Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture

Blatant forum shopping by people unhappy with current consensus against trivia, and with the intention of campaigning for policy change via a POV fork of the trivia guidelines. The purpose of WikiProjects is not to try to change policy; that's what Village pump/Policy is for. This un-project was unilaterally created despite strong reasoned opposition at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Trivia and In popular culture (now a redir to the "project"; see diff. for the debate), and its proponents evince a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works (cf. "The admins need to solve these problems and give us a better more inclusive policy for trivia" and other such statements by them that indicate a belief that WP decisionmaking is done by all-powerful admins who need to be petitioned for redress, the clear purpose of this faux project). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Many seem to be missing that deletion is not the only solution to the problems outlined. Cleanup: Simply deleting the soapbox position from the goals/scope of the project would likely solve this problem. Merge into the related project would also probably be helpful. Despite MFD's name, more than outright deletion gets discussed here all the time. Please do not WP:PANIC. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: In case anyone has any doubt that the point of this project (as currently formulated) is process-confused canvassing for policy change, see this post to WP:TRIVIA; salient quote: "Here is a wikiproject proposal for trivia and a fresh look at trivia policy by the admins. Support the wikiproject proposal. Add your name to the list ..." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I regret that the project's initial proponent was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's canvassing laws and overall "way of doing things". The project as formulated seeks to steer clear of such missteps.--Father Goose 09:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

