Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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^talk 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^talk 11:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"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).

Similarly, I have also never, and would never, advocate articles purely consisting of lists. Articles do need to be mainly made up of prose. My suggestion is that an article of prose can still be good if it contains a small section of trivia.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 05:48, 10/5/2007

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)

Yes, I'm aware you don't. We have what's called a difference of opinion. Many people on Wikipedia agree with you, and many agree with me. That's where things currently stand.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:41, 10/5/2007

Trivia

Thanks for phasing out Trivia sections. I know they are fun to read, but they have to go.

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 Wikipedia. While this discussion is going on, substantial and arguably quite useful portions of content on Wikipedia 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)

I agree as well. Trivia sections are entertaining, informative, and it is easier to scan it for a certain piece of information, than search through the whole article, especially when it's long and/or boring. ~~M3n747 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop Bickering

I agree fully with the statement above. Trivia sections are a vital part of the the Wikipedia experience and are what makes us unique. What Encyclopedia has that? Mpftmead 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stop Bickering"? Umm.. Mangojuice^talk 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have trivia sections because other encyclopedias don't have them? Not sure I really agree with that logic. Chaz ^Beckett 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 Wikipedia should be something other than an encylopedia. I also disagree with the assumption that "Trivia sections are a vital part of the the Wikipedia experience...". I understand what's being argued, I just don't think it's very strong argument. Chaz ^Beckett 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. Wikipedia 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)

• • • • • Wait a second. Is'nt Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (being an encyclopedia) should be changed. Chaz ^Beckett 16:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making that argument. I would never say that wikipedia 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)

And there's another responsibility of pioneers--to keep going forward and not quarrel about the route to the extent of shooting each other in the back.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 wikipedia 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)

See my comment above. It is NOT because it's difficult. There is NEVER a situation where information CAN'T be integrated somehow. You keep going back to this, and I don't know who you're hoping to address with it, but it's definitely not us.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:59, 10/5/2007

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)

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?

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.

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

There is nothing wrong with it, it's just people taking a voluntary thing and trying to turn it into a job and holding it to some godly standard because they have nothing better to do.

It's the internet people. Not life or death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.135.16 (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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, [1] 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)

Yeah that was my thinking as well. Plus, this kind of categorical removal of content really does constitute vandalism. It's the kind of thing this guideline specifically discourages. Thanks for the support, Ariel; I'll need it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 13:52, 10/9/2007

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 [2], [3], [4]. 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^Tally-ho! 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 Wikipedia.", which this action most certainly was not. Chaz ^Beckett 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)

It doesn't actually have anything to do with lists per se, but irrelevant items in lists yes.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:00, 10/9/2007

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 ^Beckett 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 ^Beckett 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll buy that. If vandalism is by definition bad-faith-only, then these probably don't constitute vandalism, as I do think they were an attempt to improve the articles.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:51, 10/9/2007

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 Wikipedia" 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)

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

No block. Neil ム 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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^(talk) 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is was that material suitable? Or was it WP:OR? Bear in mind if it's original research (and unless you can source it, it is), it doesn't matter what this guideline says, it should not be there. Neil ム 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Unsourced material is subject to removal and it is the burden of someone who replaces such material to justify why it should be there. I don't think references to the quanitity or speed of removal matter if the material is unreferenced. --DanielCD 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is one user's large-scale, improper, contentious, non-consensus deletions. We just don't do that on Wikipedia. Most of the deleted material was clearly not OR. Unsourced material is not OR, it is unsourced material. 80% of the material on Wikipedia is not properly sourced. We do not delete it all. We deal with it in a calm, case by case, way. And yes, it does matter what the guideline says. We do not delete trivia and lists on sight. Wikidemo 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We do if they are unsourceable, because they are original research.

And if someone removes material because it is unsourced, and you want to restore it, you had better be prepared to put it back with a source. If you are unwilling or unable to, then it should not be restored. WP:V (policy) trumps WP:TRIVIA (guideline). Neil ム 18:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So would you endorse the wholesale removal of the 80% of Wikipedia content that's unsourced? Besides which, what you're saying goes against this guideline. Entire trivia sections are not supposed to be removed as a remedy. They're supposed to be kept for possible improvement and integration.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:24, 10/9/2007

Yes, although I recognise this is not a widely held viewpoint. But removing unsourced content is fine - if you can't restore it without providing a source, it should not have been there in the first place. And if what I am saying goes against this guideline, then the guideline needs to be revised as it's countermanding WP:V. Neil ム 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines don't trump policy. One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia right now is this seeming obsession with growing the number of articles and size of content without first focusing on the quality and verifiability of the content that already exists here.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy is that information should be verifiable - not verified per se. For example, I'm a mathematician, and if I'm adding material on mathematics, I'll give a reference if I have one to hand. However, if I don't, and it's well known information, I'll add the material anyway, knowing that if anyone challenges it, I can hunt down a reference without too much difficulty. Obviously, pop culture is a different kind of beast - for one thing, because well known does not equal notable, also references for pop culture aren't usually too hard to find - so requiring a source isn't particularly unreasonable. However, asking that all articles in all fields be fully sourced is a little heavy handed. James pic 10:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact

On the above point, I've added "and can be referenced" to the "If information is otherwise suitable, do not just remove it" section. It needs to be explicit that this guideline doesn't trump our policies on original research / verifiability. If an trivia list (just like any other content) is removed for being unsourced, simply restoring it does not solve anything - restore it with references, or not at all. If any content is challenged for being unsourced, and you are unable to produce a source, there's no justification for including it. Trivia lists fall into that, as does everything else. Discuss? Neil ム 18:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Content can be restored even if it's unsourced -- especially if the restore is being performed as the result of disruptive editing (called disruptive by consensus). If you have a guideline to refer to that says content can never be added without a source, I'd like to see that. We have maintenance tags that point out unsourced statements for a reason. You might not agree that anything unsourced should ever remain in an article for any length of time, but that viewpoint is not shared by most people.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:34, 10/9/2007

