Thread:MetallicKaiser/@comment-26160153-20160909165645/@comment-1739368-20160911213419

I think a poll wouldn't encompass most of what is being said here. Or at least, we'd have to figure out how to word it with as much context as possible.

The problem with the previous argument is that there isn't any set standard of what someone doesn't know. It ends up being an excuse that allows anyone to put any amount of unrelated information into the article as long as "it's something someone may not be able to figure out on their own." There's no way to prove something is or isn't known by every single person. It's completely subjective. What would be stopping me from adding pages upon pages of trivia listing off people who don't have fathers like Joseph Joestar, or how different people have similar hair colors. Where exactly do we draw the line when it comes to these type of observations or when it comes to repeating information from other articles?

I don't think there is anything wrong with narrowing down trivia to information that doesn't exist on the wiki yet, since it cuts out this type of controversy altogether. I never put much thought into it, but now it makes complete sense why Wikipedia discourages trivia sections to begin with as they're way too difficult to standardize. Other wikias have also set policies that require a trivia piece MUST have a source behind it, which seems like a more efficient integration of the speculation policy. I think we may need to take a path similar to this, if we wish to not only prevent future arguments, but also prevent a unmanageable influx of "subjectively interesting" information into the wiki.