#StillBroken — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. You obviously didn't bother reading the project page, did you? It clearly states that it is trying to keep trivia and popular culture information, but doing it within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Exactly how is that a bad thing? I think those who wrote up the project page took into consideration comments made here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Of course I read it, and this was a red flag: 'Work with others to forge sustainable "trivia" and "pop culture" policies. We agree with other editors that Wikipedia's coverage of "trivia" and "pop culture" interrelations should not distract from our basic coverage of any given subject. However, it is not desirable to restrict our coverage to "basic information"; any information that is compliant with core policies and well-organized improves the value of Wikipedia overall. We hope to establish a manner of organizing and presenting this content that is acceptable to the broad community of editors.' This is an activistic position that the current policies and guidelines on this matter are "non-sustainable". Its phrasing in the second sentence indicates that proponents of this project clearly think of themselves as bucking consensus in one area but in agreement with it in another area. The 3rd sentence is a direct rejection of established consensus on the matter at WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT, WP:ENC, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Provide context for the reader, etc., etc., an advocacy position that holds that present practice amounts to nothing but retaining "basic" information, a characterization most Wikipedians obviously disagree with. Next it proposes to draft a new, competing, POV fork guideline on how to organize and present trivia, and expresses a desire to seek (i.e. campaign for) acceptance of this new stance on and proposal for trivia. I reiterate what I said in the deletion nomination. This is not what WikiProjects are for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The rather lively discussion at Wikiproject Council was mainly about the direction the project should go--the variety of people interested make s it clear that the direction is not foreordained . The only thing that seems to be agreed on is that the situation should be improved beyond the current chaos. As with any project, anyone interested in good faith is welcome. If some of the people are unrealistic, that's pretty much the general state of things in WP. The sensible thing to do is to work on the project, not remove it. DGG (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Response: I read it, and many, many respondents directly questioned the nature of the proposed project, and were not simply concerned with which direction it would go. I don't see a wide variety of supporters at all. I think there were something like 6 supporters plus the proposer, and far more detractors of the idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Several of those who voiced concerns with the initial proposal have now joined the project as created.--Father Goose 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I am trying to assume good faith here, yet terms such as "unproject", "faux project" and "evince a lack of understanding of how Wikipeida works" (evince? an interesting choice of words...) are more ad hominem attacks than they are reasoned discussion of the merits or lack there of for the project: Trivia and Popular Culture.
  DGG is right, we need to work on the project, not just remove it. Consensus does not mean fascist jack boot stomping on those who disagree. I liken editing articles in Wikipedia to restoring valuable, but damaged works of art. I never make a change unless, 1) it can be undone in the future (no big deal there with our interface) and 2) without listing my considerations on the discussion page and waiting to see whether other people point out that the error lies with me and not the article. These discussions are important and valuable. If there were no room for dissent and discussion, we would end up in a perpetual devil's circle of people deleting trivia, others restoring it, it being deleted, restored, ad infinitum. I refuse to believe that this really wonderful Wiki has to look like a child's playbox...but if I wanted a dry discussion of dry topics, I would just go dig out my grandfather's logarithm tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) — Panthera germanicus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Reply: I've used "unproject" and "faux project" because the page in question does not represent what a WikiProject is supposed to be and do. I gave a direct quote example of how the proponents did not understand Wikipedia processes. I could have quoted quite a few more of them, but I thought one example was enough. Relevant criticism is not an ad hominem attack; please read ad hominem. "This is a bad idea because you smoked dope once in high school" is an ad hominem attack. "This is a bad idea because it doesn't reflect how things are done around here, and here is some quoted examples of this lack of understanding of how things are done around here so you can see that I'm not just making that up" is called evidence, not ad hominem. Speaking of ad hominem, however, you've just tripped over Godwin's Law by likening me to a fascist for daring to ask for discussion on the merits of this project being set up as a forum for policy-change advocacy. I'm very sorry that because you like trivia more than I do apparently and think this project is great that you are seeing any criticism of it as a personal attack; it isn't. I think the project is misguided, and so did reams and reams of others' commentary at the project's proposal; but it might well be salvageable if you listen to all of these concerns and criticisms instead of simply reacting against them. If you want to change handling of trivia in WP, then do it through Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections and the talk pages of the two related documents (I forget their names right off hand, but they are both mentioned in a recent thread there as potential merge candidates). PS: I have to observe that if the inappropriate activism were removed, that indeed there is little rationale for two separate WikiProjects about trivia in Wikipedia, and they arguably should be merged. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - What's the harm? trying to keep "trivia" pages isn't always a bad thing. I hate to harp on, but I saved the article Cultural depictions of spiders from deletion just by editing it a few times, as well as a friend who saved Cultural depictions of lions. If this wikiproject can do even half as much as that, I'd be very pleased indeed. I doubt they're going to go on a trivia-rampage and add useless trivia to the ends of articles. Seriously, what's the harm? Cheers, Spawn Man 04:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Huh? Who said anything about deleting trivia/pop culture pages? Please do not muddy the waters. This is an MfD on a malformed WikiProject, period. I'm the principal author of Albinism in popular culture myself; anyone who thinks I'm an anti-trivia zealot is way off-base. I am skeptical of the value of most of the material in trivia sections, of the average trivia/popcult article, but that is really neither here nor there. The only matter of consequence at this MfD is the misuse of WikiProjects as a platform for changing policy (we have WP:VPP and WP:RFC for a reason). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm someone who normally defends pages like WP:TRIVIA, and I thought the positive goals of the WikiProject were worth exploring. Even so, if you take a look on the talk page we are discussing if we actually need two projects for trivia or not. I think it's safe to say that those involved are keeping an open mind, and are not looking simply to start a fight. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: BTW, just because something is at MFD does not mean that the only possible outcomes are "keep" or "delete". I would be happy with a result of "modify to remove advocacy position" and probably also "merge into related trivia cleanup project"; simply axing one bulleted paragraph from the mission statement of this project would probably do it. I'm sure that WP:COUNCIL types would agree that a merge or a taskforcing is appropriate, but that's really a secondary matter to me; the crux is the abuse of WikiProjects for policy change campaigning. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — I hate trivia, and trivia sections. I love well written articles about popular culture topics. This project aims to turn the former into the latter. --Haemo 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: See above; that is not what this MFD is about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sounds like you read the title and drew your own conclusions, eh? Next time read the page. This project isn't too different from the trivia cleanup project, only this has a more inclusionist attitude. If you wouldn't nominate trivia cleanup, you shouldn't be nominating this, unless of course you don't quite understand what this is, which seems to be the case. And next time, if you have concerns, try the talk page before nominating things for deletion. Communication is key.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:35, 10/19/2007

• Comment: Of course I read the whole thing. I've already addressed most of this in detail in my first reply here, to Nihonjoe. Informal discussion already failed, as evidenced at the WikiProject proposal at the history link above. You and other proponents of this project simply have not appeared to understand what the concerns are or that this is not how to change policy; hopefully this more formal discussion at MFD will make all of this clearer. PS: Should I draw someone else's conclusions, such as those of the kid down the street from me? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• a) I'm not a proponent of this project. b) The "Informal discussion" you're referring to was for the proposal, which was very different from the project page that actually got drafted. You should have stated your concerns on the talk page like everyone else did before you nominated for MfD. It seems apparent to most of us here from your nomination statement that you have a lack of understanding about what this project is. Had you asked questions and raised concerns first, perhaps things could've been clarified and your concerns addressed. c) The project is not trying to change policy directly, but rather to encourage discussion on possible changes. There is nothing wrong with encouraging discussion.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:47, 10/19/2007

