FANDOM

 
15,189 Pages

  • So I did go about this the wrong way by not discussing it first. But here we go now. I envision BtS and Trivia fulfilling different aspects of the same role. Trivia would encompass all IU facts that for whatever reason don’t fit in the main body paragraphs. BtS on the other hand would cover all OoU or otherwise noncanon trivia.

    Any objections or thoughts on the topic?

      Loading editor
    • No objections from my part. In fact, I was looking forward to it! I give it my green light!

        Loading editor
    • Can't we just do away with trivia sections altogether?

        Loading editor
    • Technically, the staff had already decided on having Behind the Scenes sections at least a year ago. However, it was a decision made during one of those typical ad hoc discussions on Discord we used to have, and because I felt that the agreement I got came at a whim, I was hesitant to implement it. In other words, I didn't feel confident there was official weight behind it.

      With that having been said, I've always thought that having the BtS section would improve the quality and informativeness of our articles. My main concern is transitioning into it as these sections would inevitably demand greater standards than Trivia sections.

      My idea is that BtS and Trivia sections be mutually exclusive, but that we don't mandate that all Trivia sections be replaced by BtS immediately. Otherwise, this would put too much pressure on us. Rather, when there is sufficient need or information to justify a BtS section, it should be used instead.

      I disagree a little with this line "Trivia would encompass all IU facts that for whatever reason don’t fit in the main body paragraphs". Specifically, one of the main purposes of the trivia section as recommended by Fandom is to have place for users, especially inexperienced ones, to dump information that they think are noteworthy enough to include in the body but are not yet sure how. The trivia section functions as a place to note down information that should be incorporated within the body but which has not yet been so. A different and often simultaneous function of the trivia section is to provide OOU details that are significant but do not fit into the article. We do not have to follow strictly by Fandom's recommended usage, but any IU information that merits mention in the article at all should always be incorporated into the body in some way.

      So, if we maintain Trivia sections, we should be clear that their function is to list IU facts that we have yet to find a way to incorporate into the body, rather than that just doesn't fit per se. I think the former is more or less the same as what Lacrosse meant. I just wanted to be clear that if IU facts don't fit into the body, we are supposed to be finding a way to fit them into the body eventually rather than leaving them permanently in the trivia section.

      As for BtS sections, if we are to begin having them, I just wanted to be clear that they should not be written as a list of bullet points but in complete prose. I certainly do think that they would help explain gameplay mechanics behind certain concepts of our article much easier and also facilitate better organization of OOU content. Currently, for trivia, we have them haphazardly organized. Tenses are often mixed up because editors past and present aren't sure when a point is OOU or IU, and sometimes they can be both. IU and OOU points also tend to not be segregated, resulting in them being mixed together or place one after another.

      So all in all, I'm glad someone finally took the initiative to propose this because I was hesitant to really push through with this before, not being confident that if people did agree, they weren't just going with the flow with me.

        Loading editor
    • Just wanted to add that I see two options we can go for at the moment: (A) Articles can have both BtS and Trivia sections at the same time, with the former containing specifically OOU information and the latter IU facts that have yet to be incorporated into the article. (B) BtS and Trivia sections are mutually exclusive. We should be gradually phasing out Trivia sections with BtS sections for OOU content. We don't need a place to note IU facts that have yet to be incorporated into the article. (C) We can have both BtS & Trivia sections, but they are mutually exclusive. Articles which have one, should not have the other. BtS sections should be used when there is enough information to warrant them.

      I just realized that in my above response, I didn't distinguish between these options before us. My plan hitherto had been (C), but I think Lacrosse is proposing (A), and I think (A) would probably work better as long as you guys don't think it is one too many sections. I think editors on other wikis tend to scoff and think that Trivia sections are not necessary once a wiki has advanced into developing BtS sections though.

      What do you guys think?

        Loading editor
    • I agree that if we can phase out trivia points by placing them within the body that would be best. However there are some types like name etymology that I do feel would be hard to incorporate anywhere but a trivia section. One could argue that name etymology would be BtS as it deals with the development of the character but it also falls within universe as long as it’s not connected to other aspects of the character ie Remus Lupin being a werewolf.

