They look ugly and unprofessional. Can we get a policy or something to suggest that they be renamed "Miscellaneous information" or merged into the rest of the article?
And while we're at it, can we get rid of "{{PAGENAME}} in popular culture" sections?
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
They look ugly and unprofessional. Can we get a policy or something to suggest that they be renamed "Miscellaneous information" or merged into the rest of the article?
I must respectfully disagree. To many readers, these little facts add colour and interest to the article and can tie the main subject to other, often unexpected subjects. Putting them all in one section at the end of the article is the best place for them, because otherwise we would have to find appropriate places for them in the main body of the text, and it may not always be easy (or concise) to do this.
"Trivia" is the accepted name for this sort of material. It is concise and descriptive.
Perhaps the question is just how trivial a factoid needs to be to be included. We don't need every little bit of blather.
Peter (Skyring)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
They look ugly and unprofessional. Can we get a policy or something to suggest that they be renamed "Miscellaneous information" or merged into the rest of the article?
I must respectfully disagree. To many readers, these little facts add colour and interest to the article and can tie the main subject to other, often unexpected subjects. Putting them all in one section at the end of the article is the best place for them, because otherwise we would have to find appropriate places for them in the main body of the text, and it may not always be easy (or concise) to do this.
"Trivia" is the accepted name for this sort of material. It is concise and descriptive.
Pray tell me how anything to do with (eg.) the Prime Minister of Britain is "trivial"???
Perhaps the question is just how trivial a factoid needs to be to be included. We don't need every little bit of blather.
So why can't it go into other sections of the article?
A quick and illustrative example at [[Brian May]]
May is a vegetarian - ok, that could be put into another section. May is the tallest member of Queen - I don't see where else that would fit exactly. Some character in some computer game is *rumoured* to have been created after him - junk that deserves to be in the bin.
Personally I don't find much redeeming value in these "Character X in show/game Y was based on this person" references at all.
Steve
On 2/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
They look ugly and unprofessional. Can we get a policy or something to suggest that they be renamed "Miscellaneous information" or merged into the rest of the article?
I must respectfully disagree. To many readers, these little facts add colour and interest to the article and can tie the main subject to other, often unexpected subjects. Putting them all in one section at the end of the article is the best place for them, because otherwise we would have to find appropriate places for them in the main body of the text, and it may not always be easy (or concise) to do this.
"Trivia" is the accepted name for this sort of material. It is concise and descriptive.
Pray tell me how anything to do with (eg.) the Prime Minister of Britain is "trivial"???
Perhaps the question is just how trivial a factoid needs to be to be included. We don't need every little bit of blather.
So why can't it go into other sections of the article?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/22/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I don't find much redeeming value in these "Character X in show/game Y was based on this person" references at all.
If they need to exist at all, the correct place is in an article about the show, game or character, not in the article about the person who was the inspiration. And it better damn well have a good, cited source.
-Matt
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Pray tell me how anything to do with (eg.) the Prime Minister of Britain is "trivial"???
I can't find a trivia section in either [[Tony Blair]] or [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]]. Working backward chronologically, the first one I find is for [[Harold Wilson]] and consists of "A popular urban myth at Oxford University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University states that Wilson's grade in his final examination was the highest ever recorded up to that date." Seems pretty trivial to me.
Perhaps the question is just how trivial a factoid needs to be to be included. We don't need every little bit of blather.
So why can't it go into other sections of the article?
He answered this earlier in the email you're responding to:
Putting them all in one section at the end of the article is the best place for them, because otherwise we would have to find appropriate places for them in the main body of the text, and it may not always be easy (or concise) to do this.
Having refactored many an article in the past I agree with this, there's sometimes stuff that is great to have but which just doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Later on other sections may develop that provide better homes.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:07:31 -0700, you wrote:
"A popular urban myth at Oxford University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University states that Wilson's grade in his final examination was the highest ever recorded up to that date." Seems pretty trivial to me.
Widely repeated, though, and stated in some in histories of 20th Century British politics (stated by, I think, John Cole as "the best First of his generation" - not quite the same thing). So: not necessarily trivia. Guy (JzG)
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
They look ugly and unprofessional.
Have you forgotten that most of us are not being paid to edit? That makes looking unprofessional quite natural. :-)
So, you're suggesting we should leave the vandalism *in* because we're not being paid to remove it?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
They look ugly and unprofessional.
Have you forgotten that most of us are not being paid to edit? That makes looking unprofessional quite natural. :-)
So, you're suggesting we should leave the vandalism *in* because we're not being paid to remove it?
Vandalism?? Please review the subject line; it's about trivia. Your reference to vandalism is a non-sequitur.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
They look ugly and unprofessional.
Have you forgotten that most of us are not being paid to edit? That makes looking unprofessional quite natural. :-)
So, you're suggesting we should leave the vandalism *in* because we're not being paid to remove it?
