Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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

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 think the ultimate solution is to redirect this template to Template:Integrate, like Pixelface previously suggested. --Nick Penguin 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we are really moving backwards here. One of the major complaints with the trivia template is that is an eyesore. The last two suggestions are absolutely huge and have other problems such as the fact that the word "list" was previously removed since some trivia sections were paragraphs. Also, if you think that the ultimate solution is to redirect to integrate, stand by that and just argue for that. Don't even waste your time with trying to fix something that you think is broken beyond repair. I personally prefer this template because it explains why something should be integrated, the integrate template doesn't really explain why, it just says to do it. (I know that i am a hypocrite because I did try to fix the integrate template even though I do not think it is necessary.) --Kyle_(talk) 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in that I'm not sure what these revisions are hoping to accomplish. What exactly is the problem that needs fixing? I for one don't think the present template can be improved all that much. If you want some less harshly-worded, use {{integrate}}. If you want something not obtrusive at all, use {{trivia talk}}. If you want to not have to use a template, start fixing the article yourself. But the present {{trivia}} is fine the way it is, for what it's meant for. At least if you ask me.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:05, September 11, 2007

I see your point. In that case, then I guess it is time to turn to Category:Articles_with_trivia_sections, start fixing some of the amazing backlog of articles, and hope this template dies a quick death. --Nick Penguin 03:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try a new attempt at the template:

That should deal with the "list" complaint brought up earlier. Also it doesn't call the information trivial, only its presentation, which is the real problem. And to defend the date line, all other cleanup tags have date lines on them. That does not mean the editor can remove the section after so long, it just gives an indication of how long the problem has been marked. Sections tagged for a long time will like encourage an editor to do the work if integrating the information instead of further passing. --Farix (Talk) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what the date means, it matter what people will think it means; an unfortunate reality of template wording. I would leave the date out. It's an invitation for more conflict.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:20, September 11, 2007

It also doesn't solve anything to say "presents ... as trivia". You might as well just say "this section contains a trivia list." I'm not too fond of the wording in this attempt.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:24, September 11, 2007

But that is exactly what the problem is. There is no point in trying to dance around trying to avoid calling a list of trivia a "list of trivia". --Farix (Talk) 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • but it can be avoided; given the subjectivity of the word and concept trivia:

I think the date is appropriate; all cleanup templates do this; it helps the cleanup process. I think the links to disputed guidelines in the template altogether misleading. DGG (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict... to Farix: Right, so why dance around it? The current template says that trivia sections are discouraged. Your template dances around it more than the current one.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

03:34, September 11, 2007

Honestly, this seems completely arbitrary, I don't see why people are proposing things, I know that Equazicon and I are basically confused, anyone else? And could someone please explain what they are fixing?--Kyle_(talk) 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current trivia template is: a) too harshly worded; and b) too much of an eyesore. How about replacing {{trivia}} with {{integrate}}:

Template:Integrate DeusExMachina 04:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As they currently are, {{trivia}} is more horizontally compact than {{integrate}}, which makes it less likely to interfere with the placement of images or other templates. For comparison:

05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neitherday (talk • contribs)

The wording is apparently a concern too though, so a) the current box can be reworded to something more similar to the "integrate" template, and b) we can work on trying to shorten the form "integrate" template, possibly using formatting. Also, there really isn't that big a difference. The percentage of instances where one would interfere and the other wouldn't has got to be pretty small; and besides, if it does "interfere", that just means things won't look perfect, and there's also additional page formatting that can be done to get it to look decent. Images can be shifted around and so forth. I don't really think interference with other page elements should be too much of a concern. I think a one-line box is a good goal for us to have, as it really does look a lot slimmer and less obtrusive.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

12:24, September 11, 2007

How about simply:

or some variation thereof? DeusExMachina 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just making the "integrate" text small; and we want to also address the concerns Kyle raised at template talk:integrate. So here's how that should look:

Might be a little too small for some people.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

19:47, September 11, 2007

Yeah, that is too small, no one would pay any attention. By the way, what was the point of creating {{integrate}} if you are just going to change trivia to match it? Also, most of the concerns brought up have already been mentioned in most of the sections here. I have to stress that we keep the word trivia in the template since that is where the template will be used and it is just beating around the bush to remove it. I'm open for suggestions, but it has to include the word trivia, explain on some level why the text should be integrated and not to use the term "main text" since new users would not have any idea what that is.--Kyle_(talk) 23:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with changing the wording, but keeping it a similar size is paramount. The current trivia template is an eyesore in terms of size. DeusExMachina 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessarily trivia, and that word does seem to cause some trouble. What we're really referring to are miscellaneous lists, not trivial information, so maybe we could say that instead. I created the integrate template as a compromise, to address that very concern, but it's still a separate template and there are already thousands of article that use this one. It would be good if we could get all of those to say something more accurate and less prone to misunderstanding.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:41, September 11, 2007

I see what you mean about the word trivia, I would agree to miscellaneous information, but not miscellaneous lists since not all of the sections tagged are lists. I also agree that the template is a bit of an eyesore, but all of the clean up templates are an eyesore and even the tiniest ones look bad so short of removing clean up templates all together, i see no real solution.--Kyle_(talk) 00:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? It makes clear the issue is with trivia sections, not the contents:

Neitherday 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to eliminate the word "trivia" though, see above. I see what you're trying to do though and it's an interesting idea. It's a little too convoluted though, and I think "miscellaneous information" describes the problem accurately and much more concisely.

