Template talk:Trivia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Rename of category and template

Considering the guidelines of WP:AVTRIV say that trivia sections should be avoided altogether and how the template is worded to this effect, would it be better to rename the template to just Template:Trivia and the category it links to as Category:Articles with trivia sections? I can imagine the renaming of both the template and the category would be a big task, considering the templates use within Wikipedia, but one that needs to be done. --tgheretford (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read the Wikipedia pages on trivia, and it doesn't say anywhere trivia is banned. It's discouraged... but certainly not banned. Small trivia sections (even though they aren't usually needed), are still just fine. There is no need to rename it now. If or when trivia is completely banned from Wikipedia, then a rename can happen. RobJ1981 04:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the impression I get from the wording of the template. "Unencyclopedic" suggests its not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia and should be removed, regardless of size. --tgheretford (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Template contents at variance w/name

The name of the template is "too much trivia" (sans spaces), but the template message doesn't really state this clearly. I think it should be reworded to explicitly state that the tagged article contains too much trivia. Furthermmore, it should suggest that some of this excess trivia be jettisoned, rather than integrated into the body of the article as it now states. (After all, if it's excessively trivial, why should it be in the article at all?)

So, whaddya think? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, I've been bold (as there are no other replies (and thus no objections)) and added your suggestion and emphasized "should". thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like my best mate Ckatz has partially reverted me (*waves* at Ckatz) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a revert so much as a tweak, Matthew. There was no discussion to make the "should" a command. All I have done is apply slightly different text formatting, and increased the emphaisis on your major change - the addition of "removed". -Ckatz^chat_spy 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a command, it's emphasis, like I said here. Some editors do not get the "should" part, thus we need to make it stand out to them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion, though - you might wish to consider rewording that section as it now directs editors to "integrate or remove" "into other appropriate areas of the article." Perhaps "integrate into other appropriate areas of the article, or remove it entirely." Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the box text as it reads now (it currently says "This article's trivia section requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards."). This sounds a little mealy-mouthed to me. Why shouldn't it say that the section contains too much trivia, as it did before? Isn't this the whole idea of the template?

I'm assuming that it's OK for articles here to have trivia sections in the first place, and that the issue is not to let them get out of control. Correct? Otherwise, the whole game changes, in which case the object should be to get rid of trivia sections altogether. I don't think this is what most people think should happen. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are to move trivia into the article or remove it. There is no mention of it being okay for articles to have even a "small" trivia section. The wording in the template should reflect that, no matter what the template itself is called. If you feel the guidelines should be changed, that's a different discussion entirely. CovenantD 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I propose we change the text to say exactly what it should say. How about:

This article contains a "Trivia" section, which is contrary to style guidelines here.

The content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed. The section itself should be removed once it is empty.

So, whaddya think? +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not too particular about the wording (as demonstrated by a very bad attempt to change the wording earlier ;), as long as it accurately reflects the guidelines. CovenantD 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed it, which is good, but now there's a problem: the template currently sorts articles into Category:Articles with trivia sections. This should be changed, since now the who point of the exercise is to get rid of trivia sections altogether, not just overly-large ones. This is a can of worms I don't really want to deal with; just pointing it out here to those who may be more ambitious about addressing this. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We can eventually do a Category for Renaming request on it, but I want to wait a while to see how these latest changes to the template are received. For all we know, this may spark a change in the guidelines. Not that I'm wanting to see that particular discussion... CovenantD 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How often is this template used at the top of a page? Could we change the recommended usage to be only within the trivia/etc section itself, and then change the template's first line to read "This section requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." ? --Quiddity 02:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it at the top of an article, for whatever that's worth. CovenantD 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to object to the recent reversion by Ckatz of my changes to the text. The box now say—basically nothing, except that the section requires "cleanup" (whatever that means).

Since that editor hasn't responded, I'd like someone here to explain why the reverted version is better than mine, which explicitly said that 1) trivia sections are not wanted in Wikipedia and 2) the material therein should either be put in the article proper removed. How is the current weaselish version better than that?

Or aren't folks serious about trying to get rid of trivia sections? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version. I despise the use of bold lettering, all caps, italics, extra exclamation points/question marks, etc. This is not a forum and it's very condescending in my opinion. My only quibble is that this template basically states that trivia sections are unencyclopedic, which of course is true. However we have not as of yet made trivia taboo by official policy, so it's somewhat contradictory. I would rather keep it this way and try to go about changing the official policy though. Quadzilla99 08:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it "hasn't responded" or "has a life outside of here that does require attention at times"?... not a big deal, but worth considering before hitting "save". As for the matter at hand, to put it simply, the restored version is better. It doesn't "say nothing" - it quite specifically points out that the section requires attention, even providing links to relevant guidelines. The version you posted gives the impression that the trivia section serves no useful purpose and must be removed. The guideline actually states:

"Sections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article are a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with. (my emphasis) However, it is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article. Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant merging. Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again."

"Seek to minimize" - NOT "obliterate on sight". --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The shorter version is more casual-reader-friendly too; the majority of the people who see the cleanup templates are not going to be 'editors'. --Quiddity 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it to you again that the changes I suggested above fit all these criteria and are much more clear to boot. To reiterate, what I suggested is

This article contains a "Trivia" section, which is contrary to style guidelines here.

The content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed. The section itself should be removed once it is empty.

Notice it says "should be integrated", not "must be". It's not a command, just a (strong) suggestion. It points out that trivia sections are contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines; this is correct, is it not? I don't see how non-editing casual readers would be put off by this.

Seems to me the real underlying problem is not the wording of this template but the policies/guidelines towards trivia themselves. That's an area I have no interest in mucking around in, but it seems that whatever guidelines there are are quite equivocal, with the result of mushrooming trivia sections. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

It seems that the wording of the template has stabilized somewhat, so the next step to this process is getting the template name to match it's function and wording. To do that, I propose that this be moved {{trivia}} (which is just a redirect to here anyway). If people here agree, it can be taken to Wikipedia:Requested moves. CovenantD 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Support CovenantD 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support—but only if alternate wording (such as the last example I posted in the section above) is substituted for the mush that's in there now. The box should be explicit about letting editors know that trivia sections are to be avoided altogether. (Again, I understand this is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule; nonetheless, the template should be clear about what outcome is desired here.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - would you be willing to separate the two issues? Maybe agree to the move, and to continue to refine the wording in either/both locations? I'd really hate to see it stuck here because the phrasing hasn't been settled yet. CovenantD 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

LOL I just realized I was operating under the assumption that the wording would reflect that anyway, and it was just a matter of fine-tuning it. CovenantD 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - any is always too much, also I've fine-tuned the wording, not all trivia can be integrated. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - as MatthewFenton says "any is always too much" and the previous wording only encouraged people to argue about how much was too much. The ambiguity is gone - I think it's a great improvement. Rossrs 15:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it!
Hearing no dissent, can someone go ahead and do the magic hocus-pocus of getting this thing moved, and writing into the correct categories and all, now that we're all in agreement? +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that would be me :) CovenantD 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks to Admin/User:Woohookitty. CovenantD 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Template wording and formatting

Anyone mind if I put the template box text in boldface? That would bring it in line with other similar templates here. The reason is to draw a little more attention to itself. Any objections? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the template. Let's work on it here, come to an agreement on the wording etc., and then publish it. (it helps to avoid the "live" version changing every few hours as people try out new ideas.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what a concept! An inline sandbox. Thanks. I've tried something (I wuz "bold", heh heh.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new tags. The original tag idea, that is the bold proclamation that there was "Too Much Trivia" was too subjective, and this new tag has a much more constructive and positive message.TheGreenFaerae 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK if I change the text formatting to the "revision" below? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the last couple of edits. What do you think of Trivia capitalized and italicized? And the second link to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles balances the colors and reinforces that trivia sections are to be avoided. CovenantD 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not what I would do; the capital and italics are completely unnecessary and a little fussy. But hey, I won't fight you on it. I just want the damned thing to be clear. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Doing. CovenantD 08:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry, Covenant. There should be no italics or bold as it makes no sense to really have them there. Quotation marks should not be used because not all trivia sections are titled "Trivia". Keep it a simple 'trivia'. Reywas92^Talk 01:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave the text where it is now, shall we? +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording may have "stabilized", but I don't support it. The curernt wording basically implies: "There's a trivia section in this article. This is a bad thing and Wikipedia doesn't allow it. Remove it." -- whether that's the intended messaging or not, that's the impression I got when I saw this template for the first time on the Orson Welles article. I think that unless a Wikipedia policy -- not a guideline, not an essay -- exists banning trivia sections, the current wording is simply too combative. And all it'll do is end up making people like me simply abandon the word "trivia" and start naming sections "Miscellaneous information". 23skidoo 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Combative"? Where on Earth do you get that from? You must have awfully thin skin there, mate. As presently worded, it is at best a very mildly-worded suggestion that, as you pointed out correctly, there ought not be a "trivia" section in the article so tagged. How anyone could construe this as some kind of harsh admonition is beyond me. I think you're pretty much on your own here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Template revisions

Original:

Revisions:

The current revision:

I guess that would be me :) CovenantD 06:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Template name

If we are moving away from the "too much" qualifier for trivia sections, in line with the idea that any trivia is too much and could/should be merged/removed, would it help to change the name of the template? The very naming of the template "too much trivia" can be argued against - and I've had people argue with me when I've added it in articles where there is 10 or less points of trivia. Could it be easily changed to {{trivia}} or would this be difficult to do? Rossrs 04:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look up above. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. I misread that. I thought it was only the content being discussed. my mistake. Rossrs 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the trivia section

Hello everybody,
I stumbled upon this template when I looked at the Steven Soderbergh article. I was surprised to see a box stating with bold letters This article contains a trivia section. That statement was absolutely correct, because I was looking at that very section. However, the statement also seemed highly superfluous. It is like writing "This page contains five words" on a blank piece of paper. It is absolutely correct, but so obvious, that it does not need mentioning.

This box also contained several suggestions, one of which was, "Content in this section should be integrated into other appropriate areas of the article or removed". The trivia section also contained that box itself. Since the entire box contained no information whatsoever on Steven Soderbergh (not even trivia), I could not find an appropriate area of the article to move that text to. I decided the box should be removed.

I write this to explain to you why I removed the template from that page.

Now, I have a suggestion. You could check which pages have a trivia section with a box stating "This article contains a trivia section". Then, each of those trivia sections can be easily shortened by removing that box. After all, you cannot really consider that text encyclopedic information. (I'll put this page on my watch list). Johan Lont 11:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Information like: "He is the youngest director to receive the Palme d'Or, at age 26" Is DEFINETLY notable, and can definetly be properly integrated into the text. Trivia sections aren't good encyclopedical sections and should be cleaned up. As much as anyother cleanup task in wikipedia, this is the current way to attract attention to such a thing. "Reword or remove" the trivia is the guideline. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections do not belong in an encyclopedia, so they should be dealt with exactly as the template says. However, I will agree that there is a a little of a "No shit, Sherlock" element to this template. It basically says in the bold portion "you're looking a trivia section right now in case you were too stupid to figure that out by looking at the section header directly above named 'Trivia'." It should be re-worded, how about "This section violates Wikipedia's guidelines concerning trivia sections" or something of the sort. Quadzilla99 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.. though i'd prefer to avoid the term "violate". it sounds a bit too agressive to me. "not in accordance with" ??? or something like that? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not trivia is acceptable is a grey area... some editors interpret the guideline to mean that trivia is acceptable as long as it is well-managed and gradually integrated in to the body of the article, while others prefer to "shoot on sight." Either way, this template should avoid being too draconian, and deliver a simple message. How about the following:

Then, modify the instructional text to say "Please place at the top of the article's trivia section." Trivia guidelines aside, there's no reason to place the template at the top of the article anyways. The point of the exercise is to reduce clutter in the article, and adding some at the top doesn't help to achieve that goal. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer placing them at the top of articles, it sets the tone. Perhaps we should also give notice that trivia section can be moved to the talk page. Matthew 08:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz, and I'm also worried by the "This article contains a trivia section" part - the rationale in the guidelines claims (and I agree) that long trivia sections are the problem. I'm of the opinion that small trivia sections are ok. For example, on pages about small time actors/celebrities there may not be enough trivia points (or other background information) to make sensible sounding paragraphs from the trivia. I would propose a template that looked more like this:

With the addition of "long" in the title. Thoughts? 58.106.151.185 12:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I have changed the template to match. Greyrank 09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Any trivia is too long. Hence I've reverted you. Matthew 09:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it's not actually what the rationale says- it says that as articles grow, trivia lists get too long and should be replaced (and I agree). However, it also says that these lists are useful for creating new articles - so not all trivia is bad (and I also agree).