Actually read WP:V. In particular, read WP:V#Burden of evidence. Applicable quote: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It explicitly states "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" (my emphasis). Then it goes on about you can also tag with {{fact}} (or similar) but not indefinitely, and it says you can move unsourced material to the talk page - which is something the WP:TRIVIA guideline currently says you should not do. That also needs to be addressed, as it is contravening one of the five pillars. Neil ム 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no need to add references when restoring a trivia section that's been summarily deleted. If someone deletes a trivia section merely because it's trivia, they're not challenging the accuracy of the material or deleting for lack of sources, they're engaged in a POV deletion. For example, they're not questioning whether or not the Ally McBeal show did or did not feature dancing babies, they're saying that dancing babies has no place in an article about Ally McBeal. Mis-applying that principle would mean that most any deletion for any purpose would be incontestable until sourced, it just gives a deletionists a tool for wikigaming to get the upper hand. Sourcing should never be used as a pretext for objections made on some other basis. Wikidemo 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The onus is always on the editor(s) wishing to add or retain information to show that it's properly sourced. In general, trivia sections are very poorly sourced. While mass deletion ofg trivia sections isn't especially productive, mass reversions without regard to each section's sourcing also isn't very helpful. Chaz ^Beckett 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what Neil wrote (edit conflicted) and I'd add that Equazcion's argument seems to take for granted that removal of unsourced content is somehow "disruptive" and I don't think that is nearly as widely held a belief as you may thing. Content can be added unsourced, but it is subject to removal at any time per WP:V or WP:OR. I don't at all support the idea that we should leave content out there with a tag just waiting for someone to come along and source it.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This particular spate of deleting 300 entire sections - twice - was certainly disruptive. If you don't think it's disruptive, look at all the fighting, edit warring, effort, incivility, blocks, and discussions that resulted from it. That's what a disruption is. Content should be sourced is an utterly different rule than unsourced content should be deleted. The latter, if carried out to an extreme, would indeed create quite a disruption. Removing 80% of Wikipedia content for a start. Wikidemo 18:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Neil. A trivia section with sourced info is a good candidate for integration, but (IMO) it shouldn't be deleted outright. However, any unsourced trivia should be removed and not re-added until properly sourced. The revision(s) with the unsourced trivia will always exist in the history and the entries can be moved to the talk page for discussion, if necessary. Chaz ^Beckett 18:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, there was only fighting, edit warring, effort, incivility, blocks, and discussions resulting from it because a number of editors don't actually understand Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability. Burntsauce's actions were entirely correct, even if his reasoning was specious. Not one of those edits should have been reverted unless the reverter, personally, is prepared to source every pointless trivial fact they restored. If they are not, then they should not have been restored. Unsourced content should be sourced, or at the least, tagged with {{fact}}. If it cannot be sourced, it will be removed (either altogether, to the talk page, or commented out). If someone removes content because it is not sourced, then you do not restore it unless you can source it. WP:V is not optional. Neil ム 18:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that if a controversial edit causes a huge flap, any disruption the fault of the people who disagree. I don't buy it. There's absolutely no excuse for deleting 300 sections indiscriminately, and we shouldn't encourage that behavior. Disruptive POV deltions should be reverted, period. To let it stand puts the onus on the affected editors, and endorses the disruptive editing. These sections were not removed for being unsourced. They were removed for being pop culture sections. As you saw yourself in at least one case, even sourced information was deleted along with the unsourced information.Wikidemo 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

←Again this is not a question of policy. It's a question of how this particular instance was handled. The user performed hundreds of categorical removals of entire sections at a rate of 2 per minute based only on section title, with no explanation other than "popculturectomy". If you're arguing for a change to this guideline, even that wouldn't justify what he did. He was disruptive.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:54, 10/9/2007

At risk of repeating what I said at ANI, the core act of deleting this information was not "disruptive" any more that the core act of restoring it was. The disruptive factor was misleading edit summaries and general silliness from multiple editors towards others. That however is a user issue, not a content issue.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was very disruptive. There, now we've both stated our opinions.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:16, 10/9/2007

Just because it was done in a rude manner does not mean it was the wrong thing to do. The subsequent reverting was equally rude and it was the wrong thing to do. The disruption only take place when a small number of editors who are overprotective of trivia lists got upset and reverted everything post haste (the discussion should have taken place then). Neil ム 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong thing to do, according to you. No guideline prohibits adding unsourced material. Let me repeat that. No guideline or policy anywhere prohibits the addition of unsourced material to an article. What I did may have been against what you think is right, and I respect your opinion. It is nevertheless just an opinion, and not policy.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:25, 10/9/2007

The policy is "ANY UNSOURCED CONTENT CAN BE REMOVED AT ANY TIME". Apologies for shouting, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. It's not my opinion. At no point has anyone mentioned "do not add unsourced material" - what everyone seems to agree on is what WP:V says, which is that unsourced material can be removed. This is wholly the wrong place to be discussing such a basic application of one of our most basic policies. 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good policy. I have not argued against it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:34, 10/9/2007

