Help talk:Style guide/Trivia

I believe there is a need for a new set of guidelines in relation to Trivia sections. I propose that we discuss here what purpose trivia sections exist for, and what content can be included in them. Opinions of all are welcome. seb26 [talk] 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Honest, I'm starting to see the Trivia section being used as a free "put meaningless tidbits here". I honestly don't know what should really go there, as I feel it should just be scrapped out, but that just makes a mess. If anything, it should have information that you would normally not know, such as the L'Etranger bits. --Vaught 05:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be for information that is amusing or helpful, nothing more --Firestorm 05:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be no place for rumour, conjecture or unsubstantiated guesswork. This happens a lot when people assume something is a reference to pop culture. If the trivia item contains the words "is likely a reference to", there's already one red flag. Basically, it might be interesting to note that The Sniper with the Bloke's Bucket Hat looks like Henry Blake from M*A*S*H, but you should assume or guess that the hat is in fact a direct reference to it.

Another thing I think should be avoided are the "X is one of # Y's to have Z". For example, the Hound Dog page used to say "This is one of five hats to add an accessory in addition to the hat itself", then it listed the others. Statements like, "X is the only Y to have Z" should also be avoided.

One of the major points however should simply be "If it can be fit into another section or page, do so." There is a lot of trivia that could be worked into existing articles. Getting rid of that will go a long way toward cleaning things up.

-- Alex2539 05:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious what you guys think about "history" bits that fill up the trivia sections. "X used to do y until [date] patch. It now does z." I think most should go. For example, I think that the nag mode in KOTH's history deserves mention for being interesting and relevant. However, I could care less if a certain weapon made a character's hands disappear for one day in 2008. Opinions? Subtlefuge 07:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need to mention every old bug that has been patched. There are some that are noteworthy, like the "Overtime" bug you mentioned since that's actually still in the game and its history is itself the explanation for its existence. Also, major gameplay changes should probably still be noted (not that I can think of any at the moment). Otherwise, if you read the item and think "Why should I care?" then it should probably be deleted. -- Alex2539 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to add a 'Previous Changes' section to the weapon articles. Players should be able to quickly look at how the weapon originally worked and come up with their own ideas what the weapon can be used for or how they should respond to it. This should divert some of the trivia additions away to here. I might add a 'Bugs' section as well, with the same idea in mind.--Focusknock 17:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We should include use of weasel words [[1]] in the guidelines, it covers most of what we undo and is used on other Wikis--Markd 16:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

'Do not' section

This comes across too negative in my opinion. It should not be "DO NOT DO THIS", instead, it should be "This is discouraged". The main focus should really be on what is encouraged, i.e. what should be included. seb26 [talk] 05:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Split

The trivia seems to split into two broad sections one is gameplay notes such as the knife is upside down, its coded as a club not a kukri etc and then eagle feathers are a mark of power the second is trivia the first is related to the game, the second may be mentioned in the comics or merchandise or release blurb. In effect we have its in the game trivia and its in the background stories and articles trivia. These seem like a better split and will aslo remove the this hat is one of only two that ere not actually hats that the civilian wears in game type trivia--Markd 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we should have two sections: Pop-culture references and game universe trivia. -- ShunyValdez 03:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Internal and external trivia? --Firestorm 06:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Something like that. But I would prefer other names. Internal and external is too ambigious and can confuse people (which trivia goes to which section). -- ShunyValdez 12:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pop Culture References" is pretty dangerous. People tend to see similarities to things they enjoy whether they're there or not. Because they see it, they label it as a "reference". A reference should be something deliberate by the creators, not a guess by the fans. I like the idea of having a distinction between the two types though. One solution, for the class pages at least, might be to extend the Bio sections. Currently they are just the official ones distributed. It seems to me that most of the in-game trivia pertains to the classes personalities and behaviour, so they could be easily rewritten into paragraph form to fit there. Then, the Trivia sections could be reserved for real-world information. --Alex2539 20:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Technical Trivia

