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]

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]

Let me take a crack at this:

It seems that the basic dispute is about whether to call the information as trivia. Instead, I suggest that the template remarks that the information is presented as if it were trivia. This is also echoed by WP:TRIVIA and is probably a far more natural approach. --Farix (Talk) 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the basic dispute at all. That's just Pixelface's reasoning (the TfD nominator), and most of the responders commented on different issues. Also, see the history of this template, as what you're suggesting has been tried and reverted quite a few times. And, the date stamp is not necessary, because according to the guideline, although trivia should be integrated into other sections, there is no time limit for doing so. Showing a date stamp implies exactly what we're trying to prevent -- the deletion of trivia items just because they've been there for a while.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with everything Equazcion just said. I would also like to mention that the use of the word "list" has been talked about previously and it was mentioned that sometimes Trivia sections are written as paragraphs, that is why the current template says trivia sections. It applies no matter what form the trivia is in. --Kyle_(talk) 03:28, 6 September 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]

Also, for pure trivia articles there may be items that are relevant to one article and other items relevant to other articles. Some of the items on the Apollo 11 in popular culture page belong on the Apollo 11 page and some belong on the movie or book page they refer to. Just saying "integrate this into the main article" would cause certain items to be lost. Padillah 20:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and WP:TRIVIA says as much, but unless we want the template text to be as long as the guideline, we have to offer the gist of it and leave editors to read the full guideline for the specifics.--Father Goose 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from trivia sections? For example, Stardust (novel) says 'One of the characters in Stardust is a large tree with red leaves that talks. The character was based on singer/songwriter (and friend of Gaiman) Tori Amos. She references this in the song "Horses" on her 1996 album Boys For Pele. She sings "And if there is a way to find you I will find you/but will you find me if Neil makes me a tree?"' This could relate to the novel, the singer, the album, the song, etc. All this argument does is point out a flaw in placing the template in any trivia list, be it a section or an entire article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:17, 29 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]

Yes, regardless of whether the changes are collaborative in nature, it'd be better to workshop it here. Here's the current one:

Can we <small> the second line, first and foremost?--Father Goose 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say go ahead if you think it's an improvement. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like

Vegaswikian 05:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using <sup> instead will make the template a little more compact.

~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Second suggestion: "This trivia section" -> "Trivia sections". The 'this' seems to imply some trivia sections aren't discouraged. (Separately, I prefer small to sup; it looks less cramped.)--Father Goose 06:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! [groan]; now we're fully back into the equivocating process that made such mush out of this in the first place. You have to give readers credit for some intelligence, after all, and assume that the meaning is clear—that it is this trivia section that's being pointed out, and that trivia sections in general are discouraged. (The alternative is just too absurd, as most readers will work out for themselves.) Your wording leaves us with a disembodied entity that will cause more confusion. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the equivocating process to the warring process, which creates a messier mess. Angry mastodon and all that. Separately, you give them even less credit if you think "Trivia sections are discouraged" is somehow disembodied when the template appears in a trivia section. The "this" is utterly unnecessary.--Father Goose 18:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<--- out dent. How about a different approach?

Vegaswikian 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*How bout this:

08:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that the first sentence needs to be more specific. 'Discouraged under guidelines' does not imply that any work is required. I also think that the second sentence needs to be stronger about editors taking the problem and fixing it. Vegaswikian 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with:

--Father Goose 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to do "Trivia sections are discouraged" and not "This trivia section is discouraged", because the trivia tag has been spammed across thousands of articles and the word "this" implies that an editor has specifically cited that particular trivia section in that particular article as being discouraged. It has not. It has probably been auto-tagged. So, we need to equivocate if we are going to be honest. There are some articles that will always have trivia sections that are perfectly acceptable (despite the discouragement) and, especially in the autotagging cases, it can be a lie to say that "this" trivia section is discouraged. Tempshill 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reach something resembling consensus on the talk page before changing the template. Pairadox 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tempshill makes a compelling argument. Many (most?) of these tags were inserted automatically, so it is misleading to use the phrase "this trivia section." That hadn't occurred to me. —David Levy 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine this argument makes sense, even though this is just an unfortunate problem. Adding "this" makes the template more personal and without it I still get a "Why is this on this article" type thought in my head. I am willing to give up arguing for "this" because of Tempshill's argument and the fact that I am tired of the rediculously long argument here. The current one is good enough.--Kyle_(talk) 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who sometimes removes trivia sections:

"Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items."

This has a stronger message than the others I've seen. It really lets people know that there should not be trivia section. Best one so far.

Examples: "This is a trivia section", "This article contains a trivia section."(and similar ones), "This article lacks context" - these dont let people (especially IP holders and newcomers) what so wrong about trivia secion. Yes, theres a link to the guideline, but still doesnt have a strong message.

