Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Template:Trivia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and discuss. This, of course, is a very long debate, and it took me a few minutes to read through. There is essentially consensus that the template is not divisive and inflammatory in the way that WP:CSD#T1 would define a divisive or inflammatory template. According to the nominator, the use of the template can be inflammatory. However, that is not the fault of the template itself, but of those who are using it; improper use of a template is not necessarily a reason for deletion in itself. Several of the arguments to deprecate and delete the template are based on the idea that referring to a section as "trivia" is incivil, but again, this is not the fault of the template itself.

For the purposes of this template, the WP:NOT#TRIVIA policy and the WP:TRIVIA guideline define (or attempt to define) trivia much in the same way as the guidelines on notability, which may also appear to be subjective before reading its definition within the guidelines. WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA apply only to sections that fit the definition, and that is the apparent intent for use of the template. Many of the keep arguments and some other delete arguments also cite possibly rewording the template or creating a new template to either replace or complement this one; these are editorial decisions that can be discussed on the template's talk page, the guideline's talk page, or in a request for comment, and further discussion is a good idea for resolving any ongoing disputes. --Coredesat 08:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is divisive and inflammatory. There is no policy on Wikipedia that defines trivia. And there is no consensus on Wikipedia as to what constitutes "trivia." I submit that there CAN be no consensus because "importance" is a matter of opinion. There are no Wikipedia policies on "importance." The divisiveness associated with this template is clear on the talk page of this template and also the talk page of WP:TRIVIA which it refers to. Placing this template under headings that are not explicitly labeled "Trivia" is inflammatory. This template cannot be used in a neutral way because the labeling of information as "unimportant" is inherently POV, which is against the WP:NPOV policy. If this template is meant to encourage integration of information, then I suggest a Template:Integrate be created instead.. — Pixelface 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 0
  • Comment. Where is this word 'unimportant' you speak of? And it sounds like you're not raising an objection to its use in actual "Trivia" sections, just to certain uses of it, which should be addressed by editing the template documentation, the WP:TRIVIA guideline, or by removing it from non-Trivia sections -- not by deleting the template itself.--Father Goose 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • trivia: matters or things that are very unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential; trifles; trivialities.dictionary.com. Trivia (singular: trivium) are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information. Since the dictionary definition of trivia has to do with "importance", tagging any portion of an article as a "trivia section" (unimportant) is inflammatory. If an editor claims that the phrase "trivia section" is meant to refer to information commonly seen on quiz shows, that shows that the template is divisive because the word "trivia" also refers to "unimportant" things. Divisive and inflammatory templates fall under WP:CSD#T1 in the criteria for speedy deletion. --Pixelface 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You have only cited the dictionary definition, not common usage. When I say trivia I never mean unimportant, no one I know uses trivia as though it ment unimportant. That is why everyone (including you) has to say trivial to show their point. Trivial is used as unimportant, trivia is not. Just look at the wikipedia article about the word Trivia; it states "In the late twentieth century the expression came to apply more to information of the kind useful almost exclusively for answering quiz questions". This is the common usage, also look at the answers.com page specifically the espindle word tutor. It says "Something of small importance, but possibly entertaining." which also refers to the common usage. Just because the dictionary says something does not mean that is absolute.--Kyle(talk) 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • To say that "trivial" means unimportant and "trivia" has nothing to do with importance is a stretch. The various definitions of "trivia" are why this template is detrimental to Wikipedia. If one group of users is using {{Trivia}} to label information as "unimportant" and one group of users is using {{Trivia}} to label tidbits on Jeopardy that they want incorporated into the rest of the article, there is an obvious difference in how it's being applied. The template can never be neutral because the label of "trivia" is biased. --Pixelface 01:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I couldn't disagree more with Pixelface's reasoning, but I always felt the trivia template was more bothersome than it was helpful. The trivia guideline says that trivia sections should eventually be integrated with other sections, but there's no time limit for this. Trivia isn't as concrete a maintenance problem as say, lack of references; rather, trivia sections can exist for an open-ended amount of time. In the meantime, this thing sits in the middle of the article, until who-knows-when. 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If I could make an observation, which is I have noticed that trivia sections often have unreferenced facts. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The trivia template does not give a deadline for fixing the trivia section. As with other clean-up templates, it just points out the problem. Neitherday 18:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, that's the problem. As I said, trivia isn't the same as other clean-up problems, yet the template regards them that way. 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. Leaving the trivia template warning on pages detracts from the article, making the articles appear ametuer-like and unprofessional. Sometimes there simply isn't a way to integrate trivia items into the content of an article - and removing trivia entirely would cause encyclopedia users to effectively "lose-out" on prurient and interesting facts regarding the topic. Lincoln gb 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And leaving a trivia section also detracts from the article, making it appear amateur like and unprofessional! The problem is not the template, the problem is the trivia sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Elaborating further, I can't but ask, what is the alternative? When a fact doesn't fit anywhere else (especially in regards to film articles), where does one put that fact? In the interest of consistency, I think we should delete the template - keeping it would (again, especially on films) cause content-creators to have to come up with some "other" section which would list facts that may be relevant, but cannot be incorporated elsewhere in the article (causing random, inconsistent section-headers). Instead, I would be in favor of deleting the template, but still discouraging trivia sections whenever possible. I do agree in many cases relevant facts can be integrated - a compromise would be best; just don't have any ideas what such a compromise would entail.Lincoln gb 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's another common misconception. What you mean to say is, "When I can't find a way to integrate an item into the article, it should be removed," but that's also wrong. If you can't find a way to do it, you leave it where it is and let other people try. The only valid reasons for deleting trivia items is that they are unverifiable, non-notable, obvious, or irrelevant. You're never supposed to delete items that are notable, interesting, relevant, unobvious, and verifiable, no matter how long it takes for someone to find a way to integrate them. 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are rather going against consensus on this one, I'm afraid. We often refactor pages and remove material that is not terribly important. For instance, let's say that George W. Bush wore odd socks last Thursday. I hardly think we need that in the article on the President. Not all facts are important, and not all facts should be included in Wikipedia. We are not Everything2. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you in regard to your statement about indiscriminate facts - I think trivia sections should be discouraged whenever possible. My point is, on every page that has a trivia section, the trivia template warning just looks aesthetically bad, making an otherwise good article look sloppy (at least in my opinion). The problem is, if Trivia sections are eliminated all together, some facts which may be relevant to the reader would have no place - causing the readers/users of wikipedia to lose out. I am hoping someone can think of a way to "have our cake and eat it too."Lincoln gb 15:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly: just because I can't find a way to integrate an item into the article, doesn't mean that someone else won't find a way. That is why this template is so useful: an editor can give others an opportunity to integrate content before taking any possibly controversial action themselves. And if something can't be integrated into an article, it is irrelevant to the article. If a way to integrate it is later found, the fact can always be readded. Neitherday 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Before taking any possibly controversial action," meaning removal. But we just determined that good info shouldn't be removed -- only info that doesn't belong in the article at all. This template warns of nothing. There is no possible controversial action, because what you're really referring to is a wrong action. The criteria for getting rid of information is not "We've waited long enough and no one's found a way." Information needs to be judged on its relevance and notability, and that can be done on the basis of the information itself, regardless of how it's presented. 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't recall that "we" determined that trivia is good information. Trivia sections are an indiscriminate collections of information. Information that cannot be integrated into an article generally cannot be integrated because it is not truly relevant to the article. Neitherday 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing could be further from the truth. Read the trivia guideline. Trivia sections are only a format of presenting information -- all kinds of information, not just the trivial. Information that can not be integrated could be irrelevant, but that's not determined from seeing if the integration happens. It's from judging the information on its own merits. Placement inside a trivia section does not say anything about that information. 15:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course, merely being placed in a trivia section does not mean something is trivial. And yes, each item should be judged separately. But, if no one can come up with any way to integrate an item, then that is a very good sign that the item is not truly relevant and should be removed. Again, if someone comes along later that can integrate the information, it can easily be readded. Neitherday 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong. That is simply not how you judge relevant information. There is no deadline for integration. If that's the only way you can judge the relevancy of information then you'd best leave the decision to someone else. 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Trivia sections naturally tend to grow rather than shrink. They get stuffed with irrelevant information. The burden is on those who want to keep the information to provide relevance. If no one can establish relevance, then it should not be included. This isn't for one editor to decide and that is why the template is there: to get other's involved in fixing the problem. Trivia sections are not the only place that irrelevant information is found in articles, but it is generally the only place it is actively invited. Neitherday 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The burden is on all of us, not the contributor who presented the information. Relevance is judged on the information itself. Relevance is not the result of integration. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. By the way, I just integrated one of the trivia sections you just tagged and left. See Shinzon for an example of just how easy it can be. This is the problem with the template. It creates precisely these misconception. This person has no idea what the trivia template is actually meant for. It's not a warning about eventual removal, at all -- not AT ALL. I suggest you read through WP:TRIVIA in its entirety before slapping down another tag. 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you're further proof that the template should be deleted :) 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please spare me the smiley. The template will not be deleted anyway. Please be civil and assume good faith with others. :) —AldeBaer 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I had noticed your integration the trivia section in Shinzon as the article is on my watch list. Thank you for doing so. I'm glad the template helped in getting the issue addressed. Neitherday 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It didn't -- this conversation did. I looked through your contribs, because I figured you for someone who likes to tag things rather than fix them. Then I fixed it to make a point. This template encourages your behavior -- the wrong behavior. If you see something that needs to be fixed, you see this as an opportunity to say "either fix it or it's getting deleted." That's not what this template is supposed to do, and that's not the practice described in the trivia guideline. Try fixing problems instead of telling other people to do it. If you're not willing to fix them, then you shouldn't be tagging them either. 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith. If you look at my edits, you'll note that I do a lot of fixing things. I have a deliberately slow approach to editing articles that includes using templates such as this — especially when approaching an article I haven't edited before. Neitherday 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Tagging and assuming others will do the fixing for you wouldn't be bad faith. It would just be the wrong use of the template. And your use of the template, as you've explained it here, already describes the wrong usage. 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Did I say that I assumed others would do it for me? No. However, this template allows me to give established editors a chance to make the edits. And before you accuse me again of suggesting ad-hoc deletion of information, I'm not saying my edits would be deletion of the material. What I am saying is that I've been burned enough wikidrama to tread lightly when starting to edit a new article. If the article needs a lot of clean-up, I am likely to establish the problems first before butting heads with any resident editors. Neitherday 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not what you said before: "...if no one can come up with any way to integrate an item, then that is a very good sign that the item is not truly relevant and should be removed." If you've changed your mind about that then I guess we're done here. 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I believe that you are misunderstanding him. He believes that often the removal of material is the only relevant option. He did not say this is the case all the time, nor did he say that this is his primary modus operandi. I would strongly advise you to assume good faith, because you appear to be making him say things he didn't. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Equazcion - you assert that a trivia list is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unfortunately, you are incorrect. While the policy against trivia sections is one about the style in which we present information, style policies/guidelines are rooted in the five pillars, just like anything else. The reason we discourage trivia sections and work to integrate them is because trivia sections are lists of information, and lists of information are not discriminate. There is no way someone could improperly add a factoid to a list of factoids. --Cheeser1 17:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Equazcion - You again accuse me of suggesting ad-hoc deletion anyway. I have tagged trivia sections and then ended up doing much of the integration (see Arlington, Massachusetts for just one example). I stand by my statement that if neither I nor anyone else editing the article can establish relevance or context, then the is a good chance that it is not relevant. Please start assuming good faith, I am not out to ad-hoc delete information in trivia sections nor am I a lazy editor. Neitherday 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstood what I was saying (Cheeser). I commented on the judgment of relevancy based on a fact's placement and stagnation in a trivia section as being faulty. That's all. As for Neitherday, all I just did was quote you. I did not state any interpretation of that quote. I'm sorry if your quote bothers you. If you've changed your mind about it since you said it, then that's a good thing. 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You are quoting me out of context and implying that I suggest the ad-hoc deletion of the content in trivia sections, when I have stated repeatedly and explained that I do not. I stand by what I have said. I have not changed my mind. I think my position should be clear to anyone reading through this thread. Neitherday 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if your position is all that clear. You've said that stagnation in a trivia section is evidence that an item is irrelevant and warrants its removal. Yet you seem upset by that implication. If that is your position then it constitutes faulty logic and improper use of the template. 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, I said that stagnation in a trivia section can be evidence that an item is irrelevant, but I have never said it is the only determining factor. However, having evidence that the content is likely irrelevant combined with no evidence that the content is relevant is likely to lead to a consensus to remove those items. This template is a tool to help build consensus around making necessary edits to improve an article, be those edits removal or, more often, integration. Neitherday 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I would suggest that you attempt to make such clarifications earlier on when making statement on a controversial subject, as long arguments such as this one could then be avoided. As for the merit of your argument, I maintain my original statement, that the template is more bothersome than it is helpful. See my reasoning there. 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So you don't like it because it bothers you. See WP:IDONTLIKE. It's there to encourage clean-up, like most templates. The fact that you consider templates to be as messy as the mess they're attached to is.. what's the word... trivial. --Cheeser1 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say templates. I said this template. Read my comment more carefully -- I pointed out a difference between this template and other templates. So no, it is not an issue of IDONTLIKEIT. And please tone down the sarcasm. It's not necessary. 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That wasn't sarcasm. Your personal dislike of this template is meaningless, unimportant, negligible - trivial would be the word. --Cheeser1 01:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your personal "like" of this template is equally trivial, by that logic. And yes, that was sarcasm you used in your comment. 01:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, yet again, but as I point out above, it would be best if you followed our assume good faith guideline. If Cheeser1 says that he wasn't being sarcastic, then I would suggest to you that this is indeed the case. It's almost impossible to tell sarcasm from textual intercourse (I love that phrase!). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You're excused. It's possible, because he said "...what's the word..." It's showing a verbal hesitation, for sarcastic effect. It wasn't all that ambiguous. His tone was sarcastic and his words were uncivil. We're all stating our opinions here yet he calls mine trivial? Please. Cheeser just doesn't like when I argue, because I do it a lot and I'm not on his side. And I frankly could care less.
    Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
    04:05, September 10, 2007
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equazcion (talk • contribs) 04:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there's nothing wrong with so called "trivia" if handled correctly. I've seen the tag used in some very inappropriate ways for some legitimate lists of things. A separate section cannot be started in each article for every single fact, sometimes it's best just to put them all in a well-written list so people can read them. Let's not forget what an encyclopedia is, after all. Mglovesfun 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've never seen an article with a trivia section that shouldn't have been merged into the main article or had effemera removed. Please note the articles, I'd be interested to see the articles! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 0.5
  • Keep. The wording of the template is supported established guidelines regarding trivia - it's not divisive or inflammatorory in the slightest. What constitutes trivia often tends to be a heading called "Trivia", and that's what this template is for - drawing attention to these sections and encouraging their removal and/or integration into the main text of the article. There's nothing wrong with this template at all. PC78 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Except that {{Trivia}} is being placed under headings that are NOT titled ==Trivia==. The template is being used in an inflammatory way by labeling all the information in a section as "trivia" or "unimportant." Due to various meanings of the word "trivia" (unimportant/miscellaneous facts/quiz show material), the name of the template and usage of the template is inherently divisive. --Pixelface 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If the template is being misused by some editors, then the problem is with them, not the template. Perhaps it needs a more clear definition of what the template is to be used for, but that's no reason to delete a highly valuable maintenance tool. And I simply don't agree with your belief that it's inherantly divisive. Trivia generally means unimportant or (in the context of Wikipedia) unencyclopedic; there is no significantly different meaning that I'm aware of. Such content needs to be identified for cleanup, and that's what this template is for. PC78 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The template is being misused because the name of the template is Trivia. What constitutes "trivia" is a matter of opinion. I have already mentioned the common dictionary definition of "trivia" as "unimportant information." Wikipedia has no policies on "importance." Importance is completely subjective. Labeling information as "unimporant" is inflammatory. The issue of importance is divisive. And the issue of whether or not trivia refers to "unimportant information" or just general knowledge is also divisive. --Pixelface 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • We do have both a policy and a guideline regarding trivia though, a fact which seems to elude you. Challenge these if you must, but I won't keep repeating myself; I don't agree with your reasoning, and neither it seems do the majority of people here. PC78 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm familiar with WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA and the disputes behind them. They may eventually be kept as a policy and guideline, but that does not change the fact that labeling information as "unimportant" is inflammatory. --Pixelface 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
              • They are policy and guideline. Nothing is inflammatory about the template. It quite clearly says "Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines", i.e. it refers specifically to trivia sections per guidelines, and it doesn't label anything as "unimportant". Do you even know what you're arguing against here? PC78 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                • The 1st criteria for speedy deletion of templates is "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." Template:Trivia is divisive and inflammatory because the concept of "trivia" is inherently divisive and the common definition of "trivia" as "unimportant information" is inflammatory. "Trivia" can be used to show contempt for something, but it can also be used to refer to general knowledge. Which meaning "trivia" refers to is a divisive issue. The *wording* of the template is also contentious, as seen on Template_talk:Trivia. And the disputes behind WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA can be seen on their respective talk pages. They are both relatively recent additions to Wikipedia. Their place as policy and guideline is both disputed. --Pixelface 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Pixelface, I've been around the traps here for quite some time. I am well aware of the {{trivia}} template, and you are the first I've seen to think that it's inflammatory, or that it's a Wikipedia offence to say that information is unimportant ("trivia") in an article. I strongly disagree with your assertions, and though I can only assume good faith, would ask you to please refrain from adding a speedy tag to templates in future! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Kindly get off your soapbox and stop trying to make a POINT - you've already stated your opinion repeatedly. It's not "divisive and inflammatory" just because you say so, and you were promptly sent packing when you tried to speedy this template. The guideline is over a year old - how old does it have to be in your eyes? - and disputed or not (as many things are on Wikipedia) it's still there, so deal with it. I have nothing more to say on the matter, and it's patently obvious that you don't either, so I shall end it here. PC78 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not perfect, but extremely necessary. SteveSims 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Equazcion. The template is unnecessary. If something is unencyclopedic and uncalled for, just use your own judgement and be bold. --Asteriontalk 21:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • So if an editor does not have time to integrate the material they can simply delete rather then leave this template?Vegaswikian 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That's not what he's saying at all. If content is unencyclopedic it needs to be deleted. If it can be integrated then it should be integrated. 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is necessary. Too many articles are littered by trivia sections. The logic "use your own judgement" is equally applied to all warning templates like {{unreferenced}}, etc. Mukadderat 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but compromise. Believe a rewording might be in order, such as The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and discussing the remaining items. I think inappropriate does not assume good faith, but it's not a reason to delete. Also, {{trivia small}} should be included in this TfD, and I wouldn't be opposed to the small version becoming the primary version.—Twigboy 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In the template, 'inappropriate' links to WP:NOT, so I take it to mean any trivia items in violation of NOT (how-to info, statistics, crystalballery, etc.) should be deleted, and this is reasonable advice.--Father Goose 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems more like a mistake to me. The editor probably meant to point the link specifically to WP:NOT#TRIVIA, and I doubt anyone seeing this template would take it to mean what you're suggesting. This is a trivia template, not an appropriateness template. 01:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that will work since the wording has been highly debated for a long time and a basic consensus was only reached recently.--Kyle(talk) 23:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Twigboy, you have fallen into the trap that the template has set, which is that your proposal pre-supposes that any fact in a trivia item needs to be "discussed". This is not true. There are tens of thousands of useful and valid facts in Wikipedia articles that happen to currently be sitting in a section marked "trivia". Tempshill 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me put it another way: first step is to integrate facts into the article. Those that do not find a place in the article could be discussed (or boldly removed). I do not believe that every trivia item needs to be discussed, however.—Twigboy 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the template is being misused to incite conflict, that does not mean there's anything wrong with the template. One could use almost any template to incite conflict. The wording is consistent with trivia policy, which clearly establishes that trivia is not important. That's the definition of trivia (see also: trivial). The template, if anything, is there to avoid problems, by giving editors a chance to integrate the content into the article before the trivia section is outright deleted. Trivia policy doesn't give a deadline, but neither does WP:RS regarding {fact} or {cn} or {unsourced} templates. The fact that there is no absolute deadline does not mean we need to bring it to the attention of readers and editors of Wikipedia. There is no need to rename the template "integrate" - it already encourages integration, and having that template there discourages people from deleting the content until it has been sufficiently integrated into the article. --Cheeser1 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The NAME of the template is TRIVIA. If "trivia" means "unimportant information", the name of the template is inflammatory. The importance of the information is irrelevant -- Wikipedia has no policies on "importance." The inflammatory name of the template is the cause of the problem. It is used to label information important to one or more editors as "unimportant." The definition of "trivia" is also divisive. "Trivia" can mean "unimportant information", it can mean information commonly found in Trivial Pursuit, it can refer to the knowledge of Ken Jennings, etc. If the purpose of the template is actually not to show contempt but to encourage integration, I suggest this template be deleted and a new template created from scratch called Template:Integrate. --Pixelface 22:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Pixelface, the whole idea you are pursuing here seems to be that there is no such thing as unimportant facts. This just plain isn't so. And you can't say that there is no guideline or policy on Wikipedia to do with "importance", because there clearly is - see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "Unimportant" is not a pejorative or inflammatory word, in a vacuum. If the term is abused, it's abused. One could abuse the term "non-NPOV" or "original research." Please do not SHOUT AT ME (that's what caps mean) because I don't agree with your perspective. If you'd like to provide polite emphasis, try italics: The name of the template is trivia. If you think the term "trivia" is such a problem, your issue is not with the template, it is with the policies and guidelines that use the term already. --Cheeser1 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Those who have followed my edits around this topic may be surprised at this. There is definitely a need for a good, strong clear "Trivia" template, such as this one has been at various points in its checkered career. However, this is such a bone of contention, and has subsequently been so badly defanged, declawed, emasculated, watered down, neutralized and made nicey-nice tht it is practically totally ineffective, and probably more the object of mirth, puzzlement or scorn on the parts of whoever happens to see it in articles here, that it's time to put it out of its misery. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The original point of this template was to say "WTF! There is too much trivia! Get rid of it or integrate it!" hence the original name {{toomuchtrivia}}. That was really my only intent for the template. I don't see why they completely changed why it exists. MessedRocker (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think a template would be better suited to situations where trivia lists have gotten out-of-control. We don't need to call attention to every trivia section. 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know, I'm one to believe that one policy or guideline on Wikipedia should apply to everything, either all trivia should be integrated, destroyed or kept; or no trivia should be removed. --tgheretford (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This template accomplishes two purposes: 1) Editors can work from the cat or template links to find pages that need trivia integrated, and 2) While it is present, it encourages users to work new facts into the body of the article instead of just adding them to the list of trivia. Very useful maintenance tag. -- But|seriously|folks  21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I recommend the template be renamed Integrate because the term Trivia is inflammatory if ones goes by the common definition of "unimportant information." --Pixelface 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep I agree with Bsf's points for keeping the tag. Trivia sections pop up quite frequently, and for the sake of article quality I think that this tag is necessary.
      That said, I would support the creation of an Integrate template as a replacement. I think that such a tag would be quite able to provide the benefits of the current Trivia tag while avoiding the controversy over the term trivia. However, there is currently no generally accepted Integrate template, and until it exists I just can't support doing away with such an important template.Ricree101 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template discourages random collections of facts and promotes their inclusion in the prose of articles. The template could always be revised or updated, but deletion is not necessary. Pats1 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Usefulness proven. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template encourages user to move trivia contents to other section in the article.--NAHID 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this may be as surprising as some other !votes here, but I think the template is useful. I agree that relevant content from sections of miscellaneous material should generally be integrated. (I strongly support the inclusion of literary references and the like in separate sections--or articles when there are enough of them--but that's because I don't think they are trivia.) I have sometimes gone to pages marked with this template and integrated the good stuff and removed the junk. I think the wording is close to right. I think it would be useful to have the title changed, because then it could be used for other things: integrate seems a good choice. DGG (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and may I add that the problems with the template having "divisive and inflammatory" uses is usually a problem with the people seeing the template and getting their egos bruised, rather than the people putting the template there in the first place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75th Trombone (talk • contribs) 17:15 7 September 2007
    • That is why the template should be deleted. "Trivia" means "unimportant information." The person who puts the template there is labeling all the edits that follow as "unimportant." It's insulting and it discourages new contributors to Wikipedia. That is the issue here. The name of the template is Trivia and the template cannot be neutral because "unimportant" is not a neutral word. Of course the editor inserting the template isn't offended -- their edits are not being labeled "unimportant." "Trivia" is a matter of opinion and there is no policy on Wikipedia that defines "trivia." There is not a ban on trivia on Wikipedia. --Pixelface 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sure, you could make the argument that truly unencyclopedic content should just be deleted immediately. But this rarely works in practice. Many editors, including myself, try to delete unnecessary stuff whenever they can, but more and more trivia keeps popping up (I think a lot of people, especially new users and non registered editors really don't have a good idea of what belongs in the encyclopedia and what doesn't). The trivia template is a good warning to new users and casual users. It sends the message that trivia is not ok. It also encourages people to clean up trivia sections. Without a template to highlight some of the articles trivia problems, some people may overlook the trivia sections, leaving them there to gather more and more cruft. Nlm1515 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 1
  • Keep. The definition of 'trivia' is a red herring: sometimes, editors add a random collection of facts on the end of an article, and use the heading 'Trivia'. This templatee goes atop of such sections to remind editors that this is not an encyclopaedic practice, and I for one entirely agree with it. Some of the information in these 'trivia' sections is actually important and can safely be incorporated in the text in its proper place; much is just rubbish and should really be culled mercilessly. This template is useful as editorial maintenance, guiding editors to sort the wheat from the chaff in the trivia section. Sam Blacketer 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The definition of "trivia" is not a red herring. The founder of WP:WPTCU thinks "trivia" should be banned from Wikipedia.[1]. This template may be useful to editors who attempt to integrate information into other sections, but it is also being used in an inflammatory way to disparage certain information or to indicate contempt for certain information. To label an entire section as "trivia" violates the NPOV policy (unless a heading is explicitly labeled ==Trivia==). --Pixelface 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete bordering on Strong Delete. The template, because it exists, is applied often by "hit and run" editors, spying a trivia section and templating it. All that this causes is people naming the section as something else. Let's get back to real editing instead of application of labels. And let's lose this item as a start of that process. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't blame people for being "hit and run" when it comes to Trivia sections. Often they can be very large, and it takes a long time to go through each item and determine weather it can be integrated into the article or not. A trivia template invites people to gradually integrate what they can until someone deletes the entire section. Also, I dont think renaming the sections make that much of a difference. No matter what its called, if a section is trivia, someone's going to notice it and deal with it (or put the trivia label on it if it seems like very hard work). Nlm1515 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep It promotes editors to get rid of pointless and random facts. This is an encyclopedia, remember? Many of the facts in a "Trivia" section are plain garbage that in no way need to be there. And in most instances, they are not sourced. Also, I agree with those above who say that it also promotes to put information that is (keyword) worthwhile into the main article and not a triv section. Codelyoko193 Talk HHC! 22:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to know: Does adding words like "strong" or "extreme" to our !votes really make any difference? 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • No, but they aren't disallowed. It just expresses someone's extreme agreement/disagreement. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Strong comment. Maybe? Depends on the closing admin.--Father Goose 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In a word, no. -- Sabre 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Neatly said in four words :-) Ta bu shi da yu 10:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Unsourced material is already covered by our policy on verifiability. Words like "pointless" and "garbage" are a matter of opinion (and also inflammatory). The template's encouragement to integrate information is completely negated by the labeling of the information as "trivia" or "unimporant." --Pixelface 22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it may be opinion, but still, trivia, is not exactly the most encyclopedia information, and (in my opinion) this template should not be removed. Codelyoko193 Talk HHC! 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • And if I may, I would like to rephrase my comment:

Keep: This template should be kept because it gives editors a reminder that trivia facts are uncyclopedic. While the facts may not be entirely "garbage" or "pointless", many of them do not provide much extra information for the casual reader. Codelyoko193 Talk HHC! 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep: per, JFW, Nahid, Equazcion and others, Jza84 23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, Equazcion !voted to delete. :) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • But you're providing some good reasons to keep the template :) —AldeBaer 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • No I'm not :) (Sorry to make a comment like that without backing it up at all, but monkey-see monkey-do) 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per submitter. There is no real definition of "trivia". This aside, trivial items would be better if integrated into the article rather than belonging in a list, but this is not always possible, which is reflected in the WP:TRIVIA guideline. The template has been spammed across thousands of articles for whom a trivia section is perfectly appropriate. The worst thing about this template is that it encourages editors to remove good information because it's not in the desired format, which I think is a crime. Tempshill 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Acts as a good warning to both editors and readers that trivial content is unencyclopedic. Hopefully it also acts as a preventative measure for other worthless crap being added. The JPStalk to me 23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand the reasons for the submitter's nomination. Notability is a matter of perception, and this template can easily be tacked on pretty much any section that someone feels is a trivia. And sometimes there is important data in trivia sections that just really doesn't fit into the other sections. However, the problem of placing the template on undeserving sections is the fault of the editors, not the template. The Clawed One 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The name of the template itself is inflammatory and is encouraging misuse. --Pixelface 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I myself detest trivia sections because one can't tell if it actually is trivia or is it is WP:OR. And there actually is a policy that encourages the integration of trivia-related sections into its article, see WP:NOT#INFO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sesshomaru, this comment struck me as very strange - why would a trivia section make you think that something's OR? OR is a universal issue and it doesn't seem to me that its placement could possibly make a difference. Tempshill 23:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that a list of trivia items is meaningless. Rather I'd prefer the trivia tag to maintain the status quo; trivial elements can be merged or removed. I've yet to see sourced/referenced trivia, albeit I think a trivia section is unneeded anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Meaningless" is a strong term, isn't it? I mean, a trivia list might be a list of 10 interesting facts, which add to the reader's understanding of the topic. How is that meaningless? Tempshill 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete An opinion about Wikipedia policy masquerading as Wikipedia policy. Chubbles 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you elaborate on that? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious as to what you exactly you mean. 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Much less abrasive than the previous template. This change may also encourage readers to incorporate trivia items into the body of the article instead of outright deletion, as which seems to be the case more often than not. Reason turns rancid 23:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not belong in the article space. Readers may need alerting to accuracy or POV disputes, but they can make their own judgement on whether information is trivial or not (and on the appropriateness of its presentation). If templates are needed to catagorise 'problem' pages to be fixed, they belong on the talk page (and this template is written with article pages in mind). CarelessHair 00:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The fact that it's misused cannot be used as a reason to delete it and neither can be a fact that some people who write worthless info have hurt their feelings by being told that they indeed write worthless info.--Svetovid 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The name of the template (Trivia) is inherently inflammatory because the common definition of "trivia" is "unimportant information." --Pixelface 00:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not any more or less "inflammatory" than many other templates. It all depends on how objective the editor is and how personally they take criticism. Text of the template is not inflammatory at all.