• If you agree that's what the rationale says, then I will re-make the change.
• If you believe the rationale says something different, then we should work together to make it clearer. In that case, I propose we move the discussion there?

As removing trivia is a (relatively) new guideline, it may still need some work :) Greyrank 15:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Useful doesn't mean not bad, any trivia is bad. It's like it states "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic", thus any article containing a trivia section (big or small) should be tagged for cleanup (or the section moved to the talk page). Matthew 15:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only mentions of any trivia being bad that I can find here are your opinions and the opinions of one or two other people who agree with you. WP:TRIVIA does not mandate a zero-tolerance policy. What I can find, in no small number, are trivia sections that would be infeasible or at least very hard to integrate fully into their respective articles. --Kizor 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA makes it very clear that trivia isn't wanted here, at least in major sections. Hence this template. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the impression that trivia isn't wanted here, but rather trivia sections aren't wanted. Useless lists of random facts are not wanted. That's why the template says merge the facts into the article and then delete the section. It's not just throwing away facts - WP wants the facts organized into relevant articles and sited so they are meaningful. Padillah 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is (supposedly) an encyclopedia, and trivia is by definition non-encyclopedic. I've toughened up the wording to reflect this. --kingboyk 21:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked those changes as they didn't help the template. (Sorry, but it created a situation where the word "trivia" (or variant "trivial") was used *four* times in two sentences.) I have replaced it with the wording that was proposed some time back:

"As per Wikipedia guidelines, content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed."

There is no need to make the template itself repetitious or overly imposing. In that spirit, we don't need to direct users to *remove* the section as the directions make that obvious. (Either the text moves or gets deleted - either way there is an empty section left over.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this template on many articles recently. I find the tag distracting and irritating. It presents no useful information to the casual reader\non-editor (unlike most tags which warn us about unverified content)

Like most Wikipedia users, I rarely\never edit articles. Could this tag be moved to the talk page, where people like myself won't have to look at it? Sceptre Seven 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, how do I use it?

Forgive my idiocy but how do I use this? I have a couple of pages I would like to mark as having trivia sections but I am not very well versed in how to use wiki templates. Thanks for the help. (where would I find instruction on how to use this stuff in the first place? I can't keep running to you guys every time I have a question.) Padillah 14:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stick (without the quotation marks) at the top of the page: "{{trivia}}". Hope this helps. Matthew 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The mo' betta' version

I hereby endorse Kinkboyk's version of the template, shown here:

It's the best of all possible worlds, instructing editors to integrate what isn't trivial into the article and jettison the rest. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... but Ckatz' revision is even better:

+ILike2BeAnonymous 01:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this motion! It's good now. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite my version... I used:

"Non-trivial" doesn't work because we're then saying that the "non-trivial" material should be "integrated... or removed". By omission, we're also implying that "trivial" material can stay in the "Trivia" section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I officially endorse your current revision, shown below:

Simple, succinct, says it all.+ILike2BeAnonymous 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline pages do not require that a trivia section be removed. Many editors (including me) would oppose such an edict, and there is no such edict. The above 3 templates are not acceptable, because they imply there is such an edict. Tempshill 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do, they just don't say it in so many words. What use is a trivia section without trivia content? Once the content is integrated the section should be removed. I officially support the below version with the full might of the Asgard fleet:

It's exactly how it should be worded! Matthew 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yepper. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording change

I decided to be bold and reworded the template to accurately reflect what the guideline pages on trivia actually state. Previous wording made it sound like there was an edict that all bulleted trivia lists must be removed, which is not the case. Tempshill 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The guidance on WP:TRIVIA says to edit the content from the trivia section into the article, then remove the trivia section completely, the template should echo this guidance. Also, the words "large" or "long" are subjective so aren't very helpful. I've removed the word "large" from the template. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Can we please remove or at least reword "This article contains a trivia section"? It's almost as bad as seeing spoiler tags in plot summaries. Perhaps reword it to something like "This article or section contains excess trivia". Or, if we are learning toward a 100 percent ban of trivia (which is good), then perhaps make the template a one-liner, saying something like "This trivia section needs to be integrated into the rest of the article or removed". — Deckiller 17:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally apply this tag in a "badge of shame" style (i.e. at the top), I personally believe the only way to get people to do their job is to be vocal about it. Matthew 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think we can all agree that it's fine when posted at the top. The problem is that I often see it right below the heading that clearly says "trivia". — Deckiller 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Absotively. I'm having a hard time understanding why there's so much trepidation and, really, timidity about stating clearly and unambiguously that trivia shouldn't be in an article. What's with that? Do people really think that editor's skins are that thin? What about the "edited mercilessly" warning that appears with every edit page? It's not as if it's imposing dire consequences or accusing anyone of heinous crimes; it's just stating the facts. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline doesn't say "Trivia is BADBADBAD and must be burned at the stake!"... my point being that it is a guideline that is somewhat open to interpretation. Some editors feel it means "no trivia sections at all", while others feel that the guideline envisions a useful role for a trivia section as a *temporary* location for material that should be filtered into the article (or weeded out.) Unless there is an absolutely clear and distinct directive to do so, we can't word this template to "order" people to remove trivia sections. Instead, it should convey the spirit of the guideline. (Beyond that, the template should be simple and concise. If an article has what some consider excessive trivia, it doesn't make sense to burden it with a wordy template - especially right at the top of the page.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We're basically in agreement, even though your reply implies otherwise. (You'll notice that I "officially" endorsed your latest version of the template here.) Yes, the template doesn't "order" anyone to do anything, nor should it. It does advise them what to do ("should be integrated into the body of the article"), which is appropriate. So as things stand now, it's perfect in my view (and in that of others who have commented here). +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was actually speaking more to the idea of avoiding stronger wording than what is currently in play. Apologies for any lack of clarity... --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing the tag back to reflect WP:TRIVIA, which does *not* state, as the current template does, "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed." That is not what WP:TRIVIA states. Nowhere in the WP:TRIVIA guideline does it say lists should be removed! It says the facts in a list would be better presented in the body of the article, which is true - so that's what this template needs to say. Tempshill 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Coding question

I've been playing around with a version of the template that makes the top line conditional, so that it could display "This article contains" if placed at the top of a page, and leave it out if placed in the "Trivia" section. It is easy enough to do with two templates, or with a command passed through the template call. However, what I'd really like is to make the operation automatic. What this requires is is some way of determining where on the page it is. I've tried looking, but can't find a mention of a Wikipedia variable for the current section. (There are variables for page, title, and so on.) Has anyone come across such a variable? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"or removed"

I am removing the "or removed" text again. Here is why.

1. WP:TRIVIA does not specify that trivia (or lists in general) should be removed. It says that trivia would be better placed within the body of the article; and that empty trivia lists should be removed.

2. If you disagree with (1) above, the place to discuss or argue the point is not here on the template talk page; it is over at the WP:TRIVIA guideline page. The template page is not the place to discuss a Wikipedia guideline.

3. If you succeed in getting a consensus of editors over at WP:TRIVIA that the guideline should state that trivia lists "should be integrated into the main article or removed", then after the guideline is changed appropriately, it's appropriate to change this template tag to reflect the new guideline.

Tempshill 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You won't do any such thing. Matthew 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's common sense to say that some information in trivia sections isn't worth integrating into the rest of the article. "...or removed" makes it clear that all that nonsense dumping of pointless and unencyclopedic facts called "trivia" doesn't have to be integrated if it's worthless. Besides, it's not like it's saying "removal" is the only solution, so it satisfies the trivia fans. It's just saying removal is an option, which it is. — Deckiller 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Tempshill should cease the POINTy edits. Matthew 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am editing the template to reflect WP:TRIVIA and not making a destructive edit to make a POINT. You are autoreverting to do an end run around the guideline page, without actuallly engaging anyone on the issue. Stop edit warring. Tempshill 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How are you going to integrate:"Her natural hair color is brown", "Joan Smith played the same character as her in xxx.", and "She is 5 ft 10 in and measures 36–24–36" without ruining an article? By definition most trivia is junk and should be deleted. Quadzilla99 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:TRIVIA says how to deal with trivia that can be integrated; not whether the information is or isn't important enough. That is left for a case by case basis, with some guidelines in Wikipedia:Handling trivia. Removal is an option for material too minor to be integrated. — Deckiller 16:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The title "trivia" says it all, it's exactly that trivial.

Matthew 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Junk trivia should be deleted, yes. But the template doesn't talk about that. If the template said "Junk trivia should be deleted", I'd vote for that wholeheartedly. But you're studiously avoiding my point, which is that this discussion belongs on WP:TRIVIA and you can't just make up Wikipedia rules on a template page. Tempshill 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually asked for clarification about the aim of the guideline at WP:TRIVIA yesterday and was told that trivia sections are for development only and not meant to be kept. In my opinion the whole guideline is leaning towards doing what it takes to remove the section. It may not explicitly say "no trivia sections" but it seems to me that the idea behind the guideline is to integrate the useful information and remove the trivial, unencyclopedic items. Resulting in no trivia section. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at a rewording that addresses the issue that some of you seem to be so excited about - junk trivia is lame - and addresses my issue, which is that the current wording advocates the removal of trivia sections from articles, which is not a Wikipedia policy or even a guideline. Tempshill 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the new wording is a fair compromise until things are clarified at the appropriate pages. — Deckiller 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia that can't be integrated, should be removed, it's irrelevant as to how important it is. Not being able to be integrated isn't good rationale to keep it. Matthew 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Matthew, the current wording is fine. You know Strunk & White point 17 and all. Quadzilla99 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, Matthew has an opinion, that's fine, but it differs with WP:TRIVIA. Matthew is not allowed to make up Wikipedia policies (or guidelines, for that matter) by editing templates. And the current wording of the template is overbroad, and way oversteps the guidelines at WP:TRIVIA. Tempshill 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I put up an RfC on this debate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies. My point is that WP:TRIVIA does not advocate the removal of content based on whether it's in a trivia list, and the current template wording does. This template, as (supposedly) a reminder of a Wikipedia guideline, should actually reflect the guideline, and not the opinions of a few editors that lie outside that guideline. Tempshill 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, and I quote:

"Sections which contain facts to be merged into the main body of the article are a list of 'facts pending integration' or 'facts lacking sufficient context for integration'. Don't simply remove it, but seek to minimize it. It is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article. Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all." (emphasis mine)

And, as the template states: "Content", not "section"... therefore the guideline agrees with myself, and others. Matthew 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe "content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article if appropriate or removed" is a good compromise. Both wordings proposed by Tempshill and Matthew generally mean the same think, although often understood differently. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous verbiage: the way it reads now ("content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed") implies all that you said. We don't have to spell out every damn thing; presumably, people will get it. (Or will they?) +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, though. Because of its brevity, the current template wording can be read in several different ways. The way I have been reading it, it's an instruction to the reader, saying that those are the two choices: Integrate it, or remove it. Leaving it as-is is not an option the template mentions. Minimizing it (as Matthew quoted above) is not an option the template mentions. This may be what you would like to see, Matthew, but that's not the consensus at WP:TRIVIA; it's not a Wikipedia policy, or even a guideline. There will always be some articles for which a trivia list is appropriate. But this is not the place to argue this point. I don't care what the consensus is here on this particular subject on this template page over the last 24 hours; the important consensus is over at the guideline page. If you form a consensus over there that we should make it an official guideline to get rid of trivia sections, then I'll go along with it. But there isn't one, and the current wording of this template says: Get rid of all trivia.

