Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections
This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
This page in a nutshell: An article should not contain a list of miscellaneous information. It is better to present things in an organized way. |
Manual of Style (MoS) |
---|
Avoid collections of miscellaneous facts or examples. A collection of miscellaneous facts or examples – whether presented in list format or embedded in regular prose – risks becoming a trivia magnet, which grows increasingly unwieldy as things are added. If such a collection already exists,[1] it should be considered temporary, until editors can sort out what is worth keeping. Content supported by a reliable source and which falls within the scope of Wikipedia could be integrated into a different section or article; non-encyclopedic content should simply be removed.
Not all list sections are trivia sections
[edit]In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" collection of facts or examples. A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. For example, 1257 Samalas eruption contains a list of climate effects which that volcano eruption is believed to have had in different areas.
Any list of examples should have a solid connection to the article's subject, and even then the number of examples should be limited. If there are an abundance of possible examples, with none standing out as the most significant, picking two or three as exemplars may be better than attempting to create a comprehensive list.
"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material
[edit]Cultural references about a subject, in the article covering that subject, should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient.
For example, if you want to add a fact to the banana article stating that bananas are used as weapons in the Worms video game series, you should cite a reliable source focused on bananas — such as, to take a fictitious example, The Cultural Impact of the Banana by Joe Bananalover. This ensures relevance to the subject of the article.
Citing sources specific to Worms, such as the games themselves as primary sources, or an article in PC Gamer magazine, is not sufficient. While these may verify the fact, they do not demonstrate the cultural significance of bananas in a manner proportionate to their overall treatment in reliable sources about bananas. It is the fact's relevance to the topic of bananas that matters, not its significance within the Worms games. Wikipedia's WP:PROPORTION policy requires articles to reflect the significance of aspects of a subject as presented in the broader body of literature on that subject. Minor aspects that do not receive significant attention in those sources should not be covered at all.
Of course, sources such as PC Gamer or the Worms games themselves may well be appropriate for including the fact in the Worms (series) article, where they are directly relevant to that article's subject.
This sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.
Cultural references are sometimes grouped into a section labelled "in popular culture", "in the media", "cultural references", "in fiction", etc. In other cases, such a list is included in regular prose. For example, all the film and television references to or reenactments of something. When not effectively curated, such a list can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view.
As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears. Such prose might give a logically presented overview (chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres, for various purposes and audiences.
Other guidance: See WP:No original research for why and how to avoid engaging in your own novel analysis of this coverage. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources for referencing standards. See WP:Neutral point of view for principles to apply in balancing Wikipedia treatment of cultural references to the subject.
Other policies apply
[edit]Trivia sections found in places such as IMDb sometimes contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or even libel. However, Wikipedia articles must not contain those, in a trivia section or anywhere else. Sensational claims not supported by a high-quality source may be removed immediately, even if the section remains in place.
Notes
[edit]- ^ In the early days of Wikipedia it was common for articles to include lists of miscellaneous information, often grouped into their own section. These sections were typically given names such as "Trivia", "Facts", "Miscellanea", or "Other information". For an example, see the John Lennon trivia section from December 10, 2005. This practice has long been disapproved.
See also
[edit]- Wikipedia:Handling trivia
- WP:IINFO – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (a Wikipedia policy)
- WP:"In popular culture" content (an essay)
- WP:CARGO – an essay about the difference between compiling cultural references and writing an encyclopaedic article
- Category:Articles with trivia sections
- Template:In popular culture
- Template:Trivia
- List of Wikipedia articles with trivia sections
- Wikipedia:Fancruft
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom
- Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?