Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:27, 24 February 2008

If you came here to leave a vandalism warning, you need to look at the edit again.

User:WillOakland in popular culture

Please take more care in removing sections. Per WP:Trivia, these sections are discouraged, but not forbidden. The consensus is generally to work the information into the main article and not simply remove it. These could be seen as vandalism, but I don't think that's the case. (Although, based on your talk page header, I'm betting you've been templated before about this?) I'm rolling back several of these changes so that WikiEditors may have the opportunity to incorporate some of the information. Please feel free to become involved in these improvements through consensus-building and collaboration rather than unilateral blanking of page content, even if imperfect content. Have a great day otherwise! VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

I'm removing sections that have been tagged for quite some time without being cleaned up. If someone wants to volunteer, they can get the text from the history. WillOakland (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no time limits. I just incorporated a trivia section in an article on a topic of which I know nothing about. It's easy to go around with the scalpel and excise every lump you see, but actual surgery, where you fix something instead of just removing something, requires effort, and care. If you care, I would think you'd be more inclined to do surgery rather than cutting. Take a look at the one I undid and then incorporated. Perhaps you could do the same on articles you think need their trivia sections removed. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (Also remember, "discouraged", but nothing about mandatory removal, no matter how long they are tagged.)

I am using discretion, although it might not be obvious. Saying that Misplaced Pages has no time limits is tantamount to saying that it has no goals, such as making a decent encyclopedia. WillOakland (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, discretion was not obvious (considering one article only had that section for a few minutes and the tag itself was undated). Still, there is nothing in policy that says we cannot have trivia sections. I do not like them either, but the information is most often of general interest and adds to the article, causing a formatting and sectioning problem more than an extraneous content problem. Hence the "discouraged" policy. Deleting entire sections wholesale is just... borderline. That's all. We need more people editing, not more people deleting. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not hold to the view, apparently so widespread, that every fact added to an article is "special" and must be kept at all costs. WillOakland (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is advocating blindly keeping material that is inappropriate. The purpose of WP:TRIVIA is not however to blank these sections, (in fact, the guidelines specifically state this,) but to convert them to prose. Certainly you do not have to use every example deposited into these sections, but wholesale deletion of these sections is throwing the baby out with the bath water. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a sad reality that Misplaced Pages is full of trivia lists that have no redeeming content whatsoever. These sections (and the separate articles they are foolishly spun into) make Misplaced Pages a laughing stock. Shouldn't something be done about it? WillOakland (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As I just said, clean up what you can, and convert the rest to prose. Don't just blank though. That's something you can do about it -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to go through a list of incidental references and look for one to keep as a token gesture. WillOakland (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really looking for one to keep as a token gesture. Some facts in the trivia sections are just not in the right section, or are important enough to include. This shows what needs to be done with trivia sections, not to be deleted, but incorporating the important facts into the rest of the article and removing "trash" facts like the one included on your link above (the laughing stock one). Trivia sections just need a little work, but can be resorted into other sections with a little thought. Spencer 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, "pop culture" sections are not necessarily subject to the same recommendations as "trivia" sections -- the popular culture influence of a given subject may constitute a valid stand-alone subtopic.--Father Goose (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you know full well that "in popular culture" is widely used as a fig-leaf for trivia. WillOakland (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not always. But I'm inclined to belive you've had this conversation with others before, possibly even with me.--Father Goose (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly should such lists be discussed? Item by item? Is an article doomed to carry a trivia list forever once it reaches a certain length, due to the amount of discussion that would be needed to clean it up? WillOakland (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, item by item could be a tedious task. For a long list, why not drop in a trivia tag, remove the most obviously/indisputable poor quality additions, incorporate into prose some you think are notable, and then in the edit summary and/or talk page propose the rest be removed. Wait a week, and see what response you get. If someone reverts your removals, then post it on talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact I am trying to incorporate the old trivia throughout the article in a proper way even now. I think what scared me was the loss of the information completely but I do see your point. UB65 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

rg trivia intervention for Misplaced Pages I mean UB65 (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents...

Hi Will. You can see my more detailed comments on the ANI discussion, but essentially I agree with you that pop culture and trivia lists are problematic and should be removed. Just try and get people on side when you work to improve things, and also, remember that some of the info in the trivia lists may actually be quite significant and should be incorporated into the main article somehow. Also, watch out for new additions and calmly decide if they need removal or incorporation into the main prose - new additions are likely to me easier to manage than long standing lists. Drop me a message any time if need be.

It's a tough job dealing with these sections properly - it'd be great to see more people doing so - good to see that at least you are interested! kind regards and happy editing. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a broom

		Jack's very-own Broomstar
		Awarded for inspiring efforts at clearing out the trash. —Jack Merridew 11:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cunt

I have reverted your changes to this article pending discussion on its talk page. Surgery is fine; butchery isn't, without consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Warning - Please do not conduct disruptive edits as an "intervention" to Misplaced Pages. We have been through this a number of times before. It is against the guidelines to unilaterally remove popular culture sections, and with good reason. If you disagree with policies or guidelines your best bet is to participate in the policy discussion, but please do not take it upon yourself to make widespread contentious edits. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Arnaldo Lerma. However, please be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Misplaced Pages page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a source for that. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the popular culture refs

I think the references to popular culture are quite interesting and relevant in terms of background on the overall stunt of fart lighting. I suggest reverting the "popular culture" section from . There's not much scholarly or academic discussion of fart lighting, so popular culture is the best reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously they are "relevant" but regardless of how interesting you find them, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to catalog every occurrence, or even many occurrences, of toilet humor. The article outside of the trivia list is surprisingly well written considering the subject, and I think it stands just fine by itself. WillOakland (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)