RuneScape Wiki
RuneScape Wiki
Line 14: Line 14:
   
 
Something I feel is important is telling people ''where'' to put the trivia. For example, trivia saying that [[Monkey Archer]]s have the smallest wander range of any monster does ''not'' belong in the [[Monkey Madness]] article, but rather in the Monkey Archer article. So something like "Triva should be added to the most specific article possible. An interesting fact about an NPC should be added to the NPCs article, not article for the quest in which the NPC appears." {{Signatures/Psycho Robot}} 01:25, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
 
Something I feel is important is telling people ''where'' to put the trivia. For example, trivia saying that [[Monkey Archer]]s have the smallest wander range of any monster does ''not'' belong in the [[Monkey Madness]] article, but rather in the Monkey Archer article. So something like "Triva should be added to the most specific article possible. An interesting fact about an NPC should be added to the NPCs article, not article for the quest in which the NPC appears." {{Signatures/Psycho Robot}} 01:25, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
  +
  +
'''Comment''' - This topic is trivial. Just kidding. --{{Signatures/Fruit.Smoothie}} 01:41, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:41, 6 December 2009

Forums: Yew Grove > Runescape:Trivia policy

I noticed that we have a trivia policy, but very little information. I believe we should have stricter guidelines when dealing with trivia. So much trivia is information I can't see anyone caring about, like Trivia/People#Repeated_names. How is it notable that Jagex couldn't think of a new name to use? Or what about the many, many trivia bits about fluctuation in ge value? Here's a good one: bugs/glitches. They should not be in the trivia section, they should be in the actual article. Another thing that really makes disappoints me are quest pages. Go ahead, read a few of the trivia sections. Maybe 3-6 points average should be kept, and that's being generous. Google shows about 3600 results for trivia. How many of those are necessary? Or more importantly, notable?

Discussion

I Support making Runescape:Trivia policy official, and also the addition of more information. JRMIVZBucket detail.pngrwojy 08:32, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment I truly feel and share your pain. I roll my eyes so often at what I see in Trivia sections I get double vision and dizzy. But I have to mention, we can't stop it. I would often check on the IP that added a bit and all so often it is the only contrib from that IP. So making it an official policy won't inform them as how many IPs read our policies? I am not saying do not bother, I just want you to realize that the reality is you can't reduce it by more than maybe 10 percent or so. The best course of action is to wait at least a few days after something has been added before fixing it or removing it if it truly does not belong. I just removed or altered 6 pieces from Aviansies, 3 of them were already in the article and one other was listed twice in different wording. Its just one of those things we attract being a gaming wiki. Hope I didn't depress you Lol.--Degenret01 14:05, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment I hate that articles have Trivia sections, for reasons I've said before but will say again: If you put all the interesting facts into one list at the end of an article, there is no motivation to read the whole article, and what is the point of writing articles that nobody wants to read? Having a separate page (and, in practice, a number of sub-pages) for trivia was a compromise we came to before when we discussed this, because a number of people felt strongly that trivia lists should stay. For my part, I actively work to merge the contents of Trivia sections into relevant parts of the same article. If a fact really doesn't belong anywhere else in the article, it can be included in the introduction (if it is notable), or removed altogether (if it is not). We should have a trivia policy in force. My concern with the proposed policy is that it says "Information must be able to be proven". I am all for citing sources wherever possible, but much of the information we have in articles has come from original research (for example, drop tables), so it is impossible for us to have the same standards as Wikipedia, say. However, I agree that naming a player as the first to do something is ridiculous, and should not be in any article on this wiki. Leevclarke talk http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/Max%20Bulldog/Max_logo_mini.png http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/bulldog_puppy.png 18:43, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

I understand that most of this is original research and that little bit can be removed. Something else: much trivia is simply 'Item a looks slightly like item b' which is biased, because anyone can say an item looks like another item. Before I forget, Psycho Robot made a good template for trivia: {{Trivia_notice}} VDXOBucket detail.pngrwojy 22:03, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Something I feel is important is telling people where to put the trivia. For example, trivia saying that Monkey Archers have the smallest wander range of any monster does not belong in the Monkey Madness article, but rather in the Monkey Archer article. So something like "Triva should be added to the most specific article possible. An interesting fact about an NPC should be added to the NPCs article, not article for the quest in which the NPC appears." http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:25, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This topic is trivial. Just kidding. --Fruit.Smoothie 01:41, December 6, 2009 (UTC)