Forum:Trivia guidelines: confirmation issues and possible revamp

Good day everyone!
As suggested on Merry's talkpage (Talk:Merry), I believe it is time to discuss the wikia's trivia guidelines - and possibly add / remove certain paragraphs.

''If you want to participate in the discussion, I recommend reading up on the current trivia rules (if you haven't already: One Piece Encyclopedia:Trivia Guidelines). 12:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC)''

What's the problem?
While the current rules are sufficient enough to explain what kind of trivia we want on articles, they don't make clear if we should allow only confirmed information from Oda (through the SBS or other sources) or also permit interesting observations from editors as well. This causes edit wars on a not very often, but regular basis. 12:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

What the guideline provides (related paragraphs):


So on the one hand we have the permission to speculate on possible connections, but on the other hand speculation should be strictly avoided. A double standard that causes irritations.

Examples of unconfirmed, but informative trivia.
While from Oda confirmed trivia's leave no room for complaints, "observations" from editors sometimes do. Nonetheless, they often provide interesting information.

 A good example would be Kalifa's trivia section, which contains all 3 "types" of trivia: 

(Trivia type 1.: confirmed by Oda)


 * Kalifa's birthday was revealed in a SBS Volume 43 to be April 23. This is because Secretary's Day is celebrated on this day.

(Trivia type 2.: based on conclusion): (Trivia type 3: based on observations of the editors, tho informative and backed up by an external link):
 * Oda has named several female characters after birds. Kalifa seems to be named after the Kalij Pheasant (or in German, "Kalifasan").
 * Her name might also be a reference to Queen Califia, queen of a legendary tribe of Amazon women who lived in the mythical Island of California.

Possible options so far:
1. Allowing only confirmed trivia by Oda

2. Allowing facts confirmed by Oda, along with conclusions based on similiar cases.

'''3. Allowing editor observations, backed up with external links and reason. (includes Oda and option 2.)'''

4. Eliminating the trivia section altogether.

Discussion / suggestions
I like the fact that this thread was created .. but I dont like the trivia to be voted ( whether something should stay or not ).. it's not supposed to be for most of the time.

Frankly, I say option 1 is the way to go. Since speculations (backed up though they may be) may lead to creation of useless pages and unnecessary information within the main section of the articles by the more inexperienced editors. Yatanogarasu 00:44, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I got a better idea: why don't we just eliminate trivia altogether? Like Zeldapedia doesn't do trivia at all. We can just add all the information from SBS (favorite food, color, etc.) into personality and appearance sections. Any other information can be added into appropriate places or not added at all if not important enough. Yatanogarasu 01:05, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think that option 2 is the best. The only problem is going to be distinguishing between observation and speculation, since both can have links, either for backup or further information. 01:16, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it is not that bad. Option 2. basically has an indirect confirmation from Oda, indirect because he never explicitly said it. Like the example above, Oda often names female characters after birds - so it is highly likely that Kalifa is based on one as well (but he never said Kalifa is based on a bird). Option 3, on the other hand, has no such "indirect" connection to Oda. Kalifa stemming from Queen Califia is purely based on observation, since he never said that he names his female characters after famous figures from other media (tho it is obvious that he does). 11:03, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Another example for option 2 is Ace. There was a trivia that his surname comes from Bartholomew Portugues which, is really likely, considering all the other characters that have been named after real life pirates, however it is unconfirmed. Panda 11:09, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Another example for option 2 is Ace. There was a trivia that his surname comes from Bartholomew Portugues which, is really likely, considering all the other characters that have been named after real life pirates, however it is unconfirmed. Panda 11:09, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I dont know which option this goes into, but I'm sure u can add any trivia to that section if the reference is provided and is trivial enough :)

Option one is the best way to go. Eliminating trivia is completely is a really horrible idea. I'll be back in two days. SeaTerror 06:36, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Option 2 and 3 would effectively change nothing. Option 4 is a bad idea, as there are some things that just dont belong in anything but trivia. Option 1, I'm just going to go with the example I used on merrys talk page again. Donquixote Doflamingo. It's not confirmed, but it obviously comes from that. Option 1 would completely eliminate trivia like this and that's not good. Panda 10:38, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Excatly, Panda is right we cant have a specific guideline that tells wether something is should be trivial or not .. ..Angel used to do it correctly among us ... now I'm sure of one thing though : the existing triva cannot fit into any of those options.