--Svetovid 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful cleanup template that denotes there is a problem with the article that should to be fixed. Nominator's rational can be summed up as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I would say that the labeling of a given piece of information as "trivia" can be summed up as "I don't like it." You don't have to like a piece of information, and you don't have to think it's important. As long as the information follows the policies on no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view, it's perfectly fine for inclusion in Wikipedia. This template is not a neutral point of view and it can't be modified to satisfy that requirement -- because "trivia" is a biased term used to refer to information that is "unimportant." --Pixelface 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The template is primarily used on sections titled "Trivia" or arranged in a trivia format. Wikipedia's guidelines already state that such information should be integrated in with the rest of the article instead of listed as trivia and the template explains that fact. So putting this template onto a trivia section does not imply that the editor thinks the information in the section is useless, unimportant, or trivia — though some of it may be. But it does mean that the editor thinks the information is presented in an unencyclopedic format and should be fixed. --Farix (Talk) 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tempshill and CarelessHair. This template is defacing a large number of articles with no useful purpose. 6SJ7 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the excellent reasons articulated above. Also, encyclopedias traditionally don't have trivia sections. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide information in a structured written format. If I want an incoherent, disorganized collection of random information, I'll read an almanac or play Trivial Pursuit. --Coolcaesar 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - What other encyclopedia has chapters/sections labeled "trivia?" This template encourages editors to get rid of "trivial" information that should be cited and integrated into the body of the articles themselves. Happyme22 02:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Template echoes the guideline (which is based on policy). More discussion could result in a change of policy but until then keep it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Per farix, it's useful. The template is a less divisive option than immediate deletion or removal to talk pages, and with a date, allows easy deletion with validation after some time has passed without action. It also provides easy access to the relevant guidelines so that users can understand WHY the gtagging has been done. ThuranX 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, according to the guideline, you're not supposed to delete trivia just because a certain amount of time has passed since its tagging. I think this misconception is one of the reasons the template is counter-productive. Many people see it as a standard maintenance tag along the lines of {{unsourced}}, which allows deletion of the associated content after enough time has passed (regardless of changes to the template wording, it would seem). This isn't how trivia sections are supposed to be handled though. 02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A template should not be judged by its misuse (or potential for misuse). Used correctly, this template serves as a useful reminder and pointer for old and new editors that encyclopedia articles are stronger when composed in prose and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gwinva 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with your first sentence there. If a "this is the rules" template is being flagrantly and continuously misused, then it is obvious that it needs to be modified, as the misuse is at least partially due to some misleading phrasing of the text in the template or some ambiguity about its reference to a policy or guideline. Tempshill 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my first sentence was clumsy. What I meant was let's not vote for keep or deletion based on use or misuse: ie. poor practice doesn't mean the idea was wrong. By all means modify the template, so it is less prone to misuse, and much more clear what it's really for. Gwinva 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The template works by alerting new editors and others that the information should be moved to other parts of the article and discourages WP:LISTCRUFT. -- Ssilvers 04:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I agree with the idea that it's not theoretically possible to reach a consensus on what constitutes "important", in relation to facts stated in an article. Trivia sections uniquely provide a place where relevant facts, which don't fit in well within the flow of prose in the rest of the article, can be enumerated -- thereby enhancing the article's usefulness to the reader. More information is always better than less information, in terms of encyclopedia articles. So I feel that trivia sections serve a unique and useful purpose, so I move to delete the anti-trivia template and mantra. I say that with one caveat: items listed within a trivia section need to be properly sourced/referenced, just like all other statements in articles. Piercetheorganist 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, as per Gwinva's rationale, a section "should not be judged by its misuse (or potential for misuse)." 04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Ha! Well said. I'm not actually against a section where you can list/bullet those points which don't quite fit anywhere or have a gem of a fact that needs input from other people to really strengthen, but the problem with "trivia" sections, is that they invite the deposit of trivial information. So perhaps the section itself needs modifying to make it clearer what it's for? (ie retitling, or the template modified to explain what the section's for). ?? I don't know... Gwinva 04:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you (takes a bow)... However, again you're saying that their potential for misuse is the reason you're against them. Sure, things need to be done to prevent those sections from building up useless information; but then, you aren't actually against the section itself. Dare I suggest that you change your vote? ;) 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 2
  • Run a bot to remove all instances, and start over. This is my 2nd vote in the spirit of instant runoff voting in case my "delete" vote above fails, which it is going to. The "trivia" tag was actually spammed onto thousands of articles by a bot, including, presumably, thousands of articles where a trivia section is OK per the guideline at WP:TRIVIA. The effects of this bot need to be reversed. Let us editors tag the bad trivia lists by hand with this template, if it's going to continue to exist. Tempshill 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That has my vote. The only thing more unnecessary than this template was its automatic addition to over 5,000 articles by a bot. 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Mine too, I don't want the template to be deleted just because of its misuse by a bot some time ago. People may disagree about the wording/ existance of the Policy, but as long as it exists the template should stand , but be used correctly as with the guideline.--Kyle(talk) 04:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with this way forward, it allows for the editors to be able to objectively look at the trivia sections involved and decide if it is warranted, something a bot that automatically tags trivia sections cannot use. -- Sabre 10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Strongly disagree - nice in theory, however trivia sections often holds information that is non-trivia and that should be merged into the main article. Of course, a lot of it is dross, but that doesn't mean that we should delete "trivia" that is not, in fact, trivia. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm confused, or perhaps you are. Are you thinking that Tempshill wants to run a bot and just delete every trivia section, because that is not it. I understand it as run a bot to remove the template from every article and then gradually reapply the template manually wherever it is actually necessary. --Kyle(talk) 05:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That's even worse. I haven't seen many instances where this has been abused. I don't think that this is necessary at all. If the template is being misused, I'd say that only a few people might be doing this, and in which case we should be dealing with those people, not removing the template from all articles via a bot. I still oppose this sort of bot misuse. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
          • They were all added by a bot to begin with, which most people here agree was misuse of the template. At least the bot's taggings should be reverted. Perhaps the un-tagging bot could run off of the tagging bot's list of contribs, so that only the automated taggings would be reversed, and not any manual taggings by human editors. 06:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
            • The problem is that this template was misused on such a grand scale that it might be necessary to just restart with it. Once its usage is better defined, then it would probably be good to just have a bot remove the template from everywhere and let people apply the template to articles using their better judgement. The reason why it would be necessary to remove it from everywhere and not just the bot edits is that since the bot added the template to pages where it shouldn't be, then users (that haven't ever gone to the template page to see its usage details) are adding the template to pages where it shouldn't be since they saw it on another page where it was added by a bot. In other words, since they saw it somewhere that it shouldn't be, they assume it is supposed to be there and they start adding the template to pages like the one where it never should have been. I hope people can understand that. Also, it might be a good idea, if this actually happens, to put a notice on the template saying that it will be removed from all articles starting on a certain date. That would prevent most confusion.--Kyle(talk) 16:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't want anyone to delete the trivia template, but It wouldn't be a bad idea to start over, especially if the trivia template was misused by a bot. If we get rid of all instances of the trivia template, then gradually apply the template back to the articles that actually do contain trivia, that could solve a lot of problems. Nlm1515 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If the problem is the template having been bot-added, then the template should only be bot-removed from articles the original bot added it to. "Starting over" is not necessary. Neitherday 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Since his only reasoning was the misuse by the bot, then I think he would agree. He only said "start over" because he was unaware of another option. 06:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for usage in Trivia sections. It encourages editors to integrate the useful info into the article, but also discourages editors (especially new wikipedians who may not know the guideline) to add even more trivia to the list (which an 'integrate' template wouldn't do I think). Trivia sections derive from the article's value, makes it look more like a fanpage than an encyclopedia. Ninja neko 04:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Very useful, albeit somewhat flawed. Find something better to replace it, and I'll go for that instead. But until then, keep. Jmlk17 04:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is totally absurd. This template is named after the sections it goes in. If there is a problem with the names of these sections then rename them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as far as I know encyclopedias don't have trivia sections.. we already have WP:DYK where you can post these type of sections. Encyclopedias are or try to explain subjects deeply not vaguely.--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 05:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It has been repeatedly asserted that the template is mean-spirited or in some way inflammatory, on the basis that "trivia" is a demeaning, inflammatory, or divisive word. While the term is not, on its face, pejorative, one claims that it is inflammatory to call contributions to Wikipedia "unimportant." However, this argument is being very selective about the definition of trivia. The definition, quoted by one advocate of such a position, is actually "unimportant, inconsequential, or nonessential". While this person bolded "unimportant," I would point out that "nonessential" is the interpretation at hand - trivia is information that is not essential to an encyclopedia - it is unencyclopedic. Nonessentiality is the basis for exclusion of trivia as unencyclopedic. I don't think one can compel deletion of the template because one choses to think that "trivia" is an inflammatory term because it might mean "unimportant" in some other context. Furthermore, "unimportant" itself is not really inflammatory unless one has presumed the bad intention of others. "Trivia" and "unimportant" are just as insulting as "unencylcopedic" "original research" "non-NPOV" etc. They could all be inflammatory or divisive, depending on the intent of the person who uses the term, and depending on how the reader interprets use of the term. Believing that this template is automatically inflammatory or divisive seems to ignore the fact that we should assume good faith. --Cheeser1 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The word "unimportant" is present in most definitions of the word "trivia."(wordnet.princeton.edu)(dictionary.com)(m-w.com)(cambridge.org)(encarta.msn.com) Even if one ignores the "importance" of a given piece of information, it's "essentiality" and "significance" is still called into question by labeling that information "trivia."(bartleby.com) There is no policy on Wikipedia on the "essentiality" of any given piece of information. Which edits are "essential" is subjective, and which edits are "trivia" is also subjective. In order to say that a statement has no sources, no opinion is involved. It either has a citation or it doesn't. However, to say that a sentence is "trivia" -- that is promoting the POV of one editor. The word "trivia" can NEVER be neutral. I assume good faith, but the founder of WP:WPTCU has stated that he thinks "trivia" should be banned from Wikipedia.[2]. Category:Articles with trivia sections is being used as a watchlist by a group of editors in order to delete anything they personally don't like. The label of "trivia" CAN BE inflammatory to some readers and it does not help Wikipedia. This template is being put under headings that are not labeled ==Trivia==. The template is being misused because the common definition of "trivia" is "unimportant information." The NAME of the template ({{Trivia}}) encourages editors to use it to tag any information they feel is unimportant. This leads to other editors being insulted because someone is calling their knowledge of a topic "unimportant." The template is inflammatory, divisive, and CANNOT be changed in order to comply with the NPOV policy because "trivia" is a loaded word. --Pixelface 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You say there is some group of editors out to destroy trivia, that the word "trivia" is pejorative and inflammatory, and that "trivia" = "unimportant" = nonNPOV. However, that does not make it so. No one is conspiring to destroy trivia. They are working hard to conform to policy, but tagging trivia sections and integrating their content into articles. Sure, people misuse the tag. Sure, some people are a bit too trigger-happy on the delete key. This is true of any question of inclusion on Wikipedia, be it WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOT#TRIVIA. Some people have a heavy hand, and some people can be a bit mean. That doesn't mean you should delete a tool that is generally (if not alway) used to constructively contribute to Wikipedia.
      • If somebody can't take things with a grain of salt and is offended or inflamed by the mere use of the term "trivia" - well, I think at that point there's nothing we can do. I don't like the term "original research" - when my contributions are labeled as OR, it's upsetting and inflammatory. Okay. So let's do away with WP:OR and have a free-for-all of nonsense? Or perhaps you advocate banning bots, since a bot did something bad with the trivia tag? I certainly hope not. Trivia is not something an editor "feels" is unimportant - it's something we, as a community, have decided is not worthy of inclusion. Hence the policy discouraging the inclusion of trivia. Don't forget, contributions to Wikipedia are subject to merciless editing. If something merits inclusion, it merits inclusion in the regular text of the article, not in a trivia section. If an editor is too lazy or busy to integrate it properly, s/he should drop a note on the talk page and ask someone else to do it properly, not create or add to a trivia section.
      • And finally, if you're going to quote dictionaries, you should read them carefully. Those definitions of trivia include "unimportant" as one of many possibile things, connected by an or. That means it does not always mean "unimportant". Like I explained, in this case "trivia" means "nonessential." Because it is not essential to Wikipedia - trivia is determined to be not appropriate for inclusion - it is unencyclopedic. --Cheeser1 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Hear, hear! These are all lucid and important points that Cheeser1 brings to the discussion. I would like to point out that by Pixelface's definition, almost any policy might actually be seen as inflammatory. For instance, NPOV might be seen as inflammatory as an editor might be disgusted that his seemingly balanced writing is not labelled neutral because of it is tainted by their world view. As Cheeser1 says, "Original Research" might be seen as inflammatory. "No personal attacks" might also be seen as accusatory, because the person is so wrapped up in their own righteousness that they can't see how they might be attacking someone personally. I also agree with Cheeser1's assessment that the dictionary gives multiple definitions of the word "trivia". As I say above, if the editor is that thin-skinned, they should take a raincheck from editing Wikipedia and reassess what is truly offensive. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Ta bu shi da yu, your comment is trivial. --Pixelface 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Nice try, but there are fundamental differences here. Firstly, my comment is not trivial. It's a well thought out, well reasoned comment on a TFD page. It's not a list of indiscriminate facts. It's not the same as "George W. Bush walked his dog on 6th September, 1979" on the George W. Bush article. If you can't see the difference between you making a personal comment on a talk page, and a trivia section on an article, then I'm not sure how else to explain things to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Calling another user's comments "trivial" is uncivil, and calling another user's edits "trivial" is also uncivil. Do you see how opinion is involved in both instances? An editor is labeling something "unimportant." When applying the {{unreferenced}} template, no opinion is required. An article either has references or it doesn't. But to claim that something is "trivia" or "trivial" is purely the opinion of one editor, and it's often insulting to other editors. Because "trivia" is not a neutral word. --Pixelface 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Here's the thing: those who add the {{trivia}} tag are not being uncivil. There is nothing personal about adding such a template. I should point out that people routinely edit other editor's work, that is perfectly fine. I'd also like you to rereview what happens when you click on "edit". See the warning at the bottom of the page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This applies to many things, including the trivia template. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
                • That would be a good argument except the trivia tag is labeling the section and not the content. The content is not being called trivial. The template is drawing attention to a section made up of unrelated facts. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • If the {{trivia}} template is not placed under a ==Trivia== heading, then yes, it is the content that is being called trivial. --Pixelface 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • That argument suggests a usage problem and not a problem with the template itself. Not a good reason to delete the template imo. A move to {{Integrate}} would satisfy your concerns so it can be used in disorganised lists not called ==Trivia==. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Please remember to be civil. —AldeBaer 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
              • That shows why I listed this template for deletion. "Trivia" is not a neutral word. If calling something "trivial" is not civil, then this template can be used to attack articles and other editors. --Pixelface 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Sorry, I don't get that logic. The fact that trivia sections are called "trivia" sections has nothing to do with the template. Besides, avoiding the accurate term "trivia" would indeed be POV. However, using "trivial" as an adjective for another user's comment is a whole other story, it's simply uncivil. —AldeBaer 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • If "trivia" means "trivial things", then labeling another user's edits as "trivia" with the {{trivia}} template is just as uncivil as labeling another user's comment as "trivial." --Pixelface 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • ... —AldeBaer 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • Pixelface, I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse here. This is a TFD discussion. Were you to use the {{trivia}} template on it, then yes, this would be offensive. But that's not the purpose of the template. The purpose of the template is to flag factoids that are not important, usually in a trivial section. There's a world of difference between the two. Please, use some common sense here. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • So the {{trivia}} template is offensive in discussions but it magically loses it's offensiveness when it's used in articles? How is it offensive? Do you have an idea? Now apply that idea to articles. The purpose of the template does not matter. If a word is not neutral it can be misused -- and it has been; it has insulted many users. --Pixelface 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                          • Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, it's all to do with the context of the edit. Labelling someone's opinion as trivial is insulting. Tagging specific facts in an article is not, as a. it isn't personal, and b. there is such a thing as trivia in articles, and we don't encourage it. I'm sorry you can't see the difference, it's really quite obvious. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • It's hard to not be obtuse when one is trying to make a point about trivia policy, rather than discuss the template at hand (which is completely in-line with current policy). Creating a TfD to make a point about the term "trivia," that's absurd. It's the word we use in policy. Creating a TfD like this in order to make a point about the terms used in our policy is disruptive and inappropriate. And yet here we are. --Cheeser1 07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • I do not thinkg that nominating a template that is not a neutral word for deletion is disruptive or inappropriate. There is no policy on trivia. --Pixelface 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • comment there is some confusion here--this is not the discussion of whether or not we should have trivia sections. This is the discussion of a template to mark them. it remains for the talk page on the template to decide what it should say. I dont think there is much doubt that much of the material in most of these sections should be integrated or removed or reorganized. In fact, for those like me who think a good deal of the material is encyclopedic, this can serve as checklist for the ones that need improving to make that more evident. Scanning a number of these sections, there is a great deal of material in them which is simply there as a result of lazy editing, and could much better go in the appropriate portion of the article. DGG (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Tag is useful and is easy to remember. It is needed to add to "miscellany" sections in order to remind editors that information should be integrated into the rest of the article instead of being assembled in a hodge podge mess of a section. — OcatecirT 05:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 3
