Start a new talk topic.
If the trivia has sources, it is okay to keep. It is better for it to be POORLY presented than rather not be present.
It says Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. Otherwise, see if the trivia section contains sources for a particular aspect of the subject of the article, and then consider using the section items as a basis for a different article discussing that aspect. Items that duplicate material elsewhere in the article, have no support from reliable sources, or lack real importance can be removed in most cases.
Research may be necessary to give each fact some context or to add references. Any speculative or factually incorrect entries should be removed, entries outside the scope of the article should be moved to other articles, and entries such as "how-to" material or tangential/irrelevant facts may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether.
What this guideline is not
There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.
Also, Bars and Stripes Forever the plot was from , so it does not violate plagiarism as they are under the commons license. I undid the edit for now, but if you wanna write a new plot. You are welcome to.
Have a good one!
- Hey, just giving you a head's up that this is a confessed sockpuppet of Yay Dad. I wouldn't take any of what he said as fact, given how he's ignored some of the other, more major guidelines like copyvio and sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Please read and participate in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Isis_Nile#Invalid_argument. --Gstree (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I reverted you because the test of whether something should be included in an article is determined by WP:WEIGHT determined by coverage by reliable sources rather than an opinion on the meaningfulness of online petitions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Magilla Gorilla Show, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Is it really necessary to be removing distributor credits and categories from all the TV show articles you have edited? Claiming information on distributors as "unsourced", despite it being common knowledge (i.e. shows currently owned and distributed by Warner Bros. Television), is not a legitimate reason for removing that info from the articles. Creativity-II (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Re: Trivialist's edits
There is a reason the category Television series by MGM Television was switched over to Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television for the pre-May 1986 MGM TV shows which Warner Bros. now owns, as noted in a footnote in the header for the former:
|“||Does not include MGM or UA TV product that are now owned by Turner/Warner Bros. Television.||”|
- According to the header footnote in the MGM Television category, that is the case. Creativity-II (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- There's just one problem with that edit - by rewriting it to appear as it does now, it implies that every single TV show produced by MGM (including the pre-May 1986 shows) are still owned and distributed by MGM TV, even though this is clearly not the case with the pre-May 1986 shows now owned by Warner Bros. Creativity-II (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Then by the reasoning you gave there, how do you explain categories like Television series by 20th Century Fox Television, Television series by Sony Pictures Television, Television series by Universal Television, Television series by FremantleMedia and Television series by CBS Television Studios (all of which likewise did not produce all of the shows they now own either)? The way things are set up now is fine and should not be changed (as you've done with MGM and Warner Bros. regarding the pre-May 1986 MGM shows) just to suit your viewpoint on it. Creativity-II (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Official blog
Template:Official blog has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- I should also notify you that I first started a discussion here, but decided that so many of the transclusions are plainly policy/guideline violating - so decided to TfD it shortly after. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Comedy albums by decade has been nominated for discussion
Category:Comedy albums by decade, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
copy edit of a quotation?
Trivialist I reverted a couple (maybe more) copy edits you did where the text you altered was a quotation in articles to do with the Patrick O'Brian novels about Aubrey and Maturin. Are you saying the quotation is incorrect? You deleted "the late" before Mary Renault's name, I restored it. You would be happier if the author being quoted did not refer to Mary Renault as late? Anyway, if words are deleted from a quote, we need to indicate that, right? --Prairieplant (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)