Trivia in summaries

drosso46561 wrote:
I was putting the episode description onto "So Sorry My Island Now" and remembered a tidbit that I read in Sherwood Schwartz book "Inside Gilligans Island". I wanted to know if the way I did the description is okay with the information at the end or if you prefer that not be done. I can't picture it coming up very often for me. But do not want to be doing stuff in the descriptions you prefer not to have. The bold is the way I did that one episode, if you prefer it not be done that way I will go back and remote the Something Of Note: part.
Gilligan is in the lagoon trying to catch food and see's what he thinks is a sea serpent. Later it turns out to be a Japanese world war II mini one man submarine who's pilot is not aware that World War II has been over for more than 20 years. (something of note; not long after this episode aired, a real life Japanese sailor was found on a island in the Pacific who did not know the war was over - reference source "Inside Gilligans Island" by Sherwood Schwartz.

I would assume that this would be classed as more episode trivia/notes. So would think it isn't acceptable to have in an episode summary, as interesting as the fact may be. It could be something however that is mentioned in the season guide?

I did not realize there was a seperate season information page for shows. Should have known since the Season "X" is highlighted. If those in charge prefer things like that posted there, I will be more than happy to. They need a Trivia section for the individual episodes. That is like, with Doctor Who "The Five Doctors" episode, I was talking with Anthony Ainley after convention hours at the 20th Anniversary Con in Chicago at the hotel and he told me that during the filming of the Cyberman attack scene where there were explosions making rocks fly, he was actually hit by a rock and injured. This would be great trivia for that episode. There are all kinds of things like that that I am sure people know.

I think it was considered as it has been mentioned before, it's sort of a grey area at the same time as information you may consider trivial, might not be something that someone else finds trivial at aall. There is also instances of course were someone could easily use this feature to add unnecessary information as well such as. This is the first episode or the first episode to feature this character - information that can be found elsewhere on the site already

TomSouthwell wrote:
I think it was considered as it has been mentioned before, it's sort of a grey area at the same time as information you may consider trivial, might not be something that someone else finds trivial at aall. There is also instances of course were someone could easily use this feature to add unnecessary information as well such as. This is the first episode or the first episode to feature this character - information that can be found elsewhere on the site already

I would tend to agree with you on the first instances of someone appearing, that is something that would be more appropriate under the actor/actress's bio and not a individual episode. Also if a trivia catagory was added with approval pending, then all the webmasters time would be spent approving that and nothing would be get done on the rest of the site.

Would it be okay (at least for now) to add that type of information/trivia into the episode recap (as a sidenote whilst explaining the episode).

My understanding is that if the site managers wanted trivia added... they'd add a trivia section. Same with quotes, cultural references, music, ordering of cast, etc.

If there isn't a place to add it, it's because... well, they don't want it there. And if one person adds trivia in the recap, another person might see it and decide to put quotes in to another recap. Or put the order of the guest stars in the recaps. Or something else.

So I'd say that pending an official statement, you shouldn't put anything in the sections other than what it says to put in the sections.

I agree that information like "not long after this episode aired, a real life Japanese sailor was found on a island in the Pacific who did not know the war was over - reference source "Inside Gilligans Island" by Sherwood Schwartz." does not belong in an episode summary.

Though if there's enough interest from our userbase, we're definitely open to adding notes (or trivia, references, however you want to call them) to episodes.

The only thing I worry about is that it would be pretty hard to define rules for such a section: what should and shouldn't be allowed to be added as note? All feedback here is welcome :)

There's a fair number of sites out there that have various categories,and definitions.

IMDB has Trivia and Goofs. The Gilligan's Island info would be trivia there.

TV.com has Notes and Trivia. The latter is apparently off-screen/production info, while the latter is on-screen info and goofs. So the proposed info would be... a Note, I guess.

TVRage has Episode Notes, and Episode References. Ep. Notes are "Something interesting or relevant related to the episode, either from (1) the real world or (2) from inside the show." So the proposed info would be an Ep. Note.

