SmashWiki talk:Trivia

Pass It's a great, striaghtforward policy. I see no reason to NOT pass it.L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Pass with caveat. Looks like it'll work good. However, there may need to be a specification on how long is "too long". Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic cntrbs 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the author, what do you think?

@Toomai: I'm wary of arbitrarily setting a maximum length, is all. Miles (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pass This should help with stupid irrelavent trivia being added to articles. Y462 (T • C • E ) 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if the trivia section takes up a set fraction of the page, it can be deemed to be "too long" (i.e. no trivia section could constitute more than a third (for example) of the article). That would avoid "arbitrarily setting a maximum length" and would make each article's maximum trivia section length proportional to the article's length. It would also encourage people to remove related items of trivia from the list and combine them into a new paragraph on a new subject, and paragraphs look better than really long lists. Even if the wording of the policy isn't made to be more specific, it's so much common sense that I say pass anyway. PenguinofDeath 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pass, plz? This will be a good help in cleaning up some pages with these problems. HavocReaper48 21:59, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure why everyone is voting, but...<br\> First, I don't quite see why this is a proposed policy instead of just a subsection of a more appropriate page such as a universal SmashWiki:Style and formatting page that could then have subpages such as character pages, items, etc. <br\> Second, regarding any sort of blanket rule that must always be enforced... I oppose such measures. If you see an unnecessary trivia or think a section is too long, either trim the section or discuss it on the talk page. The part detailing what makes for good/bad trivia is fine- any measure that arbitrarily removes valid content is not. Shadowcrest 22:49, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

No trivia about discrepancies with home games. The Smash appearance doesn't have to be copied directly from the home game, and sometimes, Sakurai doesn't make it the same as it was in the original. Qwerty (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2014 (EDT)

I disagree with a blanket ban on this. Some such trivia is indeed interesting, such as Peach's ring. Toomai Glittershine The SMASH-GINEER 22:00, 25 September 2014 (EDT)

Awkwardly worded trivia

Can we have a guideline (not necessarily an outright ban) against trivia that cannot be phrased in an easily comprehended manner? Probably as a specific note under complexity. Basically, if there's no way to phrase the trivia to make it make sense, it doesn't matter how interesting it is. I've definitely removed trivia for this before only to have it added back, but not recently, so here is an example of a point that hasn't been added back yet:

• Roy and Banjo are the only fighters to be playable in a game prior to the one they debuted in within their series.

Maybe it's just me, but it took me six or seven reads to figure out what the heck this is trying to say (and I just realized that I still didn't completely understand it when I removed it -- though it still isn't completely true thanks to Byleth). There are so many vague parts ("a game"; "the one"; "their series") that my brain just gets completely lost. Any way to make it make a lick of sense would just make it really long or require specificity in a manner that is contradictory to the complexity section of this policy (by specifying that Roy was playable in Melee before Binding Blade and Banjo was playable in Diddy Kong Racing before Banjo-Kazooie).

Is it an interesting trivia point? I'm not necessarily enthralled by it, but I can see the argument. But is it really worth having if the average reader will have no idea what it's saying or, otherwise, it's just an awkwardly long or specific trivia point? No, not really. TheNuttyOne 15:18, July 21, 2020 (EDT)

Sub-bullets

Trivia should be organized into a single-level bullet point list. Sub-bullet points are not allowed; all too often, they are used for a pseudo-conversational addendum to an existing trivia point. Any trivia that would be formatted that way either should be condensed into a single, more cohesive bullet point, or removed for excessive complexity.

Any opposition to adding this? If I see another dang trivia point that's three bullet points deep, I swear... Miles (talk) 23:19, October 27, 2021 (EDT)

Not so sure on this one, often sub-bullets are abused for bad trivia, but they do have valid uses for organizing legitimate multi-faceted trivia points. Omega Tyrant 13:10, October 28, 2021 (EDT)

I'd say allow one sub-bullet point and only allow two sub-bullet points in a case-by-case basis. Anything else beyond that is too much. CookiesCreme 13:26, October 28, 2021 (EDT)

Would it change anything if I reframed it as "discouraged" as opposed to "not allowed"? Miles (talk) 17:18, October 28, 2021 (EDT)

Not a fan of "not allowed". More a fan of "discouraged". However, I agree with OT—sometimes there are legitimate and valid reasons to use sub-bullets. Aidan, the Spooky Rurouni 18:17, October 28, 2021 (EDT)

Sub-bullets are very useful for organising and de-cluttering related bits of Trivia. I can't imagine the kinds of huge paragraph-like run-on nonsense people would come up with if sub-bullets were "not allowed." In my version of this addendum, only tertiary bullets and beyond would "not [be] allowed," and secondary ones would only be permitted under certain (subjective!) circumstances. Sincerely, Samuel the Banjo-Kazooie Boss. 18:55, October 28, 2021 (EDT)

I get that it’s an issue, but this is frankly a poor solution to it. If it had to stay, then yes, I agree that we should be saying ‘discouraged’ rather than outright ‘not allowed’. However I do not think it will do much to solve the problems we have been having. Black Vulpine the 🦊Furry🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 20:00, October 28, 2021 (EDT)

Doesn't seem like there's a clear backing here like I had expected. Point dropped. Miles (talk) 22:02, October 28, 2021 (EDT)