Matthew: As for Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all, I couldn't agree more, and wish the banner would point that out specifically: that trivia lists should be looked at with a particularly jaundiced eye and editors should be harder on them, if anything, than on the rest of the article. Tempshill 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. It gets right to the point: trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Marcus Taylor 12:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is wrong.I read it the same way as Tempshill when I saw this appearring on an article and wondered when the guideline was changed and followed links to here and WP:TRIVIA and found out that the guideline hasn't been changed .Garda40 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wording change (2)

I'd like to axe "or at the top of the trivia section, whichever is more appropriate." It's silly to have a template saying "this article contains a trivia section" right below the heading that says "trivia". Sort of like putting spoiler tags in plot summary headings. — Deckiller 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've developed a solution which should address your concerns (and the others who have mentioned the same thing).

Here is the current template:

Trivia sections are discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.

I've reworked the template code (in test format) to replace it with a version that allows for:

{{Trivia}} (for the top of the article)

and {{Trivia|section=yes}} (for use in the actual trivia section).

What do you think? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea on the whole. — Deckiller 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the last one is a little misleading. Someone might think it's a catch-all template for eliminating sections (which would be a useful template in some cases btw), How about:"Content in trivia sections should be integrated into the body of the article or removed." Quadzilla99 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take your comment a little further and have the template appear as more of a suggestion rather than a manditory requirement. There are a few rare occurances where (small) trivia sections can be warranted and relevant. My proposed rewording is, "It is suggested that content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed." --Android Mouse 04:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that would be taking my suggestion further; I just wanted to change "this section" to "trivia sections". I am against weakening the wording. Quadzilla99 04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, looks like I misread what you were saying. --Android Mouse 04:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the message be more positive and constructive so might I suggest the following:

This also avoids the need to change the wording when included below a section heading. -- Nick 06:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"may"? If it does contain a trivia section then it does require cleanup (btw I'm all for negative, I don't think there's any positive...) Matthew 06:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentance "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." is copied exactly as it appears in other cleanup templates. -- Nick 07:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not interested in weakening the wording. Sorry. Quadzilla99 07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm... just a reminder - this process has to be about consensus, and Nick's idea is just as worthy of discussion as anyone else's. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ummm....just a reminder look at the section directly above...ummm....where we just discussed weakening the wording...ummm....and it was roundly rejected...ummm... Quadzilla99 12:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The weakened wording I strongly support. Because as I've said before the current wording goes way beyond the WP:TRIVIA guideline. And although about 3 editors indeed "roundly rejected" my weakened wording above, this is irrelevant, because this is a fricking little template page and not a Wikipedia guideline page, where policies and guidelines are formulated. The current template's wording is unacceptable. Tempshill 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the weakened wording as the template currently is not reflecting the WP:TRIVIA guideline.Change the WP:TRIVIA guideline if necessary .Garda40 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

<-- How does it not reflect the guideline? The guideline discourages the very existence of "trivia" sections, without outright banning them. This is exactly how it's handled in the wording of the template. Why the tip-toeing around with this text? Are you really that worried about hurting people's widdle feewings? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the "or removed " section when I saw this template I thought the guideline had changed.Even you agree the guideline only discourages the existence of "trivia" sections but doesn't ban them but that template says that trivia should be in the article or not there at all which is not the current guideline.

Nothing to do with hurting people's widdle feewings but that template is quoting a guideline that doesn't currently exist.Make it exist if that's what you want the guideline to actually say .Garda40 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's saying that they (trivia sections) should be removed. Notice it doesn't say must be removed. That's a suggestion for bringing the offending article into compliance with the guideline, which (paraphrasing) discourages the existence of trivia sections. What's so hard to understand about that? +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. The template is saying that the trivia should be in the article or removed. The guideline says the trivia should be in the article but there may be rare occasions when it can be in a trivia section.

The templete and the guideline are different. Make them the same.I don't care whether you change the templete or the guideline but one of them needs to be changed .Garda40 22:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Marcus Taylor 23:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is a bot mass attaching this?

Just out of curiosity ... why is a tag which links to an essay (something which is NOT policy and NOT a guideline) being mass attached to every trivia section accross the wiki? The wording of the tag makes it sound like the actions must be taken, which is factually false. --71.231.173.175 15:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it links to an essay but WP:TRIV is not an essay. Quadzilla99 15:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The essay contained within WP:TRIVIA is part of the Manual of Style and is therfore a guideline to which all good articles should aspire. -- Nick 16:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're confused Nick. The template links to an essay on how to incorporate trivia, which is what he's referring to. It also links to WP:TRIV, which is not an essay. He missed the first link apparently. Quadzilla99 16:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIV may be a guideline, but it is one that is subject to interpretation. Some editors feel it means "get rid of all trivia", while others view it as a procedure for filtering information into articles. There is no definitive answer as of yet, but given the bot's action, it may well have to be discussed. (Personally, I'm not convinced that the bot is a good idea in its present form, given that it appears to base its actions on byte size rather than an actual analysis of the content.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot seems quite useful, saved me a hell of a lot of work... only problem is it puts the tag in the section (I'm gonna suggest it puts it at the top). I don't see how any interpretation is needed. Perhaps the bot should move trivia sections to the talk page, that would sure help in cleaning up the encyclopaedia... Matthew 18:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that emotion, and left a note on the bot's "talk" page (now there's a concept!) suggesting the tag to at the top of articles. Looks stupid in the section itself ("This article contains a trivia section ..."; well, duh!) +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The solution isn't to clutter the top of the article, it is to reword the problematic text. There is *no* need whatsoever to add a template to the top of the article. (Put it in context... this isn't an issue of neutrality, or other *major* article problems - it is about a cleanup of trivia.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "clutter" at the top of an article as a problem, but leaving that aside, the problem with tagging the section is the absurdity of having a box which reads "This article contains a trivia section ..." right under a section heading that (usually) reads "Trivia". D'oh!

Could the template text be changed if the template is inserted in the section, so as not to appear so silly? +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the section above... I've coded a version of the template that can deal with section-versus-top placement. If people like it, we can implement it. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting discussion)The reason I chose to place the template under the trivia section itself instead of the top of the article was because I had mostly seen this done previously by human editors, more often than placing at the top. I also wanted to avoid cluttering up the top of the articles since many already have two to three tags as is. Also, in most cases the other tags already at the top are more critical than the trivia cleanup, such as notability or unreference facts tags. I support the rewording/restructure of the template as proposed by Ckatz. As novice to template design, I'd like to ask is there a way for the template to automatically detect if it is at the top of the article or not, without the use of additional parameters? Since there are already thousands of articles already tagged, automatic detection of this would be very useful. --Android Mouse 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to do something along those lines. My concept was to use a variable to control the "IF" statement - but unfortunately I can't find any mention of a system variable for "section" or "top of page". I might try posting a note at one of the technical pages to see if such a thing exists. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a long range of arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles trying to stop and revert the bot. Most of them I will not repeat here, unless needed. However, I have nothing against the wording of the template, as long as it is added by a human, who can judge whether that wording actually applies for a particular article. Mlewan 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, forgive me: but why would a human need to do it? A bot can easily check if there's a trivia section contained within the article, making a human do it... just seems tedious to me :-\. Matthew 11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles? I can repeat my arguments here, if you think it is more convenient, but otherwise, feel free to comment there. Mlewan 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot is just tagging the articles. The decision of what to do with the trivia section and the tag is still in the hands of human editors. The tagging by the bot really serves only two purposes:

1. To notify users who intend to add content that information should preferably be integrated into the text rather than placed in a trivia section;
2. To notify editors who have watchlisted an article or otherwise work on it that it is in need of attention and improvement.

The final decision as to what should actually be done is, and should undoubtedly remain, in the hands of normal editors. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot should not have mass attached this template to all those articles. It has (somewhat) defaced thousands of articles because of your pet peeve about the inclusion of trivia sections, which are allowed on Wikipedia. Tempshill 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot has done some valuable work and the bot creator should be commended. Quadzilla99 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dating on template

Can someone add to the template the date, as it is with the {{unsourced}} template? Using the {{unsourced}} tag it would look like . . .

--myselfalso 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I substituted the template so that this talk page wouldn't be added to the unsourced articles category. --Android Mouse 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe replacing the current text with the text below should achieve the desired result. I am not yet adding an {{editprotected}} request to allow further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

<div class="messagebox cleanup metadata">
'''This article contains a [[WP:TRIVIA|trivia]] section.'''<br>
Content in this section should be [[Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps|integrated]] into the body of the article or removed.
<small>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}}</small></div>
<includeonly>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles with large trivia sections from {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles with trivia sections]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>
This sorts articles into [[:Category:Articles with trivia sections]]. Please put at the top of the page, or at the top of the trivia section, whichever is more appropriate.
[[Category:Cleanup templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

Can any admin change this? This is pretty uncontroversial and I don't think it will create any opposition. --Android Mouse 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace the text of the template with the text provided above so that categorisation by month may commence. Thank you, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Has it been done yet? --myselfalso 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. There are currently a number of active edit requests for protected pages. An admin should come by soon, though. I've never seen a request take much more than 12 hours to receive attention. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think some documentation is needed, something like {{Cleanup}} -- pb30<talk> 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How about something like the text below, which I have borrowed from {{cleanup}} and {{unsourced}}? Please modify it as you see fit. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

== Documentation ==

*This template sorts articles into [[:Category:Articles with trivia sections]].
*This template should '''not''' be [[Wikipedia:Template substitution|subst'ed]].

===Placement===
This template may be placed at the top of a page or at the top of a trivia section, whichever is more appropriate.

===Usage===
To help with the categorisation of articles, you may use the optional date parameter, e.g. <code>{{Trivia|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</code>. Articles tagged with this template without the parameter will given the parameter by a [[WP:BOT|bot]].

The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste <code>{{Trivia|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}</code>.

Good idea -- Nick 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As three days have passed without objection and, indeed, one additional support, I am placing the following request:

{{editprotected}}

Please replace a portion of the template's current source code (see below) with that available above. Specifically, the content to be replaced is everything that falls in between the two <noinclude> tags:

This sorts articles into [[:Category:Articles with trivia sections]]. Please put at the top of the page, or at the top of the trivia section, whichever is more appropriate.
[[Category:Cleanup templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

-- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done. The new code isn't written correctly, and it removes a category. Do a show preview of the new code anywhere to see what I'm talking about. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Uh ... whoops! Hangs head in shame... I see what the problem is: in order for the <nowiki> tags to show on this page, I have to type them twice. My apologies for the error. This should fix it:

===Documentation===
*This template sorts articles into [[:Category:Articles with trivia sections]].
*This template should '''not''' be [[Wikipedia:Template substitution|subst'ed]].

===Placement===
This template may be placed at the top of a page or at the top of a trivia section, whichever is more appropriate.

===Usage===
To help with the categorisation of articles, you may use the optional date parameter, e.g. <code><nowiki>{{Trivia|</nowiki>date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>. Articles tagged with this template without the parameter will given the parameter by a [[WP:BOT|bot]].

The simplest way to add this template to an article is to copy and paste <code><nowiki>{{Trivia|</nowiki>date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>.

[[Category:Cleanup templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

In case it is another admin who comes to perform this request, let me restate that the content to be replaced is everything that falls in between the two <noinclude> tags currently present in the template's code. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Actually, I just switched it to a /doc pattern, so you can edit the documentation to your heart's desire now. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Template Does Not Reflect Policies

This template is currently not in accord with the trivia and handling trivia policies. This is very unfortunate and needs to be corrected.4.159.11.82 19:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that way to me; the template seems quite consonant with the guidelines (keep in mind that there are really no "policies" concerning trivia, hence the frequent bickering). What's "not in accord"? Be more specific. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What Anonymous said. Quadzilla99 02:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew also concurs with ILike2BeAnonymous :). Matthew 11:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon is correct. Tempshill 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree with ILike2BeAnonymous. Quadzilla99 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Concurred. --Android Mouse 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that 4.159.11.82 objects to the "or removed" portion of the template. Although I have no problem with the template's wording, perhaps the following version would satisfy some of the template's critics:

This article contains a trivia section. Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed if integration is not possible or appropriate.

