Forum:Adding "overabundance" point to trivia guideline

Forums: Index → Proposals → Adding "overabundance" point to trivia guideline

This discussion is in regards to a proposed change on SmashWiki. The discussion must first meet with a consensus before it is implemented.

One of the most common types of trivia is a detail that is unique to one or a few characters, stages, game, etc that the majority of others in the category don't have. Since joining the wiki, I have noticed users, particularly new users or IPs add a detail that applies to too many to actually be noteworthy, some honorable mentions are this, this, this, and this. Most of the time these get reverted anyway, but my point is if it applies to too many characters, stages, etc, it basically removes the whole point of the trivia being unique and instead serves to bloat the trivia section, and not having a restriction on overabundance will allow anyone to write a trivia about any little detail found in some but not all characters and the like. Like lets say trivia that goes "Ness is one of 21 (out of 86) characters in Ultimate who has a reflector, the others being (insert list here)". So I believe things like this can consult in bad trivia as per SW:TRIVIA, it can go something like this:

• Overabundance. "Mario is one of only eight characters must be unlocked in Final Destination in World of Light, the other being, Bowser (Giga Bowser in World of Light), Shiek, Marth, Snake, Villager, Mii Brawler and Mii Swordfighter" Common trivia for many characters, stages, universes, etc is that they have a unique detail in which most others don't have the distinction. If the distinction is shared with too many of the like, then it removes the whole point of the trivia being notable. As the amount of fighters, stages, etc can vary from game to game, idealy if more than 25% share the trait, then it's no longer unique."

So basically there's no specific limit to how many characters and the like would make the trivia overabundant, it requires common sense looking at the big picture to decide if it applies to too many to be noteworthy. Do suggest any improvements if needed. Omegα Toαd, the Toαd Wαrrior. (BUP) 02:29, December 21, 2020 (EST)

Support

1. Per proposer. Superbound (talk) 05:47, January 2, 2021 (EST)
2. I initially said Neutral to this, but the points I raised have since been rectified. As a bonus, 25% is in fact the yardstick I was thinking of at the time. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 23:47, January 4, 2021 (EST)
3. I would agree, though making this a subsection of "uninteresting" rather than its own point would be my preference. It's a general kind of overlap, but this is still a specific enough problem to address. ~ StrawberryChan (talk) 02:06, January 5, 2021 (EST)
4. Support making this a subsection of "uninteresting" per above. We've had too much trivia like this. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer (talk) 10:38, January 5, 2021 (EST)

Neutral

1. I do believe this would fall under "Uninteresting" since if many fighters have a trait then it's not noteworthy nor interesting. Even then, I would like it to be more specific or at least add on to that point; I would say if more than 5 fighters have this trait then it's no longer unique. CookiesCreme 14:56, January 4, 2021 (EST)

#A general yardstick is necessary for this kind of thing - we can't just be saying 'no general limit' - that's very contradictory. As it is now, your proposal would be best folded into the "Uninteresting" category. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 21:13, January 4, 2021 (EST)

Comments

Seeing as the limit to how many characters is too vague, I did make some changes as to what I believe would make trivia overabundant. Alternatively some mention this should be a sub section for "uninteresting", which I wouldn't be opposed to either. Omegα Toαd, the Toαd Wαrrior. (BUP) 22:24, January 4, 2021 (EST)