Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Now the example given on this page no longer is vaporware. Go have a look: Stock_(food)#In_popular_culture Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that it was reverted by @Oknazevad as "the definition of a meaningless and irrelevant trivia item". I'm not going to edit the article, given that so many people seem to have such strong views, but I would submit that a stronger example is required.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus to remove the bone broth example from this page, I would consider replacing it with the Akira slide example raised below. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong opinions on what example to use, as long as it remains clear what kind of sources are and are not sufficient (current text for reference: Take for example the subject of bone broth. You may wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank bone broth. An appropriate source might be Bon Appetit magazine, which is a reliable source for articles about soup. If Bon Appetit mentions how Baby Yoda drank bone broth, it may be suitable for inclusion in the bone broth article. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of The Mandalorian which does not go into any detail about bone broth but simply mentions that Baby Yoda drank some in that episode is not sufficient to include in the article because it does not provide any in-depth coverage of the subject of the article.). It needs to be clear to people reading this page that "work ABC is an example of topic XYZ in popular culture" requires sources about topic XYZ (in popular culture) to mention work ABC, whereas sources on work ABC mentioning topic XYZ is not sufficient. TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I do believe this example should be removed, whether or not it is replaced. Besides the fact that Baby Yoda is now actually mentioned in the bone broth article, this page is mainly supposed to be about lists, not so much about one single point. Including one point of questionable significance could sometimes encourage editors to tack on more such points, but this doesn't seem like a good example of that. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel up to it, you might like to review the lengthy discussions about this last year, for example at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections/Archive_11. Personally I've never much liked the example, not least because it's a content guideline which should be a standalone page, and not (very confusingly) shoe-horned into a Manual of Style page. "Bone broth" isn't a great example, anyway, as it's very US-specific (if I understand correctly it's the stuff we call stock in the UK). And most importantly, it makes the assumption that the 'trivial thing' being discussed is some real-world object. More commonly, the question is whether to keep some text mentioning a fictional character, where the character is hugely important in the context of a film, but not necessarily in the context of the article's subject, and the source is said to be the film itself or some review of the film. The example does not work in that context. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

[edit]

The hatnotes at the top seem a bit unwieldy. The second one seems reasonable, but the first could be shortened or removed. The first three pages are all linked below, and the other two probably could be. Not a big deal, but this seems like another instance of clutter. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure which page you're talking about. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections (which does have two long hatnotes), or another page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one. Someone who goes to WP:TRIVIA might possibly have had a different page in mind, but still something closely related to this topic. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may have lost a bit in the clean-up. But on the whole it is easier to read and covers basically the same material. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in advice against long "example" lists

[edit]

I've had to trim out massive lists of "examples" that use a notable or verified concept, such as in this edit related to shows/films that made a reference of the "Akira slide". Such lists when in prose nearly always attrack the same type of "trivia" kudzo that popular culture sections give, typically do no include sources, and as well as dump a sea of blue. A few examples (on the order of 2 or 3) can be fine, or if more can be sourced to secondary sources, that could be converted to a list, but we should have advice against these types of in-prose lists. — Masem (t) 16:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is a common issue, and it breeds further issues of OR and unverifiability. I'm not sure this guideline is the best place for the guidance. I think we should note that lists that are themselves notable should probably be standalone list articles, and wherever that's not the case a long list of examples is unlikely to be appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that amending WP:NOT#IINFO might be the place, since more than just trivia/pop culture sections may have these types of lists, but I think that given the most frequent cases are in such trivia/pop culture lists (even with sourcing), this would seem like the best. Masem (t) 19:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt at this. I'm not sure whether it might be better to separate the concepts of a trivia section and an in-prose list, but the point about trivia magnets applies to both. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this page should use the Akira slide list specifically as an illustration of what to avoid, kind of like an old John Lennon trivia section is used in the first paragraph. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's helpful for guidelines to reference each other, to show that Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are coherent (if flawed) and striving towards a common goal. A little more reference to WP:NOT on this page couldn't hurt to cement the point. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than once, I've added wording that I later had second thoughts about, and then tried to remove or change it, only to see it restored. Here, I added even then the number of examples should be limited. When there are numerous potential examples... I now think that is not the best approach. A somewhat long list could be appropriate, if each point is important per reliable sources. Thus we should instead emphasize that each example should be significant, and if no individual example appears to be particularly important, perhaps none should be specifically noted, even in regular prose. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it a bit (as has MichaelMaggs). It now says Any list of examples should have a solid connection to the article's subject. When there are numerous potential examples, avoid creating an open-ended formatted list, as this often leads to indiscriminate additions. If the examples cannot be meaningfully limited, but a few would help illustrate a point, select two or three key examples and present them within the article's running prose. If examples would not be helpful to illustrate a point, avoid giving any.. How's that? TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would emphasize that each individual example should be significant. I somewhat disagree with When there are numerous potential examples, avoid creating an open-ended formatted list. I do agree that prose is usually better than list format, but even in a case where there are numerous potential examples, an open-ended format list could be the best way to present information. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph that a list could be the best way to present the information. It usually isn't, though. I have softened the wording somewhat (it is usually best to avoid creating an open-ended formatted list). I don't think we should over-emphasize the "each individual example should be significant" angle, for two reasons: (1) sometimes there are lots of (fairly) significant examples but including all or even most of them would be counter-productive, and (2) sometimes there are no particularly significant examples but including a couple would be useful to illustrate the point regardless. TompaDompa (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TompaDompa's tweaks. They deal with the question of what to do when examples would not be helpful, as well as how to handle potentially too many. Open-ended formatted lists are almost always bad news, and we shouldn't be recommending them generally. The first paragraph of the section "How to avoid a cultural list becoming a trivia magnet" also addresses this and makes definite recommendations. It looks good. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"should" vs. "could"

