Template talk:Trivia/Archive 2

message: I understand that it is only an estimated 60 articles that have the Trivia template at the top; however, in those 60, the language "This section..." at the top is an absolute mess.  I would like to address that problem before we implement any changes that mention section only.  I would like to make a request to Android Mouse (or any other bot-maker) to create a bot to do the fix, but I want to make sure the fix that's implemented will not be opposed.  Bots should not be used to make controversial edits.  
Would any editors oppose a bot request to change those 60 to a parameterized form so that we can proceed with wording fixes?  If you oppose on the grounds that the template should be moved to the applicable section, I ask that you volunteer to do that work yourself -- and accept that it may meet with opposition.--Father Goose 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet—and I ask this out of ignorance—would it be possible for a bot to give us a count of articles that have this template at the top? Surely a computer can do that, right? If so, it would be pretty dang useful. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 60 is just an arbitrary piece of BS an editor made up to push their POV. I've seen many more than 60, and I pretty much always tag the top myself. Matthew 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there you have it: a compelling reason to get a real count, not something someone pulled out of their ass. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys mind watching your tone? We all know your particular point of view, but there is no need for abusive dialogue. It really doesn't accomplish anything. --Ckatzchatspy 01:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather get an answer to my question than be chided for not being nicey-nice. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sugar might work better than vinegar, though.  At any rate, I agree that the exact number is unknown, and prior to changing articles, a bot would have to identify them -- so a precise count ought to be obtainable as a preparatory step.  However, it's still a safe bet that section-not-top is the majority, if only due to Android Mouse Bot 3's tagging sections only.--Father Goose 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm the editor who counted the thousand articles to get an idea of how many are using the template at the top, and while I do have the opinion that the template should go in the section, I find it insulting and very uncivil that my integrity is brought into question. All I wanted to do was get an idea of an number and bring it here to the discussion. The fact is I only found 9 articles in 1000 using the tag at the top, and I made it clear that only expanding on that sample would get the number around 60. I fully support the use of the bot to ascertain an accurate number, I also support people's right to have their own POVs. There is absolutely no need to to get uncivil about this. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm struggling to believe you counted the articles to be honest -- didn't you also claim you moved the tags for these nine articles? Matthew 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF! Vegaswikian 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're pointing out the "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" part, yes? Good. Matthew 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And hey, I can assume good faith on the part of people who pull stuff out of their ass. Does that help? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, what would be your estimate as to how many articles have the template at the top?--Father Goose 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You can believe whatever you want to. I'm trying to be civil here and you can go ahead and count the articles if you want to. I know I counted and that's all that really matters to me. If somebody wants to have the bot count then that's fine with me ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If no one else has taken on the task yet, I could write a bot to get an article count and later, if needed, write a bot to add the top paramater. May take a few days though, since I need to get a newer database dump. --Android Mouse 00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be fine.  I made the request directly to you due to your familiarity with the template and general bot-writing expertise.  I just checked Whatlinkshere; there's only 8 instances of  in the (Main) namespace and I added the parameter to the two instances that appeared at the top, so you'll only need to check for .  I guess we can define "at the top" as any instance that comes before the first ==.--Father Goose 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'll get to work on it and post the article count here when done. --Android Mouse 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha! So much for whoever said there were "about 60" articles w/the tag at the top. Remind me not to hire you for my next statistical project. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was uncalled for. "60" is accurate if the sample drew heavily on May 2007 (the month when the bot added the tags). I did a personal count two days ago for a sample of 90 articles tagged in May 2007 and July 2007 and came up with a figure of "about 1200" overall, and with only 2% of articles in May were tagged at the top. In any case, it is apparent that article-top tagging is used relatively rarely (6% of cases). So, I believe we should try to agree on a wording that conforms with in-section placement. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyhow, does anyone oppose "phase two" -- applying the parameter to the articles in the above list?--Father Goose 02:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ILike2BeAnonymous, Why do you let your POV make you be uncivil to me? All I did was count 1000 articles and report back here what I found? I made it clear that using the sample to get 60 was how I got that number. Your attitude is totally uncalled for and rude. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you were wrong; what can I say? Please quit whining; it's unseemly. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May we request the curtailing of all unseemly behavior?--Father Goose 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting you put emphasis there, as if you were to look at my original post I put emphasis on the "if" when expanding on the sample I made. The fact is I was right when I counted only 9 in 1000 because that's what happened, and I made it clear that the value was derived from that. Your behavior is increasingly childish and insulting and I suggest you stop. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Many thanks, Android Mouse.--Father Goose 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. --Android Mouse 19:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot request for articles with template at top 