Support Neil's change and agree with his initial statement at top of this section. If it can't be sourced, it's cruft, and damages the 'pedia rather than enhancing it. These sections are usually OR and cluttered with incredibly trivial mentions. While I'm not 100% opposed to bulleted lists, if they are short and that is truly the best way to integrate the sourced, relevant information, I vastly prefer them being turned into prose that demonstrates notability. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example, here's what Van helsing, Dina and I did to transfom this to this. And yes, we even dealth with Buffyverse cruft ;-) I plan on doing the same thing to other articles with cruft. But if none of it can be sourced and integrated this way, I say cut it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. Your position that everything unsourced is cruft may match Neil's minority opinion on the subject, but the fact is that 80% of Wikipedia is unsourced. Individual statements or sections are challenged if they are questionable and lack sources, but we absolutely do not go around simply removing everything without a source. Actually, it's more like 95%, if you include things that are so obvious or commonly known that nobody would conceive of challenging it. But the opposition to trivia sections is not the lack of sourcing. That's a minor but real point. The opposition (when it's not entirely without principle) is that the information is unimportant, unencyclopedic, not relevant to the subject of the article and/or in an unusable format. Claiming lack of source as a pretext for getting rid of material you don't approve of, or for opposing its restoral, is weak. Wikidemo 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if "cruft" is the most useful term, but everything unsourced is subject to removal at any time per policy. Trivia should first be sourced and integrated into the article if at all possible. If it can't be sourced, it should be tagged. If it isn't sourced in a reasonable amount of time, it should be removed. If someone wants to add it back with sourcing, wonderful, but I don't agree with leaving large tracts of unsourced text in articles waiting for someone to come along and source them.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, and that's what our policy/guidelines say to do (though if the problem is trivia I would address the trivia aspect rather than the sourcing question). However, if someone summarily deletes an entire section that contains useful and relevant information, saying simply "rm trivia" or the like, it's better to revert in total. If there's time, revert only what looks useful. There's no obligation to add references everywhere you go. We only have so much time to edit, and it's not worth wasting the time picking up debris left by careless editors.Wikidemo —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Not every unsourced statement on WP is cruft, especially when it is non-controversial and uncontested knowledge. But in lists, yeah, in my experience it usually is WP:Crufty. I haven't looked at every one of Burntsauce's edits, but as for ones on my watchlist, he cut sections that have been flagged as unsourced trivia for months, and where no one was doing anything to source them. The example I gave above, of transforming a contested section, took place gradually, with a number of editors challenging and removing unsourced bits. This is not controversial. What Burntsauce did is controversial, granted, as it was in some (many?) cases abrupt. But for sections flagged for months it was not abrupt at all, it was welcome cleanup, and I thank him for that. I see nothing controversial about adding Neil's clause of, "If information is otherwise suitable, and can be referenced," - without that sort of qualifier, this guideline violates WP:V and WP:NOR. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that there is no consensus on "sourced" --the verifiability guidelines are pretty decent, but there is plenty of room to manuver, though some folks take certain statements far too literally. I placed a footnote at the end of a paragraph and got the "fact" tag slapped on sentences within the paragraph--all material in the paragraph was from the same source, did they want me to tag every sentence? I think not. OTOH, some articles simply have a list of sources at the end with relatively few footnotes. And in some cases, that is in part because the knowledge is pretty universal (must we source the fact that dogs bark, for example?? Why they bark and how to stop them from doing it at the wrong time, sure, source that, but there is a limit!) My humble opinion is that {{tags}} are not a bad thing, and should be used in lieu of blanking with rude remarks in the edit summary. It is better to give those who care an opportunity to fix an article before diving in wholesale and trashing things to which you have made no contribution nor care to. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"...it's not worth wasting the time picking up debris left by careless editors."

I disagree, in some ways this is exactly what Burntsauce was doing (albeit I don't think his edit summaries correctly reflect this); picking up debris left by careless editors in the form of unsourced, and in many cases trivial, content. I'd say that it is worth it.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce wasn't picking up debris, he was creating a mess. By deleting material indiscriminately he leaves it for others to decide what is sourced and unsourced, relevant, notable, etc. It took him 90 minutes the first time. It's probably caused Wikipedia a hundred hours or more of collective consternation already, and that's without even addressing the question of what material should exist on these pages. There's a reason the policy and guidelines are the way they are. Trivia sections should be integrated or reorganized, unsourced statements may be challenged, etc. Disregarding that in favor of mass deletion of sections he does not like is utterly unproductive. Wikidemo 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think your assessment is wrong; the deletions were no more indiscriminate than the initial addition or the reverts for that matter. I'd say at this point though this particular line of conversation concerning editor behavior isn't particularly relevant to an actual discussion of this guideline, but I'd be more than willing to continue the conversation at a user talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The more I read that and some of the other apologies for yesterday's misbehavior, the more ludicrous they all seem. Yesterday's shenanigans on the part of Burntsauce and a couple administrators were outrageous, and more than disruptive. They simply deleted 300 sections and launched a wide-scale edit war because the title of the sections mentioned popular culture, as a blatant in-your-face challenge to people who do not agree with them that trivia sections should be deleted on sight. The reversions are 100% targeted to reversing the bad behavior. This casts a serious cloud on the viability and appropriateness of the whole page and those behind it. At this point, I'm inclined to simply close the subject and say no, I don't want to here any more about trivia. Stop deleting it, stop obsessing on it, stop disrupting the project, and go away.Wikidemo 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Query

"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."

I believe that trivia sections should be integrated into the articles, where they pass WP:V, WP:NPOV and our other guidelines, or removed where they do not. The current state of this guideline seems to contradict several other of our core policies. While I am not in favour of blindly removing them in a semi-automated way as it seems was recently done, I think we should definitely aim long-term to ridding the project of these. They seem to epitomise several of the things that Wikipedia is not. What do others think? --John 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove whatever you want whenever you want. Just take responsibility that you're doing it because you think it's better that way; don't say that what you're doing is mandated by this guideline. In other words, don't hide behind the guideline. We put that there so that people will have to justify themselves if they start removing information and it is challenged. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this - there's a fine line to walk. The first part I don't think is contestable (this guidelines does not suggest removing trivia sections - well, it doesn't) but the "it is better" part is more debatable. The intent was that it's better for information to be poorly presented until someone finds the time to fix it, than removed outright - but even this is an eventualist position that may be contested. Maybe the justification should simply be removed. Dcoetzee 00:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I support it as written.--Father Goose 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected??

I don't really see the need for that as the edit warring is over, but okay...

Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:46, 10/9/2007

Agreed - this seems to be a strange decision. Neil ム 11:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a 48-hour expiration time. I think the conflict has passed myself, but in any case indefinite protection is not necessary. Mangojuice^talk 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Example

I came upon this article and I immediately thought of this guideline. For those who hate trivia, hide your eyes. Admittedly, I'm at a lost of where to begin the clean up. :P Agne^Cheese/^Wine 11:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness you only mentioned "begin" and not "finish" - I took a stab at beginning, by organizing the pop culture references by genre and finding a source. Between the article and the news story, there is something encyclopedic about the portrayal of a cheap "wino" brand in popular culture. It's a piece of Americana, and some serious writing is devoted to such things if one only knew where to find it. The source probably covers a good portion of the article, and more than that it establishes the notability of the subject of Ripple in popular culture, but it's a subscription site and I'm not so interested I want to pay $2.95 by credit card right now. Perhaps someone with a Nexis subscription.Wikidemo 12:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removal

Can I suggest that in general, if people are going to remove trivia, they cut it to the talkpage, rather than deleting it outright?

What to one person is trivia, to another can be raw material to work into the article. And others again value being informed as to how an idea has been taken up, adapted and/or represented in other works.

Trivia sections tend to be an archetype of the wiki process - a gestalt contributed to by many hands, none of whom knew it all. Pop culture is of interest, and it is something that WP's self-organising contributory methods make WP particularly effective at gathering, in a way that is simply not matched by traditional "cathedral" content creation processes.

