Template talk:Notes: Difference between revisions
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: May I ask, what's so bad about some more trivia facts? Most of them cannot be integrated into the main article (they're trivia, after all). And in my opinion, it's way better to list every...) |
m (Porplemontage moved page Template talk:Trivia to Template talk:Notes without leaving a redirect) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
May I ask, what's so bad about some more trivia facts? Most of them cannot be integrated into the main article (they're trivia, after all). And in my opinion, it's way better to list every interesting fact to be found than to delete some. Main characters of course have longer trivia sections, but what's the problem with that? However, I agree that articles with more trivia than "real" info (or with almost as many) should be reworked; the focus should always be on the main article... {{User:Time Q/sig}} 15:54, 30 November 2007 (EST) | May I ask, what's so bad about some more trivia facts? Most of them cannot be integrated into the main article (they're trivia, after all). And in my opinion, it's way better to list every interesting fact to be found than to delete some. Main characters of course have longer trivia sections, but what's the problem with that? However, I agree that articles with more trivia than "real" info (or with almost as many) should be reworked; the focus should always be on the main article... {{User:Time Q/sig}} 15:54, 30 November 2007 (EST) | ||
Trivia is just something that cant go in 1 specific section or is relevent to a game. {{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}} so i can be any size | |||
:Trivia sections are supposed to contain trivial information. This trivial information should be kept to a minimum. Most articles have a problem in that they list ''Cameo Appearances'' of a character in the ''Trivia'' section, which they should not do. Others, like the [[Mimi]] article, would do a good job in simply opening a new section for what they list as trivial. Simply because it's not that trivial at all. Long trivia sections are, in all cases I looked at, not due to the amount of actual trivia. Wikipedia also has a practice on discouraging Trivia sections, for, I believe, similar reasons. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:05, 30 November 2007 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:21, February 2, 2025
May I ask, what's so bad about some more trivia facts? Most of them cannot be integrated into the main article (they're trivia, after all). And in my opinion, it's way better to list every interesting fact to be found than to delete some. Main characters of course have longer trivia sections, but what's the problem with that? However, I agree that articles with more trivia than "real" info (or with almost as many) should be reworked; the focus should always be on the main article... Time Questions 15:54, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Trivia is just something that cant go in 1 specific section or is relevent to a game. Alphaclaw11 so i can be any size
- Trivia sections are supposed to contain trivial information. This trivial information should be kept to a minimum. Most articles have a problem in that they list Cameo Appearances of a character in the Trivia section, which they should not do. Others, like the Mimi article, would do a good job in simply opening a new section for what they list as trivial. Simply because it's not that trivial at all. Long trivia sections are, in all cases I looked at, not due to the amount of actual trivia. Wikipedia also has a practice on discouraging Trivia sections, for, I believe, similar reasons. - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:05, 30 November 2007 (EST)