To Kyle: List doesn't necessarily mean bullets, but I can see how that might get misunderstood. No one's saying we'll come up with an end-all solution, but it pays to address concerns raised in the argument and try to improve this as best we can.

So how can we get the word "miscellaneous" in there instead of "trivia"? "Miscellaneous lists" would've been good, but without lists it'll be more difficult. How about "This section contains a miscellaneous collection of information"? Or something along those lines.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:27, September 12, 2007

I am basically in agreement with that, just with the word collection moved (this section contains a collection of miscellaneous information). I like this, but would like to point out that we are almost going back to a previous discussion that said "the information in this section lacks context"(and variations of that). I think that miscellaneous information is better, but I am just saying...--Kyle_(talk) 00:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the main problem with the word "trivia" is that some people felt as if the facts inside the section were being labeled as such, which is the problem I was attempting to address with my template by clarifying that the problem is there is non-trivial facts in trivia sections. Neitherday 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the wording miscellaneous collection It clearly implies that such things are not good ways of organizing things or writing articles, and that some of the material may be appropriate while some may not, without the baggage that the previous wording trivia now carries. (I wonder just who it was that though it was a good idea to call those sections trivia in the first place when they were being over-enthusiastically written.) I think this may be the basis for a generally acceptable solution. DGG (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean miscellaneous collection of information because just miscellaneous collection does not really make sense? I don't really see a difference between collection of miscellaneous information and miscellaneous collection of information in meaning, it is just that collection of miscellaneous information sounds better to me.--Kyle_(talk) 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle: I understand your concern -- You have a problem with "miscellaneous collection" because it isn't accurate in the strictest grammatical sense. Miscellaneous collection really means that this is a collection of information that could be made up of items related to a focused topic, but that the collection itself is one of many different collections in a larger miscellaneous list. I don't think we need to be that accurate, as "miscellaneous collection" will probably get the message across for most people, even those who notice the grammatical error.

DGG: I think originally these sections were referred to as trivia because that's what the sections were named -- I'd even go as far as to say I think people specifically copied trivia sections from other publications (IMDb seems to be a common target), so the "trivia" title followed logically, even though for an encyclopedia these types of sections (arguably) aren't lists of "fun facts" but simply of "miscellaneous unorganized information".

Neitherday: You're right about the intention, and you're somewhat right in a technical sense with your attempt. But being technically accurate isn't necessarily the biggest concern here. Also, what's inaccurate is calling the section "trivia" to begin with, as a) the section isn't always titled "trivia", and b) the word trivia really doesn't describe the contents of such sections, at least within an encyclopedia (other publications do refer to them that way though).

I do think that "miscellaneous collection" is so far the best option, simply because it's easier to understand -- it applies a label to the section ("miscellaneous collection"), whereas "collection of miscellaneous information" doesn't -- it only describes what's in the section. I feel like people will respond better to a direct label, and not see it so much as "dancing around the issue" like they did with the way this template was worded before ("this lacks context...etc").

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

05:29, September 12, 2007

What about using the term "hodge-podge"? It's short, simple, and most people know what it means. Furthermore, it would be difficult to take "hodge-podge" as referring to the individual items, because individual items cannot on their own constitute a hodge-podge. Neitherday 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The message could read:

Neitherday 15:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hodge-podge" seems too informal to me.--Kyle_(talk) 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Father Goose 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than add another box to the pile here, I would just like to see a different word than inappropriate. As I said in the TfD, it's too loaded of a word, in my opinion, and doesn't come across in good faith. Otherwise, I'm pretty indifferent to the many proposals here.—Twigboy 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to call attention to another template: {{prose}}. This is useful for IPC (pop culture) list sections, because it tells people to make the section itself into prose, rather than integrating into other sections. IPC lists can often make good standalone sections if they're written out well in paragraphs.

That would not be an inappropriate other template to note on the doc page. —Quasirandom 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:13, September 12, 2007

I'd further suggest we write one called perhaps notprose: "this section would be clearer if written as an outline or a table, rather than paragraphs" These styles have a role in communication also. DGG (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is {{proseline}}, though that's specific to timelines which are written as an awkward hybrid of prose and list.--Father Goose 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Jack Merridew 09:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:06, 09/14/2007

I think we have a winner. Straight to the point, easy to follow. That a just ices it. / edg ☺ ★ 16:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1. it directly contradicts the guidelines on the matter 2. if we should delete trivia sections altogether, there's no point in tagging it with a huge template first. Melsaran (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's try not to be as objectionable as possible to the opposition. Please make an attempt at being reasonable and understanding the opposing viewpoint. Besides which, as Melsaran points out, this version makes no sense, if it was indeed a serious proposal.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 16:59, 09/14/2007

at the risk of sounding impertinent...it's fine the way it is. it's concise and refers editors to the policy for further information and definition. what more could one want in a template tag? --emerson7 | Talk 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to add this one to every page.--Father Goose 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me :)