  • Keep The template is needed so that people are able to mark articles that contain trivia sections in them so that others can come along and integrate any facts that need to be integrated if the person who noticed the trivia section does not have the time to do it himself. --Credema 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, though maybe reword. "Divisive and inflammatory" is irrelevant; people get upset with a whole load of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it's not our job to pander to them. If the section is in fact trivia, then it deserves to be marked as such in order to encourage people to integrate it into the rest of the article. Sure, if I thought hard enough about it, I could imagine situations in which this template can be abused in a way that would be divisive, but getting rid of something because it could be abused is silly (in all the articles I have read, I have not seen one example of this being used incorrectly). Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- it was difficult to choose on this, but I veered toward keep because it encourages crap to be removed from the Wikipedia pages. I've been known to be a hit and run editor who deletes trivia sections tagged with {{triva}} completely. Usually the content is a bunch of crap or random unrelated information. The only thing I do not want to see is people integrating crap into the pages and say, "look, I integrated irrelevant crap into the page to suit the trivia section box -- woo and yay" -- Guroadrunner 06:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly even under WP:SNOW. If/Since the current wording sucks, it should be changed back to one of the previous phrasings. 17Drew 07:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Pixelface - by adding this template adding this template, information is labeled as unimportant, which is against WP:NPOV. --Qsaw (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I believe labeling information as unimportant is provided for by WP:NOT#TRIVIA, not to mention all of WP:NOT and WP:N. Some information is unimportant - maybe it's important to you, or to me, but not to Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 07:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- as long as we have a policy or guideline on trivia sections, we need an appropriate template (or three) for flagging things that cross those policies or guidelines. Studerby 07:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Divisive and inflammatory"? What the heck? "Divisive and inflammatory" would be "trivia sections f—ng s— and anyone who adds to this section will get harassed". I think the wording is quite reasonable in comparison. =) There's no guideline on what's trivia, but a trivia section has a quite self-explanatory meaning if you look at many articles (section titled "trivia" that contains bullet-point random facts, or something similar). Yes, the wording could use work, but that can be solved without deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivia sections work to store facts that have yet to be integrated into the main narrative of the article, and advocating wholesale removal/discouraging these sections may deter casual editors.--BigCow 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Trivia sections are better than no information. Sometimes there are useful information that can not be integrated in a meaningful way into continuous text. But if someone want to improve an article than just do it. There is no such template necessary. This template itself disfigure an article more than a trivia section and is itself a maintenance problem. --Lasttan 08:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not really. We are not here to list facts indiscriminately. We are an encyclopedia. Trivia sections are bad for a number of reasons: firstly, I've seen them hang around for a long time. I've seen many trivia sections on important articles that repeated facts already in the article (one instance that comes to mind was an early revision of W. Mark Felt, which I merged into the main article). Trivia sections are bad, because they encourage newcomers to add to the trivia section, when in fact we want the overall article quality and prose to improve, not degrade. And finally, not all information is particularly important. What George W. Bush ate for breakfast this morning is really not an important fact, but would fit into a trivia section. Neither is his bowl movements on the 8th July 1988. Quite frankly, we don't need that sort of info. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think discouraging newcomers from contributing is bad for Wikipedia. If you don't like a fact someone added to an article, just remove it. There's no need for a warning on 8,800 pages that basically says "your contributions are not welcome here." --Pixelface 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I must say that you are reading into things a little here. Nowhere in my comment did I say that I discourage the contributions of newbies. I would never abuse a newbie for adding to a trivia section. However, I would place a civil and kindly note on their talk page telling them how to edit articles. I would also add the {{trivia}} template to flag the fact that this is not the best way of writing articles. Honestly, I find it somewhat amazing that you can extrapolate from the trivia template name (as in Template:Trivia) and content that it is there to tell newcomers that their contributions are not welcome! As I say before, anyone who thinks this is really too thin-skinned and could probably take offence to almost anything on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
          • No, the {{trivia}} template discourages the contributions of newcomers. A ==Trivia== section is a easy place for new users to add information to an article. The {{trivia}} template is a big warning that says "your contributions are not welcome here" and it offends many, many users. The label of "trivia" is a label of "unimportant." A ==Trivia== section by itself is not offensive, because there is no stigma given to trivia. But the {{trivia}} template stigmatizes all the edits that follow. --Pixelface 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
            • So does the WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:RS templates. Just because newcomers might have trouble following the rules does NOT mean we throw the rules out the window. WP:BITE means we don't insult, attack, degrade, or otherwise demean newcomers if the violate policy. Nowhere does it say "do not use templates to encourage newcomers to contribute within the confines of policy," which is what this template does. Being new is an excuse to not know the rules, not an excuse to not follow them. --Cheeser1 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
              • The {{Original research}} template shows "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." There is a detailed definition of "original research" at WP:OR. And the word "may" is used. The {{Notability}} template shows "The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines." And the word "may" is used. There are different notability guidelines set up for different topics. WP:N says notability is distinct from "importance." The {{Primarysources}} template shows "This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources." Those templates all have neutral names. The pages WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:RS all give clear definitions of what the phrases "original research", "notability", and "reliable sources" mean. There is no policy that gives a clear definition of what "trivia" means. "Trivia" is not a neutral word -- it has negative connotations. Calling edits "unimportant" AKA "trivia" is insulting to many newcomers. If a template is meant to encourage editors to integrate information into the rest of an article, a template should have a more neutral name such as "Integrate", instead of a name that calls all the information in a section "unimportant." If the information is unimportant, why should it be integrated? --Pixelface 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Funnily enough, this is a good argument against "trivia" sections in the first place. As we can't define what trivia is, then don't allow trivia sections. However, this discussion is not about the trivia policy, but is about the trivia template. If you'd like to change trivia policy, then strongly advise taking these arguments to the relevant guidelines. I would like to reiterate that we don't encourage trivia sections. If "trivia" is seen as a derogatory term, then why are editors adding to a section titled "Trivia"? Following reductio ad absurdum, editors that add material to trivia sections are saying their own contributions are unimportant, and are thus insulting themselves. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It's trivializing newcomers to say they all edit trivia sections. Mostly only the lazy ones do, who are a lot less likely to develop into good contributors. —AldeBaer 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Pixelface, I completely do not understand your argument. I do not see how the {{trivia}} template could possibly discourage newcomers,
1) it just says that trivia sections are discouraged and that the info should be integrated into the main text and inappropriate info removed. That is entirely literal and it is just saying that the section is not the best place to put this. I know I was never turned off by a template that said something about how trivia is bad when I started.
2) From my experience, the newest editors to wikipedia often just ignore cleanup templates and other warnings because they are not even remotely experienced in policy. For example, take a look at the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) edit history. It took semi protection and two large warnings on the talk page to keep new editors from changing the launch prices. Don't blame me for saying this, it is just my experience.
3)it has already been discussed that "trivia" means unimportant with the dictionary, but to many people it just means a fun fact.
4)Edits in the trivia section should basically be discouraged because of the guidelines and suggestions already mentioned. If someone can't find where to put information in an article, then it probably wouldn't be all that important anyway or the user is just lazy because he does not want to find a place to put the info. There are exceptions to everything I said here, but there is always an exception to everything.
--Kyle(talk) 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • A trivia heading (==Trivia==) is inviting to new contributors. It's easy for a new user to add a fact to the section. They may not know that the word "trivia" has negative connotations. However, the {{trivia}} template basically says "your contributions are not welcome here" -- and that is upsetting to many editors. A new user can see that other editors have freely added trivia to an article, but the {{trivia}} template is saying "yeah, other people have added trivia to this article, but you're not allowed to." You can see that users are upset on the talk pages for the template and the guideline it refers to.[3] Maybe they misunderstand the guideline and the template, or maybe they've encountered an editor who is really anti-trivia. There is a WikiProject devoted to "cleaning up" trivia (WP:WPTCU), and the founder has stated that he thinks "trivia" should be banned from Wikipedia.[4] The wording of the {{trivia}} template has changed over time and many editors have said it's been "watered down" or "declawed" -- indicating their contempt for "trivia." A template should not be able to be used to show contempt for another edit or user. A template like {{cleanup-section}} is much more neutral, and does not label another users's edits as "unimportant." --Pixelface 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete To be honest, I do not really care. The problem is not the template but where, how and why it is used. However, as I have never seen it used in any sensible way ever, I go for Delete. Mlewan 09:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Very necessary - • The Giant Puffin • 09:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not all trivia can be integrated to the prose (since paraphernal) and discourages addition of other interesting information. Pictureuploader 09:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I disagree. If the material is interesting enough, it can be integrated somewhere. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the worst aspects of Wikipedia is the proliferation of "XYZ in popular culture" sections. It's impossible to take an article seriously when 50% of it is a list of mentions of the subject in American cartoons.
  • Delete or Change. You know, sometimes a trivia entry can be useful. Sometimes bits of information just don't fit into an article while leaving prose and readability in tact. I think that's more important than having the odd article with a trivia section.
  • Delete. The language in the current template makes it sound like it's prohibited to post trivia. A factoid every now and then is definitly fine. --Jack Zhang 10:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment (to the last three "delete" responses): This is not a debate about whether or not trivia is useful or encyclopedic. It is not, according to Wikipedia's policy on the matter. This discussion is about whether or not to delete a template regarding trivia. --Cheeser1 11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Good point, but you should be telling the Keep responders the same thing. 11:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing - I am in no way obligated to make sure I respond to every single comment/vote to which my comment might apply. Furthermore, I feel like deleting a template for no reason is not the same as keeping it for no reason (since "keep" reflects the status quo, which doesn't necessarily require a reason). --Cheeser1 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Whoa there nelly. I was not commanding you to do anything, I was only making a point. Your comment was directed at deleters, when your reasons apply to keepers as well. Furthermore: Keep absolutely, positively, unquestionably does require a reason (at least, just as much as Delete does). Every !vote requires a reason because we are not voting. We are discussing. 13:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I think that's a fair enough comment. Point noted. It doesn't actually invalidate Cheese1's remark though. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Changed my vote after I realized I had mistaken the template. But the rationale is the same. Content needs to be decided on the talk page, not through the use of the template. I also suspect that others are incorrectly voting on this. -Nodekeeper 09:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Way too many people here voting delete comment on the policy instead of on the template voted upon.--Svetovid 11:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Way too many people here voting keep comment on the policy instead of on the template voted upon.-- 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Relatively few compared to the delete voters.--Svetovid 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The point is that both sides are guilty of the same thing. "You did it more than us" isn't a good argument. 13:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The closing admin will take this into account. There are still many delete and keep comments that have valid remarks. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
So it's "them vs us" now? I don't subscribe to that stupid concept. Of course, all votes not commenting on the template, whether they are keep or delete, need to be ignored at the end.--Svetovid 14:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you meant by your "them vs. us" remark. I was saying that "You did it more than us" was your basic argument, not mine. Agreed on the rest of what you just said though. 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template is box clutter. It's used in a "hit and run" fashion -- editors just add the box, instead of improving the article. I don't think that it's solving the problem that it's meant to address. It's just littering pages with boxes that rarely get removed. -- Danny (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The trivia section is article clutter. It's used in a "hit and run" fashion -- editors just lump together trivia, instead of integrating into the article. ... 74.134.255.99 12:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but that means you're saying the way to deal with the hit-and-run clutter of trivia is to add even more hit-and-run clutter. The cure certainly shouldn't compound the problem. Also, this "hit and run" fashion is much more attributable to the template -- nothing could be more "hit and run" than a bot automatically tagging 5,000+ articles. 12:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally can't conclude that the template either adds to or lessens the problem. I have seen many cases of it prompting the process of thoughtful integration/deletion and I have seen many cases where it sits for months unheeded (and of course plenty of cases where it is simply deleted itself without any other change to the section). As for the bot example, surely we aren't going to delete a template because it can be abused, or wouldn't they all have to go? 74.134.255.99 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then you should've said that to begin with, instead of effectively saying that trivia sections cause the same "problem" as the template does. As for deleting it for misuse, I'm not necessarily for deleting something because it has the potential for misuse; but the fact remains that this template was misused, and deleting it would correct that misuse. The only other solution is to run a bot that would globally remove it and allow individual live editors to place it manually, which I would be for as well. However I do have other reasons for thinking the template should be deleted; see my !vote, at the top of the page. 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What does a work of a random bot have to do with the template per se? Comment on the bot, not the template. BTW, I've acted based on this template many times, which improved articles, and I presume others have as well.--Svetovid 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing, it has nothing to do with anything. I was merely responding to a comment, it was relevant to that argument and nothing more. If you want to see my reasons for thinking this template should be deleted, see the first vote, up near the top. 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Trivia sections can add clutter to the articles. My question is whether the template helps to solve that problem, or just adds more clutter. -- Danny (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Some 'trivia' content ruins the flow of articles, but are still very important. --Endlessdan 12:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Helps raise awareness in integrating trivia info in the main article Ferengi 13:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid cleanup template. Reword as necessary. >Radiant< 13:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, very useful for the cleanup of articles that is still in-progress. Gives people time to decide what's worth integrating and what's not.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The wording may need a few more go-rounds, but it is firmly rooted in policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - allows easy categorization for cleaning up articles that are overloaded with garbage information. Anthony Hit me up... 14:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but compromise. Per User:Twigboy, rewording seems best to The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and discussing the remaining items. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 15:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template points to an accepted guideline. It's a valid template. If there are concerns about the tone of the wording those can be addressed via editing.--Isotope23 talk 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 4
  • Keep. Trivia sections in articles definitely need to be tagged in some way to entice people to integrate them. These sections can often be far too long and almost unreadable, and thus they must be highlighted so that someone can integrate the listed facts that are referenced. Maybe the wording on the template itself can be changed, as already stated in the nomination. Eagle Owl 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Trivia sections cheapen Wikipedia, and I believe the trivia template serves as a good notice that Trivia is to be avoided, and trivia items should either be dropped or integrated into the main article. --Matt 16:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with a stick for rampant bot-driven abuse. Either that or require all placement to be by hand - David Gerard 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... if a bot abuses the template, the problem is not with the template, it's with the bot. A bot that runs amok should be blocked and have it's bot status revokes. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestion that bots are overreaching their usefulness. I still think we should keep the template, but maybe create a (database) dump of pages containing the section Trivia and letting users tag as deemed necessary. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 18:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOT#INFO says "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply...Trivia sections." WP:NOT is saying that articles should not simply be trivia sections (or "trivia collections" if you want to go by WP:5P), not that articles cannot have trivia sections. WP:NOT is saying that articles should have more information than just a trivia section. WP:NOT#INFO also lists Plot summaries and says A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Plot sections are not discouraged on Wikipedia. It's just important that other information is presented along with it. Sections with the heading ==Trivia== can also be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic, and the presence of Did you know... on the Main Page supports that view. --Pixelface 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, you've very nicely clipped one sentence of two that are appropriate. The entire relevant part of WP:INFO reads: current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply trivia sections. Large sections of of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility. Not only does it continue past what you said, to mention not just that an article shouldn't be entirely trivia, but that sections of trivia should be avoided. It links to WP:TRIVIA, which lays it out more explicitly: This is not "Don't include unimportant material." This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information is included or not, only how it is organized. Trivia sections need to be integrated. The point of this template is to mark them as needing integration, to help users find integrate them. If anything, Trivia policy and use of this trivia tag are saying that these contributions are important, because the point is to integrate them into the article. If the use of the term "trivia" is offensive and inflammatory to users who support including such content, why on earth do they post it under a "trivia" heading?? --Cheeser1 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but revise I like how the template has been changed to say that "Trivia sections are discouraged." That is good, but maybe revise the template so that it is less intrusive in the article, that way it won't be annoying until the trivia section gets fixed. -Freak104 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wish there was a better way to address trivia sections than spamming cleanup boxes in lots of articles, but I haven't seen it yet. The problem with trivia sections, in a nutshell, is that they invite rapid addition of poorly written, poorly organized, and poorly sourced content. I'd be fine with renaming this template to Integrate, but that's not what we are being asked to decide on today. Kingdon 17:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A section should not be judged by its potential for misuse, as a wise man once said. But we're here to discuss the template and not the section itself, and your comments on the former are valid. 17:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Regardless of what a wise man said, policy and guidelines say that such sections do not conform to the Wikipedia's style requirements (in part, for the very reasons Kingdon stated). And please don't misconstrue his statement about trivia sections to somehow say that he's not here to discuss the template - his comments were perfectly relevant to the issue (note "I wish there was a better way ... but there isn't" - a better way than using this template, he means). --Cheeser1 04:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark: There's nothing like the proposed deletion of a widely-used tag to liven things up. This has attracted users from the furthest reaches of Wikipedia. Look how long this thing has gotten after just a day. I'm enjoying this :) 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Notice of the deletion is at the top of the template itself, and the template is on about 8,000 pages. No surprise at the amount of attention it's garnered.