User talk:Thranduil

Welcome!

Hello, Thranduil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oz actor connections

I took the liberty of adding that section back. It's very neat trivia about the show and actors, it showcases the impact of OZ on the TV industry, and I, for one, always scurried to the Oz wikipedia entry whenever I saw one of the show's regulars in another TV series, to see who else (guest-)stars on that series. It's not like 10-15 more lines are going to overload wikipedia's servers, and it's a good thing to have for the people that are interested in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thranduil (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thranduil! Thanks for dropping a line at my talk page. I have to say, I don't agree with you. You are aware of Wikipedia's guideline on trivia I hope? It states that we Wikipedians have to "avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". The list is a great exemple: it doesn't add any information to the article about Oz itself, it is no more than a list of actors who worked on Oz and together in other series and films – why would you want to add that? I can understand that you might feel it might come in handy in the article, but Wikipedia is, after all, a encyclopedia. What do you think? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 00:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I think is pretty neatly summed up in the article you linked.

This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

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.

The article seems to mostly be concerned with trivia sections that are unorganized lines of information on wildly varying topics about the focus of the article that aren't in any way related (see example at the bottom). It makes absolutely no mention of admittedly tangential, but still related, neatly organized trivia. Would you advocate the deletion of a short trivia section on Marilyn Monroe's article that included the individual extracurricular activities she took part in in each of her high school years (school newspaper editor in her freshman year, school radio DJ in her sophomore year, head cheerleader in her junior year, etc.)? I'm quite certain that fans of hers wouldn't be against knowing that, even if it's a seemingly unimportant detail to you, and probably others. The point I made on your talk page still stands, as well. It shows how (quickly) Oz propelled its vast ensemble cast to stardom, and it gives you a deeper appreciation for the cast's (who were, after all, the essence of Oz) talent when you see groups of them interacting in completely different environments. You said it yourself - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a comprehensive written compendium that holds information. I aim to make it comprehensive. The trivia being there isn't hurting anybody, and it might give a few people a kick. I honestly see no downside to having it there, other than the fact that it takes slightly longer to scroll down to the bottom. Thranduil (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're right, Thranduil. Very well! The section stays. I only have to do some cleaning up, but I'll leave it be in the future. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mazer Rackham spoiler

Hi

I consider the fact that Mazer Rackham is still alive to be such a minor spoiler that it is not important. However I do not feel that strongly about it

ed

Ecragg (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Three-Body Problem (novel), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]