User:Mangojuice/Trivia

This page is about trivia sections and articles, and what to do with them.

What is trivia?

Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important. However, since Wikipedia consists of articles, we can be more specific -- trivia is information that is not important to the subject it is being presented in relation to.

Note that certain kinds of information can be more or less important, depending on the context. For instance, in

Lists can appear within articles, and can be relevant presentations within those articles. However, since lists of trivia are frowned upon, trivia that is integrated through lists must be integrated selectively, in a way that doesn't provide a framework for further miscellaneous contributions. As an example, see Alex Trebek#Cameos, which lists shows/films on which Alex Trebek has had a cameo appearance. Other cameos can be added to that section, but general miscellaneous facts would not fit there. To contrast, see 8 Simple Rules for Buying My Teenage Daughter#Cultural references], which barely restricts the information, and effectively remains a trivia section although under a different name.

Some specific section titles to avoid: "Trivia," "Popular culture," "Appearances in fiction." Better sections might include "Awards and nominations," "Adaptations," "Fictional works about (topic)", et cetera.

Annotated vs. plain lists

When trivia can be organized in plain lists, or lists with very limited annotation, it is generally better to do so. There are many reasons for this.

1. It adds an implied level of selectivity. When trivia items need explanation, they are generally less important. For instance, in a list of references to Scientology, the fact that the movie Airplane! references Scientology has to be explained, but the fact that Trapped in the Closet does is clear from the Trapped in the Closet article.
2. It avoids cruft. In addition to the general problems with trivia, Trivia items tend to go into greatly unnecessary detail, often giving game-guide like details of video games, extensive quotes from TV episodes, and attempts to recreate humor. Having a list without annotations cuts this Gordion knot.
3. It avoids fragmented coverage. For instance, the connection between Trapped in the Closet and Scientology will be best written at Trapped in the Closet. If a separate description of the connection is written elsewhere, it is likely to be inferior and will not improve. (This is a major problem with notable pieces of "connective" trivia.)
4. It avoids unsourced information. While having an unsourced list without annotation is theoretically no better than having an unsourced list with annotation, in practice, there is much less that needs sourcing. Also, by avoiding fragmented coverage, we avoid the need for fragmented sourcing.
5. It is easier, at a glance, to notice new entries that may need removing, because these will often have extensive annotation.

Related articles

In some cases, two topics can be connected in a way that's important enough to make the two articles related articles. In such a case, the best way to note the connection may be to simply have a link in the "see also" section of the articles. Since the topics are strongly related, no further explanation is needed. However, this technique should be used sparingly. For instance, Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple is an adaptation of the events in Jonestown, and the articles are related enough to put the adaptation as a "see also" link. However, it would probably be unwise to put Cartman Gets an Anal Probe as a "see also" under Grey alien, even though there is a connection. This can be a good way of keeping trivia out of articles on subjects that have a couple of important connections to other subjects.

Trivia articles

Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided. Unlike trivia sections, trivia articles are not especially useful as repositories of information to be integrated elsewhere. Rather, trivia articles keep such information away from the main pages on a subject. There are two types of trivia articles.

Some articles may, with their title, imply that they are good places to put unimportant information; for instance an article called Three's Company trivia would be a bad idea in the first place. In addition to the likely problems with the content of such an article, the title may also need to be addressed, just as a "trivia" section in the Three's Company article may need to be renamed to achieve some selectivity and context. Other articles are merely de facto trivia articles. That is, they have a title that seems like a real article, for instance Leprechauns in popular culture, but in fact the entire article consists of a list of trivia.

Trivia articles are especially problematic, because their existence makes it much harder to solve the trivia problem that still exists in relation to the subject. Whereas ordinary editors can delete sections of articles, they can't delete articles. Editors can move articles, but most editors will not be as bold in moving articles as they would in restructuring within an article. Compounding this, when an article is split up, it may be hard to get other users involved in discussion or efforts to make improvements: the talk page of the trivia article is often very low-activity, but on the talk page of the main article, editors may not care to address the trivia article. Trivia articles are often abandoned by editors in a way that trivia sections are not: in order to stem the tide of constant trivia additions, editors may simply fork the trivia section out to another page, and let it exist there. In fact, the only solution that is attempted (when any is) is to make a de facto trivia article conform to what its title seems to expect, but this may not always be the best idea.

