Forum:Runescape:Trivia policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Runescape:Trivia policy
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 April 2010 by Liquidhelium.

I noticed that we have a trivia policy, but very little information. I believe we should have stricter guidelines when dealing with trivia. So much trivia is information I can't see anyone caring about, like Trivia/People#Repeated_names. How is it notable that Jagex couldn't think of a new name to use? Or what about the many, many trivia bits about fluctuation in ge value? Here's a good one: bugs/glitches. They should not be in the trivia section, they should be in the actual article. Another thing that really makes disappoints me are quest pages. Go ahead, read a few of the trivia sections. Maybe 3-6 points average should be kept, and that's being generous. Google shows about 3600 results for trivia. How many of those are necessary? Or more importantly, notable?

Discussion

I Support making Runescape:Trivia policy official, and also the addition of more information. ZTNXSPBucket detail.pngrwojy 08:32, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment I truly feel and share your pain. I roll my eyes so often at what I see in Trivia sections I get double vision and dizzy. But I have to mention, we can't stop it. I would often check on the IP that added a bit and all so often it is the only contrib from that IP. So making it an official policy won't inform them as how many IPs read our policies? I am not saying do not bother, I just want you to realize that the reality is you can't reduce it by more than maybe 10 percent or so. The best course of action is to wait at least a few days after something has been added before fixing it or removing it if it truly does not belong. I just removed or altered 6 pieces from Aviansies, 3 of them were already in the article and one other was listed twice in different wording. Its just one of those things we attract being a gaming wiki. Hope I didn't depress you Lol.--Degenret01 14:05, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

And how many IPs have read the policies (all of them) and just don't bother to register? Hello71 16:12, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment I hate that articles have Trivia sections, for reasons I've said before but will say again: If you put all the interesting facts into one list at the end of an article, there is no motivation to read the whole article, and what is the point of writing articles that nobody wants to read? Having a separate page (and, in practice, a number of sub-pages) for trivia was a compromise we came to before when we discussed this, because a number of people felt strongly that trivia lists should stay. For my part, I actively work to merge the contents of Trivia sections into relevant parts of the same article. If a fact really doesn't belong anywhere else in the article, it can be included in the introduction (if it is notable), or removed altogether (if it is not). We should have a trivia policy in force. My concern with the proposed policy is that it says "Information must be able to be proven". I am all for citing sources wherever possible, but much of the information we have in articles has come from original research (for example, drop tables), so it is impossible for us to have the same standards as Wikipedia, say. However, I agree that naming a player as the first to do something is ridiculous, and should not be in any article on this wiki. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 18:43, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I understand that most of this is original research and that little bit can be removed. Something else: much trivia is simply 'Item a looks slightly like item b' which is biased, because anyone can say an item looks like another item. Before I forget, Psycho Robot made a good template for trivia: {{Trivia_notice}} SPJEQODBucket detail.pngrwojy 22:03, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Something I feel is important is telling people where to put the trivia. For example, trivia saying that Monkey Archers have the smallest wander range of any monster does not belong in the Monkey Madness article, but rather in the Monkey Archer article. So something like "Triva should be added to the most specific article possible. An interesting fact about an NPC should be added to the NPCs article, not article for the quest in which the NPC appears." kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:25, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This topic is trivial. Just kidding. --Fruit.Smoothie 01:41, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would really like to see the Trivia sections removed, and have all relevent info just put into the main body of the article. Ajraddatz Talk 18:14, April 7, 2010 (UTC) Neutral (For now) - I would much rather see a policy akin to Wikipedia's Trivia sections. I am against having extremely long sections of random information, generally disorganized, and hectic to reorganize later. For example, the quest While Guthix Sleeps Trivia is fairly long and information there could be integrated into the actual article. Another example of this could be the Mobilising Armies/Glitches subpage. While it isn't listed as trivia, it's trivial to say the least. There are many articles that have much more information, relevant and not to the article that should be incorporated or removed from the article entirely. My stance, similar to Max Bulldog, remove trivia sections. As a previous YG topic was titled, "Trivia? More like 'triviugh'.". Ryan PM 07:15, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Before putting this policy in effect I think that we need to firmly define what constitutes trivia. --Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 16:37, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

