Matt Brown wrote
In a sense, this is a special case of a meta-problem:
trivia. The
extent that Wikipedia articles should include trivia - and how this
should be done - isn't properly defined.
Yes. But it's 'starting a hare'. If we ever had a big debate on exactly
what counts as 'trivia', we'd never get finished and it would be a
(probably) pointless use of time.
I note that trivia used to be called 'general knowledge'; before Trivial
Pursuit fairly much broke the mould of the older type of quiz question.
There was a certain type of democratisation when facts about sportspeople,
soap stars, B-list royalty, one-hit wonders, Pikachu, actors within six
degrees of Kevin Bacon etc. all were added into the brew.
Mostly trivia neither add much to nor detract from WP; they may be
weed-like, growing in the wrong place.
Now, I hope we can agree one thing - no astrology column on the Main Page
...
Charles