• Keep. The nomination against the project seems to be in opposition to the initial proposal, which took a very different form.--Father Goose 08:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: It is not; it is a response to the extant wording of the project page; see extensive quotation in my first reply here, to Nihonjoe. The proposal debate is simply evidentiary of the issues underlying this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you had a problem with wording then, again, it would've made more sense to state your concerns on the talk page. There was no need for this.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 14:05, 10/19/2007

• Comment As regards the concerns over policy work, several WikiProjects have created or shaped guidelines relevant to their subject areas: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and many others.--Father Goose 08:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Of course they do; but they were not created and maintained explicitly to oppose established consensus; very different matter. Esperanza got nuked for being clubbish and divisive, and all its expressed intentions were simply to help other users, not attack consensus and set up a wikipolitical advocacy camp organized at least in part by people who don't even understand that policy is determined by consensus not by lordly admins. Sheesh. It blows my mind that anyone considers this MFD controverial in any way. The precedent is overwhelming. And again, this MFD would be satisfied simply by changing the project to stop being an advocacy platform. How hard is that? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an advocacy platform -- not political advocacy, anyway. We do advocate the improvement of trivia and "popular culture" content, so as to bring it in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and principles, and thus make it acceptable to a greater number of editors. I hope our work in the months to come will demonstrate this to you.

However, given that what sparked it off was a political initiative of its earliest proponent, I can see why you might be suspicious of this. If nothing else, I urge you to reread the "Make articles more compliant with core content policies"; it is essentially a reiteration of WP:TRIVIA, which you accuse us of seeking to undermine. To the extent that we want to "forge policy", we want to find solutions to the "trivia problem" (if it can be called that) that are acceptable to all. You should note that despite the "inclusionist" language of much of the project, we already have a "deletionist" supporter: [6].

