I see that many pages have "Trivia" as a section which details interesting points about sessions / characters, etc. Is there a reason it's called "Trivia" and not simply "Background"? I don't really get the point of calling it "Trivia" and would rather call it all "Background" for simplicity sake.
Trivia has traditionally been used for things like fun facts, easter eggs or hidden references. Stuff that is not part of the series in the traditional sense but is fun to know. I think it's good to differentiate that type of stuff from "background" information, which should be supplemental information about that topic's development.
Right, I would have described it the same way, though I think it's tough to differentiate in most cases and why I'm resistant to it. I'll accept your description since it's limited, though I'd like to flesh it out. Others have been changing the background sections I have created into "trivia" and I'd like to have some metric to use. There are similar questions with the "homages and references" section and "motifs", etc. It seems messy and I think if we cleaned it up it'll be more useful for the reader.
For example, is the fact that Miles was visually based off of Geordi La Forge a "trivia" point or background character development? Is the basing of Tijuana off of the real-world city trivia or background info on its development? I think it's the latter in both cases (though I would note there's no reference given in either case, but that's a separate issue).
I might suggest that the placement of a Playstation One in Laughing Bull's tent would be a case for "Trivia" since it's an easter egg situation like you said.
There's the "NCC-1701-B" on Faye's cryogenic chamber being a reference to Star Trek. In this case, it's listed under "Homages and References," and honestly I could go either way calling it that or "trivia" but now we have three different categories of background info and it gets confusing.
What do you think? I don't want to get in an edit war without an agreed rubric. This may be worth a discussion post.
I've reviewed several different show wikis with similar content, and most combine show development facts and fun facts/easter eggs under the "Trivia" banner. The ones I looked at didn't have a dedicated "development" section in each article. In my opinion we don't lose anything by combining them, and don't gain much by separating them. The only exception might be something like a "Creation and Conception" sub-header for a longer form story about the creation of a high importance character or concept. Example: http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Naruto_Uzumaki#Creation_and_Conception
It's true we're not losing content either way, but my viewpoint is from a new reader to the site. The wiki's goal should be to be useful and clear to its users. "Trivia" is confusing because it's not specific to what the section's content is about and I think most people would think of trivia as fun-fact or easter-egg stuff which isn't true for a lot of it. It could even be interpreted as in-universe if the reader isn't familiar with the show (maybe the reader supposes there was a trivia contest in the show, a bit ridiculous I admit). Calling it "background" or "behind the scenes" or even "notes" like other sci-fi wikis (ST, SW, B5, etc.) is clearer and also allows for facts that aren't necessarily "interesting" from a fun fact / easter egg perspective.
I do think there's value in having separate sections within background, for example, "homages" and "themes" (as long as they're referenced properly) since there were so many of them. Having dedicated sections for these allows for more concise wording within the sections and the ability to relate the same theme across pages, which ultimately benefits the reader. And we could still have Trivia but just the limited definition.
It's your call I suppose, though. I'm just voicing my opinion.
Turns out those were just autogenerated lists with the most popular content. The "Males" category had the second most entries so it was automatically put up there. I changed it to Characters, Songs and Ships.
I think it's good! Each one goes to the respective category, so the visitor can click on any. I'd prefer the "Sessions" option link to Session List (and similarly for "Characters"), but that's a relatively small thing.
I was initially thinking of a new drop-down next to "Popular pages" with a fixed set of items as opposed to driven by view count. However, there's too many items within each and I wasn't sure how to structure it.
Hi Snhnry -- I accidentally created a page when I meant to add a section to the talk section. It's called Delete Overall Story page. I'm not sure what happened -- I think the buttons were just close together and I went too fast.
I agree we should consolidate everything into the Cowboy Bebop page. I like some of the organization on the About Bebop page though, like the infobox and the characters section. Would be nice to keep some of that in the main page. I think we can get rid of History. It seems like someone tried to start a timeline of the entire show and didn't get all the way through. Unless you want to keep anything from that, I'll just remove it.
Ok, after trying to merge the content it became clear we should keep the "Cowboy Bebop" page for over all media (sessions, movie, games, etc.) and rename the "About Bebop" page to be just about the sessions. I've created a new page for Cowboy Bebop Sessions and moved it there.
Cool, thanks. I did see that there is a link to "About Bebop" on the main page. Can you change that link? I see that "Session List" is right next to it, which seems partially redundant, but probably fine for now.
Optionally, "About Bebop" could change to the "Cowboy Bebop" page and the "Session List" could change to "Cowboy Bebop Sessions." Your call.
I don't know if I'm just missing something, but are there help pages on guidelines for writing in regards to an article's POV and how to reference sessions? I've just been guessing so far. I'm used to having an in-story POV in articles, with anything outside the story contained in a "background information" section. It looks like this wiki is referencing content like in LOTR.
There is definitely an inconsistent format for POV and tense in the articles here and it's something we could certainly work on. In general, you should use third person present tense for episode synopsis content, and third person present/past tense for everything else depending on the context. The best way to reference sessions or any other info not contained in the page is with the normal Wikia Cite tool: http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Cite Looking at your edits, pretty much everything seems okay to me. The biggest problems we have are with spelling/grammar and speculation. As long as info is stuff that can be cited, you should be okay.