Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24081824-20160305040159

So, comrades. This is a bit random, but something that has been needing attention for a while. Trivia! It seems that there is little to no criteria regarding just what one could add in there, and it has led up to this. I've broken up this post into sections with headers for the sake of organization. If I was good at what I do, there would be a nice introduction provided for you here. But I'm not, so let's dive right in.

Name meanings

Have an example:

"The name Chelsea originates in Old English and means "chalk wharf"." (found here)

Points like this, in my opinion, do not belong. You are not adding in things that deal with the character itself. If it does not deal with the character, it does not belong in their Trivia section. I see no benefits in keeping it or reasons to have it in the first place. If I could go a bit further, I would say I don't think name meanings have a place in their Trivia sections at all, even if it happens to mean "brave" and that is just oh so fitting to their character. It's an unconfirmed connection at best. Not every character even has an actual existing name either, so it's rather inconsistent.

Inspirations

There is a lot going on with this one. The trivia points that state something or someone may be inspired by a certain historical/mythological event or person all need to be evaluated. It is as though each time a character shares a single trait with some figure, widely known or not, they're instantly connected to each other by the bonds of obvious character/name inspiration. This is wrong.

I am not talking about instances such as Lemy the Ripper bearing an obvious connection to "Jack", or Riliane being connected to Marie Antoinette by direct quotation (and other aspects). The difference with these characters is, not only are their connections with these real-world figures undeniable, but there is no one else their presented trait(s) could have been inspired by.

Unless mothy confirms using some sort of material as a reference or source of inspiration, or there are too many parallels for it to simply be a ridiculous coincidence, then it's all speculation--it's anybody's guess. Finding small connections between the story and real-world stories/events is not trivia. It should be obvious (virtually undeniable), it should be confirmed, or there should be a generous amount of parallels that match in order for it to be considered a trivia point.

Examples

Have a better idea:


 * "The god may be inspired by Cronus, the leader of the Titans in Greek mythology; he is often portrayed as wielding a sickle or scythe."


 * "Sickle may also be inspired by the Grim Reaper, who is also commonly depicted wielding a sickle or scythe." (both found here)

When I argued the first point earlier, I was told their connection lied in agriculture--and yet, it is no where to be seen in the trivia. However, even given that connection, there still isn't enough support to claim "inspiration!" with these two. They are not similar. The second point, on the other hand, is a beautiful example of how "trivia" has lost all control. Sickle reaps rice. I'm sure ol' Grim over there doesn't use his scythe for the same reason. This should not exist.


 * "The song's events parallel the Trinity test conducted in New Mexico, USA, the first test of an atomic bomb by the United States army." (found here)

An example of trivia that actually sounds like trivia. The blatant parallels and quotes that are elaborated upon beneath this particular point back this statement up perfectly. Good.

In case this sort of criteria still sounds hazy to you, allow me to say this once again: Finding small, random connections between the story and real-world people/events is not trivia. Not unless you have a ridiculously obvious, or confirmed, case. Trivia is not speculation.

Misc.

This didn't really fit in any of the sections, so I'll just bring it up here. Trivias for surnames are placed on all articles for characters who share that name. I will assume this is the reason this point can be found on Nemesis' article:


 * "Her surname is part of a pun on the English word "stalker", attributed to Kayo."

However, this does not fit in to that policy. Sudou is the surname, and alone, it has no meaning. Because of that, it is different from the rest, and it makes no sense for the same rules to apply. Sudou Kayo (sutōkā yo) is the pun. Sudou is not. I understand the point specifically says part of a pun--but that does not change the fact that this particular instance is not like the others. I think this point should be removed.

And that is where it ends. I encourage disagreements, elaboration, agreements, whatever relevant thing you have to offer. Thanks for taking the time to read, if you made it this far.  