Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 11

{{atnhead}}

Request for comment

There is a related discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Video games and historical figures. Please take a moment to comment. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Trivia SECTIONS vs trivial CONTENT?

Is this policy only about sections, or does it also cover content? At times I run into editors who reject properly sourced content because they consider it trivial. Does this policy cover that aspect as well, or are there other policies which apply? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Change to article lead

I just made a change to the lead section, which now says: "It was once common practice on Wikipedia for articles to include lists of isolated information, which were often grouped into their own section. These sections were typically given names such as "Trivia", "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information" and "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections that store reference citation footnotes). For an example of this practice, see the John Lennon trivia section from December 10 2005."

It has been my experience that a lot of people cite this policy to argue about what information should appear on Wikipedia, which this page clearly states it is not. I thought it would improve clarity, to rearrange and give the lead section a bit of a past tense feel. This policy was made back around 2007 iirc because Trivia sections were very common on Wikipedia (you could even say it was plagued by them). Now, these sections have largely been removed and are very rare. I hope this improves the policy but welcome comments.Mozzie (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute at [[Valley View Center]]

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Valley View Center#The “In Popular Culture” section should stay. Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

= Proposals =

Since several proposals have emerged, and to make the discussion move forward, I've opened this section to make them easier to scrutinize. Feel free to add your own. Discussion can of course continue in the section above or within the proposals. Pilaz (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

:Pinging {{ping|TompaDompa}} {{ping|DanFromAnotherPlace}}, {{ping|Rhododendrites}}, {{ping|SMcCandlish}}, {{ping|MichaelMaggs}}, {{ping|Huggums537}}, {{ping|Masem}}, {{ping|Avilich}} thank you for your continued participation.

== Proposed timeline by Pilaz ==

  1. Discuss and agree on which parts of this guideline may be moved;
  2. Identify one or more candidates where the parts of the guideline selected can be moved;
  3. Start a RfC at the target location or a Village pump discussion;
  4. After the RfC/Village pump discussion has closed and parts of this guideline have been moved, remove unnecessary duplication and work towards making WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections more like a style guideline than a content guideline.
  • Support as proponent of the timeline. Pilaz (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support some kind of formal process. This seems as good as any. Huggums537 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Simply moving parts of the guideline, as proposed here, won't help much. And redrafting will require a level of constructive collaboration which is currently lacking. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I have considerable experience doing such MoS cleanup. What usually happens is that much of it can merge out to sections at other MoS pages that already have strong consensus, and what remains will be a mix of style guidance that is pertinent, and claptrap that can be removed (typically non-style claptrap that conflicts with extant policy).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support with the commonsense stipulation that a popular culture entry which already has a linked Wikipedia page which includes reputable sources doesn't need an in-line source. Many lists consist of a large number of items (see List of single-artist museums as an example) where WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNOREALLRULES would apply that the links already provide the cites. There are a limited number of Wikipedia editors, and that number is declining, who are willing to do the extra layer of source work when entries are already obviously sourced a click away. At this point in Wikipedia's history Commonsense should prevail on these already obviously sourced entries, a commonsense viewpoint which has been in use for decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • :Concur with Randy Kryn on that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not everyone here is even on the same page, and people are discussing or thinking different things. This started out as a concern about a mostly technical difference between sections and full articles, but then people started talking about notability in a way that was very impertinent, and now there's someone proposing that restrictions on primary sources be relaxed altogether. If participants here can't even agree on what is being discussed, a RfC will be a waste of time or counterproductive. Avilich (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't much of a proposal to have an opinion on one way or the other when the first step (agreeing on which parts of this guideline may be moved) is kind of missing so far. As {{u|Avilich}} noted, people are discussing vastly separate things here. The initial question was simply whether the guideline applies to both articles and sections or only sections. Later, the discussion has touched upon whether the contents of the guideline should be moved elsewhere so as not to mix guidance about style and guidance about content. The discussion has also touched upon altering the contents of the guideline entirely. The applicability, placement, and contents of the guideline are three separate issues that need to be discussed separately. The first and especially second of these can (at least in theory) be fairly simple to resolve. The third is a much different story. For the record, my positions are respectively that the applicability should include articles, that the current placement is okay but that WP:NOT might be more appropriate, and that the content (specifically the {{tq|Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. [...] Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.}} part) is good and serves to improve the quality of our articles on this subject. I note that the discussion has been listed at WP:ANRFC but I don't know that the discussion has really been focused enough to result in much of a consensus on any particulars. TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sourcing policy we should be following is already outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Sources_of_information. See the below Talk topic for more details. Basically, what this policy is suggesting directly contradicts the requirements for sourcing outlined in "Writing about fiction" and would have us require secondary and tertiary sources for easily verifiable plot and background details. The policy for what we should include in these sections should NOT be dependent on the content of the source itself, which seems to be what the proponents are suggesting. It should be a simple set of internal guidelines for what kind of information is considered trivial and what would be significant. The source should only be used to verify the information we add is true and not a subject to determine relevance. Aberration (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • :@AberrationForced, this could be a possible way forward to get the changes you seek. Huggums537 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