--Father Goose 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I know, I'm the one who moved the notice down inside the box to make it more noticeable. Just observing :) 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template's existence has been full of divisiveness. Surely there is a better solution. —WikiLen 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There certainly may be a better way, but shouldn't we make sure that it is actually in place and ready for use before we remove an important and useful tag?Ricree101 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - trivia is defined and recommended to be integrated into the article or removed. This tag is an essential tool in controlling trivia. GlassFET 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. There is a colleague template {{Trivia small}}. Does the result when this monster is closed affect that, too, or will that be a separate amount of controversy? Fiddle Faddle 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • {{Trivia small}} is on exactly 11 pages in the (main) namespace, and most of the arguments being presented here are applicable to both forms of the template.--Father Goose 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Farix and Coolcaesar. And no offense, Pixelface, but there's a difference between debating and whining. Anthony Rupert 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry; I didn't want to appear to make a personal attack. But I still stand by my initial vote. Anthony Rupert 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If you can demonstrate how the word "trivia" can only be used in a neutral way, your input would be appreciated. --Pixelface 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Since when does someone have to prove that something can only be used in a neutral way??? As far as I know, there are very few words that could be used only in a neutral way. Among them are "the," "a," and "an." There is no way you can expect Wikipedia templates to use words that can never be used in non-neutral ways. There are not enough words of that sort to construct reasonable sentences (especially about policies and guidelines, which are inherently judgmental in some way or another). The point is that editors should use their own free will to make effort to use the word "triva" (and the template of the same name) in a neutral way. Which can be done. The fact that it is not automatically neutral is irrelevant. And please do not tell a user when his or her input would be appreciated. That's not up to you to decide. --Cheeser1 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a necessary cleanup template Lurker (said · done) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per points raised by many above - abuse of the template, and disagreement over the guideline, do not create a valid rationale for deletion. --Ckatzchatspy 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - better a trivia section than a load of meandering non-sequitur in the prose. I prefer Wikipedia to other sources of information specifically because it it a treasure trove of little-known and oddball facts - I can get the generic description of a thing elsewhere if that's all I'm looking for. Regarding the template itself: a trivia section should always be at the bottom, just above references. That way it doesn't interfere with the prose. Another salient point is that a trivia list allows users who haven't the time (or skill with the english language) to organize facts into prose to post their information. And isn't it better that the information be out there asap? This whole project is about collecting and disseminating information. Perhaps as a compromise trivia sections can be relegated to the talk page or a new tab of raw facts. Staypuft9 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're saying. Your argument seems to be in support of trivia sections, but you haven't said anything about the template itself, and voted to keep. Could you clarify your position somewhat? Are you aware that the template is the trivia notice itself, not the actual trivia section? 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful cleanup tag, which hopefully helps encourage editors (especially new ones) to aim to write brilliant prose when adding facts to the encyclopaedia, rather than just listing them in a random fashion. Iain99 18:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a very nesacrary tag for Wikipedia it tells users what to do about trivia sections and helps removes them and intregrate into the articles. It also reminds them to cite those sources too as most Trivia sections that I have seen have no sources anywhere. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - People keep saying the template encourages editors to do something, but what is the evidence for that? Slapping a tag on something is not a useful action. If you want work to be done, do it, don't slap an ugly tag asking other people to do it for you. Zompist 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, you win for best delete argument thus far. I wish I'd thought of that. Yes, just where the heck is all the evidence of the supposed good this tag is doing? And the categorization can be accomplished in a number of different ways that don't involve sticking a tag in the middle of the article, so that's no argument. Plus, like Zompist says, if you see work that needs to be done, do it. Tagging is way too easy and there's no evidence that it helps. 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Hear, hear. Tempshill 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I can only provide personal anecdote, but seeing a Trivia template has made me look at a list of trivia, see a couple items that can (and should) be moved into existing sections, do that, and move on. And then, later, notice that the remaining items actually group together as a subject of their own. In other words, as a cleanup template, it works as designed for me. —Quasirandom 06:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • This is only one person's story, but you definitely win for best Keep argument thus far. I'd like to see more posts like this, ie. direct evidence, than just the predicted scenarios we're mainly seeing. 06:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • People have made this argument already, but have not done so by telling an anecdote. The fact is, this is a cleanup tag. It encourages clean-up and explains how and why. What more do you want? A tally of every time someone has seen it and cleaned up, vs. every time someone has seen it and not?? This is absurd - we shouldn't have to have testimonials to prove that a clean up tag is for clean up. That's true prima facie. --Cheeser1 07:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Cheeser, you keep blowing my statements out of proportion. What I said was fairly innocuous. Requiring a complete tally is not a fair jump from "I'd like to see more posts like this." It's nice to see people posting who have an actual experience to talk about, rather than just more theories. That's it. Chill out man. 03:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Tagging isn't (or at least shouldn't be) so much asking other people to do it for you as fair warning. I've boldly integrated what is useful and deleted what is not from trivia sections in the past and as reward I've gotten fanboys aplenty howling about how I've ruined the article and reverting me en mass. At least by tagging the section and leaving a note on the talkpage you let regular contributors get involved in the integration process if they so choose to do so. that is where this tag is useful. I will agree though, drive by or bot tagging this article into every single article that has a trivia section and then never revisiting to clean up the problem isn't a very good use, but that doesn't necessarily warrant template deletion as much as it warrants a change in editor behavior.--Isotope23 talk 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, you are looking at this template completely out of context, this template does not label information as unimportant, but rather tries to state that such "points" should be integrated into the article, and not listed. A real encyclopedia does not list facts in such a basic, unprofessional way. -Sox207 20:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that {{trivia}} is used to tag sections as important so the information can be integrated into the rest of the article? "Important trivia" is an oxymoron. --Pixelface 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Since you're very invovled in this dispute, you should probably know that the point of the trivia policies and the point of the {trivia} tag is to help editors integrate important material into the article. Nowhere is anyone claiming the information is actually unimportant, but that is presented as if it were trivia (which is, as you've pointed out, unimportant, inessential, or otherwise not encyclopedic). We should present such material in an appropriate fashion (not as a part of a "trivia" or similar section, but as an integrated part of the article). See here before you claim that trivia policy and {trivia} templates are making claims about the importance of particular content. --Cheeser1 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and continue to tweak the template if needed to emphasize that this is about integrating useful text from self-described Trivia sections not deleting. This should be a positive message that you've got useful information, so integrate pleaseShawn in Montreal 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 5
  • Strong Keep Useful tag. Not only points out the problem on the page it is used on, but often serves to educate editors on the issues with trivia sections in general. Neitherday 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with another template explaining that the trivia should be integrated into the article, such as Template:integrate. The trivia is sometimes important to the article and shouldn't really be discouraged. --Jon Terry 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Two useful purposes for this tag: indicating where lists of random facts could be integrated into the article, and discouraging the addition of/encouraging the pruning of lists of pointless mentions of a term "in popular culture", etc. There are a lot of articles on X where the attached pop culture includes tons of factoids in the form of 'there is a thing named X in some video game/book/movie'- despite the fact that the thing in the game shares nothing with the topic being discussed except a name. --Clay Collier 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Then the useless factoids should be deleted. This doesn't mean that this template is useful. Tempshill 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
      • In a perfect world, for every situation where there is a template an editor would just fix the article instead of slapping a template on the article. That isn't realistic; not everyone has the time, the expertise, etc. to fix every problem that they recognize. Templates like this one allow editors to quickly signal other editors interested in the article, or create reminders for later action. --Clay Collier 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-I can't say I like it, but I don't see a compelling reason to delete the thing. If its used wrongly, take it off the article. I never liked the whole "fire and forget" maintenance tag use either, I'd prefer editors fix an article rather than just slap a tag on it. That, though, is a problem that's hardly unique or limited to this template.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Mostly due to the lack of policy support. The best we have is a guideline and that only recommends that it be avoided. Until a policy is established, and can provide support for the edits performed in it's name, there is no real use for this template. Suggesting that someone else do something is not a solution, give me the backing to edit it and defend my rationale. Padillah 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You may have missed this policy. Also note that guidelines are here to illustrate and elaborate on existing policies. --Cheeser1 04:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This template is widely and permiscuously misused. There is a distinct difference between facts that are important, interesting or entertaining, but don't happen to fit in easily to the body of the article, and "trivia". Rather than slapping on this template and running away, to would be better for editors to relabel "trivia" sections as "miscellaneous facts", and delete those entries which may be truly trivial. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The point of the prohibition on trivia sections is one of style (see WP:TRIVIA). Wikipedia is not a list of facts, and regardless of whether a list contains important facts or not, it is a list of facts. It should be reformatted as an integrated part of the article. Renaming the heading does not change the fact that it is a list of facts. --Cheeser1 04:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That Wikipedia is not a list of facts is indisputable, however that does not in any way mean that an article cannot contain a (short) list of otherwise unmentioned interesting, informative or entertaining facts. Yes, facts which can be integrated into the body of the article should be, but facts which cannot should not be automatically eliminated. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete What we are trying to do with the Triva template is encourage integration of that section into the article. There's no need to label something as trivia if that is the goal. Similarly, anyone else noticed the popping up of trivia-like sections under other names? By labeling trivia sections as needing integration, instead of giving editors a way of saying that information presented in that manner is needing integration, we are encouraging that kind of behavior. Walker9010 21:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The point of labeling it is to help people find trivia sections. Please also note (see WP:TRIVIA) the whole point of trivia-related policy is to label things as requiring integration. Any other interpretation of trivia policies or {trivia} templates is misinformed. --Cheeser1 04:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • No, that's not the point of trivia-related guideline. The point of the trivia guideline is to guide people in their handling of trivia sections -- not to label anything. The guideline mentions nothing about labels or templates. 01:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Nice try, but there is nothing that requires policy to mention every template it endorses. The trivia template is based on WP:NOT, which is a policy. WP:TRIVIA is a community accepted guideline that explains WP:NOT as it relates to trivia. The template refers to both this guideline and this policy. There is no rule that says that the policy or guideline must reciprocate and explicitly mention templates, or else we can never use templates. WP:RS does not mention the word "template," but I see {unsourced} tags everywhere. You want to delete those too? How about nonNPOV tags? Or WP:OR tags? Let's just delete all the templates! --Cheeser1 07:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The {{trivia}} template is not based on the policy WP:NOT. WP:NOT#TRIVIA says articles should not simply be trivia collections. It does not say that trivia sections are discouraged. That line is (presumably) based on WP:TRIVIA. --Pixelface 10:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, WP:NOT states "Trivia sections. Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." That is policy. --Cheeser1 10:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
              • You can read about the history of "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" at the talk page of WP:NOT. WP:NOT#TRIVIA now says "trivia sections" instead of "trivia collections", but that was changed just recently.[5] You can read about the origin of the mention of "trivia" in the five pillars at the talk page of WP:5P. --Pixelface 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • In response to "Nice try" from Cheeser: Guidelines don't "endorse" things unless they say so. These don't say so. You said the point of the guideline/policy is to label trivia sections. This is incorrect.
            Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
            06:17, September 10, 2007
  • Comment Check out the WikiTrivia project. Sorry for the slightly off-topic comment, but WikiTrivia hopes to address a good number of the concerns that have been voiced here. 21:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Template is almost exclusively used on sections called "Trivia," and is thus not devisive or inflammatory (according to original argument for deletion). DevOhm Talk 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Useful tag. — RJH (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the template promotes article growth by expansion to sections rather than the addition of trivial tidbits. - Longhair\talk 22:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The content that is placed under trivia sections are nearly always better off integrated into the main article. Sections that contain a hodgepodge of miscelaney should be discouraged. Cacophony 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - or Change - I agree with Zompist's comment (a few sections above) because this is what I keep saying meself. Slapping down tags I feel is useless because more often than not, that tag will remain there forever. The tagger's usually won't take the initiative themselves to fix what they think is wrong with the article - usually because they might be knowledgeable with the subject and aren't sure what to change - and they hope the person or persons who wrote the article (who probably feel there is nothing wrong with it in the first place) will come by and fix it. They probably won't bother. So the tags sit, because one person sees something is wrong, but isn't sure how to fix it - or they feel someone will eventually come by and clean it up - but that can take months if at all and the ugly tags remain. There are a lot articles - especially for entertainment - TV shows, music and movie articles - where editors (including myself) like to add bits of "behind the scenes" info or interesting facts that I feel don't really fit in with the article's main text. These bits of info could simply be added to a small list which I see nothing wrong with. I know there are huge trivia lists on a lot of articles that are getting way too big, but perhaps we can permit small trivia sections - like 5 items at most. Anything that gets too long then add a tag to explain the section is getting cluttered and should be cut back to just the most important things. We could start fixing trivia lists by making sure everything is sourced. Unsourced statements should get deleted and I guarantee that will probably cut back most lists by over half. Cyberia23 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment there are plenty of editors wikignomes if you like) that systematically work through cleanup backlogs improving articles that have been tagged, so "slapping down tags" can be useful. --BelovedFreak 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I endore Cyberia's comment: Slapping down tags I feel is useless because more often than not, that tag will remain there forever. This is generally the case: cleanup tags are very overused on Wikpedia, and disfigure the articles to the detriment of reader usability. I would like to mention that this would not be the case if cleanup tage -- which are in large part designed to be communications from and to Wikpedia editors (as opposed to the general non-editing user of Wikpedia) -- were placed on the discussion page instead of on the article. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOT#TRIVIA -- trivia-type sections should be discouraged based on their indiscriminate, unconnected, and frivolous entries. Any pertinent entries should be merged into the body of the article or place on the talk page for implementation down the road, and this tag helps identify these unencyclopedic sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, renaming if necessary. Very useful template which allows editors to find trivia sections, deal with them by integrating items properly into the article, and generally improve articles. Placement of the template within any particular article may be controversial, but then anyone can remove it if they think it's inappropriate. --BelovedFreak 22:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zompist.. this template is unnecessary and only causes problems. Plus, it's a dumb policy, but even if it was a sound policy, this template is bogus. DeusExMachina 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Penultimate Keep. this template is the most useful tool in wikidom for preventing runaway trivia sections filled with unsourced uninteresting, insignificant, and unencyclopaedic kruft, from overtaking articles. --emerson7 | Talk 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? "Penultimate Keep"? "...most useful tool..."? How does the existence of this tag prevent trivia sections from filling up? I have seen several trivia sections fill despite my best efforts to tag and empty them. If people are going to post trivia they are goingt o do it regardless of how many tags are displayed. Padillah 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to hand it to Pixelface, this is probably one of the longest template discussions if not the longest. -Sox207 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Pointless tag, used mainly by editors who expect other editors to do cleanup for them. The trivia bugs you? Edit it yourself. Captain Infinity 00:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and rename if necessary. Trivia information doesn't belong to an encyclopedia, and useful info can be integrated elsewhere. If you delete this template, all articles will start growing with unorganized trivia sections again. ---Majestic- 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but perhaps rename, reword, and redirect to something like Template:Integrate, and come to a better consensus on how this tag should be used and applied, and when it should not be applied. I think the real problem is not this template, but that there is no consensus on the meaning of "trivia", and there is a variety of extreme opinions about what to do about such "trivia". There is also no consensus on whether all trivia sections should be eventually integrated or removed, or that in some cases a trivia section really is the only place certain types of relevant information could actually exist. The existing trivia guideline is a reasonable attempt, I believe, at compromise between the "all trivia is interesting and should be kept" and the "trivia is a menace to Wikipedia and must be eliminated at all costs" extremes. While I believe that this tag, like some other cleanup tags, serves little or no benefit to the reader (unlike a tag such as {{POV}} or {{unreferenced}}, which alerts the reader to reliability problems), I can see that there are many editors who want such a tag to assist in cleanup efforts. I do think though, that it would be better for such tags to be on an article's talk page, as they do clutter up the article as much, if not more than, the trivia section itself. (I'd say the same about tags like {{proseline}}, for instance.) I also think the template should be moved from the "Potentially unwanted content" to the "Style" section of the cleanup template page. Finally, I believe it is wrong for this tag to be indiscriminately applied (by bots or humans) to any section that happens to be called "Trivia". DHowell 02:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename: I agree with your general sentiments; it seems to me that the big problem has to do with the template being named "trivia". Just renaming the template to something like Template:Integrate would resolve many of the issues brought up in other comments. --Nick Penguin 04:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Dy yol 03:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 6
