Template talk:Trivia/Archive 1

message: See prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles#Creation of template and companion category.  GRBerry 12:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Considering the guidelines of WP:AVTRIV say that trivia sections should be avoided altogether and how the template is worded to this effect, would it be better to rename the template to just Template:Trivia and the category it links to as Category:Articles with trivia sections? I can imagine the renaming of both the template and the category would be a big task, considering the templates use within Wikipedia, but one that needs to be done. --tgheretford (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the Wikipedia pages on trivia, and it doesn't say anywhere trivia is banned. It's discouraged... but certainly not banned. Small trivia sections (even though they aren't usually needed), are still just fine. There is no need to rename it now. If or when trivia is completely banned from Wikipedia, then a rename can happen. RobJ1981 04:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the impression I get from the wording of the template. "Unencyclopedic" suggests its not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia and should be removed, regardless of size. --tgheretford (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of category and template 

message: It seems that the wording of the template has stabilized somewhat, so the next step to this process is getting the template name to match it's function and wording. To do that, I propose that this be moved  (which is just a redirect to here anyway). If people here agree, it can be taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves. CovenantD 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because the text should follow the function of the damned thing. If we're changing it from "toomuchtrivia" to just plain "trivia" because we want to discourage the existence of trivia sections in the first place—that is the purpose of the whole deal, right?—then we ought to say so. It's not hard to understand, and I think most reasonable folks would agree after a few seconds thought. I'm not married to the exact wording I suggested, but something equally clear, not just a suggestion for "cleanup", whatever that nebulous term means. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL  I just realized I was operating under the assumption that the wording would reflect that anyway, and it was just a matter of fine-tuning it. CovenantD 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess that would be me :)  CovenantD 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks to Admin/User:Woohookitty. CovenantD 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the template move at least. The category I'll work on tomorrow. CovenantD 08:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: *Support CovenantD 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, because the text should follow the function of the damned thing. If we're changing it from "toomuchtrivia" to just plain "trivia" because we want to discourage the existence of trivia sections in the first place—that is the purpose of the whole deal, right?—then we ought to say so. It's not hard to understand, and I think most reasonable folks would agree after a few seconds thought. I'm not married to the exact wording I suggested, but something equally clear, not just a suggestion for "cleanup", whatever that nebulous term means. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL  I just realized I was operating under the assumption that the wording would reflect that anyway, and it was just a matter of fine-tuning it. CovenantD 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess that would be me :)  CovenantD 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks to Admin/User:Woohookitty. CovenantD 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the template move at least. The category I'll work on tomorrow. CovenantD 08:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: I fail to even see what is wrong with trivia sections. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Small trivia sections are fine, because editors who do not know where to put some miscellaneous facts can put them in the trivia section. However, long trivia sections are messy, and often have no form of organisation or order, so it gets difficult to read. Having all the information in the main article body allows the article to be read more smoothly. See WP:TRIVIA#Rationale for more information. Thaurisil 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion Thaurisil, trivia sections of all kinds are unencyclopedic. Marcus Taylor 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion.  But not in the opinion of our WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINE, WP:TRIVIA, which, as I keep saying, does not mandate removal of trivia sections.  Tempshill 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't use allcaps this is not a forum, thanks. Hey Temp, could you please do me a favor and point out one FA or GA with a trivia section for me? I can't find any. What does that tell you? Marcus Taylor 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that you are using faulty logic, as well as unhelpful sarcasm. FA and GA articles have had a lot of loving attention paid to them, and usually reflect many hundreds of person-hours of input and factfinding. In addition, they have been through the FA/GA assessment process, during which someone will have made the usual "trivia is not encyclopaedic" comment. Tempshill is right in saying that the guideline isn't a decree, and that a certain amount of common sense can and should be used when interpreting it. As the MoS says itself, "the Manual of Style does not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied with thought, not robotically." I personaly agree that long trivia sections are a worse option than proper discursive text. However, they are better than losing the information completely! Also, fly-by editors will always add random facts to articles and I prefer that they do it in a relatively safe environment such as a trivia section, rather than as often happens when the main text is butchered for a relatively minor reason. The current tag seems to indicate that incorporation or deletion are equally valid options for the contents of a long trivia section, which is not true. Hence, the fairly indiscriminate use that is currently being made of it us seriously unhelpful. I think the tag would be much better reworded, to encourage rather than direct. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a cabal run by a few top dogs. Pyrope 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why putting history into trivia is better then putting history into history?  In going through some of these articles, this represents a lot of the "trivia".  So clearly this information is not trivial but history that someone did not wish to include in the section that already contained similar information. Vegaswikian 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of template 