It's also arguable whether the proposed Gilligan info would be... well, anything. It might meet the TVRage definition of an Episode Note. But then again, it doesn't seem like it's related to the episode in any way. It appears to be a coincidence. Now, if if the incident had happened before the episode was filmed, and the writers used it as inspiration for their story, then it would seem to be relevant. Several shows in the 60s did "a Japanese soldier is stuck on an island with no idea the war is over" plots. I remember an episode of Time Tunnel that did something similar.. So it hardy seems relevant to the specific Gilligan episode, if it could be applied to episodes of several different shows.

However, a Gilligan's Island fan wouldn't necessarily know that.

But that's all IMO.

The Doctor Who info would appear to be relevant under almost any of the definitions above.

You also tend to get a lot of "junk" trivia. IMDB seems to have this problem. For instance:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/trivia?ref_=tt...

A lot of it, early on, seems relevant. But then they start doing things like counting screen times. Some if it appears to be personal opinion/analysis, like the bit about Hawkeye's new uniform. As you go down the list, you get more gems like the first word spoken in the movie. Or the fact that both actors who recently played Quicksilver were in Kick-Ass. Or Thor declaring himself "mighty." Or how some of the actors starred together in Oldboy. Or Johansson and Ruffalo sharing a birthday. Or Ultron "almost" resembles General Grievous, whatever that means. He "almost" resembles a lot of movie and TV robots.

But one man's junk is another man's treasure. Sometimes it just becomes difficult to pick out the relevant from the not so relevant.

Gadfly wrote:
You also tend to get a lot of "junk" trivia. IMDB seems to have this problem. For instance:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/trivia?ref_=tt...
A lot of it, early on, seems relevant. But then they start doing things like counting screen times. Some if it appears to be personal opinion/analysis, like the bit about Hawkeye's new uniform. As you go down the list, you get more gems like the first word spoken in the movie. Or the fact that both actors who recently played Quicksilver were in Kick-Ass. Or Thor declaring himself "mighty." Or how some of the actors starred together in Oldboy. Or Johansson and Ruffalo sharing a birthday. Or Ultron "almost" resembles General Grievous, whatever that means. He "almost" resembles a lot of movie and TV robots.
But one man's junk is another man's treasure. Sometimes it just becomes difficult to pick out the relevant from the not so relevant.

And even more difficult with there been no filter as such for us to see what information is been submitted to sort the 'junk' from the 'treasure'.

I see every ones point and I can see how it can go really bad, I do know that Sherwood Schwartz said in the book that the producers received a lot of flack about the episode and how it was impossible for a soldier of any army to go more than 20 years without being aware that a war was over. Then right at the peak of the complaints they were getting, a soldier was discovered on a island in the pacific who did not know the war was over. For some reason, ever since reading the book, that tidbit stuck with me.

Gadfly wrote:
You also tend to get a lot of "junk" trivia. IMDB seems to have this problem. For instance:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2395427/trivia?ref_=tt...

Yeah, that's a nice example, some of those trivia are quite objectively useless. But what drosso mentioned sounds like an interesting tidbit to fans of the show.

I'm mulling over a definition that would keep the amount of garbage in check. Some initial ideas:

- Only facts, no opinions

- Only information that directly relates to the episode itself, no generic information about the show or actors

- No information that's available elsewhere on the site or that can be inferred

A few more of those, combined with giving no or very little points for adding trvia might be enough to manage..

drosso46561 wrote:
I see every ones point and I can see how it can go really bad, I do know that Sherwood Schwartz said in the book that the producers received a lot of flack about the episode and how it was impossible for a soldier of any army to go more than 20 years without being aware that a war was over. Then right at the peak of the complaints they were getting, a soldier was discovered on a island in the pacific who did not know the war was over. For some reason, ever since reading the book, that tidbit stuck with me.

If the trivia emphasizes how the event affected the show's production, then it's IMO great.

