Archives

Archive 1: Oct 2006 - July 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This template speaks of "relevant items" as a criterion for integration of trivia, but fails to define the term in any manner. Wikipedia:Relevance of content (formerly located at Wikipedia:Relevance) is an attempt to lay out some common ground on the subject of relevance. It has undergone several rounds of feedback and revision, but it needs your input if it is to truly reflect a common stance on the subject. Please make your thoughts known! Thanks.--Father Goose 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need more guidelines?? — Omegatron 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where there exist areas of frequent contention that could be smoothed out a bit by laying out some common ground -- yes. Guidelines have value in that role.--Father Goose 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For further updates on Relevance of Content, see the talk page. Work on the project is currently suspended due to edit-protection being in place, and events are proceeding at the (informal) mediation Cabal. [1] See talkpage if interested, work on the project can not resume until the edit-protect is lifted. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we suggest in the template that sometimes it is best to move the trivia section to the talk page and allow editors to move things back onto the article when they have been made into relevant sections? This would clean up a lot of articles, not piss off the people who added the trivia, and keep the information that might be a viable addition someday. — Omegatron 23:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion (link) about two months ago regarding this on the Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections guideline talk page and it was rejected. I will quote my comments from that discussion:

First, it is not standard practice to move content to the talk pages unless that content is somehow disputed (controversial or libelous). This is rarely the case with "Trivia" entries.

Second, it is in practice no different from simply deleting the content. Most talk pages receive so little attention from so few users that it is unlikely that such information would be re-incorporated. Realistically, it will just linger on the talk page. So, in a way, it is misleading when one moves content to the talk page "for discussion" when one knows full well that a particular talk page is rarely sees any discussion. The option of "move to the talk page" presents a loophole for deleting content, the deletion of which one would otherwise be hard-pressed to justify (that is, content with promise of integration into the article).

Third, it is a "half-assed" attempt at a solution, as you (User:Mangojuice) note. There is no reason that editors can't discuss on a talk page the fate of a "Trivia" section (or particular entries) without removing the content from the article. If the goal is indeed discussion, is it not better to start a discussion and leave the content until an agreement is reached as to how to handle it? Again, there is an exception for cases where the content is highly controversial or potentially libelous, but this does not apply to the majority of entries in "Trivia" sections.

If an editor wants to "clean up" articles of trivia, s/he should just go ahead and integrate the trivia or, if appropriate, delete it. I think the "move to the talk page" approach essentially boils down to a way of rapidly clearing the growing backlog without actually solving the root problem. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of that discussion, I embraced the "move to the talk page" approach, but since then I have come to agree with Black Falcon -- it's a sweep-it-under-the-rug solution.--Father Goose 23:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created {{Trivia2}} for use in trivia sections that are not called "Trivia", after I saw someone delete a {{trivia}} for that reason. Hopefully {{Trivia2}} makes this clear. Please take a look and comment on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary for this tag to be so enormous? That makes sense when we're drawing attention to something seriously problematic, but the presence of a trivia section is a relatively minor flaw (more akin to a proposed merger than to most of the cleanup issues). In some cases, inserting this giant box arguably harms the article's appearance more than the actual trivia section does.
I'd like to restyle the template along these lines:

Top:

Section:

We needn't include the date within the box, as this is useful primarily for categorization (and is visible at the bottom of the page for the minority of readers who wish to view it). Opinions? —David Levy 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bold first line is pretty standard for cleanup templates, even the "low-importance" ones (see WP:TC). Some of them only bold the salient word(s), however: we could try bolding "trivia" only. The template is most obtrusive when used at the top of the article... but a couple of editors are adamant about using it that way.--Father Goose 05:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be great if we could stop messing around with the template now. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even greater if we could make it perfect! Woot.--Father Goose 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we decide on a wording for this template already? It seems as if every time I see this tag on an article, it says something different. That is sort of disconcerting in itself, but the main problem is that sometimes it changes wording so it has be placed in a different place. Some wordings imply that it should on top of an article, while some imply that it could into a section as well.

