DOKUMEN123.COM

Avoid collections of miscellaneous facts or examples, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Whether presented in list format...

Project, this project violates WP:POINT and is at cross purposes with WP:AVTRIV L0b0t 22:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Delete This is completely against Wikipedia's...

to notice that there is a trivia section, a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. The Filmaker 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose for several reasons...

article has "trivia" in it's name, it's an obvious candidate for violating WP:AVTRIV. The rest of the article focuses on blantant obvious comic allusions and...

above, WP:AVTRIV and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) About the WP:AVTRIV I was gonna...

13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) The article is a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. I've merged the trivia in the main SG-1 article and thrown some none notable...

information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article)...

WP:FOOT. Include triva into body of article in paragraph format per WP:AVTRIV. Group the hoaxes / controversies under another heading such as "Controversy"...

list of information, so it violates WP:NOT. Also, the guidelines in WP:AVTRIV recommend incorporating relevant trivia into the article rather than making...

something similar to it), the article becomes a repository for trivia (see WP:AVTRIV). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is...

random, and very very far from incomplete. This should be deleted per WP:AVTRIV as a trivia section with no article.. but beyond that, God is all over all...

Because it is essentially a trivia section in disguise, it violates WP:AVTRIV. I understand that it provides examples of the impact The Godfather has...

going to be. The extra trivia doesn't seem to add anything really. See WP:AVTRIV. Fix that and the article should be great.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:57...

although there is an essay in my argument, WP:NOT is a policy, and WP:AVTRIV is an official guideline and part of the manual of style, and they both...

It pretty much consists of nothing but trivia, so it also violates WP:AVTRIV - if having a trivia section is bad, having an entire trivia article must...

other times it gets really out of hand, like here. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC) I think all the Salinger references...

2007 (UTC) It could be less completely crappy, I agree. However, per WP:AVTRIV the end goal here has to be an article, not a list of disassociated facts...

Surfer is the upcoming film (which isn't even in this article). Per WP:AVTRIV, information should be presented in a proper context rather than miscellaneous...

to a quote(s) belongs in Wikiquotes. Some redundacy: ex. "Perhaps". WP:AVTRIV. Insufficient references. Rename "Sucess" to "Reception", more neutral....

information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article)...

deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Delete - per WP:AVTRIV and WP:OR. A list of in-jokes and references to other things incorporated...

violates the various offshoots of the Manual of Style, which state (on WP:AVTRIV based on a larger consensus than a group of editors on the Rush talkpage)...

main article. --Aude (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC) But also note WP:AVTRIV. If a trivia section is too massive for a main article it serves Wikipedia...

is reduundant to episode list except for the Trivia section, which per AVTRIV should be removed anyways; if that's done, we've hit redundancy. part of...

going to be. The extra trivia doesn't seem to add anything really. See WP:AVTRIV. Fix that and the article should be great.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:57...

huge "Trivia" sections. `'mikka 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC) WP:BHTT and WP:AVTRIV. If the best or only reason for an article full of trivia is to keep it...

andreasegde 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom and in the spirit of WP:AVTRIV. MER-C 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Merge information and delete this article...

don't believe that WP:AVTRIV is actually grounds for deleting this article, I've read through the discussion that framed WP:AVTRIV and the spirit of that...

deletionist stand point, my own userpage I call myself an inclusionist. As WP:AVTRIV puts it, trivia is classified as "interesting but not important". The characters...

Content dispute possible on the page, where I removed trivia based on WP:AVTRIV and suggested that it be inserted into the article instead. I also removed...

going to be. The extra trivia doesn't seem to add anything really. See WP:AVTRIV. Fix that and the article should be great.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:57...

Content dispute possible on the page, where I removed trivia based on WP:AVTRIV and suggested that it be inserted into the article instead. I also removed...

useless trivia. Zunaid©® 09:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Perhaps guideline WP:AVTRIV is relevant. In general such lists tend towards the pointless, I mean come...

so at least it's quarantined. DreamGuy 09:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC) See WP:AVTRIV. >Radiant< 10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Please don't follow the last part of...

although there is an essay in my argument, WP:NOT is a policy, and WP:AVTRIV is an official guideline and part of the manual of style, and they both...

deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Delete - per WP:AVTRIV and WP:OR. A list of in-jokes and references to other things incorporated...

random, and very very far from incomplete. This should be deleted per WP:AVTRIV as a trivia section with no article.. but beyond that, God is all over all...

main article. --Aude (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC) But also note WP:AVTRIV. If a trivia section is too massive for a main article it serves Wikipedia...

violates the various offshoots of the Manual of Style, which state (on WP:AVTRIV based on a larger consensus than a group of editors on the Rush talkpage)...

information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article)...

It pretty much consists of nothing but trivia, so it also violates WP:AVTRIV - if having a trivia section is bad, having an entire trivia article must...

andreasegde 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom and in the spirit of WP:AVTRIV. MER-C 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Merge information and delete this article...

information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article)...

something similar to it), the article becomes a repository for trivia (see WP:AVTRIV). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is...

is reduundant to episode list except for the Trivia section, which per AVTRIV should be removed anyways; if that's done, we've hit redundancy. part of...

2007 (UTC) It could be less completely crappy, I agree. However, per WP:AVTRIV the end goal here has to be an article, not a list of disassociated facts...

Surfer is the upcoming film (which isn't even in this article). Per WP:AVTRIV, information should be presented in a proper context rather than miscellaneous...

huge "Trivia" sections. `'mikka 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC) WP:BHTT and WP:AVTRIV. If the best or only reason for an article full of trivia is to keep it...

attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Erik I will give this...

trivia sections. But I like this template even less. As a guideline, is WP:AVTRIV really of such life and death importance that every article with a trivia...

trivia sections can be deleted, and WP:AVTRIV is usually cited as justification, alongsite WP:NOT. The AVTRIV page should probably be updated. 3 - that's...

list of information, so it violates WP:NOT. Also, the guidelines in WP:AVTRIV recommend incorporating relevant trivia into the article rather than making...

deletionist stand point, my own userpage I call myself an inclusionist. As WP:AVTRIV puts it, trivia is classified as "interesting but not important". The characters...

above, WP:AVTRIV and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC) About the WP:AVTRIV I was gonna...

other times it gets really out of hand, like here. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC) I think all the Salinger references...

13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC) The article is a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. I've merged the trivia in the main SG-1 article and thrown some none notable...

article has "trivia" in it's name, it's an obvious candidate for violating WP:AVTRIV. The rest of the article focuses on blantant obvious comic allusions and...

does not follow that we need a new place to put it. Guidelines like WP:AVTRIV and WP:FICT are relevant here. Yes, funny you should mention WP:FICT. I...

attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Erik I will give this...

to notice that there is a trivia section, a direct contradiction of WP:AVTRIV. The Filmaker 20:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Oppose for several reasons...

attempts to add a Trivia section, remove it and kindly point them at WP:AVTRIV.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Erik I will give this...

WP:FOOT. Include triva into body of article in paragraph format per WP:AVTRIV. Group the hoaxes / controversies under another heading such as "Controversy"...

trivia sections can be deleted, and WP:AVTRIV is usually cited as justification, alongsite WP:NOT. The AVTRIV page should probably be updated. 3 - that's...

does not follow that we need a new place to put it. Guidelines like WP:AVTRIV and WP:FICT are relevant here. Yes, funny you should mention WP:FICT. I...