  • Strong Delete. To me, most Wikipedia trivia sections are actually good things; they keep little minor details together without cluttering up the main text of the article. As someone else pointed out, the actual Wikipedia policy is a lot less anti-trivia than the template itself--even after numerous edits. I always thought the template was a form of "holier than thou", elitist intimidation; it needs to go!!! --RBBrittain 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • At the risk of infuriating some people, I agree with you almost completely. I'm glad someone said it, and I'm even more glad it wasn't me :) 04:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I very much agree with you. Robot Android Mouse Bot 3 who plastered it all over Wikipedia (deciding just on lines count!!!) had made the situation even worse. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I also would like to agree with this, for yet another reason -- these sections, whether they're called "trivia" or, as I prefer "Miscellaneous facts" offer a place for people who are not full-fledged editors to get a sense of what editing Wikipedia is about, and allows them to participate easily. They are, in many cases, the entry-way. Also, it really isn't possible to integrate every single fact into an article, where doing so would mean inserting otherwise unnecessary verbiage simply to surround the fact with the proper context. Doing so would needlessly bulk out articles -- better to have the simple fact presented in the most efficient way, which is in list form. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 09:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This template is well intentioned, but more often than not, it and its parent policy are used to blank sections of articles deemed "trivia." More importantly, some especially zealous editors often remove information from an article based on what their own interpretations of trivia are and are not. If we are to keep this template, at least put some kind of instructions for proper use... if it isn't haphazardly pasted in a section of an article, sometimes it just gets stuck at the top of a page, somehow implying that the entire article is trivia - again an extension of editor interpretation. Boo. MalikCarr 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The template focus is on integrating material. What is wrong with that? Vegaswikian 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • He just said what's wrong with that. 05:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • If he said that then the it would be a keep with comments and not a delete. Vegaswikian 21:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • How do you figure? You asked what's wrong with the template, when he already said what's wrong with it, which is why he wants it deleted. Madness, all madness! =D 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per RBBrittain. —pfahlstrom 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, replace with some kind of Template:Integrate - While I'm not quite as infuriated at the way this tag is used as some people are, I do agree that the way it is worded is somewhat inflammatory. More to the point though is the fact that the narrow focus of this template -- so-called "trivia" sections -- could be dealt with better by a more general "this section should be integrated into the main text of the article" template. It would be a far less potentially inflammatory template and would be more appropriate for use in sections that are not explicitly identified as Trivia, but nonetheless should (at least in the tagging editor's opinion) be integrated or otherwise moved into other parts of the article. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • P.S. - If my above suggestion is what happens, I would also suggest that Template:Trivia redirect to the new template. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing the name of the template is not material, what the template displays is. Vegaswikian 05:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • An excellent point - the name of the template is essentially immaterial (if we wanted to rename it, this should be a move, not a TfD, right?). --Cheeser1 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The name of a template matters. If there was a {{shitty}} template that displayed the text "Thanks for your great edits!", it would send a mixed message. The {{trivia}} template sends a mixed message by labeling edits as "unimportant" and then telling people these unimportant facts should be put in other sections of an article. The names of templates need to be neutral -- something not related to personal POV. That is why I listed this template for deletion -- "trivia" is not a neutral word. --Pixelface 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That's not an excellent point, it's what everyone already knew. Most of the people here aren't even discussing the nominator's reasoning, because they generally agree it's not valid. There are other, better reasons the template should be deleted though. 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If everyone already knew it, then why did someone make a suggestion that indicates that s/he did not already know it? You're not making sense. --Cheeser1 07:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • My my, I step away for a few hours and everyone completely misrepresents my words. My objection is not to the name of the template, but the wording therin. I was merely pointing out that if my suggestion was followed (creating a template more broad in scope) then the name for this new template would probably need to be different. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I said most of the people here generally agree the nominator's reasoning is invalid. By everyone I did not mean every single person. However most people assumed your "excellent point" without the need to explicitly point it out. Even my vote, which was the first vote, said it, in not so many words. 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I see plenty of people voting "keep but rename the template." Why do you insist on badgering people about minutia like whether or not I'm allowed to say that this point is a good point? The three of us agree that renaming the template does nothing. Why badger me about whether or not it was a good idea to point that out? --Cheeser1 17:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
              • You seem to mistake my statements for implications about what you should and shouldn't be doing. This is a discussion and I am responding to those comments with which I disagree. I'm sorry if you don't like that or can't understand that. I am not telling you what you should and shouldn't be doing. I'm only arguing, just like everyone here is doing. Please get used to it, as it happens often in Wikipedia. 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Last time I checked, this is supposed to be a discussion, not an argument. I am not here to argue, I am here to discuss policy. You don't have to run down every single possibility in every single word, trying to discredit every person who says anything you disagree with. --Cheeser1 01:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Right, well, don't look now but it looks like you're making an argument. A discussion in which the participants disagree is called an argument. This is an argument. 01:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename or even Disambiguate (complicate it) - it serves a necessary function, though its current naming has disagreeable connotations. Go with more neutral wording as has been suggested above, or fork into a small number of relevant templates for this template's most common uses. --The Chairman (Shout me · Stalk me) 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've never liked the whole taboo on trivia. As long as it is done in moderation, I think trivia is, contrary to the actual meaning of the word, a useful part of an article. Notwithstanding this, I also feel that this template would appear on way too many pages, so many pages that include trivia otherwise thusfar not integrated into the article. Valley2city 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Trivia sections call attention to relevant items that may be awkard to integrate into existing sections of the article. They add interesting items which may cause other editors to reasearch more sources to spur new content. By encouraging interest in the subject, they help recruit new editors to investigate the existing sources, and help articles grow. So, KEEP@ (anon voted twice; this comment was posted near the top of the page and appears to comment on why trivia should stay) Excellent addition to most articles. Commonly used for important items where the editor may not have enough sources to justify a longer section. Often relevant and informative to my interests in the article. KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.193.243 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, just stop changing the wording every five minutes. Every time I see it now it says something different. --Richmeistertalk 07:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - From my experience this template has proven useful a few times, the content of the template can be rewritten but I just don't see a real reason for deletion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm surprised to see this has been put up for deletion. I use it all the time, and it serves an important purpose. It's essential not just because it is used so often, but because people need to be made aware that trivia sections or sections containing disconnected facts lacking context are not acceptable in a good article. Richard001 07:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but develop some better guidelines for its use. I've seen massive improvements on countless articles where this template was added. Unfortunately, I'm also starting to see it on articles with no more than one or two pieces of trivia that really don't need or deserve to be integrated. Overall, though, it's been (and will continue to be) a great benefit to Wikipedia; the fact that a few people abuse it does not change that fact. If used properly, it is not at all inflammatory, and there are many many templates which can be inflammatory if used improperly, so that's not a valid reason to delete. Xtifr tälk 08:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a necessary cleanup template. —Ppntori 08:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a debate about whether the template should be deleted, not about the presence of trivia on Wikipedia. People may not agree about things like the wording or usage of this template, but the point is that it does enforce a valid Wikipedia guideline and it clearly summarizes that guideline with the current wording. If people don't like how it's used, that can easily be rectified without deleting the template. Pixelface's contention that "importance" cannot be defined is an argument about is probably best suited to contesting the guideline itself. The template itself makes no reference to importance and does not say information is important or not important. I'm not convinced that the template itself is divisive and inflammatory, although I'm sure that the guideline is. The majority of the debate should be about the guideline, not this template. As some people say, "Don't shoot the messenger" and don't delete this template.--Jtalledo (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. Let's keep the template and get rid of the guideline? I don't see how that helps. We need to gut the trivia handling and decide what we do or don't want in Wikipedia. Then we can establish a policy and a template that reflects the policy correctly. Having a template with no policy doesn't add anything. Padillah 12:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the point was that if the policy is a problem, we should change the policy, then talk about removing this template. Obviously, if trivia policy is changed or removed, the trivia template will be changed or removed. But to simply say "trivia policy is unfair, it labels information as unimportant" would be no reason to remove this template, but rather, a reason to discuss the policy behind it. Policy has decided that trivia is not a part of Wikipedia - important information in trivia sections should be integrated into articles. The rest should be removed. That is policy. This is not really up for debate (not within the confines of the TfD, anyway). --Cheeser1 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in the strongest sense of the word. If a fact is important enough for the trivia, it should be in the main article/a specific subsection. Triva just encourages irrelevancies like 'The french fry hit a cop' that doesn't matter. P.S. I'm sorry if my vote double posts, Wiki is being weirdi. Lots42 13:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As per quite a few other people, it seems, though I agree most with the logic of Twigboy, PC78, and Xtifr. However, I would go along with a Rename of the template to something that plays a little nicer, like Template:Integrate. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 7
  • Keep I have used this template, and I find it useful. It helps organize problem articles into a cleanup category. Shalom Hello 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but compromise per Twigboy. However unlikely, the current wording could possibly incite a flame war over what is inappropriate and what is not. If at all possible, I'd rather this not happen. Rephrasing the template would avoid lengthy discussions over what "inappropriate" means in this context. Raan0001 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Related proposal: Wikipedia:Relevance of content is an attempt to better define what 'is' and 'isn't' appropriate.--Father Goose 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy keep, of course. Trivia is not about accuracy or relevance, but about context. People who add trivia to trivia sections must not be given free pass to do so. It must be strictly discouraged as the laziness to really contribute which it is. Write consistently and coherently, or don't do it all. —AldeBaer 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The argument that all trivia should simply be removed at editor's discretion is not valid since there is often salvageable info in trivia sections. It must be added into the article however. Maybe a compromise would be to roundly move all trivia to the respective article talk page? That way nothing would be lost, and people would be given an incentive to contribute usefully by expanding the article with contextually integrated and balanced information. —AldeBaer 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That was practiced at one point, but WP:TRIVIA now advises against it. 18:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • In that case, we do in fact need this maintenance template. —AldeBaer 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • ...because...? 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
            • As a simple straightforward maintenance template that draws attention to trivia sections that should be salvaged for useful information to be integrated into the article text. Further, as a display of Wikipedia standards, as an encouragement and an incentive to incorporate information into consistent and coherent, contextually structured prose, and to thereby effectively contribute to the article's quality which adding to trivia sections is not, at least in that it presents information out of context. [Clarifying for Equazcion] Apart from that (and, depending on your own opinion, in addition to it), speaking only for myself, I believe that [t]rivia sections are unprofessional, as evidenced by their average quality, and the types of articles that usually contain trivia sections in the first place. —AldeBaer 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Unprofessional, as evidenced by their average quality? You're backing up one of your opinions with another of your opinions. 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                • I believe you're trying not to understand. —AldeBaer 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I understand just fine. I'm not asking for clarification. I simply question the merit of your argument. 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • You didn't question my two arguments, or at least you didn't reply to either of them. —AldeBaer 21:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                      • Ok ok I won't torture you anymore. I can't type any more responses without going into hysterics. Let's just say you win and I lose. 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                        • You're not torturing me, you're just not replying to my arguments. That's not losing, it's not trying. —AldeBaer 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                          • That's true. I'm not trying (anymore). 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
                            • You didn't try. Look, this is not about "winning" or "losing", it's about providing arguments and honestly trying to understand other's arguments. —AldeBaer 00:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                              • Equazcion - you forgot that Wikipedia policy considers Trivia sections unprofessional, and asks that we avoid making them. Their style is not suitable for an encyclopedia and their content is harder to read, verify, and establish as notable. --Cheeser1 01:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                                • Yes, thanks. That's not the point of this discussion. This is about the template, not whether or not trivia belongs in Wikipedia. And you're wrong about some of those reasons. Read the guideline for the actual reasons. I know what it says because I'm an active editor there, so no I didn't forget. 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                                  • Well then, try not to base your deletion of this template on some incorrect argument about how trivia sections are magically "professional" or otherwise suitable for an encyclopedia - they aren't. --Cheeser1 02:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                                    • Whether or not they're "professional" is a matter of opinion, nothing I commented on so far (that I know of). Likewise for how suitable they are for an encyclopedia, as far as it being a matter of opinion. It's a topic of ongoing discussion between many people (this is just the latest manifestation), and you can't settle that just by suddenly declaring your opinion as the only correct one. Not to mention, it's not even the topic of this discussion. 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                                      • Until policy is changed, they are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you are egging on this discussion in order to incite backlash against Trivia-related policies and guidelines (as seems quite conceivable), then you are blatantly violating WP:POINT by disrupting this debate and causing problems. If you want to discuss trivia policies, discuss them at WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT, not here. You continually chastise "keep" votes for veering in that direction, but you yourself have frequently gone out of your way to make this just as much an issue of trivia's inclusion as anyone else. --Cheeser1 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
                                        • You've complained before about me telling you what to do, so please don't tell me what to do. Furthermore the policy you're quoting is open to interpretation, and it's not even a policy, it's a style guideline. Guidelines are to be treated as flexible and having exceptions. As for the "egging on" comment, please assume good faith. Unless you have something to say about the template itself, I have nothing more to say to you. 16:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I understand the policy discouraging trivia sections, but I feel a lot of editors are quite overzealous in trying to exterminate it altogether, and this template just demonstrates the extreme interpretation of the policy. Yes, trivia is discouraged, but at the margins they are unavoidable, or else we could just say just get rid of trivia altogether. Placing a template gives the appearance of improper usage, whether avoidable or not. Even if the stance against trivia was stronger, it's my experience that the trivia template hasn't achieved its goals on the pages that I have observed. --Roehl Sybing 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not achieving the goals may be solely due to the fact that a bot added most of the current entries. If you add several thousand entries, manually or by bot, it is going to take time to address them. So I don't see this as a failure. Vegaswikian 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That particular problem is one of usage, a failure of whoever decided to make the bot. But the poster's reasons apply also to individual editors who are overzealous in their tagging. 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but rename I think this template can be useful if editors don't overdo it. But it should be rename as the meaning of the word trivia is quite unclear. Chris! my talk 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It should not be, if you read the policy here and the extensive guideline here.--Cheeser1 01:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I am fully aware of the guidelines. But that doesn't mean the template is useless. In fact, it can remind editors that the trivia guideline is in placed and it is discouraged. Chris! my talk 00:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on my, maybe rather limited, experience, the tag has disciplined editors to provide sources and create integration. It may not be the perfect way to encourage that behavior, but it seems to work.--HJensen, talk 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I already voted delete or change a while back, but I think the answer is to do both of those. What I propose is a template:popculture which says something along the lines that this one does except (politer, so not to get noses out of joint, and) under the sub-heading of "References in popular culture" in whatever-article. Also, I leave the comment that template:trivia be changed to something like "The trivia section for this article has more than ten items. Please try to integrate relevant entries into the articles main text or explain why the items are needed on this articles talk page".
  • Delete (or Change) This template is problematic and overly strong. I DO think there could be a template saying "Too much Trivia!" Often times stuff should be incorporated into the main article or deleted. However, there is also a sort of information that is relevant to an article but also best fits into a trivia section. I made a case for this in the talk section of the guidelines page. Comment:The guidelines to discourage trivia sections were made with a majority vote but not consensus. Compromise should have been reached to discourage over rambling trivia sections without being against their existence entirely. If the guidelines aren't changed to this kind of compromise, conflict will continue. Pigkeeper 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Equazcion, your ID pops up against pretty much every contributor to this deletion debate whom holds an alternative opinion to yourself; may I suggest you hang back a little now on the comments? I for one have certainly grasped now that you dislike this template, and I'm sure others have too! There is also a significant number of Keeps now, and your efforts, however noble, won't do a great deal of difference from here-on anyway. Just a point, 86.156.101.185 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Come now, I'm sure the best way to form consensus is to respond strongly to every single person who disagrees with you. --Cheeser1 01:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't go criticizing that now, Cheeser. Your name pops up quite a few times here as well. In response to our anonymous friend, I'm not trying to inform people of my position. I respond when I feel a comment has been made that warrants a response, and will continue to do so. 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Apparently you haven't noticed that the plurality of my responses are to the noble crusaders Equazcion and Pixelface. --Cheeser1 02:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Kindly refrain from the sarcasm and I'll be glad to answer you. 03:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- definitely a topical area for cleanup, and one which is definitely useful. The tag identifies a definite need for articles, when properly applied. --Haemo 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or move to Integrate and reword accordingly. We need a cleanup template for the many lists of indiscriminate information on Wikipedia. Trivia is the closest thing we have to that, but if it could be generalized to include other unencyclopedic lists it would be even better. Foobaz·o< 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Change. I wrote the first draft of the Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections guideline, despite the fact that I'm general inclusionist, because I wanted to promote better organization of this information and find an effective compromise between the two trivia camps. The template is (or was) much more deletionist in its language. Another problem is that it's frequently placed on sections which aren't trivia sections at all, except in the opinion of the person who added them. If it were me, I would make it say something like: "This is a list of loosely associated items that needs to be reorganized for better presentation." Dcoetzee 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Week keep, remove from television episode pages. While I am reluctant to keep this annoying template, we should, because it helps with the structure of pages. But we should remove it from all television episode articles, according to WP:TRIVIA, if a trivia section is essential, it will be accepted into an article. This deals with TV pages, because putting this random information in the plot summary of an article would make the quality of the page worse. Other articles, however, can have the template if the facts can be mixed into the text. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, even if you don't agree with it, and a template to identify trivia sections which could be removed or integrated seems fully justified. --Nick Dowling 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Equazcion Kuralyov 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Equazcion Validusername 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Now, those two votes are either for fun or just sad.--HJensen, talk 07:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I remember a template on TFD a few years back, which consisted only of *'''Keep''', non-notable. szyslak 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 8
  • Delete. The main problem is that the template was grossly misused by a robot which inserted it into into many, many articles deciding purely on word/lines count! When I complained (after spotting it in Cabaret (film)) to the owner of the robot he said that automated undo is impossible. So deleting the template is a handy way to repair the damage done. (Cabaret (film) had quite reasonable, useful and valid trivia section, yet the robot put the template in and no mere human dared to remove it.)