I appreciate that for many people this isn't what they want to see in Wikipedia articles. But can I suggest that even when such information is removed, it is not simply destroyed (or rather, abandoned so deep in the permafrost of the edit history as to be lost forever); but that instead it should be cut across to the talk page, where it can remain visible - or, for busy talkpages, to a specific talk archive subpage?

Because this information does have a value, and shouldn't be lost beyond reclamation. Jheald 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If the trivia is properly sourced, I mostly agree with your comments. If the trivia (or any other information) is unsourced, it should removed. The burden is always on the party adding content to ensure that the information adheres to Wikipedia policy. Chaz ^Beckett 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. From experience removing trivia sections, around 90% can be tossed as it is unreferenced and could not improve the article even if it was. The other 10% can be integrated into the article body. There is no harm in sending the trivia to talk, as it shows courtesy to the people who added it in good faith, however dubious its actual value may be. --John 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all unsourced information should be outright removed. Else an article consisting of 400 sentences would need 400 citations. Information which you doubt may be challenged with {{fact}} or even removed, but you shouldn't remove legitimate (unsourced) noncontroversial information just because it is unsourced. Give it some time to be sourced. The same goes for trivia, deleting an entire section which can easily be verified because "no sources have been cited in the article" is wrong. Melsaran (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The key is to use common sense. Nobody needs to delete, or fact tag for that matter, that the sun rises in the east. If it is questionable, investigate it. If you can't verify, tag it and leave a note on the talkpage. If no one sources it in a reasonable amount of time, delete it. If it is particularly dubious and not verfiable delete it outright and leave a note on the talkpage. I realize that the onus is on the person adding the content to provide verification, but it never hurts to do a bit of good faith due diligence.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to John and Chaz, the stuff you're tossing may not be valuable to you, but it might be valuable to somebody. If you don't think it belongs in the article, so be it. But at least put it on to the talk page. I think that goes for unsourced material too. If you delete it outright, it will never get sourced. But if you cut it to the talk page, then people can at least still find it, and try to source it if they want to. Jheald 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what annoys many so-called "anti-trivia" editors is the consistently poor quality of trivia that's added to articles. It's usually unsourced, poorly written (spelling, tone, and grammatical errors) and better classified as minutiae or sub-trivia. In general, I agree with the approach Isotope described above. It's really a matter of common sense. If the information looks good, but is unsourced, it doesn't hurt to spend a few minutes attempting to source it. If that's unsuccessful, move it to the talk page. If the information is crap and it's unsourced, there's nothing wrong with deletion. Chaz ^Beckett 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

but remember the relative speed of deleting and improving--it's not a" few minutes" to source a long trivia section, I would allow myself 8 or 10 hours, in a good library with internet access to almost all published paid sources and an excellent modern print collection. The WP criteria is unsourcable.DGG (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That criterion is for articles, not talk pages. Jheald 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A good deal of trivia can be sourced with a few minutes of Google searches. It's an unreasonable expectation that someone will spend hours attempting to source a single trivia section. Very few have the time or resources to clean up hastily added, unsourced trivia. All information should be verifiable without forcing the reader to spend hours in a library. Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This certainly isn't limited to trivia; information is not kept in an article simply because there might be a source. Once the verifiability of information is challenged, whether by removal, moving it to the talk page or tagging, a source must be provided. Chaz ^Beckett 13:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fair if someone is truly concerned about sourcing. But making a collateral attack on content you don't like by attaching fact tags to it is wikigaming. Also, removing an entire section at once on claim that it's unsourced is a bold act that can reasonably be reverted if someone disputes it. In a dispute it may be the person proposing the content who has the burden of establishing verifiability, but the person proposing the deletion has the burden of establishing consensus. Wikidemo 13:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If content isn't sourced, it's fair to tag it as such. I'm sure there are situations in which fact tagging can and is abused, but that's more of a user conduct issue. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "person proposing the deletion has the burden of establishing consensus". Simply put, if information (not just trivia) is unsourced, it's subject to deletion. However, as has been mentioned several times, common sense should be used. If the information appears to be of good quality, but lacks sources, there's several options other than outright removal, including attempting to find source, tagging or moving the information to the talk page. Eventually, if information has been challenged, no source has been provided and a reasonable amount of time has been allowed, it's appropriate and fully within Wikipedia policy to remove it from the article. Chaz ^Beckett 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone deleted a trivia section summarily claiming lack of source and it contained useful information, sourced information, or information that does not need a source, it's fair to revert. The person proposing deletion then has to talk about it. Re-deleting is contentious editing at that point. The key words are "eventually" and "common sense." Wikidemo 15:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a slight disconnect here. You're referring to situations where the information is sourced, I'm referring to when it isn't (more common, at least in the case of trivia). Chaz ^Beckett 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am too. Most of Wikipedia is unsourced, and we don't go around summarily removing entire article sections over that.Wikidemo 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, well then I have to disagree that there has to be discussion about removing unsourced information. It's polite and good form to do so, and other options (as I mentioned above) should usually be attempted first, but it boils down to the fact that unsourced info is subject to deletion at any time. I'm not advocating nuking huge portions of articles, but it can't be stressed enough how important it is to source information. Sourcing of information is a necessary, though not always sufficient condition. It's unforunate that trivia sections too often don't meet this minimum requirement. Chaz ^Beckett 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it's entirely appropriate to add the information back. Again, deleting entire sections on a claim that they're unsourced, when the issue is not sourcing, is wikigaming. Wikidemo 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

section break

(unindent) It's appropriate to add it back with a source, or perhaps temporarily while a source is being researched. Adding or re-adding unsourced information into an article when its sourcing has been challenged is not appropriate. I think you're referring to a specific, recent incident of mass removals and that wasn't so much about the sourcing as the fact it was trivia. In that particular case, I think the best option would have been to restore sourced trivia, while moving unsourced trivia to the article's talk page. Chaz ^Beckett 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The action that began this was wrong. It needed correcting. You can't go one night and remove sections from 300 articles based on their title alone. People tend to ignore the original action and focus on the remedy as being the "first action", saying "Hey why are you adding unsourced info to the articles?" This is not the case. A massive action like that needs to be simply undone. Trivia sections are controversial, and respect needs to be paid to the people on the other side of the argument. Not only that, but a) this guideline specifically discourages the original removal, b) while the removal was happening, there was consensus on this talk page that it should be stopped, and c) the remover(s) refused to participate in the discussion, choosing instead to continue the removal in the heat of the debate.