message: We should suggest that relevant content may also be moved to related articles in this template. What do you think? For example, trivia about a musical group could be moved to the page about one of their members, albums or songs.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition to this template's wording 

message: I've created a new proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Relevance.  This grew out of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles, but it is every bit as, er, relevant to the discussions that have been taking place here.  See Wikipedia talk:Relevance for further rationale for its creation, and please offer comments there.--Father Goose 05:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Relevance 

message: :It has been established this article contains TRIVIA!
The article should be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text or excising inappropriate items. Failure to comply will result in a severe ass-kicking.
(You may also move content to the talk page)
Following on from the "You may also move content to the talk page", perhaps we should have a bot move sections to the talk page after being tagged for the month. Matthew 18:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, talk about an intrusive and attention-seeking tag. Obviously this tag's mother did not hold it enough as a child. ;-) As regards the bot, moving trivia to talk pages is no longer recommended per a consensus reached here in late May. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template was a lame attempt at fun, heh. I'm serious about the bot->talk thing, though. I'll re-start the issue soon. Matthew 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot->talk message in the template would not be OK.  Tempshill 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The "severe ass-kicking" gave it away. After all, everyone knows that here on Wikipedia we only do regular ass-kickings. :) As for the bot->talk thing, I disagree with moving trivia to talk pages in general. Also, given how many people opposed having a bot tag articles, I doubt you'll get support for a bot to actually edit/remove content. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, I was working the BLPN board and have noticed trivia sections being used to post material that may raise BLP problems. Trivial sections seem to be along the lines of an indiscriminate collection of information (although the information may be relevant and it is at the section level, not the article level). I thought of deleting the trivia section (didn't know about the consensus) and realized that the information probably was fine, it's just that the formatting could be improved. Deleting it or moving it to the talk page didn't seem appropriate. I thought of creating a template to request that the information be worked into the article, searched, and found this page. Thanks for keeping up this end of Wikipeida. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving template/sections 

message: I thought it was edit-protected because of a dispute, but Vegaswikian says there was consensus (therefore no longer a dispute?).  Perhaps the page-protection should be removed?  --Coppertwig 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to second unprotecting it.  Although I'm happy with the current wording (happier than with the wording it had during its initial phase of protection), I think indefinite protection applied to a page in dispute (unless it's an all-out war) silences discussion.  A few days of "cool down" is better, and we've had a month.--Father Goose 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though it was originally protected because of a dispute, I think there are at least two reasons to consider keeping it protected. First, Betacommandbot added the thousands of trivia tags in late May and more than a few editors are probably still unhappy about that. Second, I think the issue is controversial enough and the template prolific enough to justify indefinite protection as a high-risk template. As of now, the template has nearly 8000 transclusions. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism should be demonstrated rather than presumed.  If vandalism does occur, then protection can be reapplied.  If edit-warring resumes, another cool-off period can be applied.  The template's mass application by bot given its controversial status was ill-considered, but I don't see why that error should lead us to embrace additional missteps.--Father Goose 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this template edit-protected? 

message: How about having two options in the template.  It could be designed so you
can say  and it will say e.g.
"This article contains a trivia section. ...", or you can put
 and it will say e.g. "This section has been identified as trivia.". 
So it could be used either at the top of an article or the top of the
trivia section.  --Coppertwig 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for the coding you've described. (Wording can easily be adapted to match the consensus version currently in place.) --Ckatzchatspy 21:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see you'd already done that.  Another idea:  three versions -- one for the top of an article;  one for trivia sections already labelled as such in their section headings;  and one for sections deemed to be trivia sections by the person putting in the template but which are not called trivia sections in their heading.  (Four.  Four versions ...) --Coppertwig 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should matter whether a section is titled "Trivia". The phrase "has been identified as trivia" applies to all sections. Also, what are the advantages to the wording of "This article contains a trivia section"? If an article contains such a section, why not just place the tag there? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that there has been much support for a consensus to use this template at the top of an article.  If anything, I think the consensus is to not do this. It was not needed and hurts the article based on a trivial cleanup that is needed.  Vegaswikian 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with keeping it in the relevant section. The primary reason I wrote the code was to allow for revised, non-"This article contains..." wording in sections without causing a mess in articles where the template has already been placed at the top of the page. --Ckatzchatspy 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template with options 