 * @Panda :Option 2 would change a lot, basically removing all trivia that has no direct or indirect confirmation by Oda. This trivia (for example) would be removed - its from the Sea Forest graveyard article: The inspiration for the Sea Forest graveyard might stem from the Japanese forest Aokigahara, also known as the Sea of Trees and often referred to as the Forest Of Death. The place is not only a popular tourist destination, but also became infamous for being a prominent place to commit suicide.
 * Option 3 would technically change nothing, thats true. HOWEVER, we would have an agreement that trivia like that is allowed and wanted, instead of constantly battling the super unclear and undefined "speculation" argument. Whatever the final decision will be, the fact that we agreed on one way is the point of this discussion 11:39, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I will note at one point in the past, we did stop non-confirmed trivia, but the speculations were being added faster then I could remove them. I myself am against trivia sections, however, some like having them. I'd rather see sections for related trivia and maintain if there are more then one related trivia is should have a section on the page. However, due to the amount, at some point in the history of the wikia, I had to be more leniant to keep up with things, this was just before I stopped being a reglaur. Every so often I purge the trivia sections even now of some items that shouldn't be there. I honestly have no opinion overall on what should and shouldn't be there. But stuff like "He doesn't have a devil fruit" for Jinbei begs to question who the editor was aiming the trivia at. In fact "Captain Obivous" trivia point was put in to try and stop people writing trivia that felt like it was written for a moron then a reader.

I also note the current trivia guidelines were written to explain why something was removed, adressing certain itemsn and explaining where they should actually be. Trivia is the single hardest thing to control on the wikia. I am happy that people are starting to rethink them, they only adressed things that had to be sorted at the time. As a general rule, most of our guidelines were written like that. I do also stress that trivia is the hardest thing to handle and one of the most "facepalm" moments at times. One-Winged Hawk 12:06, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Speculation posted on the mythbusters page is aimed to debunk the popular speculations and tell the fans what is and isn't known (example the "D"), but mythbusters is not for every speculation under the sun and should never be. Speculation overall is not welcomed on the wikia and certainly has no place in trivia sections, but due to the workload, *some* forms of it had to be allowed because it was really difficult to control trivia at one point. I admit, sometimes I take the micky of the trivia to see if anyone reacts and insert a little bit of my own. I will observe from this my ridiculous trivia posting DOES prove we don't want that kind of speculative trivia on the wikia but why we still let it on here regardless? that I don't know. The vast amounts of it started during 2009, up until that point it was kept a lot more under control. One-Winged Hawk 12:16, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I like to remind everyone while I'm mentioning mythbusters is to act as a information centre to explain to newbie editors why popular myths got removed from a page. I.e. fake bounties. Without it, we loose a quick tool for directing misinformed fans. If it is lost, something else must be put in its place. One-Winged Hawk 12:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

The Mythbusters page is great to debunk speculation. However, there is no section explaining how to go about it when it comes to possible real-world references. Also, if one is added to mb, they might all have to be added, which will just get the page and its subsections completely cluttered. That is why I think stuff like that belongs in trivia. Also, for references that are sort of iffy (not sure if it is a coincidence or not), there could be a discussion on the talk page. 15:23, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with option 3 and basically not deleting anything, but I think it's a matter of expression. I'll explain it better, but let's procede in order: I think everyone agree that speculation like "Blackbeard will eat another devil fruit" or "Dragon has the king disposition" are not allowed, because this kind of things are more suited for blogs. To our problem, the "possible references", Oda cannot reveal every source of inspiration he got and he doesn't have to, and we cannot really often said/hypothesize "he was inspired by" because some things belongs to the cultural environment, and are shared by many works, and sometimes they are only coincidence but that not means we have to renounce to point them out, because not everyone can catch those "links" and maybe someone doesn't even know of their existence. Those "references" are what makes One Piece (and this site) an inter-cultural work, we have to see them for what they are: curiosities. So what to do? I think the way we write them down can change a lot of things, let's see some examples:

So change the way of write trivias can be helpful to avoid speculation/false etymologies (although I don't know if it's true for every tivia). leviathan_89  17:01, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oda has claimed that at the time of naming Luffy, he did so because he felt the name "Luffy" was right for his main character. Later Oda found out there is a Maritime term called a "Luff" and has insisted this is pure coincidence but one he was delighted by. Up until this point, this had previously been noted by fans and some considered it intentional. (If Oda didn't say anything on this) This is a coincidence, in this case we can simply point it out that "Luffy" shares/resemble his name with the Maritime term "luff". Stating it was derived, instead, would be a false etymology.
 * (about Crocodile) It may be a reference to Peter Pan villain Captain Hook, who had a hook for a hand and was eaten by a crocodile. or Decken being the 'cursed' captain of the Flying Dutchman and his pursuit of Shirahoshi somewhat follow the real-world legend: the captain can be freed from his curse if he finds a woman who will remain faithful to him. or Ryugu Palace is a reference to Ryūgū-jō, an undersea palace within the Japanese legend of Urashima Tarō. While the legend says that Tarō was led there after saving a sea turtle, the Straw Hats were led here for saving Megalo, Princess Shirahoshi's pet shark. These cases shows examples of common stereotypes reference which are evident, but someone possibly doesn't know (maybe a kid or someone from different cultural environment, like the Ryūgū-jō). Excluding these trivias would be a loss, in my opinion. However, we can change the statements to avoid speculations, like "In the Japanese legend of Urashima Tarō there was an undersea palace named Ryūgū-jō...which remember Ryugu Palace and the way the Straw Hats..."
 * The inspiration for the Sea Forest graveyard might stem from the Japanese forest Aokigahara, also known as the Sea of Trees and often referred to as the Forest Of Death. The place is not only a popular tourist destination, but also became infamous for being a prominent place to commit suicide. Again we can simply say "I Japan there is a forest named Aokigahara..."
 * For Ace (and Bartholomew Kuma), we can say "There was a real-life pirate named Bartholomew Portugues which share his surname with Ace and his mother". We can do this for all not confirmed real-life pirates references, this way we are simply stating the true.

Still here for a little longer. Just no. Renaming it saying it resembles something is STLL speculation. SeaTerror 17:31, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well sometimes renaming it isn't a solution, but saying "There was a real-life pirate named Bartholomew Portugues which share his surname with Ace and his mother" is stating the truth. It's a fact, and we don't hypothesize Oda took "inspiration" from him, but it's a curiosity worth mention. Well, that's was what I tried to say. leviathan_89  17:47, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Making an observation between a character or place is not speculation. It is simply a neutral comparison. Saying that Oda based that character or place on something is speculation, unless he confirmed it. For example, if I said "Goa Kingdom shares its name with a provence in India", that is a comparison and nothing more, not implying anything. However, if I had said "Goa Kingdom seems to take its name from a provence in India", that can be considered speculation since it is just a blind guess and assumption, regardless of evidence. The key thing with this is neutrality in the observations. 19:20, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noting even though we are not part of the wikipedia system, wikipedia banned observations for such reasons as they cause arguments. Wikipedia wants only confirmed facts. This is a little extreme, but I'm posting it here as part of the "other side".


