Template talk:Trivia/Archive 3

message: I'm all for simplifying the template, but we can't simplify it down to "integrate or delete these items", since that offers the choice of "Oh, fine, then, I'll delete them".  I've restored the phrasing of "integrate relevant and delete inappropriate" but I agree we can do away with "into other sections".--Father Goose 05:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above, and was about to make similar changes for similar reasons. Thanks to Richard for the effort, but unfortunately the simpler text changes the message too much. --Ckatzchatspy 09:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some trivia sections can't be integrated, how else do you want it to be worded? "Hide this trivia information in the article, by all means do not delete it"? SpigotMap 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That speeks more to the guideline than the template.  I'd love to get a bead on what exactly we are supposed to do with trivia items, but since there is no policy regarding triia we've got to do the best we can.  Padillah 01:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If they can't be integrated but are relevant enough that they shouldn't be deleted, then leave it be.  The article may be expanded later in such a way as to create appropriate integration point(s) for the remaining trivia items.--Father Goose 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent simplifications 

message: It has been made clear to me from some of the comments I have read that dealing with the trivia pandemic would be made much easier if the tagged articles could be sorted into smaller groups. For example, I was just reading a section on the talk page of the Wikiproject Trivia Cleanup about "challenging the present role of this project." Some very good points are raised, and this I think it would be a good idea to discuss (and impliment?) some changes to how CAT:TRIVIA is structured. I don't want to create unnecessary work, and I realize there are other discussions looking at ways to deal with the 8000ish articles that are currently tagged. But looking towards the future, if trivia is going to exist on Wikipedia for a long time (indefinitely?), then I think we need a better way to sort through tagged trivia.
One suggestion that jumps out at me, as proposed by Freak104 is this: Is there some way to search by category the articles with trivia sections? If there was some way to automatically categorize tagged trivia sections based on what topic they deal with (music/baseball/tvshow/movie/comic/place etc) then it would be much easier for people to fix articles in their area of personal knowledge. Additionally, it would likely lead to smaller sections in CAT:TRIVIA that are more easily dealt with.
Problems with this: Clearly the biggest problem is that using a bot to add a genrestamp on trivia tags in articles would likely be difficult, because bots generally can't figure out context easily (maybe they could if the article has a stubtag/category tag, I don't know). Since I am not a programmer (only a programming background) I cannot say for certain, but it would certainly be a challenge to undertake this task. The other option, if the bot would not work for this, would be to have the already tagged articles retagged with an added genrestamp. This is a lot of work, but I think that this would help the overall aim of the project; people who know alot about movies would likely do a better job editing those articles than myself, who comparitively watches few movies.
Thoughts on this, or any other changes to CAT:TRIVIA that would be worthwhile?--Nick Penguin 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Organisational Changes 

message: Shouldn't this template also state that, while trivia sections are discouraged, it also encourages the same information to be presented in an organised way? As stated on WP:TRIVIA.  14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the guideline actually states that the information should be placed into the rest of the article in an organised way.--Kyle(talk) 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But shouldn't that be encouraged, in stead of discouraging people to write about it at all?  09:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I read the template, it does. It clearly states "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones." and that sections involving trivia are discouraged. To me this means that you should avoid placing information into trivia sections, but you still can if needed(hence "discouraged" and not "forbidden"). The second line explains how to place the information into the rest of the article. The template seems to go along with the guideline considerably well. Believe me, the current wording was chosen after a lot of discussion so that it went with the guideline closely.(see the archived talk pages).--Kyle(talk) 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now. Thank you.  15:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong? 

message: I highly recommend everyone read this summary before discussing trivia in wikipedia.  Ozmaweezer 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the trivia debate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: So does this go on "in popular culture" sections or not?

message: 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)
replies: text: Substituting  should generate the code that corresponds to , not that which corresponds to . So when you substitute , the substitution shouldn't pass through and cause  to be substituted. Hope I'm making sense. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Subst 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "and removing inappropriate ones" 

message: Small date please, by replacing:

With:

To conform with other templates. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good, thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small date 

message: The template is fully protected, but the protected-template icon in the upper right is coloured gray, and would be somewhat confusing for others to think that it was semi-protected, which the template is not. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection icon colour 

message: And how could I find or know it? -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, what's the name of the template, please. 

message: NOTE: Please do not add discussion here. This is meant as a link to a discussion on another talk page. Comment on the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" articles#In popular culture template.
The Trivia template is used on the "In popular culture" sections of many articles. Since the trivia template calls for all information in the section to be relocated to other sections or deleted, it does not really address the problem of a "In popular culture" section which is too exhaustive, but should still exist in a condensed form. I believe a variation on the Trivia template should exist for such "in popular culture" sections with the text somewhere along the lines of:
:This "In popular culture" section may contain trivial information. Please remove non-notable entries.
On a related note, I propose that a hidden comment like "" becomes standardly added to the beginning of in popular culture sections.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" articles#In popular culture template|Trivia template variation for "In popular culture" sections]] 

message: Is there a section and/or inline version of this template? 65.93.13.60 (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a section template.  In-line trivia should be removed, not labelled, surely? Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section/Inline