Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:13, 27 January 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Trivia Cleanup page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1: 20 days

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Discussion related to WikiProject Trivia Cleanup

Wikipedia_talk:Embedded_list#Merge_Triva_sections SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: Wikipedia is not a trivia collection

Some of us may not yet know that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection has been removed from WP:NOT.

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is a newly proposed guideline intended to return WP:NOT#TRIVIA to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.

While some editors will regard this guideline as obvious, even common sense, there is currently a tremendous amount of opposition to Wikipedia having limitations on trivia. As this proposal is specificly a content guideline, it may receive even greater opposition than Wikipedia:Avoid trivia has been subject to in recent months.

I could use specific suggestions and general feedback. A guideline (which this is proposed to be) does not need to contradict itself, so contradictory philosophies need not be introduced, but I would also be interested in feedback from people have problems with excluding trivia, especially if they have specific suggestions on how this guideline can be made better.

(This message is cross-posted in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.) / edg ☺ ★ 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal Wikipedia:Avoid trivia is closed, not useful, distracts from other discussion. Redirecting to WP:TRIVIA, where I found it. / edg ☺ ★ 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Together episodes

When you get a chance, check out the episode pages for the show Drawn Together, giant trivia list are amuck on each episode page. Dannycali 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation of project goals

I have only been working on cleaning up trivia for a couple of months, but it strikes me that there are two very distinct types of trivia sections in articles that should perhaps be treated differently.

Type A: Trivia/Pop culture/whatever sections for current (or at least fairly recent) television shows/movies/video games/etc. that list all the pop culture references that the article's subject makes. Examples of these types of trivia sections are mentioned in the section "Drawn Together episodes" and "The Family Guy "cultural references" sections" on this talk page.

Type B: Trivia/Pop culture/whatever sections that depict passing references to the article's subject in the TV shows/movies/video games/etc. mentioned above. The articles containing these trivia sections are usually on topics that are (for lack of a better way to put it) more notable. This is not intended to be a value judgment in any way, I just mean the subject is notable enough to be frequently referenced in other popular media. Good examples are important historical figures and works of art (see, for instance, Ernest Hemingway), and everyday common objects (see Broccoli).

A lot of the talk here has been focusing on the type A trivia, but there doesn't seem to be good consensus about this. Let's face it, a lot of the TV shows being discussed here (Family guy, Drawn Together, The Simpsons, etc.) owe much of their popularity (thus their notability) to their constant in show references to popular culture icons. The trivia lists on these pages do get overly long at times, and are often filled with speculative information (ie "this scene might possibly be a reference to popular movie X because they sorta look the same"), but I don't think they're completely out of place. It could be that the best thing to do would be stick a {{fact}} tag on any trivia bullets that smack of original research and let the folks who are most interested in these topics sort out the valid references from the speculation.

I think our efforts would be much better spent addressing Type B trivia sections. A lot of these sections can be found by wading through the What-links-here special pages (w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Drawn Together, w:Special:Whatlinkshere/The Simpsons, w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Family Guy, w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Robot Chicken, w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Pokémon, etc.) I think these trivia sections pose a more obvious problem in that most of the trivia bullets are only tangentially related to the article topic. Is it really all that important to the Broccoli that it was briefly mentioned as homer Simpson's least favorite food in one episode of the Simpsons? Is the study of Hemingway truly going to be impacted by the fact that he briefly appeared (along with other famous historical figures) in a cut away scene in the Family guy? A popular culture reference should only be on such a page if it is of documented (lets see some citations) importance to the topic. For instance, a reference to Popeye in the spinach article can stay because it can be documented as having an important impact on perceptions of spinach in modern times (although it should probably be expanded).

So here's my proposal: Remove the {{trivia}} tags from type A trivia lists, after some minimal clean up and perhaps a citations tag. Scour the whatlinkshere pages for type B trivia and remove any reference in such a list that is not of direct importance to the subject of that article. Any remaining material should be integrated into the main body of the article. Any thoughts/comments/suggestions? Sbacle 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural references" has been the generally-accepted way to name a section that you refer to as "Type A". A couple months ago, the trivia guideline stopped considering these sections trivia, and most of them no longer carry a trivia tag.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:33, 10/3/2007

Thanks for the info. Why are we still discussing them on this page then (take a look at the "The Family Guy "cultural references" thread at the top of the page.) Should we put an explicit mention of this on [the project page? (at the moment it states that, "...trivia isn't always just in trivia sections. It can also be found in notes, miscellanea, something about references pop culture and other sections.") I've encountered a lot of these sections that still have trivia tags, should I be switching them when I come across them? Thanks for the input. Sbacle 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sbacle redirecting the projects goal to fixing the Type B trivia. A properly written article should be a collection of pertinent facts, and it is true that some facts have relevance in one article and do not have relevance in another. Thus one goal is remove irrelevant facts. But some people have expressed that they enjoy reading trivia sections and they think they make wikipedia better. Myself, I don't think that eradicating trivia sections would be either good or possible. And if the project goal isn't to eliminate all trivia sections, we need a consensus on when it is appropriate to remove the trivia template, because right now the only options are integrate, delete or leave it, and more articles are being tagged every day. --Nick Penguin 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the general goal of this project is to impose the trivia guideline, then yes, the specific exclusion of "Cultural references" sections seems to be warranted, perhaps via a notice on the main page. That's not to say that all "Cultural references" sections consist completely of notable items; especially in the case of Family Guy, I think those sections would tend towards getting overwhelmed with many non-notable items. However, that would really fall under WP:NOTABILITY, rather than WP:TRIVIA, so such cleanup wouldn't technically be within the scope of this project. If they are to nevertheless be included, specific ways of handling "Cultural references" sections should be something to describe somewhere in the instructions for this project.