Vandalism?? Please review the subject line; it's about trivia. Your reference to vandalism is a non-sequitur.
Vandalism is ugly and unprofessional, and we're not being paid to edit, but we fix it anyway. Why should "Trivia" sections in articles be any different?
I agree that Trivia is ugly and needs to be merged into the article or deleted.
As far as 'x in Popular Culture' I would keep it if they are notable references.
On 2/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
They look ugly and unprofessional.
Have you forgotten that most of us are not being paid to edit? That makes looking unprofessional quite natural. :-)
So, you're suggesting we should leave the vandalism *in* because we're not being paid to remove it?
Vandalism?? Please review the subject line; it's about trivia. Your reference to vandalism is a non-sequitur.
Vandalism is ugly and unprofessional, and we're not being paid to edit, but we fix it anyway. Why should "Trivia" sections in articles be any different?
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
They look ugly and unprofessional.
Have you forgotten that most of us are not being paid to edit? That makes looking unprofessional quite natural. :-)
So, you're suggesting we should leave the vandalism *in* because we're not being paid to remove it?
Vandalism?? Please review the subject line; it's about trivia. Your reference to vandalism is a non-sequitur.
Vandalism is ugly and unprofessional, and we're not being paid to edit, but we fix it anyway. Why should "Trivia" sections in articles be any different?
Because trivia are not vandalism; they are just interesting and curious bits of data about the subject. They give a lighter tone to the entire article. They are also just as subject to verifiability criteria as any other data.
Ec
Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability, readability, etc. I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/ information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
On 2/24/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
They look ugly and unprofessional.
Have you forgotten that most of us are not being paid to edit? That makes looking unprofessional quite natural. :-)
So, you're suggesting we should leave the vandalism *in* because we're not being paid to remove it?
Vandalism?? Please review the subject line; it's about trivia. Your reference to vandalism is a non-sequitur.
Vandalism is ugly and unprofessional, and we're not being paid to edit, but we fix it anyway. Why should "Trivia" sections in articles be any different?
Because trivia are not vandalism; they are just interesting and curious bits of data about the subject. They give a lighter tone to the entire article. They are also just as subject to verifiability criteria as any other data.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Ben Yates wrote:
Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability, readability, etc. I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/ information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
The problem is not so much the fact that they exist as that the name "trivia" is meaningless. I mean, if this information is so "trivial", why bother including it? It should be "miscellaneous information".
I'd argue that for most people, the word trivia is pretty disconnected from its epitemological roots, and in this case serves as a convenient placeholder for a more precise descriptor that nobody's thought of yet (and would probably be long and cumbersome).
On 2/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability, readability, etc. I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/ information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
The problem is not so much the fact that they exist as that the name "trivia" is meaningless. I mean, if this information is so "trivial", why bother including it? It should be "miscellaneous information".
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Ben Yates wrote:
I'd argue that for most people, the word trivia is pretty disconnected from its epitemological roots, and in this case serves as a convenient placeholder for a more precise descriptor that nobody's thought of yet (and would probably be long and cumbersome).
IOW we should limit the Pedia to quadrivia. ;-)
Ec
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability, readability, etc. I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/ information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
The problem is not so much the fact that they exist as that the name "trivia" is meaningless. I mean, if this information is so "trivial", why bother including it? It should be "miscellaneous information".
So now you would distill the issue from a question of content to a question of subject headings. That IS trivial. :-)
Ec
Ben Yates wrote:
Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability, readability, etc. I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/ information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
Because we're an encyclopedia. This is like saying "I'm a bit baffled as to why including the full text of all of [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s speeches at the end of his article upsets people so much". (A bit exaggerated of course, but nevertheless true.) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.
John
There are still contraints, but they're contraints of readability and usefulness, not shipping weight.
On 2/24/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
Wikipedia is not paper -- in a print encyclopedia, there's a limit on the total information volume, so any trivia would push out something more important; here, the contraints are easy navigability, readability, etc. I'm afraid I'm a bit baffled as to why /additional/ information at the end of an article upsets people so much, as long as it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
Because we're an encyclopedia. This is like saying "I'm a bit baffled as to why including the full text of all of [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s speeches at the end of his article upsets people so much". (A bit exaggerated of course, but nevertheless true.) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
Ben Yates wrote:
There are still contraints, but they're contraints of readability and usefulness, not shipping weight.
It's certainly useful to have all of Abraham Lincoln's speeches compiled on one page. Formatted properly, it would probably be readable too. Doesn't make it encyclopedic.
John
Useful and readable in the context of a summary, of course, and of a place for information that doesn't have another home (like wikisource).
On 2/24/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Ben Yates wrote:
There are still contraints, but they're contraints of readability and usefulness, not shipping weight.