If we're talking about the general outright removal of trivia sections because they are unsourced, then we're not talking about trivia sections anymore. We're having a debate about WP:V and WP:CITE. We're arguing over whether or not unsourced information should be removed on-sight, even in controversial circumstances, by the people who disagree with it being there. There are several maintenance tags having to do with source requests, and they do get used. I use them myself, as a courtesy to people who might think differently from me, to give them a chance to source their statements rather than kicking them in the face by removing content outright. Some people don't think like I do, and I try to respect that, because if the tables were turned I know I'd appreciate a similar gesture. But this again has nothing to do with trivia or pop culture or either of their placement in articles. This is a simple issue of how to deal with verifiability. If there are guidelines that make suggestions for that, I suggest you read them (you meaning everyone here, and I will do the same).

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:23, 10/11/2007

I'm referring to the general removal of information due to lack of sources. I only referenced the specific incident from a few days ago because I had a feeling that Wikidemo was referring to it. Perhaps I was mistaken. The WP:V and WP:OR obviously apply to all information, but are especially relevant to trivia sections as a large percentage of trivia tends to be unsourced. Providing sources isn't optional, nor is a matter of agreeing with the information; it's mandatory, full stop. To focus on the specific case of trivia sections, if information in a section has been tagged as lacking sources and none have been provided after a reasonable period of time, the information should not exist in the article. I've mentioned above how I'd suggest handling such a situation, but trivia is not exempt from WP:V. Chaz ^Beckett 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When material is removed en masse from hundreds of articles, that doesn't count as "challenging its sourcing". Much trivia (and especially pop culture info) is from primary sources, and rarely has a citation, but it is verifiable and acceptable under WP:PSTS as long as it is limited to a description of the primary source.--Father Goose 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, the best thing to do is to clean any article up to its best possible state. But if someone who hasn't participated in an article swoops in and boldly deletes an entire section on flimsy grounds, it's certainly appropriate to restore it, sources or no. And saying the magic words "no sources" doesn't turn it into a legitimate challenge on sourcing. That would utterly circumvent this guideline regarding keeping trivia sections, which is consensus after all. We have to watch out for the "policy trumps guideline" people who are always finding some policy reason to do whatever they want to do, and use it as an excuse to engage in contentious editing. We get nonsense like that over other issues too - people claiming that something is a list, a random collection of information, spam, reads like an advertisement, is a replaceable non-free image, etc. Rather than taking the time to fix, or even understand, an article, they simply gut it. Although they're probably within the bounds of WP:BOLD (provided they do it one article at a time and not as part of some organized campaign, and don't edit war over their change if people refuse it), other editors are within their rights to disagree with that approach and say that the best way to make the article better is to gradually improve it. Anything else would only encourage the kind of contention and provocation we've been seeing around here that sometimes makes Wikipedia such an uncivil place to be, editing as aggression. Wikidemo 16:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A guideline on trivia sections absolutely does not override a policy requiring sources. Do people sometimes use policy to bash others over the head? Sure. But that's a problem with user conduct, not content. Look, if someone is abusing WP:V, that's a problem. But it's also a problem when users are adding or re-adding unsourced info into articles and trivia is offender #1. Can we at least agree on this? Chaz ^Beckett 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Again, the original action of removal is discouraged by this guideline, and undoing it in accordance with this guideline is fine. Even if you want to start from the re-adding as the first action, to say that people who undo a section removal are "Adding unsourced material", even that is not prohibited by any policy. Verifiability still allows people to add material that is not immediately cited already.

If fixing an original action that goes against the recommendation of a guideline is itself a violation of policy, then what we have is a serious consistency problem in our rules. I however don't think this is the case. Unsourced material is allowed to stay in articles all the time -- people are just using WP:V in this case to justify the removal of a type of section they disagree with.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:18, 10/11/2007

Can I humbly suggest that we all agree that semi-automatically removing trivia sections from many articles is a bad way to proceed, and then move on to a discussion of how this sort of improvement (for removing unsourced tosh like "He has a pet goldfish and is a supporter of Chelsea FC" from articles is an improvement) can best be done? --John 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What to do?

In response to User:John's question above, everyone has a different approach, but if an article in which you take an interest has problematic trivia it's entirely fine to refactor the trivia section or even the entire article, with a boldness level that depends on its state of development, how many other people you're working with, etc. I find it's best to do it in chunks and nibbles just to see who is out there, and also to keep things organized.

Here's one example. A few months ago I came across the mother of all trivia articles, the 1989 World Series. A 2-paragraph lead, then 6 tables of sports scores, 21 trivia bullet points, 8 quotes in inconsistent formats, 1 citation, 1 reference that appears to be some kind of book, then 14 random external links. Delete the whole thing as unsourced? Don't be silly. I did this. I separated out the bullet points on the earthquake and added some header info. Still needs sourcing in a big way, but it's an improvement and if people would actually help out it sets things in motion. Next step is to de-listify and source the discussion of the earthquake's effect on the game, which is what made it so famous. Someone who knows about baseball can do the same for the gameplay. What was called trivia is mostly not trivia at all. It's relevant and it's eminently sourceable. But notice how as of today someone mindlessly slapped a trivia tag on the "trivia" section without doing anything to the equally messy "earthquake" section.

The point is, kicking people in the shins over a bad article is easy. Just delete things and tell people to clean up the mess. Actually improving Wikipedia is much harder. Nobody can realistically work on more than a dozen or two articles at a time, and that's if they have a serious Wikipedia addiction. But if that's all you can do, that's what you can do. Even the slightest edit is a good thing if you leave the article better than you found it. Nobody should be putting themselves above this process. What counts in the end is what you've contributed to the encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects, not how many edit wars or policy page fights you've been in. Wikidemo 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the goal of essentially every policy/guideline supposed to be incremental improvement of articles? If we all accept this, then we are having a disagreement about what best improve an article. It seems like there are two considerations, the short term presentation of the article (this week), and the long term presentation (a year or two). Myself, I am viewing the trivia pandemic through the long term lens, because it is clear to me that trivia just will not disappear in a week, or even a month, regardless of how "enthusiastic" editors get in resolving the issue.