As for what to do when you see a "Cultural references" section tagged with {{trivia}}, you can remove the tag, since it's only supposed to be applied to sections that can be designated "trivia sections" as defined by the trivia guideline. If you think the section still suffers from other issues, such as being bloated with non-notable items, you could replace the trivia tag with some other appropriate cleanup tag.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:56, 10/4/2007

WP:N definitely doesn't cover "what should be in a cultural references" section. Some guidance that is potentially applicable is Wikipedia:Lists#Criteria for inclusion in lists, WP:TRIVIA#Not all lists are trivia sections, or maybe even Wikipedia:Relevance of content, though not in its present form.--Father Goose 07:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N covers what should be in any section.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:25, 10/4/2007

Are we looking at the same guideline? Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content--Father Goose 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:40, 10/4/2007

Yes, type A should some under some such thing as "relevance of content"--at least that's how I've been hoping that phrase will be used. Like anything else, it can be appropriate or overdone. But for the present, if any of them are thought to be excessively detailed, there are already some good tags for these at WP:CR: {{fansite}}, {{importance-sect}}, {{off-topic}}. We might think about a suitable variation, along the lines perhaps of {{plot}} or {{tl:gameguide}}.DGG (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for Vespa

Article contains a huge "Vespas in popular culture" section that needs to be gotten rid of, but an editor reverts me when I do. The "Vespa Models" section is also a long, crufy list. Whould like backing on this issue.--SeizureDog 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deleting the entire list is a good solution (it will just get reverted). For a pop culture section it actually contains some good stuff (IMO). The reverting editor seems nice and open to discussion, so that should be your first step. It could certainly use a clean up though. I'd suggest trying to come up with a stricter inclusion criteria, not deleting the entire section. Pax:Vobiscum 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this?

Several suggestions regarding the handling of trivia and popular culture information on Wikipedia have been proposed in the past. They include:

Rename Trivia and In popular culture (IPC) sections as Article ommissions, Side notes, Fun facts, Interesting facts, Did you know? (DYK?), Top 40, or Influence.
Allow trivia sections
Add another tab at the top of the page for trivia/in pop culture
Limit the trivia sections to 40 bullet point items (Top 40)
Make the trivia sections have the hide/expandable option
A dual level encyclopedia, where those who want to limit their access can do so
Lock the trivia section and use a template that instructs editors to add suggestions in the discussion tab
Change the current trivia template to have two options: "A) integrate trivia items into the text of the article and/or B) provide citations for all information." Other changes to the trivia template are also possible.
Completely eliminate the use of the trivia template and use the "citations needed" template instead.
Make an exception for triva in the policy and guidelines/manual of style.
Allow trivia sections for certain subjects like television shows, films, and video games.
Create a bot to salvage information by creating a link to the history page containing the removed trivia section and post it on the article's talk page. More "bot" uses for trivia are possible.
Change the trivia template to read "This trivia sections needs cleaning up."

Perennial pros and cons regarding trivia and popular culture information

Pros

Trivia is true and factual.
Opens up interesting links to several other articles and opens up branches into the vastness of wikipedia.
Trivia can often be a fun, quick read and really provides a bit of a conclusion to an article
Provides a temporary repository for the casual editor to jot down a quick note that later can be expanded upon.
Some facts are more presentable and in some cases, only relevant, in a trivia section and seem arbitrary in the text of the article.
The trivia template simply states trivia sections are "discouraged," and an "attempt" should be made to integrate the items into the text of the article, not that the trivia section should be "completely removed" and "buried forever" in the history of the article.

Cons

Inspires casual readers/editors to add a tidbit of information that eventually becomes a gargantuan list of facts.
One man's indispensable trivia is another man's pet peeve.
Are a constant source of aggravation for article editors because they're hard to maintain.
Can be serious obstacles to an article ever reaching GA or FA recognition.
Does not comply with the manual of style.
Trivia is often unsourced.
Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopedia, and no other encyclopedias in the world are known to have trivia sections.

