This template was nominated for deletion on September 5th, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep and discuss.

Please remember that this page is for discussion about the trivia template only. It is not a place to discuss Wikipedia's "trivia guideline". That discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Here's me finding and fixing all the places where "trivia" has been stacked with other templates... And it's been made special so that it won't stack! Lost for words. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12 25 September 2007 (GMT).

Note, one of the reasons "trivia" stacks is when an "unref" or "unrefsect" is added to a trivia section, not uncommon. Rich Farmbrough, 11:21 25 September 2007 (GMT).

Faith No More is the only article where stacking should've occurred. Chernabog (Fantasia) had its trivia tag at the top of the page, which is the wrong placement, so I moved the tag to the trivia section, where there are no other tags. In The Purple Testament, the other tag in the trivia section was {{inappropriate tone}}, which is redundant for a section tagged as trivia, so I removed it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:38, 09/25/2007

I highly recommend everyone read this summary before discussing trivia in wikipedia. Ozmaweezer 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no consensus that popular culture is trivia, and I suggest that therefore the template can not be applied to such sections.DGG (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. Such sections sometimes get long, at which point they should be put in their own article; though what happens at that point is often unfortunate, it still doesn't mean WP:TRIV or the advice to "integrate" applies to popular-culture sections.--Father Goose (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPC lists formatted as Trivia sections should have this template applied.

• Bad IPC list: Broccoli In popular culture
• Good IPC section: Broccoli In popular culture
• Quiz: can you tell which item is trivia?

Is it really that hard to tell the difference? / edg ☺ ☭ 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so, because I disagree with your claims in this regard quite often. Unlike trivia sections, pop culture sections are not necessarily discouraged, even when they're in the form of lists. The better examples of pop culture spinoff list articles are typically kept; one was even a featured list at one point. The same cannot be said for "trivia list" articles, which have no place on Wikipedia. Whatever material in them is worth keeping should be integrated into the original article, having no validity as an independent list. But pop culture lists are potentially appropriate as permanent forms of content -- sometimes needing cleanup, sometimes not.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I keep coming across this template at the top of these lists, and I don't believe that is correct. This template currently suggests integrating trivia sections into the article proper, but I fail to see how/why IPC sections should be integrated. In popular culture are discriminate and selective lists (ie, list is limited to uses of the article subject in popular culture), as opposed to trivia lists, which are indiscriminate (ie, limited to anything tangentially related to the article subject). If there is no support for tagging IPC sections with this template, then the DOC page should be updated to reflect this. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:TRIVIA says focused lists are valid, then no, this tag shouldn't go in IPC lists. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:19, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I updated the "Placement" section of the template DOC page, hopefully it's a little clearer about what should and shouldn't be tagged. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template's Documentation states that "This template should not be subst'ed", however then states "The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste trivia|date=February 2008 or use subst:Trivia-now"

Should subst:Trivia-now be used?Wjw0111 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituting {{Trivia-now}} should generate the code that corresponds to {{Trivia}}, not that which corresponds to {{subst:Trivia}}. So when you substitute {{Trivia-now}}, the substitution shouldn't pass through and cause {{Trivia}} to be substituted. Hope I'm making sense. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Still getting acquainted with how some of the markups in Wikipedia work. Makes sense to me now. Wjw0111 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that: Posting {{subst:trivia-now}} in an article is the equivalent of posting {{trivia|date=March 2008}}. Triva-now is just a "shortcut" to make the current date appear without having to type it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:04, 1 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Can we emphasize something about moving inappropriate ones to more appropriate articles? I think people are more agreeable and willing to accept content being removed from one article if it's kept in another. Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content#Interactions_between_subjects Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Connective_trivia

• For instance, there's a South Park episode in which a space station falls on Kenny and kills him, and this gets mentioned in a "popular culture" section in the article about the space station. This shouldn't be mentioned in the article about the space station, but it certainly belongs in the article about the episode. Instead of just removing it, move it to the article about that particular episode, and say as much in the edit summary.
• Mention in an article about a movie that the characters have a scene in a park; don't mention it in the article about the park (unless it's the most notable thing that has ever happened there).

In other words, most trivial mentions of A, B, and C in article D should really be moved to articles A, B. and C. — Omegatron (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically like your concept of organizing information to the correct article, but I don't think that completely changing the word removing to moving is the correct thing to do. I think what is meant by "inappropriate" is that the information would not be good on any article. If it is not good in one article it probably shouldn't be in another. Therefore the information should be removed. This is not true for all information, however. There is some stuff that could easily be moved and then integrated. I don't like your examples, though. Basically your example would imply that the template should advocate removal of in popular culture sections, which I personally like. I basically like the idea of adding something about movement to other articles, but it is hard to see how that would work without advocating the keeping of bad information or the removal of in pop culture sections.--Kyle_(talk) 02:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - This change followed from a discussion at the bottom of this thread at WT:TRIV, as well as Omegatron's comment in the section above.

The rewrite is an attempt to better represent our guidance on trivia sections: they are discouraged, but for a specific reason, namely that they contain unsorted and possibly off-topic information. The prior wording was a set of awkward compromises -- simultaneously scolding and wishy-washy ("discouraged", but "could be improved").

I'd prefer language that says what it means. The new wording is actually more forceful than the old one, but instead of presenting it as a scolding (yet toothless) prohibition, it says "we don't do this because..." and leaves out all hype.

The old wording also needlessly dragged in WP:POL and WP:NOT; other cleanup templates don't have to say "OMG, it's a rule, dig?" and WP:NOT is well-covered by both WP:TRIV and Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Recommendations for handling trivia, the two links embedded in the template.

Omegatron made the good point above that some info is worthwhile but more relevant to a different article, so I reworded the template a bit to reflect that a good fact is sometimes not just in the wrong section but in the wrong article. I also stripped out the nonstandard width parameter... the whole thing is shorter now, and hopefully that parameter is now unnecessary.

I'm hoping enough time has passed that this issue and template has become less politicized, and that we can agree upon having simple template that says what the problem is, what should be done about it, and leaves it at that.--Father Goose (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This version I think is a step in the right direction, as it tells you what the problem is more directly, rather than just link to the guideline and hope everyone reads it. The template should say why this kind of a list is a problem (ie, this is an unselective and indiscriminate list) as opposed to implying that it is "trivia"/"trivial". --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version, however, removes all note that inappropriate items should be removed outright. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's at the very least implied: "any relevant information should be relocated", the implication being "irrelevant information should be removed". 'Relevance' is a temperamental word, but probably unavoidable; we ultimately have to rely on individual judgment and the consensus process for what's worth keeping and what's not. Anything that's total crap (i.e., WP:NOT material) is rightly removed from any part of any article, and I've seen editors of all stripes removing such material without needing to be told to do so. I believe we had NOT in the template for a long time as a compromise to avoid a more open-ended "remove anything irrelevant"; I think the new wording is more direct while still not overstating the case. It places more emphasis on fixing trivia sections than on wagging a finger at them.--Father Goose (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I like the current small type ("The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones") but nobody even gets that far - I prefer the large type of Nick's version (this version) which reads "This section contains a collection of miscellaneous facts." The current large type is too strong for two reasons: 1. the term "trivia" is loaded and implies that material is not worthwhile and ought to be removed; 2. the reference to "Wikipedia guidelines" makes it sound like an appeal to authority rather than a style suggestion. The end result is that trivia fans read it as "Hey! We got rules against this worthless stuff," leading to an endless stream of misunderstandings of the guideline's intent. I suggest combining the current small type with the "miscellaneous facts" large type. Dcoetzee 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]