But this guideline is good advice, and people should normally follow this advice. I quote WP:TRIVIA: "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, as appropriate in text, list or table." Is this not true? -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Given that people are not automatically doing the things that this guideline recommends, that generally justifies the existence of a guideline. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You've again explained the reasoning behind it. No one asked why it's necessary. People disagree that it's necessary. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 01:29, 09/20/2007
←I think that's an assumption you're not necessarily licensed to make. You're taking the same stance as Cheeser; that if they don't support it they must not understand it. As I said before, this is sometimes the case, but not always. Our most recent anonymous visitor here seemed to have good reasons, that could fit along the lines of Misplaced Pages:Instruction creep. Furthermore, widespread support and consensus are two different things, at least within Misplaced Pages. Consensus may be based on discussion and non-democracy, but widespread support simply means almost everyone agrees, and that's just not true. I don't know what a consensus is anymore exactly, and I don't quite understand who gets to decide what the current consensus is (seems to me the majority side gets to decide...), but even if you can claim it for this, you can't also claim widespread support. It's just not there.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:11, 09/20/2007
(General comment about acceptance.) Acceptance or non-acceptance should be measured from how it is used in the encyclopedia and not just the comments on this page as it will likely only contain those who are working on the guideline and those that have problems with it. ●BillPP 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- So what happens if we can't agree on how it is used in the encyclopedia? And what happens if most of the use that occurs is due to the guideline in the first place? How many arguments have there been over trivia on article talk pages, that end with someone saying "The trivia guideline says to do this"? Does that count as "use", arguments being decided because one side can defend their position with a guideline? Can we make another guideline that says "Trivia sections are fine" just to balance things out and temporarily see which one people then "use"? Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:09, 09/20/2007
- What I meant was not to look too closely at the numbers that post here (as it's a very small amount of editors), and look at places where edits are more organised, like WikiProjects and Guidlines. For example, the guideline WP:EPISODE and its procedures has used this guideline a lot lately in it's push for better articles. For a better idea about "use", you can look at various large Wikiprojects, for example WP:TV, WP:NOVEL which both promote usage of this guideline. WP:FILMS has a list of pages in its scope that require trivia cleanup. Looking at other guidelines and Wikiprojects in particular is useful because it represents a large amount of editors who edit often. ●BillPP 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- By that logic, one could claim that this guideline isn't accepted, given the thousands of editors who have created or added to trivia sections. Consensus can be awfully hard to pin down.--Father Goose 21:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, it's hard to ascertain without a large scale discussion. But, people creating Trivia sections does not really give a clear number of users against the guideline as it doesn't indicate that the guideline is an issue. In the examples I gave to Equazcion above, It shows quantities of users that actively promote the guideline. Some sort of highly advertised central discussion would give everyone a chance to say something. ●BillPP 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure that would even help. This seems to be a unique issue in that the controversy isn't just over the question at hand, but over whether or not there is even a controversy. Despite everything that happens here and all the comments and fights that pass through, we aren't even allowed to so much as tag this guideline as disputed. Why? Because its proponents say that there is no dispute, and there are more of them paying attention here than there are others. Well of course there will be. What's more likely, people sticking around to police the guidelines or people sticking around to fight them, even when they can't seem to get anywhere? That's more like a poor example of democracy than it is a consensus. Just because people leave after they complain doesn't mean they're satisfied. Then others come complaining. But is this a disputed guideline? No, because its supporters say it's not; which by coincidence happens to suit them just fine.
- I think no one here really knows how to handle a situation like this. Not that I do. But Misplaced Pages just doesn't have a system for handling this. We can't leave "acceptance", "rejection" or "disputed" up to individual editors to war on. It always causes problems, always. There needs to be a process to weigh just how well accepted a guideline is, so that it can be tagged accordingly. We have processes for deletion; well this is more important and more prone to start battles. Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:25, 09/20/2007
- We don't mark things as rejected or as disputed just because there are some editors who don't like the page. We mark the page based on it's consensus, which is based on the arguments, the rationales, and the actual uses of the guideline. Bill brings up a very good point, in that there are tons of users who feel this guideline is a fundamental step to improving an article. On the other hand, we don't have a single example of when this guideline, when followed, would hurt an article. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Hurt an article" and "consensus" seem to be subjective. We have users who believe that trivia sections are fine for articles, we have users who believe trivia sections should be in articles, we have users who believe there is no consensus, we have users who believe the guideline is disputed. There's you, who happens to believe both in the guideline and in the guideline's acceptance and lack of a dispute. There's me, who at the very least believes that there is a dispute. There tons of users on each side. Who has more? You've solved nothing. You haven't said anything new. I could answer this comment by repeating the same two paragraphs you're responding to. Consensus is subjective. I believe there is none. Let me repeat that. There is no consensus. You want to tell me there is? Get all your friends together and say the same thing? Means diddly-squat. We need a process. GfD, Guidelines for Demotion. We need to establish a consensus, not declare it to each other. No one here knows what they're talking about. Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:03, 09/22/2007
- I hope you are not implying that we have a vote on it. This issue attracts too many people for consensus to be possible. Decisions on Misplaced Pages are made based on policy, consensus, and rational arguments/interpretations. It has been plainly established that cleaning up trivia sections is helpful in many cases. I have not seen a particular argument against trivia clean up - no examples of where it would be counterproductive. Consensus is not majority rule - if hundreds of people are involved in disputes or consensus building or whatever, it will not be a vote or a stalemate until unanimity is established. It will be a discussion in which (hopefully) a reasonable compromise will emerge, or in which one interpretation leads to an objectively more reasonable outcome. If a hundred users support a reasonable and logical argument for keeping this guideline, and a hundred support removing it with an illogical or poorly supported reason, there may not be a majority, but I think there's room to make a decision. That's how we do AfDs, RfAs, and what, everything else? --Cheeser1 08:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cheeser, how can we make a decision based on consensus if consensus is impossible? Who decides what's rational? What's reasonable? What's logical? Illogical? Poorly-supported? Is it you? Have you decided that the argument counter to yours is poor? Should that surprise me?
- Then I'll repeat myself, we have not even a single example that supports "the other side". We have lots of examples that show how the guideline is a benefit. You have to realize that people can be wrong about something when they object to it (not saying everyone is like that, but a good number of them). When people can't back up their arguments, and are often complaining about a misunderstanding, those voices are not given the same weight in the consensus building process. We have no officials on WIkipedia, no sanction judges, we only have our own common sense. What is your common sense telling you? I have the feeling you are going out of your way to ignore it simply because you want someone to make an official decree. The proof is in the very improvement that this guideline causes, where again I repeat myself, we have not even a single example to show that this is a bad guideline, but we have tons of examples that show that it is. What else do you want? -- Ned Scott 06:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Some people think that there are a lot of trivia sections that qualify as good examples of... of what? What are we talking about here? You want an example of the other side, meaning the side that says articles are better with their trivia sections intact? So that you can tell them that they're wrong? Who are you? There've been a few examples brought, but you or those that hold your opinion say they're wrong. I don't understand who is deciding what a good article is. I don't understand who gets to say that a person's argument is irrational. Sure, it can be obvious, if a million people feel one way and one person feels the other way. But when a thousand people feel one way and a thousand people feel the other way, well, then I'm sorry, but your decision that the opposing side doesn't know what they're talking about really needs more grounds than your side's say-so.