Great quotes concerning the hot topic of the wikipedia trivia debate

Trivia sections are a victim of the conflict of what wikipedia was created to be and what wikipedia is now famous for.
If a liberal is a conservative who's never been mugged, then a pro-trivia "inclusionist" editor is a "deletionist" who's never seen a horrifying trivia section. Ozmaweezer 15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what we are finding is that Wikipedia's goals are not the same as its successes (source)

For your consideration. Ozmaweezer 06:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture

For those that are unaware, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture has been established to deal with trivia type content, in a complimentary fashion to this project. The Trivia and Popular Culture project sees the trivia problem mainly being an organizing problem, and it emphasizes the integration or re-presenting of trivia/in popular culture type content in a more valuable way, as described by WP:TRIVIA. The project supports Wikipedia's core content policies and seeks to present trivia type content in a verifiable, neutral and useful way. If you are interested in the aim of the project as outlined on the project page, please consider joining the discussion on the project talk page. Cheers, --Nick Penguin 08:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I have added some tags to some trivial bulleted lists, but a users keeps reverting all my good-faith/improvement edits, mainly as a said user seems to think that just because a section isn't labeled trivia, means that it is automatically is not. There are some real problem pages out there, check through my contribs to see some of the cluttered/trivial lists. Hope you guys can be helped out. 75.5.225.151 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My wording change to "Goals"

I didn't change the meaning of the statement, except that I made it make more sense! I simply fixed a grammatical error, but the meaning is unchanged (that is, it still says what it was trying to say before)

The previous version said "then removing". I fixed the error. This person was trying to say "than removing", which is still wrong. It should say "rather than removing", and that's what I changed it to.

It's incredible that I can't make a simple copyedit without starting a holy war. I didn't change the stated goal of this project in any way, shape, or form, and I shouldn't need to discuss such a mundane edit

Please assume good faith next time and give it a little more thought before reverting someone's edit: You may find that you're just plain wrong TheBilly (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with your version is that it seems like you are saying trivia sections should not be removed at all, which isn't true. You should try to integrate every piece of trivia that you can, but you should remove a trivia section if it contains unrelated or obviously false pieces of trivia. It really should be a goal reading something like:

2. Integrate useful trivia from the trivia sections into the other sections of the article—if an appropriate section can be found—and/or create a new section to house the pieces of trivia that have a more narrow focus. Remove the pieces of trivia that are unrelated or false. Then remove the trivia section altogether.

The idea of this project is not only to integrate trivia, but also to remove trivia sections that are made up of only false, innapropriate, or clearly non-notable pieces of trivia. The rewording you gave did change the meaning of the goal.

Finally, don't forget to assume good faith on the other side as well :). I would have reverted your edit also, not because I thought it was done in bad faith, but because of the reasons I gave above. Johnred32 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand my comment about making it more consistent with WP:TRIV. I was referring only to changing the word to "integrate" there. The other edit I made at the same time was the grammar one I argued above. "Then" means "first x, then y" and "than" means "rather x than y" (or "x instead of y"). Since the wording said "then removing" it seemed more likely it was intended to say "than removing". If it had said "then remove" I would have interpreted it as you did. Again, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the philosophy currently stated on the page ("integrate, then after that, remove"), I'm saying that my edit was not at all related to the philosophy. I was fixing a wording error. My change did not change the stated philosophy, and therefore there was no reason I needed to discuss it before making it. TheBilly (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean now. It is true that it could have been a grammer error of "then" rather than "than" (pardon the pun there). I can see that you were not intentionally tring to change the meaning. I also see that "then removing" is a poor way to word the goal. It should have been "then remove." Johnred32 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding articles with trivia sections

In case people aren't aware, there is a good way of finding potential articles for trivia cleanup using Google search. If you enter:

trivia inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki -"trivia sections are discouraged"

it will find English Wikipedia articles with the word trivia, but which have not yet been tagged with the trivia tag. Hope this helps. Da rulz07 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with trivia, though, is that it masquerades under different names. You'll want to try other queries too, like "in popular culture" TheBilly (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but popular culture is not trivia, and all guidelines saying so have been rejected. Agreed though, trivia is trivia regardless of the name. DGG (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, popular culture is not trivia. But a search on "popular culture" is likely to find trivia sections. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but popular culture is not trivia, and all guidelines saying so have been rejected"^{[citation needed]}. Indiscriminate lists of facts of dubious importance are trivia. The point is that people label their lists of useless garbage by different names TheBilly (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

consensus seems to be changing about this material, now that a broader spectrum of WPedians are aware of it. We will have to be engaging in cleanup and referencing, not deletion. But that's what everyone wants, isn't it? DGG (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo - totally true. Most material should not be removed but should be incorporated. The only thing is, if the material has no source I don't think we should keep it until it can be sourced. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are better off using:

trivia site:en.wikipedia.org -"trivia sections are discouraged"

Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia for May 2007 is down from 269 to 50 articles

Though the cleanup crew might be interested in my efforts. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now clear and all trivia material is either merged, removed (if truly crudulent), or taken to the talk page if there are no sources. Now on to the next month, which is a monster at > 800 articles in the category. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed

Dual Freq (talk · contribs) and I are in a dispute over whether the inclusion of an astronaut's hobbies in a Wikipedia article constitutes trivia and whether such information needs to be removed. I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to comment on this issue, over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space#Trivia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 08:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]