Integrated trivia and Original research

The best result that can come from removing a list of trivia is a new, coherent piece of prose discussing a new aspect of the subject of an article. Unfortunately, such synthesis of trivia items can sometimes lead to a new problem: Wikipedia is not supposed to be the publisher of original work. Before integration is attempted, it is important to realize that the list of trivia may serve as a list of examples, but may not be sufficient to make general conclusions. For instance, consider a list of depictions of God's appearance in popular culture, which is a list of examples from various movies and television shows: in other words, a list of trivia. This could be combined into a paragraph summing up what we can learn from the examples (for instance, that God is often shown as an old man with white hair). However, this is a new claim that wasn't made before, and needs sourcing. In this case, the claim may very well be something someone has written about before, so it may be attributable. But in other cases, it may be impossible; consider a similar article on depictions of Oliver Cromwell: such depictions may be so scarce that no one has bothered to write about them, or there may be nothing worth saying.

In such cases, it may be better for the trivia to remain in a list. Note, however, that just like all contributions on Wikipedia, trivia items need to be

Trivia and categories

At heart, much trivia is an attempt to connect partially-related topics through a given context. Categories serve much the same purpose. In some cases, trivia may be appropriately handled via categorization. For instance, instead of collecting an article

Stand-alone trivia is trivia that is about only one subject (or at least, about only one encyclopedia topic). Example (from Bert and Ernie):

Bert's twin brother Bart, who resembles Bert in every physical way (including, as Ernie puts it, "the same pointy head, cucumbery nose and no-shoulders"), but has a diametrically-opposite personality, constantly making weak jokes and imitating a comedy-routine trumpet ("Bart's the name, selling's the game, waah-waah-waah!").

This information is about the subject of Bert, and only extremely vaguely connected to any other subject. It somewhat involves other topics, but only very general ones: in this case, twins.

Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in. The above is a good example: there is no reason why Bert's brother could not be mentioned without detracting from the article. However, in some cases, the information is just too unimportant. For instance, a note like "Alan Smithee's favorite color is yellow" cannot be integrated into the text without distracting from it (in other words, it's trivia no matter how it is presented, and should therefore be removed).

Connective trivia

Most trivia connects two or more topics with each other. A few examples:

In V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, V often quotes Crowley when conversing with Evey. (from deleted Aleister Crowley in popular culture)

Connects V for Vendetta with Aleister Crowley.

Smith voiced himself in an episode of South Park in which he defeats Barbra Streisand in a battle. The main characters praise him. South Park creator Trey Parker is a fan of The Cure (see Mecha-Streisand). (from Robert Smith (musician))

Connects Barbra Streisand, Mecha-Streisand, and Robert Smith.

Ella Fitzgerald was born in Newport News, Virginia. (concocted example)

Connects Ella Fitzgerald with Newport News, Virginia.

There are three types of connective trivia. Some is important to all of the subjects it connects. For instance, it is important, in Ella Fitzgerald's biography, to mention where she was born, and Ella Fitzgerald's high level of visibility is a claim to fame for Newport News and should be mentioned.

Some trivia is important to only some of the subjects; most trivia appearing on Wikipedia is of this variety. The second example above is of this type. It is important to the topic of Mecha-Streisand to mention Robert Smith's appearance: it is an important element of the plot, and a celebrity voice appearance also. However, the importance of this fact to Robert Smith is relatively minimal, and it is certainly of minimal importance to Barbra Streisand. (That is, the information that Robert Smith appeared, and voiced his character, in that episode is unimportant to the topic of Barbra Streisand.)

Some trivia is actually important to none of the subjects it connects. The mention of Aleister Crowley quotes in V for Vendetta is not important enough to the subject of V for Vendetta for the article to mention it: it's just too small of a detail. It also has no importance for Aleister Crowley, a well known figure quoted in a very wide variety of contexts.