There is a reason from the viewpoint of the reader.
An encyclopedia reader is looking for a summarized article giving the major points about a subject. By overwhelming the key points with a mass of trivia, you make it that much harder for the reader to ever find the key points.
So what’s important is not the cost of storage, but the cost of confusing & overwhelming the reader.
This is actually, ironically, one of the reasons I can’t understand why wikipedia is doing away with specific trivia sections. If trivial information is worked into the main articles, the article will quickly become either rambling or disjointed, depending on how much of a bridge the editor-du-jour wishes to put into the article.
A trivia section at the bottom of an article allows a specific space for factual information that isn’t necessary for a quick understanding of the subject in question. The main article remains a reference material for those wishing a general understanding of the subject, while the trivia section, like other subsections, becomes a resource for someone wishing to find other details.
There have been plenty of times I’ve consulted wikipedia and gone straight to the trivia section, knowing that the information I was seeking would be there, if nowhere else. (e.g.: someone tells me that Andy Jackson had a foul-mouthed parrot. I consult the wiki trivia section: Blam! there it is. If this information was incorporated into the main article, it would certainly have seemed to be an unnecessary digression to some kid trying to write a paper on Old Hickory.)
It’s been awhile, but if I recall correctly, the Vulcan nerve pinch was the standard move Spock made (although I believe McCoy did it once). It was a grip to the neck which rendered a person temporarily unconscious.
In one episode, Kirk and Spock were running a covert op in the Romulan Empire. Kirk was pretending he’d gone insane and he attacked Spock. Spock defended himself by grabbing Kirk’s face. Kirk fell over dead and Spock explained to the Romulans that he had instinctively used the Vulcan death grip to defend himself. Spock teleported back to the Enterprise with Kirk’s body. There it was revealed that Kirk’s death was faked so they could escape. Spock mentioned the Vulcan death grip and McCoy said there was no such thing. Spock said the Romulans didn’t know that.
Obviously, you’re not a golfer. 
This is true. Personally, if I’m looking something up in Wikipedia, I want to know everything about that item- notable film appearances, famous people who used or owned one, interesting events that took place relating to the thing in the article, etc. Evidently a lot of people disagree with me. They are back-sliding revisionist Paper Weasels, and we should pay them no heed. 
Anime? No. Locked Room Mysteries? I like a good mystery. 
Transported, please!
Journey to Babel, however, reveals that there is a Vulcan instant-death move called tal-shaya, which it is suspected Sarek, Spock’s father, has used to commit murder. Spock confirms both the existence of the technique and the fact that Sarek has the necessary skill - no doubt being of the opinion that investigation will exonerate Sarek, but that it is illogical to pretend that Sarek’s abilities are other than they are.
This is beyond idiotic and that’s odd because for some reason I was under the impression you weren’t an idiot. Just because you don’t like many deletions and you’re able to make mean-spirited guesses as to their underlying motivation doesn’t mean you get to call it vandalism. That is, at least, not until Wikipedia is your personal fucking property and you get to set the rules.
To be perfectly honest, I feel as though I’ve been gang raped by your aggressive use of the word “vandalism”.
Seeing that you all agree, perhaps the 4 of you would like to volunteer for a very important task: Adding a dozen pages to the paltry article on the trials and tribulations of the soap opera character Erica Kane. Seven pages for a cultural icon who’s broadcast daily to two generations of housewives seem like such an injustice.
When the ostensible reasons are obvious nonsense, one naturally searches for the underlying motivation behind the excuses. The one I explained upthread is the one that makes the most sense.
When come back, bring smelling salts for your next attack of teh vapors. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Didn’t they have a hit back in the '80s?
Well, if you don’t like my read on the motivations behind deletionism, try this one:
Well good, glad to hear you’ll be shutting the fuck up about stuff you don’t seem to understand. The systematic removal of particular types of information not done with vandalistic intent is not reasonably defined as “vandalism.” The systematic removal of information that does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which are formed through consensus, is not “vandalism.” The systematic removal of factually incorrect information is not “vandalism.” And so on. To paint such actions with the vandalism brush does nothing but illuminate your own foolishness and ignorance.
Again, I need a Roestta Stone to translate from your language, in which the burning of the Library of Alexandria (the desire to glorify Allah is not “vandalistic intent”) is “not reasonably defined as vandalism”.
A large part of the problem is routine circumvention of policy (e.g. evasion of discussion through “speedy deletion” tagging).
Irrelevant; the subject of discussion is the removal of particular types of information, not the removal of disinformation.
I’m in complete agreement with you on this. But I think we’re talking about different things. If somebody deletes the statement that Batman was a member of the Avengers because it’s factually incorrect, that’s fine. But if they delete the statement that Batman was a member of the Justice League of America because it’s not important, that’s a matter of opinion.
I don’t believe that I was discussing the burning of the library at Alexandria. I believe I was discussing Wikipedia.
And weren’t you supposed to be shutting the fuck up? I love people who declare that they’ll no longer participate in a particular discussion yet pop back into it almost immediately.
Admins are free to reject speedy tags at will, and are free to reject proposed deletions at will, forcing the issue to AFD. If an article is speedy deleted in error, then Deletion Review is available to bring it before the community.
The point still stands, unless you’re able to read minds thruogh the internet, your characterization of the motives of other editors is nothing but unfounded speculation.
I was responding to the rather categorical statement that “the term “vandalism” applies to systematic removal of particular types of information” by trying to supply various types of information the removal of which does not constitute “vandalism.”
Well, then, keep trying until you can supply valid examples, if ever.
Look, just because you can’t understand the examples doesn’t mean they aren’t valid.
Were you going to start shutting the fuck up anytime soon like you said you were going to? I mean, not that I particularly mind your making yourself look like an ever-larger jackass with every post you make after your “I’m not talking to you anymore” bit but I am curious.
More trivia:
Googling “M1887/1901” garners you exactly 3 hits. The one in English is about Military history. I find that odd.
ETA: So does Googling “Winchester M1887/1901”
Where on earth do you get this? There are plenty of people here who speak English rather than whatever Clintonesque collection of idiosyncratic definitions you are using; I am attempting to hold a conversation with them.
Um, probably from the post where you said you were not going to continue the discussion with me. Unless you’ve found that Rosetta Stone you were looking for?
And, given that at least one of them also thinks you’re making a complete ass of yourself, is also pretty entertaining. You keep on keepin’ on.