- Let me put it a little simpler: You're asking for an example of an instance where a trivia section is actually good for an article. You feel this is a reasonable request that shows your objectivity, but it is not. What you're really saying is, "Show me an article where I agree that the trivia section is good for the article;" This is not helpful, because you and your opponents have differing opinions of what is good for an article, and therefore neither of you can decide on this with any degree of objectivity. Until we have a process for sorting this out, it's just two opponents telling each other to go to hell. Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:48, 09/23/2007
- I'm sorry, but my comments to you are assuming you are going to be using common sense. If someone does not have logic to backup their argument, then they really don't have an argument. If you give me an example of what the "other side" thinks is a good trivia section, I will show you a version of that list that is an improvement, and will show you a consensus discussion on the talk page of said article to prove it. I am willing to preform this example many times. If in any of those situations, even just one, someone gets a consensus that favors a trivia section, then we might be on to something. I have never told anyone to go to hell, and I have not assumed that all those who have a problem with this guideline simply don't understand it. To be blunt, I'm getting tired of your bullshit conclusions about my position in this debate. Who the hell are you to assume what I mean, when I bluntly tell you otherwise? Who the hell are you to say that I am not listening to others, giving them a fair chance in my mind, or that I am incapable of being objective in this discussion? You are not helping this situation, you are promoting a dispute because you believe there should be a dispute. My comments are directed at those who have an actual objection with this guideline, so if you don't have one, don't respond to me. You are interrupting the discussion to say "HEY GUYS, THERE IS A DISPUTE", totally taking away from the actual discussion itself. For the love of god, shut up and let me talk to those who have an objection. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You aren't equipped to judge common sense either, again unless you have some overwhelming majority backing you up. Same goes for "logic" -- much logic has been presented in the argument, it just isn't logic that you consider valid. The consensus that would occur on that example article's talk page would generally be representative of the consensus here since those are the people who would be in on that discussion.
- In response to your emotional tirade, I never said you told someone to go to hell, I don't believe I made assumptions about how you feel (except to say that you're on one side of the argument, which hardly requires reading your mind to deduce), I never said you weren't listening to others or giving them a fair chance in your mind. But that's just the problem, the "in your mind" part, which is exactly where the closing decision of this debate does not belong. You are free to talk to whomever you like and disregard my comments completely. I never called you out directly to argue with me. My comments are general, and directed at whomever is interested in responding. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:18, 09/23/2007
Let's start with content
- Removing this guideline or marking it rejected will not solve any actual problems. Working on it until we reach some agreement on what it should say might help. Even if we can agree on only broad principles, we should say just what they are. I think at this point we need to discuss both the content and the arrangement in order to avoid confusion.
- Let's start with content. Personally, with respect to content, I would like a clear statement that the use of themes or significant plot elements, characters, or major background elements in notable works & works by notable authors/artists can be encyclopedic content. I'd also like a clear statement that biographic details important to peoples works and character can be encyclopedic, as can important production details about a work, and about its subsequent manifestations. (please note the qualifiers--and I said can, not are always). I think these three situations cover most of the really important material. DGG (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary for this guideline to start talking about what's notable and what's not. That would be more appropriate in another guideline on content. ●BillPP 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Would your statement differ from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? How are these issues relevant to Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections? I'm not saying you are absolutely wrong; I just don't understand why you consider them an issue here.
- I really think content discussion belongs on a content-oriented guideline, such as WP:NOT#TRIVIA. Here it would just confuse (if not inflame) the issue. / edg ☺ ★ 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just about to suggest that. Edit WP:ROC to have it reflect your thoughts. The kind of guidance you're suggesting here is outside the scope of this guideline.--Father Goose 00:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think DGG means that just because Peter Griffin mentions Benjamin Disraeli in an episode of Family Guy, doesn't mean that it needs to be mentioned in the article on Benjamin Disraeli. This is the type of content that tends to fill "Trivia/In Popular Culture/Whatever" sections, so I can see why DGG would suggest putting it in this guideline.-Wafulz 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, in the example you just gave, I think the Family Guy mention of Disraeli is not worth including in the articles Benjamin Disraeli or Family Guy. However, I don't think Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections should directly address issues of content, so I don't think it's appropriate here.
- Recent discussion on this page is being pushed into the Archives pretty quickly. Adding off-topic discussion adds to the problem. / edg ☺ ★ 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- fine--what I am trying to do is to get the two separate issues sorted out--I agree that they are separate, but most of the prior discussions have gotten them confused. If it is accepted that the material can be notable, then there should really be no need for much conflict here: what can be integrated should be integrated, and if there is too much material of a particular type, then the article may need to be divided.
DGG (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have to ask, what is your objection to the guideline? It seems the only thing you've said is that it might not represent a consensus. But for a moment, lets say that wasn't a factor, and we didn't know who supported what, but what would you personally feel about this guideline? -- Ned Scott 06:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The best way to present information
Is it always true that there's a better way to present information than a trivia section? A lot of the discussion on this page, as well as the project page itself, seems to be based on the assumption that it is. I'd like to give a possible example where it isn't. Take for example the page Emley Moor transmitting station. The following item from the trivia section is about the original tower, which collapsed in the 1960s:
- In 1997, the top 8ft section of the mast was plated in gold leaf and exhibited at the London "British Calamities" exhibition. The mast section has now been split into 16 smaller sections which are awarded each year at the Arqiva Christmas party for calamities within the workplace.
Removing this piece of information from the article would not be appropriate, as it's relevant and (I think) notable (even it it isn't notable, we could, for the sake of argument, consider a hypothetical collapsed TV tower which was exhibited in a notable way).
Moving it to one of the other sections, such as the section about the original tower or its collapse wouldn't be appropriate, as it doesn't fit comfortably into either of these sections.
Finally, adding enough context to give it a section of its own wouldn't be appropriate either, because whilst the fact itself is relevant to the article, the context (information about the exhibition, etc.) is not.
What are people's thoughts? James pic 10:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not always easy to integrate trivia.. but that's clearly something that doesn't belong in a section called "trivia." There's a history section, though, and this seems like a part of the tower's history. Maybe that would need a new subsection like "later history" or "aftermath." In general, the structure of that article is a bit choppy, and could stand to be reconsidered from scratch, and then this might be easier to integrate. If these things are too hard to do right away, then leave it in the trivia section: there is no deadline after all. If someone comes in and cleans up the trivia section in a different way and removes the item, you could always add the trivia section back if you still can't integrate it, or just integrate it in an imperfect way. Mangojuice 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's not such a great example. At least two of those items should be removed: the one that states the elevation of the top and the one that tells you which roads the tower can be seen from, those are both unnecessary (the elevation might be able to go somewhere else, perhaps the infobox). The second item is a little strange and could also go, as it doesn't seem to contain anything notable. The poem item can be added to the lead section, as a kind of proof of notability/cultural influence/landmark status. The other items have to do with history and can be integrated, although unfortunately not into any paragraphs that currently exist. The History section would need to be expanded to include more than just the collapse. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:00, 09/20/2007
just an idea
I've tried to keep up with the circular discussions here and on the template's talk page. And I take it this has been going on quite a while. I see a lot of talk about what I'll refer to as "good" trivia and "bad" trivia — the bad being, well, trivia in the full pejorative sense, and "good" being anything else that at least some view as being worthy of a stab at clean-up and integration.
I think we've got too many peas in the pod. This guideline should really be be about sections of articles that contain true trivia that should almost (but not quite) be nuked on sight, and some other guideline (Misplaced Pages:Unordered lists of miscellaneous information?) should be built from much of the current content of this guideline. Ya, I know, one person's information is another's trivia.
Fact is, trivia is unencyclopaedic and there's a ton of it in articles out there. Quite frankly, I'd be all for something like the spamlist that prevents adding sections named 'trivia' and bots that mass-nuked extant sections. If people want to integrate something from one of these nuked sections, they can get it from history. --Jack Merridew 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Embedded list
I have proposed that this article be merged with Misplaced Pages:Embedded list - talk on Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Linking "Relevance of content"
Please remove this.
For issues of inclusion, see the proposal Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content
Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content, currently linked from the article body, is an unreviewed proposal that has already been rejected under another name, and contains no actionable recommendations regarding inclusion/exclusion. I strongly object to using Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections to elevate the Relevance of content proposal, or any suggestion that Relevance of content may be a recommended procedure on Misplaced Pages.
