Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup

List of collective nouns
There is a discussion at Talk:List of collective nouns regarding the suitability of fictional list items. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Jezebel article
Hello - the Jezebel article, which was in a very poor state but has now been re-written, has an "In popular culture" which grows longer and longer with unsourced and unverifiable additions such as somebody called a hurricane "Jezebel" in some movie, a character in a video game has "Jezebel" as a first name, every pop song called "Jezebel" or that has "Jezebel" in the lyrics. Don't such lists have to have any references, how is anyone supposed to know that editors are not just making stuff up? My inclination is delete all of it except the most notable and verifiable cases that can be sourced but I would like some advice or guidance as to whether this is an OK thing to do. Or start an article "Jezebel in popular culture" and move it all there maybe, would that be OK? But it still would not seem right to me to have a list of unverifiable information. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Smeat75 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Tutorial
This wikiproject could benefit from a basic tutorial that shows how to clean up and find trivia sections. Just a thought. Mr.Magik-Pants (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am still a little unclear about what a trivia section is.Mcps39 (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposed
It is proposed that WP:WikiProject Popular Culture (formerly WP:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture) and WP:WikiProject Laundromat be merged into WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup, the best-established and most clearly named project for this work. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I support this idea because the merge-from pages are redundant and just a division of labor, a dilution of collaboration. Worse yet, what is now WP:WikiProject Popular Culture is a WP:POVFORK, a blatantly anti-consensus, inclusionism "lobbying factory" for the promotion of trivia. I raised clear objections to the project taking this approach over a year ago, and nothing has changed. The project's page has not been edited at all other than for category/disambiguation maintenance, and its talk page indicates no activity but a couple of notices, and one comment in support of adding trivia to Wikipedia articles, since I raised my objections. This kind of WP:ADVOCACY-based pseudo-wikiproject is normally deleted by WP:MFD, with prejudice (see, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject English). My original idea was to re-scope the project, but it turns out to actually be redundant to a longer-running project, at WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup, so the participant lists can simply be merged, along with anything worth salvaging from the merge-from project. This might help actually generate more productive work anyway; neither project has been very active, yet we still have a large number of articles with MOS:TRIVIA problems. PS: If we actually need any resources specifically devoted to maintenance of "in popular culture" entire articles, that can simply be a task force/work group. The principal editing work to do with regard to such articles is to clean up fan-gushing trivia in them, usually not to create more such articles or expand them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but apparently a broader consensus needs to be established regarding removal of trivia (perhaps another RfC) as I was recently told that pop culture mentions are "self-referencing" and "there is, and never has been, any community consensus for the wholesale removal of pop cultural items". Plantdrew (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we have actual guidelines on this, and it's a matter of cleanup, mostly in the form of relevance and citation checking, and conversion to encyclopedic prose from bullet lists, not rampant deletionism. Both WPP Trivia Cleanup and WPP Laundromat focus directly and exactly on this cleanup effort, while WPP [Trivia and] Popular Culture is a blatant POVFORK to campaign against what the guidelines recommend.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose on account of them being clearly different projects, as also shown by the differences reported in the agendas. -The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OpposeThe prejudice against lists, which can provide information in as easily interpreted format, should not be enabled. Not sure why Wikipedia has decided that easily interpreted information is "unencyclopedic" but I refuse to support that idea.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the project inactive?
The most recent talk page comment was over four years ago, and INACTIVEWP recommends marking a project as inactive if nothing happens for one year.

Inactive WikiProjects still have their pages remain up, so the main WikiProject Trivia Cleanup page will stay available for use by editors. Inactive is just a signal that nothing collaborative is happening. QuietCicada (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have now marked the project as inactive. QuietCicada - Talk 23:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)