Personally, I do not agree with existence of a template demanding unconditional integration of trivias into the article in form of God's commandement. Every article should be treated individually, based on knowledge and common sense. Frequently the trivia are useful but simply cannot be integrated (e.g. in HMS Sword).
If this template is kept then some action to manually undo actions of the "robot gone mad" should be organized. Pavel Vozenilek 02:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That bot is no longer active (as far as I know), so removing the template is possible now. 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Trivia template covers a type of common Wikipedia style problems covering sections that potentially become unwieldly collection of facts. While I don't advocate killing trivia sections, they sometimes become silly as was the case with "Inaccurracies" section in Over the Hedge (film) and Ice Age (film) where information becomes really trivial, violates common sense (e.g. state cartoon physics as inaccurrate), or becomes a replacement trivia magnet. --Sigma 7 02:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Moe ε 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The opposers argue that this tag is placed because people are too lazy to edit the article themselves, and although I do see that point, what seems to be forgotten is that people also place that tag because maybe they're in a hurry to go do something else. And actually, if the argument is that people should just edit themselves instead of placing a tag, why not delete every template on Wikipedia? Don't be hypocritical and just single this template out.

Anthony Rupert 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment--I agree to a point Anthony, but I also think that starting something rather than doing the whole thing yourself is a feature of wikipedia, not laziness. Many articles are too extensive to reasonably rely on one person to write and edit, and some trivia lists are too long for one person to integrate. Since this is a collaborative encyclopedia, isn't it more fair and humble to suggest things to the other editors with tags than to wholesale remove or re-write what is non-compliant with policy?Lotusduck 04:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The difference here is that trivia is different from other maintenance tags. The trivia guideline, WP:TRIVIA, assumes that inexperienced editors will continue to use trivia sections to add tidbits of information quickly and without having to properly craft a quality contribution in the appropriate section. Often, trivia sections aren't a problem that can be fixed in one swift move -- rather, it's an ongoing effort. Therefore the trivia tag is in many cases meant to stay in an article almost indefinitely. That's what makes it different from other maintenance tags. In theory it really isn't a maintenance tag at all, even though it is thought of that way -- it's more of a reminder that editors should give the constant integration effort its due attention. As valid a reason as that is, I don't feel a non-content template should ever be indefinite, as it degrades the visual quality of the article. 04:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Useful for the common problem of lists of unassociated facts on wikipedia. Of course these lists will crop up because well meaning editors will find true facts that are source-able, but might not be sure what section to integrate the fact into. Of course these facts and sentences deserve to be a part of paragraphs or well defined, not overly long lists. So of course this tag will be placed on sections that weren't labeled as trivia, but as "in popular culture" or some other very general label. Equally obviously, since the template describes policy, the arguments against the template would seem to belong on the user pages of people who have used the template in a way the delete voters don't like, or on a policy talk page.Lotusduck 04:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The template encourages some users to move trivia contents to other section in the article, warns others to stop adding to a trivia section without integrating it, and at the very least lets someone who recognizes that there's cleanup to be done but not know how to fix it to flag the situation for others. —Quasirandom 06:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - trivia is discouraged. The text is hardly inflammatory, I think you'd have to have very thin skin to take offence at it. Keep this, as the removal of trivia from Wikipedia is to be encouraged, and if it's good enough to merge it into the main article, then it's not trivia. I should point out that trivia sections are a lazy editors way of editing Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • My opinion exactly. —AldeBaer 11:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, trivia sections are discouraged by the template. WP:TRIVIA does not attempt to define trivia because what constitutes "trivia" is completely subjective. When I say the template is inflammatory, I am not speaking about the text shown by the template. The name of the template ({{trivia}}) can be used in an inflammatory way to disparage any edits a user doesn't personally like. The template can be placed anywhere in an article. Many editors are using the word "trivia" as a synonym for "lazy", "stupid", "garbage", "crap", "worthless", and all kinds of other insults. Since people can't label an edit "shitty" and appear civil, they will resort to labeling it "trivia", meaning "unimportant." There is no need to criticize and insult another person's edits, and there is no reason for a template with negative connotations to exist. "Trivia" becomes a slur that hides an editor's contempt for another edit/editor. "Your edits were only trivial." "All you've done is added trivia to the article." "We don't need trivia like that on Wikipedia." "This article has too much trivia." "That trivia needs to be removed." "Trivia" becomes a label for everything an editor doesn't feel is important to him/her personally. There is no policy on trivia. The {{trivia}} template should be deleted because of the harmful way it can be used to attack articles and editors. --Pixelface 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll clarify. Trivia sections' are discouraged. My point doesn't really change, in fact it's only strengthened by this fact. Some editors are too thin-skinned. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete If there's anything more annoying than a trivia section, it's a trivia section with this template in it. Other templates highlight problems that may not be immediately noticed by readers, such as improper sourcing or unvalidated claims. These are visually distracting but flag the content as potentially problematic, which assists the reader. A trivia section is obviously a trivia section, and there's no need for a template to further deteriorate the article to point that out. Something only visible when you click the "edit" tab or something on the talk page would be far superior, and would avoid the "two wrongs don't make a right" peril. In any case, it's dubious to claim that this template actually encourages integrating trivia sections into the main body of the text. More likely, it just moralizes about other editors dislike of trivia sections. bobanny 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If trivia distracts from the article or is unweildy, someone will fix it. Too many templates dilutes the impact of important templates like NPOV. Mbisanz 08:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per SteveSims. Dalejenkins | 09:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for most of the myriad keep reasons already given - useful for clearing out the dross. nb: who ever closes this had better use a long int to count the keeps. --Jack Merridew 12:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hopefully, the one who closes (poor bastard) won't do a simple vote count but weigh up opinion and try to fairly gauge consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Point taken, but I would still think having to total-up would be a part of the process. Seriously, I would think this is a candidate for a speedy-keep. I do pity the "poor bastard" — this thing has gone to - what - a dozen 21 pages? --Jack Merridew 11:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Trivia might mean unimportant, but yet it means interesting and informative, sometimes in ways that may make the information difficult to integrate into the article. Many times I've seen articles losing information when Trivia sections are deleted. We must understand that, even though we're following a fixed set of rules and policies, we have to be flexible and provide as much information as possible! We are doing readers a disservice by removing useful and interesting information. By the way I am very supportive of creating an "integrate" template. — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 13:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I have no problem with tags like this going on the Talk page, but it distracts the reader, looks bad and does not add anything when place on the article itself. This is, in essence, an opinion tag. That goes on the Talk page. Or an editor can make an edit based on her/his opinion. Since the tag is not being used the way it should, strong delete. -GnuTurbo 13:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, you'd need to delete any of the dozens of cleanup templates out there, as they also distract the reader. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment any FAC that has a trivia section will almost certainly fail until the trivia section is merged into the main article and unimportant facts are removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Though I have used this template before and integrated/deleted trivia sections; I feel that this template and the corresponding WP:TRIVIA policy are particularly "anti-newbie". WP:TRIVIA itself is particularly self contradictory and wishy washy. Either trivia is completely depreciated or wholly embraced (and encouraged). As it is now, the policy says "trivia is not good but its okay to keep in the article". Its really wishy washy and no wonder people are confused on how to handle it and its template - its unnecessarily divisive. I say delete the template, sit down and hammer out a consistent and clear policy on trivia (if such a thing can ever be achieved in Wikipedia). --Eqdoktor 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Please note that policy is not in question here - votes to keep or delete based solely on the merits of WP:NOT#INFO (or lack thereof) are not relevant in a TfD of this nature. --Cheeser1 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree. Both sides (keep and delete) seem to be arguing about the trivia policy. If they don't agree with it, then it would be best for them to do dispute the policy first. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no trivia policy. The only thing even close to a trivia policy is WP:NOT#TRIVIA which says that articles should not just have only one big section named "Trivia" (and no others), where every fact about a topic is listed. WP:NOT#TRIVIA now says "trivia sections" instead of "trivia collections", but that was changed just recently.[6] There is not a ban on trivia. WP:TRIVIA says Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts but this template says trivia sections are discouraged. The {{trivia}} template was inserted into thousands of articles by a bot. The {{trivia}} template is currently in over 8,800 articles and it has been placed in sections that are not named ==Trivia==. If the heading is not explictly named ==Trivia==, the opinion that everything in a section is "trivia" is just that, an opinion. A trivia heading by itself (==Trivia==) is not offensive because it invites contributions. But a template that basically says "your contributions are not welcome" and labels someone's edits as "unimportant" is offensive. --Pixelface 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The template says that the contributions shouldn't be a section of unrelated facts, which is also what the guideline says. If the added content is appropriate then it can stay in the article and the contributions are very welcome. It is not the contributions that are being labeled, it is the format in which it is displayed. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Do you mean the format of a bulleted list? Bulleted lists are completely acceptable and are mentioned at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet and Help:List and WP:MOSLIST. If this template is an objection to bulleted lists, the name is wrong. --Pixelface 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
              • No I mean lists of miscellaneous/unrelated facts. Bulleted lists are more appropriate for a related list and are certainly acceptable. The template is to indicate that the section contains a list of unrelated (or marginally related) facts which may be better organised elsewhere in the article. The template (as an extension of the guideline) isn't saying bulleted lists are bad, nor is it saying get rid of trivia. It is saying that facts should not be formated in a a disorganised list. The template urges the contents of the section to be organised to create a tidier article. The content itself is governed by other policies. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Read point six in WP:NOT#INFO. It explicitly discourages trivia sections within articles, as they are lists of indirectly related information. The template accurately and succinctly reflects this policy. --Cheeser1 13:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                • That'll probably be gone soon (the trivia item in NOT#INFO). Cheeser has a point because NOT#INFO is a content policy, which is confusing because the trivia item there just points to WP:TRIVIA, which is a style guideline, having nothing to do with content, only formatting. The mention of trivia doesn't belong in NOT#INFO and won't be there much longer. However even if you want to hold that policy sacred for now, the item actually refers specifically to "large" sections of indirectly-related details -- which means that reasonably-sized trivia sections are fine. 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • I don't see why it will be gone soon. There was a carefully discussed discussion from June to August about the section. If it gets removed without discussion, I'll be reverting. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • It of course would never be gone without a discussion. I probably won't even be the one to do it. But if it does get removed it'll be for the reasons I just said, and even if it doesn't, again it only applies to "large" sections.
                      Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
                      04:09, September 10, 2007
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 9
  • Keep - Davnel03 15:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - As mentioned above, what people seem to be debating here is the inclusion or exclusion of trivia itself. I for one am against trivia sections - they're not what this encylopedia is about. That aside completely, this template is invaluable when it comes to marking a trivia section, be it for a cleanup, inclusion in the rest of the article, or just plain delete. TheIslander 15:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Note: I have very limited internet access right now, so I appologise if I don't respond to comments swiftly.
  • Delete in favor of the proposed {{Integrate}} template. Robert K S 19:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Once an {{Integrate}} template (or some other very similar template) is up and running, then it can be reconsidered for deletion, but not before this time.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. Greg Jones II 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, as per above. Domthedude001 23:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, reasons already well stated by many above. --HarryHenryGebel 00:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per nom. Epbr123 00:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Never agreed with WP:TRIVIA anyway. Wl219 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Trivia sections are awful and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Real encyclopedias would never think of having one. Anything that helps convince readers and editors of this is worthwhile. Wasted Time R 02:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Trivia sections attract new contributors. I don't see a problem with that. Are people afraid that a reader will see a trivia section and think that Wikipedia is unprofessional? Wikipedia is unprofessional: it's edited by volunteers. I don't know anyone who edits Wikipedia professionally (but if someone is paying them to edit articles, that's probably a conflict of interest). Discouraging trivia sections discourages new contributors. If anything, Trivia sections are a helpful reminder to readers that anyone can edit a Wikipedia page (something a "real" encyclopedia would never allow) -- so everything one reads should be taken with a grain of salt. If an article looks like it was written by "amateurs", it probably was. Why try to hide that? --Pixelface 18:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think that this argument is pretty dumb really. We are striving for professional quality writing and content. Just because those who aren't professionals are editing it doesn't mean that we should accept poor quality. I certainly don't, and I work hard on my articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this and most other templates designed to place editorial comments on article pages, when they belong on talk pages. This is as absurd as adding a {{spelling}} tag in article to cause others to fix it, when the finder of the problem should fix it. --Rob 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with the principle of "fix it, don't just tag it". OTOH, even though we don't have a "spelling" template, we do have {{copyedit}}. szyslak 10:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template will help in the long run; it adds articles to that catagory, so people who arent lazy, will remove the articles w/ trivia. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You all know I'm for deleting this template, but I just wanted to say something about the nominator's POV argument. There seems to be some confusion as to what POV, in Wikipedia terms, is supposed to apply to. NPOV or Neutral Point of View applies to article content. It's a guideline that was made to ensure that contributors write objectively, so that articles dispense information accurately and without editorial slant. It has nothing to do with what goes on behind-the-scenes at Wikipedia; and in fact, it can't, or else this place would cease to function. For example, if a guideline needs to state that a particular type of content is inappropriate, it can say that flat-out; it needs to, or else people won't get the right message. It can call things unimportant, and yes, even trivial. Wikipedia is only politically correct as far as its article content is concerned. But in order to decide which content is appropriate, honest criticism and labeling are at times necessary. Point being: the nominator's argument about POV, while it may sound like a reference to a guideline we all frequently hear about, is in fact not. It is simply someone's opinion about the way things should be at Wikipedia. PS. I'm aware that this helps the Keep argument, but I feel that if people vote to Delete they should do it for the right reasons. I don't want to make editors' lives more difficult by starting a trend of tiptoey political correctness in our naming conventions, lest we start seeing guidelines like "Neutrality in template names" and so forth. We're here to make something good, and that sometimes requires calling things bad in order to get rid of them. 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You're flat out wrong, Equazcion. Go look at the main TFD page. Then look at the What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) section and read #4. A template named {{shitty}} would be unacceptable because it's not a neutral word. Neither is {{worthless}}, {{crappy}}, {{garbage}}, {{embarassing}}, {{stupid}}, or {{lazy}}. Then go read WP:CSD#T1. Those are my reasons for deletion. --Pixelface 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Pointing out the obvious here, but two of the templates you said have non neutral words exist, soo... um, not sure what to say--Kyle(talk) 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The {{garbage}} template is for a musical group named Garbage. The {{lazy}} template is a userpage template for use by users on their own talk pages. They are not used to describe another user's edits in articles. --Pixelface 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Once again, the content is not being labeled trivia, the template is linked to a style guideline for the section. The section is being labeled. The template is called trivia because the vast, vast majority of the sections with the template are called trivia sections and it has evolved from the need to clean up those. It has also been applied to sections that have the same style of disorganised, unrelated facts. The content is not being labeled as trivial, just the organisation of the section. At best your complaint here is with the wording of the template, not with the template itself. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In answer to Pixelface's original response: The item you refer to at WP:TFD is the only place that says anything like this, and all it says is that template should comply with WP:NPOV -- yet WP:NPOV itself says nothing about templates or guidelines, only article content. This must mean that the TFD item is referring to content templates, just as infoboxes etc. This isn't about maintenance tags. Again, WP:NPOV is about content alone, not tags.
      Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
      05:29, September 10, 2007
      • WP:CSD#T1 mentions "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory" so I assume the mention of non-neutral names at WP:TFD is still valid. Or are you saying that a {{this section is fucking retarded}} template would be acceptable? --Pixelface 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh it's valid, it just doesn't apply to templates in general, only to content, which templates can be a part of, if they are content templates. But this is a maintenance tag. It is not content, and therefore is not subject to NPOV. Divisive and inflammatory, again refers to content, although that isn't explicitly stated. We could call certain content fucking retarded if not for civility guidelines. Calling something trivia is still civil though -- a far cry from "fucking retarded".
          Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
          06:08, September 10, 2007
  • Keep I'm fairly new around here, so I'd like to keep my comments short. However, I'd like to wholeheartedly acknowledge that other, more established users carry more weight than my own. That being said: articles under development typically contain uncategorizable data, which need some form of repository. Maybe it's labeled "Trivia", or "Integrate" , or maybe it's the Talk page - the purpose is generally the same: data which has yet to be blended into the body of the article. Just my opinion, though.--Curious brain 07:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The first thing I want to say is, I don't like trivia sections. But I like this template even less. As a guideline, is WP:AVTRIV really of such life and death importance that every article with a trivia section deserves a fat, ugly tag? If you think so, maybe we should talk about officializing WP:AVTRIV. On general principle, I support limiting maintenance tagging to fairly serious problems. For example, we use tags like {{unreferenced}} and {{refimprove}} to flag articles that don't adequately cite their sources, a problem with the potential to harm the credibility of the encyclopedia. We use the {{POV}} tag when there's reason to believe Wikipedia content is in violation of WP:NPOV, our most fundamental editorial policy. Even the humble {{copyedit}} tag has an extremely valuable purpose: Poor writing harms our credibility, and needs fixing. We all know trivia sections are not a shining example of Wikipedia's potential. But is eliminating trivia sections really our first priority here? Strike a blow at tagitis today. Delete. szyslak 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Watered down from its original intent, serves no effective purpose. On another note, I would hate to be the closing admin.  east.718 at 12:33, September 9, 2007 
  • Keep This template has helped clean up countless articles. And how else did most of you find out that trivia sections were discouraged? I'd hazard a guess that for most people it was from this very template. Seaserpent85Talk 14:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd be one of those who learned it through the template, yup. —Quasirandom 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This template is pointless in my opinion. I have seen several trivia sections with the template, and all that happens to address the supposed issue is the title is changed from "Trivia" to something like "Songs used in Pop culture" without any content change and suddenly the matter of unimportance is thrown out the window. It seems that this template is designed to discourage the use of the word "Trivia" and use a word which signified importance. Is that really needed? Instead of using this template, users could simply rename sections. Martin Porcheron talk to memy edits 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: this template may be used for any section that contains trivia, even if the heading is not "trivia." A "trivia section" is not "a section labeled trivia," but rather "any section containing trivia or information presented as trivia." --Cheeser1 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per RBBrittain. --Marcus-e 16:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shouldn't WP:TRIV be submitted for deletion as well? I'd support it. Mglovesfun 16:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 10
  • Strong Delete Trivia sections might be not be encyclopedic, but neither are tags. This template has become borderline spam and readability has clearly taken a hit. I also agree somewhat that it is unnecessarily inflammatory and discouraging to new contributors, though that should be more of a reason for change rather than deletion (I like the idea of placing the tags only on the talk pages). Finally, since these "anti"-trivia guidelines are clearly so divisive, I question the wisdom of having such a widespread and visible endorsement of one of the sides of the dispute before it is satisfactorily settled. 89.181.48.17 17:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "Borderline spam"? Hardly. As for readibility taking a hit, must also disagree. Readibility takes a hit when there are trivia sections, and it's no worse than any other cleanup tag. It's named well for its purpose. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent way to identify articles with trivia sections, which obviously require some work to remove the useless stuff and integrate the useful stuff into the article. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark: The issue with Trivia sections is that they do "make the place look untidy". And yes, they do, in some cases, indicate lazy editors. But the Wikipedia ethos is to "have a go, because someone else will improve your work if it is not as good as they want it to be." To me this says that a new (or a lazy) editor may well add "stuff" in a Trivia section rather than edit in a way "expected" of an experienced editor. That is well within what Wikipedia is trying to do. It adds facts which may then be verified, referenced, expanded, integrated into the correct place in the article. The Trivia Template discourages this addition. Some may say "This is a good thing," and be happy. But it is not a good thing. Needing every editor to be an expert, or even to be competent, that smacks of cliques. "You may not play if you're not good enough." Aren't we above cliques? Isn't our role to encourage the new or less experienced or less competent to be better? I have already expressed my opinion for deletion. I see this template as "hit and run" intervention rather than competent, joined up editing. If you have time to place a template you have time to consider integration. I dislike the concept of "Trivia Patrols", bot or human. Thsi template encourages such patrols. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Assume some good faith - the point of the tag is not to criticize or attack anyone or anything. "Hit and run" makes it sound like the "trivia patrol" is damaging the article. The template is there to attract people who have more qualifications or more time. If I don't have time to fix something that I notice, I tag it. That way, others are far more likely to notice it. What other purpose would you think the template has? To chastise people who contribute trivia? Not at all. --Cheeser1 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • No that's exactly what it's doing. Any attempt at good faith tagging of an article's trivia section for cleanup can be handled by {{cleanup}}. {{trivia}} is just plain WP:BITE. Wl219 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • No, {{trivia}} means that there is a trivia section that has material that should be merged into the main article, or has material that is inappropriate for the article. It's not there to demean anyone, never has been and never will. If it gets used this way, then we will warn the editor doing this and stop them from causing trouble. It's really as simple as that. However, I've never seen any editor do this myself, and I've seen quite a few of sections tagged using this template. Bottom line: show us evidence of this template being used for attack, and we'll deal with it sensibly. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Remark: Examples? Well certainly. Every time a bot applies this template, there you have an example. Doesn't that make about 5,000 examples? Revert all bot applications and you might have a starting point for making a point. This template is divisive and is the lazy Wikipedians way of saying "There, I made a difference." But the difference is a negative diference. Anyone who feels that a section containing items they feel to be trivia should be integrated should integrate it themselves, or remove those odd factettes themselves. It is a delusion to think that adding a template like this improves the end product. The only thing that improves the end product is physical improvement of the end product. "I don't always have time" does not wash. Put the article on your own watch list and edit it properly yourself later. Using a template such is this is pure "I'm better than you are" self aggrandisement. Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete no actual policy against trivia, it will stop anti-trivia fascism if this is deleted. - The Daddy 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Check point #6 here. This policy explicitly states that trivia sections should be avoided. --Cheeser1 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It only explicitly states "large" trivia sections.
        Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
        05:50, September 10, 2007
  • Keep. Trivia sections are one of the most common reasons articles need cleanup, and marking them with a maintenance template is perfectly reasonable. ave people forgotten that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a random collection of information? Laundry lists of trivia emphatically do need cleaning, either y integrating into the text (if they are not trivial trivia) or more often by removing the more trivial trivia. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The logic to remove this template so far is 'because it's calling editor's work unimportant', when the same logic could be applied to the AfD policies. People need to understand that an encyclopedia has a baseline, and not all things are necessary for posterity. Richard Nixon's health condition before death would be relevant to us now since almost everyone in the world would have seen or heard of him, but in the perspective of 1000's of years from now, people would only care about what he's done as President, as much as people care about George Washington's dental care habits. Sure it's interesting, but not relevant to general history. If people are misusing the Trivia template by putting it in for a different section, or using it for a whole article, that's a problem of misuse rather than purpose. The template still has purpose. Furthermore, No Trivia is not a policy in Wikipedia, but it is a guideline, and not all Trivia sections need be deleted. I could see Trivia being a part of Simple English Wikipedia for Geographic information regarding states or countries, for example. Common sense is the operating condition here, and we need to keep the encyclopedia relevant. Micah 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to point out that this discussion is not binding on the Simple English Wikipedia. It might be useful there, but not here. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete under the fix it yourself if you have a problem with it principle.Geni 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Good idea, but how can you easily find articles with a trivia section to fix if not for this template? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Categorization is a really bad argument to keep a tag like this. Contextual templates are far from the only way to add something to a category. We have talk page templates and distinct category links for that. Categorization is an incidental plus of maintenance tags, not the sole purpose. If it were then other methods would be used instead.
        Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
        05:49, September 10, 2007
  • Comment Whoever decides to finally close this has a hell of a decision to make. I don't envy them. DeusExMachina 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have a feeling it's going to be a keep through no consensus. There's a lot of issues that will need to be addressed after this TFD discussion otherwise it will end up right back here again. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 02:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 11
  • Strong Delete I've seen editors delete trivia sections, that are well cited, based on this template alone. They have obviously not click-thru to actually read the policy. This template is not serving the encylopedia as it is designed and worded. Lentower 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The template doesn't say to just remove the section. It says to integrate the material if possible, and remove inappropriate items. Sounds like someone editing wrongly, and not actually a problem with the trivia template. - -Ta bu shi da yu 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. While it may be misused, this is a necessary cleanup template that assists editors in identifying possibly unencyclopedic information. Calliopejen1 23:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - or (perhaps preferably) remove all current instances, or all bot-added instances, and start again, after putting a good deal more thought into the tag wording. The tag misstates the guideline: WP:NOT#INFO does not discourage trivia sections as such: it discourages large sections of indirectly-related facts. Short sections of facts directly related to the subject article that don't happen to fit in with the article as it currently exists - perhaps because the section they would fit into hasn't been written yet - are not discouraged. What's needed is a tag that says something like, "This Trivia section may be too long (see ...). Please consider integrating these facts into the body of the article, or removing unimportant material". And just a Comment on an oft-made point: there may be a reason that other encyclopedias don't have trivia sections and Wikipedia does: Wikipedia is a work permanently in progress (remember the logo). A trivia section should in itself be an invitation to do more work, but it doesn't need the tag - that's just box clutter. seglea 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to the above comment, I must say that editors (especially new editors) sometime need a reminder. And this template serve exactly that purpose. Also I think editors who hate trivia are reading both WP:NOT#TRIVIA and WP:TRIVIA out of context. Trivia is "discouraged" but not totally banned. Remember that. Chris! my talk 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but I can't think of a single instance where trivia either wasn't trivia, or shouldn't have been removed from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Trivia sections do not belong on Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Definite keep Useful items in a trivia can easily be moved into the article text sections - useless trivia should be nixed. master sonT - C 01:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. - WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NOT#TRIVIA points out that sections containing trivial information should be avoided. I don't believe that all of the information found under trivia sections should be kept, but I don't believe it should all be deleted either. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that all facts (some of which I feel are notable) can be included into other sections of the article. I believe that some of the facts under trivia sections are relevant and informative, but just don't fit into the rest of the article. Additionally, I'd like to point out that my first experience on reading Wikipedia articles was a search for a fact I couldn't find elsewhere, which, I'd like to point out was found under a trivia section. Had it not been for that trivia section, I probably wouldn't have realized what a great project Wikipedia is. I think the TRIVIA guideline should be added to the manual of style, and trivia sections should be checked for relevance in the same way the rest of the information on Wikipedia is checked -- by peer editors. I do see both sides of the debate, but I have to say I lean more towards delete on this one. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 02:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:TRIVIA is talking about how we organize this information, not about the deleting of this information. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep By the nom's logic, we should TfD every cleanup tag as being POV or divisive and inflammatory. This is a very helpful template that is very much needed. The guidelines are about how we organize information, and putting things in better places rather than "miscellaneous". -- Ned Scott 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Which of these sound neutral to you? "This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards", "This article or section may require restructuring to meet Wikipedia's quality standards", "The information in this section may need to be integrated into the rest of the article", "The information in this section is not important"? A template that is a synonym for "unimportant"[7][8][9][10][11] is not neutral. --Pixelface 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You have missed my point. Cleanup templates do not have to worry about sounding neutral. If something is a problem, and it is tagged as such, the tag should just go out there and say what the problem is. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say "this article has a trivia section" or to indicate that many items in that section are not notable, and need to be evaluated. You fundamentally misunderstand how NPOV applies to this situation. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • At WP:TFD, it says "proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever one or more of the following apply:" and #4 reads "The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement." "Trivia" is not a neutral word. It means "unimportant information." A {{stupid}} template is not neutral, and the {{trivia}} template is not neutral -- because trivia means "unimportant information." The first critera for the speedy deletion of templates is "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." When the template is put under a heading that is not labeled ==Trivia==, it is inflammatory -- it is labeling all the information in a section as unimportant. It literally trivializes someone's edits to an article. The {{trivia}} template can be used by anyone to attack any edit or editor in an article. Templates need to have neutral names that cannot be used to attack other editors. I don't see why we need the {{trivia}} template when we have the {{cleanup-section}} template. --Pixelface 06:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Ok, that is just an absurd pile of crap. A template's name being trivia is an attack on other editors? WTF? Have you never seen {{notability}}? Or that cleanup tags in generally basically say "whoever wrote this the first time didn't do a good job"? Importance to the subject is not a POV issue. In no logical way can this be seen as "divisive and inflammatory". You don't get it, you fail to get it, but thanks for wasting our time. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Whether information is unimportant or important, trivia or not trivia, is a POV issue. Wikipedia has no policies on importance. The {{notability}} template says that a topic may not satisfy the notability guidelines of various topics. It does not state outright that something is not notable. Notability is distinct from "importance." Editors do not have to establish the importance of a fact in order to include it in an article. The {{trivia}} template labels a section outright as full of "unimportant information" because that's what trivia means. The template can be placed anywhere in an article to insult another editor. Your comment is trivial Ned. It really is. It's trivial. Now stop and think for a moment. Is that inflammatory? That is exactly what the {{trivia}} template is saying when it is placed in an article somewhere other than a ==Trivia== heading. --Pixelface 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete It is plainly obvious from the response to this and WP:Trivia that there is nothing even close to a consensus regarding this topic. Until such a consensus is reached, we are doing users a disservice by claiming this to be a policy. !jim 04:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Consensus is well established that this is damn good advice. A guideline does not lose it's consensus support because a vocal minority decides to vent on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is a guideline and policy that discourages trivia sections (although the latter does so less specifically). What are cleanup templates used for? To mark articles that violate guidelines or policies. Rather than monotonously argue the value of the guideline on a template for deletion page - why doesn't anyone argue the value of the guideline at its talk page. As long as the guideline exist the template will - what's going on now it's like asking police officers to not enforce a law, why not just remove the law itself?--danielfolsom 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The name of the template is not neutral and can be used in an inflammatory way to literally trivialize another user's edits and label them as "unimportant." --Pixelface 05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • One, if the name actually was an issue, we have a MOVE button that fixes that. Two, if you put something in a section called "trivia" you have no place to bitch about someone calling your edits trivial. Some editors do dumb a bunch of useless garbage on Wikipedia, and by all means, we should tell them that. Some sections are titled trivia, but contain information that should go elsewhere. The absurdity of your NPOV issue amazes me. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete I am absolutely sick and tired of random Wikipedians making monumental changes to the entire structure of Wikipedia on their own personal whim. This smacks of the whole insane Userbox deletion brouhaha. I have never had any problem with trivia sections, I find them very useful, and I see no point in making such a radical, enormous change to how Wikipedia works and has worked for years. Danflave 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Even when it often leads to a drastic improvement of the article, keeping all the same information but in better sections? -- Ned Scott 04:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Danflave - we aren't talking of the policy - we're talking of the template.--danielfolsom 05:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrary break for ease of editing, 12
  • comment: As a random unregistered user, I have to say that I LOVE trivia sections. They're one of the things that make wikipedia so useful. Nothing on wikipedia annoys me as much as going to a page to find information I want, only to discover that someone else decided that because it wasn't useful TO THEM, it's not going to be useful to anyone else. So, if my vote as part of your target audience, the general internet using public, counts for anything, strong delete. Delete the template, not trivia sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.206.142 (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, 69.86.206.142, if only it were that simple, I might retire a happy Wikipedian.
      Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
      07:34, September 10, 2007
  • Keep, but in preference to using the template, just remove the damned trivia sections. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.