If there is a need to link a policy explaining "trivia" as unimportant material that may be excluded, the policy to link is Misplaced Pages is not a trivia collection, provided that hasn't been deleted again. If WP:NOT#TRIVIA has been deleted, then there is no policy whatsoever, and say that instead. Referring editors to Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content is not helpful, and wastes their time. / edg ☺ ★ 06:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- If we have links to essays, surely we can have links to proposed guidelines. Unless you want remove links to anything that's not a guideline, you don't have much grounds to remove this particular one. And I really doubt wasting peoples' time should be a concern. If people don't want to read it, they don't have to, and even if they do, it's a pretty short page. Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:20, 09/23/2007
- That's a false choice. Relevance of content has not gained the acceptance that other essays in Misplaced Pages space have. In fact, it is largely based on a rejected proposal for Misplaced Pages:Relevance. Here we have a policy hole being plugged with a new, unapproved essay. And while I haven't checked the histories here, I would bet by an essay written largely by the editor who created the hole. That's dealing off the bottom of the deck. / edg ☺ ★ 06:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your opinion of acceptance of either page has to do with anything. They're both essays. They're both not guidelines. That's the only thing we know for certain. If we can link to one, we can link to the other. It doesn't do anyone any harm. Both only offer advice that people can choose to use or not use. Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:30, 09/23/2007
- Well, let's accept that logic for argument's sake. There remains another issue. Misplaced Pages is not a trivia collection was changed boldly, and then it remains were deleted from WP:NOT with the justification there was supposedly insuffient consensus for that to be a Policy. However, there certainly seems to be substantial support for having that as policy, and which cannot be said about Relevance of content.
- In the principal that any essay can be plugged into guidelines without consensus, I would propose a compromise where the contents of Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content, which has no support, are replaced with Misplaced Pages is not a trivia collection, which even tho consensus is disputed, clearly has wide support. Editors may choose to use or not use it. We'll also add Any edit by Equazcion may be reverted without argument or explanation. It doesn't do anyone any harm — after all we can all agree on what the good edits are. If the user doesn't find it helpful, they don't have to use this suggestion, or even read it in the first place.
- Surely you can have no objection to that, per your own interesting rules.
- I mean, I could make a proposal called Guidelines for inclusion where I copy in various content-relevant bits from other Misplaced Pages policies, carefully avoiding any actionable information on inclusion, and plug it into a policy hole that I would create by deleting WP:NOT#TRIVIA. But hey, that work's already been done. / edg ☺ ★ 07:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- If ROC had anything to do with trivia I might consider this compromise you suggest, however they are two completely different things. Just because certain content is "more accepted" (maybe) than other content does not mean they're interchangeable. If you feel so strongly about trivia and feel that it pertains so much to the relevance argument, then I suggest you head over to Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content and discuss additions that might more directly address the trivia issue. Furthermore, links or information added for "use or not use" still need to be helpful and relevant. Relevance of content is something that many editors are really looking for when they head over to this guideline, due to the slightly misleading title of "trivia sections", which denotes a guideline dealing in unimportant or irrelevant content. It helps to offer those people some advice rather than giving them a dead-end. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:35, 09/23/2007
- My objection to ROC is that it is being represented as being about omitting unimportant material, which directly impacts on the content side of the trivia concern. In fact, "unimportant material" is the very definition of trivial.
- So you'll support this compromise? I like my proposal more. / edg ☺ ★ 07:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Of course not, I don't support either of them. ROC is not about trivia, but it is helpful to those who come in search of the dictionary version of trivia. The "content side of the trivia concern" has nothing directly to do with trivia sections. It has to do with trivia, in its most technical sense, and not the Misplaced Pages vernacular, which is the only use in this guideline. Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:47, 09/23/2007
- Of course it's not about "trivia sections". Neither of us said it was, nor is this stated currently in WP:TRIVIA, nor was my objection to its relevance to trivia sections. What you are saying now is entirely beside the point.
- So my proposal is really quite okay with you. You just misunderstand it. Please re-read. We're on the same page, you and me. / edg ☺ ★ 07:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- And why not? I've gone to some length to accommodate you here. This is your rules I'm playing by. I mean, really, your suggestion that any essay is the same as any other, and all can be plugged into any guideline, was pretty nihilistic. But I didn't even question that. My sole argument is to use the more supported principal, and not even make it a policy. Sounds pretty fair to me. More than fair, considering what I've been given. / edg ☺ ★ 08:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're handwaving my concerns saying they don't matter. And you consistently gainsay Misplaced Pages is not a collection of trivia, disputing all reasonable claims in its favor, and interpreting all resistance to the principle as plainly invalidating the principle. I get it. No further discussion is needed.
- Misplaced Pages:Relevance of content should come out of this article, for the reasons I stated at the top of this section. The rest of this thread is a mere distraction. / edg ☺ ★ 10:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- I could say all the same things about your argument. I could say all the same things about all your arguments, or anyone else's arguments. All that's required is for someone to not back down, and then you can declare that this person is unreasonable and arguments with this person won't get you anywhere so don't try. You've lost the argument and you have nothing else left to say, so you've resorted to saying that this entire thread, most of which consist of your words, was pointless. There is no reason to remove WP:ROC from this page, as I've already demonstrated. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:23, 09/23/2007
I completely agree. WP:ROC is already being used in these discussions to support removing/modifying guidelines and policies elsewhere. This is absurd, bizarre, and underhanded. I'm removing it myself. --Cheeser1 14:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relevance is being used, not the relevance guideline proposal per se. It's not absurd or underhanded. It's logic. If something isn't relevant it shouldn't be in an article; WP:ROC is an attempt at spelling out what relevance means. And it's not a guideline, so it's not binding. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:23, 09/23/2007
- ROC is being used to support removing stuff elsewhere? Can you back this up with a diff or something? I'm not aware of anyone actually doing this.--Father Goose 04:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- ROC is being used in places, e.g. here, posing as a guideline/policy regarding trivia as content. There is an ongoing debate about removing WP:NOT#TRIVIA which serves the same function. You both support ROC and both oppose NOT#TRIVIA. I find this interesting. Father Goose: I may have phrased what I said incorrectly - the removal of particular policies is leaving open a gap that ROC conveniently fills. The best (only?) real reason I've seen for removing WP:NOT#TRIVIA is "consensus doesn't support it," and yet we've got people linking to WP:ROC as a way to deal with trivia (as content) already? And it just happens to be the two of you? I'm not going to speculate as to what's going on here, and it may be nothing, but you've both been gungho about your bold removal of WP:NOT#TRIVIA, and I've dropped the discussion there because I'm not getting straight answers out of anybody. I'm going to step aside in this one too - There's clearly alot going on here, the same dispute is essentially spanning several policies/guidelines/etc and has become fairly contentious. I can't seem to get straight answers, beyond a run-around about consensus that may have existed in the past justifying bold changes to an article. This dispute is insane, and I'm not interested in getting browbeaten and run around by anyone who doesn't seem to understand that the first step in building consensus is explaining your position clearly. --Cheeser1 05:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bad idea to read motives into people's actions (as opposed to their words). I've been guilty of it myself in the past, and ended up looking like a fool. WP:AGF is always good advice.
- My reasons for removing NOT#TRIVIA were exactly as I stated on its talk page. Either it is meant to exclude trivia from Misplaced Pages, a position that is without consensus -- or it is limited to reiterating this guideline's advice, which is a matter of style that doesn't belong in WP:NOT. The purpose of WP:NOT is to exclude entire classes of information, and I agree with most of what's in it. But there is definitely not a consensus to exclude trivia, per se, from Misplaced Pages.
- There is a consensus against including facts in large and disorganized lists; that is expressed by this guideline here, and given the number of {{trivia}} tags side-wide, it's not like people are going to overlook this page. I think Misplaced Pages additionally would benefit from a guideline that lays out "what material is irrelevant" (to a given article), and WP:ROC is an attempt to forge a consensus regarding that issue. But I certainly didn't remove NOT#TRIVIA to bolster ROC, and more importantly, I don't see why you're opposed to ROC anyway. It isn't a magic bullet against trivia -- it doesn't say "delete all this shit on sight" -- but it does lay down a baseline for when stuff is relevant and when it isn't. I'm surprised that's something you don't want to throw your weight behind.--Father Goose 06:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Origin of this policy?