Cheers. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, the current wording about sections being discouraged is good in my opinion. (as would be "sections containing trivia are discouraged..." if people think it's referring to the section name) ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the current one. Not everything in a trivia section is trivia (otherwise there'd be no recommendation to integrate) so I prefer it to "sections containing trivia...".--Father Goose 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems, the current version looks/works fine. —Newbyguesses - Talk 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the new template makes no point whatsoever. It only conveys the message, to me anyways, of "This section is discouraged, but it's okay here, It's only a guideline anyways". SpigotMap 05:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a guideline. And the guideline says "avoid" not "delete". If you are hoping for stronger stuff, get the guideline changed.--Father Goose 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the current wording, this constant changing is getting old. Aaron Bowen 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the changes bother you, but that's really no reason for it to stop. Discussions and their resulting changes will continue as long is there is consensus to do so. And agreed on FG's point. This template refers to the trivia guideline, which does not say that trivia sections must be banned or deleted -- only avoided.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current one is a strong as the current policy could possibly support. Details do not belong in the template. It's just a notice.DGG (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user Pixelface (talk • contribs) nominated this template for speedy deletion. This template might be unpopular but it's not "divisive and inflammatory".

20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is nothing inflammatory about it, and the only divisiveness is about the wording, not the existence of the template. I think it's also important to note that Pixelface has absolutely no posts to this talk page to date. Pairadox 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the speedy deletion template has been removed, I will be nominating this Template at WP:TFD. --Pixelface 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you added a speedy deletion tag to this? What criteria could it possibly satisfy?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That won't accomplish anything. No one will listen to you if you nominate things for deletion without voicing your concerns here first. Why not tell us what you think is wrong with this template's existence first?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously this crap is getting so boring. What is it about the topic of Trivia that makes so many editors make so many poor decisions? All WP:Points and no talk makes Jack a dull boy. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates that are not neutral may be proposed for deletion at WP:TFD. The common definition of "trivia" is "unimportant information." "Unimportant" is in no way neutral -- it is a personal opinion of "importance" and is a completely subjective concept. A template named after a non-neutral word cannot be neutral. There are no policies on "importance." Notability is distinct from "importance." The template is being used in a non-neutral way; it is being placed under headings that are not named ==Trivia==. --Pixelface 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you'd have to have pretty thin skin to take offence at this template. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the definition here. The definition of "talk" means to speak audible words using one's mouth, but here it means an electronic page where people type out their thoughts; so some words are defined differently here. You're arguing over semantics, nothing more. It's like you're saying, "Why call it trivia? You callin' me stupid?" which is a ridiculous argument, if it can even be called an argument. It's just being overly sensitive and easily offended. I don't like the trivia template either, but your reasons are just not at all valid.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If a word has negative connotations, it should not be a template because the word is not neutral. {{crappy}} can mean "unencyclopedic", but it can also mean "shitty." There is no valid reason for having a template that can be used to insult a contributor by calling his/her edits "unimportant." And there is no policy whatsoever on whether information in an article should be "important" or not. The terms "worthless crap", "irrelevant crap", and "garbage" have been mentioned in the TFD log. If a template is being used to push the opinion of an editor that certain information in an article is "crap" or "garbage", that template is not helping Wikipedia and it may discourage new contributors. The guideline on notability has nothing to do with "importance." And the guideline on notability is not meant to limit the content of articles. We already have policies on original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. If an edit is found to be against those policies, it can be removed; the "triviality" or "importance" of the information should not be an issue. --Pixelface 19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. Adding a {{trivia}} template to a "Trivia" section might cause offence because the word "Trivia" might make people think you are insulting them? If that's the case, then why are they adding to a "Trivia" section? That argument makes no sense. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A trivia heading (==Trivia==) is inviting to new contributors. It's relatively easy for a new user to add a fact to the section. They may be unaware of the negative connotations that the word "trivia" has. However, the {{trivia}} template stigmatizes those sections. It's a warning that basically means "your contributions are not welcome here" -- and that is upsetting to many editors. Some users actively express their contempt for trivia on talk pages. Wikipedia does not ban trivia. There is no trivia policy. This template enables editors to actively attack and marginalize other users' edits and label them as "trivia." Which then leads to arguments like: That can't be in the article, that's just trivia! No it's not! Yes it is! And on and on. A statement does not have to be important to remain in an article, so arguments over it's importance aka "triviality" are not applicable. Unsourced statements are already covered by the policy on verifiability. --Pixelface 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all that were a valid argument (and I'm not saying it is), then don't you think it would've been a better idea to request that the template's name be changed, instead of asking that it be deleted altogether?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there is a concern about the connotation of trivia in the infobox, maybe something like