Although there are an abundance of facts that are in trivia sections which could be deemed inappropriate, I think just deleting content is not an effective way of improving the long term quality of an article. And if I had to give only one (speculative) reason, it's because most average Wikipedia users do not spend hours digging through history pages looking at what facts have or have not been deleted. They want to read the article, and get on doing whatever it was that led them to that article in the first place. With this in mind, I think that it is better to keep unsourced trivia sections, flag the section with the appropriate {{trivia}} template, thus making the reader aware of what this section likely contains, and let the thousand hands of other editors work the problem out over time. --Nick Penguin 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding another tab?

No matter how much some people claim that "trivia" is "unencyclopedic" and therefore should be removed, there will always be people who love it, and who keep adding it.

What about adding a third tab to each Wikipedia article? Right now there is "article" and "discussion". What about adding "other" as a third tab. It could contain trivia, commercial links and unsourced statements galore. Anyone who is looking for such things could go there. People who look for facts stay at the "article" page and discussions of course stay at the "discussion" page. Mlewan 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much value there would be in having a "dumping ground" tab. If people really want to know absolutely everything and anything that could possibly be related to a subject, that's what Google is for. Chaz ^Beckett 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Or Wikia for that matter, where it is possible to set up a targeted Wiki on a subject where those interested can delve into whatever level of minutiae they feel is necessary.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There IS a "trivia" template. I will attempt to insert it here as an example. I like these, they flag a problem, but put the responsibility on those who care to fix it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear understanding of where trivia sections CAN be included

For example, what about the trivia sections for articles on movies and TV shows that explain Easter Eggs, pop culture references, and the like? I know ideally the guideline is "please integrate into other sections" but that's simply not possible in those cases. For example, the Care Bears article had a very interesting pop culture references section but it keeps getting deleted because of this silly "no trivia section" rule. I'm just sick of seeing every trivia section having that distracting "Trivia sections are discouraged" flag on top in articles I know a trivia section does belong (like I said, in articles about movies or episodes of TV shows). 76.177.190.137 05:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why would you need to explain Easter Eggs? Vegaswikian 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe he's referring to Easter egg (virtual).
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:16, 10/12/2007
• I think explaining Easter Eggs are verging on original research or game guide material (for video games). A while back I cleaned up the page Myths and Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and eventually after removing all the original research and game guide material, there wasn't enough information to warrant its own page so it got merged back into the main article. The only article I've seen about Easter Eggs that was Ok was the one on them in Microsoft products because there was enough industry commentary on them to build an article. For a section I think the key to deciding whether or not it should be included is whether reliable sources discuss the topic or not. Otherwise pointing out Easter Eggs and references could be original research. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If the existence and nature of an easter egg can be confirmed by checking the primary source, then it isn't original research (see WP:PSTS). Stuff that can't be confirmed (i.e., speculation) is original research.--Father Goose 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know you can use the item itself as a source, but the problem with easter eggs and pop culture references is that sometimes they can be obscure references which can not always be verified by looking at the source itself as it requires some knowledge into another subject or event. Before you know it you've set up a whole story just to explain it. Also, back when I was reading up on the San Andreas easter eggs (I was very interested in it at the time), people were finding significance and references in everything, such as the colours used to decorate something was a reference to something else, etc. It can be an issue that something may be considered an easter egg or reference to some, but not to other people. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find the example from Care Bears that 76.177.190.137 speaks of, and I believe it is this. The section holds such treasures as "A Care Bear appears in the popular song and Flash animation The Ultimate Showdown by Neil Cicierega and Shawn Vulliez. He uses a Care Bear Stare to defeat Jackie Chan and zombie Abraham Lincoln."

Having a cultural impact section in itself certainly isn't a bad idea, but even as examples, they're pretty bad and we have far better ones that demonstrate cultural impact. Such a section should also be able to tell us more than just references from other shows. Once said and done, you'd have something that really isn't a trivia section anymore, because any "trivia" would be as an example, used in a well written section about how Care Bears impacted our culture. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And even if these were good examples of cultural impact, the fact that these could be turned into a good section on cultural impact (with more than just those examples) still remains. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we really shouldn't be suggesting that X has cultural impact by listing examples like this. It's WP:OR. With actual sources writing about the cultural impact of X we can sustain a real section, but that's not common. Mangojuice^talk 06:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Would A Bathing Ape#References_In_Popular_Culture be an example of a good "Cultural impact" section? The rationale given for retaining it is that it demonstrates notability. / edg ☺ ★ 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Right on queue, ed, I was waiting for that. There is an actual source for that one though. The source is just a lyrics site so I don't know if it qualifies. I think the contention that this practice qualifies as original research is questionable. Original research is an unsourced statement, but this doesn't involve a statement. There is an implication, but there is no actual unsourced statement saying "This subject has affected popular culture significantly and here is the proof." WP:OR doesn't cover implied statements, I don't think.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:20, 10/13/2007

Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, one of the rare saves from the "in pop culture" AfDs. -- Ned Scott 10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but over the last several months I have gotten the impression that all the rules, styles guides, considerations, etc. et al. have become increasingly more important to several editors, contributors and important people,honoria causis; than the actual purpose of the encyclopaedia. The bar for a new contributor to write an appropriate article, in an appropriate style, just keeps going up and up...as does the nastiness. I, personally, feel that articles should have clear and useful structures. This feeling does not, however, conflict with my enjoyment of the occasional trivia section. There is such a thing as being too cautious, too organized and too regimented. I respectfully suggest that those who passionately feel anything but perfection is not good enough for 'our' Wikipedia need to take a deep breath and accept that not all contributors (and not all potential contributors, some of whom I suspect are being driven away by such discussions) are going to have the experience or even desire to conform to the most rigid interpretation of what and how our encyclopaedia is to be.Panthera germanicus 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)panthera_germanicus