Could someone please amend the project page to include sources citing how it came to be that trivia sections are discouraged? --Carterhawk 07:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- They're called talk page archives. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that isn't the correct history of this page. The editor who gives us that summary is wrong, in that when WP:5P linked to Misplaced Pages:Trivia, it did not redirect to this page. That history is about the discouragement of trivial information, and is not totally related to why we discourage trivia sections for style reasons. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a better history somewhere? I'd be happy to link one if I knew it. If this knowledge is arcane and undocumented, then Carterhawk can't be blamed for getting the wrong idea. No one on WT:NOT felt a need to correct DHowell, or disputed DHowell's history beyond "there were other reasons". (And Eryian's link doesn't really seem on topic, tho it may have been moreso at the time.) / edg ☺ ★ 07:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks guys, I think my point is that somewhere on the main project page, it should be shown why this was decided and who decided it. everything else on[REDACTED] is cited, and I just feel like policies like this one should be no exception. Somewhere, someone(s) in some kind of authority decided to make this official policy. As such, there should be an official explanation, some kind of minutes, anything. I'm not trying to argue against the policy anything like that, I'm just curious about it's origins.--Carterhawk 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- You'd think so, but that's not really how it's done. Guidelines become accepted as guidelines after a period of use; if they help matters and don't cause problems, they are made official. Interestingly, someone cited something I wrote a few weeks ago. I was quite surprised, and actually told that editor it wasn't anything like a guideline. However, after a few hundred more usages (won't happen, just hypothetical), it would become a guideline, at least in effect.
- No central authority makes the decision — it's all in what gets used. A sensible-sounding proposal that no one ever wants to cite won't become a guideline. / edg ☺ ★ 15:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds so great in theory, doesn't it? In actuality, this page was tagged as a proposed guideline as soon as it was created, and then made a guideline three months later as the result of a poll that closed 27 to 16 in favor. The "closing" editor, who was not working on behalf of any known Misplaced Pages process, noted a 62% majority as reason to make this a guideline. This was considered to be non-democratic and a consensus. Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:31, 09/25/2007
- And it was. Look at the rationales behind the "votes" and the percentage goes up. Also, "The "closing" editor, who was not working on behalf of any known Misplaced Pages process", is simply not true. At the time of the poll WP:CON said "This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. " . Misplaced Pages requires that we have faith in the judgement of others to a reasonable extent. We have faith that when they write guidelines they not only represent their own view, but the views of others they have interacted with, as well as using context and logical judgement. Equazcion, I know you disagree with this, but that's how Misplaced Pages works, and there is no clear judge to declare a consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the supermajority thing that was in effect back then. But it's not now. And I'm not quite sure I understand your statement, "Misplaced Pages requires that we have faith in the judgement of others to a reasonable extent. We have faith that when they write guidelines they not only represent their own view..." You can't possibly expect me to buy that. What does this mean, that if a guideline appears saying something I disagree with, or even something that many disagree with, that I should just accept it anyway out of faith? At the risk of setting you off again, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I sincerely hope no one takes it to heart. Misplaced Pages requires me to have faith in peoples' intentions when they say things, but when it comes to the result, meaning how effective, rational, or appropriate something is, especially a rule, neither I nor anyone else should keep quiet or back down out of faith in the person who wrote it. That's just ridiculous. The degree to which a guideline represents the interests of the editors has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with what the words say. If I read a guideline and think that guideline doesn't accurately represent my view and "the views of other", that's not a problem that faith can fix, and I damn well better speak up. Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:14, 09/25/2007
- "What does this mean, that if a guideline appears saying something I disagree with, or even something that many disagree with, that I should just accept it anyway out of faith?" No, not at all. Also, it is a flawed process, and doesn't always work out, which is why we can change things after the fact. I said that because you yourself didn't seem to have an objection with the page, but rather you simply questioned the consensus. If you have a problem with it, or if you believe that someone else's concern is valid, then it is totally acceptable to re-evaluate the situation. I just mean to say that when people do write guidelines, they often are including more views than just their own. -- Ned Scott 11:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I'm well aware of that. I never suggested that a guideline is the result of one person trying to force his view on everyone else. So now that we've got that cleared up, there's no consensus for this guideline. And PS, there's no rule that says that any objections voiced must be to the guideline's words and must not be based purely on the view that consensus is lacking. Lots of people complain about the guideline, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything; so sometimes it behooves someone to observe this and step back and call everyones' attention to the big picture, saying hey, look at all this argument and complaining, there is no consensus. And Ned, I realize you disagree with that, but that's how Misplaced Pages works, and its all our jobs to try and figure out if there is a consensus or lack thereof; and the only way to do that is by discussing that very subject. Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:32, 09/25/2007
- I'm sorry, but you are in no place to judge if this has consensus or not, not anymore than I. No really, stop wasting our time, Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy. If something has good advice, and improves articles, faced with the lack of even a single example to show otherwise, it's a damn guideline. -- Ned Scott 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- That is to say, if you would actually like to point something out, that would be a better use of our time, rather than just ominous statements of non-consensus. -- Ned Scott 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not everyone believes it's good advice and that it improves articles, and bringing an example of an instance where you agree that it doesn't may be impossible, since people disagree on what makes an article good. So uh... stop wasting my time with your silly baseless arguments that basically boil down to "my opinion is better than yours". I actually don't believe in the whole "stop wasting my time" argument, and I would never say that to someone, but since you said it I figured I'd throw it right back at you. I agree though, actually. I think this is a waste of your time, you're not getting anywhere, and you should just give up and let someone else take over and argue with me. Maybe they'll have more luck getting me to shut my yapper. Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:21, 09/25/2007
- I'm sorry, I was out of line, but without something to work with, we can't improve anything or do anything except speak about hypotheticals. It doesn't excuse how rude I was, but it's just so frustrating when all you have is maybes. I've tried to address individual concerns on the talk page when people bring them up, and I think many of them go away with a better understanding of what is supposed to be done with this guideline. Many others never responded back, or we simply still mad about someone else's actions in removing trivia sections. What are the issues that need to be addressed? What are people disagreeing with, and why? -- Ned Scott 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not everyone believes it's good advice and that it improves articles, and bringing an example of an instance where you agree that it doesn't may be impossible, since people disagree on what makes an article good. So uh... stop wasting my time with your silly baseless arguments that basically boil down to "my opinion is better than yours". I actually don't believe in the whole "stop wasting my time" argument, and I would never say that to someone, but since you said it I figured I'd throw it right back at you. I agree though, actually. I think this is a waste of your time, you're not getting anywhere, and you should just give up and let someone else take over and argue with me. Maybe they'll have more luck getting me to shut my yapper. Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:21, 09/25/2007
- That is to say, if you would actually like to point something out, that would be a better use of our time, rather than just ominous statements of non-consensus. -- Ned Scott 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are in no place to judge if this has consensus or not, not anymore than I. No really, stop wasting our time, Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy. If something has good advice, and improves articles, faced with the lack of even a single example to show otherwise, it's a damn guideline. -- Ned Scott 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I'm well aware of that. I never suggested that a guideline is the result of one person trying to force his view on everyone else. So now that we've got that cleared up, there's no consensus for this guideline. And PS, there's no rule that says that any objections voiced must be to the guideline's words and must not be based purely on the view that consensus is lacking. Lots of people complain about the guideline, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything; so sometimes it behooves someone to observe this and step back and call everyones' attention to the big picture, saying hey, look at all this argument and complaining, there is no consensus. And Ned, I realize you disagree with that, but that's how Misplaced Pages works, and its all our jobs to try and figure out if there is a consensus or lack thereof; and the only way to do that is by discussing that very subject. Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:32, 09/25/2007
- "What does this mean, that if a guideline appears saying something I disagree with, or even something that many disagree with, that I should just accept it anyway out of faith?" No, not at all. Also, it is a flawed process, and doesn't always work out, which is why we can change things after the fact. I said that because you yourself didn't seem to have an objection with the page, but rather you simply questioned the consensus. If you have a problem with it, or if you believe that someone else's concern is valid, then it is totally acceptable to re-evaluate the situation. I just mean to say that when people do write guidelines, they often are including more views than just their own. -- Ned Scott 11:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know about the supermajority thing that was in effect back then. But it's not now. And I'm not quite sure I understand your statement, "Misplaced Pages requires that we have faith in the judgement of others to a reasonable extent. We have faith that when they write guidelines they not only represent their own view..." You can't possibly expect me to buy that. What does this mean, that if a guideline appears saying something I disagree with, or even something that many disagree with, that I should just accept it anyway out of faith? At the risk of setting you off again, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and I sincerely hope no one takes it to heart. Misplaced Pages requires me to have faith in peoples' intentions when they say things, but when it comes to the result, meaning how effective, rational, or appropriate something is, especially a rule, neither I nor anyone else should keep quiet or back down out of faith in the person who wrote it. That's just ridiculous. The degree to which a guideline represents the interests of the editors has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with what the words say. If I read a guideline and think that guideline doesn't accurately represent my view and "the views of other", that's not a problem that faith can fix, and I damn well better speak up. Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:14, 09/25/2007