Seems to be very neutral in tone. However this would argue for only using this in a section and not at the top of an article since it is so neutral. Vegaswikian 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must object. The initial objection contradicted itself, I believe that there is a good chance that only a very few editors would find this offensive, and almost always for the wrong reasons. Please keep it as it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the template contradicts itself. To say that "trivia" should be integrated implies that the information is important. "Important trivia" is an oxymoron. --Pixelface 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should still link to WP:TRIVIA, and I thought the current first line (which you've removed here) did that just fine, and neutrally.--Father Goose 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point was to reduce the footprint of the box, since people at the TfD are complaining about the eyesore (I count myself among them). I think a one-line box is a good idea, as it would seem less intrusive, and perhaps we can still incorporate some of the language and links from the former first line.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is better. I don't like the "discouraged" language, as I believe it could encourages deletion over integration. How about

I also suggested in the TfD that this template might be better renamed to Template:Integrate and used in the article's talk page (after appropriate rewording, perhaps using parser functions to determine whether it is in the talk page or the article page) rather than in the article itself. DHowell 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe?--Father Goose 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like DHowell's better. I know you're trying to avoid the stigma of the word "trivia", but your version doesn't really say much, and I'm not the only one who's gonna notice that. New editors aren't even going to understand why the section was tagged. We should probably stick with what we can reasonably get out of most of the people here in terms of a consensus.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia guidelines" implies that Wikipedia actually has a trivia guideline (it doesn't) and additionally implies that it has more than one such guideline. I'm not keen on "suggest" either. In terms of consensus, I'd be surprised if we could improve much on the current template.--Father Goose 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have a trivia guideline? I'm sure you have some very technical reason for saying that, but as far as the average user is concerned, WP:TRIVIA qualifies as the trivia guideline (at least for now ;)). I understand wanting to get rid of "suggest", but then you'll need to explain some difference between "this" section and "the main text"; if you don't call it a trivia section, people (new people especially) are going to be bewildered by the notion that "this" section isn't already the "main text". If you follow.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA doesn't give any guidance on trivia, just on "trivia sections". We really don't have a trivia guideline, except to the extent that we recommend not arranging trivia in a list. Separately, I have doubts about your claims that "new users are going to be bewildered". I haven't seen any single-line template suggested here yet that is an improvement on the current one.--Father Goose 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see the distinction between trivia sections and the main text as something completely obvious, because you're a writer/editor. The average casual reader doesn't know that there are all these rules about what's "encyclopedic" and what's not. And "Trivia sections" are precisely what this template is for -- we don't need to be completely, semantically, technically accurate in our wording. The TfD nominator may have used that argument, but not too many people are actually buying it.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems what is missing in this entire conversation is that there is a difference between trivia and gossip.Trivia in and of itself is not necessarily inappropriate. Trivia is, after all, general information that is factual, but of little importance. A trivia section is not license to add rumor or unverified facts - a trivia section, if allowed, should be used for those little factoids that are interesting, but not necessary to create a well-rounded article.--Chrisa 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since several editors voted to "Keep and rename/reword" to Integrate, I took Father Goose's latest attempt and dubbed it {{Integrate}}. It seemed perfect for this.

That is a completely new template but not a one to replace {{trivia}}.--Svetovid 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

20:26, September 10, 2007

I'll go that far though.. it should replace {{trivia}}. Much better and reads better to casual readers, too, than being faced with a stern warning. DeusExMachina 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come up with a new wording for the template. I considered the different definitions of trivia (tri: three; via: way or road; trivium: where three roads meet; trivialis: appropriate to the street corner, commonplace, vulgar; trivia: junction of three ways; trivia: basic or unimportant knowledge; trivia: bits of information), I kept in mind that some users *hate* trivia and some users *love* trivia, and I have noted that the {{trivia}} template is not always placed under a ==Trivia== heading (thanks to Android Mouse Bot 3)...

I think this is a reasonable compromise ;) --Pixelface 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are trying to do, but in the end I do not believe that your idea says anything. It contradicts itself on every line and is not actually a clean up template. All it says is that you should either not read the section or read it if you want to, which people do anyway.--Kyle_(talk) 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Kyle's right, this completely voids the purpose of this template. The trivia template is a tag that's meant to get editors to change the article somehow, but you're just issuing a notice to readers. It doesn't accomplish anything as far as fixing the article and isn't at all necessary as far as readers are concerned. Readers will always read what they want to read and ignore what they want to ignore; they don't need guidance in that department. In fact it would be insulting to them.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:27, September 11, 2007

I agree with the previous two comments. I thought that one of the important points raised in the discussion was that trivia sections are discouraged. If this is supposed to be a maintenance tag, then it should indicate that the section needs maintenance, not that the reader may or may not want to read it. I feel something like this would be a more appropriate, although it is clear from my wording that I ultimate solution is to redirect this template to the Template:Integrate, like Pixelface previously suggested. --Nick Penguin 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]