[edit]

[1] I was the one who originally changed "should" to "could", though someone else restored "could" after it was changed back. My reasoning at the time was that some trivia lists could be removed right away, thus they would not even be temporary. But I suppose on the balance, "should" is better. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing them would make them temporary ending with their removal, no? They certainly shouldn't be considered permanent fixtures of the articles in question. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD removal

[edit]

The recently-removed advice If you are certain there is nothing worth preserving, you could boldly remove the entire list, explaining your reasoning in the edit summary. is good advice. It is not too uncommon for this to be the case, and we should encourage editors to improve articles directly when there is an opportunity to do so. We could even suggest moving questionable material to the talk page for discussion about the best way to handle it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a new addition another editor added and then retracted themselves, and you put back in. Wikipedia editors know what 'bold' is, it doesn't have to be added here in what seems more of an instruction to delete. Some editors, taking the word 'trivia' to mean anything in a list (some editors call good lists and article 'TV tropes' as an insult in an attempt to sway towards deletion when that has nothing to do with Wikipedia), will take it as a reason to go around deleting adequate material. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what it has to do with this, but: if something is compared to TV Tropes, methinks you should perhaps consider why such a comparison is made rather than assume it is an insult. I have seen people say that certain things belong on other Wikimedia projects such as Wiktionary and Wikidata plenty of times, and I don't think I have ever interpreted it as any kind of insult. People also say things like "This is written more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article", which I likewise don't think of primarily as an insult—rather, I take it as saying "this is not the place for this kind of thing". I don't see why comparing it to a different website should be any different? As a very simple example of how things are done differently, media analysis by editors is encouraged on TV Tropes but prohibited on Wikipedia.
On the subject matter at hand: content that should be removed—the page still says Non-encyclopedic content should be removed. Otherwise valid content should ultimately be removed if there isn't a good place for it., mind you—should preferably be removed sooner rather than later. This should be uncontroversial. On WP:BOLD, I agree with Shooterwalker's comment in a section above that it's helpful for guidelines to reference each other, to show that Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are coherent (if flawed) and striving towards a common goal; conversely, I don't think omitting a reference to WP:BOLD on the grounds that Wikipedia editors know what 'bold' is is helpful—everybody who knows what it means now does so because at some point they found out due to a reference somewhere. Not everyone knows all the terminology used by Wikipedia editors, and new editors join all the time. Presuming that everyone who comes here will know what it means seems very myopic; it is entirely plausible for somebody to end up reading this page before their first encounter with WP:BOLD, even if the opposite is probably much more common. TompaDompa (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that referencing WP:BOLD editing only improves the coherence of our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are telling new and inexperienced editors to just go in and remove entire sections, which is what this new addition dictates, then you are assuming they know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on Wikipedia. New deletionists come aboard all the time, and at times cause damage to the project thinking that they are doing fine. "Trivia" is one thing, you know it when you see it, but exceptions should apply (the main exception should be "if something is commonly known and notable because of the trivia related to it") and new users and budding deletionists may miss that nuance. Items in "popular culture" sections are not necessarily 'trivia' when their very existence is used to define the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "deletionists" means in this context, but If you are certain there is nothing worth preserving, you could boldly remove the entire list, explaining your reasoning in the edit summary. is a pretty far cry from "telling new and inexperienced editors to just go in and remove entire sections". Inexperienced editors make mistakes in good faith all the time—they add things that should not be added, change things that should not be changed, and yes, remove things that should not be removed. All of those things cause damage to the project, as you put it. And then other editors fix it, and tell them why what they thought was a good idea wasn't. We don't assume new editors know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable on Wikipedia, we teach them. This is part of that. TompaDompa (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added language preventing full deletions by those inclined to do so. "Trivia", in many cases, is a mirror of society and sustained application of a topics place within culture. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you just revert my edits, add your own language again, and are fine with that? A newly joined editor comes in, they and you rewrite much of the content here, and then someone comes in to add some balance to the viewpoint of "no trivia" and gets reverted. How about if we revert everything from the last few weeks and rewrite this page with equal representation of "trivia good/trivia bad" and simplify the language to the point where a high school editor can read a few paragraphs and get it right. This page seems way too long, quite unbalanced, and needs major work (not the least brought on by the quick, unfollowable recent edits). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your edits and those of the IP. The two of you edited back and forth on a couple of points, and I restored what we had before that point. I reverted the IP's change that said not to give any examples at all because that's neither supported by policy or consensus here, I reverted your change which said that trivia can be added as descriptors of a sustained cultural recognition of the topic using nothing more than the works themselves (and apparently the opinions of editors?) because that goes against WP:PROPORTION, and I reverted your change suggesting that lists are better than prose because that's a bit misleading when Wikipedia generally prefers prose—but you'll note that I also went on to add an explanation about the prose versus list format issue with reference to the WP:Manual of Style on that topic. I'm willing to discuss the merits of all of those things. TompaDompa (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's more, equal representation of "trivia good/trivia bad" would be a tremendous false balance. It's not the early days of Wikipedia anymore—community consensus is against compiling miscellaneous points of information arbitrarily without an overarching structure and has been for years. TompaDompa (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of "trivia" and what's accepted and what is not, when you get a few minutes please have a look and comment at the talk page discussion of Dogs Playing Poker, a topic notable almost solely because of the artwork's popular culture mentions in the 20th and 21st century. An editor is insistent that only sourced items can stay, and cut the list down to two (another editor had removed the entire list quite awhile ago which I had missed and brought those back). The removed entries are from films and television shows which contain well-known Dogs Playing Poker mentions or uses, many of which are described in the plots. Plots do not need sources on Wikipedia, they are self-patrolled by fans of the film, both readers and editors, and incorrect language is usually quickly reverted. If something lasts for a long time on Wikipedia in the plot of a well-known film it is almost certain to be accurate, and those are the types of things removed from DPP because of the sourcing rules and regs and things like the language of this trivia page. When the backbone of a subject such as DPP is built on popular culture mentions, that construction should be readily presented to readers, with more than two examples as well as including items which are obvious from the plot summaries. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's tantamount to suggesting that Wikipedia's WP:Core content policy WP:PROPORTION be disregarded based on the opinion of editors that something should be included regardless. That's a complete non-starter. Whether information is correct (or WP:Verifiable) is not the issue, so comparisons to plot summaries are completely beside the point. The issue is whether it represents due weight of that particular WP:ASPECT as reflected in the overall body of literature on the subject of the article. I commented something similar over at Talk:Dogs Playing Poker#In popular culture section revisited. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TompaDompa is absolutely correct. The arguments put forward for retaining a long list of trivial examples of cultural references in Dogs Playing Poker appear to ignore both WP:PROPORTION and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and to take it for granted that verifiability is enough. It is not, and hasn't been for many years. This very guideline, indeed, has long made that clear, and the new wording should not change that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with MichaelMaggs. And I'll repeat, it often helps to reference other related policies (like WP:PROPORTION and WP:INDISCRIMINATE), to help editors understand how our policies collectively steer editors towards better articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guideline broken?