- And it was. Look at the rationales behind the "votes" and the percentage goes up. Also, "The "closing" editor, who was not working on behalf of any known Misplaced Pages process", is simply not true. At the time of the poll WP:CON said "This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds. " . Misplaced Pages requires that we have faith in the judgement of others to a reasonable extent. We have faith that when they write guidelines they not only represent their own view, but the views of others they have interacted with, as well as using context and logical judgement. Equazcion, I know you disagree with this, but that's how Misplaced Pages works, and there is no clear judge to declare a consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds so great in theory, doesn't it? In actuality, this page was tagged as a proposed guideline as soon as it was created, and then made a guideline three months later as the result of a poll that closed 27 to 16 in favor. The "closing" editor, who was not working on behalf of any known Misplaced Pages process, noted a 62% majority as reason to make this a guideline. This was considered to be non-democratic and a consensus. Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:31, 09/25/2007
Arbitrary break for ease of editing
←That's okay, controversial subjects bring out the worst in everyone, myself included. Generally the best counterpoint I've seen to the trivia guideline is that it wouldn't be a terrible thing if articles could be allowed to have a bit of limited trivia in a trivia section, because there are certain bits of information that are small enough to literally get lost in the prose of the article. They don't belong anywhere, they don't necessarily play any big part in the subject of any other section; and integrating them would either mean shoving them into a place where they don't belong and will probably end up being deleted, or expanding them with useless fluff that likewise ends up degrading the article. I won't pretend to be objective here -- I've offered these as arguments myself before, but I'm also not alone.
I'll also admit that even the items that might in the beginning seem to warrant a trivia section might eventually be better if integrated, but that can be left up to whoever is editing the article. We don't need a rule that tells us "This section is all wrong and needs to be dealt with". Let editors decide on the basis of the article. If they decide, via talk page discussion, to keep a trivia section, of reasonable length, and where all other guidelines apply, including verifiability and notability, then that should not be considered a bad thing. If people want to then try integrating the items, maybe once more information is available, when people are willing to do the research to turn an item into a contribution to another section, then they may do so, and it will be up to the editors to decide if the edit should stand.
I hope that now that we have a lull on the battlefield, even a truce if you will, that all the people with something to say about this will come forward while still keeping this civil and relatively bloodless. I'm especially looking at you, Kevin, so I hope you'll come forward and share a little bit of what you've gathered from recent experience. Thanks to all.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:21, 09/27/2007- I don't know what kind of a standing I have to offer my opinion here, but acting primarily as a consumer of[REDACTED] content (as opposed to contributor), I believe doing away with a section that many people find useful and entertaining (myself included) is misguided. If the issue is truly that trivia sections can look unsightly -- not that the info is incorrect -- a project should be put together to clean and rework these sections without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The rationale for having a separate trivia section has been stated here many times and I will not repeat it, but it strikes me as a poor solution to do away with the sections of an article which 1) Are a very quick, entertaining, and easy read 2) Are a very quick and easy place to contribute (for better or worse) 3) Are one of the primary items which makes Misplaced Pages unique in the reference material space. That's my 3 cents (inflation). Coreydaj 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with trivia?
It is quite entertaining, and on many pages it is the best part of the page. Now don't give me lots of your "it's not proper for a standard Misplaced Pages entry, per WP:TALK. Trivia clutters up the page and should be deleted" crap. Don't give me that! I truly don't see why you need to delete the best part of a page, which thoroughly amuses me and many other readers. Someone please explain to me (in English, NOT Wikipedian) a convincing reason why the trivia sections of pages are oh so illegal and need to be removed.
Long live trivia!--Gingerbreadmann 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Trivia, in the fullest sense, would mean any information related to the article's topic. Clearly, trivia is not a precisely defined term, so if we're trying to include or exclude trivia, opinions vary as to what "trivia" means exactly. However, in a broad sense, we cannot include everything related to a particular article's subject. If we were to do so, this would become a project in collecting the sum of all human knowledge, no matter how meaningless or unimportant it is to the article(s) in question. --Cheeser1 01:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, long live trivia. I personally have no problem with trivia. Just not on Misplaced Pages. We are an encyclopedia, not a random collection of information. Why do people always find it so hard to realise what the project's goals are? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps what we are finding is that Misplaced Pages's goals are not the same as its successes. --Dystopos 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- In relation to this guideline, trivia sections are simply unorganized sections. Avoiding trivia sections not only better organizes the article, but saves good information from being mistakenly thrown out with the real trash. We can present the same information in a better way, allowing people to find that information easier, and making the subject at hand more understandable. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Trivia sections are a good catchall. Its also less laborious than trying to catagorize all the minutia that may or may not relate to specific catagories. From a usability perspective, humans know what "trivia" is, and they can easily discern it. I doubt one could cite many if any examples of where a significant portion of the community is being "confused" by the existence of a trivia section. This entire discussion stems from a petty and wasteful guideline where "organization" has run amok. - mrrealtime
- I think in certain cases integration can actually make the subject less understandable. As mrrealtime points out, people do know what trivia is. Integration can sometimes cause facts to get lost and their significance downplayed, whereas when they were grouped together in the trivia section they stood out as interesting facts. But of course these are things we've all heard before, and the opposition just says they feel differently, and this again won't get anywhere. Gotta love the peace that comes with a nice, undisputed guideline :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:02, 10/3/2007
- Look, the problem is with trivia sections is that they often contain legitimate information about the subject that hasn't been integrated in the text yet but has instead been dumped into a loosely-organised list that lacks context. Take a look at this, for example; the article contained a huge trivia section with many miscellaneous facts about the subject, and I integrated them in the body of the text using prose. And yes, trivia sections also contain "fun" facts (John Doe had a pet chicken named Adrian and he wasn't allowed to take it with him on a flight), but those do simply not belong in an encyclopaedia. Melsaran (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think most of the serious arguers here for trivia mention the "fun facts" aspect as a defense. That's just a strawman argument the opposition likes to bring. Obviously you can't defend a section for an encyclopedia based on it being "fun". The rest of this isn't an argument against anything that's been said here, it's just a repeat of the reasons the guideline is said to exist to begin with. Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:17, 10/3/2007
- Tell me more about this chicken.--Father Goose 17:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- See? People find those things interesting =D Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:25, 10/3/2007----
- Find me one example of a trivia section you think is better to keep as-is than to eventually integrate. I've heard you make the case before but it all sounds completely theoretical to me. Mangojuice 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The key word is "eventually". By now I've come across a few trivia sections (such as Amazing Stories#Trivia) which contain good information that is hard to integrate in an improved way. Some items I've come seen (such as those in Eyes Wide Shut#Trivia) would need a whole section built before they'd have a "proper place" in an article. This can be a tremendous amount of work sometimes, just to integrate one item, and I'm not certain a single keepable item should spawn the creation of an entire section just to house it. A lot of people at that point would choose to delete it; an alternative is just to leave it as a trivia bullet.--Father Goose 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll certainly agree with that: it can be very hard to integrate some things properly. But I think in both of those sections there are pieces of information that aren't relevant to the article or are too unimportant. An interesting thing to note about the Amazing Stories one: I would actually remove the first item from the trivia section and make it an image with caption (if I could find an image of the cover, of course). That would be perfect with an illustration, and wouldn't disrupt the flow. What's really funny is that someone has already done this with another item: this version contains a cover from 1938 apparently chosen because someone thought the uniform depicted there is similar to later Star Trek uniforms, typical OR trivia. Nonetheless, it's an interesting integration technique I hadn't thought of before. Mangojuice 11:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The key word is "eventually". By now I've come across a few trivia sections (such as Amazing Stories#Trivia) which contain good information that is hard to integrate in an improved way. Some items I've come seen (such as those in Eyes Wide Shut#Trivia) would need a whole section built before they'd have a "proper place" in an article. This can be a tremendous amount of work sometimes, just to integrate one item, and I'm not certain a single keepable item should spawn the creation of an entire section just to house it. A lot of people at that point would choose to delete it; an alternative is just to leave it as a trivia bullet.--Father Goose 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Find me one example of a trivia section you think is better to keep as-is than to eventually integrate. I've heard you make the case before but it all sounds completely theoretical to me. Mangojuice 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- See? People find those things interesting =D Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:25, 10/3/2007----
- "Hard to integrate" should never be equated to "impossible to integrate" or "too much work to bother." This is an encyclopedia, which requires a lot of hard work. Hell, take a look at any of the longer discussions at WP:FAC. Even with the Amazing Stories article: take the first bullet, make it an image with a caption. Take the second bullet and merge it into the second section. Take the third bullet, find its historical context, and put it into the first or second section- tada! The material is in the article, it's organized, and the trivia section is gone.