In this context, "appropriate" could link to Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Summary style#Levels of desired details. Any comments? Again, I don't particularly care if the text of the template is changed, but modifying it to this slightly longer version might alleviate the opposition expressed by multiple editors here and at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is still too strong. WP:TRIVIA does not say that content should be removed if integration is not possible or appropriate. Our current guidelines allow for trivia sections in articles. The guidelines just say that it's better if the information can be integrated. But there is no sanctioned movement to stamp out trivia sections from Wikipedia. Tempshill 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be reading it wrong! Matthew 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:TRIVIA carefully and tell me where it says that trivia sections are not allowed in a Wikipedia article. You are taking the word "avoid" to an extreme. "Avoid" does not mean "remove". Tempshill 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The word avoid seems to have some ambiguousness in this case. The dictionary definition is along the lines of stay away from, but as the guideline says, the sections can be used during page construction. Perhaps clarification is needed saying that in most cases a trivia section should be avoided unless being used as a temporary information holding section whilst construction of the article is taking place. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This template does not stop trivia sections from existing, if one exists then it needs cleaning up (even if the article is new). Once the new article is fleshed out and the trivia integrated or the crap removed: then the tag should be removed. As it stands I think we're not being vocal enough about the guideline and that the present wording is lax.

"Content in this section should be integrated¹ into the body of the article or removed²."

1. WP:TRIVIA#Guidance: "Don't simply remove trivia sections, but seek to integrate each fact into the article in a more organized fashion."

2. WP:TRIVIA#Guidance: "It may be necessary to perform research to give each fact some context, or to add references where appropriate. Some entries may be speculative, or factually incorrect, and should be removed; others, such as "how-to" material, may fall outside Wikipedia's content scope policies. Other entries may be excessively tangential to the subject of the article, or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all." and also see WP:TRIVIA#Other policies apply. Matthew 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent)I like the version suggested by Black Falcon above: "This article contains a trivia section. Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed if integration is not possible or appropriate.". I would insert a comma after "of the article". I oppose simply saying "or removed". I think the danger there is that people will see an analogy with attribution policy. Material in trivia sections should not be treated like unsourced material. There are important reasons for deleting unsourced material: it may be inaccurate. Material in a trivia section might be sourced, accurate, appropriate and relevant: it's just that the article isn't very well-organized yet. There's no urgent need to delete the material. --Coppertwig 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Needless extra words. See Strunk & White—rule 13, it doesn't add anything. If this template lights a fire under people to rid articles of trivia sections then that should be seen as a positive thing. Quadzilla99 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that! (I endorse Quadzilla's words) Matthew 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think the template without those words will "light a fire" to delete things while with the words it will not, then the words are not "needless" but serve a purpose in expressing a different meaning. I have the right to see lighting such a fire as positive or negative -- I'm under no particular obligation to see it the same way as you. Deleting sections loses information -- information which might be valuable, so I see such deletions as usually a negative thing. --Coppertwig 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quadzilla, I'm no fan of trivia sections, but I'd rather avoid lighting too many fires around a controversial topic. If anyone indeed takes this template to mean "integrate now or remove", then it is indeed misleading, as it does not conform to the trivia guideline, and should be changed. I'm of the view that, in the long term, no article should have a trivia section ... however, I see no need to create unnecessary opposition toward that goal. Strunk & White's 13th rule does not apply in this case as the additional words serve to clarify the conditions under which removal ought to occur. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how they're necessary. This is not Simple Wikipedia. The template says to integrate or remove. Those are the only two options, so those are stated as those only two options. It's pretty simple and straightforward. If it motivates people to move quickly that's a good thing—good work can actually be done quickly if an editor works hard at it. Notice I never said it was good thing it lights a fire under people to delete trivia sections; if it light a fire under people to integrate their relevant content and remove the junk that would be a good thing though (I doubt anyone would disagree with that). Quadzilla99 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to type, "The guideline says to integrate or remove"? It most certainly does not say that. It says that the content would be better if it were integrated. It does not mandate either of the two things you just said. (There will always be many articles with trivia sections, and that's just fine.) That is why this template is overreaching. I agree entirely with Coppertwig and Black Falcon - this template is mandating actions which are not required by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. They are just being mandated by a few editors who, for some reason, hate trivia sections and are trying to impose this preference upon all of us. Tempshill 22:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're of the opinion that there are some items which should never be integrated or removed but should instead always stay in a trivia section? Also don't say some. It would be extremely naive to say that only 10–20 of the 3,000 GAs and FAs (and zero FAs that I'm aware of) have a trivia sections by accident. Whenever an editor nominates an article with a trivia section they are always told ot remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadzilla99 (talk • contribs) 22:44, Jun 3, 2007 (UTC).

You are avoiding answering my point, which is that the wording in this template is just the opinion of a few editors, and that the wording clearly exceeds the WP:TRIVIA guideline in favor of your own opinion; and that this is wrong, and that the right thing for you to do is to get a consensus over at WP:TRIVIA to conform to your opinion before this template, which has now been spammed onto thousands of articles, is allowed to mandate removal or integration. To answer your question, yes, I think there are some articles that contain some information that belongs in a trivia section. President of the United States is an example. That said, I hate long and dumb trivia sections just like most everyone else. But this is the wrong place to be arguing our trivia "policy"! The right place is at WP:TRIVIA. Tempshill 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tempshill, I'm afraid that I disagree with you. A good article presents information in a coherent and organised manner. Trivia sections, by definition, do not present information in summary style, but rather lump together disparate bits of information. For me, the issue is simply one of writing a good article.

That said, I also disagree with Quadzilla. FAs are intended to be essentially end-products, whereas most articles are works in progress. The requirement to "integrate or remove" could very easily be taken to mean "integrate now or remove now", which is not what the guideline states. The guideline does not support a dichotomy of "integrate or remove", where either one is an equally valid option; rather, it suggests removal only if integration is not appropriate. I believe we should explicitly note that. A few extra words is a small price to pay for increased clarity and reduced controversy. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry the template woording is straightforward and fine as it is now. Its not complicated. Also, the idea that trivia sections play an important role in building FA and GA articles is largely a fairy tale created by trivia proponents. The first thing that any serious editor does when he or she iss trying to make an article a GA or FA is nuke the trivia seciton integrating what they can then going on from there. The idea that serious editors use them as a repository while they're building an article is largely, if not entirely, fiction from what I have seen. Aaron Bowen 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest nor do I believe that trivia sections help build good articles. When an article is taken to FA status, it is usually done so by only a few (at times, only one) editors; for the most part, they write the article from scratch. That said, we currently have 1.8+ million articles, of which just 3770 are FAs and GAs. We will never be able to feature all of our articles and so we shouldn't generalise the process of writing a GA or FA to all articles.

I also know that active editors don't utilise trivia sections for article development; they simply integrate or delete content that is present in such sections. For me, the only value of trivia sections is that they are a place for drive-by editors to drop random bits of information. Sometimes this information is usable and sometimes (in fact, often) it's not. However, in almost all cases, it serves to prevent the main text of the article from becoming a long, incoherent mess (this wouldn't be a problem if every page was watchlisted and monitored, but ...). So, in essence, allowing "Trivia" sections to be created, integrated/deleted, and recreated serves a containment function for articles that are incomplete but not entirely shoddy. I realise that this principle can be taken too far (when one, for instance, splits off a Trivia section from an existing article to create a new article), but it seems to be a practical (even if temporary) solution to preventing random bits of information from appearing in the main text of the hundreds of thousands of non-GA/FA articles.

Since I don't particularly care for trivia sections (as you could probably tell from my comments above), I won't be disappointed if the wording of the tag remains unchanged. However, despite my personal views on the issue, I still think the template does not fully conform to the content of the guideline which it is supposed to represent. My reason for suggesting the new wording was to harmonise the two and avoid excessive criticism of the tag (and/or disruptive mass removals of it) without significantly changing its meaning. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Template wording

Currently the template states 'This article contains a trivia section.' I think this should be changed to 'This section contains information that is considered trivia.' There are several reasons for this:

1. The tag should apply to a section and not an entire article
2. Not all trivia lists are in sections with a trivia heading
3. The template is used in sections and not for an entire article

Vegaswikian 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is even though some sections are called Miscellanea, Notes, etc., most of these sections are named Trivia, so saying it's considered trivia under that heading may seem strange. Perhaps something like "This section contains unsorted information", followed by "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article and trivial, non notable items removed". ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think BillPP's wording is a good compromise and would vote for it. "Non-notable items removed" is definitely a good idea and embodies the spirit of WP:TRIVIA, whereas the current wording way exceeds it. Tempshill 03:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is going in the write direction. As long as it does not restrict the template to Trivia headings and makes it clear that the cleanup is needed in the section and not the article, just about any consensus on rewording should be an improvement. Vegaswikian 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can propose two similar alternative that are, I think, more direct:

• This is a trivia section. Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed.
• This is a trivia section. Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed if integration is not appropriate.

Essentially, rather than trying to describe what "this section contains", which can be problematic (e.g., "considered trivia" is disputable, and "unsorted information" may be inapplicable as trivia can be sorted ... by subject, for instance), we simply state it to be what it is ... a trivia section. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a trivia section. is limiting since some of the sections are not labeled as such. It would be more general if this was changed to something like This section contains trivia. Vegaswikian 07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a trivia section is a trivia section regardless of what it's called. For instance, one user recently started changing the titles of dozens of articles from "Trivia" to "Notable facts", "Other information", and so on. This doesn't change the fact that the sections are still trivia sections. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are all sections that contain trivia. The fact that one user decided to change the headings proves my point that the template should not unnecessarily imply that it limits itself to a section labeled 'trivia'. Make it general so it works in sections called trivia and other named sections that have trivia. Vegaswikian 07:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now ... I take "this is a trivia section" to simply be a shorter form of "this section consists wholly of trivia" whereas you feel that its meaning is limited to "this section is titled "Trivia". OK, then, to avoid any real or potential confusion, I would have no problem with:

• This section contains trivia. Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed if integration is not appropriate.

The reason I suggest this wording, instead of the one proposed by BillPP – "trivial, non notable items removed" – is that it leaves more to editorial discretion as to what ought to remain and what ought to be removed. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I disagree that "removed if integration is not appropriate" comports with WP:TRIVIA. There will be many cases where content is (a) not insignificant trivia, and (b) is not integrateable because there's no good place to put it. In those cases it should remain. Your wording would cause editors to remove significant trivia items, which I would oppose. The BillPP wording wouldn't. Tempshill 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are not permanent dumping grounds. Matthew 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tempshill, integrating significant trivia is appropriate. "If integration is not appropriate" is intended to apply to trivia entries that are original research, that present unsourced and controversial material pertaining to a living person, and the like. The reason I favour it over BillPP's wording is that "trivial, non notable items removed" shifts the focus wholly on determining whether particular entries are "notable" or not. The use of "appropriate", perhaps with a piped link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, seems to me to be less disputable as it seeks a rooting in policy. As for point (b), note that my proposed wording states "removed if integration is not appropriate", but not "is not possible" (as what seems impossible for one person may be simple for another). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a third possibility: there may be a significant trivia item in the trivia section which is a very interesting and relevant standalone fact which has nothing to do with the rest of the article. There may be multiple such items. In those cases, integration may not be appropriate. One problem with this template is that in a single sentence, we're trying to instruct all editors (of all ability levels) on a judgment call that is sometimes easy (e.g. removing stupid trivia items), but is sometimes subtle and nuanced. The template should be removed*. At a minimum if removal is politically difficult then the wording must be weak. Tempshill 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"*" By "removed" above, I mean to say that the template, in its current incarnation as a piece of spam that has been spammed to thousands of articles, must be removed. I have no problem at all with a trivia template that is placed on excessively long trivia sections, informing editors of WP:TRIVIA and that insignificant trivia ought to be axed. Tempshill 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

All I can see in your message are reasons why junk should be excised. Matthew 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