At this point, I could care less if the tag just says "This article contains trivia. Purple monkey dishwasher." as long as it stays that way. So, bottom line - decide on a wording and if necessary, protect this template from further changes so it's stable. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, it makes it simpler because it is true that no one looks at the date and it fixes the current weird wording. --Kyle^(K1000)_(talk) 04:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I generally ignore tags with recent dates (thinking "someone who knows the topic will likely deal with it"), but when I see old tags I'll attempt to integrate the info. Perhaps a small simple ^MM-YYYY would work, as the date placed on the tag obviously implies that this is the date the tag was placed. I find tags with hidden info annoying, and it should remembered that on Wikipedia, all readers are potential editors. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about -

or some variation? I think avoiding the word "Trivia" altogether will prevent the template as reading "this information is trivial", and will prevent redundancy when placed in a Trivia section. Also, a gentle message saying why the information should be integrated (other than just "This is a Trivia section") will help people understand and hopefully be less offended, so that Android Mouse Bot 3 can get back to work. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually seen some trivia sections in the form of akwardly written paragraphs. I'm not sure describing it as a list would fit all circumstances. How about calling calling it "loosely related information" (wording from WP:TRIVIA)? --Android Mouse 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K, what about this?

~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date would have to be displayed as "month year" (e.g. January 2025) unless we were to include special (and ever-expanding) conditional code to convert the combined month and year to numerical format. Other than that, I like your proposed version. —David Levy 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that proposed wording. However, based on prior statements, a few other editors might find it to be insufficiently 'anti-trivia'. I can only hope this won't be the start of another edit war. I'd leave it at the "proposed" stage for the next week, just in case.--Father Goose 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just in case that one is too accepting, I made a new one, but posted it here so as to not distract from this conversation. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!  :-) —David Levy 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording with "This is a trivia section" makes some articles not work and does not sound very good. I have come across a few articles where the trivia template was placed at the top of the article. With the previous wording of "This article contains a trivia section" it works to have the trivia template with the trivia section or at the top. Since the change, many articles that used the template at the top now look rather stupid. I cannot name any articles because any that I come across I have already changed. I say that we should change the wording back to what it has been for a long time. Oh, and just out of curiosity, why was it changed in the first place? I can't seem to find any discussion on the talk page that talks about changing it to what it is now(I didn't look for too long).--Kyle^(K1000)_(talk) 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Template talk:Trivia2 - "The trivia template was supposed to be made conditional and to use different wording if the parameter 'place=top' was used with it. Apparently no one got around to doing this though. I went ahead and now made those changes, and I think the original template now serves the purpose this one is supposed to. See here for the previous discussion about the conditional logic. --Android Mouse 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

So if you do see any that are placed at the top, add "place=top" and it should solve the problem. But I whole-heartedly agree that wording "This is a trivia section" is somewhat-silly when used in a trivia section. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clearing up the reasoning for the conditional stuff. The wording still sounds weird though. The talk section above this one seems to have a good idea. --Kyle^(K1000)_(talk) 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "This section contains a list of trivia items", which is an idea I pitched a while back. Don't know if that wording will meet with favor, but it's better than saying "This is a trivia section" right under a ==Trivia== heading.--Father Goose 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd earlier changed it to "This section is composed of trivia", but it was quickly reverted. [2] Perhaps this one will fare better. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template was colliding with infoboxes? Yes, but e.g. 1999 (song) looks rather ugly now... GregorB 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As proposed above (date format fixed)

As nobody has commented in five days, I wish to make it very clear that this wording is being proposed here. This addresses the points -

• the word "trivia" is redundant in a Trivia section
• the previous wording was sometimes too harsh, as trivia sections are not completely unhelpful, just unencyclopedic in format
• the previous template was too bulky, and the bolding was "pretentious"

Are there any suggestions on how this can be improved further? Does anyone wholly object to this format? If not, is it safe to proceed? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is an improvement. The assumption that as a section tag this is only used in a section with the name 'Trivia' is incorrect. There is too much text in the box and the font is way too small. Vegaswikian 06:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no assumption that this is only used in sections with the name "Trivia." The point is that it often is (resulting in silly redundancy), and there never is a need to display that particular word (even if the section title is something entirely different). It makes more sense to explain the actual issue (which would avoid misleading people to believe that they should only be on the lookout for sections titled "Trivia").

As for the font size, it seems perfectly readable to me (and I have a 15" display with a resolution of 1400x1050). —David Levy 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with Vegaswikian: if the text is all in "fine print", why have a banner at all? And although I like the wording suggested by JohnnyMrNinja, it would be better at half the length.