It's certainly useful to have all of Abraham Lincoln's speeches compiled on one page. Formatted properly, it would probably be readable too. Doesn't make it encyclopedic.
John _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Ben Yates Wikipedia blog - http://wikip.blogspot.com
On 2/24/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
Your comment is a bit misplaced - we're editors on this list, but you're giving advice to readers. Ultimately Wikipedia is about a small number of people producing text for the rest of the world to read. So ignoring a problem isn't really helping.
Steve
On 2/26/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/24/06, Ben Yates bluephonic@gmail.com wrote:
it doesn't make the rest of the article less useful. If you don't like trivia sections, don't read them.
Your comment is a bit misplaced - we're editors on this list, but you're giving advice to readers. Ultimately Wikipedia is about a small number of people producing text for the rest of the world to read. So ignoring a problem isn't really helping.
Ultimately Wikipedia is about a large number of people producing text for each other to read.
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Ultimately Wikipedia is about a large number of people producing text for each other to read.
You think? I thought we were operating under some kind of assumption of 1 in every 10 or so readers of each page becoming an editor. Not that we have any actual stats or anything...
Steve
On 2/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Ultimately Wikipedia is about a large number of people producing text for each other to read.
You think? I thought we were operating under some kind of assumption of 1 in every 10 or so readers of each page becoming an editor. Not that we have any actual stats or anything...
Oh, I'm talking long term, when Wikipedia is a sentient entity that takes every single thing every person writes online and incorporates it into its own knowledge base.
Okay, I guess I'm talking about a few stages before that.
A little more seriously, I mean that our *goal*, I think, should be to have everyone edit and read, whereas our expectations are that a much smaller percentage are much more active.
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
A little more seriously, I mean that our *goal*, I think, should be to have everyone edit and read, whereas our expectations are that a much smaller percentage are much more active.
Is that even our goal? My point was just that our readership is much greater than just the wikipedia community. I can't remember why I was making that point, but it was surely very pertinent...
Steve
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
They look ugly and unprofessional. Can we get a policy or something to suggest that they be renamed "Miscellaneous information" or merged into the rest of the article?
A guideline would be helpful. If something really is piece of trivia, then it is very likely to be too trivial for an encyclopedia article about the topic (as opposed to a "random facts" website, or a book about the topic). If it's not, then we should try and merge it in elsewhere in the article (in cases that I've looked at, it often can be), or just delete much of it outright. If people are really desperate to keep trivial bits of information, split it out to a subarticle, like [[Harry Potter trivia]], so that the main article isn't worse off for it.
As an aside, yesterday someone added the following to the "References" section of [[Zanzibar]]:
The Earth levels on [[Halo 2]] Take place in "New Zanzibar"
This isn't the first time, either. Obviously, places in Africa are so exotic that we need to list references to them from computer games if they're to have any relevance to real people. Grr.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt R
As an aside, yesterday someone added the following to the "References" section of [[Zanzibar]]:
The Earth levels on [[Halo 2]] Take place in "New Zanzibar"
This isn't the first time, either. Obviously, places in Africa are so exotic that we need to list references to them from computer games if they're to have any relevance to real people. Grr.
Half the bluddy encyclopaedia is trivia.
But we're not going to change this anytime soon. Most of the editorbase, I suggest, regard Halo 2 (whatever that might be) as more relevant to them than Zanzibar the island.
Peter (Skyring)
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:06:00 +1100, you wrote:
Most of the editorbase, I suggest, regard Halo 2 (whatever that might be) as more relevant to them than Zanzibar the island.
Ain't that the truth. We have more biographical detail on most porn "stars" than on some major figures in classical music. Guy (JzG)
Bar the barbarians!
On 2/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:06:00 +1100, you wrote:
Most of the editorbase, I suggest, regard Halo 2 (whatever that might be) as more relevant to them than Zanzibar the island.
Ain't that the truth. We have more biographical detail on most porn "stars" than on some major figures in classical music. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
They look ugly and unprofessional.
I must also disagree. I find them neither ugly nor unprofessional. People are interested in trivia, it adds spice, and more importantly it can usefully spark connection-making and deep learning.
Do we have a {WP:NOT} for "stuffy, conventional, dry, humorless, or bend-over-backwardsly professional"? Perhaps we should.
Certainly any listed trivia must be *interesting*, and that's obviously an endlessly subjective judgment, but one we can work on without exorcising all trivia.
And while we're at it, can we get rid of "{{PAGENAME}} in popular culture" sections?
Those bug me more than Trivia, and I've seen many more of them that are completely out of hand. But there was just a discussion (here, or on one of the Village Pumps, or somewhere, I forget) about developing policies to keep them trimmed to a reasonable and relevant length.
I'd say, when people come across bits of trivia or popular culture references that obviously aren't interesting, they should be bold and just delete them.