 * I think, firstly, its more important to establish where we stand on trivia before we start altering what we got. As in, the kind of trivia we will and will not allow. This might involve going through and listing examples of trivia from vrious pages. One-Winged Hawk 09:29, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure no "options" or "guidelines" can decide if something is trivia worthy or not .. it's trivia and it's always varying --

Well I've said my reasons and provided examples, anyway if I wasn't clear I'm for option 3. I consider speculation only those like in the Mythbusters. @One-Winged Hawk: What do you mean with "wikipedia banned observations for such reasons as they cause arguments"? This article can be interesting for this matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples leviathan_89  15:02, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

If you wanna talk about name meanings, then why not make an "Etymology" section instead of making it in the trivia? Then, food and color, just put them in personality and appearance. Early concept may well cover what others that Oda gave us. The rest, such as "this thing resembles this but not yet confirmed" or "this may be inspired by this", they are too speculative and vague to be allowed. Yatanogarasu 03:29, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards removing trivia sections altogether, things like possible name links and so forth can go into a "Anime and Manga Influences" section anyway. If theres anything left over, we can invent new sections for it.


 * Etymology I want to point out goes in "Translation and Dub Issues" section, where things like names were explained. See Mihawk's page. Even if its not a Japanese name, it belongs in there... Or "Anime and Manga Influences" if it has a pirate link. There should be no names in the trivia, but as I said, I lost hope trying to keep up with trivia. At one stage I was moving it to there, but as fast as I moved it, someone either reverted or re-added it pointlessly. One-Winged Hawk 06:20, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

True, people just jam a bunch of things into trivia, and soon, we're open to speculations of all kinds, simply people think it's trivial. Trivia overall leads to speculations, and that is not right. So just get rid of it and we can all be happy. No more pointless editing wars (or at least reduce it greatly). Yatanogarasu 08:27, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Moving the name-based and influence-based trivia to other sections can be a good idea, but a good number of trivia doeasn't fit other existing sections but "Trivia", so I don't think you can resolve the issue "moving" to other section without delete a lot of them. So basically, the problem is still choosing what to do, like option 1/2/3. But is the present situation that bad? People will always put "speculations" (in good faith), if not in "trivia" than in other sections (like Manga influences, name issues..) and, to me, there is a huge different between speculation like those in the Mythbusters and the "supposed speculations" in "Trivia". Just how do you write them can really change things, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples. Maybe I am too soft on this, but I don't think the existing trivia can "mislead" the reader. Keep in mind that this is a "fan-encyclopedia" so nobody but ourself can blame us, but if wed decide for a more strict-policy, so be it. leviathan_89  10:20, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fan situation is why I'm not 100% on the side of loosing trivia, though I'm on the way towards it. Most of whats written in the trivia sections CAN go on the page its really just a few bits that don't belong. But the fan factor makes it hard... Before we were forced to enforce a pre-chapter release on the wikia, people used to rush to add every bit of spoiler information on the wikia. This led to a TON of edits to remove the numerous pre-translation mistakes people made thanks to babel fish translations. *Groan*. With trivia its sort of a similair situation, people DO rush to add it. One-Winged Hawk 14:48, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * isn't it a little different? For the chapter case a think most of the spoiler informations are added by unregistered users, or am I wrong? For the trivia, most of the editors are registered, if we decide here and now what to do we can control the situation better and if someone will have a doubt he'll discuss it in the talk page. But I see yuor point. leviathan_89  16:03, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Not everybody is going to agree that the comparisons are true. It is speculation to put them in. Removing trivia altogether is a horrible idea. Trivia sections are needed and contain interesting bits of information. This is not Wikipedia where people should remove trivia sections just to be asinine. SeaTerror 23:09, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, but when the voting process does start, removing trivia should be an option, along with the other three. Yatanogarasu 19:04, May 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * But hey, I do want to say something: some wikis remove certain features within themselves, such as Narutopedia does not have user blogs and Zeldapedia does not do trivia. Of course, some other less organized wiki are much more lax (don't get me started on Harry Potter wiki). Lately, I think we have been a little too lax, allowing images, non-conjectural titled articles, and unapproved trivia/information to be created. Maybe removing the trivia and fan-based polls will boost our strictness. Yatanogarasu 19:08, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

