John Vandenberg wrote:
Including trivia like this in other articles would result in it being removed due to WP:TRIVIA. Keeping it separate means that readers wont find it unless they are searching for more obscure information or browsing out of interest.
Agreed, it is certainly more valuable when kept in a separate section.
Trivia is by definition... trivial. Do we want a trivial encyclopedia?
Trivia is not so easily defined; it is often said that one man's trivia is another man's treasure. Even if we accept trivia to mean trivial factoids, including them in an encyclopedia does not make the entire work trivial; rather it becomes extensive, cumbersome when it is in print, and yet still treasured on the bookshelf.
These trivial bits are popular because they are short and easily remembered. Readers can use them after a few beers with their friends in a "Did you know ..." kind of conversation.
Think of works like the Guinness Book of Records and Wikiquote; they are entirely trivia, yet they are invaluable when assessed as a whole. EB1911 articles also include a lot of trivia, and sometimes even the articles can be called trivial. (see [[Accius]])
Guinness has standards about what it will include as a record. They don't just take any claim about someone's alleged stupid record. Haydn's Book of Dates in the 19th century had a similar popularity. Trivia are still subject to verifiability, and if the reading public realizes that it makes our trivia more valuable than urban legends that can be randomly promoted anywhere.
Excluding trivia from an encyclopedia is what makes it trivial.
Absolutely, and that exclusion is characteristic of people who take themselves too seriously. An editor sometimes needs to ask himself, "What question is a reader likely to ask?", or "What is he likely to wonder about." Wonder is a powerfully constructive emotion. (as long as it can get past wondering about your spouse's dating habits)
Ec