[edit]

Editors seem to be adding and removing wording and sections at will, with no actual consensus or real-world ability to stop additions or changed language. Many editors and readers enjoy trivia sections, others want them gone or severely reduced. Trivia, such as found in "In popular culture" sections, has been popular, probably since the beginning of Wikipedia. While being mocked by some as "TV tropes" as a way of reducing their existence, and supported by others who sense their value, we should not forget that Wikipedia editors are volunteers and have other things to do in life. As in other areas of MOS, if anti- or pro-trivia editors stick around, either bending or sitting on the rules and regs, they often eventually prevail. Not a good lesson to learn, but closer to reality than not. Long live trivia, as within what some call "trivia" we and society ascertain a topic's impact on culture over the decades. Dogs Playing Poker and other cultural touchstones mirror how civilization evolves and reflects, providing, arguably, essential societal and encyclopedic information. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guideline's not broken, and it does reflect consensus. That has developed over the years, and no doubt will continue to develop. All I see is that WP:BRD is working as expected on this page, as evidenced by the above discussions. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this guideline comes down to the fact that if trivia is sourced to a quality work, its reasonable to keep, but beyond that it starts getting into OR and NOT problems in terms of content.
Just because a type of content is popular doesn't make it appropriate for WP. Masem (t) 13:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If people are replacing miscellaneous unsourced lists with prose summaries of reliable secondary sources, then this guideline is working as intended. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be represented in reliable sources, and not simply WP:OR based on a series of random observations. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In short: no, it is not broken. The guideline serves its purpose, namely to explain and exemplify how other WP:Policies and guidelines (in particular, WP:NOT and WP:PROPORTION) apply in particular circumstances so one does not need to reinvent the wheel by deriving everything from first principles in these recurring types of situations. As noted above, the successive refinement of the phrasing here is the result of regular editing and consensus-building practices.
Now whether people like trivia is really beside the point. People also like original research and opinion pieces. They are of course certainly within their rights to do so (and I rather enjoy each of them myself in certain specific contexts); there is a place for each of these things, but in none of the cases is that place Wikipedia. In the early days of Wikipedia it was much more of a free-for-all and standards were much laxer, but we have (largely) moved past that (and continue to do so) to make for, well, a quality encyclopedia rather than a collaborative "just for fun"-type project. This is a good thing: Wikipedia's identity (for lack of a better word) has crystallized more clearly and there are WP:Alternative outlets for the other possible things that Wikipedia could have developed into from its early stages but didn't.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there are two things we call trivia: unimportant information and unorganized information. Call them type A trivia and type B trivia, perhaps. Both are problems, the former in terms of content and the latter in terms of style/presentation.
Now presentation matters; if we took a high-quality article and edited it to a series of single-sentence statements (one for each piece of information) presented in an arbitrary order in a bulleted list, it would no longer be a high-quality article, even if all the information conveyed remained the same.
The problem with the inclusion of unimportant information is perhaps more obvious: it is one of neutrality, in particular due weight. The decision to include a particular piece of information is not a value-neutral one but reflects an assessment (or in other words, viewpoint) that the information in question is important and worth mentioning. Determining which information is important and which is not, and especially determining the relative importance of different pieces of information (which we have to do in order to be able to give them the correct WP:WEIGHT relative to each other), is not always easy. For this reason, and because it has implications for the neutrality of our articles, we use the coverage in the sources to make that determination. Thus, apparently-important information may turn out to be glossed over or omitted entirely while seemingly-trivial information may receive a lot of attention from the sources on the overarching topic, and in those cases or articles have to reflect that. Put another way, the sources determine what is trivia and what is not.
Objecting to the notion that trivia should be avoided here seems like the wrong venue. The underlying principles are codified in higher-level policies, particularly WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOT. If those are to be changed, higher-level consensus (likely WP:Centralized discussion) would be required (and I would ask to be notified about any such discussion if you decide to go that route). TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Donald Albury 16:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to amplify and echo what TompaDompa said. I've actually read a lot of interesting original research on Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean it's the right place for it, or that it's can be safely read by a wide audience. TV Tropes exists for a dump of random fan observations that may or may not be accurate. Wikipedia articles need to follow what reliable secondary sources have covered. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples to follow?

[edit]

I was thinking that it might be a good idea to add a link to some kind of example of a high-quality "Cultural references" (or similar) section to illustrate what they can look like when done properly and what things should be emulated. Does anybody have any suggestions about such sections that could serve as models? We could also use a stand-alone article of that kind such as Mars in fiction, which is a WP:Featured article (I wrote it, so I don't want to add it to the page without checking that other editors think it's a good idea first since I'm obviously a bit partial). TompaDompa (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat neutral on whether examples would help, and it would depend on where and how it's phrased. But I'll support Mars in fiction as a good example. It followed the FA process and represents more than one editor's idea of Wikipedia's best work, so no need to be too modest. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&oldid=1272429051"