--> resetting indent

Tempshill, I do not think that third possibility exists, unless the article itself is short and incomplete. If an article provides comprehensive coverage of a subject, then I don't think there is such a thing as a significant item that is relevant as a standalone fact. If it is truly relevant, there would be some place to add it. Now, I realise that this is not always possible, since articles usually do not provide comprehensive coverage of a subject. For such articles, information that can obviously be integrated at some point in the future (e.g., the main filming location for a film) should remain, even if it is in a trivia section. I don't know what wording to propose that would consider these cases as well, but I think the addition of "if integration is not appropriate" would still be an improvement over the current wording. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "if integration is not appropriate" is an improvement over the current crazy wording, but I think it's still too strong. I found what might be a reasonable example: Schoolhouse Rock. The article is about the set of over 40 cartoons, rather than each cartoon having its own article. The items in the "trivia" section are mostly important, interesting, and illuminate the subject very well, but integrating them is probably not possible. This is an example where it just looks dumb for us to paste a big banner warning the reader that there's a trivia section. That's why (a) the trivia banner should not be spammed onto thousands of articles as it is now, and why (b) its wording should be weakened to reflect the fact that sometimes trivia sections are useful and important. Tempshill 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please omit the line entirely. This template is being placed in trivia sections across the board by bots and users (which is not how it should be done), and it's redundant. — Deckiller 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. Tempshill 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not really seeing the need to change this, this was discussed above not two weeks ago and shot down, in the "or removed" section. Marcus Taylor 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It was "shot down" by like 3 editors, and the template goes against the actual consensus that has been built over at WP:TRIVIA. Tempshill 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• "The tag should apply to a section and not an entire article", "The template is used in sections and not for an entire article": Those be your opinions, ye? Matthew 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of template

I fail to even see what is wrong with trivia sections. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Small trivia sections are fine, because editors who do not know where to put some miscellaneous facts can put them in the trivia section. However, long trivia sections are messy, and often have no form of organisation or order, so it gets difficult to read. Having all the information in the main article body allows the article to be read more smoothly. See WP:TRIVIA#Rationale for more information. Thaurisil 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Thaurisil, trivia sections of all kinds are unencyclopedic. Marcus Taylor 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. But not in the opinion of our WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINE, WP:TRIVIA, which, as I keep saying, does not mandate removal of trivia sections. Tempshill 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use allcaps this is not a forum, thanks. Hey Temp, could you please do me a favor and point out one FA or GA with a trivia section for me? I can't find any. What does that tell you? Marcus Taylor 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It shows that you are using faulty logic, as well as unhelpful sarcasm. FA and GA articles have had a lot of loving attention paid to them, and usually reflect many hundreds of person-hours of input and factfinding. In addition, they have been through the FA/GA assessment process, during which someone will have made the usual "trivia is not encyclopaedic" comment. Tempshill is right in saying that the guideline isn't a decree, and that a certain amount of common sense can and should be used when interpreting it. As the MoS says itself, "the Manual of Style does not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style—everything here should be applied with thought, not robotically." I personaly agree that long trivia sections are a worse option than proper discursive text. However, they are better than losing the information completely! Also, fly-by editors will always add random facts to articles and I prefer that they do it in a relatively safe environment such as a trivia section, rather than as often happens when the main text is butchered for a relatively minor reason. The current tag seems to indicate that incorporation or deletion are equally valid options for the contents of a long trivia section, which is not true. Hence, the fairly indiscriminate use that is currently being made of it us seriously unhelpful. I think the tag would be much better reworded, to encourage rather than direct. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a cabal run by a few top dogs. Pyrope 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why putting history into trivia is better then putting history into history? In going through some of these articles, this represents a lot of the "trivia". So clearly this information is not trivial but history that someone did not wish to include in the section that already contained similar information. Vegaswikian 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This tag is too dogmatic

Please can we reword it to "Please consider whether this information could be integrated..."? As it stands the wording makes it sound as though it must be so, when even the guideline does not demand this action, and personally I can see some definite advantages to trivia sections in many articles. I note that there has been much objection to this wording already and I really can't see why it is still as it is. Tone it down! Pyrope 21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here was me thinking it isn't strong enough, if you're under the impression the guideline endorses trivia... well re-read it. The fact is: if it can't be integrated it's obviously not encyclopaedic. Matthew 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I did, and while it doesn't endorse it neither does it outlaw it. In fact the guideline is even entitled "Avoid...", not "Do not..." or "Never...". In the main text it also states that you should not "simply remove trivia sections", as the tag currently seems to indicate. In addition, most Wikipedia artiles are works in progress and these sections can be very useful for storing disconnected facts until enough material (or time!) is availble to work them into the text. This, again, is a valid use of these sections that is mentioned in the guideline itself. Finally, to state baldly that "it's obviously not encyclopedic" is just plain wrong. We should certainly be encouraging (encouraging, mind, not demanding from our high-horse) editors to compose good prose and not just assemble random facts, but to state that the article would be better off without facts is nuts. What is an encyclopaedia if not factual? As it is currently worded, this tag is draconian, rude and counter-productive. Pyrope 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrope. Needs toning down — just a bit. Reducing trivia improves an article. Eliminating trivia is an extreme version of "reducing trivia". Is extreme really better in this case? —WikiLen 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Pyrope and WikiLen above. Tempshill 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose this template: (WikiLen 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Or this version that makes integrating more important than deleting: (WikiLen 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Not saying this theme is the best (or the worst - too busy elsewhere to really focus on this, unfortunately) but I think the layout/content would be better as follows:

This avoids the judgemental "weakens" text, and introduces the idea of notability. It also substantially reduces the bulk of the template, which is a real concern on large pages. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Too weak for me.
• Bulk serves a purpose: raises trivia to a higher profile as something for editors to pay attention to.
• I like having "notable" be the word that applies to whole articles and "relevance" the word for content within articles.

What is needed is a wording that addresses both the concerns of those who say there should be no trivia and those who say trivia can sometimes be OK. Both sides of the issue make a good case. The middle ground seems to be finding wording that applies lots of pressure towards no-trivia but does support trivia occurring where editors can make a case for it. This is a bit of a finesse issue. A trivia section may be OK sometimes or rarely, but how do you allow it without every article taking on the stance it is one of those rare cases. This is the challenge the template and policy must address. —WikiLen 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulk, however, is a definite negative in this case. Trivia isn't a critical problem - while it annoys some, and is OK with others, I would guess that most would agree there are many higher-priority issues to address. With that in mind, adding a bulky, oversized template to the top of an article is more likely to result in edit wars over the template itself, rather than inspiring action on addressing the problem. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The tag ought to express a general preference for no trivia, and could be used for sections not neccessarily titled "trivia", but should not be too confrontational or proscriptive. It's all about guiding, not instructing. How about:

which can be applied to a trivia section (regardless of section title) and is not so bulky as to disrupt the page layout and readability? Pyrope 08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Individual sentences in an article and/or entries in a trivia section need not meet Wikipedia:Notability, so I think the use of "non-notable" is inappropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this last Pyrope banner quite a bit, with the caveat that it needs to be applied to articles where the trivia section is a problem, and not spammed to all articles with trivia sections, as the banner has been in the last month. I would strengthen the "remove junk" preference by changing "or removing" to "and by removing". Tempshill 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This version seems to be much better then the one in use. While the wording might need some tweaking, I could support this version. Vegaswikian 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I also like this version. But Black Falcon raises a good point about the notability guideline. Perhaps the last part could be changed to something like "or removing inappropriate items." ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

While a concern it may not be a deal breaker. Wikipedia:Notability itself points to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for guidance on trivia which is also being discussed for possible changes. Vegaswikian 00:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With no major objections to this last suggestion, I intend to replace the template with this proposed version shortly. Vegaswikian 20:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to gain consensus for that, bud. Matthew 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well let's leave it a few days and see what happens then? Pyrope 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, by "this last suggestion", do you mean BillPP's proposed rewording (below)? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Pyrope 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Pyrope is supporting this last revision, I'll also support it. Either of the last two proposals offers needed improvements. So I'll support the proposal that currently appears to have consensus. Vegaswikian 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. "Inappropriate" is just right -- nobody can disagree with that; it's a tautalogy. "Notable" isn't appropriate, because the way "notable" is used for talking about article subjects, it means there must be several newspaper articles about it or something like that. But for each fact in an article, there don't have to be several sources: just one source per fact is OK. So it would be confusing to use the same word "notable" for facts. --Coppertwig 20:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I support it. It gets the point across without forcing the false dilemma that the current wording does.--Father Goose 03:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this tag as well. I also think there needs to be a statement by interested editors that this template is not to be spammed indiscriminately across thousands of articles as it is now. Tempshill 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The above version seems more likely to appeal to the camp favoring no Trivia sections. —WikiLen 05:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not blocking consensus and I would accept either of the last two proposals. However, I don't really like the first sentence of either of them, either "This section has been identified as trivia" or "This trivia section may not be needed". The first seems to be claiming that the material in the section is trivial and unimportant, when it should simply be saying something about how the material is organized. The second one could be misinterpreted as an invitation to delete the section wholesale. How about "This is a trivia section" for the first sentence? Short, simple, similar to the previous "This article contains a trivia section" except suitable for posting at the top of the section. --Coppertwig 14:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this one. Everyone realizes that the section is a trivia section when it's labeled trivia (and for some reason, everyone adds them to the trivia section instead of on top of the article...). This template at least avoids that stupidity, and that's all I care about. — Deckiller 14:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see where Coppertwig is coming from, but I feel that as one editor's judgement carries just as much weight as another, simply stating that this is a trivia section is too confrontational. I'll stick by my suggested "has been identified as..." wording. Also, I thought that one major point that the hardliners were trying to get across is that some information may truely be too trivial for inclusion, and so might justifiably be deleted. What I was trying to get changed is the current tag's assumption that everything ought to go. Just as a final aside, I think Deckiller might be missing the point that not all "trivia" secions are handily flagged as such by their creators. WP:TRIVIA gives quite a few of the alternative weasle worded section headings commonly used to cover for trivia. Pyrope 15:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point; a bot added the trivia tag to numerous trivia sections, and I'm also going by personal observations. I can understand the tag being placed at the top of the page with the current wording, but not in the actual section (it's like spoiler tags in plot headings). — Deckiller 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. My apologies. Good points all. Pyrope 16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am replying to Pyrope's comment, "What I was trying to get changed is the current tag's assumption that everything ought to go." This is in the template now because there is a substantial consensus for that position. Any backing off from that position needs to be very slight, not to the other extreme as I worry may be happening here. If we go to the other extreme we will have no success at reaching a consensus with hardliners. I think consensus will be found as some form of "slight change": (WikiLen)

• CURRENT TONE: Trivia section must not be in an article.
• SLIGHT CHANGE: Trivia section probably not needed in an article.
• EXTREME CHANGE: Trivia section can be in an article.

I just don't see hardliners settling for "trivia section can be in an article." Wasn't a consensus already reached that wholesale allowing of Trivia sections was a bad idea? —WikiLen 18:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm Ok with the Identified wording (it works with sections not specifically named "trivia."), but other options could be "This section contains unsorted information", "This section needs attention", "This trivia section needs attention", etc.. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BillPP. I'm in the camp favouring no trivia sections, but prefer the wording of "has been identified as" over "may not be needed". Plus, the "identified as" wording allows the tag to be placed in the specific section. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

At issue is the 1st line of the template's text: —WikiLen 18:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• CURRENT 1ST LINE: This article contains a trivia section.
• PROPOSED 1ST LINE: This section has been identified as trivia.
• NEW 1ST LINE: This article has been identified as having a trivia section.

This wording takes on "This article..." as the context for the template — the same context the current template assumes. —WikiLen 18:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the difference between the proposed 1st line and the new 1st line essentially boils down to tag placement: in the trivia section or at the top of the article. I personally prefer the former as it is less distracting for readers and also specifically identifies which section consists of trivia, rather than simply stating that the article contains it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Template updated

OK, I updated the template using the text that I believe has consensus. When I did that I almost added a line about removing the template after the section was removed or cleaned out. I decided against, since this rewording was really a group effort, but I think it should be added at some point. This would acknowledge the fact that in some cases sections with trivia can remain and do not need to be tagged. Vegaswikian 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no, no! The whole thing has been thoroughly defanged, declawed, emasculated and totally weaselized. It now says, essentially, nothing. We might as well hang a sign on every article saying "Come on in, kiddies, and add all the trivia you want to your favorite articles".

Not to mention that the option of putting the tag either at the top of the article or in the offending section is now broken, since the template refers to "this section", so it cannot be placed at the top of an article (the only place, by the way, where it stands a reasonable chance of attracting attention, which is the whole point of this exercise).