==Possible way forward==

So there's agreement that this style page is not the ideal place for a content guideline, but no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to. I can't think of a good place either. We also have the problem that this conversation is unlikely to get anywhere without wider input, but we can't solicit wider input until we've decided what the question is. I think the way out of this deadlock is to move the conversation to the Village Pump idea lab, so we can get more people involved without having to make a formal proposal.{{pb}}But we'd still need an "idea" to bring to the idea lab, so I suggest reviving {{u|SMcCandlish}}'s 2015 proposal to "develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance" based on the essays WP:HTRIV and WP:IPC. This proposal didn't get a lot of attention at the time, possibly because of the amount of work it would involve; but if the community wants a pop culture content guideline, I think creating a new page is the only way to go about it, and this seems like a sensible approach. (I personally don't think we need a pop culture content guideline, so I wouldn't be prepared to take the lead on this. I just want to get this style guideline back the way it was.) Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. I think that from this discussion there's appetite to have a content guideline for "in popular culture" articles, and I don't see anything wrong with coming up with a proposal (I also don't want to take the lead on this, but I am happy to contribute). I think a content guideline would resolve the issues that have been discussed above: sourcing (individual/section/as a whole), prose vs list format, finding a common ground on what constitutes "popular culture", etc. Personally, I also think we need a real MOS:POPCULTURE in a separate MOS page that tries to give some order to the remaining 328 "in popular culture" pages (out of 821; 493 are currently redirects). It boggles my mind to have that many pages and no real order in which to arrange sections, for example. Just look at how different Che Guevara in popular culture, Frankenstein in popular culture, and Japanese mythology in popular culture are. Pilaz (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know that it's entirely accurate to say that {{tq|no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to}}; I suggested WP:NOT in early January. The most logical place there would to me seem to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One could simply add a bullet point there stating that Wikipedia articles should not be {{tq|Lists of popular culture references or appearances.}}, and copy the contents from here in the way I suggested back in January.{{pb}}In response to the suggestion immediately above that we create a guideline to standardize the layout of "in popular culture" articles, I must say that I find that to be a bad idea. There is no reason to assume that a "one size fits all" approach would be the best way to go about it. For some subjects, dividing the article into sections by medium might make the most sense. For other topics, it might make more sense to do it chronologically. For others still, the most appropriate way could be by theme/aspect/whatever. In some cases, it might be best to use a combination of some kind. This should be assessed for each article individually. TompaDompa (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This has clearly completely stalled out. We could either try to re-develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance, as suggested in this sub-thread, or propose (at WT:NOT) merging some of MOS:POPCULT into WP:NOT#INDICRIMINATE as suggested in the sub-thread above, or even both, but neither has happened, and it takes work to do either of these. I'm not presently wanting to take on either, at least not in the absence of continued interest in seeing any action on this.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Haven't participated in guidance discussions in a long time, but got alerted to this old discussion and like the idea even though it prolly is stalled out. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Mixed message

"Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." "Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article". That's a mixed message. We can preserve the advice on what to do if a trivia section already exists without saying anything that might encourage the creation of such a section. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=prev&oldid=1244881412 This] was my attempt, but it was reverted. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:I agree that we should avoid unintentionally encouraging the creation of trivia lists/sections. TompaDompa (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:I agree too, but I'd keep "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information" right at the top, rather than presenting the history first as you proposed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::There's also of course a direct conflict between "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information" and the last section, which does that very thing. But that's another discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:::The obvious solution would be to remove the "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information" passage as plainly incorrect. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::::I agree that it's plainly incorrect. Or at best, this guideline is silent on what to include/exclude because we have WP:NOT. I agree with TompaDompa's suggestion. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

:I think MOS:PopCult sets the standard for inclusion quite well. A pop culture section (which is sometimes called a trivia section) is justified so long as its entries adheres to those standards -- that is, they are actually, in depth, and/or in a key relevant manner, about the article subject. "Miscellaneous information" is not that.

