Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections: Difference between revisions
Father Goose (talk | contribs) Undo last edit by Eubulides I don't necessarily disagree with having an example, but there's a tendency to equate IPC sections with trivia sections, which is not always the case. |
→Example: Bring back this section, except don't use a popular-culture example. See Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections #This guideline needed an example. |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
==Other policies apply== |
==Other policies apply== |
||
Due to the nature of trivia section content in other publications (such as [[IMDb]]), it may be important to note that even when trivia sections are present in Wikipedia articles, their content must still be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies. Wikipedia article sections, including trivia sections, must not contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or [[libel]]. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point-of-view]], or [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] (among [[WP:POLICY|others]]). Also remember that it is always best practice to [[Wikipedia:cite your sources|cite sources]] when adding new facts to any section, which includes trivia sections. |
Due to the nature of trivia section content in other publications (such as [[IMDb]]), it may be important to note that even when trivia sections are present in Wikipedia articles, their content must still be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies. Wikipedia article sections, including trivia sections, must not contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or [[libel]]. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point-of-view]], or [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] (among [[WP:POLICY|others]]). Also remember that it is always best practice to [[Wikipedia:cite your sources|cite sources]] when adding new facts to any section, which includes trivia sections. |
||
==Example== |
|||
Here is an example of the sort of list of miscellaneous facts that should be avoided in Wikipedia: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
; Trivia in English literature |
|||
* In [[Chaucer]]'s ''[[Canterbury Tales]]'' ({{circa}} 1400), among the pilgrims the Clerk of Oxenford is the resident master of ''trivia''. |
|||
* [[John Gay]]'s topographical poem ''[[Trivia (poem)|Trivia]]'' (1716) contains useful advice about what to do if your wig is stolen. |
|||
* The Terrible Trivium, one of the Demons of Ignorance in [[Norton Juster]]'s book ''[[The Phantom Tollbooth]]'' (1961), seduces passers-by with mindlessly easy but pointless tasks on which they eventually waste all their time. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 05:50, 16 February 2009
 | This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way. |
| Manual of Style (MoS) |
|---|
Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, which are often grouped into their own section, labeled "Trivia", "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections which store footnotes), "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information", etc. This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia.
Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation; they can just add a new fact to the list. As articles grow, however, these lists may become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. 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, whether in text, list, or table.
Guidance
Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. Otherwise, see if there are sources for the effect of the topic on popular culture and consider using the items as a basis for an article that discusses that effect. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article, cannot be supported by reliable sources, or are not of significant importance to the subject matter can be removed in most cases.
It may be necessary to perform research to give each fact some context or to add references. Some entries may be speculative or factually incorrect, and should be removed; some may fall outside the scope of the article and should be moved to other articles; and others, such as "how-to" material or tangential/irrelevant facts, may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether.
What this guideline is not
There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:
- 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.
- This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.
- This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.
Not all list sections are trivia sections
In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
Other policies apply
Due to the nature of trivia section content in other publications (such as IMDb), it may be important to note that even when trivia sections are present in Wikipedia articles, their content must still be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies. Wikipedia article sections, including trivia sections, must not contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability, neutral point-of-view, or no original research (among others). Also remember that it is always best practice to cite sources when adding new facts to any section, which includes trivia sections.
Example
Here is an example of the sort of list of miscellaneous facts that should be avoided in Wikipedia:
- Trivia in English literature
- In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (c. 1400), among the pilgrims the Clerk of Oxenford is the resident master of trivia.
- John Gay's topographical poem Trivia (1716) contains useful advice about what to do if your wig is stolen.
- The Terrible Trivium, one of the Demons of Ignorance in Norton Juster's book The Phantom Tollbooth (1961), seduces passers-by with mindlessly easy but pointless tasks on which they eventually waste all their time.