It's understood that this template is used in trivia and non-trivia sections, so the wording has to be applicable to both. Using the word "trivia" itself is thus wrong for both types of sections.

So, a counter-suggestion:

I understand the desire to capture all the nuances of WP:ATS, but if you want a small template, KISS.--Father Goose 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. —David Levy 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you integrate the revelant items, what is left is inappropriate, so you could make this clearer with

Once you determine what is appropriate, everything else is not. Vegaswikian 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that I definitely disagree with: integrateability is not the right metric for "relevance" or "appropriateness". I've been trying to address that problem for a while now with the relevance proposal (which is unfortunately the target of an edit war at this moment).--Father Goose 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is relevant, it can be integrated and belongs in the article. Once all of the relevant material is included then what is left is lacks relevance (inappropriate?) and can be removed. Vegaswikian 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true in theory, but different editors have different ideas of what's "relevant" and what's not. (It isn't unusual for someone to find a good way to integrate an item that other users believed couldn't be integrated well. Rather than attempting to cram it into the existing prose, this might entail expanding the article in a manner that substantially improves it.) It makes much more sense to advise readers to remove material that's "inappropriate" (and refer them to the page that explains what types of content qualify). —David Levy 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this wording. But the small text worries me, it is ugly. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first line more in this one, but the removing of remaining items is not good because of what David Levy said. Why not combine the best of each with:

This implies that some of the content would be better if you could create context while also saying to remove the stuff that Wikipedia considers inappropriate.--Kyle_(talk) 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd further simplify that to "The information in this section lacks context".--Father Goose 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the small text can be made less ugly by taking out the "small" tag since it's superscripted already. Thus:--Father Goose 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's a lot of action after 5 days of silence! Ok, another reason for my initial wording was addressing the questions

1. What is a Trivia section?
2. What's wrong with a trivia section?
3. What do you do with a trivia section?

So how about -

That's only a couple words more but it explains what a Trivia section is without using the word "trivia", which to some means the info is being called "trivial". Or the deluxe super-compact model -

Or the limited edition ultra-compact (not available in Guam) -

Ok, the last one was a joke, but how about the other ones? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(re: lot of action) Well, there's nothing like a single objection to overcome complacency.

I dunno, there's something about "loosely related" that really doesn't work for me. It's just kind of awkward, I think. Would you be okay with an approximation of the same idea?--Father Goose 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we are going more complex again. I think that we want to keep the message here simple and link to pages that explain it more. Also, if we are going to say that it is loosely related(i am not happy with disorganized, though loosely related is not much better) I would have to insist on having the word "some". Just saying that "The facts in this section are loosely-related and lack context" is not good because a fact could lack context, but could be well related to the article. Saying "some" would eliminate this problem by saying that it could either lack context or be unrelated. Once the "loosely related" wording is fixed and "some" is added I would be very happy.--Kyle_(talk) 23:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the list itself that robs the entries of additional context they could have as prose. So "some" is not necessary. "Disorganized", "loosely-related", etc., while true, are also unnecessary. Just give one decent "why" and leave the nuances to WP:TRIVIA.--Father Goose 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, I was just saying that the some would be necessary if people were set on disorganized or loosely related. I like Father Goose's one without the small tag. It follows the KISS principle and solves most of the other problems. --Kyle_(talk) 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will put this one:

on the template page tomorrow unless there are objections. I won't change the "place=top" wording, which is a use not favored by most editors anyway.--Father Goose 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the "place=top" option should be removed. Most editors seem to agree that the template should be inserted into the pertinent section, and I can't think of a valid reason to deviate from this setup. —David Levy 19:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree, but unless we change the 500 or so articles where it is at the top, eliminating the "top" wording will make the template doubly-obtrusive in those articles. I'll add a note that place=top is deprecated, but not eliminate it.--Father Goose 19:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that very few of those articles actually call the parameter (which was added to the template only sixteen days ago), so most of them already have the incorrect wording. I've requested that a bot remove/relocate the misplaced transclusions. —David Levy 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter was added to the "offending" templates by Android Mouse Bot weeks ago (see #Bot request for articles with template at top), but the parameter code was only added recently. I wouldn't mind having all templates moved in-section, although when/if Matthew and ILike2BeAnonymous return their attention to this page, they will probably raise hell about it.--Father Goose 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.  :-)