Saying, "A Japanese soldier was found a week after the episode was produced." = no. That to me is generic information.

Saying "The producers received flack about the story concept, but were proven right a week later when such-n-such happened in real life." = yes.

It's like two people appearing on a previous show or movie, and then appearing in an episode of a show together.

"X and Y were in this episode, and were also in the movie ZZZ." = no. Thousands of people work on two or more projects together. Big whoop. Generic info.

"X and Y were both in the movie ZZZ, and the casting director saw them together and cast them both for the episode" = yes.

Gadfly wrote:
If the trivia emphasizes how the event affected the show's production, then it's IMO great.
Saying, "A Japanese soldier was found a week after the episode was produced." = no. That to me is generic information.
Saying "The producers received flack about the story concept, but were proven right a week later when such-n-such happened in real life." = yes.
It's like two people appearing on a previous show or movie, and then appearing in an episode of a show together.
"X and Y were in this episode, and were also in the movie ZZZ." = no. Thousands of people work on two or more projects together. Big whoop. Generic info.
"X and Y were both in the movie ZZZ, and the casting director saw them together and cast them both for the episode" = yes.

I did remove the trivia from the description right after the start of this discussion. I will keep this information in mind for future reference. There is so much trivia information that is generally known by fans of series or movies and is needless to repeat because it can be found elsewhere. Like I am a fan of Bela Lugosi's Dracula and find it interesting that he actually was born in Transylvania and took the name Lugosi from his home town. It is interesting, but only to fans of that type of movie and the info is easy to find. That type of thing in general can apply again and again if you dig deep enough to a wide range of shows, movies, etc.

Well, keep in mind everything I'm saying is my opinion. :) As far as I know of, nothing has been decided other than that summaries are for... summaries of the episode, and nothing else. And that's just because... well, that's what the site says. If summaries can include anything any contributor feels like, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

For instance, the fact that Bela Lugosi took his name from the name of his home town would seem to be relevant biographical trivia. But person trivia is somewhat a different thing than episode trivia. For one thing, it could be included in a well-written biography.

(FYI, I added Lugosi to the TVMaze database, so have at it!)

But I wouldn't include it as Trivia for the episode of Suspense that he appears in.

Generally speaking, I'd also be very leery of opinions masquerading as facts.

The "looks like General Grevious" thing for Age of Ultron above is one example. Another is the "best known as" trivia. For one thing, if it's already best known, why does it have to be said? Almost everyone knows it, or it wouldn't be "best known." :)

For another, what the contributor usually means is "I best know them as..." Which would seem to be opinion. If I know them best as something else, can I delete/change their entry? What if they're best known for two different things? Is Richard Dean Anderson best known as MacGyver, or Jack O'Neill? And how do you "prove" it? Is there some kind of master Internet poll that proves what they're best known for?

Gadfly wrote:
Generally speaking, I'd also be very leery of opinions masquerading as facts.
The "looks like General Grevious" thing for Age of Ultron above is one example. Another is the "best known as" trivia. For one thing, if it's already best known, why does it have to be said? Almost everyone knows it, or it wouldn't be "best known." :)
For another, what the contributor usually means is "I best know them as..." Which would seem to be opinion. If I know them best as something else, can I delete/change their entry? What if they're best known for two different things? Is Richard Dean Anderson best known as MacGyver, or Jack O'Neill? And how do you "prove" it? Is there some kind of master Internet poll that proves what they're best known for?

And with Richard Dean Anderson, some could argue even that he is better known as MacGuyver because of Patty and Selma's infatuation with him on the Simpsons which has ran for so long. It could go on and on and get deeper into the obscure even.

Might be an option for having someone to check them manually before allowing them to be online, but don't think Trivia would be that useful to our site. I'm pretty sure that more than 75% of the users don't bother about them. :)

The question is, what do 75%+ of the users bother with? :)

If they don't bother with cast, should cast be dropped? Or never have been entered? Do 75% of the users care who directed, or wrote, or co-executive produced an episode?