Forum:Trivia? More like "triviugh".
Trivia? More like "triviugh".
In all sorts of different talk pages, people have been saying that trivia should be banned from being listed in articles. From what I have seen, people have been passing just normal facts for trivia quite often. It gets annoying.
Time for a bit of a pop quiz. Of the following, which one(s) is trivia?
- The Dragon chainbody is the strongest chainbody in the game.
- Mod Peter Pants said that it was his favorite item.
- In Betrayal at Falador, it was the only item released at the time of the book's release that was not mentioned anywhere in the book.
- The price has gone from 15M to 10M, then to 8M, down to 4.8M, and is currently at 5M.
- At the time of release, Dragon chainbodies were the most wanted item in RuneScape at the time.
- The first player ever to get one was I_Lyk_Pi_3point14159_L0L_I_Pkd_U.
And now, class, the answers:
- Not trivia. It should be listed in the either first or second sentence of the article.
- Not trivia. Heck, not even notable.
- Trivia. It wouldn't make much sense to list that in the main article, but it would probably be worth saying.
- Not trivia. If there is enough data for its own area, it would be included in a "Price history" subsection of the article.
- Not trivia. Most items are the most wanted item in RuneScape when they're released. Dragon claws, Dragon platebodies, Dark bows, and so on.
- Trivia. If this can even be proven, this would be trivia. It doesn't have a reasonable place anywhere else in the article.
In short, trivia is information that would not be reasonable to be put anywhere else in the article, yet is worthy of being mentioned. Now, of course, trivia would be an uncommon thing to find in articles. It's just that in most articles that have a trivia subsection it's clogged with non-trivia.
For this reason, a policy about trivia subsections should be put in place. Wikipedia's policy on trivia is that [if I remember correctly] if it can be used elsewhere in the article, place it there instead. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 01:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - Trivia I guess is just based on what is trivial to you. Where some might find something trivial, another may not. I don't think it's possible to limit it so drastically that rules need to be placed on what is trivia and what is not. If you find conflict with trivia, simply remove it or place it in an article where it can be useful and remove it from the list of trivia.
05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Support - I believe we should define what's trivia and what isn't and then change the articles. If anyone suggests totally removing trivia from the Wikia, don't. There is no reason to totally abolish it from the Wikia. I personally love reading trivia, even though some of it isn't really... trivia. Jediadam4 (Talk) 08:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Weak Support - I came from Wikipedia, so I'm partially more inclined to the Wikipedia standards; after all, this is also an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, we may find it hard to incorporate trivia into the main contents since, well, it's about a MMORPG game, and there may be facts that cannot be put into the main contents without having its own section. So banning the entire trivia section per Wikipedia standards may not be the best idea. I'm not sure if I make any sense there, but that's just what I felt. Red X 226 08:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Weak support - while, yes, the trivia issue can be annoying, it doesn't need to be some almighty policy. We can just slip it into the style guide. Also, since users adding trivia are probably acting in good faith, this shouldn't be something like "oh, you added trivia in the wrong place, BANNED!". Butterman62 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - I think it would be good to add some guidelines about trivia, so people don't overdo it. I don't think anyone should be reprimanded for adding things that don't fit the guideline, just guided to add more relevant trivia.20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - As a reader,I always found reading trivia interesting,and I don't think we need to do a lot of change to that.I do think some of these just have to go,mainly 1 and 2.However,I don't think there needs to be some sort of policy on it.I think what looks good,goes and,if disliked,is removed.We already have a policy,and that's assume good faith.We should do that.
02:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong support I myself have been infuriated by the information that people will add under a Trivia section (which IMO shouldn't really be there at all), and I personally actively move interesting or notable facts ("trivia") to the relevant place in the article. After all, if all the interesting stuff is clustered together in one section at the end of the article, where is the motivation to read the whole thing instead of just skipping to the end? If something really is miscellaneous information, then you can move it to the end of the introduction, since it's part of the "overview" of the subject. Articles should be more than lists of stats and disjointed facts - Wikipedia has that policy for good reason, and our standards should be no less. Leevclarke talk 13:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I never have seen anything wrong with the trivia. In fact, I rather enjoy it since it makes for more interesting reading than the main articles.
04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to clutter the discussion by making the same point twice, see what I said above. If you make a list of all the interesting points at the end, the article itself is boring, and that is bad. You proved the point yourself with what you said, and what is the point of writing articles that nobody wants to read? Leevclarke talk 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Support- As long as the pages Cultural references and Trivia (and its related pages) are kept.Gone. 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Support draft - It is objective, clear and have good definitions. I am in favour of implementing it as policy.09:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - A lot of "trivia" is pointless, and I really hate seeing
The price has gone from 15M to 10M, then to 8M, down to 4.8M, and is currently at 5M. The useful pieces of trivia are helpful, and the rest should be displayed in the article. I think Chia did a wonderful job explaining what is and isn't trivia. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support I really think we should actually make Trivia what it is.14:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - Trivia is a highly ambiguous term. What may be considered trivial to one person might not be the same for everyone. I think we should leave the Trivia sections the way that they are. Mythomagic5
Neutral, leaning to support I came into to this wiki to read the articles, and the Trivia were some of the funnest (Yes, I consider reading fun, and if anyone finds that strange, I'll eat you) parts to read. So Max's idea seems to be very... hmm... Intelligent? (I dunno, can't think of the word)
Support - Some trivia is just plain stupid. Like I came across "Trivia" in the Cook (Lumbridge) article that said "If while talking to him the player rotates the camera view a bit his arm is in a totally different place" Yeah. Duh. Also, the first person to have gotten a Dragon Platebody can't be I_Lyk_Pi_3point14159_L0L_I_Pkd_U because the maximum username length is 12 characters where as I_Lyk_Pi_3point14159_L0L_I_Pkd_U is 32. --— Enigma 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- The name was a bit of a joke. Of course it's too long :P. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - Some people (i.e me) find loads of things trivial, whereas some are very selective about their trivia. The trivia policy is a good idea, but it will probably be ignored.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 14:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Trivia's meant to be an interesting "did you know?" kind of thing. It's also one of the reasons why I personally favour the wiki over tip.it or Rhq. Do they have that? No. And sure, some people might consider mundane information trivial, but if in actuality is isn't, it won't kill you to remove it and say why in the summary. I think trivia is one of the things that sets the wiki apart, and thus shouldn't be taken away. And hasn't there been topics like this before? Isn't there an ongoing consensus saying "NO, WE'RE NOT REMOVING TRIVIA"?19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose/Comment - Yeah, I like reading the random information. If all the irrelevant information and is removed, and the facts added to the article, then the trivia section would be better. We're just going to have to clean them up; sift through them all. --S•h•o•b•y•4 (Talk•Edits•Contribs•RuneScape Stories Wiki) 00:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Same here. I just removed a non-trivia thing that was in Astral runes. See? No need for a policy.--S•h•o•b•y•4 (Talk•Contribs•Guestbook•RuneScape Stories Wiki) 07:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Support Just because there's no NEED for a policy doesn't mean we shouldn't implement it. It would also mean you wouldn't have to go in and remove little small non-trivia items or relocate them as often, because more people would know what to put in these sections and what not to. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 07:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Leave the trivia alone, and just keep a lookout for some of the inane things that are seen in the example. Browncoat101 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)