- If you need an example of how "hard to integrate" material has been made into a legitimate article, check out traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup. This started off as an enormous, impossible-to-fix list, and now it's a good article. Even better, it's still just as entertaining as it was before, only now, I can go in and find the information I need more easily.-Wafulz 14:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- No one asked for an example, as there are many, and everyone knows that. No one's saying there's no example of trivia lists that have been integrated and are better off for it. No one said trivia lists are always better than integration, and no one even said trivia lists are better most of the time. And I, for one, never said that trivia lists should be kept as lists because they would be difficult to integrate, as I think that's a rather poor argument, and one that I hope no one thinks represents the general argument against this guideline.
- One more time: My concern is that there are times when trivia lists better suit the article.
- That is not to say this is always true for all items in all trivia lists, so please don't bring examples of good integrations and then tell me it's an argument that the guideline is sound. And don't tell me that the argument against the guideline is the result of laziness on the part of editors, because the difficulty of integration has never been anyone's argument (at least, none of the serious arguments, which are what you should be addressing, rather than just refuting the easy targets).
- Calm down. I guess what I'm asking for are examples where trivia would definitely be better- where it would be useful information without going into absolutely minute details ("Bob plays tennis every Friday") and where it is impossible to present it within the rest of the article.-Wafulz 17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Examples would similarly be useless for my side of the argument. If I brought examples of "good" trivia sections, my opponents would consider the integration of them to be a way to refute me. They may succeed in the integration, but that would only sidestep the general issue. There will always be more than one way to present an article, and in some cases, some ways are just as good as others -- the difference only being a matter of preference. Obviously my opponents here would always say they prefer the integrated version, so this is not something I need illustrated to me. If this guideline didn't exist then the decision would be left up to the editors for each individual article, which is what I think should be done. If you must have examples then I would say, as I've said before, that it is mainly media articles that present the best cases for keeping trivia sections -- articles on things like TV episodes, movies, and perhaps video games. But I won't present a specific article just so that people can integrate their trivia sections and then say, "Look what I did," expecting me to clap. Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:09, 10/5/2007
- I don't see how trivia sections are ever superior to organized information. Even in the media articles, the majority of trivia falls into "production", "cultural references", or some similar category. Of course, you can rebuke this with me "sidestepping the general issue", but honestly, I've never been aware of relevant trivia that could not be merged.-Wafulz 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Trivia
Please, Stop whining like a bunch of arrogant internet snobs. Trivia sections are not only useful and informative, but they are highly entertaining as well. Ferthermore, there are many instances in which facts would fit more appropriately in a trivia section then elsewhere in an article. I find the ongoing hostility to trivia sections to be quite pointless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, trivia sections are an important part of Misplaced Pages. While this discussion is going on, substantial and arguably quite useful portions of content on Misplaced Pages are being overzealously removed. This is absurd and has to stop. This guideline needs to go. 74.132.200.129 00:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
EXACTLY my point! Thank you!--Gingerbreadmann 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed 100%. --Captain Impulse 11:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop Bickering
I agree fully with the statement above. Trivia sections are a vital part of the the Misplaced Pages experience and are what makes us unique. What Encyclopedia has that? Mpftmead 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Stop Bickering"? Umm.. Mangojuice 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages should have trivia sections because other encyclopedias don't have them? Not sure I really agree with that logic. Chaz 12:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? The argument against them is largely that other encyclopedias don't have them, so this one shouldn't either, lest we not fit the definition of an encyclopedia. This user is simply taking it in the other direction -- others don't have it, so here's an opportunity to do something that's never been done before. It's not airtight but it's a legitimate point. Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:29, 10/4/2007
- It's really more of an argument that Misplaced Pages should be something other than an encylopedia. I also disagree with the assumption that "Trivia sections are a vital part of the the Misplaced Pages experience...". I understand what's being argued, I just don't think it's very strong argument. Chaz 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Other encyclopedias also doesn't have flashing banners that give kids seizures. That doesn't mean we need some. It's totally illogical. Misplaced Pages could do a million different things that other encyclopedias don't. I think we need a better reason than that. --Cheeser1 14:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why not? The argument against them is largely that other encyclopedias don't have them, so this one shouldn't either, lest we not fit the definition of an encyclopedia. This user is simply taking it in the other direction -- others don't have it, so here's an opportunity to do something that's never been done before. It's not airtight but it's a legitimate point. Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:29, 10/4/2007
- Wait a second. Is'nt Misplaced Pages just a giant encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcore Hak (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it's not airtight, but a legitimate point -- the same as the argument that we shouldn't be doing things just because other encyclopedias don't. Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:39, 10/4/2007
- Perhaps a legitimate argument can be made that Misplaced Pages shouldn't be a encyclopedia, but the fact is that it is an encyclopedia. This isn't the place to argue that the fundamental nature of Misplaced Pages (being an encyclopedia) should be changed. Chaz 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it's not airtight, but a legitimate point -- the same as the argument that we shouldn't be doing things just because other encyclopedias don't. Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:39, 10/4/2007
- I'm not making that argument. I would never say that[REDACTED] shouldn't be an encyclopedia. You're making the assumption that just because including trivia isn't something encyclopedias generally do, then if we include it, we are therefore no longer an encyclopedia. That is an unfounded assumption. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:10, 10/4/2007
- There has never before been a serious attempt at an modern comprehensive online encyclopedia not derived from a paper model. We are the pioneers, and have a consequent responsibilities. One is to emulate as well as our method of permits the merits of good traditional encyclopedias. But another is to go beyond this, and show what can be done with the medium--not just an online hypertext medium--which is not all that new--but one with user contributed and edited content and wide participation from users with a range of knowledge and interests. Yes we're free and need to stay free, but that's not the only difference there ought to be. We can includes a much wide range of content, and a variety of devices but how to display it. If we just wanted to do a free Brittanica, there's this other project down the road--but that's unfair to Citizendium--their content and method of composition, while different, is in some ways just as innovative than ours.02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)
Has anyone addressed why they think trivia is good and necessary? There are plenty of people asking us to prove that it's bad, and I'd like to hear some rationale from the other side.-Wafulz 02:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the pro-trivia sections people aren't arguing that trivia is good, per se. They're just arguing that some pieces of unusual but relevant information are more appropriately presented in a short list of loosely related facts, rather than being integrated into the prose of the article, where it might not be appropriate.