:Perhaps we should just rename all trivia sections to "in popular culture", and strengthen the guideline here so that MOS:POPCULT is at the top (positive rule), while a stronger MOS:TRIVIA guideline -- that miscellania is simply not allowed (negative rule) -- be a subsection SamuelRiv (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be agreement above that the idea behind it was good, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&curid=5294102&diff=1245369187&oldid=1245185205 partially restored] the WP:BOLD edit. Feel free to tweak it further. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

:I made some tweaks myself. I'm trying to operate within the consensus, so feel free to tweak any words that feel inaccurate. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

::I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=prev&oldid=1246376923 this edit] partly because it seemed like reliability was overemphasized. If something is dubious, then we should find a valid source or remove it, but this page is not principally about that. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=prev&oldid=1247604951 This edit] by {{IPuser2|183.89.250.246}} was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=next&oldid=1247604951 reverted] by {{u|Moxy}}, the reason given being {{tq|Just messed up in coming links...... pages of this nature should be edit confirmed}}. I am not sure what is meant by that first part; [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Wikipedia%3AManual+of+Style%2FTrivia+sections&namespace=&hidetrans=1&hidelinks=1 as far as I can tell there are no redirects to the section that was removed] (and even if there were, anyone clicking such a link would still get to the same page even if not to that section). If the issue is purely procedural that an IP editor edited the WP:MOS, I should think that the clearly outlined reasoning behind the edit and the demonstrated willingness to discuss their edits in good faith here on the talk page should outweigh those concerns. The edit was, to my eye, a clear improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:Discovered the page change by following a link to a section that didn't exist anymore. Have posted a request for more input.... we have a nice amount of reverts and unreverts and reverts again. Should have more\other experience editors involved here. "editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards". Moxy🍁 02:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::Which edits violated 1RR or ORR? What I'm seeing is editors making changes after collaborative discussion on the talk page, and two reverts without edit summaries by editors uninvolved in that discussion.{{pb}}In any event, I agree with TompaDompa that the changes are an improvement. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::::I agree, too. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Need more input clearly. Mass change by a few needs a review. Moxy🍁 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::::@Moxy, I have two questions:

::::# Where did you encounter the incoming link?

::::# Do you object to the change itself, or just to the fact that the incoming link didn't work? (The latter could be fixed with an {{tl|anchor}} template, but if you think this guideline needs one of the removed sentences, then that requires a different discussion.)

::::WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::Hello ...from a talk page. That said have no clue about the mass change over the past months. Only thing I can see is that editors linking here saying the MoS NOW allows junk lists. Moxy🍁 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::Sounds like some editors have fundamentally misunderstood. Could you provide details of where you saw those links, please? Which talk page? MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::That's precisely the opposite of what this discussion concluded and what the new version said. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}The edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=prev&oldid=1247720181 was reinstated] by the IP editor based on this discussion, which was then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=next&oldid=1247720181 reverted] by {{u|Randy Kryn}} with the reason given being {{tq|the wording implies that deleting the section is the default edit while the paragraph is clearer}}. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=next&oldid=1247797306 tried rephrasing it a bit further] while removing the mixed message that was correctly identified by the IP editor. It could probably be tweaked and improved further. TompaDompa (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:Looks like an improvement to me. We should make suggestions about how to handle existing trivia sections, which generally is to move the content and then delete the section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:Between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FTrivia_sections&diff=1247802080&oldid=1247720181 these two versions], I still think the first is better. The intro already states twice (beginning of each paragraph) that trivia sections should be avoided, so there's no need to immediately say that again. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

::I would also be fine with a version that omits that particular "Trivia sections should be avoided" and just goes right into "If a trivia section already exists ...". It's the removal of "Simply deleting ..." that I most strongly support. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I have no particular attachment to that "Trivia sections should be avoided" and agree that removing the "Simply deleting ..." part is a good thing. I'll note that {{u|Randy Kryn}} just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=prev&oldid=1247887649 added] a similar "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases." with the edit reason stating {{tq|added back a sentence and this section seems to have been heavily edited and major wording removed. Please return the data, trivia sections are seen of great value by some editors and this article seems to have been taken over by dletionists}}; I think this is a step in the wrong direction. I think the above suggestion to start the paragraph with "If a trivia section already exists" is a good one. TompaDompa (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

::::I agree with this. Simply deleting a trivia section is not always the best course of action was, ironically enough, my attempt to merge something from a mostly redundant section that I had previously tried to delete outright. The whole page seemed to have a fair amount of redundancy and disjointedness, as well as contradictions. Anything we re-add should be non-redundant and logically presented. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:That helps. I find that the lead feels unclear and uses language more appropriate for an essay. I made a revision to use more guideline-based language, referring to the body of this guideline (e.g.: "MOS:POPCULT"). Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

:Having been eying this, and agree that the IP changes are more concise without losing the spirit of the section. Only thing I would add is that proseification, if possible, is also a way of improving a trivia section. — Masem (t) 14:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

::I inserted a reference to prose and MOS:PROSE in the lead. If someone wanted to make it more clear and prominent I would support that. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)