The class trivia sections are littered with highly technical information about character models, game files, and other "hammerspeak" tidbits. Although I think this information is useful, and I am not opposed to some sort of highly technical project, I don't think that the average user cares or needs to know about which classes have exponent textures. Subtlefuge 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Can you give an example? In general though, I'm not opposed to highly technical information, but perhaps if there is enough of it, it could become its own section. Valve has made it clear that community contributions are a large part of TF2, so I think trivia items that give technical details that may be useful for people looking to make hats, maps or whatever should be kept. -- Alex2539 06:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he means something like adding in that the Frontier Justice lost its normal maps during the Polycount update. It's something that probably should be mentioned in the article, but it's not really trivia, and if you don't know what a normal map is, it's lost on you. -- Balladofwindfishes 12:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Normal/Developer variants

Quite a lot of weapons have trivia stating that there exist Normal weapons (whatever that means) and developer weapons variants of said weapons. I think those are completely useless. Yay or nay? --CruelCow 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

completely useless, we'll remove them --Firestorm 16:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Some pointers

Trivia does need cleaning, but not because somebody thinks it's stupid, or they think it's made up, or it makes the article look too big. The guide needs to reflect this. Put in points that suggest where to move certain pieces to other areas, like taking things such as jigglebones, bugs and previous changes and move them to the relevant areas of the article. Suggest to users to add links to blog posts or wiki pages if they need to. Cleanup should not mean decimation.--Focusknock 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Additions to Trivia that are more pertinent elsewhere in the article, or belong in other articles, should be added to those areas. For instance, helpful tips for using Your Eternal Reward more effectively should be added to the Spy Strategy article instead of a Trivia section.

Something like that? -The Neotank ( | Talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivia Versus Tips

I noticed some of the trivia on most of the articles is nothing more than tips. Things like "Frontier Justice does not gain revenge crits from a Dead Ringer Spy activation." That's not trivia (in the same sense as "Frontier Justice was created by the Engineer's Grandfather"), that's a gameplay tip. Shouldn't stuff like that be better suited to either a "tips" section, or better yet worked into the strategy article for the class/weapon? Another example would be the Rocket Jumper, where a trivia bit mentions that you can stop fall damage by shooting a rocket right before landing. That's not trivia, that's a blatent strategy for Rocket Jumping. Just because the Rocket Jumper is used to Rocket Jump doesn't mean it needs rocket jump strategy regulated to trivia. I tried fiing this and it was quickly reverted. -- Balladofwindfishes 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You do make a point... We'll discuss it. – Smashman _(talk) 13:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Extra criteria

I'm concerned some users are going around deleting trivia because they feel it's useless. There's way too much subjectivity involved. I suggest all trivia deletions should be supervised to prevent abuse--Focusknock s 17:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

Who is going to supervise, and how are they going to do it? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 17:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well a lot of us are sitting around in the IRC doing nothing (I know I am), so it wouldn't take much to just take a look at the edit, see if it's ok or not, and undo accordingly.--Focusknock s 17:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

...so what are you suggesting we do differently? What you're suggesting is already going on, as far as I know. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 17:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of cuts recently myself. I've been trying to follow the guidelines but the problem is a lot of the 'trivia' is trivia in a loose sense of the word. Feel free to undo any of my edits though. Moussekateer 17:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The past few edits that I have made have been subject to this as well; unfortunately, subjectivity usually takes the front seat when it comes to a Wiki as everyone has a different perception of what is (and what is not) trivial, and there will always be a few strong-willed individuals who will demonstrate this by editing articles accordingly. ButteredToast 19:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not state the obvious

"It can easily be assumed hats and miscellaneous items are purely cosmetic." With the Polycount update this is no longer true. Shouldn't the example be changed? Lemon 22:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A minor edit could be added to specify that certain items (when worn as part of a set) do grant in-game bonuses. ButteredToast 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The "obvious"

Isn't the term "obvious" way too subjective to be included in the guidelines? Who decides what's "obvious" and what's not? I'm afraid deleting some trivia items just because they're "obvious" to long-time players might be way too "harsh" for the newcomers. (if you get what I mean, excuse me for my English, it's not my main language)

