I’m on record saying that what I like most about wikipedia is the seemingly endless amounts of trivia that is to be found upon it. Especially in the form of trivia lists on entries for films, TV shows, and the like.
Of course, seeing as how it’s the bit I like, it’s the bit that the wiki-folk are keen to get rid of.
Avoid creating lists of loosely related information. A number of articles contain lists of isolated facts, which are often grouped into their own section labeled “Trivia”, “Notes” (not to be confused with “Notes” sections which store footnotes), “Facts”, “Miscellanea”, “[Subject] in popular culture”, “Other information”, etc. This style guideline addresses how these items should be dealt with.
Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation â€” they can just add a new fact to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, as appropriate in text, list or table.
Editors are engaged in the process of examining the material to hand, and examining the information available on a topic from reliable sources, and selecting what is important enough to include in the article. It is an on-going process, as it is unlikely that the initial editors will have been able to assemble all the relevant material on a topic by themselves. Each editor who comes along, adding information to an article, is making it easier for readers and editors alike to judge if the article is presenting a neutral and complete view of a topic, once those reliable sources are confirmed.
Bugger. So they’re going to phase out my primary reason for linking to the thing. Which means I’ll have to find another source for my regular fix of both trivia and lists.
I say again, bugger.