I agree with your general sentiments, there seems to have been a shift into a new mode of development at Wikipedia (citation wars?), and it seems like the current focus on trivia is a product/symptom of this change/evolution as Wikipedia enters the next phase of it's existence. With that in mind, it seems clear that trivia is most out of place and unwanted in established and developed (long) articles, and they are least disruptive in short and budding articles. To me, this says that trivia sections are useful (in some articles) as part of the transition between stub and developed article. Thus, I think trivia sections are appropriate for articles below a certain length/certain depth of content, and they should be kept until the trivia section and the article in general grows to a point, then all the relevant information in the trivia section can be organized and re-presented in a different, more accessible way. --Nick Penguin 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled at this, because I think you have it backwards. The material in so called trivia sections is important in proportional as the subject is important. The details of production of a barely notable film are not worthwhile including to the extent the would be if the film were one of the world's best known works. The use of various stereotypical characters in a barely notable game is not as important as if the game were one of the most played. The use of a minor character in a novel in subsequent works is usually not as important as the use of major characters. The minor biographical details for Lincoln are of more importance than those for Buchanan. If there's an article with nothing important to say, we shouldn't fill it with otherwise unencyclopedic material. If there's a truly serious important article where we think the trivial stuff detracts from the high seriousness of our work, then there will normally be enough for a separate article on that aspect. DGG (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your general point, but I disagree with your second sentence. If trivia sections were really used for the purpose you think they should be, then yes, the material in so called trivia sections is important in proportional as the subject is important. But in reality, I have been finding that many useful facts have been just thrown into a trivia sections, and these would perhaps be better used as the nucleus of a new section. I think the in the long term the article is improved by presenting the information poorly in the trivia section, and then working it into the article at a later date. It's also much easier to trim an article down than it is to build it up, especially if I know only a little about the subject matter. And in the case of your example, an extremely notable film/person will likely have enough similarly related details that you could create a new section call "Production Details" or "Biographical Notes" or something to that effect and have all the relevant content find it's way into that section. But in a developing article that may one day have enough info for that section, but currently does not, it can be awkward to try and start a section if you have no information to put there. --Nick Penguin 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merges

We have Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and Wikipedia:Handling trivia in addition to this guideline. There is no point to having all three of these, and editors will be (actually are; I've seen it happen before) confused as to what is and is not a part of this guideline. To the extent that any of the advice in these other two documents has consensus as being good advice or best practices, it should be merged into here. To the extent that it does not, it is just noise and sh should be removed. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Put in the least confusing way, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and Wikipedia:Handling trivia are not part of this guideline.

I understand the desire to streamline Wikipedia's trivia guidance, but as Equazcion points out below, there's little agreement on how to handle trivia from a content point of view. There's more agreement over how to handle it stylistically -- which is why this guideline has historically been limited to style, not content matters. Could you share with us where you've witnessed this confusion over these pages? It would help make your case.--Father Goose 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not right off hand; I've just seen several trivia sections (with material in them of encyclopedic interest that should be merged into the main article prose) deleted wholesale with edit summaries of "Rm. trivia section per WP:TRIV" and the like. But WP:TRIV does not actually advocate such deletion. The considerably more prescriptive stance taken by Wikipedia:Handling trivia and the IPC page were probably what the deleter was thinking of, yet they are not guidelines, being rather one-sided essays, a form of advocacy, basically. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: The lack of consensus on some aspects of the content (vs. style) issue simply means that the two essays of are highly questionable utility with regard to that question and are thus good deletion candidates in the first place; merge what does have/gain consensus and ditch the rest. If some particular editor wants to express a highly activistic opinion on the matter, that doesn't reflect consensus, let them userspace a copy of the essay(s). WP does not need a Wikipedia-namespace essay on every conceivable opinion, and they get MfD'd all the time, especially when they are of a divisive or campaigning nature (per various sections in WP:NOT). Wikipedia essays are useful when they present a group-edited opinion piece that is not particularly controversial, such as WP:TEA; when they get argumentative and spawn counter-essays, a strong argument can be made for their removal (or userspacing if there's only one predominant editor). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge/rename re-proposal to address MOS issue raised

I understand the distinction being raised above and below, based especially in this being considered part of the MOS, but I think it's missing my point: We do not need three or even two separate sets of guidance on trivia. Since making it all part of MOS is undesirable, do it the other way around. Move the page to Wikipedia:Trivia, retain a {{guideline}} tag (generic one, not MOS one), integrate the aspects of the other two documents that actually do have consensus, i.e. have a discussion to build consensus on what to import from them, then redirect both and their shortcuts to this one. Simple. The fact that the new guideline would be more expansive, and would centralize discussion of this issue would be a Good Thing. The fact that it would address both sections and articles would be of no consequence; there is no particular reason that discussion of sections must be part of the MOS. And the dichotomy is false anyway, since much of WP:TRIV does in fact address content and the rationales for adding it, right from the introductory sentence. It all descends from WP:NOT anyway, and could, like WP:NFT, actually do just fine with an alternative to the {{guideline}} tag (though I don't have any problem with the end result being designated a guideline). In this case, I think the decision to have half of the material in the MOS and half as essays is quite pointless and confusing to editors, most of whom, even if they are aware of WP:TRIV, have no idea the other pages exist (and while they are too partisan right now, they actually do contain advice in them that clearly has WP-wide consensus already, and so should be formulated into a consolidated guideline with the section-related materia). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC) PS: The fact that two of them are essays is of no concern; they are Wikipedia namespace essays, not userspace ones, so they are fair game for merging and pruning. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The guideline tag is not the problem, and changing it from MOS to generic would not make this any less a style guideline, having absolutely nothing to do with actual trivia. This guideline makes formatting recommendations. Secondly, consensus is difficult enough to maintain even for this little style guideline -- and you want to merge another two essays into it? This is only asking for trouble; it would result in more rule creep, not less, because the essays in question are really meant to be just essays, and not rules. This guideline avoids making such specific recommendations as are currently included in the essays for this very reason, and that's why they've been kept as separate suggestions in essay form. I see no benefit to attempting to change this, as it would not go smoothly and only cause more infighting.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 20:24, 10/15/2007

I agree, I think the different essays serve functionally different roles at this point, and I don't see how merging them would make things simpler or better. --Nick Penguin 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move/rename

Stuck

 – The merge/rename issues can't really be discussed separately; see the above subsection for continued discussion.