message: For top-of-article placement:
This article contains a list of trivia items.
Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article. Inappropriate items should be removed.
I don't think we can use language such as "section identified as trivia" because it's not clear which section the template is referring to unless it actually has "Trivia" in its name.  For that reason, the template shouldn't be put at the top of the article when it contains anything other than a literal Trivia section.
For in-section placement:
This section contains a list of trivia items.
Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article. Inappropriate items should be removed.
--Father Goose 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like the second line (borrowed from version 1, above) met with no objections.  Can I ask for some feedback on the changed first line?  I think it better accommodates trivia sections which are not named "Trivia", and avoids the redundancy of saying "this section is a trivia section".--Father Goose 18:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that redundancy is avoided by the use of "This section has been identified as trivia". As regards the version above, most trivia sections do not just contain lists of trivia items, but actually are lists of trivia items. Another problem is that removing the bullet points from a trivia section does not make it any less of a trivia section, so the use of the word "list" can be misleading. I won't comment on the first as I oppose top-of-article placement. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it appears right below a Trivia heading, "This section has been identified as trivia" deserves a "duh."  It works fine for Popular Culture sections.  Even when a trivia section is a pure list (which is usually the case), I still prefer the word "contains" because the section itself is a container, not a list, even when it contains nothing but a list.  Secondly, "list of trivia items" better reflects WP:TRIVIA, which doesn't say "trivia is bad" nearly as much as it says "trivia lists are bad" (which is why integration is advised).--Father Goose 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It also gives us the option of using "This article or section contains a list of trivia items" (much like Template:Original research) until we can resolve the top-vs.-section issue.--Father Goose 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that unintegrated trivia does not necessarily come in the form of a list. A paragraph of the type "Trivia 1. Trivia 2. Trivia 3.", where the three items are unrelated to one another, is still trivia, but it's not a list. That is, deleting the bullet points from a trivia section and lumping the sentences together, without actually performing any integration of content, does not make it any less of a trivia section. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I've only seen that done in response to a WP:TRIVIA complaint, which is the type of edit that should be reverted anyway.  A list doesn't have to be bulleted to still be a list, and the integration advice still applies.--Father Goose 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 2 

message: I'll skip the poll approach, but I would like to ask that all interested editors offer their viewpoints on this issue.  Should the template only appear within trivia (and similar) sections, or is it also appropriate at the top of the page?--Father Goose 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like grasping at straws to me: it's hard to imagine an article with a large-enough trivia section (no matter what it's actually titled) that any decent editor would have a hard time finding. Remember, if the trivia section isn't large, the article probably shouldn't be tagged in the first place. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "if it isn't large..." A nice idea in principle, but unfortunately in practise there are certain editors who frequently slap the template at the top of the page just because there *is* a trivia section, not because it is large. --Ckatzchatspy 03:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In those cases, it's probably best just to remove the template althogether, perhaps explaining on the article's discussion page that the template should really only be used on articles with a significantly large (and therefore problematic) trivia section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "it's hard to imagine an article with a large-enough trivia section that any decent editor would have a hard time finding": So, again, why is the template needed at the top?  It's the trivia section that offends, not the article.  If you find trivia sections ugly, making the article doubly-ugly with an article-scope template seems like a scorched-earth policy.  Shouldn't your focus be on cleaning the article, not admonishing it?--Father Goose 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any is too much, hehe :). Matthew 09:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The argument I presented is as valid as the one I was responding to, certainly not grasping at straws. If the trivia section is large, it's hard to believe that any decent editor would not see the section. The fact is that the category is the method of identifying articles with trivia sections, the template is the method of identifying the section. Putting the trivia template in the section says "here's the problem!". If people see it as untidy then it will be more motivation to fix it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments seem to assume that all, or most, editors "patrol" trivia by searching the category. All I can say is that I don't do this, and I can only believe that I'm probably not the only one. I've never even looked at any of the categories of articles w/trivia sections; I just edit what I want to edit, dealing with trivia sections when I encounter them. So it would be nice to recognize that there are different editing styles at work here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that different people have different editing styles, but that does not mean that the existing systems should be altered to accommodate everyone and every style. I wasn't suggesting that all editors patrol :Category:Articles with trivia sections, I was merely saying how this is the best way to find the problematic articles. As the trivia template placed in the section has the effect of identifying the section immediately. It would be a move backwards to relocate the tag (or place a template for untagged articles) to the top of the article when there is already a system in place that makes an article with a trivia section easily visible. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm happy to recognize differences in editing styles.  How does having the template at the top change your editing style from having it in the section?--Father Goose 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project people who are most likely to be doing the cleanup are those who are most likely to use the category.  Having the template in the section will let them focus more quickly on the problem areas.  I used the plural since the tag could be in several sections.  On the other hand, placing it on the top of the article would make it easier for the ocassional editors who might fix these problems to notice that there is a problem in the article.  Since those who are dedicated to fixing the problems, don't need the top template, then why have it?  The negative viewabality impact seems to far outweigh any benefit.  Vegaswikian 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments on template placement