Also I find it ironic how it mentions Hats and Misc items being purely cosmetic as an example when (sadly) it's no longer true even back by the time this article was created... Stabnrun 01:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the set bonuses. In that case, the hats themselves are still purely cosmetic, it is the entire set that provides the bonus. You could wear just the hat from the set and receive no bonus whatsoever. The hat is purely cosmetic, albeit required for a set. Regardless, that a hat is a part of a set is considered both obvious, and would already be mentioned on the page so it would not be trivia. The example stands. -- -- 05:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that no matter which way you put it they ARE a condition to the set bonus and if you don't have the hat you won't have the bonus, so they DO have an effect even though it might not always be active. You can't say it's purely cosmetic when you might get a bonus that otherwise you wouldn't get. Anyway this is getting a bit off-topic. Stabnrun 11:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of the style guide

Because so many users are referred to this guide, I felt it was important to get it written more clearly sooner rather than later. That isn't to say it is any more important than the rest of the style guide, just that more people are referred here then any other part of it. I have placed it in my userspace at User:Alex2539/Trivia_Style_Guide_proposal for now and it is open to comments and modifications. I mostly just expanded on what was already there and took into consideration some of what was said on this talk page. Some of the more important additions in my opinion are the examples. Some of the guidelines can be a little bit vague and it helps to see an actual example of what it means. Some of them only have examples of "Poor trivia" (I avoided the word "bad" deliberately) because there is no simple example of "Good trivia" beyond "not this". I also tried to avoid using examples from the Wall of Shame since I wanted them to be similar to the types of trivia that are commonly added rather than dipping into extremes. What do you guys think? -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I like most of it, well done. I don't get your Razorback example though. If an item's name or description is a direct pop culture reference, like Your Eternal Reward for instance, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the trivia section. Stab ! 12:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of the Razorback example is that it is not a pop-culture example. Your Eternal Reward is an obvious and admitted reference to Aladdin, but the Razorback/Spider-man connection is only a coincidence. It just so happens that they were named after the same animal and have similar characteristics, but they are not related and the TF2 item certainly does not reference the super villain. It's just a coincidence and not worth mentioning in that article. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 19:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support: "Now that there was a fine piece 'a work." --CruelCow ^(talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I agree with you on that we need more examples to be more clear on what constitutes bad trivia. Moussekateer 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support This new version is a definitely big improvement; I particularly applaud the focus to be made on analysing what is good trivia and what is not, as well as accepting subjective problems. If anything, this will help dissuade those intent on removing any and all trivia in order to simply gain edits.--Focusknock s 18:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Yes, I felt that one of the most important things was to not only say what should count as trivia, but to demonstrate it as well. When you show people something and say "This is what I mean, and here's why..." each guideline becomes a little bit more obvious. There are some that are still going to be tricky due to their subjective natures, such as what is "obvious" and what is "interesting", but hopefully the threshold for disagreement can be narrowed. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 19:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Random thought: Do the removed trivia lines need to be linked? There's no need to cite that they did exist, so it really only creates a watered down version of the Wall of Shame. --CruelCow ^(talk) 03:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I put the links in as proof that they are in fact real examples, but it's not exactly high up on the priority list and I'm not 100% attached to them. I can understand that for such minor examples we might not want to point fingers at specific members, but I do think it's important that the examples at least are real edits. If others agree then I'm completely okay with removing the links to the trivia. However, I think they would all have to be removed, good and poor, for consistency's sake. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 06:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral It's far too extensive. Most editors who add trivia will tl;dr that. I know that we need a rewrite, though. -- Pilk _(talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How about adding a wikipedia:Template:Nutshell to the page? Stab ! 19:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to put up a cheap summary of the page just to cater to people's laziness. If someone doesn't think it's worth their time to read then they will just have to live with all of their edits being removed. If they continuously ignore the guidelines after having been referred to them, they run the risk of being blocked from editing. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 21:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is completely the wrong attitude to have. People get angry because they get confused as to why their edits got reverted, referring them to an essay is not going to fix the issue. -- Pilk _(talk) 21:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Pilk, it'd probably be best to have both; one as a detailed reference and one people can look at to get the gist quickly.--Wilsonator 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Solving "is a reference to"

