Forum:Trivia sections

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Trivia sections
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 September 2011 by Liquidhelium.

My proposal is this:

  1. rename them, and update RuneScape:Trivia accordingly; or
  2. remove the part requiring these sections to be notable.

Let me explain why. According to definition, something notable[1] cannot be trivia[2] as well. An unimportant matter cannot be important. Therefore, labelling notable information as "Trivia" does not make sense. That's why I propose that instead of trivia, notable information is labelled something else, or that the notable requirement for trivia sections is removed. Labelling notable information as trivia is completely misleading.


Support 1 - These sections can be renamed many different things, such as "Other", "Background" etc, just as long as the section name does not mislead. Smithing (talk | contribs) 13:52, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - Why not just rename it to notable info or something similar? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 14:13, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support 3 - Remove notable stuff from trivia and put it somewhere in the article. Then leave the trivia. =D User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:52, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - As per Ciphirius. Touhou FTW 13:11, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Just kill all of the trivia sections. I agree with Wikipedia's policy. Trivia should be moved into relevant sections, or, if all else fails, deleted, instead of being kept in a long miscellaneous section. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:26, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I sort of support that as well, although I don't think that important info should be deleted or removed, even if it is in a long miscellaneous section. It would be better to have that info there, even if it was in an "Other" section imo, because it may be helpful to readers. The reason I'm proposing this is to help improve the sections. And it's a guideline, btw. Smithing (talk | contribs) 14:13, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
I think trivia sections are part of the quality of the wiki. I have heard quite many people say they especially like the trivia we have, and I can imagine they don't want to go reading a long text for only a few parts of trivia (tl;dr). And like sentra says below, in the results of some of the surveys there were quite some positive comments about trivia too. I am okay with removing stuff nobody cares about, like "there was once a glitch that this item stretched when doing dance and jig at the same time blaaaaaaaaargh", but completely removing them is not a good idea in my opinion. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:42, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removing all trivia - I remember one of the surveys we ran about the wiki last year, and I was looking through the comments. One of the popular trends was that people really enjoyed reading the trivia, and found it quite interesting. Really we are here to give information to the readers, and if they like it, why should we remove it? It may even mean a slight drop in visits. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:23, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:21, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - There's no need for any of this. Trivia plays an integral role on every article, to me at least. If anything, we should just seek a more suitable word to describe it, if the words notable and trivia together are oxymorons. Revamping our whole system would be ludicrous and utterly unnecessary. Ronan Talk 22:43, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Henneyj likes this comment. 04:01, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Call it Interesting facts or Fact you might not know.   az talk   02:34, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support #2 - Kinda. It is not of the biggest concern that we have the section named incorrectly since most of our users do not know the difference and have grown accustomed to it. We are somewhat known for our Trivia sections that other fansites cannot come close to matching, and calling it something more grammatically correct isn't something our readers care that much about. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:25, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As other users have said, our trivia sections are quite well known amongst players, and it would be a great loss if they were removed. Renaming them is also quite useless, it would simply confuse readers, who are still reading exactly the same thing, just under a different label. I think removing the notability requirement would satisfy the contradiction. 222 talk 04:29, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We are discussing the name of a section? I got to be honest here, I really like the trivia sections. I learn a lot of interesting things that might have gone right over my head from them. They show information not necessarily useful to the main body of the article (for example, you don't need to know what a NPC's name refers to in a Quest Guide), yet provide a place to use this. But the information isn't useless; I've made use of them many times, such as when someone asks a question about that topic, or even for fun trivia contests with friends. Thus, we all know this name, and changing it is unnecessarily confusing, and above all, it's really the same thing. I don't think that the exact definitions of words mean more than what everyone interprets the meaning as. The way I see it, the sections are just extra information that isn't necessary to the reader of the article. If we were to put all the trivia into the article, it would just make them far too bloated (imagine a quest guide where five lines tell you about the origin of the NPC's name before the important one stating you must talk to them). As well, "Interesting facts" (etc) is pretty much synonymous with "Trivia", but one is a well known section that many people will expect to look for. Too long; Didn't read version: Why change what's not broke? I think we should leave them unscathed. Hofmic Talk 05:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 with modification - Change the section from Notability to Relevance. It's a bad rule when it can't be defined. It leads to clashing of opinions and that's not a good thing. Still there needs to be a control and I think that is what was being sought from the orginial authors when they developed the rules. Canning the trivia section or even renaming it takes away from what it is supose to be, the trivia section. Quest.png Darrik Ash US serv.svg HS ALDarklight detail.png 11:00, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think only grammarfiends really mind that it is called trivia while it is notable. Sorry, but I don't think any random visitor thinks it is bad, else it would definetely have brought up in the surveys. I don't think it is worth the effort to revamp this all for such a small amount of people. If this does pass though, I could make my bot change the header titles if you want. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:42, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The consensus is coalescing around option number 2. Users who opposed removing trivia sections in their entirety and/or renaming them have expressed (with varying levels of discreetness) their preference for a removal of the notability requirement. As this assessment has not been seriously (in weight or frequency) challenged, it will be the one to pass. Therefore, the notability requirement for trivia sections will be removed. --LiquidTalk 03:56, September 13, 2011 (UTC)