- There are a few people arguing that trivia is fun, but that's more a question of the information itself than its presentation - this guideline addresses presentation; whether fun information belongs in[REDACTED] is a matter for other guidelines.
- I don't think anyone's seriously arguing that infomation should be presented in lists where possible - i.e, that trivia is good. It's really just a question of whether there's some sense in keeping essentially tangential information in a separate section. For what it's worth, I think there is. James pic 09:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the idea that some trivia lists are appropriate is correct, but if we are deliberately leaving an article with the trivia section intact, then we need to come to a clear understanding about when it is appropriate to remove the trivia tag. --Nick Penguin 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is there ever a situation where meaningful information can't be categorized into the rest of the article, or put into its own section (with a more relevant title and format)? A lot of what I'm seeing is that people think it's difficult, and therefore impossible to properly arrange (and keep) the information.-Wafulz 16:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right, ok, so I get that, but perhaps I need some clarification on a related issue. Is there consensus about the end purpose of this template? Is it to completely eradicate trivia sections on every page? If so, then I think the relevant guidelines need to be worded a lot stronger. And if the consensus decides that sometimes a trivia section is an acceptable way (but not necessarily the best way) to present information, then there needs te be some specific criteria hammered out that determines when a tag is appropriate and when it is not. --Nick Penguin 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to believe that all of those who are supporting integration also understand that in some limited cases a trivia heading might be acceptable. However it is probably impossible to define those cases in a general way. So there is really nothing to hammer out. Vegaswikian 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right, ok, so I get that, but perhaps I need some clarification on a related issue. Is there consensus about the end purpose of this template? Is it to completely eradicate trivia sections on every page? If so, then I think the relevant guidelines need to be worded a lot stronger. And if the consensus decides that sometimes a trivia section is an acceptable way (but not necessarily the best way) to present information, then there needs te be some specific criteria hammered out that determines when a tag is appropriate and when it is not. --Nick Penguin 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's no consensus on the purpose of the template, Nick, at least not as far as the question you've asked. The only consensus (I use the term loosely) is what is said in this guideline. This guideline does not guide the use of the template. Currently, use of the template is governed by the whims of the people. People who think trivia sections should be eradicated make sure that every trivia section they see is tagged. Likewise, people who think trivia sections are fine tend to remove the tag. And there are still others who judge each case on its own merits and decide whether or not the particular trivia section needs to be removed from a particular article (these are the people I like and wish to have over for dinner sometime). Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:14, 10/5/2007
- There are two questions which have gotten inextricably mixed up: what sort of content is appropriate, and where to put it. The question of where to put it is frankly, relatively secondary. But my view on it is that if there is a good place to integrate material, it should be integrated; in exceptional cases, there might be appropriately a list of miscellaneous facts, but usually the presence of items in a special "trivia" section is laziness, and distributing them properly should be a minor and uncontroversial editing process similar to all other style improvements.
- the important thing is the acceptability of the sort of information that is frequently found there. This is the important part--as shown by the propensity of those opposing these sections to delete them, instead of move the material elsewhere. I think, Walfuz, that this is your question--not just the arrangement?
- the important thing is the acceptability of the sort of information that is frequently found there. This is the important part--as shown by the propensity of those opposing these sections to delete them, instead of move the material elsewhere. I think, Walfuz, that this is your question--not just the arrangement?
- There are two questions which have gotten inextricably mixed up: what sort of content is appropriate, and where to put it. The question of where to put it is frankly, relatively secondary. But my view on it is that if there is a good place to integrate material, it should be integrated; in exceptional cases, there might be appropriately a list of miscellaneous facts, but usually the presence of items in a special "trivia" section is laziness, and distributing them properly should be a minor and uncontroversial editing process similar to all other style improvements.
- There is need to have information in WP that illuminates the subject of an article in ways that are relevant to the topic, significant enough to be worth mentioning, appropriate to a general encyclopedia--but one that that has no fixed size constraints, that fit in a readable are usable way within an article,and that will be of some interest or use to some readers. How can I say it plainer in a general way--each type of item has its own justification.
- There is need to have information in WP that illuminates the subject of an article in ways that are relevant to the topic, significant enough to be worth mentioning, appropriate to a general encyclopedia--but one that that has no fixed size constraints, that fit in a readable are usable way within an article,and that will be of some interest or use to some readers. How can I say it plainer in a general way--each type of item has its own justification.
- Biographical detail illuminates character and career, and the main questions is not overburdening articles with material that is truly peripheral to that, and not expanding articles on relatively minor people beyond their appropriate proportional length. Details about the production of a work of art are always relevant , subject to similar limitations and justifications. If the work is important enough, anything that can be documented and presented concisely may be of value. if a work is of borderline importance, the details don't matter.
- Biographical detail illuminates character and career, and the main questions is not overburdening articles with material that is truly peripheral to that, and not expanding articles on relatively minor people beyond their appropriate proportional length. Details about the production of a work of art are always relevant , subject to similar limitations and justifications. If the work is important enough, anything that can be documented and presented concisely may be of value. if a work is of borderline importance, the details don't matter.
- Reappearances of a theme in one work of art--or appearances of one cultural or historical topic in other works of art are in my opinion essential to an understanding of the role of the topic or the work. I would include them for all items important enough to be discussed here in the first place. The critical current problem is those who think otherwise. This is a separate topic that needs to be argued in detail, for those who wish to eliminate them are destroying one of the principal values are virtues of this encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is bringing us back to a content argument. This guideline has nothing to do with content; it says so explicitly. Everyone here agrees on which content is appropriate, and if they don't, they aren't arguing about that here. They're rightly arguing about how to best present certain information. DGG, I realize IPC is an important topic to you, but I don't know if this particular argument has anything to do with it. Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:19, 10/7/2007
I HAVE SUGGESTION!!!
How about articles related to Television shows, films, and video games be excluded from this trivia debate. Trivia sections in the media are often quite helpful. I do not believe that trivia should be used in any other articles but film, tv, and game articles tho, then trivia is just useless information. (Tigerghost 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
- Good tree; I bark up it regularly. But, Tigerghost, the guideline isn't even disputed, what with all the widespread peaceful consensus we have here. Is the addition of exceptions really warranted for such a well-accepted guideline? Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:40, 10/9/2007
- Even for TV shows, films, and video games, such information is still better presented when organized into the article itself. This guideline is actually aimed largely at our articles on entertainment. Take for example Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water#Trivia. Once some of the speculation is cut or at least sourced, many of these points will give a fine starting point for a production section of the article. Whenever I do come across something that doesn't seem to have another home on the article, it's still better presented with giving the trivia section a more specific focus (one of the suggestions this guideline gives) such as "In other media".
- Rozen Maiden#Trivia as an interesting tid-bit, "The Rozen Maiden license was announced through a unique "Guess The Geneon License" contest through Anime News Network. This contest was conducted through a scavenger hunt held in the form of a podcast. Listeners had to discover various clues that were littered throughout the podcast.". But this info should be one section up, in Rozen Maiden#International distribution, where a reader would expect to find it.