I dunno. Take a breath, or something? Come back in a month and re-nominate if your suspicions are confirmed? We shun "attempts to oppose consensus". But we do hope to establish a new consensus by demonstrating that trivia can be turned into "good content". Wish us luck.--Father Goose 09:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Unless anything further of real note comes up here, I'm not going to comment any further. It's not my intent to respond to everyone here; it's just that most of the initial responses completely missed the point of the MFD. I don't think I can clarify it any further. Either people will read and understand it based on the fuller context that is now above, or they'll simply count "keep"s and believe that a WP:SNOWBALL is forming (it certainly shouldn't go that way, but I've seen stranger things happen). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment leaning towards delete... the discussion for formation of the wikiproject had objections, the project created doesn't match the discussion in any case, and the point of it doesn't seem entirely harmonious with wikipedia's general consensus/guidelines/policy. SamBC(talk) 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't create inclusionist (or deletionist) forks of Wikipedia projects, join the existing project and try to change the consensus there by a reasoned discussion. Wikipedia is based on consensus: splitting projects because you don't agree with the current consensus is diametrically opposed to this. I fail to see any need for this as a separate project. Fram 11:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Uh, what can I say? I started the Council Proposal. I'll be the first to admit I'm a bit of a newb, but I'm learning everyday. Peace Ozmaweezer 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I acknowledge certain individuals involved in the proposal and project seem to be interested, at this point, in doing little more than POV pushing. However, some of the other individuals who have become involved in the project, including myself, see that there is already an expressed permission for the inclusion of what some would call "trivia" in articles, and seek to ensure that that content remains. I personally think that having a section called "Trivia" may well be objectionable on the basis of both OR and POV, but think that well sourced and relevant information some would call trivia can be and is relevant to the article, and should be included somehow. However, despite the presence of the POV editors involved, I think that there is a good chance that something constructive may come from this project, and think that there is thus sufficient cause for it to be allowed to continue. John Carter 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Just curious: what constructive thing could come from this project that could not be achieved through Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup? Fram 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Beyond simply "cleaning up" trivia sections, (and yes, I haven't read the above project page entirely), this project could, at least potentially, go on to establish procedures and guidelines for inclusion of additional popular culture and "trivia" content, and maybe, ultimately, serve as a central location for the discussion of how to add new content of this type, which strikes me as being somewhat more proactive than "cleanup" is generally taken to be. John Carter 14:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It seems like the main problem between the two is the implications of the term "cleanup". SamBC(talk) 14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and suggest withdrawal - The overwhelming amount of "Keep" responses coupled by the page's apparent value (it IS a WikiProject, and it is currently active) suggests that this MFD is a certain canoe up a creek without a paddle. --WaltCip 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (I am butting in out of order with this comment) I count only one "keep" (Spawn Man) who is not a member or contributor (or SPA) to the project.--Old Hoss 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it does appear to be a PoV "fork" of another wikiproject, with the same overall "goals" but a different slant and different inclusion/deletion bias. The trivia question is still unanswered, but it's neither a good way, nor a wikipedia-ish way, to deal with this to form one or more "parties" to push (or more politely, put forward, or act on) a certain view on the debate. Here's a question really pressing to the issue, though: given the aims and suggested methods, is this project likely to "come to blows", or act contrary to, any other wikiproject, particularly the one that's been mentioned so much? If so, then a new wikiproject is not the way to solve it. SamBC(talk) 14:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Speaking strictly for myself, all I can really do, I cannot imagine that I will be involved in any disagreement with any other project, barring specific unpredictable situations, and I would at least imagine that if any conflict somewhere down the road did arise, I would not take a particularly partisan approach unless the position of the group I was with was one indicated by an extant guideline or policy. I would also do what I could to ensure that no one else did take such exception to anothe project, although I clearly cannot guarantee that such effort would necessarily be effective. John Carter 20:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a POV fork, it's a separate and compatible effort, just like all the other cleanup projects in WP. I support a number of workgroup projects; if we all improve the encyclopedia, there's no contradiction. I expect to continue to work on both of these and some others that are also related--some started by deletionists, but if they do good sensible work how does that matter? I don't attempt to close down my opponents, just to find areas for working together. DGG (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the project is worth keeping just because of the fresh and healthy discussion it seems to have garnered on a topic that's been stuck in a deadlock of stale arguments repeated ad nauseum.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:19, 10/19/2007
• Delete or modify Seems more like a dispute with policy that would be better addressed via the Village pump. A Project is an inappropriate place to make a point. If such trivia actually is beneficial to the article (and the encyclopedia), then cleanup the article to incorporate it into the body of the article - which would be a pliable mission of a WikiProject.--Old Hoss 20:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I thought I'd point out that, when I saw this project being created I figured an MfD like this was inevitable. SMcCandlish brings up many things that this project could become, and the MfD does help to emphasize how important those concerns are. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I accept these concerns. I'm doing everything I can to steer the project toward a concrete and constructive role, as opposed to a political one. The project is brand-new and we are still settling upon what our chosen tasks and working methods will be. While some of what we seek to do overlaps with the Trivia Cleanup project, we defer to them for those tasks. Other tasks we are embracing are unique to this project, so it isn't a question of a POV fork.
  Frankly, I think there's a rush to judgement here.--Father Goose 01:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I think SMcCandlish is taking this too personally/hard jugding by the fact he's replied to almost every keep comment on here, which is discouraged... I'd suggest taking a step back, it's not as if you're going to change the consensus too much, which seems to be pointing to keep at the moment anyway. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think he's taking it personally, and given how some WikiProjects have started in the past, it's not an unreasonable conclusion, far from it. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I know, but he's exhibiting signs of what not to do when following a XfD (IE, Let's reply to every post that doesn't agree with me)... Spawn Man 06:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
      • He seems to holding to his statement of "Unless anything further of real note comes up here, I'm not going to comment any further." Since he's willing to leave himself out of it at this point, I think we can too.--Father Goose 07:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It is quite clear that there is no "consensus" against trivia, and this page is an important part of the campaign to fix the broken policy. MattHucke^(t) 16:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. You don't delete things on Wikipedia just because you don't like them. Whether that's information about popular culture or new wikiprojects. There has to be a valid, principled reason. This looks like POV pushing by deletion. This is a bona fide new wikiproject. It's been a few days and 10 people signed up. It's premature to try to delete it before it even has a chance to fulfill its mission.Wikidemo 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's quite handy as it aims to keep trivia by integrating it, rather than having an In poular culture section--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A bad-faith project that seems to consist of a loud tiny (like 10) minority of members that like to have trivia in articles, despite the fact that it is discouraged and most FAs do not have a trivia section. Almost cabal like. I especially agree with SMcCandlish's intro piece. Having a project based on breaking WP rules is not needed. We need this site to be taken seriously and the articles to be of a higher quality than currently, and this will set things back. Also should point out that most of the keep votes are either from members of the "project", or empty votes in the sense of "what's the harm?" In which there is lots of harm with a "project" like this. Also, most "In Popular Culture" articles are deleted anyway, take a look at this list I have compiled [7]Dannycali 01:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)