There is clear consensus for transcluding this template in the pertinent sections, and I would hope that the editors in question would respect that. —David Levy 20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is a good majority, do it.--Kyle_(talk) 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what about "marginally"? That looks a lot less silly than "loosely" -

I know I was the one who first used "context", but I'm thinking it isn't the most descriptive problem with Trivia sections, especially in sections like "Cultural references". Although this is a really weak context, it's still a context, the subject in culture. However, any of these versions is preferable to the current one. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "context" seems to work OK. This editor is content with the version above that User:Father Goose suggested to go on the templatepage. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lacking context" emphasizes "this is a list where prose would be better". Marginally-related could be interpreted as "marginally related to the topic", which may or may not be true. A truly well-written "cultural references" section will have an intro paragraph and/or a narrowly-focused and selective list, so if the context is sufficient there, it should be de-{{trivia}}'d anyway.

Anywho, presto change-o. I won't toss place=top until those templates are fixed.--Father Goose 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Looks at it in-place on a few articles* Yeah, the description of "trivia lists" is kind of indirect, but it's short and good enough. It's used on such a variety of lists that I don't want to make it more specific.--Father Goose 15:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've studied it in-place in several articles, I find I want to change it to this:

--Father Goose 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not really, prefer the original. Newbyguesses - Talk 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this one. It makes much more sense than the current lack context one as the context one is confusing for newer editors, and even me, a long standing admin :p. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What convinced me the "context" one was wrong was this: AGM-88 HARM#Trivia. There are several articles where what's in the Trivia section should simply be under a different heading, and dumping it into a trivia section is simply a case of bad organization. A full-blown trivia list is just a lot more bad organization.

In retrospect, the "lacks context" wording... lacks context. We arrived at it by a logic that's not obvious to those outside our conversation, and I accept my portion of the blame for previously advocating it. I'm going to switch the template to "poorly organized", and if you hate that, revert it, and we'll keep looking for something better.--Father Goose 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of tossing "place=top", perhaps it can be changed to be used for an article that is entirely trivia, such as List of cliffhanger endings, or Apollo 11 in popular culture. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone believes that an article contains no substantial content other than disorganized trivia, he/she should propose that it be merged into another article or deleted. —David Levy 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the bane of such articles is the same with trivia sections, some info is genuinely useful, and some rubbish. A clean-cut "merge or delete" wouldn't be exactly right, and this template is the best way to say "merge some, delete the rest". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might also suggest that the info be reformulated into a cohesive article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very wary of applying a template like this to articles as a whole. Pure "trivia" articles should be integrated into the parent article, and "pop culture" articles can be valid list articles (Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc), although even the well-maintained ones tend to get deleted. The fate of such articles on Wikipedia is still undecided; WP:TRIVIA's scope is trivia sections only.--Father Goose 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This would generate confusion. —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have some cleanup templates for this purpose. —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When performing article mergers, the removal of inappropriate/extraneous content is standard procedure. —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, would someone archive this page. (Not me, I'm all thumbbs.) Newbyguesses - Talk 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Father Goose 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is to all you weasels out there, and I think you know who you are, who have brought this template to such a fine state of ambiguity, of saying-nothingness, of mediocrity, of vacillation, of an extreme case of hiding whatever light it has under a hundred bushels. I offer this award to celebrate the puissant pusillanimity of this crowning achievement.

I see that all the closet trivia-keepers among you have finally suceeded in so throughly de-clawing and castrating this thing that it really does say nothing, so there's not a chance in hell that any Trivia section so tagged stands a chance of being broken up into little pieces or removed. Trivia section, you say: what trivia section? for even that horrible word has been expunged from this template. It's all about "context", don't you see, whatever the hell that means. (Meaning that most readers, encountering this, will quite reasonably give a puzzled shrug and just move on.)

Jolly good job, that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I changed my mind on that and would prefer "poorly organized". But let's be honest: the tags probably don't accomplish much anyway. People either add trivia or they don't. They either do the cleanup work or they don't. I doubt the wording of the trivia tag changes either behavior much.--Father Goose 07:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in its present state you're practically guaranteeing that it will be ignored, so as I said before, good job. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First ponder Wikipedia:Ignore all cleanup templates. OMG! The template says to clean it up! I better do what it says!