We also go by Chapter 1 or Episode 1 instead of an actual episode title unlike most manga/anime wikias. That should be changed too. SeaTerror 19:20, May 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to talk about that, start another forum if you want. But that is a terrible idea, people can't remember which names go with which chapter or episode, there are like over 600 chapters and 500 episodes. Nobody can remember all of their names, when they want to look up to the specific chapter or episode. Yatanogarasu 19:26, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

I already did start it and even bumped it yet people stopped commenting in it. Also why the hell do you think redirects exist? SeaTerror 19:55, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, give me the link to that forum, and I'll post it on the community news. Anyways, look at Keimi's page, not a single trivia point. We can go without trivia if we integrate all the points in the right places. Yatanogarasu 02:52, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Keimi is not really the best example since she doesn't have anything unique about her that can't be placed in a section. I don't see how you could put the representative flower of each Straw Hat in their personality section with any ease. 03:36, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, just write "according to Oda, [member] is represented by [flower]". Or maybe, a "data profile" section, where all the databook and SBS information is collected into one section, instead of being added into the trivia. Yatanogarasu 05:12, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that could work. We do have a chart for that for the Straw Hats on the crew's page, I don't see why we couldn't do that for each individual member as well. It's not that so much as it is about the other types of trivia. It is the stuff like real world comparisons and other observations like that. The trivia section is basically the last filter that catches the important (albeit not totally necessary) bits of information that can't really be placed anywhere else. Where would the trivia about the Supernovas being named after real world pirates go if there were no trivia section? 06:21, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * A "Name Origins and Inspirations" section? sff9 (talk) 10:02, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

We were already talking before about "moving the trivias in other sections"... but I think that's half of the problem here, we should discuss the problem in this order:


 * Which information keep and which (or if) delete - generally guidelines like option 1/2/3 and discuss if there are special cases.
 * Where write those information - keep all of them in a trivia section (because they're trivia after all), move some to other sections (name/real world references), move all to other sections.
 * How to write those information, read my long post above (that of 17:01, May 3, 2011 (UTC)) and this page. leviathan_89  13:17, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Or don't discuss it at all since I doubt many people will vote for eliminating trivia sections. SeaTerror 06:35, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

'Just a quick reminder, if your suggestion isn't covered in one of the above options, please say so (I will add it asap). This thread will likely end in a vote and adding options during the voting process causes confusion and should be avoided, keep that in mind. '
 * The guidelines do insist trivia not be created for the sake of having trivia, so the guidelines already state we don't need trivia, its just there because people like adding trivia unfortantely... Which led to this mess. -_-' One-Winged Hawk 21:26, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * The community is certainly against the "complete" removal of Trivia ... we gotta think something else.

(And no, we leave the option to remove trivia altogether in. Even if some don't agree with it, it is a valid option backed up by arguments.)  17:00, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

It isn't backed up by any arguments. Also add removing "neutral observations" since that's just another word used by DancePowderer for speculation. SeaTerror 02:43, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one pro-argument is kinda obvious...if we remove trivia altogether we don't have to argue at all. No trivia, no problem...so to say. It would be the harsh and easy way out, but it is an option. And as Yata said, we wouldn't be the first wikia going this way.-- 12:14, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral observations are easily confirmable while speculation is an assumption about some aspect of the subject in question and are easily arguable. Observations really aren't arguable, while speculations are. One is true while the other isn't. I'm not saying that observations were meant by Oda, they're just something about the subject that is indisputable. 02:50, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines need to be less strict about what is acceptable trivia. It should allow relevant, apparent, yet not officially confirmed observations. I'm not saying we should add stuff like "Basil Hawkins looks like Santa Claus", but the thing about him looking like the Slipknot drummer is actually interesting and relevant. If someone disagrees with it, they can bring it up for discussion on the talk page. 03:07, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the best way to do it, it allows to put non-proven things (seriously, Gaimon and Sarfunkel? Come on.), without speculating. That does not mean all trivia would be allowed. sff9 (talk) 06:42, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody would agree with it which is why stuff like that should be removed. SeaTerror 07:11, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * If a majority feels this is not relevant, it'll be removed. But at least, things like Gaimon and Sarfunkel would be OK, since I don't think anyone but you would disagree. sff9 (talk) 08:00, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

@: About adding options... right now I cannot think anything else other then the current options, but if we will voting I guess we need to decide three different things (read my post above), because even if we decide to keep the trivia as they are now or keep only some of them, maybe someone want to move those related to appearence in other sections and we need also to decide if we want to set guidelines about writing them like using a neutral point of view (like Wikipedia) or leave it at the discretion and good sense of the editor. Aniway, first we must decide what to keep then we can talk about this later.

