[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia as culturally assumed

[Steve Bennett]

On 11/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at 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:

1) 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