Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular culture/Discussion

This subpage of the Trivia and Popular Culture WikiProject is intended to provide a place where matters relating to "trivia" and "popular culture" can be discussed in a centralized location. Discussion regarding the WikiProject itself should be conducted on the project's talk page.

An overview of historical and active discussions is provided on this page; actual discussion of these issues should take place on the talk page.

Past proposals
Several suggestions regarding the handling of trivia and popular culture information on Wikipedia have been proposed in the past. They include:


 * Rename Trivia and In popular culture (IPC) sections as Article ommissions, Side notes, Fun facts, Interesting facts, Did you know? (DYK?), Top 40, or Influence.
 * Allow trivia sections
 * Add another tab at the top of the page for trivia/in pop culture
 * Limit the trivia sections to 40 bullet point items (Top 40)
 * Make the trivia sections have the hide/expandable option
 * A dual level encyclopedia, where those who want to limit their access can do so
 * Lock the trivia section and use a template that instructs editors to add suggestions in the discussion tab
 * Change the current trivia template to have two options: "A) integrate trivia items into the text of the article and/or B) provide citations for all information."  Other changes to the trivia template are also possible.
 * Completely eliminate the use of the trivia template and use the "citations needed" template instead.
 * Make a special provision for trivia in the policy and guidelines/manual of style.
 * Allow trivia sections for certain subjects like television shows, films, and video games.
 * Create a bot to salvage information by creating a link to the history page containing the removed trivia section and post it on the article's talk page. More "bot" uses for trivia are possible.
 * Create a new type of portal which when clicked opens the trivia section which contains the usual internal links to other articles. These internal links being the "portal."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmaweezer (talk • contribs) 13:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and popular culture-related pages and discussions

 * There is WikiProject Trivia Cleanup where contributors may have different preferences for handling trivia.
 * WikiProject Trivia was apparently created by one editor without discussion and deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia.
 * Trivia guidelines are discussed at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections which seems to be a history of the anti-trivia movement. Be sure to check out the 8 archived pages.
 * See also Handling trivia which is only an essay.
 * See[reference desk]
 * Also see [Trivia is what wikipedia does best village pump discussion]
 * Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
 * meta:WikitriviaCheck out the discussion tab also.
 * A poll where trivia policy was decidedThis page was tagged as a proposed guideline as soon as it was created, and then made a guideline three months later as the result of a poll that closed 27 to 16 in favor. The closing editor noted a 62% majority as reason to make this a guideline.
 * Council proposal to create a trivia project, revise the current policy and guidelines, and modify the current trivia template.
 * trivia. The trivia template. Much discussion of trivia handling and policies has take place on its talk page (check the archives).
 * "In popular culture" articles

Pros

 * Provide a place for the casual editor to add facts for later integration or expansion.
 * Provide a place for facts that may be highly relevant to the article but which do not readily integrate into other sections.
 * Help demonstrate the interconnectedness of varied subjects by way of internal links to other articles and expose readers to those subjects.
 * Make the encyclopedia more enjoyable to read and more accessible to a broader audience.
 * The trivia guideline discourages trivia sections for stylistic reasons, and does not discourage trivia itself. It also does not recommend trivia sections be deleted outright.
 * Having a trivia section allows the reader to choose to read or to ignore the section, while incorporating the trivia into the prose of the article does a disservice to the readability of the article as the reader cannot differentiate the trivia from the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmaweezer (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cons

 * Can overwhelm an article with a large unsorted list of facts of dubious veracity and relevance.
 * The existence of such sections encourages casual editors to add yet more low-quality facts.
 * Require constant maintenance to keep the above problems at bay.
 * Are a bad way of presenting information; "trivia lists" have no place in a good or featured article.
 * "Trivia" and "Popular culture" sections are inappropriate to an encyclopedia.
 * Can be non-neutral by presenting incomplete or imbalanced information about a subject that gives a misleading impression of it.

Great quotes concerning the hot topic of the wikipedia trivia debate

 * Trivia sections are a victim of the conflict of what wikipedia was created to be and what wikipedia is now famous for.
 * If a liberal is a conservative who's never been mugged, then a pro-trivia "inclusionist" editor is a "deletionist" who's never seen a horrifying trivia section. Ozmaweezer 15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what we are finding is that Wikipedia's goals are not the same as its successes (source)
 * Don't remove – improve.

Trivia

 * Trivia is not trivial
 * Cliff Claven of Cheers was a trivia expert
 * This trivia section is very ironic
 * TriviaGuy.com is the official website of "Trivia" Guinness World Record holder, Wilson Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.190.189 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA merge debate
There is a long and extensive debate happening at WT:TRIVIA that most readers of this page and participants in this and the related project will probably be interested in. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)