We will likely never be able to strictly define trivia, as there are many different types of trivia. TXNQWEKBucket detail.pngrwojy 12:33, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not entirely sure what to make of most trivia in articles. Some of it can be factual ("this was the highest level creature in Runescape when it was first released") but often it can be subjective as well. Some of the popular cultural reference are obvious, like Anna Jones ("Indiana Jones"), but some are far, far more obscure. I've seen some of these cultural references that are incredibly obscure and the resemblance is really stretching the imagination. The reference in the article on Mithril to the Lord of the Rings is something that could use a little bit of help and I'm not sure if it is appropriate. That at least is factual as the reference is there, but other references are much more obscure even than this. What sort of standard ought to apply to these cultural references? Some j-mods have mentioned specific cultural references such as numerous comments and quotes from Stargate SG-1, and certainly the Monty Python references abound in the game as well. At what point, however, does this simply become absurd? --Robert Horning 20:22, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I, like some others, it seems, believe that that kind of trivia is pointless. While it may be interesting to say that something is a reference to another thing, it should only be used in obvious cases. A good rule of thumb: If any of the words 'slightly', 'probably', 'possibly', 'might be', appear in the trivia, then it doesn't fit. XVWRMMBucket detail.pngrwojy 12:33, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
Such a policy is very difficult to work in practice, as it turns this mostly into a style guide change where "slightly", "probably", "possibly", and "might be" simply won't be used in trivia sections or in the main body of articles either. That won't resolve edit wars about the appropriateness of trivia even if it should be a red flag that the trivia is something that likely should be removed. One huge problem with trivia is that it delves into (pardon the pun) trivial matters. By definition it is stuff of relatively little importance and is very subjective to the background, history, and culture of the editor involved. If you are a hard-core Star Trek fan who has memorized the dialog of ever episode of every Trek series, movie, and "fan fiction" novel (we all know some with this personality)... it would be very difficult to not be seeing Star Trek dialog on nearly everything in this game. The problem is where to draw the line and say that the recitation of Piccard and Data of a Shakespearian play has absolutely nothing to do with Runescape, even if those lines were also used by some NPCs in a similar context. Replace Trekies with hard-core Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia fans, and you get essentially the same kind of issues, just with slightly different takes on everything. --Robert Horning 13:25, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

For starters, I think that things such as the fact that some hill giants wield cleavers and Ghommal wearing a plateskirt are not trivia and should not be considered as such. The same goes for things such as A guard's crossbow firing animation resembles karil's or the fact that the Avatar of Destruction resembles General Graardor. --Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 00:35, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like that is completely irrelevant. The problem is that going through 12000+ pages to look for bad trivia is a really, really, really, big task. But I don't think something like a wikiguild is useful, because it'll just wind up like others: a long list of users, with few of them actually doing the work. DDBWIBucket detail.pngrwojy 11:05, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
To me that seems like a problem with the users, not the goal. I think this would be a great thing to do a wikiguild on if it would help in the least. If trivia was cleaned up it would make the wiki look a whole lot nicer. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 12:16, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Our trivia is currently disorganised and often irrelevant. In spicy crunchies the amount of xp given was included in the trivia section before I moved it. >_> ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  11:34, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - I want to support this, because some trivia are completely useless and aren't trivia at all. However, that's also the reason I would oppose this. As said above, some want the cultural references removed - I love them. It would be extremely hard to find a policy that fits everyone's wishes, if not impossible. I think that this is an impossible task that cannot be done very well. I say just remove things that aren't trivia when you stumble upon them, but only if they clearly aren't trivia. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:22, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Strong Oppose. Some of this information is too valuable to throw away just because there is so much other info that doesn't belong in the trivia section. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:27, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Some of them don't even goes into trivia. --Nup(T) 03:40, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Oli, I love most of the current trivia, and although I can see there are stuff that aren't trivia, you can't just make it fit everyone. bad_fetustalk 16:55, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A lot of the trivia is useless (and in some cases, outdated) material. --LiquidTalk 19:22, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