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:10, 09/14/2007

Looks good to me, too — but take it to {{Template:Information}}. --Jack Merridew 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The box doesn't say to delete trivia sections on sight, it says to delete trivia, refers them to a page that — hopefully — defines it well, and leaves them to exercise their interpretation. --Jack Merridew 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also: I just edited it so that the link is to Wikipedia:Trivia — instead of Wikipedia:Trivia sections; it's currently a redirect to the latter, but that could always change. --Jack Merridew

Right. So this would be a template to use when you see unimportant information that needs to be deleted, in which case you're suggesting we leave the useless information where it is, post this tag, and wait for someone else to remove it. And that's assuming Wikipedia:Trivia ever becomes its own guideline. Brilliant.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:03, 09/15/2007

I know we all want to make a big wikisplash by submitting the template that magically solves the trivia problem, but what's the big problem with the existing template? I know that "the word trivia makes a judgment about the facts in the section", but just be a little Consequentialist here, the goal of this template is to CLEAN UP articles, not dance around the meta-problem about wither authors will be offended by calling some facts trivial. The truth is that some facts really are trivial, especially some that I've come across while I've been fixing articles with trivia sections. Often articles will be most improved by being bold and just by deleting these sentences, but the current template is good because it suggests that we do more and try to integrate these orphaned sentences into the larger article.

It also seems to me that the contributors to this template are, in general, more concerned with the overall trivia pandemic than with the specific and minute problems generated by a poorly worded template. After some reflection, I feel that this template does a "pretty good" job (or at least a sufficient job) at identifying the general problem, especially with the friendly little broom sweeping picture (major points for that one). In conclusion, even though most people (myself included) would have a lot more fun with an endless discussion about the "correct" way to setup this template, I think the real truth is that a Pragmatic approach that gets results now is preferable to some unattainable "perfect template" that may or may not come out of this discussion. Thus I suggest that contributors focus their time less on the template and more on the massive backlog of articles with trivia sections --Nick Penguin 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last well-accepted attempt was the current {{integrate}} template. Here it is again (after some new ambox styling):

This article could be improved by integrating relevant items from the list below into other sections and removing inappropriate items.

So far the attempts at a small-text version of this, and others, have been somewhat less unpopular. So I'd like to go back to discussing this version. Keep in mind that a one-line box would go a long way to address the "eyesore" concern.

PS. This box uses {{ambox}} CSS styles and icon, however it's not an actual ambox template. The reason for this is that the actual ambox adds unnecessary height to the box, which takes away from the "slimness" and non-obstruction that was part of the goal.

I like it, but then again, I'm essentially its co-author. ;-) --Father Goose 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the automatic width (by default). This addresses the tag's large size (which has proven unpopular) and discourages its non-consensus placement at the tops of article (because it won't stack well with other templates). In a relatively rare case in which it's to be stacked with another tag within the relevant section, adding the parameter "width=full" will switch to the standard width.
I also have reverted to the compact date format that was discussed on this page. —David Levy 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template as revised is acceptable as a compromise, and I too would rather improve articles than discuss the wording further. DGG (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a serious problem when, at last check, there were almost 9000 articles with this template on it. Regardless of what happens with the template itself, the fact remains that people need to start doing some grunt work and actually just start editing articles, not just talk pages. Fortunately, I find that often, pages with trivia lists contain duplicate sentences which are already in the main article, stuff that can be deleted outright, stuff that would make more sense in a different article, and the remainder is stuff that actually could be merged into another section. I think I am going to try and start an advice section on the talk page of CAT:TRIVIA, or some other more appropriate place. I have some tricks that can make working with trivia sections much quicker and less stressful, hopefully I can inspire some more like-minded editors to join me in my massive undertaking.

EDIT: I have created a list of ideas on how to deal with trivia section on the CAT:Trivia Talk page. Obviously my advice isn't policy, but hopefully someone else finds my advice useful and can contribute some good (and better) ideas. --Nick Penguin 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cf. {{prose}} and {{integrate}}.
• The width of this template does not seem to follow the stacking protocol of ambox templates.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:21 17 September 2007 (GMT).

Oh man, we have been talking about this template for over a year now. Stop continuously changing it. Making it tougher, nicer, smaller, more noticeable, I have seen it all the past 1,5 year. This is all a pointless exercise in not stepping on anybodies toes, but it's not about stepping on anybodies toes. It's about "Discouraging lists of trivia information". We can't satisfy everyone and we should not be trying to, because with all the fandom boys this template usually attracts we never will satisfy everyone. Describe what the problem is, and inform people where they can find how to fix it. Stop fracking about with the wording and the layout dimensions etc of this template. Some people will just have to go to citizendium or wikia if they don't like how we do it at Wikipedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]