message: Based on feedback that the initial draft got, I've done a full rewrite of Wikipedia:Relevance.  I hope to make it an "official" guideline in the near future, and have this template link to it (instead of WP:NOT).  If you have objections to the proposed guideline -- or any other comments to offer -- please state them at Wikipedia talk:Relevance.--Father Goose 18:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Relevance guideline 

message: I'm under the impression that neither of these words are going to remain once the template is parameterized (discussion of the wording was stalled by that issue for the past few weeks).  A wording using "should", above, seemed to meet with consensus.  Is there much point to arguing over "could" vs. "can" if neither word is likely to make it into future versions?--Father Goose 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd strongly endorse "should", with "can" as a runner-up in lieu; "could" just sounds so ... weasel-ish. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections guideline states: "in certain cases a narrowly-focused list may be appropriate". Since a bot has placed the template on thousands of pages it seems unlikely that the algorithm that did it was be smart enough to avoid trivia lists that are actually OK. Hence the need for the more "weasel-ish" word: "could." —WikiLen 18:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no; you've just made an excellent argument against a bot placing the template on thousands of pages. Rumor has it that human beings still have some utility in this world. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Should" is inappropriate - it is more suited to a policy, not a guideline. "Could" reflects the fact that the decision is up to individual editors. --Ckatzchatspy 20:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could vs. can 

message: I have created  for use in trivia sections that are not called "Trivia", after I saw someone delete a  for that reason. Hopefully  makes this clear. Please take a look and comment on the talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'd earlier changed it to "This section is composed of trivia", but it was quickly reverted.  Perhaps this one will fare better. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with current wording- (This is a trivia section) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do we really need more guidelines?? — Omegatron 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Relevance proposal 

message: The template was colliding with infoboxes? Yes, but e.g. 1999 (song) looks rather ugly now... GregorB 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margin clear 

message: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It might also suggest that the info be reformulated into a cohesive article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree.  This would generate confusion.  —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We already have some cleanup templates for this purpose.  —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When performing article mergers, the removal of inappropriate/extraneous content is standard procedure.  —David Levy 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, would someone archive this page. (Not me, I'm all thumbbs.) Newbyguesses - Talk 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Father Goose 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  place=top 

message: I just set this page up to auto archive after 28 days. Vegaswikian 07:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto archive 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have no problems, the current version looks/works fine. —Newbyguesses - Talk 00:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with the current wording, this constant changing is getting old. Aaron Bowen 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My two cents 

message: The user Pixelface (talk • contribs) nominated this template for speedy deletion. This template might be unpopular but it's not "divisive and inflammatory". Equazcion (Talk • Contribs) 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Since the speedy deletion template has been removed, I will be nominating this Template at WP:TFD. --Pixelface 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion 

message: Template: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If a word has negative connotations, it should not be a template because the word is not neutral.  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)
replies: text: Goodness. Adding a  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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Trivia}}]] 

message: This collection of miscellaneous information could be improved by integrating items into other relevant sections, lists, or articles, and removing inappropriate items.
--Father Goose 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Variation 137c 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Purpose of this debate? 

message: The last well-accepted attempt was the current  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  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. Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:59, 09/16/2007
:I like it, but then again, I'm essentially its co-author. ;-) --Father Goose 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A step back