I tried to undo the change but found the template to be protected (I assume not semi-protected since I was logged in at the time). I'd like to request that this change be undone. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the change. I still think it was disastrous to let a robot loose to add it without any discrimination, but with the harm now done, the template is acceptable as is. Mlewan 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I also support the change, as it seems to reflect the consensus of the discussion in the above section. I honestly don't understand ILike2BeAnonymous's statement that the present wording tolerates trivia. It still calls for integration and/or removal. As for the fact that it may now be placed only in the relevant section rather than at the top of the article ... I find that a positive bonus as it increases the readability of articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but regarding that last, and at the risk of further beating an already-dead horse, don't you realize that there's an inverse relationship between the "readibility of articles" and the chances of the tag being seen? Why are people acting as if templates such as these should be unobtrusive? Isn't the whole idea to call attention to the fact that the article has a defect that ought to be fixed? Why even bother to have the template at all if it's going to be hidden?

And yes, this certainly is part and parcel of the whole policy stance towards trivia in general. Seems to me the current stance, as expressed in the latest text change, is quite schizophrenic and equivocal. Furthermore seems to me that either trivia should be discouraged, in which case we ought to be clear (not to say draconian) about it, or else we ought to say nothing about it. Can't really have it both ways, can we? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence is illogical. Why can't we have a tag that is persuasively discouraging rather than dogmatic and confrontational? While trivia ought to be discouraged in general, the outright banning of it is harmful for a collaborative enterprise where contributors have highly variably time/skill/inclination levels. I really can't see how actively chastising editors is at all constructive. As for a large tag being disruptive on a page, this is a real problem. I understood Wikipedia to be about providing a useable, readable, informative and interesting online resource for general readers. Tags for ediorial guidance are very much a secondary concern and they shouldn't be allowed to take over a page. Pyrope 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(inserted here due to edit conflict)

You're still missing the point; yes, the (supposed) idea is to provide useable, readable, etc., articles. The underlying purpose of tags like this one, plus all the other various cleanup tags, is not to chastise errant editors, but to clean up pages so that they are readable, useable, etc. This can't happen, obviously, unless someone can see and respond to the tag. If you browse here enough, you'll see plenty of articles with tags, some with multiple tags; from what I've seen, most of these are well-deserved, because of various problems with the article. The whole idea is to tag the page, get the needed work done, then remove the tag. What part of this process do you have a problem with? +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous, there is no reason why the wording should be "all or nothing". I support (as Pyrope puts it) the banning of trivia sections, but don't think we should operate as if we were under some sort of deadline to integrate/delete all trivia sections. Nor do I think we should encourage such behaviour. As for the obtrusiveness of the template, I think we ought to keep in mind the relative importance of trivia integration/removal. If an article contains POV content, we wan't the {{NPOV}} tag to be big and/or in bright colours to warn readers, because POV compromises the accuracy of articles. Trivia sections do not inherently compromise accuracy, but rather decrease organisational quality. I think readability is more important than editorial maintenance on a content organisation issue. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous wording said or implied nothing about a deadline; it simply stated that the trivia content should be dealt with at some unspecified time. And if you feel that, say, NPOV violations are more important, then hey, just put the NPOV tag above any others at the top of the article. And lastly, I'd guess you would probably agree that excessive trivia certainly does interfere with readability. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous wording was open to interpretation as a short-term directive (integrate now or remove now), partly because it said nothing about when removal is appropriate. For instance, deleting trivia sections is generally not appropriate if the content can be integrated but no attempt at integration is made (an obvious exception would be when someone tries to wholly rewrite an article). The present wording avoids that problem. As for tag placement, I'd rather we avoid having to constantly shuffle tags by importance (besides, I usually pay most attention to whichever tag is just above the main text, which is not always the one at the top). And lastly, I do agree that excessive trivia interferes with readability (and is generally pointless), but don't think that it interferes as much as would another tag at the start of thousands of articles. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think ILike2BeAnonymous and perhaps some others would like the wording of the first sentence to be appropriate for placing the template at the top of articles, and some others I think would like it to be appropriate for placing at the top of the section. Therefore I suggest we search for wording that would fit in either place. Possibilities might include "Trivia section alert!" or not having a first sentence at all or "Avoid trivia sections in articles." or "Note the presence of a trivia section." or "Trivia section cleanup." These are just suggestions; this message is not intended to block consensus in any way. --Coppertwig 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Check back here - I wrote some code that allows the template to change depending on where it is on the page. (Ignore the specific wording, as it is from previous attempts at consensus.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A dynamic version could work, but I'm not sure that there is consensus to place this tag at the top of an article. The question is why? Top tags are for important items that need attention. If the whole article is trivia, then it is probably a speedy delete candidate. Trivia sections, while hurting quality of the article, are not so bad that they need a tag at the top of article. Also, by placing the tag in the sections affected, all of which may not be labeled trivia, makes it easier for an interested editor to locate and cleanup. Vegaswikian 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections do not cripple articles unless they are really lengthy or contain really useless trivia. This tag is a reasonable compromise, although I think that whoever used a bot to spam it across thousands of perfectly reasonable Wikipedia articles now has a responsibility to remove it from those articles. The banner's negative impact on the quality of most articles exceeds the negative impact of those articles' trivia sections. (And there's no way it should appear at the top of an article; trivia sections are a very mild "problem", far less important than an NPOV dispute or what have you.) Tempshill 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. A "trivia cleanup" banner at the top of an article is more obtrusive than trivia sections themselves. Trivia is most effectively cleaned up by people (such as members of the Trivia Cleanup wikiproject) who don't need the banner anyway. For that reason, I find it pretty weird that so much energy (on both sides) has been expended over this one template.--Father Goose 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) Vegaswikian, when you suggested changing the template, you didn't make it clear that it was your intention to edit the protected template and leave the template protected. I didn't understand your messages to mean that. I object to the edit on the grounds that, as far as I understand, the reason for the edit-protection is that there is a dispute, so either the dispute is resolved and the protection should be removed, or the dispute is continuing and the template should not have been edited and should be restored to the previous version; or possibly the continuing dispute is about a different section of the template in which case please clarify that. Also, possibly your edit doesn't have consensus now even if it seemed to at the time you made it. --Coppertwig 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

At the time I made that edit, the proposed change had consensus and it still does. There is no reason that I can see to reverse the edit. Your objection seems to be driven by why the page remains protected. That is a different issue that probably should have a discussion to see if it is still needed. Locking a page does not mean that no changes can be made. Policy does allow for changes to be made with consensus on the talk page. Clearly this change had consensus. I said I was going to update the template. Twice! The first time it did not happen since the consensus was not quite there but it did develop with some tweaking. At no time did I mention the protected status of the page and I don't believe this was raised as an issue in the discussion. Fell free to discuss the page still being locked in a new thread. Vegaswikian 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggested addition to this template's wording

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

• My gut reaction is not to add this in the template. The template needs to be short and point to the policy pages that can get into the details of how to fix the problems. Vegaswikian 20:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Relevance

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

Usage of template

It seems to me that the way this template should be used differs significantly from the fact template. With the fact template, anyone can put it into an article and other editors should not just remove it: they should either supply a reference or delete the challenged sentence or leave the fact tag in place. But with the trivia template: it's OK for some articles to have trivia sections; it's just that the number of articles that have them is far larger than the number for which such sections are preferable. So, whether to have a trivia section or not is a matter of editorial judgement for discussion and consensus like any usual aspect of an article such as whether to include or delete a section on a given sub-topic. Therefore, just as an insertion of a new section of an article can be reverted if others don't like it, so also the insertion of the trivia template can be reverted by those who believe the article is better off with a trivia section. I think the documentation at the template page (what you see when you go to template:trivia) should make this distinction clear. --Coppertwig 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "it's OK for some articles to have trivia sections". The existence of a trivia section implies, by default, that information is not organised efficiently. Of course, this doesn't mean that the information should be deleted, but I don't think it's appropriate to remove the tag until the trivia section is gone through a combination of integration and removal of inappropriate items. In the long term, no article is better off with a trivia section, although I'll be the first to admit that this doesn't apply to the short term. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon, how would you address Schoolhouse Rock? I think the 'trivia' section in that article is quite appropriate and leads to superior organization than breaking out over 40 tiny articles on each individual member of the series. Tempshill 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from needing references, that article could use quite a bit of work in the "Episodes" section. For instance, rather than providing details like "music, lyrics, & performance by Bob Dorough", I think that section should cover each group of episodes in prose form. That way, if there are enough reliable sources to justify it, the actual list of episodes could be split out into another article (this would probably carry with it most of the trivia). As regards the trivia section, some entries provide real-world relevance and could be integrated at some point (e.g., that "Three Ring Government" was produced in 1976, but wasn't aired for some years). Other entries, like the one about Lynn Ahrens being a copy secretary, have little relevance to the subject and should be moved to another article (if it exists) or removed.

So, in this case, I view the trivia section to serve only a containment function (i.e., it is as a place to temporarily house information that does not fit elsewhere given the current state of the article). However, I do not think it provides superior organisation, as the section itself is long, disorganised, and often only tangentially relevant to the topic. The solution is not 46 tiny articles for each episode, but rather development of the current article through the addition of prose, into which the trivia can then be integrated. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that the trouble with organizing that particular article, or articles like it, comes if a large list of episodes isn't separable from the large article because of arguments over the notability of each individual episode. ("11 isn't notable. 3 I could see, sure, but 11? Are you crazy?? Delete.") If we accept as a premise for the purpose of this example that the individual episodes are not notable enough for their own articles (surely not true, but bear with me), it goes without saying that the article is better as-is with a trivia section than having one primary article without much reference to the episodes, and then rely on 46 stubs to deliver the content that's episode-specific.

I think having prose is better than a trivia list, but suppose each episode got 1 or 2 sentences of prose. Wouldn't that section get tagged as trivia anyway? Tempshill 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like most of the trivia entries at Schoolhouse Rock are specific to individual episodes, and could be placed after each of those episodes, which would be more organized than the present trivia list. To balance things out better, each episode could stand to have a one-sentence synopsis added as well. Most of the remaining trivia entries (Menudo, Scholastic Rock, etc.) are specific to the broadcast or production of the entire series and could be moved to the "Origins" section (perhaps renaming it "Production").--Father Goose 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

However, some trivia sections get tagged even though there are only one or two items. That is overkill (especially when the template is placed at the top of the article) and in such situations it is more than appropriate to remove the tag. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can think of at least one case where a "no trivia sections allowed" policy is too strict: the entry in Curb Your Enthusiasm about Juan Catalan's release from jail. It's pretty non-trivial, yet it's not clear where it would be appropriate to "integrate" it. It could be given its own section, although that seems disproportionate. While I agree that trivia sections are usually disorganized and have a high incidence of crud, integration-readiness is a bad metric for inclusion-worthiness. It can kill a lot of grass along with the weeds, and I for one don't accept such collateral damage. Trivia sections are almost never needed -- but it's an error to say that "almost never" and "never" are equivalent.--Father Goose 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz, I would disagree with you that a tag on a section with 1-2 items should be removed (although I agree it shouldn't be placed at the top of the article). A short trivia section is still a trivia section. Father Goose, I think it's generally a bad idea to merge "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections. Popular culture references are at times trivial, but they constitute a distinct subtopic (not always a necessary one). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't notice that the Curb example is in a merged "Trivia and Pop Culture" section. However, the man's release from jail is not a pop-culture reference. If there's no Trivia section in that article, where does Juan go? (Back to jail? ;-) --Father Goose 05:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. My first choice would be to move that bit of information to the article on the actor himself; but no such article exists. My second choice would be to move it to an article about the affected season; but again, there is no such article. Then comes the time for a final editorial judgment: is the information sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article (the comedy) to merit its temporary retention in a trivia section? If it is, the move it to a "Trivia" section in the Curb article until it can be integrated somewhere (perhaps into a "Production" section). If it isn't, delete it. At first glance, the information may not appear to be very relevant to Curb Your Enthusiasm; however, I don't know enough about the incident and what effect it had on the show (publicity, delays, and so on) to be sure. Since I'm not sure, I won't remove it. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that some articles benefit from having a trivia section: articles about people may contain short anecdotes about their interactions with other people or organizations, which don't really fit into any other section of the article and are alone or otherwise wouldn't make good sections of their own. The trivia section is also often very amusing to read, so if a user is reading an article for amusement, the trivia section is a good place to read, whereas if the facts were buried elsewhere in the article, the article would be less entertaining. -- User:Downtown_dan_seattle 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Improving template/sections

Following on from the "You may also move content to the talk page", perhaps we should have a bot move sections to the talk page after being tagged for the month. Matthew 18:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about an intrusive and attention-seeking tag. Obviously this tag's mother did not hold it enough as a child. ;-) As regards the bot, moving trivia to talk pages is no longer recommended per a consensus reached here in late May. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The template was a lame attempt at fun, heh. I'm serious about the bot->talk thing, though. I'll re-start the issue soon. Matthew 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot->talk message in the template would not be OK. Tempshill 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Why is this template edit-protected?

