Quoting Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com:
On 11/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
imaginable records in there. A trivia section is good in and for an article because it keeps this information separate from the rest of the article. The importance or value of the information depends more on the
What kinds of trivia do you think are best in their own section? I think we can distinguish between:
- Generally pertinent information that could be integrated somewhere.
e.g., someone's childhood best friend was the famous author xxx. 2) Real trivia that simply isn't that interesting, e.g. the fact that someone won some event on whatever day was only the 3rd time that's happened since blah blah blah. 3) Trivia that's only trivia for ignorant teeny boppers (there was a reference to this extremely well known painting in whatever episode of the simpsons, or there was a character named after this extremely well known 17th philosopher in whatever computer game). 4) ...you're proposing a category of trivia that is interesting but can't or shouldn't be integrated?
(Personally, I hate 3) the most. They make me grind my teeth.)
Steve
3 isn't trivia, it is cultural references. May I ask what is wrong with letting as you put it "teeny boppers" know how what things are referring to? I've seen kids become more interested in history and other subjects after they learn how many references the Simpsons, Family Guy and similar shows make to elements of the Western canon. So what is wrong with such sections other than that you don't like reading them?