Brock Weller wrote:
Trivia sections are not encyclopedic.
Bullshit!
We require non-trivial sources, and we shouldnt be one ourselves. If they dont fit elsewhere then they are rightly dropped.
The only ones who believe that are so pompous and self-absorbed that they have lost all capacity to determine what is important or interesting to readers?
As for it being harder to re add them, good. Itll keep them out longer. The harder the crap is to keep in the pedia, the better off we all are.
So what you're telling me is that YOU are singularly equipped to recognize crap. Do you have any other jokes?
You can thank us for the usable encyclopedia later when you figure it out.
Why should I thank anyone whose stated aim is to be destructive? Ec
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 9/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If people/bots are doing that, they should be stopped. Last time I read the appropriate policy it said to integrate trivia into the rest of the article, not remove it.
Yeah, trivia sections are "good" in the sense that we can quickly identify material that needs a better home. Of course, sometimes the material just seems too tangential to rescue.
I'm not opposed to trivia sections, and perhaps it is that tangentiality that justifies having such material in a separate section rather than having it integrated into the body of the article where its appearance may sometimes seem strained.
Ec