No matter how harsh the scolding, it's still going to be ignored. No need to further clutter the article with polemic.--Father Goose 18:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I'm going to nominate this for deletion, and wage an all-out battle to get it removed. If what you say is so, then why have any template at all? I'm serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILike2BeAnonymous (talk • contribs) 18:50, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in waiting until the conclusion of this debate to come to the talk page and attack people. It has been around 20 days since the this revision was started, and you have been on Wikipedia every one of those days. I also find it safe to assume from previous discussion that you had this template watched, and if not, then there is nobody to blame but yourself. I agree that wording got weird, but if you just want to piss everyone off because you missed a discussion, you can fight that one alone. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like the most recent edit by ILike2BeAnonymous because it is really easy to understand. I know it is better than poorly organized which really did not make sense to me (saying that makes it sound like you should re organize the trivia list so that the facts are in a different order). I do not entirely like the etiquette here with waiting to the end of the discussion to comment and then just changing it without really explaining the reasoning behind the change. But, in the end that doesn't entirely matter. As I said, I like it and I can see how poorly organized is bad. Lacks context makes sense to me but I can see how others might not understand. I also can see why some don't understand why the word trivia was removed. I personally did not feel that it made all that much of a difference because when I first came to the discussion the wording was something like "This is a trivia section", and anything was an improvement from that. Removing the word trivia was in hindsight a bad idea because so what if a few people think that trivia means trivial. I personally don't understand that (no offense to whoever said that first). Is there ever a chance that people could agree on the wording? This template receives way too many changes.--Kyle_(talk) 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to a version containing a variant of the first line from ILike2BeAnonymous' version and the second line from the previous version (which does a much better job of explaining that we should remove inappropriate items and attempt to salvage the useful ones). I hope that this is an acceptable compromise. —David Levy 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with "the following is a trivia section" (and similar statements) is that this usually is rendered painfully obvious by the fact that the title of said section is "Trivia." This isn't always so, but I'd like to settle on wording that's logical in all cases (irrespective of the section's title). Any suggestions? —David Levy 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "this trivia section..." okay? It clearly states that it's a trivia section without appearing to imply that our readers are too dense to recognize this fact. —David Levy 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'd like to say that your (David Levy's) last revision, shown here, is just fine, and I would support keeping it. Unfortunately, as sure as the sun will rise again tomorrow, it won't last. At which point I will file a TfD. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For conversational ease, I took the liberty of replacing the template code with a direct link to the revision. (I hope that you don't mind.)

I urge you to please assist in the collaboration instead of nominating a template for deletion because you disapprove of its exact wording. You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. —David Levy 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC

I agree that David Levy's edit immediately after mine is good, I just didn't like stating "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines." because it presents a sort of Why is this on this article? type of thought in my head. The current one makes the template more personal to the article. I think that "This trivia section..." sounds fine, it would be nice to leave it that way for a while.--Kyle_(talk) 02:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could help eliminate the need for this magnet of controversy. Those of you who either despise or love trivia to the point that it drives you to make emotional talk page posts might consider supporting the proposed WikiTrivia project. It would mean trivia gone from Wikipedia for those who have trivia nightmares -- not to mention even more of an excuse to remove trivia, since there would be a dedicated place to move it to. Trivia lovers would likewise benefit, since they'll have a place to unabashedly browse through all the nonsense they love so much -- an occasional guilty pleasure for some, myself included.

• See meta:WikiTrivia for the proposal.
• To discuss/support the WikiTrivia project, go to meta:Talk:WikiTrivia.

Help make the world a better place! WikiTrivia needs your support and involvement!

That is all.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

02:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just set this page up to auto archive after 28 days. Vegaswikian 07:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is boring and juvenile. If you wish to be taken seriously, please participate in a WP:Civil discussion. Otherwise you are just being WP:Disruptive and WP:Pointy. I greatly dislike Trivia sections in articles, but if editors insist on making this template confrontational and pretentious then other editors will delete it from articles, so it won't be useful. This is also the reason that the Trivia bot got shut down. If anyone gets genuinely angry at Trivia sections, perhaps their problems run a little deeper than phrasing. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a production template and not test template. Consensus needs to be developed before making significant changes. Are we at the point were the template needs to be protected? Vegaswikian 00:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we seem to be working collaboratively in search of an acceptable compromise (not revert-warring back and forth), so I see no need for full protection. —David Levy 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve edits in less than 24 hours is a bit excessive, folks. Please reach agreement here before implementing changes. Pairadox 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]