- It's nice to see some random fact every so often, but if you want to make a good article then things need to be logically organized. What happens to the user who skips the trivia section completely, because he's looking specifically for information on how a show like Rozen Madien was licensed. There we have an editor looking for this information, but doesn't find it where he thought it would be. That should be given more weight to the reader who wants to find some random facts because they want to pass the time. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Both those trivia sections you mention suck. They aren't examples of the argument against you, which of course shouldn't come as a surprise. The Narnia trivia section is simply too long at first glance -- there's probably enough information there for a production section as you say, rather than being a list of unrelated curios. The Rozen Maiden trivia section similarly doesn't qualify as trivia -- all its items belong in the distribution section, as you say, except perhaps the first item which may qualify as actual trivia and should stay in that section. Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:17, 10/9/2007
massive removal of content
Last night, User:Burntsauce made a massive removal of trivia sections from from almost 100 pages, leaving in each case only the edit summary "- popculturectomy", and in each case without discussion of the talk page of the article concerned. I suppose this can be technically justified under WP:BOLD, but I think doing it at this scale is a little unfortunate. Per the second step of WP:BOLD, I am selectively reverting all or parts of the deletions where I think the content notable, but obviously I am not going to be able to personally hold all the necessary detailed discussions. I discovered this by accident when it happened that one of the articles was on my watchlist. Some of this material needs sourcing, and I urge those concerned with this project to examine some of the articles and follow up as they think appropriate. The right way to follow up, of course, is to source the material and then be prepared to defend it. DGG (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- If anyone wants to help, I am starting at the older changes and working towards the most recent, and going slowly and selectively., and watching to not remove edits made after the deletion. They were deleted at the rate of 2 per minute,; I could blindly restore at the same rate, but I am planning to go carefully even if it takes all day or longer. DGG (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reverted all, as vandalism, at an average rate of 7 per minute. Call me Luke Wikiwalker. Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:40, 10/9/2007
- While I fully endorse being bold, I think that doing this type of thing on such a grand scale borders on WP:POINT, as there are inevitably going to be disputes over mass removal of trivia sections, regardless of if trivia should, or should not be included in articles. I personally think you made the right call, and that reverting it was appropriate. Ariel♥Gold 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reverted all, as vandalism, at an average rate of 7 per minute. Call me Luke Wikiwalker. Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:40, 10/9/2007
- If anyone wants to help, I am starting at the older changes and working towards the most recent, and going slowly and selectively., and watching to not remove edits made after the deletion. They were deleted at the rate of 2 per minute,; I could blindly restore at the same rate, but I am planning to go carefully even if it takes all day or longer. DGG (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the reverts, this feels like vandalism, or at the very least, vigilantism. I thought the guideline was clear; Step 1: Integrate into existing sections. Step 2: Create new sections when necessary. Step 3: Integrate into a different article (if this one is inappropriate). And a distant, distant Step 4: Remove inappropriate items. There is no need to immediately jump to step 4 just because steps 1, 2 and 3 might take a long time. --Nick Penguin 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- A number of editors actually seem to be doing that; for example, see , , . Anyway, I agree that it is disruptive. If a segment of our community finds this kind of information relevant and is willing to edit it, we should be exclusive. As long as the stuff is factual, not copy vios, and accurates, we should keep it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's cultural references, not "in pop culture". Cultural references are references made by the article's subject (a tv show?) to other pop-culture subjects. "In pop culture" lists the appearances of the article's subject in other media. The former is not actually considered trivia anymore and is no longer covered by this guideline. Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:39, 10/9/2007
There is an epidemic of people adding junk to articles that adds noting to the articles and basically tries to mimic the "what links here" list. I will continue to remove references that are completely non-notable as trivia lists grow. To have trivia sections longer than the articles themselves is ridiculous. I like trivia sections as much as the next guy, but it's becoming WP:POINT to readd clearly irrelevant material to articles. Sure there will be some disagreement, but when stuff is so clearly not relevant, I will remove it. --DanielCD 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I think it's very important that, no matter how much people might disagree with the mass removal of trivia, it not be referred to as vandalism. Vandalism is defined as "...a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.", which this action most certainly was not. Chaz 14:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- You might be interested in checking out WP:ROC, if you feel relevance is a concern. Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:55, 10/9/2007
- Exactly, WP:ROC is what everyone who wants to make lists should read. --DanielCD 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's my point. As I said, I like to read the trivia stuff, but not when it's a bunch of stuff that's obscure, like "'so-and-so's' band has a song that mentions the word 'such-and-such' two times." My point is not to cut trivia, but the extensive lists of "mentions" and other things of this type that don't meet the relevance criteria. --DanielCD 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's a good argument that this is vandalism. Certainly a picturebook case of disruptive editing and WP:POINT. Entire sections were deleted indiscriminately without regard to whether the content was useful or not. Wikidemo 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what removal from what article you are referring to. Could you be a little less general? The User:Burntsauce removals? I have seen some trivia removals, but none I would say that totally indiscriminate and disregarded content. I'm not saying there aren't any out there, but what are you referring to specifically? --DanielCD 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I answered my own question. I can see you are referring to the above. --DanielCD 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was about to say that. You should be asking the editor who performed the mass-removal User:Burntsauce to be less general. There wouldn't have been a problem if he performed removals based on content and with specific rationale for each case. But this was a blind categorical removal of any section with a specific title, massively and quickly (2 per minute I think was the average rate). Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:24, 10/9/2007
- Folks, read WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not, "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them - most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism." Whatever Burntsauce's removal's were, they are not vandalism. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Right, calling an action "vandalism" implies that the user was acting in bad faith. Just because an action is considered hasty or overly bold does not mean it was made in bad faith. In general, if there's a dispute over whether actions were vandalism or not, it wasn't. Chaz 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I should have made a new section for my comments as I see I have conflated my issue with that of the User:Burntsauce removals. That was likely inappropriate, though I don't think I'd go so far as to call it vandalism without at least talking to him first. --DanielCD 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Entire sections were categorically removed based only on their title from hundreds of articles at a rate of 2 per minute, with no rationale provided other than "popcultureectomy". This is not the situation described in WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:32, 10/9/2007
- The relevant part of WP:VAND is "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." Disruptive? Probably. Vandalism? No. Chaz 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like exactly what the vandalism policy is describing as not vandalism. However, it also says the just because something is not vandalism, does not mean it is not disruptive. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- The policy describes vandalism as "...a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages" and what is not vandalism as "...make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them." I didn't say I am convinced that it is vandalism, just that there's a good argument it is. If there's a good argument that people are right in calling it vandalism, it's hasty to scold them for using the term. Would you like me to make the argument? Wikidemo 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like exactly what the vandalism policy is describing as not vandalism. However, it also says the just because something is not vandalism, does not mean it is not disruptive. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think there are good arguments both ways. What to call the edits specifically isn't really that important though; it's just semantics. I called them vandalism mainly because that was easiest way to revert them on such a massive scale; TW gives other types of reverts multiple steps, while vandalism reverts can be performed with a single click. They were disruptive nevertheless. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:55, 10/9/2007
- What it is, is a content dispute. To call it vandalism requires an assumption of bad faith, when it is perfectly reasonable to believe he though he was improving things. Not saying it was a good move, but it was not vandalsim. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- At this point the user has clearly acted improperly, if not in his/her ends, certainly in methods. Unrepentant, even defiant, contentious editing. Whatever the dispute may be about content, it's overshadowed by the mess the user is creating. Wikidemo 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Burntsauce
He is continuing to remove the sections again, ignoring all discussion here and on his talk page. Could he be temporarily blocked until he notices the discussions and participates?
Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:59, 10/9/2007- What strikes me is this article itself: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." To that end, the articles on my watchlist that Burntsauce hit actually contained relevant material that shows how the subjects of the various articles have worked their way into common colloquialisms, etc. No TV episodes to speak of! It was a wholesale blanking that was over the top, and furthermore, he has violated consensus in a couple of cases by repeated reverts. I favor that some sort of understanding occur to the effect that wholesale blanking of sections with the "wrong" subheading is not being bold, it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Montanabw 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)