I thought it was edit-protected because of a dispute, but Vegaswikian says there was consensus (therefore no longer a dispute?). Perhaps the page-protection should be removed? --Coppertwig 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second unprotecting it. Although I'm happy with the current wording (happier than with the wording it had during its initial phase of protection), I think indefinite protection applied to a page in dispute (unless it's an all-out war) silences discussion. A few days of "cool down" is better, and we've had a month.--Father Goose 22:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Though it was originally protected because of a dispute, I think there are at least two reasons to consider keeping it protected. First, Betacommandbot added the thousands of trivia tags in late May and more than a few editors are probably still unhappy about that. Second, I think the issue is controversial enough and the template prolific enough to justify indefinite protection as a high-risk template. As of now, the template has nearly 8000 transclusions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism should be demonstrated rather than presumed. If vandalism does occur, then protection can be reapplied. If edit-warring resumes, another cool-off period can be applied. The template's mass application by bot given its controversial status was ill-considered, but I don't see why that error should lead us to embrace additional missteps.--Father Goose 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Template with options

How about having two options in the template. It could be designed so you can say {{trivia}} and it will say e.g. "This article contains a trivia section. ...", or you can put {{trivia|section}} and it will say e.g. "This section has been identified as trivia.". So it could be used either at the top of an article or the top of the trivia section. --Coppertwig 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See here for the coding you've described. (Wording can easily be adapted to match the consensus version currently in place.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see you'd already done that. Another idea: three versions -- one for the top of an article; one for trivia sections already labelled as such in their section headings; and one for sections deemed to be trivia sections by the person putting in the template but which are not called trivia sections in their heading. (Four. Four versions ...) --Coppertwig 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter whether a section is titled "Trivia". The phrase "has been identified as trivia" applies to all sections. Also, what are the advantages to the wording of "This article contains a trivia section"? If an article contains such a section, why not just place the tag there? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there has been much support for a consensus to use this template at the top of an article. If anything, I think the consensus is to not do this. It was not needed and hurts the article based on a trivial cleanup that is needed. Vegaswikian 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with keeping it in the relevant section. The primary reason I wrote the code was to allow for revised, non-"This article contains..." wording in sections without causing a mess in articles where the template has already been placed at the top of the page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you doing?

{{editprotected}}

Do you have any idea how many articles have the trivia tag placed at the top of the article so that people can quickly see there's a trivia tag down in it somewhere? If the template is buried down in the article, not nearly as many editors will see the tag and think, "Hey, I can fix that." I just got a message asking me why I labeled a whole article trivia. If you want a trivia section template, then create a new template, and then maybe we can phase out the old one, but with this change, you have just created a big mess. Doczilla 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked. Several thousand articles link to this template. I had to click "Next 500" 15 times to get through the list, so that's almost 500 + (15 X 500) = nearly 8,000 links. Who plans to relocate all those trivia tags? Doczilla 05:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of the templates are applied to individual sections. Some editors prefer section tagging, while others prefer the top of the page - but these combined only account for a fraction of the hits. The 'bot that recently tagged thousands of pages was working with the trivia sections, not the top of the pages. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But in all the articles that already have trivia templates at the top, it now appears that someone has labeled either the first section or the whole article trivia. Who plans to fix that? Restore the previous version of the template. Doczilla 18:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Previous version was reflective of consensus, this version isn't. Matthew 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There was clear consensus when the change was made that the template should be changed. There is also consensus that the template should not be used at the top of an article. A solution for the top placement would be to include the code that changes the text if the template is at the top of the article and requests placement in the section that contains the trivia. Vegaswikian 19:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I challenge that; there's no such consensus, so far as I can see. I, for one, am strongly opposed to the current incarnation of the template, and strongly support the flexible arrangement whereby it can be placed either at the top of the article or in the offending section. I also ask, maybe a bit more strongly, what the hell are you doing with this template? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a consensus for the current wording - the only work needed is to come up with a fix for the "top of page" problem. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Restore the template. Looking over this page, I do not see a clear consensus at all, not when we include the reactions to the template change. Saying it's a consensus does not make it so. And fixing thousands of articles with the template now in a senseless position is not some minor bit of "only work"? Ckatz, do you personally intend to look through all of these articles to fix them? Revert this template. Travislangley 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, prove that there are "thousands" of pages with the template in a "senseless" position. THe vast majority of the templates are probably in sections, which is where the 'bot places them. There are only a few editors who actually place the template at the top of the page. Second, reverting isn't the solution - fixing the top-of-page problem is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at all of the latest additions:

• Velcro in the 'Velcro in popular culture' section
• El Chapulín Colorado in the 'Trivia' section
• Pacifica State Beach in the 'Trivia' section which is unsourced and 50% of the articles size
• Sliver (film) in the 'Trivia' section
• What About Bob? in the 'Trivia' section
• Eva Henning in the 'Family and personal life' section
• Deep Rising in the 'Trivia' section
• Dutiful But Dumb in the 'Trivia' section

• Headline Chasers in the 'Notes' section
• Jean Taubenhaus in the 'Trivia' section
• Juh in the 'Trivia' section

Looking at all of the oldest additions still not resolved:

• ER (TV series) in the 'Trivia' section
• Jimi Hendrix in the 'Trivia' section
• Johor in the 'Interesting facts' section
• Spike Lee in the 'Trivia' section

While a small sample it shows that the oldest remaining uses and the newest all have the template in a section and that the template is commonly not in a section labeled trivia. Vegaswikian 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To expand on Vegaswikian's sample, I just looked through 1000 articles using the trivia template and out of that thousand I found 9 articles using the template at the top of the article (which I moved to the trivia sections). It seems that the consensus of people adding the templates is to put them in the trivia section. I also worked out that there's at most 7000 articles using the trivia template, so if the 9 per 1000 trend continues for the rest of the articles, there's 54 articles left with the template placed at the top. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What edit exactly is being requested? Is there a particular version that the request is to revert to, or could some coding be provided? --ais523 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A revert to the last stable version dated 7 June. Matthew 09:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Doczilla 11:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. There is clearly no consensus for the change at the moment; however, if a compromise version could be reached, that would be likely to be still better. (I have no opinion on the change itself.) --ais523 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Template edit request

To the last version (17 June 2007 - Vegaswikian) with the first line changed from:

This section has been identified as trivia.

to:

This article has been identified as having a trivia section.

There was a consensus to change the template language, and the second line of the June 17th version reflects that process. The recent challenge arose over the wording of the top line, which created problems with pages where the template was at the top of the article, rather than in the trivia section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to this version? --ais523 17:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Strong objection. I think the template should remain exactly as it now stands; it says

This article contains a trivia section.

Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed.

With the proviso, of course, that the code to choose between the template being placed at the top of the article and in the offending section be retained.

We don't need any more pussyfooting around this issue. It says exactly what it needs to say concisely, neutrally and non-judgementally, imposes no deadlines, explicit or implied, and generally does exactly what it's supposed to: discourage the existence of trivia sections in this so-called "encyclopedia". +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to this change (back to this revision), in fact I'm strongly for it. As I said earlier, after a large test I found that less than 1% of articles are using the template at the top of the page. The consensus of the people adding the template to the articles is to place it into the trivia section. What is more that a consensus was reached after much debate and multiple revisions over the second line in the template. If code is added to this template to allow usage at the top of the article, it should default (without the parameter) to the section usage. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I also strongly object to the edit request (per ILike2BeAnonymous' fine reasoning). Matthew 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the consensus on updating - particularly with regards to the second line - is that the text "integrated into the body of the article or removed" does *not* reflect the trivia guideline. The bulk of the opposition in recent days results from the top-of-page language confusion, which is addressed in the proposed modification. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be reading the guideline incorrectly then. Matthew 18:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Changing the template from a version that had consensus without a new consensus is not acceptable. If you want to change please gather consensus here for the new wording. Raising support against a change after it has been made does not negate a consensus that was developed for a change. You still need consensus to change! Vegaswikian 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have to break this to you bud, but: you never had consensus. You just made a disruptive change to the template. Matthew 19:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there was a consensus re: changing the language to better reflect the guideline. Accusations of being "disruptive" are inappropriate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussions above to see the consensus. The first version that I thought had consensus did not. But after some tweaking, a second version did gain consensus. At the time of the change it clearly had a strong consensus. The changes after that clearly do no not have consensus. You can not develop consensus in 30 seconds. Vegaswikian 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to attempt an actual consensus version

Majorly has agreed to my unprotection request (as edit wars only warrant temporary protection, and that was six weeks ago). Before we resume the edit war, I'd like to ask all parties to do what they can to find a middle ground.

Some points to get it started:

• Neither the "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article or removed." nor "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items." versions enjoy consensus.
• Discuss changes here before editing the template. Please don't bother reverting to one version or another. Neither of the above versions will end up being permanently adopted given the dispute. We have a chance of hashing out at least some of our differences here first, without having to trade blows through admins.
• The wording "This section has been identified as trivia." looks wrong in those articles where the template appears at the top. Whether the template should ever appear at the top requires further discussion.
• A consensus for discouraging "trivia sections" does exist, but exactly how to word this discouragement is in dispute.
• If a version appears to have consensus, give it a few days before changing the template to give all parties a chance to comment. If you don't agree with the version, please comment here instead of waiting for it to be adopted, then reverting it.

--Father Goose 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion #1

--Father Goose 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is bad for two reasons that have been beaten to death already.
  1. The template should not be used at the top of an article either by consensus or the documentation.
  2. All trivia sections are not labeled as trivia, see the sample above.

  So the last consensus wording of 'This article has been identified as having a trivia section.' remains the better choicer. Vegaswikian 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I could accept a reword to "section identified as trivia" instead of "trivia section".

The issue of use-at-the-top does not seem resolved to me, and we may not be able to resolve further template-wording issues until it gets setttled. I see on this page at least two clear voices of support for using this template at the top of the article. I personally don't support its use at the top, but consensus should be demonstrated before it is claimed.--Father Goose 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I could live with this, and would in no way oppose its implementation.

By the way, the "not labeled as trivia" is an invalid objection, as this wording doesn't require that the section be so labeled (could be "in popular culture" or any of the other catch-alls for flotsam and jetsam around here). +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The proposed wording is vague. For many 'trivia section' means a section labeled as trivia. Not a section containing trivia. English is not a precise language so care needs to be taken to avoid imprecision whenever possible. Why choose imprecise wording when a very similar precise version is available? Vegaswikian 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understood things, the template was meant to be placed under any section heading containing trivia. For that purpose, a template identifying a section as trivia is sufficient, and may be used multiple times in an article. "This section contains trivia which should be integrated into the body of the article" would be a good phrase, with proper links of course. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article. Inappropriate items should be removed" is good, and would support a change to that. Comment on the top line though. Even though I think the compromise "This article contains a trivia section." is acceptable, I believe that the use of this template should not be at the top of an article, but continued to be encouraged for use in the problematic section as it is clear and immediately identifies the section. Having the first line section specific would not be very damaging and makes more sense in my opinion. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I like this new version. It's even stronger than the old one. Doczilla 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • How about the body reading 'The content in this section is trivia that should be integrated into the body of the article. Inappropriate items should be removed.' ? Vegaswikian 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I also like this version, like Doczilla states, it conveys the message more strongly. Matthew 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• I see two problems with the version above:
  1. "This article contains a trivia section" is appropriate only if the tag is to be placed on the top. Per the section below, that seems to go against consensus and current practice. (Also, who wants to move 8000 tags?) I prefer the wording of "This section has been identified as trivia".
  2. The second line is fragmented and, in my opinion, somewhat akward. To be honest, I prefer the current wording of "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items". My second choice would be a change of the version proposed above. Perhaps something like: Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article and inappropriate items removed. The meaning is still the same, but it's a more concise expression of the idea. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

For top-of-article placement:

I don't think we can use language such as "section identified as trivia" because it's not clear which section the template is referring to unless it actually has "Trivia" in its name. For that reason, the template shouldn't be put at the top of the article when it contains anything other than a literal Trivia section.