{{Rfc}} C.ChiamTalk 02:38, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support, slight suggestion - I think that glitch section should be changed. If the glitch is noteworthy enough, then it sould be placed on Glitch or one of the respective subpages. If the glitch is an image with a sentence explaining the image, then it should be moved to Glitch/Gallery. If it isn't noteworthy enough for either, it should be removed. That isn't how is should be worded, but do you think that that is a good idea?? Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 04:10, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think we should add guidelines for separate cultural references sections (especially relevant for quests). Sometimes recategorizing into cultural references can justify removing the trivia section itself. I also think we need to enforce the credibility of cultural references. Like this one from Kennith's Concerns: The song A New Menace could be a reference to the Star Wars films A New Hope and The Phantom Menace, both the first films of their respective trilogies. Really? Come on. My proposal is that cultural references need to be absolutely obvious that they are a reference. Thus, I believe absolutely ANY trivia line that says "blah blah blah could be a reference to..." should be summarily deleted. Endasil (Talk) @  16:16, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Oli. Also, Endasil. Some of the cultural references may be a bit far out, but for the most part they are VERY accurate, and you chose just one example out of hundreds or even thousands, it would be easy enough for me to respond with many that are completely accurate. HaloTalk 20:11, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I didn't say otherwise. I have nothing against cultural references as long as it's completely obvious that they are indeed references, and not some far fetched obscure connection. My suggestion was simply to have some guideline on adding a cultural references section when it could mean reducing the trivia section. I'm also sure that the ones you refer to as "completely accurate" would NOT fit my guideline of removing references that say "blah blah blah could be a reference to..." since, if "could" or "may" are used, clearly you couldn't call it "completely accurate." Maybe if you could present an example on something where you think it's accurate and I would say it should be deleted. Endasil (Talk) @  02:00, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I recently cleared out the Hairstyles trivia section. More than 3/4 of the "trivia" was essentially pointing out that someone had a hairstyle that looked like an RS hairstyle (not surprising considering Jagex wants a large, comprehensive range of styles)...I let the Princess Leia trivia stand as it seems more than reasonable. Dark avorian 12:10, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I wouldn't support any measure that calls for the removal of all trivia sections. Frankly, I think trivia provides an interesting look at the deeper meanings behind content, and for that matter the atmosphere of RuneScape in general. What I do agree with removing are such things that are, well, "trivial". Like: "Afro's are common 70's hairstyles." (Oh really, I never would've guessed.) The fact of the matter for quotes, or references to huge pop culture works (such as A Tail of Two Cats most notably) serves to educate the reader where the inspiration of content comes from and can only add to the informative quality of the article. Also trivia is a good place to put other little information like spoiler messages and Adventurer's Log completion messages for the curious mind.

The trivia policy is a nice start but it's too short, too vague and dosen't cover enough scenarios. Like should we add things that people: "think" or "suspect" are related to something if they can provide credible evidence to support their view, or must it be an "obvious" relation? I think this policy should be debated into a more thorough form before we start voting on it personally. --Whiplash 19:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Slight support/comment I like the idea of defining what counts as trivia more, but I think we have to dissect the different types of trivia a bit more before deciding what is appropriate and what isn't. Some of the common types I see are Cultural references, history of the item, bugs/glitches, and other miscellaneous facts I can't really classify. (Although there could be other categories I've left out, this is just for example). I think each 'type' of trivia's appropriateness should be discussed individually rather than the section as a whole, to more easily come to a decision. Personally, I think cultural references are fine as long as they are not the stretched or 'possible' ones, but history of the item and bugs and glitches should both be in the body of the article, unless maybe if it's something really small. But I think that it would be clearer to list each 'type' of trivia in the policy than the vague guidelines that are there now. insaneular The original Hazelnut spread 19:41, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I for one hardly consider that bugs and glitches are worth trivia. Especially over little mis-spellings or a Knowledge Base error. --Whiplash 21:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Changes have been implemented. --LiquidTalk 02:10, April 27, 2010 (UTC)