@SeaTerror: As I already said, I also think that the way you write some trivias can be made one a speculation or an observation, that's why I keep insisting to think (not necessaraly to adopt) of a "neutral point of view", and I didn't made it up myself but it's something used on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia was also so strict than some contested arguments and articles wouldn't exist. leviathan_89  13:01, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

'''I'm sure no "options" or "guidelines" can decide if something is trivia worthy or not .. it's trivia and it's always varying''' :I've told this before and telling the same even now ...If voting over this topic is inevitable,please add this also as an option :)

We need to have some guidelines otherwise there would be nothing but fan speculation in the trivia sections. I agree with leviathan and we should be able to write observations or comparisons as long as it is done as neutrally as possible. Ignoring facts confirmed by Oda for now, trivia based on observations that are written neutrally should be allowed, and if someone disagrees, they can bring it up for discussion on the talk page. They can talk it out and other editors can add their two cents as well. Then they can keep it or scrap it based on group consensus. There are relevant observations and comparisons to be made, and they shouldn't be ignored. 22:41, May 16, 2011 (UTC) @Dancepowderer, Leviathan, Sff9: Can I assume that we agree on rewording trivia of type 2 and 3, should we decide on keeping them? This is important because else I have to add several sub-options.
 * That's exactly what I think as well. sff9 (talk) 07:39, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * First option is good to be displayed
 * Stone Roger 08:57, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * First option is good to be displayed
 * Stone Roger 08:57, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

@Yatanogarasu: I altered option 4, it no longer includes merging trivia with other sections of the article. Nothing against the suggestion, but could we talk about that after we decided what to keep and what not? More a matter of organization - especially to not confuse editors when it comes to the vote. -- 17:48, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's really difficult to formulate a poll, being altogether clear, fair, specific and not too wordy...
 * I agree to not include the sub-options you talk about. It's obvious that if option 2 or 3 is chosen, neutral point of view is the way to go.
 * I think there's a problem with the fourth option, since it concerns all kinds of trivia, whereas the other three are only about a particular kind of trivia, namely influences/name origins trivia.
 * If we're only talking about this kind of trivia, then the fourth choice should be "eliminating this kind of trivia" (confirmed or not). The "dispatch all trivia in dedicated sections" thing is another debate, so it should be covered by a second poll (that can be hold at the same time). sff9 (talk) 19:51, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * The first three options eliminate trivia type's already. Option 1 gets rid of trivia type 2. and 3., while option 2. eliminates trivia type 3.
 * Option 4. is basically the bottom of the ladder, we get rid of trivia sections AND content on the article altogether (no merging). Oda's trivial information is still available on the SBS section, but not on the articles anymore. It is probably not a very popular choice, but it is a choice. Anyway, we have still a long way to go and a formal vote is still miles away...but it doesn't hurt to clear things up. :) 20:11, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Guess I wasn't clear, what I meant is that the trivia we're talking about (influences/name origins) is not the only sort of trivia. There is also trivia about the story (such character is the only...) and character reception ("Aisa's family relationship is often misunderstood", "In a recent Japanese Fan Poll, Wiper is currently ranked the 43th most popular character in One Piece"). It should be clear whether the fourth option applies on the specific influence/origins trivia only or on the entire trivia section (which I would find odd, since this wasn't really the topic of this discussion). (Also, shall I reword the examples for options 2 and 3 such that they're observational and thus not speculative?) sff9 (talk) 21:21, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

in trivia sections, there