I think a good way to fix the problem of all the "is a possible reference to" trivia items, rather than deleting them altogether, would be to make a new "Connections" section for connections to reality and other works. Instead of taking the form of "The X is a possible reference to Y, or maybe Z", each item takes the more substantive form "X resembles Y". For instance, rather than saying that the Tough guy's toque is "a possible reference" to Jayne Cobb's hat, there would be an item under "Connections" stating "This hat resembles the one worn by Jayne Cobb in the television series Firefly." --STUART 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Heavy references. But random speculation doesn't even belong there. --CruelCow ^(talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Nope.avi There's really no place for this sort of thing. The connections people make are often tenuous at best and rarely relevant at all to the item. By creating a section like this, you just give everyone free range to add whatever slight similarity they see between one item and another. That's not informative, that's clutter. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 23:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jigglebone trivia

I'm restarting this discussion, the old one ended as people started re-adding the trivia after Smashman noted that it's trivia worthy - the discussion wasn't properly...discussed; and now there seems to be people battling on both sides. For reference, the old discussion is here: User talk:Nineaxis#Jigglebones. -RJ 02:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Copying my opinion over: Adding to this discussion... who cares if a hat is jiggleboned? I disagree that it's a noteworthy attribute. As per the trivia guidelines: "Trivia items should be interesting and/or helpful. Items that satisfy neither of these are not worth mentioning."; I don't think noting whether or not a hat is jiggleboned is interesting nor helpful, I can't even think of a scenario in which somebody would need to know whether or not a hat is jiggleboned.-RJ 02:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: The list at Jiggle bones is enough. --CruelCow ^(talk) 02:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose As I said on the Portal Pin page, it shouldn't be added as trivia. Jiggle bones is a great list already. Even putting that an item may be the only of it's kind to have jigglebones is stretching it. No pun intended. Fendermcbender 02:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Nope Restating my opinion from the other discussion: "There is already a page that is meant to keep track of what is jiggleboned in the game. If jigglebones already have a page then they are no longer trivia. Also, I don't think that trivia should ever be just a description of the item in question; saying that it is jiggleboned is really just saying what an object looks like while it is moving. It's not trivia." -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 03:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. How many pages actually link to Jiggle bones? Hardly any do. How are people meant to find this list if there are no mentions anywhere? seb26 [talk] 06:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support *unimaginably horrible rageface* -Shine[] 05:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral: I think it's not something we should outright ban or allow. There are multiple cases where jigglebone trivia is relatively uninteresting (where the jiggleboning might be obvious), but there also cases where the presence of jigglebones might not be that clear, such as the Companion Cube Pin; at first glance it doesn't look like the cube wiggles, but it does. seb26 [talk] 06:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

On that note, I feel like I should clarify my opinion a bit. Jigglebones are not trivia. This is not to say that the information doesn't belong on the page at all. It might be worthwhile to add a new section to the infoboxes or something: IsJiggleboned=Yes would show "Jiggleboned: Yes" otherwise show nothing. At the very least there could be a category for jiggleboned items. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 07:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: Unfortunately the statement by Smashman was a blanket statement without actually considering previous discussion. I don't think anything should change about the way we handle jiggle bone trivia right now. -- Pilk _(talk) 07:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: I agree there is a lack of links to the Jiggle bones article. A compromise would be to put a link to the Jiggle bones article under the 'See also' section. Moussekateer 13:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: It doesn't belong in the trivia. Adding the Jigglebones article to the "See Also" section isn't also plausible since jigglebones aren't even mentioned in most of the item articles at all (it would be unnecessary spam I think). On the other hand adding a "Jigglebones: Yes" line to the infobox (as suggested by Alex2539) would be dead simple and efficient. Stab ! 19:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: Do we need to mention in the trivia of every item that uses phong shading that it uses phong shading? Mentioning jigglebones just seems like pointless information. Having the jigglebone article is fine, but it doesn't need to spill into every single article that has jigglebones Balladofwindfishes 00:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: Stating an item has Jigglebones could clear up some confusion. However, if the confused people play the game they'll see it up close. If they can't tell when it's in their face then it's on them. It just seems now that adding that an item has Jigglebones to the trivia list is so people can rack up their edit count. Kenshiro 05:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)