        Loading editor
    • The etymology behind names are almost always OOU and definitely belongs in the BtS section. In the cases where the IU etymology is given in an AC source, then there simply should be a section in the body created specifically to explain the etymology. Even if you think it is not significant enough to merit its own section, it can be included in other sections in some way. For example, the etymology of Khemu's name can be touched upon in the biography section by explaining why his parents chose that name for him. If the etymology is the same IU and OOU, then it can be mentioned in both sections from their respective perspectives.

      Also, I wish to clarify that we don't necessarily need to phase out the trivia section even though it would be used solely to list IU facts that should be incorporated into the body later. It is just that I am aware that it has sometimes been argued on other wikis that it is unnecessary to even have a section for content that has not yet been fitted into the body which is what trivia is looked down upon. I have personally felt that this was a bit too puritanical and that is why I don't mind trivia sections.

      This being said, I should also clarify that if IU facts in the trivia cannot fit into the body, it is the responsibility of editors to find a way to do so eventually (e.g. in regards to etymology, creating a new IU section for it). Strictly speaking, floating IU content are not markers of a quality article. By wiki principle, one is always supposed to find a way to incorporate them into the prose, and one always should be able to.

      Remember that the body of articles need not be limited to just "Biography", "History", and "Personality" sections. There's no restriction on what other section it can have for explaining IU content. On the other hand, you might find that the trivia point you thought could not be fit into the body is actually explained better as an OOU point, in which case it belongs in the BtS section.

        Loading editor
    • I wasn't aware that Fandom encouraged trivia sections to invite edits but, for me, there's little in those that can't be incorporated into the main article or expanded on as background. Names are often important in AC whether or not the characters are conscious of the significance.

      I don't much see the point of "The movie was released exactly four years after Desmond Miles' death in Assassin's Creed III." in the AC film page although I'd rather Development and Marketing were subsections of a greater Behind the scenes section and the rest of the 'trivia' on there can be shifted to Development and Continuity subsections.

      However, I'm admittedly just used to doing things the Wookieepedia way circa ten years ago. Just having a bot change all Trivia sections to Behind the scenes would be easier on my eyes. ;)

        Loading editor
    • To be honest, we could probably do away with the Trivia section as others above have discussed and try to incorperate the trivial points into the article itself. Anything else should be put in the Behind the Scenes section (name etymology for one, and what in-game weapons are based on IRL weapons, etc.)

      Also, following what Wookiepedia does, We could remove the Real-life information from infoboxes and put it in BtS (Actors and voice actors).

        Loading editor
    • Just please don't do away with the info on what in-game weapons are based on IRL. I think it's a valuable information and as such I'm dedicated on identifying this stuff.

        Loading editor
    • Nanomat wrote:
      Just please don't do away with the info on what in-game weapons are based on IRL. I think it's a valuable information and as such I'm dedicated on identifying this stuff.

      I'm not saying we remove it, just to have it in BtS and not trivia.

        Loading editor
    • Vetinari wrote:
      I wasn't aware that Fandom encouraged trivia sections to invite edits but, for me, there's little in those that can't be incorporated into the main article or expanded on as background. Names are often important in AC whether or not the characters are conscious of the significance.

      I don't much see the point of "The movie was released exactly four years after Desmond Miles' death in Assassin's Creed III." in the AC film page although I'd rather Development and Marketing were subsections of a greater Behind the scenes section and the rest of the 'trivia' on there can be shifted to Development and Continuity subsections.

      However, I'm admittedly just used to doing things the Wookieepedia way circa ten years ago. Just having a bot change all Trivia sections to Behind the scenes would be easier on my eyes. ;)

      I fully agree with Vetinari here. That aside, I want to reassure Nanomat that of course we're not going to remove all the work you have done identifying the real-world models for the weapons throughout Assassin's Creed games and their anachronisms. After all, it is, in my opinion, noteworthy when Ubisoft takes an Indian sword from a museum, puts it in game, and calls it a Viking sword, and I asked you for a lot of help on identifying these cases. As Vilka said, such information can be transferred to the BtS section just fine, so no worries. :)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+