For in-section placement:

--Father Goose 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like the second line (borrowed from version 1, above) met with no objections. Can I ask for some feedback on the changed first line? I think it better accommodates trivia sections which are not named "Trivia", and avoids the redundancy of saying "this section is a trivia section".--Father Goose 18:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that redundancy is avoided by the use of "This section has been identified as trivia". As regards the version above, most trivia sections do not just contain lists of trivia items, but actually are lists of trivia items. Another problem is that removing the bullet points from a trivia section does not make it any less of a trivia section, so the use of the word "list" can be misleading. I won't comment on the first as I oppose top-of-article placement. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When it appears right below a Trivia heading, "This section has been identified as trivia" deserves a "duh." It works fine for Popular Culture sections. Even when a trivia section is a pure list (which is usually the case), I still prefer the word "contains" because the section itself is a container, not a list, even when it contains nothing but a list. Secondly, "list of trivia items" better reflects WP:TRIVIA, which doesn't say "trivia is bad" nearly as much as it says "trivia lists are bad" (which is why integration is advised).--Father Goose 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It also gives us the option of using "This article or section contains a list of trivia items" (much like Template:Original research) until we can resolve the top-vs.-section issue.--Father Goose 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that unintegrated trivia does not necessarily come in the form of a list. A paragraph of the type "Trivia 1. Trivia 2. Trivia 3.", where the three items are unrelated to one another, is still trivia, but it's not a list. That is, deleting the bullet points from a trivia section and lumping the sentences together, without actually performing any integration of content, does not make it any less of a trivia section. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've only seen that done in response to a WP:TRIVIA complaint, which is the type of edit that should be reverted anyway. A list doesn't have to be bulleted to still be a list, and the integration advice still applies.--Father Goose 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion 3

Would it be all right to use this version until a consensus solution for top-or-section placement is implemented? To implement a parameterized version, we'd have to edit all the articles where it appears at the top, and if "top" placement were decided against, we'd have to edit them all anyway.--Father Goose 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just change only the top line, using the above This article or section contains a list of trivia items? That would address the top-of-page problem, while maintaining the consensus-derived second line. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that would support the use of the template at the top of articles. I'm not sure that there is consensus for that, so making your change would appear to imply support for top placement. Given that we are talking about 60 articles, at last estimate, worrying about wording in the top placement is not a big issue right now. Vegaswikian 05:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the current second line -- "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items into the main text and removing inappropriate items." actually have consensus? Does the suggested second line -- "Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article. Inappropriate items should be removed." not have consensus? I'll take either, but I want to make sure consensus actually exists.

As for the first line, the version from 17 June -- "This section has been identified as trivia." -- met with objection because of how it looked when it was at the top (among other complaints). So we either have to go with a wording that handles both section and top placement, or first edit all the articles where the template is at the top. That's a perfectly good solution too, but until someone does it, we can't use wording that mentions only sections, and are the edits going to be to paramaterize the top templates, or relocate them?--Father Goose 06:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the current second line -- "The article could be ..." -- but also find the suggested second line acceptable, with a minor revision: Content in this section should be integrated into the body of the article and inappropriate items removed. To be honest, I don't think we have to first edit all articles where the template is at the top. That's a grand total of about 60 articles and I don't think we should make any decisions based on the properties of less than 1% of relevant articles. The placement of those tags will be corrected over time. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we poll on template placement?

One of the things holding up consensus on the wording of the template is whether the template should ever be used at the top of the article. Would there be any point to polling on this issue? If a supermajority (let's say 70%) were established one way or the other, would the "losing" side be willing to use the template according to the poll outcome?--Father Goose 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you asked, no: polls are so ... junior high school. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the analysis of 1,000 articles that was reported above, there are at most under 60 articles where the template is located at the top of the article. Based on the actual usage, there is not much top usage. So no, we don't need a poll. Actual usage clearly support only needing this in the sections. Vegaswikian 00:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, established use is not necessarily the same thing as consensus use. Use can change if a convincing argument can be presented. (I for one am not yet convinced.) That 1,000 articles probably includes many of the edits done by Android Mouse Bot 3, which, thankfully, put the template in the section in question, not at the top of the article. Furthermore, this template has had "top of page or top of section" in its instructions for nearly all of its history. If we want to claim consensus for in-section use only, we'll have to establish it first.

Right now we're faced with the choice of accommodating "top of article" templates with a parameterized template, or editing all articles with the template at the top to move it into the trivia section. That's an action we should only take if there's a clear consensus to do so.--Father Goose 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments on template placement

I'll skip the poll approach, but I would like to ask that all interested editors offer their viewpoints on this issue. Should the template only appear within trivia (and similar) sections, or is it also appropriate at the top of the page?--Father Goose 03:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly the presence of trivia in a section is not something that needs the entire article to be tagged. So placing it in the section and keeping it small appears to be the best alternative. Vegaswikian 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Placing it only the trivia section also buries it where those who really like to add trivia (and therefore are likely to choose to ignore the tag) will be more likely to see it than will people who gladly abide by Wikipedia guidelines and who, upon seeing it at the top of an article when they might otherwise have never scrolled down to the trivia section, might take an interest and edit the article properly. (Yes, that's a long sentence.) Some of those 7 to 8 thousand trivia names (before the bot increased the numbers) have been in those articles for quite a long time. Doczilla 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • To be honest, my first reaction upon seeing the trivia tag at the top of the article isn't "My gosh, I'd better get right on that." It is more along the lines of, "Why on earth did they put it 'there'?" --Ckatz
  • Placing it at the top is the most logical approach, they need to be clear and visible. I personally have no intention of placing the tag within the trivia section itself. Matthew 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A question: how can you protest changes to the template on the basis of consensus after effectively declaring that you would refuse to follow a consensus involving section-only placement? --Ckatz
      • Because there is no consensus to place it within the section, maintenance templates belong at the top of the article. Perhaps you should propose a MoS guideline for template placement. Matthew 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Section only. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why the presence of trivia in an article ranks up there with neutrality, verifiability, or any of the other "core" problem areas. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Minority position: Notices for readers should be placed in the article, notices for editors should be placed on the talk page. The trivia template is a notice for editors. I realize that almost everybody else disagrees with me on this point, so I just give my remark as 'food for thought'. I wish you success on reaching consensus on this issue (it seems you are well underway). Johan Lont 08:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a notice for readers also. It helps alert them that the quality of the article may be very low due to it containing trivia. I've seen plenty of anons who've never edited cleanup these sections as well (integrate, trim fluff - etc). Matthew 08:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I somewhat agree with the reasoning that editor-notices should only appear on the talk page, but without some immediate visibility, it would fail to discourage the addition of new trivia bullets. The most targeted place for this reminder is right in the section itself, IMO.--Father Goose 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Section only. It identifies the problematic section immediately. The problem is section specific so only the section should be tagged. It's already the consensus of people using the template to put it there as very, very few are put at the top of the article. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Section only - for reasons already stated. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Top or section. I honestly cannot fathom why folks would be opposed to tagging an article at the top. Let's look at the tag; the sole purpose of this, or any other, tag, is to draw attention to a problem with an article. Right? There's no other possible function. So, that being the case, if one wishes to catch the attention of those who might fix that problem (potential editors, not readers of the article), then the top is where you'd want this tag to be, for those editors who might not scroll down to the offending section.

  If this isn't the function of this template, then I'd sure like to know what people think that function is. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  One can say that it's a problem with the article in general, but only in the sense that any problem anywhere in the article is a problem with the article. The problem is, by definition, localized to the trivia section in question, and putting the "nag" right there seems like the most targeted way to discourage further trivia-adding behavior. "Employees must wash hands" should be put in the bathroom, not at the front door.

  As for drawing cleanup-minded editors' attention to the problem, it's not like they won't see the banner in the offending section, and really serious janitors will be informed of the problem via the "Articles with trivia sections" category.--Father Goose 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  Let me thank you at least for confirming that this is indeed a "nag"—that is, a mechanism that relies on a negative stimulus, not some warm, fuzzy, nicey-nice love-bomb to induce people to improve an article. The tag is something to be avoided and gotten rid of. That should tell us something about how it should be worded and deployed. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • No, editors who want to fix these problems only need to look in the category to find articles needing attention. Then they can search on 'trivia' to find the offending section. There is no need to 'search' for articles with this issue. Placing the tag at the top makes it more difficult for editors trying to address these issues in articles that are large or have the problem in a section not labeled trivia or if there are multiple trivia sections. Also cleanup with top tags requires editing the article introduction, something that I think should be avoided. However since cleanup will usually involved editing the entire article, this last point many be of no consequence. Vegaswikian 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If the articles are large, people are far less likely to discover that there is a trivia problem at all. Doczilla 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If an article is large and the trivia tag is at the top, it can make it harder to see which section is the problem, as not all sections containing trivia are easily identifiable. An editor looking to clean up trivia from articles is better off using the category, not looking at the top of each article to see if it has a banner. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like grasping at straws to me: it's hard to imagine an article with a large-enough trivia section (no matter what it's actually titled) that any decent editor would have a hard time finding. Remember, if the trivia section isn't large, the article probably shouldn't be tagged in the first place. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: "if it isn't large..." A nice idea in principle, but unfortunately in practise there are certain editors who frequently slap the template at the top of the page just because there *is* a trivia section, not because it is large. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In those cases, it's probably best just to remove the template althogether, perhaps explaining on the article's discussion page that the template should really only be used on articles with a significantly large (and therefore problematic) trivia section. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"it's hard to imagine an article with a large-enough trivia section that any decent editor would have a hard time finding": So, again, why is the template needed at the top? It's the trivia section that offends, not the article. If you find trivia sections ugly, making the article doubly-ugly with an article-scope template seems like a scorched-earth policy. Shouldn't your focus be on cleaning the article, not admonishing it?--Father Goose 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Any is too much, hehe :). Matthew 09:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument I presented is as valid as the one I was responding to, certainly not grasping at straws. If the trivia section is large, it's hard to believe that any decent editor would not see the section. The fact is that the category is the method of identifying articles with trivia sections, the template is the method of identifying the section. Putting the trivia template in the section says "here's the problem!". If people see it as untidy then it will be more motivation to fix it. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments seem to assume that all, or most, editors "patrol" trivia by searching the category. All I can say is that I don't do this, and I can only believe that I'm probably not the only one. I've never even looked at any of the categories of articles w/trivia sections; I just edit what I want to edit, dealing with trivia sections when I encounter them. So it would be nice to recognize that there are different editing styles at work here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that different people have different editing styles, but that does not mean that the existing systems should be altered to accommodate everyone and every style. I wasn't suggesting that all editors patrol Category:Articles with trivia sections, I was merely saying how this is the best way to find the problematic articles. As the trivia template placed in the section has the effect of identifying the section immediately. It would be a move backwards to relocate the tag (or place a template for untagged articles) to the top of the article when there is already a system in place that makes an article with a trivia section easily visible. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to recognize differences in editing styles. How does having the template at the top change your editing style from having it in the section?--Father Goose 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The project people who are most likely to be doing the cleanup are those who are most likely to use the category. Having the template in the section will let them focus more quickly on the problem areas. I used the plural since the tag could be in several sections. On the other hand, placing it on the top of the article would make it easier for the ocassional editors who might fix these problems to notice that there is a problem in the article. Since those who are dedicated to fixing the problems, don't need the top template, then why have it? The negative viewabality impact seems to far outweigh any benefit. Vegaswikian 19:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Section only, for the following reasons: (1) It identifies the problem section. (2) It improves article readability and reduces cleanup tag clutter at the top. The presence of trivia in an article diminishes the article's quality, but it doesn't compromise the article's text. The presence of trivia is a content organisation issue, not a content accuracy issue, which is far more serious. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think it belongs at the top of the trivia section. Sometimes the heading of a trivia section isn't "Trivia", rather "Notes" or a disorganized "In popular culture". Also, unlike problems like neutrality or few sources, a trivia section relates to a certain section so the tag doesn't need to be right at the top of the article. The tag would immediately identify the section as a problem section. Clamster 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)