The designation of this as part of the WP:MOS has not been controversial. Therefore, and in keeping with the above merge proposal, I propose renaming this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia) (note absence of "sections"). This move should be performed after the merge is performed (or rejected) obviously. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› —Preceding comment was added at 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with merging "Handling trivia." I am not sure the consensus at either part is to use the designation trivia, so perhaps in should be "MOS (Material of subsidiary importance)" I do not consider popular culture to be in general trivia,or of subsidiary importance, and I think that is the consensus at that page. I would accept a merge that said so, and listed popular culture in another section. Alternatively, the popular culture part is a question of notability, not of MOS. DGG (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "sections" is very important and can't leave the title (barring removal of the word "trivia" as well). This is a style guideline and not one of content. We aren't dealing with trivia. We're dealing with trivia sections. This guideline makes no mention of trivia itself, except where it says that this guideline is not here to define it or make recommendations regarding it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:22, 10/14/2007

See re-proposal subtopic in the thread above; if the MOS connection is a problem, sever it. And two of the three documents have "trivia" in their names and the IPC one discusses IPC articles as a form of trivia, and notes how often they are subject to AfD on that basis, so I doubt that "trivia" appearing in the combined version's name would actually be controversial. If it were, use "indiscriminate information" per WP:NOT, but really, why go to such a long name (that one or the "...subsidiary importance" one)? KISS principle. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well damn it

How the hell else would you present little tidbits about episodes of a TV show? God forbid you explain the origin of the episode's title in a single sentence, Wikipedia requires you have an entire paragraph with at least four sources (two internet, one magazine, one encyclopedia) to back it up before you DARE mention that the "Stanley's Cup" episode is a reference to the Stanley Cup award in ice hockey. Ahanix1989 06:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what? Look, just because you don't instantly know how and where to format this information doesn't mean we're asking you to do something stupid, like bloat one line trivia into paragraphs. And unless I've gone crazy, the tidbit you speak of has a nice home in the lead of Stanley's Cup. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're going to need sources no matter what. Anyone advocating for Trivia sections so they'll be able to tack on unsourced tidbits is on the wrong wiki. / edg ☺ ★ 07:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

However, it must also be recognized that TV shows, movies, DVDs, albums, etc. are their own sources in certain ways, so long as they can be verified to exist. Assertions about an "In popular culture" item, for example, need to be secondarily sourced (e.g. that the appearance/mention was influential, or is evidential of the article subject's influence), while simply noting that such an "In popular culture" appearance/mention happened at all is self-sourcing when it comes to such media. Cf. any book or movie article in Wikipedia; they almost universally use their own article subjects as sources for basics such as plot that do not need secondary-source verficiation. NB: I am not expressing here any opinion at all on the value any particular kind of alleged trivia, only clarifying the sourcing requirements. Many trivia/in popular culture lists are dreadfully deficient in sourcing, especially because so many of them are copyvio ripoffs of the trivia lists at IMDb, which are not researched by professionals the way so much IMDb information is, but added by random users just like on a Wiki, and we know from WP:V and WP:RS that other Wikis and similar sites (e-forums, blogs) are not considered reliable sources in most cases. The most common fault of this sort is unsourced assertions about actors, like "Joe Bloggs was paid only $5000 to play his part in this film" or "Jane Smith broke her ankle on the second day of shooting", and so forth. All of that kind of crap does need secondary sourcing per WP:V, if it is to be retained at all, which strikes me as a case-by-case determination.

It may be instructive to look at Albinism in popular culture (which is not fully sourced yet; sourcing has been happening from the top down) and the debates on its talk page about whether to include an entry or not. The article, in the parts were it is fully sourced, is often probably over-sourced (and there's no harm in that), by citing IMDb for facts such as who played what character and what the character's name was, despite the fact that this information is self-sourcing from the films' own credits. But more to the point note how assertions about the entries (e.g. that such-and-such a character was definitely intended to represent an albinistic person) are being steadily sourced, while the talk page largely consists of rejection after rejection of entries on the basis that they are blatant original research. I hope that page (incompletely researched as it is, and tagged as such for further cleanup) can help clarify things for some folks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This guide needs deleting

Trivia is one of the best features of wikipedia. I for one vote against the existance of this guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.187.239.200 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Trivia should be discouraged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.195.253 (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia doesn't help the goal of an encyclopedia. Arthurrh 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminder, this is not the page for the inclusion or exclusion of "trivia", but rather how to format the information normally found in "trivia" sections -- Ned Scott 01:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Show your support for trivia, add your name to the list

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 here: [wiki project proposal for wikitrivia] Please send this link to other users that you feel would be interested. ThanksOzmaweezer 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I applaud this guide

Really. I am fairly critical of wikipedia, because it´s "anyone can edit" policy often leads to misinformation(either intentional by semi-vandalism, semi-intentional by proselytism, or unintentional by editor's misinformation-which is outrageous when you find linked pages stating different things), edit wars about polemical subjects, and whatnot.

Another point where I am terribly critical of wikipedia is the SHEER AMMOUNT OF USELESS INFO. Webpages of what constitutes practically fanfiction of videogames are good example. So is trivia. In fact, it´s even worse, because it can fill otherwise useful pages with unsourced garble of doubtful practicality.

Honestly: whereas trivia is entertaining to read when you are REALLY bored (very hard to do. Anything is better than reading useless footpage notes. Watching porn is better than reading useless footpage notes) wikipedia can only improve removing this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.127.191.232 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Objections to citing sources should probably be made on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Good luck. You're fighting the good fight. Can't wait to have all those foul, pointless rules overturned. And so forth. / edg ☺ ★ 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying watching porn is boring?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:52, 10/17/2007

It does get pretty boring after the sixth hour or so.--Father Goose 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To 217, while I don't necessarily disagree with you, this is not the page for the inclusion or exclusion of "trivia". Rather how to format the information normally found in "trivia" sections. -- Ned Scott 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New discussion of trivia guidelines

There is now renewed discussion regarding the guidelines for trivia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Trivia and In popular culture. I believe that it makes sense to renew discussion of the subject, so that it can be determined if there is or is not a broadly based consensus on the existing guideline, and that any proposals to alter such guidelines be made here, whether they are made elsewhere or not. John Carter 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've created the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. I'm not sure Ozmaweezer's intent is limited to discussing this guideline, as opposed to discussing trivia and popular culture on Wikipedia as a whole -- and now there is a place for that.--Father Goose 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So noted. As per his/her comments to date, however, "trivia", specifically including presence of "trivia" sections, does seem to that editor to be a primary concern, if perhaps not the only one. And, considering s/he has repeatedly stated that this guideline should be changed, it made sense to me that discussion regarding changes take place. John Carter 00:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)